Post by: LPeters on December 31, 2015, 07:38:45 PM
So I've been a bit bored this past week and I've been indulging my slightly awful fascination with inheritance drama. You know— Aunt Spendthrift skipped town with Great Uncle Mustacian's $2M estate, ran through it in a month and then asked her sister for a $50k loan. Four siblings inherit a house from their mother and one moves in her boyfriend and 7 cats and refuses to vacate, essentially squatting. Young, hot stepmother inherits your father's life savings, leaving you and your siblings with nothing. Your mother and stepfather die in a car accident and you're wracked with grief but your brothers have rushed to their house to raid the furniture and hock your mother's jewelry, and your parents aren't even cold in the ground. Your cousin tricks your grandma with Alzheimer's into signing over her house.
There's just something about death and greed and money and long-buried resentment that bubbles to the surface when there's any substantial inheritance. It tears families apart. People lie and steal and cheat.
One thing I have noticed, which I wonder if any of you can back me up on, is that the more... Mustachian, for lack of a better word, the people who inherit are, the less drama there is. I don't precisely know why that is, but it's a consistent pattern I've noticed in these stories— maybe it's because Mustachian people are less likely to obnoxiously rely on and feel entitled to an inheritance because after all, most of us have projections and plans and countdowns until FIRE, and there's such a strong vein of individualism and self-sufficiency in Mustachianism— we know we can do this on our own, so we can concentrate on the things that matter more to us than money like quality of life and beloved family.
But I don't know, really. I'm not certain about any of my logic, because I just don't understand at the most basic level. It's probably why I find the subject so fascinating. I don't have much close family, and I just can't imagine fighting with any of them over money or things.
I've just exhausted reddit, and I thought that maybe you guys who have similar values to my own might have stories and explanations that I might understand, and since we're anonymous on the internet, I figured you probably wouldn't mind sharing what amounts to embarrassing family secrets.
Post by: SwordGuy on December 31, 2015, 08:43:57 PM
My mom just passed away. No inheritance drama because I'm the only child, dad already died, and I'm the executor and only heir.
But rather than sell off a bunch of her (nice but not to my taste) stuff to a bunch of strangers at an estate sale, I invited my aunt and cousins to come over and take what they wanted. It turned into a party with those who were present picking out things for uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews who couldn't be there. It was kind of like a wake but without the liquor and the fighting. About as pleasant as such an event can be.
Post by: misshathaway on January 01, 2016, 02:23:11 AM
This caused a rift of about 20 years. Then somehow there was a reconciliation and my mother sent me out to visit that aunt in Minnesota. There was the player piano in her summer house.
Post by: crazylemon on January 01, 2016, 07:30:54 AM
In about 2007 my family discovered that my great great grandparents owned a rather large plot of land in the 'old country'. All the land on either side is full developed valuable land. We found out because a less than legitimate firm shall we say converted the lands use to urban and tried to start building on it when a distant local relative noticed. This was then valued at tens of millions and made everyone rather happy and so paperwork sorting to formalise things to pay back taxes etc with a view of a sale. This was complicated by large numbers of heirs (catholic family) depending on which branch of the tree. But all sorted. Then. Financial Crash. Old Country did badly. Very badly. Land dropped in value massively although still with millions, small digits. But, a squatter appeared. One of the more local family tried to get him removed but he produced an old document which stated his family has the right to farm the land. No court case has yet been started. Documents legitimacy unknown, although either way apparently.
Why not? Well most of the family are poor/lower middle income. So any costs really cut into budgets. Some don't even want to pay their share of the tax on the land (which is like, really tiny). So it is all in a very slowly progressing limbo land. Though with no rush as prices are no where near '08 levels. How many had 'counted' on the larger sum I don't know. I stay out off all of it.
Further complicated by heirs starting to die off meaning their descendants and thus even more people are involved.
I find this all rather amusing as do my parents. They are the only 'well off' couple of the family in terms of their share would mean more spendypants holidays and maybe being able to set myself and sibling up well.
For me it doesn't really matter if it ever gets resolved. Sure I could FIRE faster but eh no biggie, looking at less than ten years total of working anyway.
Post by: former player on January 01, 2016, 08:45:56 AM
Other than that I am afraid that my family seems to have been boringly correct about inheritances on all known occasions.
Post by: LeRainDrop on January 01, 2016, 09:44:55 AM
1. Dad's mom died when he was around 20 and his younger sister was 16. His dad very quickly remarried, and wicked stepmother kicked the younger sister out of the house just so she could have the father and home all for herself. Anyway, my dad and aunt wanted something sentimental of their mother's to remember her by, but stepmother wanted to keep everything. She seriously kept the interior of the house just the same, using my dad's mom's decorations, dishes, linens, and all such stuff. The running joke in my family growing up was that whenever we were permitted by the beast to visit grandpa in his home, we should try to steal some Hummels (which purportedly were dad's mom's favorites, or at least something that dad strongly associated with his mom). We never did take anything and the beast never offered. Grandpa died. Dad didn't even care about the money or the lucrative business that grandpa had built -- he just wanted some of his mom's personal effects, but the beast still kept everything for herself.
2. My mom has a sister and brother. The brother had a major rift with his mom a very long time ago, and they essentially did not speak for like 20 years or so. Grandma even saw brother's daughter in the grocery store parking lot, and daughter's friend was like, "Isn't that your grandma?" And the daughter was like, "No, my grandma is dead!" Anyway, the brother was disinherited from my grandma's will. She later died with a rather small estate, but meaningful enough to the family, and it was to be split 50/50 between my mom and her sister. Mom's brother decides to sue to contest the will, making ridiculously petty claims on the estate, such as some tiny amount he had been awarded when he was in an accident as a young child, his labor hours for mowing their lawn and shoveling the snow in the driveway when he was a kid, etc.
Post by: astvilla on January 01, 2016, 10:10:42 AM
There's just something about death and greed and money and long-buried resentment that bubbles to the surface when there's any substantial inheritance. It tears families apart. People lie and steal and cheat.
One thing I have noticed, which I wonder if any of you can back me up on, is that the more... Mustachian, for lack of a better word, the people who inherit are, the less drama there is. I don't precisely know why that is, but it's a consistent pattern I've noticed in these stories— maybe it's because Mustachian people are less likely to obnoxiously rely on and feel entitled to an inheritance because after all, most of us have projections and plans and countdowns until FIRE, and there's such a strong vein of individualism and self-sufficiency in Mustachianism— we know we can do this on our own, so we can concentrate on the things that matter more to us than money like quality of life and beloved family.
But I don't know, really. I'm not certain about any of my logic, because I just don't understand at the most basic level. It's probably why I find the subject so fascinating. I don't have much close family, and I just can't imagine fighting with any of them over money or things.
Well you hinted at it. Mustachians are people who can take care of themselves and are more independent financially. We've controlled our spending habits to live within our means and we're not so desperate for handouts from inheritances. We're not scrambling for an inheritance to feed some "addiction" tied to spending.
I do think there's some underlying "addiction" or brain psychology involved in spending, the lizard brain supposedly. I don't have literature but I feel it's out there somewhere. I know that making money stimulates the same center of the brain as cocaine which is a reason why Wall St. bankers exhibit drug use and other behaviors associated w/addicts. I imagine spending behaviors are tied into neuroscience too.
I think your observation holds some ground. My parents aren't Mustachian but aren't anti-Mustachian. They paid off house, my college, live w/in their means, have pensions. They just don't have big retirement savings like most here and only had me. If they knew/followed this board, they'd be doing heck of a lot better (millions better).
My aunt by blood and her husband OTOH is more anti-Mustachian and are still working (late 60s), spending on outward appearance of wealth (luxury cars, nice phones, 30 year mortgages, use bank's money, not your own, very American-like for someone very Asian), lying on taxes (declaring my grandfather in Asia is an employee when actually not) so they were kneeling and begging (as retold by aunt) my grandfather to change the will to give them the highly valued property to them immediately instead of letting the grandmother (not blood related) who's been taking care of grandpa to stay until she died before transferring. And grandfather already gave a lot of $$ already to the aunt. Some bickering and posturing to get the property like more frequent visits, and asking around for $$ from relatives; they can't "retire" w/their lifestyle. The eldest brother (my uncle) is pretty timid but is getting the house, which aunt isn't happy about. My parents aren't inheriting a single penny, they just don't want to see my grandfather exploited by my aunt and her husband and for the grandfather to make his own choice. Out of the 3, my parents are doing the best financially and comfortably. Strangely, they have never gotten any help from grandparents and don't ask for it either. My dad was told if wants $$ from grandfather, to ask the sister for it (since she already got a lot). They just mind their own business, I think their habits, only child, and good jobs allowed them to do that.
To my aunt and her husband's credit though, they gave $50K for a house downpayment to their daughter who makes at least 4X as much as me and had already worked 10 years and no kids...
They also lent $100K to older brother and he paid back w/in a couple months. They also spent a lot on their son including his wedding and when son mentioned/"boasted" of 170K bonus he got to my aunt/uncle, they asked if he could lend $50K to my aunt/uncle for a downpayment on a smaller, cheaper house. The son then said "uhh it's locked up in some CD account" and can't access it. Later they said they were moving away but gave no specifics (I'm guessing running away from said aunt/uncle)
It definitely had to do w/looking rich. The uncle has rich friends so felt had to keep up. Whenever there were choices between family gatherings, he always picked the rich people. The uncle's own brother even said it, "Oh he's not coming, he's eating w/rich people". Mind you everyone's Chinese, people you'd expect to be fiscally very conservative and stingy.
Post by: bacchi on January 01, 2016, 10:23:00 AM
One, the eldest by 10 years, has never been happy with her younger sisters because they ruined her single child upbringing (or something like that; who knows?).
When the body is cremated, the eldest takes the ashes and uses a scale to determine exactly how much each sister gets. After taking her "portion" of the ashes, she gives back to her younger sisters the remainder of the ashes in a plastic bag.
Eldest sister is in her 80s and continues to be angry to this day, despite repeated attempts at communication.
Post by: mm1970 on January 01, 2016, 10:44:00 AM
Eventually the business did well, and I'd say my grandparents were worth about a million, a lot of money in my home town. One of my brothers was working the business also, so he got his inheritance (part of the business) while alive. The trust/ will set up was to divide the money left in the business (when it was sold) between the boys. The house (worth a lot less), would be sold and proceeds would go to the girls.
Well, my grandmother died in her early 60's, and my grandfather remarried within a year. This caused a rift. He traveled quite a bit with grandma, but that upset some aunts/ uncles with the new wife because he's spending their inheritance. My grandpa worked very hard. His new wife? Raised 11 children essentially on her own and also worked very hard. Wonderful woman (and my grandpa would not have done well single).
Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years. After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k). My grandpa was not even buried yet.
Here's the thing - the trust was set up so that his second wife could live off the interest of the trust - AND THE PRINCIPAL IF NECESSARY, until she dies. She didn't really need much - she has a pension from working at the library while raising her family, plus social security. When they married, she kept her house and eventually moved back into it.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.
Post by: Naan Violence on January 01, 2016, 11:06:13 AM
Post by: Paul der Krake on January 01, 2016, 11:18:44 AM
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.Stories like that are fantastic.
In 1965, an elderly French woman of 90 years with no heirs and a smoking habit, entered a contract with her cunning 47 year old attorney. She sells him her apartment in exchange for life annuity payments. The elderly lady continues to live, eventually outliving him and continuing to receive payments from the deceased attorney's wife, as per the contract. She dies in 1997 at the age of 122 years, the longest human lifespan ever recorded. The attorney and his wife ended up paying more than twice the apartment's value to her over 3 decades.
She was a kickass lady too. She only stopped riding her bicycle after hitting 3 digits, and lived on her own until 110.
People really shouldn't bank on others dying.
Post by: justajane on January 01, 2016, 11:28:28 AM
Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years. After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k). My grandpa was not even buried yet.
It never ceases to amaze me what people think they are entitled to. My husband's aunt was married to her third husband for over a decade. He died, and his son from a previous marriage was livid that he didn't get his father's pension and inheritance. Um, that goes to his wife. I do think if she dies, it would be nice for her to leave some of that money to her former stepson, but he has cut ties so that is unlikely to happen. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
In the case of my father-in-law who is remarried, they have set up some sort of trust so that, if he dies, his wife (my step mother-in-law) can't disinherit my husband or his brother. I'm not sure it's iron clad, and I'm not going to stress over it either way. It would suck if she got vindictive if he died and left all of his money to her children instead of his, but there's not much I can do about it.
My mother-in-law just lost her husband in his early 60s, and he never had any children of his own. He has a pretty significant stash that is now my MIL's. I wonder if he has a provision for his brother, who is struggling financially. That would be nice, because I don't think we really "deserve" his money if my MIL were to pass earlier than expected. Of course, it would be moot if she lives to her 90s, since his brother would likely be gone as well.
Post by: LaineyAZ on January 01, 2016, 01:18:07 PM
About a year into their marriage she gives birth to a baby girl, but not long after that, her husband dies of a heart attack.
Turns out he had not changed his beneficiary information, so yes, the ex-wife and kids got everything. They took everything too, including his personal property from the house.
Co-worker only received Social Security widow and survivor benefits and she had to go back home and live with her parents.
Moral: please update your paperwork!
Post by: Wilson Hall on January 01, 2016, 04:41:18 PM
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.Stories like that are fantastic.
In 1965, an elderly French woman of 90 years with no heirs and a smoking habit, entered a contract with her cunning 47 year old attorney. She sells him her apartment in exchange for life annuity payments. The elderly lady continues to live, eventually outliving him and continuing to receive payments from the deceased attorney's wife, as per the contract. She dies in 1997 at the age of 122 years, the longest human lifespan ever recorded. The attorney and his wife ended up paying more than twice the apartment's value to her over 3 decades.
She was a kickass lady too. She only stopped riding her bicycle after hitting 3 digits, and lived on her own until 110.
People really shouldn't bank on others dying.
These are awesome.
We spent part of the holidays with my husband's grandparents, who are in their early 90s, live comfortably in their home, and still drive. The grandfather is in some ways sharper than any of our parents. I can see one or both grandparents making it to 100 or beyond.
Once they have passed on, I fully expect drama from one my husband's aunts, who has broken all ties with the extended family. I doubt she has been entirely cut out of the will, but if she has I'm sure she'll raise holy hell, even though she was the instigator of the rift and for no good reason. People are crazy and selfish.
Post by: iris lily on January 01, 2016, 04:54:34 PM
Highly recommended.
Post by: iris lily on January 01, 2016, 04:57:29 PM
My cousin tells me that when my paternal grandmother died, there was a polite but determined dispute between my mother and my uncle as to who got the sitting room curtains (the red velvet winter ones), which was resolved when they discovered that each of them had a use in mind for just one of the curtains.
Other than that I am afraid that my family seems to have been boringly correct about inheritances on all known occasions.
Please, you simply cannot drop ,that story onto this site without further detail.
What does one do with one red velvet drape? Xmas tree skirt? Pillows for the bordello room?
Post by: iris lily on January 01, 2016, 05:00:56 PM
A mother dies and her three children will inherit equally.
One, the eldest by 10 years, has never been happy with her younger sisters because they ruined her single child upbringing (or something like that; who knows?).
When the body is cremated, the eldest takes the ashes and uses a scale to determine exactly how much each sister gets. After taking her "portion" of the ashes, she gives back to her younger sisters the remainder of the ashes in a plastic bag.
Eldest sister is in her 80s and continues to be angry to this day, despite repeated attempts at communication.
So great! Love this thread.
Post by: Papa Mustache on January 01, 2016, 05:27:48 PM
I've been watching a fictional treatment of inheritance drama, a Danish tv series called The Legacy. it's as juicy as can be, with a mother figure dying suddenly with important assets, multiple,children including her illigitimate daughter, varying passionate ideas about outcome of the estate, and lots of angst.
Highly recommended.
I wish we got more European TV here in the USA. With subtitles of course.
I agree with an earlier poster above that said self-sufficiency was a strong instinct in most of us here at MMM. Its something my wife and I are proud of about ourselves. We've done okay but never asked for money from either pairs of our parents. Nobody able to Lord over us about anything. ;)
The inheritence stories I know about: two separate unmarried males. Neither know each other. Different parts of the state.
Both eventually inherit the properties and money of everyone in their families. One finally gave up working. Lives in an old but modest house. From the sound of it - the house is stuffed to the gills with antique furniture. He eats out just about every meal. He can't seem to let anything go.
The other one asked to use some of my tools to remake a chimney cap. Said it was for his grandparents' house (this fellow is nearly retirement age himself). They aren't living anymore but he keeps the power on ot heat/cool the house b/c it contains the furniture/antiques of the extended family which all went to him. Can't seem to let anything go either.
When I sociably ask him when he's retiring he tells me hes worried he won't have enough. Despite living at home, never married, no kids, and a pension plus Social Security. Who knows? (Doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs, etc.)
I hope someday to be able to prowl through these houses and buy a few antiques. It might all be very ordinary and unremarkable or both houses could be treasure troves. Who knows?
A little closer to home. My grandfather achieved ALOT through very MMM means with an 8th grade education. When he died everything went to my grandmother of course and was mis-managed by one of my uncles who then tried to hide what he spent the money on. She was taken car of to her last day but he was skimming alot of money off for himself. The going belief is he bouht some toys (vehicles) and paid some of his debts. Married, left her child with her parents to raise. ?!?!?!
What was left of my grandparents' money was then divided among the siblings. Once the other siblings figured out what happened it caused a break in the family that has never healed. Lots of 50 year old emotional baggage there that I only know part of. Recently that uncle died and everything left went to another uncle. Still the break remains. The whole family functioned better apart than they did together.
Meanwhile my parents have done well for themselves so the money would just be icing on the proverbial cake. Still a desire for fairness persisted. The break in the family was good for my mother emotionally. She and I have had our differences but never over money. We are just different kinds of personalities and my parents would have tried to make alot of my decisions for me if I let them. Nothing unheard of here at MMM. ;) I'm a grown man. I think my wife and I can handle our affairs ourselves just fine. ;)
Took a while to figure out all the players and their role in the story of my grandparents' affairs. Family has never been great communicators. Anyhow as my grandfather and then grandmother sickened and died - a married couple from 30 years in my grandparents' past appeared and began to cozy up to the family. It became clear that they there to snap up any financial or property crumbs that might fall in their direction.
Around here there are is a portion of the population who are short sighted offspring who inherit their elders' properties. A family death and a will is means to fast money. They then quickly auction it off for the quickest cash sale. That cash then goes towards ATVs, boats, RVs, big pickups, and other steeply depreciating big boy toys. In a few short years it is spent and these "children" have little to show for their parents' lifetime of savings and work.
So when my grandparents died and the family did not suddenly want to fire sale any assets that couple quickly departed from the social circle. I should point out that they ran one of those sub-prime lending companies. Not quite Payday Loans but not a real bank either. They did well over the years and were quite good at petting a person's ego to cozy up and get well positioned to hear family secrets.
Last story: through some sort of unfortunate event or sickness a man a county over from here lost his wife and was awarded ~$250K or so by lawsuit or insurance. Now a few years later he has car hopped until most of the money is gone. He is old enough to retire and might need it to help him have a comfortable old age but the area car dealers absorbed alot of it as profits as he changed vehicles many times. Expensive pickup truck, car for daughter, then repeat multiple times. Shopping therapy I guess.
Post by: Adventine on January 01, 2016, 05:33:29 PM
Post by: mnsaver on January 01, 2016, 06:19:24 PM
Happened to a former co-worker. She married at around age 28 to a guy who was about 40. Her 1st marriage, his 2nd. He had an ex-wife and 2 kids.
About a year into their marriage she gives birth to a baby girl, but not long after that, her husband dies of a heart attack.
Turns out he had not changed his beneficiary information, so yes, the ex-wife and kids got everything. They took everything too, including his personal property from the house.
Co-worker only received Social Security widow and survivor benefits and she had to go back home and live with her parents.
Moral: please update your paperwork!
I used to work in a retiree call center and can't tell you how many times I saw this. Paperwork was filled out years (sometimes decades ago), retiree dies and is on second/or third wife but paperwork still leaves everything to wife number one. Those were horrible, horrible calls.
Post by: crispy on January 01, 2016, 06:20:35 PM
Anyway, my mom got remarried a few years back and they were up in arms about that because they said he was out to get her money (btw, my mom has no money. She owns a paid for house and some land, but that's it.) My favorite was my sister telling her she was going to burn in hell if she married him. Anyway, they have now figured out that he has a little money of his own so now they are buddy-buddy with him. I just tell her I don't want to hear about it.
My mom has told me she made me the executor of her will a few years back, but I emphatically told her to name someone else and to not leave me anything. I have a few family heirlooms already so I am good. I have no desire to be involved with any of it.
Post by: crispy on January 01, 2016, 06:32:09 PM
The worst thing about the whole thing is that the sister married into a wealthy family, lives in a huge house, and doesn't need a dime. On the advice of her attorney, the stepmother offered a small amount of money (less than 10K) to make the whole thing go away and keep her from dragging her husband's name through the mud in the small town where they lived. The whole thing was just sad.
Post by: coffeehound on January 01, 2016, 06:38:00 PM
DH's grandfather (GF) was financially very successful when MIL was young - live-in maid, fabulous parties, etc. At some point pre-DH, GF leaves his wife, remarries. DH's grandmother's divorce settlement is somewhere in the 7 figures.
GF died 20 years ago, and MIL is STILL pissed that the second wife inherited ANY of his estate (I think she got around $5 million). MIL inherited enough to buy a historic home in a fancy-pants neighborhood in CA and renovate it. We're talking gutting much of the interior and completely rehabbing the exterior/yard/new HVAC, the works.
But wait, there's more........ DH's DH's aunt, upon receiving her inheritance, promptly quits her job, moves to Europe, and becomes a screenwriter. Of course, the money runs out and the screenplay doesn't go anywhere, so she returns to CA and her house and gets another job.
DH's grandmother develops dementia. Meanwhile, DH's aunt, who has issues with reality and alcohol, loses her job. Aunt then visits grandmother, and has grandmother sign some blank checks. After it's discovered that Aunt has helped herself to something in the neighborhood of $25K, MIL confronts Aunt. Aunt's answer? 'I was just getting an advance on my inheritance.' Even before Grandmother's death, there are regular requests for more 'advances' from Aunt, for things like property taxes and dental work. Grandmother died about a decade ago, and I am waiting quietly for Aunt's money to run out, and MIL to begin subsidizing her, though I don't think MIL would ever tell me about it.
Meanwhile, MIL, who is now in her 70s and proudly tells us she and FIL haven't spent a penny of the inheritance, but maybe some of the payout of investment gains, continues to work at her 6-figure/year, high-stress job. She also regularly offers us money for projects around our house or things we 'need' - think new cars or a larger home, but positively shouts us down if we say we'd like to spend some of the gifts to invest in our retirement. DH was okay with saving only the minimum for his retirement until I pointed out to him that he was, in effect, waiting for his parents to die so he could retire....... Now, we spend the a minimum of the financial gifts on something to show MIL, and invest the rest.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 01, 2016, 06:49:47 PM
Posting to follow! So much juicy drama.
Just press the "Notify" button at the bottom of the page... :)
Post by: Travis on January 01, 2016, 06:56:45 PM
Happened to a former co-worker. She married at around age 28 to a guy who was about 40. Her 1st marriage, his 2nd. He had an ex-wife and 2 kids.
About a year into their marriage she gives birth to a baby girl, but not long after that, her husband dies of a heart attack.
Turns out he had not changed his beneficiary information, so yes, the ex-wife and kids got everything. They took everything too, including his personal property from the house.
Co-worker only received Social Security widow and survivor benefits and she had to go back home and live with her parents.
Moral: please update your paperwork!
I used to work in a retiree call center and can't tell you how many times I saw this. Paperwork was filled out years (sometimes decades ago), retiree dies and is on second/or third wife but paperwork still leaves everything to wife number one. Those were horrible, horrible calls.
A few years ago I had to do the paperwork for a soldier who was killed in Iraq while I was back home. While I was sorting through his file I walked down the hall and saw that we had a female soldier in our unit with the same last name. I didn't think much of it until I got a call from the male soldier's unit saying I needed to come down to their office. It turns out he was married to the female in my unit. Nobody knew they were married. Not his unit, not his family, and not the Army at large. They were only married a couple months before he shipped out and they never turned in the paperwork. We knew she was married, but not to whom. Since they didn't file any paperwork, she was not informed of his death - only his mother was. She happened to walk down to his unit the same day and ask why she hadn't heard from him in a couple weeks (death notices are done within 24 hours, but apparently he wasn't keeping in touch very well either). The rear-detachment commander was stuck because without proof of marriage he legally couldn't say a word to her. By the end of the day she was finally informed her husband was killed, both units learned they were married, and his mother learned she had a daughter in law.
His life insurance still listed his mother as the beneficiary ($400k), but the death gratuity ($100k) and his personal effects still automatically went to the spouse. There was bad blood between the wife and his family for about a week, but by the time of the funeral they had smoothed everything out. We sent an escort with her just in case.
Post by: Travis on January 01, 2016, 07:03:28 PM
My paternal grandfather died about 8 years ago. I was in Iraq so I missed the funeral and all the family drama that went with it. According to my parents, the week after his death all the brothers and sisters (5 siblings plus spouses) were together and for an entire week the dinner conversation was who got what - and right in front of my grandmother. With his death and their age she was going to downsize into a retirement community apartment so lots of stuff was up for grabs, but the ordeal left my parents thoroughly shocked and jaded. With my grandmother still alive and well I imagine there was no money to disperse since she's still living on it. I don't know what happened to most of their property and heirlooms, but my father ended up with his father's WWII enlistment papers, medals, and a couple other related items and I think he was quite satisfied with that.
My mother died 4 years ago. Whatever insurance arrangements she had with my father were enough for him to finally pull the trigger on retirement. My sister and I received a small slice of it, but thankfully there wasn't anything else to discuss. With my mother gone, one of DW's grandmother's gone, both grandfathers gone, and her other grandmother over 100 and losing steam all of the kids in our generation are starting to ponder what happens next with their parents. I'm pretty sure our parents will be around for quite a long time (all in their early 60s), but it's tough to walk through their houses and not think about their estates and how all of that will play out. I try not to think about it, but sometimes it ends up being gallows humor to lighten the mood when the kids are together.
Post by: justajane on January 01, 2016, 07:18:56 PM
She never had children, but her late husband had an adult daughter. The daughter lived in town and invited her stepmother to spend every single holiday with her and her family. She called her weekly or more to chat. I always sensed that my friend was paranoid about her stepdaughter. She rejected almost all of her invitations.
When she died, my friend left everything to her brother who lives across the country in California. He didn't even show up for over a week - leaving his sister's body at the morgue freezer, and then he just dumped almost everything in a dumpster without giving the stepdaughter access to the property. I imagine there were mementos and photos and other items from her father that she would have wanted. Plus he didn't do a funeral or a memorial. Nothing.
The stepdaughter ended up doing her own memorial a few months later graveside. I attended along with a few other caregivers. It was obvious that they were not well off, but they nonetheless took the time to print out a booklet with my friend's life story and provided some food and drink. It just made me sad that my friend didn't leave them anything at all, since that was also her husband's and their father's money and memorabilia. He was a well known pianist in the 50s and 60s, so I imagine there were lots of things in the apartment that they would have wanted. And IMO it would have been nice for my friend to have left them even a token amount, instead of giving it all to her eccentric and loner brother. Just my opinion. No one is entitled to money when someone dies, but that doesn't make all the decisions people make with their money fair or kind.
Post by: FiveSigmas on January 01, 2016, 08:54:11 PM
My cousin tells me that when my paternal grandmother died, there was a polite but determined dispute between my mother and my uncle as to who got the sitting room curtains (the red velvet winter ones), which was resolved when they discovered that each of them had a use in mind for just one of the curtains.
I loved this story. Thanks for sharing, FP.
Post by: Adventine on January 01, 2016, 09:02:44 PM
Posting to follow! So much juicy drama.
Just press the "Notify" button at the bottom of the page... :)
Alas, I'm using the stripped-down WAP version of the forum to make it easier to read on my smartphone. The Notify button doesn't show up :)
Post by: Abe on January 01, 2016, 09:21:40 PM
Post by: Astatine on January 01, 2016, 09:59:11 PM
Posting to follow! So much juicy drama.
Just press the "Notify" button at the bottom of the page... :)
Alas, I'm using the stripped-down WAP version of the forum to make it easier to read on my smartphone. The Notify button doesn't show up :)
The Notify button doesn't really work as expected, so you're not missing anything. :) (you just get annoying emails and it doesn't show up in your Unread Replies)
Post by: Adventine on January 01, 2016, 10:52:56 PM
Post by: rpr on January 01, 2016, 11:18:05 PM
Post by: appleblossom on January 02, 2016, 12:58:44 AM
My mother is the youngest of 4 kids, the eldest is the only boy and was very much the favored child. Think fancy private schools and plenty of cash gifts and subsidised living as an adult.
My grandfather died in his 70s after a long illness, but it still came as a shock to my grandmother. Not so much to my uncle who arrived the next day with a large trailer unit and proceeded to clean out the house of everything of value. He was of the opinion that as he was the only boy that everything was his - completely disregarding the fact that his mother was still alive (and only in her 60s).
By the time my grandmother recovered from the shock it was a couple of weeks later and all her beautiful antiques were 400km away. I doubt she would have been able to stop him but she might have had a better chance than my mum (basically as the youngest she was completely ignored and no one else spoke up).
This worsened a rift in the family that meant that my uncle and his crazy wife didn't speak to my mum for about 20years.
When my grandmother died (25 yrs later) it was better, but only because there was nothing left of value aside from the house. Which my mothers sister wanted sold instantly so she almost sold it for $150k less than it was worth. Luckily it needed my mum's signature and she stopped the sale.
My aunt also gave away some of the furniture that had been promised to certain family members to random friends and they sold it before it could be retrieved.
My uncle died last year, and his crazy wife didn't bother to call my mum, instead she had her lawyer send a letter demanding that my mum send a rocking horse that belonged to my mum and her siblings as children to her, or she would sue for it, as it was apparently part of my uncles estate. We pointed out that it was gifted to us as children by our grandparents almost 30yrs ago and had been in our possession since, and very politely that she could go **** herself.
My sisters and I have sworn to never let our relationship deteriorate to that point.
Post by: TheBuddha on January 02, 2016, 01:36:19 AM
Post by: Meowmalade on January 02, 2016, 02:16:48 AM
Post by: MMMaybe on January 02, 2016, 07:31:25 AM
Post by: smalllife on January 02, 2016, 08:21:45 AM
Post by: Frankies Girl on January 02, 2016, 08:29:07 AM
One of my aunts called a locksmith and pretended to live at my grandmother's house, convinced him to break in and then change the locks for her, and as soon as he left, she loaded up her car with things. Fortunately nothing valuable, but my mom had to demand the locksmith come change the locks again and he did so for free since he didn't get proof from the aunt that she even lived there... so he'd have been complicit in committing breaking and entering and theft. (small town, so once he knew about aunt's lying, no one else would have let her repeat the action).
And same aunt also stole lots of mail, found a large dividend check that was send after grandmother's death, and forged her signature and cashed the check (over $40K). My mom found this fraud/theft pretty quickly and told aunt that she had better return said money ASAP as she'd be going to actual prison if she didn't (aunt had drug/alcohol/petty theft record, but not this scale). Aunt returned money. She really was so stupid it didn't occur to her that it would be easy to show that grandmother had been dead for weeks at the time she was supposed to have signed the check over to aunt. And that forgery and theft of that much money would be 5-10 years in state prison instead of a couple of days in county jail she'd done in the past.
Post by: trailrated on January 02, 2016, 09:54:09 AM
Post by: mm1970 on January 02, 2016, 10:14:42 AM
The next one is pretty tame -
We had one year in our family with a lot of deaths (grandparents, uncles, my dad, etc), all in a couple of months.
Anyway, my friend inherited about $100k from her European mother when she died. (Lots of death taxes, split 2 ways, that's what was left).
Shortly thereafter, friend's husband tells her he wants a divorce, after 40 years of marriage. At this point, they own a vacation condo and their house, outright. Husband is retired by now, friend never worked.
Anyway, husband signs over the house in exchange for the condo (which friend signs over to their children instead). Since husband was cheating anyway, he was just happy to be out.
But then...he was disappointed that she didn't offer him half of her mother's inheritance. Dude, you cheated on your wife of 40 years, and you want half of her inheritance? Screw you!
Post by: Papa Mustache on January 02, 2016, 10:49:13 AM
Or the people who think they are due a "pre-inheritance".
Keep the stories coming. This has been quite the education.
When my maternal grandparents (which had some money) died - I got nothing. No big deal. It was a messy situation. I prefer my independence over participating in the mess that it became.
When my paternal grandfather died (GM still alive) I got a few of his tools - among them his workbench that he built before I was born and some of his father's hand tools. They mean more to me than any tool at the big box hardware store.
Post by: rpr on January 02, 2016, 10:50:35 AM
...
My sisters and I have sworn to never let our relationship deteriorate to that point.
After seeing a lot of similar drama when we were kids, my siblings and I did similarly agree to this. Unfortunately, one of us got married to someone like the spouse in your story :(
Post by: mm1970 on January 02, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
These people who think they are entitled to property or money from their living relatives - like the uncle that backs up a trailer and cleans out his living mother's house - BLOWS my mind!I know, right? Crazy.
Or the people who think they are due a "pre-inheritance".
Keep the stories coming. This has been quite the education.
When my maternal grandparents (which had some money) died - I got nothing. No big deal. It was a messy situation. I prefer my independence over participating in the mess that it became.
When my paternal grandfather died (GM still alive) I got a few of his tools - among them his workbench that he built before I was born and some of his father's hand tools. They mean more to me than any tool at the big box hardware store.
When my GF's second wife dies, I'm due to inherit 1/3 of my mother's 1/4 of the proceeds from the sale of the house. Or...about $8k.
My stepfather is quite mustachian, and never had his own children. So his will splits his estate 3 ways (my mother's 3 kids). Upon speaking with his lawyer, he decided to gift my sister part of her inheritance early, because it's land, and land right next to the land she lives on. (Because he gifted her that too, when she married.) He wanted to make VERY sure that I knew it, and that I was okay with it, and that it would come out of her share. I said "dude, it's your money and land, do what you want!"
Post by: paddedhat on January 02, 2016, 12:40:43 PM
Lucky enough, at the time of mom's passing, sis is in the middle of hip surgery and will be in rehab. for many weeks. Sis decides to boycott the funeral, for some psycho. reason that doesn't really matter to rational folks. Her next move is to inform the estate that she will continue to occupy the family homestead, and fully expects to have the home titled in her name. Well this is a bit problematic for a few reasons, including the fact that it violates the will, and she is on Medicaid, SSD, and countless other programs that have asset limitations. The will directs me to liquidate everything and divide it equally, with sis's portion going to a blind trust to prevent it from being seized by various agencies she is milking. She lawyers up, and I get a call from a junior attorney with Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. He attempts to be mildly intimidating, but I just can't cower all that well, particularly since he is FOS, and awaiting his first chin whisker. I ask Opie if he has done any due diligence on his client? He asks me to be more specific? I ask if it's pro bono, or does he suffer from delusions of being compensated for his work? He takes the fifth, but asks what I'm getting at. I then tell him that I can produce a large box of mail, bills, correspondence from her last council, etc........ that have piled, unopened, from the last six months or so. I explain that she only opens mail from the court system, since she greatly fears returning to jail. Other than that, it doesn't get opened or paid. The conversation ended pretty quickly after that, an the firm decided that it was a good client to drop.
Next I get a call from a county social worker, who decides he is another wannabee lawyer. This guy is going on about how I am in danger of violating her rights to housing, and heading down a dangerous path. He too is attempting to be a hard ass, like he is some kind of a rouge street cop. I then recommended that he concentrate his efforts on keeping his client out of jail, by making sure she was keeping up with the requirements of her parole. I also suggested he might want to take a look at the ongoing elder abuse investigation , as a result of her mother's coworkers and friends concern over the abuse taking place in the home that she shared with her mother. He drops the tough guy routine and listens to the reality that there is no way in hell that she will be heading back to her old "home", for many reasons. In the end I flipped the home, bumping the value up by $40K with three weeks and $7K invested. It sells quick and that drama is over.
All things considered, it was a long ugly process, but the house was sold and she got exactly what she was entitled to. She pulled a lot of other totally F-ed up stuff while mom was dying, and tried a whole bunch more until the estate settled. In the end she had a rude awaking, since her entitlement delusions had her convinced that she was going to be handed absolutely everything including a house and enough money to live happily ever after.
Post by: Kitsunegari on January 02, 2016, 05:15:47 PM
Post by: Wilson Hall on January 02, 2016, 06:07:23 PM
Mom dies and leaves rough a million to be divided three ways to me, and a half- brother and sister. I'm the executor. The half sister is about as sorry of an excuse for a human as it gets, drugs, alcohol addiction, felony manslaughter DUI, been leaching off mom and dad for decades, lives at home for free, allergic to engaging in productive employment, etc ...............and that's in the plus column.
Lucky enough, at the time of mom's passing, sis is in the middle of hip surgery and will be in rehab. for many weeks. Sis decides to boycott the funeral, for some psycho. reason that doesn't really matter to rational folks. Her next move is to inform the estate that she will continue to occupy the family homestead, and fully expects to have the home titled in her name. Well this is a bit problematic for a few reasons, including the fact that it violates the will, and she is on Medicaid, SSD, and countless other programs that have asset limitations. The will directs me to liquidate everything and divide it equally, with sis's portion going to a blind trust to prevent it from being seized by various agencies she is milking. She lawyers up, and I get a call from a junior attorney with Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. He attempts to be mildly intimidating, but I just can't cower all that well, particularly since he is FOS, and awaiting his first chin whisker. I ask Opie if he has done any due diligence on his client? He asks me to be more specific? I ask if it's pro bono, or does he suffer from delusions of being compensated for his work? He takes the fifth, but asks what I'm getting at. I then tell him that I can produce a large box of mail, bills, correspondence from her last council, etc........ that have piled, unopened, from the last six months or so. I explain that she only opens mail from the court system, since she greatly fears returning to jail. Other than that, it doesn't get opened or paid. The conversation ended pretty quickly after that, an the firm decided that it was a good client to drop.
Next I get a call from a county social worker, who decides he is another wannabee lawyer. This guy is going on about how I am in danger of violating her rights to housing, and heading down a dangerous path. He too is attempting to be a hard ass, like he is some kind of a rouge street cop. I then recommended that he concentrate his efforts on keeping his client out of jail, by making sure she was keeping up with the requirements of her parole. I also suggested he might want to take a look at the ongoing elder abuse investigation , as a result of her mother's coworkers and friends concern over the abuse taking place in the home that she shared with her mother. He drops the tough guy routine and listens to the reality that there is no way in hell that she will be heading back to her old "home", for many reasons. In the end I flipped the home, bumping the value up by $40K with three weeks and $7K invested. It sells quick and that drama is over.
All things considered, it was a long ugly process, but the house was sold and she got exactly what she was entitled to. She pulled a lot of other totally F-ed up stuff while mom was dying, and tried a whole bunch more until the estate settled. In the end she had a rude awaking, since her entitlement delusions had her convinced that she was going to be handed absolutely everything including a house and enough money to live happily ever after.
Here's another one about a grown child refusing to leave the homestead: friend of mine has three siblings, two of whom are always down-on-their-luck for one excuse or another. One of these sibs and spouse decide to remain in the family home after mom dies, defying the will that dictates that all assets shall be split equally. Fast forward a few years, and sib leaves a cigarette lit, accidentally burning the house down. Property is gone, insurance kicks in, and the stipulations of the will are finally enforced. Karma can be a mo-fo.
Post by: Stockmom on January 02, 2016, 07:17:37 PM
Apparently the Grandfather actually wanted the property to go to the 4 grandsons but the will was never updated. So, Father-in-law buys out his sister and her two sons, and the property now belongs to him and his two sons. Father-in-law then decides that it will be most lucrative to divide the property into 4 separate parcels and sell/build an investment property on the other 3 parcels, while he and his wife live in the home. In order to do this he needed money and my now husband, his brother, and my sign-off. Unfortunately, we were young and stupid and believed him when he told us we were just signing to get the lot lines redrawn. We were actually signing onto a loan to the tune of $149k to pay for all the fees associated with dividing up the lot. We found out about the loan while trying to refinance our home. We are essentially cosigners on this loan. What's even worse is that we have never seen the receipts for the actual cost of redrawing the lot lines and we now also know that they brought personal debt into this loan to the tune of 30k-50k. We have never been able to get our hands on that documentation either.
Just after the lot was subdivided the stock market crashed and the ability to sell those lots has been pretty much nonexistent. Husband's father and wife ONLY PAY THE INTEREST on this loan and have been for the past 10 years.
Some solutions my husband and I have offered are to 1) sell the lots and put the proceeds toward the loan, 2) we pay off the loan and they sign over all lots but the house to us, 3) have us all start paying down the loan based on our percentage of ownership, etc. There is no solution they're okay with. I should also mention that they carried over about 250k to the house they live in, which was paid off when they inherited it. Father-in-law is in his seventies, still working, and making zero progress on this loan. In the meantime they have bought a share in a condo in Hawaii and travel there twice a year.
I am so frustrated with this situation as it feels like there is no solution. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
Post by: Lookilu on January 02, 2016, 07:25:57 PM
When they returned home, sister and BIL caught me alone and asked, "Does Mom have any money?"
I knew my parents frugal ways as well as I knew their spendthrift ways so I answered evasively, "I don't know. Why?"
"Well, you know, Mom's so upset that we've paid for everything today but we don't know if Mom has any money to pay us back."
"I don't know. You'll have to ask her."
Once they left, I told Mom about the exchange. She silently got up and brought back her checkbook, where she--as always--had meticulously recorded every expense that she had paid that day.
I have no idea what they thought they might get or why.
They moved out of state several years later and didn't bother to visit Mom for 16 years. When she finally did visit, my sister took the opportunity to ask my Mom who was going to get the house. Mom told her that she was leaving it to me since I was the only one who had been there for her. Sister stormed out of the house and didn't return, not even for Mom's funeral last year.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
Right after the cashier's check cleared, BIL posted a picture of his shiny new pickup on his Facebook page.
She knew them very well indeed.
Post by: MgoSam on January 02, 2016, 07:48:52 PM
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
I'm sorry for your loss, your mother sounds like an amazing person. She also sounds wise, had she cut your sister out, it's possible she could have contested the will and caused mischief.
Post by: okits on January 02, 2016, 07:56:55 PM
My Dad died very suddenly 30 years ago. My older sister and her husband lived nearby and drove Mom around to the mortuary and cemetery to make the arrangements while I stayed home to field the phone. (I was 20 and in college.)
When they returned home, sister and BIL caught me alone and asked, "Does Mom have any money?"
I knew my parents frugal ways as well as I knew their spendthrift ways so I answered evasively, "I don't know. Why?"
"Well, you know, Mom's so upset that we've paid for everything today but we don't know if Mom has any money to pay us back."
"I don't know. You'll have to ask her."
Once they left, I told Mom about the exchange. She silently got up and brought back her checkbook, where she--as always--had meticulously recorded every expense that she had paid that day.
I have no idea what they thought they might get or why.
They moved out of state several years later and didn't bother to visit Mom for 16 years. When she finally did visit, my sister took the opportunity to ask my Mom who was going to get the house. Mom told her that she was leaving it to me since I was the only one who had been there for her. Sister stormed out of the house and didn't return, not even for Mom's funeral last year.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
Right after the cashier's check cleared, BIL posted a picture of his shiny new pickup on his Facebook page.
She knew them very well indeed.
In this thread of horribly sad stories, I'm glad that, at least, your mom was smart.
Post by: One Noisy Cat on January 02, 2016, 08:11:50 PM
Post by: Taran Wanderer on January 02, 2016, 08:15:21 PM
Post by: Homey The Clown on January 02, 2016, 08:35:04 PM
I really have no idea how all this will play out, but it will be very interesting.
Post by: UnleashHell on January 02, 2016, 08:55:07 PM
because its a nice name.
and she was my grandmother.
Tough old bird - born and raised in toxteth, Liverpool. not a place know for soft people. she married my grandfather and moved out of Toxteth (not a bad move) and raised 3 girls. hard working. good provider but a total nut job when it came to family. she had fallen out with everyone.
anyway - grandad gets sick and the call is made to move to the country for his health. he dies a few years later. 3 grown kids at that stage.
my mother is the youngest and falls out with Grace because my mother married someone who called grace out for being a manipulate bitch. Grace had some nice life insurance taken out on her husband. she's in good shape and lets everyone know.
she ends up meeting someone else and marrying them. took nice life insurance out on them and let everyone know. Hubby 2 dies.
She them starts using the fact that she has all the money to whip the 3 girls and their families into line. do this for grace or I'll cut you out of the will. Do that for grace or you'll be cut out of the will.
I went and stayed with her and she started in on my old man so badly (the one who called her out) that i told her to go fuck herself. nobody talked to me about my father like that, especially about 20 year old make up grievances.
I never talked to her again.
2 out of the 3 girls and their families pandered to her. did everything for her , regardless of what she said about them.
she ends up dying and true to her word she used the inheritance to benefit those that had done as she said and run their lives according to what she wanted.
Problem for them was that Grace only left thousands. not 10's or 100's of thousands - just thousands.
I got nothing. my parents got nothing.
It was worth it.
Post by: Lookilu on January 02, 2016, 09:12:50 PM
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
I'm sorry for your loss, your mother sounds like an amazing person. She also sounds wise, had she cut your sister out, it's possible she could have contested the will and caused mischief.
Thank you, MgoSam. Mom lived to be 91 and she was indeed a member of the Greatest Generation. She and my Dad worked hard for all they had.
I'm actually grateful that my sister's behavior was so blatant since that motivated Mom to set up a living trust and pour-over will to ensure that her wishes were fulfilled. It made settling her estate much easier.
Post by: Lookilu on January 02, 2016, 09:18:15 PM
She was. I'm so grateful that she made the decisions--and took the legal actions--that she did.My Dad died very suddenly 30 years ago. My older sister and her husband lived nearby and drove Mom around to the mortuary and cemetery to make the arrangements while I stayed home to field the phone. (I was 20 and in college.)
When they returned home, sister and BIL caught me alone and asked, "Does Mom have any money?"
I knew my parents frugal ways as well as I knew their spendthrift ways so I answered evasively, "I don't know. Why?"
"Well, you know, Mom's so upset that we've paid for everything today but we don't know if Mom has any money to pay us back."
"I don't know. You'll have to ask her."
Once they left, I told Mom about the exchange. She silently got up and brought back her checkbook, where she--as always--had meticulously recorded every expense that she had paid that day.
I have no idea what they thought they might get or why.
They moved out of state several years later and didn't bother to visit Mom for 16 years. When she finally did visit, my sister took the opportunity to ask my Mom who was going to get the house. Mom told her that she was leaving it to me since I was the only one who had been there for her. Sister stormed out of the house and didn't return, not even for Mom's funeral last year.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
Right after the cashier's check cleared, BIL posted a picture of his shiny new pickup on his Facebook page.
She knew them very well indeed.
In this thread of horribly sad stories, I'm glad that, at least, your mom was smart.
Post by: okits on January 02, 2016, 09:49:10 PM
I got nothing. my parents got nothing.
It was worth it.
Only story in this thread to put a smile on my face. Big fist pump that you and your parents weren't for sale, even when you thought Grace had bags of money. (Problem with being for sale is that even if the price is high, part of you will always feel cheap.)
Post by: 10dollarsatatime on January 02, 2016, 10:40:33 PM
I got what I wanted... one of his big toolboxes. I keep his picture inside the lid.
The real drama came a few weeks after the funeral, when my mother found out crazy aunt was mad at her... My mom is used to planning things and taking charge, which is what she ended up doing with the funeral. Apparently at some point he had told crazy aunt she could plan the funeral, so she went off speaking terms with my mom for months for usurping her directorial authority.
On a lighter note... and just because I like telling this story... my mom and her sisters all met at and stayed at grandpa's house the week prior to the funeral. My family is full of snark. Full. The day after they all arrived, there was a knock at the door. My mother opened to a guy in a UPS uniform, who very awkwardly asked if someone in the home had just passed away. My mother, in her best form, replied, "Yes. Are you here for the body?" It took a minute for the aunts to stop laughing uncontrollably... Turns out that the UPS guy was the bishop for my grandpa's LDS ward. My mom still feels kind of bad about it. :)
Post by: LeRainDrop on January 03, 2016, 09:40:00 AM
On a lighter note... and just because I like telling this story... my mom and her sisters all met at and stayed at grandpa's house the week prior to the funeral. My family is full of snark. Full. The day after they all arrived, there was a knock at the door. My mother opened to a guy in a UPS uniform, who very awkwardly asked if someone in the home had just passed away. My mother, in her best form, replied, "Yes. Are you here for the body?" It took a minute for the aunts to stop laughing uncontrollably... Turns out that the UPS guy was the bishop for my grandpa's LDS ward. My mom still feels kind of bad about it. :)
Oh man, that's awfully funny!
Post by: frugledoc on January 03, 2016, 12:54:13 PM
Post by: davisgang90 on January 03, 2016, 01:04:47 PM
He passed away very unexpectedly and when they read his most recent will, he had written out his oldest child, who has been wheelchair bound for over 30 years and is an absolute sweetheart. She was flabbergasted and had no idea why.
The happy ending is the other three children said "F That" and agreed to split his assets 4-ways.
Post by: MandalayVA on January 03, 2016, 01:25:08 PM
Post by: MgoSam on January 03, 2016, 01:28:53 PM
The happy ending is the other three children said "F That" and agreed to split his assets 4-ways.
That's awesome! I'm glad that the siblings were good about this.
Post by: sunday on January 03, 2016, 01:43:36 PM
Post by: Riff on January 03, 2016, 08:03:54 PM
The bulk of the estate was his lakefront property where he lived for the past 50+ years. Originally, he moved in to take care of his mother after his father passed away, and when she died the house went to my grandfather with his sister's blessing (the only other sibling). This was in 1976.
Fast forward to last year, the sale of the house is pending when the title shows up with his sister's name on it. Ugh! My grandfather told my dad several times that it was taken care of and that the property was transferred into the trust, but clearly, that never happened. Apparently what happened was way back when, the judge thought it was a mistake that the property only went into my grandfather's name and he added his sister to it. No one knew this.
Grandpa's sister passed away a few years ago, so there was no way for her to sign off on it properly. Instead, her three daughters would have to. Two of the three said absolutely, no problem, that's the right thing to do. The third sister could smell the money and refused to sign off. My dad was going pretty crazy at this point. Thankfully, the other sisters were able to convince (shame?) their reluctant sister into doing the right thing. She signed and everything went smooth after that. It could've been a very messy situation though. They would've had to re-open their mother's estate, and the lawyers would've been involved, and they have a way to eat up estates.
Post by: elaine amj on January 03, 2016, 08:24:59 PM
Had a very quirky uncle with four children and would routinely rewrite his will to remove a child based on some real or perceived slight. Happened over and over.
He passed away very unexpectedly and when they read his most recent will, he had written out his oldest child, who has been wheelchair bound for over 30 years and is an absolute sweetheart. She was flabbergasted and had no idea why.
The happy ending is the other three children said "F That" and agreed to split his assets 4-ways.
The siblings put a smile on my face :)
Post by: onehair on January 04, 2016, 07:31:10 AM
Post by: greytbigdog on January 04, 2016, 07:40:07 AM
My Grandmother (mum's side) was a manipulative cow. She liked playing all 4 daughters against each other. One was always on the outs. She also liked to play the "you are in/out of the will" game. 20 years ago, Mum is told she is out of the will for getting a divorce.
Bad relationships continue between Grandmum and slowly everyone else. By the end, my mum is one of the only ones talking to her – mostly because my mum is in healthcare and is useful to her again. Zero grandkids will talk to her, so there is no funeral.
It comes out during the will reading, that my mum was in the will the whole time and was only removed two years before when she forgot to send Grandmum flowers for her birthday.
2 of my mum’s sisters share their inheritance with my mum, but the richest one will not. Rich aunt has also took all the good antiques & paintings while Grandmum was in the hospital. When confronted by her sisters, she was given the ultimatum to return the items to have any relationship with them – she picked the furniture over her sisters. Richest aunt had already inherited a $700,000 house and a cottage from her in-laws.
Post by: Pigeon on January 04, 2016, 10:33:52 AM
BIL calls us up the other day. His son (one of MIL's many grandchildren) would like to buy MIL's house. There is one small problem. Son is very unlikely to qualify for sufficient mortgage to pay the fair market value on the house. BIL has a brilliant idea. The sale should be an owner finance, never mind that the owner is likely to be dead within two years. MIL may also need funds for her care as her situation deteriorates.
Having no interest in holding a mortgage for my nephew for many years to come, dh tells BIL this is a non-starter. Hectoring ensues. BIL keeps insisting that this is a brilliant way to keep the wealth within the family by avoiding listing fees. Yeah, keep the wealth within HIS family, while we take on the risk of nephew who isn't qualified for the mortgage.
Post by: Neustache on January 04, 2016, 10:46:40 AM
Mostly posting to follow.
Post by: soupcxan on January 04, 2016, 10:54:30 AM
he wanted to be a wizard and ninja when he grew up and now teaches magic and karate.
99.999% of kids who want to grow up to be an astronaut or professional athlete fail...it sounds like this guy accomplished his goals almost exactly...how many people do you know who can honestly say that?
Post by: BlueHouse on January 04, 2016, 11:05:47 AM
Now I really have to get a decent will made. My current one leaves all my belongings to my sister, assuming she would split it up between others as appropriate. Sister has excellent judgement and no need for my money. I don't want to leave her with problems and animosity and headaches.
Post by: Neustache on January 04, 2016, 11:09:36 AM
I hope that means you are changing it to specifically make sure it all goes to charities. LOL. I'm stubborn that way and it would be my reaction to anyone thinking they have a right to the fruit of my hard work. Plus, there's loads of amazing charities out there.
Post by: elaine amj on January 04, 2016, 11:18:07 AM
My MIL is elderly and has a chronic medical condition, which makes it very likely she will die within a year or two. She also has some dementia She is now living with BIL, one of several sons. My dh is set up in her trust to be the executor, and the trust is written to divide the estate equally between the sons. We have been working to clear out her house in preparation for putting it on the market, because she cannot live alone at this point.
BIL calls us up the other day. His son (one of MIL's many grandchildren) would like to buy MIL's house. There is one small problem. Son is very unlikely to qualify for sufficient mortgage to pay the fair market value on the house. BIL has a brilliant idea. The sale should be an owner finance, never mind that the owner is likely to be dead within two years. MIL may also need funds for her care as her situation deteriorates.
Having no interest in holding a mortgage for my nephew for many years to come, dh tells BIL this is a non-starter. Hectoring ensues. BIL keeps insisting that this is a brilliant way to keep the wealth within the family by avoiding listing fees. Yeah, keep the wealth within HIS family, while we take on the risk of nephew who isn't qualified for the mortgage.
Why don't you tell your BIL you have an even more brilliant idea - he can buy his siblings out (if there is any other inheritance money over and above the house, he can use that money) and then he can owner-finance his son's purchase (since he feels his son is a worthwhile risk). That way he can keep the wealth in his family.
Win-win.
Post by: infogoon on January 04, 2016, 11:19:48 AM
Post by: Cookie78 on January 04, 2016, 11:21:44 AM
I mentioned to my brother that if I have any money at the time of my death, I will be leaving it to charity. He became furious - FURIOUS - that I would give it to strangers over his children.
Now I really have to get a decent will made. My current one leaves all my belongings to my sister, assuming she would split it up between others as appropriate. Sister has excellent judgement and no need for my money. I don't want to leave her with problems and animosity and headaches.
Yikes! I did the same and gave the majority to my mom to split it as she sees fit. Perhaps I'd better rethink this plan also.
Post by: crispy on January 04, 2016, 11:25:00 AM
Posting to follow. Not for the first time, I'm glad my family's not wealthy.
My family isn't wealthy either (like, laughably not wealthy), but that didn't stop them from getting on the crazy train when they though money was involved even if was a small amount.
Post by: ncornilsen on January 04, 2016, 11:32:00 AM
Post by: Pigeon on January 04, 2016, 12:24:10 PM
My MIL is elderly and has a chronic medical condition, which makes it very likely she will die within a year or two. She also has some dementia She is now living with BIL, one of several sons. My dh is set up in her trust to be the executor, and the trust is written to divide the estate equally between the sons. We have been working to clear out her house in preparation for putting it on the market, because she cannot live alone at this point.
BIL calls us up the other day. His son (one of MIL's many grandchildren) would like to buy MIL's house. There is one small problem. Son is very unlikely to qualify for sufficient mortgage to pay the fair market value on the house. BIL has a brilliant idea. The sale should be an owner finance, never mind that the owner is likely to be dead within two years. MIL may also need funds for her care as her situation deteriorates.
Having no interest in holding a mortgage for my nephew for many years to come, dh tells BIL this is a non-starter. Hectoring ensues. BIL keeps insisting that this is a brilliant way to keep the wealth within the family by avoiding listing fees. Yeah, keep the wealth within HIS family, while we take on the risk of nephew who isn't qualified for the mortgage.
Why don't you tell your BIL you have an even more brilliant idea - he can buy his siblings out (if there is any other inheritance money over and above the house, he can use that money) and then he can owner-finance his son's purchase (since he feels his son is a worthwhile risk). That way he can keep the wealth in his family.
Win-win.
We did suggest exactly that. Alternatively, BIL could co-sign a loan for his son and thus assume the risk of default for himself. BIL didn't seem nearly as interested. We would like to get the house on the market now though, and not wait for MIL to pass because it is expensive to maintain and routine maintenance, yard work, snow removal, etc., all fall to my husband and it has gotten old.
Post by: thingamabobs on January 04, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
We did suggest exactly that. Alternatively, BIL could co-sign a loan for his son and thus assume the risk of default for himself. BIL didn't seem nearly as interested. We would like to get the house on the market now though, and not wait for MIL to pass because it is expensive to maintain and routine maintenance, yard work, snow removal, etc., all fall to my husband and it has gotten old.
[/quote]
Isn't that typical, though. It's a good idea until you have to assume the risk yourself.
Post by: NorCal on January 04, 2016, 12:45:30 PM
They owned three properties. Two cattle ranches, and the house they lived in. Two siblings lived on the separate cattle ranches, and the third (my mom) eventually moved into the grandparents former house.
Unfortunately, my grandparents divided ownership of each property 1/3 to each sibling. So every sibling is now living on a property that is jointly owned by their two siblings. In addition, the cattle ranches are minor income-producing assets. So the people living on and working the ranches have some undefined obligation (in my passive aggressive family) to share their earned ranch income with siblings that aren't working on the ranch.
After a few years and a semi-successful business deal between the siblings, they ended up suing each other and don't talk to each other anymore. Some are paying rents to others based on old rental deals, and others have defaulted on their mortgage obligations of the properties out of spite, knowing the others will pay the bank instead of letting the property fall into default.
Post by: elaine amj on January 04, 2016, 12:59:21 PM
We did suggest exactly that. Alternatively, BIL could co-sign a loan for his son and thus assume the risk of default for himself. BIL didn't seem nearly as interested.
LOL - that's exactly what I thought would happen.
My family is still wading through a well intentioned but poorly thought out will from my grandparents on my mom's side.
They owned three properties. Two cattle ranches, and the house they lived in. Two siblings lived on the separate cattle ranches, and the third (my mom) eventually moved into the grandparents former house.
Unfortunately, my grandparents divided ownership of each property 1/3 to each sibling. So every sibling is now living on a property that is jointly owned by their two siblings. In addition, the cattle ranches are minor income-producing assets. So the people living on and working the ranches have some undefined obligation (in my passive aggressive family) to share their earned ranch income with siblings that aren't working on the ranch.
After a few years and a semi-successful business deal between the siblings, they ended up suing each other and don't talk to each other anymore. Some are paying rents to others based on old rental deals, and others have defaulted on their mortgage obligations of the properties out of spite, knowing the others will pay the bank instead of letting the property fall into default.
That sucks. My mom wanted to do the same thing basically. I told her I really, really, really don't want to share property with my brother. He doesn't have the money to buy me out and I wouldn't be able to live in any of her properties anyway.
Unfortunately, she has not redone her will. On the good side, I got her to verbally tell me her wishes and I have them recorded in my evernote. My brother and I have not fought since we were kids and have a good relationship. Also, neither of us are greedy. but it is entirely possible we will have different ideas of fairness. I'm pushing her to write a specific will - but she puts it off all the time.
Post by: MgoSam on January 04, 2016, 01:09:36 PM
We did suggest exactly that. Alternatively, BIL could co-sign a loan for his son and thus assume the risk of default for himself. BIL didn't seem nearly as interested.LOL - that's exactly what I thought would happen.
It's funny how often that happens. At work nearly all customers will negotiate (which I understand), but then they'll start bickering and say shit like, "It's only __," and so my comment to them always is, "Is that's such a small amount, then you shouldn't mind paying it?"
Post by: Jack on January 04, 2016, 01:12:16 PM
One within my own family.
In about 2007 my family discovered that my great great grandparents owned a rather large plot of land in the 'old country'. All the land on either side is full developed valuable land. We found out because a less than legitimate firm shall we say converted the lands use to urban and tried to start building on it when a distant local relative noticed. This was then valued at tens of millions and made everyone rather happy and so paperwork sorting to formalise things to pay back taxes etc with a view of a sale. This was complicated by large numbers of heirs (catholic family) depending on which branch of the tree. But all sorted. Then. Financial Crash. Old Country did badly. Very badly. Land dropped in value massively although still with millions, small digits. But, a squatter appeared. One of the more local family tried to get him removed but he produced an old document which stated his family has the right to farm the land. No court case has yet been started. Documents legitimacy unknown, although either way apparently.
Why not? Well most of the family are poor/lower middle income. So any costs really cut into budgets. Some don't even want to pay their share of the tax on the land (which is like, really tiny). So it is all in a very slowly progressing limbo land. Though with no rush as prices are no where near '08 levels. How many had 'counted' on the larger sum I don't know. I stay out off all of it.
Further complicated by heirs starting to die off meaning their descendants and thus even more people are involved.
I find this all rather amusing as do my parents. They are the only 'well off' couple of the family in terms of their share would mean more spendypants holidays and maybe being able to set myself and sibling up well.
For me it doesn't really matter if it ever gets resolved. Sure I could FIRE faster but eh no biggie, looking at less than ten years total of working anyway.
In that situation, I'd consider contacting all the heirs who don't want to pay for the taxes or lawsuit and offering to buy out their interest (assuming the land itself is a good investment). In addition to increasing your portfolio, it might also simplify future related issues since there would be fewer people involved.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.Stories like that are fantastic.
In 1965, an elderly French woman of 90 years with no heirs and a smoking habit, entered a contract with her cunning 47 year old attorney. She sells him her apartment in exchange for life annuity payments. The elderly lady continues to live, eventually outliving him and continuing to receive payments from the deceased attorney's wife, as per the contract. She dies in 1997 at the age of 122 years, the longest human lifespan ever recorded. The attorney and his wife ended up paying more than twice the apartment's value to her over 3 decades.
She was a kickass lady too. She only stopped riding her bicycle after hitting 3 digits, and lived on her own until 110.
People really shouldn't bank on others dying.
It's really just another lesson on the benefits of diversification, with a little bit of actuarial science thrown in.
This is a guy who posted to FB that ... he wanted to be a wizard and ninja when he grew up and now teaches magic and karate.
Wow, that guy's livin' the dream! I mean, it sucks that he's apparently a douche, but you have to be a little impressed that he set wildly fantastical childhood goals and then actually achieved them! Usually folks like that end up as accountants or used-car salesmen or something.
As far as my personal experience, these sorts of issues have been (and will be) minor:
- My mom has complained about not getting some objects of sentimental value from her grandparents.
- My great aunt, who is in her 90s and senile, has her assets being mis-managed (or perhaps misappropriated) by her never-married, shut-in, hoarder son. There's nobody but him who would feel entitled to an inheritance, but it's still sad that her assets getting squandered like they are.
- I'm my parents' sole heir. They're private about money, so between that and uncertainties about healthcare and whatnot I have no idea if I'd inherit anything or not, and am not particularly concerned either way. I just wish I knew if I needed to plan to support them, and could check to make sure their assets aren't invested in something stupid.
- My wife's family is more complicated and dramatic, but I don't expect any of them to leave a non-zero estate anyway.
Post by: MarciaB on January 04, 2016, 01:18:58 PM
There is probably a best selling book buried in this thread already
I don't think it's a best seller but there's a book called Gold Diggers and Deadbeat Dads by Valerie Rind that I'm quite fond of. It's full of cautionary tales starring gigolos, grandma abusers, greedy relatives, con men, gold diggers and an assorted cast of ne'er do wells. She includes a nice list of resources too. The book is written by an attorney with her own horrifying personal story.
I'm a sucker for train wreck financial stories (I rubbernecked the Madoff stuff so hard I practically had to see a chiropractor).
Post by: Travis on January 04, 2016, 01:19:19 PM
Posting to follow. Not for the first time, I'm glad my family's not wealthy.
My family isn't wealthy either (like, laughably not wealthy), but that didn't stop them from getting on the crazy train when they though money was involved even if was a small amount.
I attended the funeral of one of my troops a few years ago as his escort. He grew up in a small town petrochemical town in Texas. His wife and his family are light years apart. As soon as they received the notification of his death they were on the phone with her either claiming he owed them money or trying to call dibs on his personal effects and property like his car. Mom and dad weren't too bad, but older sister had a case of meth-mouth, younger sister complained about the embalming smell of his body while viewing it, and older brother showed up to the wake and the actual funeral in a beat up t-shirt. His wife did her best to blow them off and keep them at arm's length and didn't give in to any of them. The mom finally stepped in to reign in the siblings and they dropped the issues. He hadn't talked to his family or been home in years and it was obvious why.
Post by: Daleth on January 04, 2016, 01:24:00 PM
Let me explain, without going into detail since the reason I know this is a family story that’s still happening as we speak. Let’s say that “Dad” has three adult children and leaves money to each of them, but one kid’s money is put in trust because that kid is mentally ill and beyond incompetent with money. That kid also has no kids, so Dad’s will and trust state that when Incompetent Kid dies, any money remaining in the trust will be divided per stirpes among Dad’s “descendants.” What Dad meant was that his other two kids would get it, or if one or both of them was dead by that time, their kids would get it.
Incompetent Kid throws a decade-long hissy fit at the “unfairness” of Dad leaving Incompetent Kid’s money in trust, because Incompetent Kid has—let’s say—a friend or lover they want to leave money to when Incompetent Kid dies.
In many U.S. states, all Incompetent Kid has to do is trot down to a lawyer’s office and a courthouse with that friend, and adopt that friend. The friend could be 42 years old, and Dad could have died ten years ago... doesn’t matter: the adult adoption makes the friend into Dad’s legal descendant! (Note: if Incompetent Kid had married the friend this wouldn’t have worked, but adult adoption does the trick.) So when Incompetent Kid dies, the money remaining in Incompetent Kid’s trust doesn’t get split two ways by Dad’s other two kids... it gets split three ways, with 1/3 going to the adult-adopted friend.
Regardless of what state the person writing the will is in, just write the damn thing so that this can’t happen (or revise it, if it’s already written). You don’t know what state the testator will be a resident of when he or she dies, or whether the law about adult adoption in his/her state will have changed... so just explicitly write it out, in the will, so that this cannot happen!
Post by: MgoSam on January 04, 2016, 02:04:53 PM
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
If this is necessary then I would imagine hiring a lawyer would be best.
Post by: CU Tiger on January 04, 2016, 02:12:03 PM
Older lady dies with substantial assets. She’s not a millionaire, but has a house, a car, some nice jewelry, a house full of stuff, and some money. Her will leaves each of her four grandchildren a specific piece of furniture, and her two daughters, Ginger and MaryAnn, are to each get a specific piece of jewelry. Everything else is to be split 50-50 between the daughters.
So, the daughters start going through their mother’s things. If either one gave her mother something, she gets first dibs at it. If the item was not a gift, they take turns picking things they want. Things go well, except for one thing…the jewelry. Ginger was first on the scene, and she got ahold of all the jewelry and she won’t give MaryAnn the ring that was mentioned in the will. She insists that all the jewelry must be valued by a professional jeweler.
So, they have the jewelry valued, and it turns out that MaryAnn’s ring is worth a maybe a thousand more than Ginger’s. Ginger says, “You must let me have $1000 cash/jewelry to make up for the fact that your heirloom is worth more than mine.” MaryAnn gets pissed, and says, “This is ridiculous. You take the more expensive ring, and I’ll take the one she left you.” But now MaryAnn is mad, and feels like her sister is a bitch. She also has a hate on the ring in her possession, because it’s NOT THE ONE HER MOTHER WANTED HER TO HAVE. The hard feelings have started.
MaryAnn has a child who needs a car. She offers to buy the car from the estate. Since she owns 50% of the car (which is worth about $20,000), she says, “I will give you $10,000 cash for your half of the car.” My kid gets the car, and you get $10,000 cash. Ginger says, “No, that’s not fair, you owe me $20,000. The car is worth $20,000 and you are trying to get it for your kid. Stop trying to rob me.” At the lawyer’s office, each sister puts forth her case, the lawyer says that MaryAnn is right, she owns half the car and if she takes the car she owes her sister only $10,000. Ginger grudgingly accepts this, but tells her husband, in MaryAnn’s hearing, that MaryAnn has somehow gotten one over on her. MaryAnn is super pissed.
Ginger and MaryAnn are now feuding like Hatfields and McCoys. They clean out the house, each of them trying to grab as much stuff as possible for their children and themselves. They sell the house and split the money they get for that…and then these women never spend another friendly moment together. They send each other birthday and holiday cards, but other than that, radio silence between them.
Each feels victimized and aggrieved. Each thinks her sister is a cheat and a weasel. MaryAnn can hardly look at the nice ring she has, even though it was her Mother’s, because it is THE WRONG RING. Eventually, years later, Ginger dies. Her children, who had heard the whole story many times, took the ring that was originally meant for MaryAnn, and give it to MaryAnn. MaryAnn thanks them for the ring and offers to give them back The Wrong Ring, which they decline. They are sick to death of the whole thing. So are MaryAnn’s kids.
MaryAnn starts talking that she will have The Wrong Ring turned into pendants or pin by a jeweler, for each of her children/grandchildren. I am one of MaryAnn’s daughters, and I think that a pendant made from that ring would have eternally bad juju. It would just remind us that when our Grandmother died, our Mom and Aunt lost each other as sisters. That’s a heck of a story to go with a piece of gold.
Also: GO CLEMSON TIGERS!
Post by: JR on January 04, 2016, 02:27:08 PM
Post by: Daleth on January 04, 2016, 08:11:51 PM
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
If this is necessary then I would imagine hiring a lawyer would be best.
Hiring a lawyer is always best when it comes to doing your will. It's not a big investment for most people, and if it is expensive, that means your estate and your plans for it are complicated--in other words, you were all but guaranteed to screw it up if you didn't get a lawyer.
And the thing is, you have no way of knowing in advance if it will be necessary. Most people's will leaves something to "descendants" or "children" or "grandchildren," etc., in addition to the bequests to specific, named people, because that's far more efficient than redrafting your will every time a new kid or grandkid is born or every time someone you were leaving something to dies. And if your will does that, your intentions could be subverted by an heir adopting a friend or lover of theirs. They could do it in secret before you die, or after you die--in short, they could do it without you knowing--so you truly have no way to know whether you're going to need this in your will. Unless you are fine with some portion of your property potentially going to a random friend that an heir of yours adopts as an adult, you have to write your will so that it can't do that.
Post by: Cathy on January 04, 2016, 08:29:17 PM
... You don’t know what state the testator will be a resident of when he or she dies ...
I always enjoy reading estate law cases that contain choice-of-law issues, or generally where the court is required to apply the law of another jurisdiction. One opinion I enjoyed reading recently was In re Estate of O'Dea, 29 Cal App 3d 759 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14988172099213825610) (CA Ct App 1973). In that case, the California court was forced to wade into Canadian constitutional law to determine whether an Alberta statute was within the powers of the Legislature of Alberta, which in turn was relevant to what effect (if any) the Alberta enactment had under California law.
(I am aware that this post is only tangentially related to the text I quoted.)
Post by: NorCal on January 04, 2016, 09:12:54 PM
Hiring a lawyer is always best when it comes to doing your will. It's not a big investment for most people, and if it is expensive, that means your estate and your plans for it are complicated--in other words, you were all but guaranteed to screw it up if you didn't get a lawyer.
I would personally say you can get away with something like ZegalZoom or Quicken Wills if you're young with limited assets and no kids. Once you start getting material assets and kids are in the picture, a will and trust are the way to go.
Some employers offer legal insurance or prepaid legal plans as part of open enrollment. They're normally a horrible deal, but they turn into an excellent deal if you use one to get a trust put together. We did this last year, and it was well worth it. I think we spent less than $200 for a full will, trust, and related power of attorney.
Post by: Homey The Clown on January 04, 2016, 09:58:29 PM
he wanted to be a wizard and ninja when he grew up and now teaches magic and karate.
99.999% of kids who want to grow up to be an astronaut or professional athlete fail...it sounds like this guy accomplished his goals almost exactly...how many people do you know who can honestly say that?
Since you were one of two to comment on this part of my post, I'll note that he was able to do this because his parents mortgaged their house to pay for his college (no student loans), my MIL pays his health and business liability insurance, bought at least 2 of his cars, he doesn't have to pay rent because he squatted his parents rental house (MIL just replaced the HVAC), and he rents out parts of his house to friends. When your living expenses are pretty close to net $0, you can do pretty much anything you want. His fb post was taken to task by his friends who basically said slagging your friends/family isn't such a great idea. His fb post was most definitely in a defensive tone. He should be one of the most grateful people in the world, but he most definitely is not. He's nice enough in person, but his actions (and fb posts) belie his (in person) words.
My family isn't much better, but the sadder part is they're worried about less money. My sister is divorced with 2 kids and lives with my mom, probably for the indefinite future. My mother just sold her old house that she couldn't afford and bought another(less than 10% down). It will probably go to my sister when she dies and will likely be her only real asset. My brother thinks this is unfair. Of course, he has been a financial leech on my mother for numerous years despite the fact that she doesn't have the money to fund his mess ups, and, in fact, has gone into debt herself to pay for them.
I love my family and my wife loves hers but this is why we don't live in either of our hometowns.
Thanks to the initiator of this thread. This has been incredibly cathartic. I've talked to no one but my wife about this.
Post by: coin on January 04, 2016, 10:28:39 PM
When I was 15 my parents took me aside and told me if anything happened to them they wanted me to look after my (8 years younger) brother. It made sense, the kid and I get along well. What alarmed me was that they had specifically provisions in their will for me to have extra money and resources for this purpose.
Given that I have two other siblings as well as my younger brother I thought this could end very badly if they actually died and the will was executed. Not that I think my other sibs are money hungry jerks, just that money changes people and my parents wouldn't say how much they were talking about.
Luckily this problem is fixing itself, my kid bro turns 18 next week.
Post by: sol on January 04, 2016, 11:07:58 PM
On the other side of the family, things got significantly more complicated because one of my poor/needy cousins was living in my grandparent's house (at well below market rent, but not for free) after the grandparent moved into a nursing home. All of the siblings who equally inherited a portion of that house wanted to sell it and split the proceeds, except of course the sibling whose kid was living in the house, who naturally argued that if grandparent was offering cut-rate rent then they clearly wanted the cousins to have the house. That sibling refused to buy out the other siblings, even though there was plenty of money available in the inheritance to do so. Much of the drama came from spouses of siblings, rather than the siblings themselves.
In the end, the sibling who was the executor had to evict my cousin, sell the house, and then equal distributing the proceeds. It took several years for family holiday dinners to get back to semi-normal because there was this lingering anger over the eviction of a family member. Who was present at said dinners with the person who evicted them.
Lesson 1: before you make your will, ask your kids/grandkids what specific items they most want to have after you die. Don't assume, ask. Write it into the will.
Lesson 2: disposing of real estate is difficult, and potentially more so if it's rented. Unless you're stewarding a family estate/castle, try to die without any.
Post by: LPeters on January 05, 2016, 01:09:04 AM
Thanks to the initiator of this thread. This has been incredibly cathartic. I've talked to no one but my wife about this.
You're welcome. The main reason I wanted to hear other people's experiences with inheritances is because I don't understand what the hell some people are thinking, and it's horrifying (and entertaining, in an awful, trainwreck sort of way) to hear about what people think they're entitled to, and how they betray family over money and things, and it seems like most of the people in this thread have their heads on straight.
Also, each of these terrible stories shows me who not to become, what not to do. They're helping me shape myself into a better person- so thank you as well, for sharing.
Post by: greytbigdog on January 05, 2016, 06:44:43 AM
Co-worker: Divorced when her kid was a toddler. As part of the divorce agreement, Ex has to have life insurance with the kid as a beneficiary. I think it was about $10,000. Ex moves to the other side of the country, new family with SAHW etc. Ends up dying fairly young of known health issue. We can all see where this is going right?
Ex didn’t take out any more life insurance, and his new wife got really ugly with the kid (who was now about 15). Wanted the kid to surrender all the $ to her, to take care of kid’s half-siblings. Kid kept the cash, put it in a college fund. Mostly because my co-worker ended up paying most of the funeral expenses herself because Ex's family is always broke.
Family member: Grandmother repeatedly tells grandkids she has changed her will to give most of it to her 6 grandkids (she had two sons, Bert and Ernie, but only Bert is still living). Bert is doing very well for himself, and Grandmother doesn’t like his second wife – blames the wife for Bert never visiting.
Final will leaves 75% to Bert, 25% split amongst the 6 grandkids. This isn't what Grandmother kept saying, but ok, no problem.
Except - The will also happened to be have been re-written during one of her many periods of hospitalization, with one of Bert’s buddies acting as a witness. Bert’s kids decide it’s not worth it to challenge, and the Ernie's kids stop speaking to Bert completely.
Post by: talltexan on January 05, 2016, 07:31:09 AM
Post by: TravelJunkyQC on January 05, 2016, 08:17:50 AM
I just learned about this--apparently when my father-in-law was literally hours away from death my two youngest sisters-in-law were going around his house putting different-colored sticky notes on the furniture they wanted, which was most of it. Sigh.
After my grand-father passed away, my grand-mother told her kids (my dad is one of five), to put sticky notes on anything they wanted in the house - for when she would eventually pass. My aunts and uncles live relatively close (max 400 km for the farthest). My dad lives 800 km away and as such, wasn't able to participate in such ridiculousness because he wasn't around soon enough. My grand-mother also favours her two girls anyway. She is still alive at 96, my father is 63 and frankly couldn't give a shit about accumulating more stuff (my parents are epic mustachians and are multi-millionaires in their own right). Old photo albums and my grand-father's war medals are the only things my father would have liked to have (or at least a few photos). But since he wasn't around, my grand-mother told him, «meh, tough, should have been there».
No one in my family is poor, everyone has done very well for themselves - why do you need some furniture then? I don't get it.
Post by: Wilson Hall on January 05, 2016, 08:58:59 AM
Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
Yep.
My spouse recently collected the single household item he had hoped to inherit from his grandmother. She is still alive and healthy but is in the process of decluttering the house. As far as we know, no one else was coveting this piece, and spouse, who has never asked for or received anything else, is happy and content. He says if he inherits anything after his grandmother's passing, it will be icing on the cake.
Post by: mm1970 on January 05, 2016, 10:16:09 AM
On one side of my family, the only drama after grandparents died was over personal possessions rather than money. Some of my parents generation placed extreme sentimental value on specific items, and other members of that generation scooped them up without asking or discussing. I don't think it was malicious, but it certainly upset some folks who didn't realize their siblings had such hard-ons for certain pieces of furniture or whatever.This reminds me of a friend and her grandfather.
On the other side of the family, things got significantly more complicated because one of my poor/needy cousins was living in my grandparent's house (at well below market rent, but not for free) after the grandparent moved into a nursing home. All of the siblings who equally inherited a portion of that house wanted to sell it and split the proceeds, except of course the sibling whose kid was living in the house, who naturally argued that if grandparent was offering cut-rate rent then they clearly wanted the cousins to have the house. That sibling refused to buy out the other siblings, even though there was plenty of money available in the inheritance to do so. Much of the drama came from spouses of siblings, rather than the siblings themselves.
In the end, the sibling who was the executor had to evict my cousin, sell the house, and then equal distributing the proceeds. It took several years for family holiday dinners to get back to semi-normal because there was this lingering anger over the eviction of a family member. Who was present at said dinners with the person who evicted them.
Lesson 1: before you make your will, ask your kids/grandkids what specific items they most want to have after you die. Don't assume, ask. Write it into the will.
Lesson 2: disposing of real estate is difficult, and potentially more so if it's rented. Unless you're stewarding a family estate/castle, try to die without any.
Her grandfather had a slow decline, to where he could not care for himself and was in a wheelchair. He had some "money", as in - he'd owned a business and sold it. He also owned a house and a small lot next door, which they used as a yard (but it was a buildable lot).
His will was essentially set up to split everything among his sons, but nothing to his daughters (wow that sounds familiar). However, for the last 10-20 years, his grandson and family (wife, kids) lived with him in his house. His grandson (his daughter's son) cared for him, bathed him, fed him, etc. They paid rent and all utilities.
I really don't know the details of what happened when he died, but it looked to my friend that her brother and his family would be evicted, the house and lot would be sold separately. (This is a very expensive town, there is no way they could buy a house). In the end, the brother and family bought the house. Now, I don't know if they had to buy everyone out, if the will was changed to leave some to him, if the will was changed to leave some to the daughters, or what. But I'm very very happy that they were able to purchase the house, considering that he physically cared for the grandfather for so long.
Post by: mm1970 on January 05, 2016, 10:23:12 AM
My parents divorced when I was a teen. My mom left with literally the clothing on her back. I moved in with her 6 months later, at the end of a school year (had to change schools).Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
Yep.
My spouse recently collected the single household item he had hoped to inherit from his grandmother. She is still alive and healthy but is in the process of decluttering the house. As far as we know, no one else was coveting this piece, and spouse, who has never asked for or received anything else, is happy and content. He says if he inherits anything after his grandmother's passing, it will be icing on the cake.
She was still a little bitter, decades later, of the stuff she left there.
My dad died about 20 years after the divorce. My mom REALLY wanted her corn dishes. She had done ceramics for a few years, and had these dishes shaped like ears of corn, plus a platter, that she had made. Well, I flew back for my dad's burial. His will told my sister the executor to just "sell everything and divide the proceeds 7 ways". Let me tell you, my dad was the original Mustachian. There was not a single item in that house worth selling. Really. The walls still had dark wood paneling. The carpet in the living room was multicolor shag from 1971 (this was 2008). She expressly told everyone at the house after the burial "take what you want, the rest is getting dumped".
Long story short, I got my mom's corn dishes for her. She passed a few years ago too, but I think I might end up with them someday when my stepfather passes.
Best part about that burial day was going through a closet and finding a hanging clothing bag. Unzipped it to find one of my sister's prom dresses from the 1980s. Argued about whether it was hers or not. Anyway, pull out the dress and find my dad's Army uniform behind it, from WWII. What a treasure. We could have easily tossed the bag and never known it was there.
Also: selling the house was pretty easy. Sold full price within a week, in rural PA.
Post by: Zamboni on January 05, 2016, 10:53:33 AM
Quote from: padded hat
Dewey Cheatum and Howe
Gack I nearly peed myself with that one. The best part is that I know two guys (Dewey and Howe) who kind of really look alike and really really act alike and they are both pricks in a too-smart-fer-yer-own-good but still impishly likable kind of way. Ooohh, if only my name was Cheatum and we were all JD's, not PhD's. Besides the awesome hilarious pun, I will never be able to think about these two guys in the same way again since I know realize that they were so obviously twins separated at birth.
lets call her Grace.
because its a nice name.
and she was my grandmother.
This spoke to me.
One of my grandmother's was like this.
Let's call her Grace, too.
My Grandmother Grace got tossed out of her nursing home for biting another resident during a grannies-with-walkers full contact cat fight, Lord rest her gentle soul.
Lesson 2: disposing of real estate is difficult, and potentially more so if it's rented. Unless you're stewarding a family estate/castle, try to die without any.
Sage advice, Sol, and honestly I had never much thought about it before. I shall now try very hard not to die with any.
Post by: Daleth on January 05, 2016, 10:54:15 AM
Hiring a lawyer is always best when it comes to doing your will. It's not a big investment for most people, and if it is expensive, that means your estate and your plans for it are complicated--in other words, you were all but guaranteed to screw it up if you didn't get a lawyer.
I would personally say you can get away with something like ZegalZoom or Quicken Wills if you're young with limited assets and no kids. Once you start getting material assets and kids are in the picture, a will and trust are the way to go.
I completely agree. I wasn't even thinking of young people with no kids and minimal assets, since they generally don't do wills at all and there's no great tragedy if they fail to (no kids left unsupported, etc., and if they're married and die young, the spouse will typically get at least half if not all the assets automatically). But yeah, as soon as you're out of that demographic, you need a real lawyer, a will and a trust.
Some employers offer legal insurance or prepaid legal plans as part of open enrollment. They're normally a horrible deal, but they turn into an excellent deal if you use one to get a trust put together. We did this last year, and it was well worth it. I think we spent less than $200 for a full will, trust, and related power of attorney.
Wow, that's a great deal!
Post by: plainjane on January 05, 2016, 10:57:45 AM
Luckily this problem is fixing itself, my kid bro turns 18 next week.
I don't think this problem fixes itself unless your parents made that portion of the will time-sensitive. You might want to check that they're doing a new one.
Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
It's a very minor thing, but when my grandmother was going to downsize, we were asked if there was anything we wanted. I mentioned a knickknack that I had always loved, and apparently I was the only person to mention, so that was fairly easy (they also gave me a second item that was similar to the first which I hadn't known about but was arguably cooler).
However, there was another sentimental thing that I couldn't have asked for while she was alive. I mentioned it after she passed (she never got out of the hospital to do the downsizing move), but it had "disappeared". Some things went missing during the open house, and I really hope it was taken by someone who knew why it was important, rather than a random thief. My Dad implied it was a family member, but even years later it annoys that they won't just admit it.
Post by: Wilson Hall on January 05, 2016, 11:09:28 AM
My parents divorced when I was a teen. My mom left with literally the clothing on her back. I moved in with her 6 months later, at the end of a school year (had to change schools).Step-dad actually gave us great advice about sentimental items – if you really want it, talk to them while they are alive.
Yep.
My spouse recently collected the single household item he had hoped to inherit from his grandmother. She is still alive and healthy but is in the process of decluttering the house. As far as we know, no one else was coveting this piece, and spouse, who has never asked for or received anything else, is happy and content. He says if he inherits anything after his grandmother's passing, it will be icing on the cake.
She was still a little bitter, decades later, of the stuff she left there.
My dad died about 20 years after the divorce. My mom REALLY wanted her corn dishes. She had done ceramics for a few years, and had these dishes shaped like ears of corn, plus a platter, that she had made. Well, I flew back for my dad's burial. His will told my sister the executor to just "sell everything and divide the proceeds 7 ways". Let me tell you, my dad was the original Mustachian. There was not a single item in that house worth selling. Really. The walls still had dark wood paneling. The carpet in the living room was multicolor shag from 1971 (this was 2008). She expressly told everyone at the house after the burial "take what you want, the rest is getting dumped".
Long story short, I got my mom's corn dishes for her. She passed a few years ago too, but I think I might end up with them someday when my stepfather passes.
Best part about that burial day was going through a closet and finding a hanging clothing bag. Unzipped it to find one of my sister's prom dresses from the 1980s. Argued about whether it was hers or not. Anyway, pull out the dress and find my dad's Army uniform behind it, from WWII. What a treasure. We could have easily tossed the bag and never known it was there.
Also: selling the house was pretty easy. Sold full price within a week, in rural PA.
Good story, mm1970! Thank goodness that clothing bag didn't get thrown out.
I especially like your description of the house, '70s swag carpet and all. There's been a bit of grumbling in one branch of my family for the opposite reason: a house that has been partially remodeled after a widowed family member remarried. The new spouse has caught all the blame for updating the home. Clearly, the grown children think it's a slap in the face to the departed.
Post by: Zamboni on January 05, 2016, 11:15:53 AM
Also, I witnessed the "why didn't you just sell your house before you died!" squabble when my brother's grandmother-in-law died. (Aside: Am I the only one having trouble following some of the relationships in this thread?)
She left her small house & surrounding fair amount of rural property to be evenly divided between something like 10 grandchildren (who were all grown and had spouses and their own children). Although it was only worth something like $110K total (that's total, not each), her heirs simply could not agree on what it was worth or what to do with it. I don't know if it was legal entanglements that held up everything or if there was some unspoken moral obligation to reach consensus before doing anything.
Some wanted to fix up the house, subdivide the land, and sell it in smaller plots to the highest bidders, some wanted to sell it "as is" as quickly as possible to the first bidder, some wanted to sell it only if someone in the family bought it, some family members wanted to buy it but thought it was worth less than the "selling" family members thought, and some wanted to never sell it at all. Protracted bickering ensued.
Post by: Threshkin on January 05, 2016, 11:21:56 AM
Father remarries shortly after. Daughter "hates" step mother (SM), tries to convince Son of same. Minimal contact between Father and daughter. Fast forward 35 years. Father has had a good life, SM had successful career and enabled Father to live a good life. Father was very happy with his life but was disappointed with Daughter because she never did anything with her (very expensive) college education. Father's relation with Son is not close but good. Father is proud of Son's accomplishments despite no college degree.
Father contracts terminal cancer. SM provides all care. After Father dies, before will is read, Daughter informs SM that she will come to collect Father's possessions, completely ignoring 35 years of marriage and SM's loss. SM refuses. Will is read, all Father's assets are left to SM except for equal, small (low 5 figure) tax-free cash bequests to Daughter and Son.
Back to Mother. Daughter has limited contact with Mother. Lives out of state and only talks when Mother calls Daughter. Mother is sad about this. Son asks Daughter about this and is told it is "too hard" to talk to Mother. This goes on for roughly 40 years.
Fast forward 2 years from Father's death. Mother suffers catastrophic but not life threatening illness and has to go to nursing home. Mother lives in same town as Son so Son takes care of all arrangements. Sister comes out to visit but is not interested in spending time with Mother. Instead Daughter is only interested in Mother's possessions.
Acrimony ensues. Son tells Daughter that he is not interested in Mother's possessions, he is concerned about Mother. Daughter takes this to mean that Son will "throw out" all of Mother's possessions.
Mother, Daughter and Son meet. Mother tells children to split possessions equally between them except for one higher-value item that is given to Son's wife specifically. Daughter proceeds to pack up everything she wants with little to no consideration for Son's desires and with no inventory of what she is taking.
Son is working and caring for Mother. Daughter visiting, focused on packing everything she wants and does not have "time" to go see Mother. Son is pissed off and tells Daughter to get her priorities straight. Much drama ensues. Daughter states she "is only trying to get stuff to remember her happy childhood." Implies that Son is reason for parents divorce. Daughter is also upset that Mother chose to live near Son despite the fact that Daughter never communicated with Mother for 40 years. Son is upset that Daughter is focused on taking mothers possessions when Mother is still living and needs comfort from both children not just Son. Daughter leaves with possessions and is not expected to return soon. Typically she only visited Mother for a few days once every 3-5 years. Remaining household possessions Daughter does not want are left for Son to deal with.
Mother has limited assets which will be sucked dry by nursing home costs within a year. Both Daughter and Son are comfortable financially. Daughter has less assets but has good cash flow from husband's pension and SS. Son has good assets and is still working.
Daughter has no children. Son has two children and one grandson.
Summary: Daughter is only interested in "things" despite having no heirs. Son is caring for Mother. Mother still does not understand why Daughter does not call or visit her.
Post by: merula on January 05, 2016, 11:48:01 AM
Lesson 2: disposing of real estate is difficult, and potentially more so if it's rented. Unless you're stewarding a family estate/castle, try to die without any.
Sage advice, Sol, and honestly I had never much thought about it before. I shall now try very hard not to die with any.
This might be great advice for mustachians, but for the general public probably not. Your primary residence is exempt from Medicaid's assets limit (generally speaking and with some limitations), so you could easily run into a situation where having the heirs sell the home means that they get the proceeds, where if it had been sold during the owner's life, that money would have gone towards long-term care costs.
PS: Dewey, Cheatum and Howe is an old, old, old joke. :)
Post by: paddedhat on January 05, 2016, 12:34:34 PM
PS: Dewey, Cheatum and Howe is an old, old, old joke. :)
Yep, I first saw it on the Three Stooges, IIRC. Later Click and Clack credit the firm as being their legal council, while reading their totally silly credits, following each episode of Car Talk.
Post by: UnleashHell on January 05, 2016, 12:35:20 PM
lets call her Grace.
because its a nice name.
and she was my grandmother.
This spoke to me.
One of my grandmother's was like this.
Let's call her Grace, too.
My Grandmother Grace got tossed out of her nursing home for biting another resident during a grannies-with-walkers full contact cat fight, Lord rest her gentle soul.
.
LOL
Grace was ejected from bingo for attacking someone with her handbag.
Apparently it wasn't the first time because she was banned after that.
Post by: MishMash on January 05, 2016, 12:53:53 PM
My Grandmother was crazy as a freaking loon, and NASTY to boot. Sheliterally told my mom when my sister was dying that the brain cancer was my moms fault because she took the baby to the hospital, she was kicked out of ALL of the senior centers, senior buses, convenience stores, and grocery stores in her town for being a nasty cow to everyone, and was even kicked out of the hospital on Easter after throwing a bag of frozen pearled onions at my father who had just been admitted to ICU for a collapsed lung while screaming at him how she wanted her damn 85c for her "portion" of dinner since he ruined it.
Mom STILL bent over backwards to help her out as she was mom's only family. My worthless brother was ALWAYS GM's favorite, he could do no wrong and was just the "misunderstood" black sheep of the family (for the record, my brother is now 45, and has been living with my mom for the past 10 years). well mom had given my GM a car (our old one when the fourth child, me, was born) paid her rent in the old folks home etc over the years. GM passes away and there isn't much of an estate, but what WAS left was a note to my mother that she better pay for her God Damn funeral and that she'd left all her life insurance to my brother (who was at the time married, it was about 50k). My parents were always poor due to my dads non stop health issues so mom approached brother and his wife to ask for 2k of the life insurance for a cremation and head stone. My brothers ex wife promptly told my mom to fuck off, they had earned the life insurance money and that GM wanted mom to foot the bill. They promptly took a very expensive vacation and exactly one year later they declared their SECOND bankruptcy together.
We're currently dealing with drama on my husbands side over his grandfathers estate...we'll see how bad that drama gets.
Post by: Cressida on January 05, 2016, 01:26:38 PM
DH's dad called him up a couple of years ago to inform him that he was being removed from the will because we don't have kids. DH doesn't care about an inheritance, but he was understandably pissed off, on principle.
There was never going to be much, even before considering that DH's dad + spouse have a zillion grandkids. But recently they sold their house and used the proceeds to apply to a retirement community that also provides assisted living and nursing home care, so now I expect there to be exactly nothing.
Like I said, we don't care (and didn't even before we were disinherited, ha), but DH's sister is pretty pissed. She and her husband have been foreclosed on twice yet always seem to have two new SUV loans - you know the type.
Post by: partgypsy on January 05, 2016, 03:17:31 PM
Another story not quite as bad, is my great grandfather died, and in addition to some blue chip stocks, my mother inherited some piece of furniture (armoire?) from his house that she always admired. But, she never went to get it or arrange to have it shipped (different city). Some 15 years later she gets around to visit and that and the other pieces of family furniture were gone (presumbably sold by the uncle's wife). My mother was shocked and outraged that they sold the family furniture, but for some reason find it slightly humorous. From what I remember the furniture in his house was big dark-stained hulking pieces (think Addams family).
Post by: Beaker on January 05, 2016, 04:08:33 PM
Post by: Zamboni on January 05, 2016, 04:13:30 PM
DH's dad called him up a couple of years ago to inform him that he was being removed from the will because we don't have kids. DH doesn't care about an inheritance, but he was understandably pissed off, on principle.
Oh no! That's exactly what Grace the Biter did to my aunt (Mom's youngest sister). Right there in front of us all announced that she wasn't leaving anything at all to that sister because, in her exact words, "you don't have any heirs." Sounds bitchy, right? Well now consider it in context: this particular aunt of mine did in fact have a son. He was tragically born with x-linked muscular dystrophy that caused a lifetime of progressive disability until he died in his teens a few years before this conversation.
So, when Grace started to get batty a few years later and my aunt decided to start slyly pilfering whatever she wanted while Grace was still alive, it actively pissed off my Mom and other aunt, but I always felt that Grace basically deserved it. Ironically, my Mom has finally had the nerve to get rid of every single item that Grace foisted upon her with a big song-dance-and-guilt trip over many years.
And yes, I'm sure Grace the biter, like any 3-year-old enrolled in a new preschool, also was granted clemency for multiple incidents involving bite wounds before they finally tossed her out.
But I can't even come close to winning the meanest Grandma contest with Grace the biter. That award goes go the Grandma of this guy I used to work with, who had a continuous stream of the most outrageous stories of old lady evil because he continued to go over there every week to mow her lawn, drive her to the store, etc. He was constantly putting himself in the line of fire by bringing her little presents that she would request. When presented, the item ended up drawing her wrath because he was being "so cheap!" by buying exactly what she said she wanted. Pretty sure this guy was also one of the original mustachians, so he neither needed nor wanted a penny from her. Perhaps he kept going over there week after week just to have another story to tell at work?
Post by: mikefixac on January 05, 2016, 04:33:44 PM
With those monies, wife's family was able to afford a deposit on a house. It was by owning that home, they started on the path to a solid middle class life.
Because of that, wife's parents have said that wife gets the house and then the rest is split 50/50 with her other sibling. Wife told other sibling, don't worry, we're splitting everything down the middle, including the house. She's a good girl.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 05, 2016, 04:37:38 PM
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
Hmm. I'm adopting my daughter out of foster care as a teenager, it's very likely that I will adopt more, and since I'm adopting teenagers (as opposed to the more fashionable babies or toddlers) it's probable that one or more will reach the age of majority, "aging out of the system", before the adoption is finalized. That wouldn't make them any less a son or daughter of mine. Now, my parents for a variety of logistics reasons aren't going out of their way to be welcoming or inclusive, but if they were to preemptively disinherit one of my kids for being adopted, or for being adopted after their 18th birthday because of administrative nonsense beyond their control, it would really piss me off.
I really don't care what my parents do with their money, and although they're rather affluent I don't expect an inheritance because they make stupid investment decisions. Even if they die in a non-broke condition, for me it's not about the money. It's about control. I don't let my parents manipulate me while alive, so I'm not going to let them do it after my death. I'm not a fan of manipulative "dead hand" stunts to control what heirs do with an inheritance.
Post by: hernandz on January 05, 2016, 04:39:09 PM
Bis-abuelo left his wife and 4 living adult children in NYC to go back to the hillbilly farm in Puerto Rico, found another woman to take care of him, and fathered one last daughter. Said farm was less than 10 acres, and a shack with no running water. All 5 children inherited equally, but because of bad blood between first family and second family, and bad official record-keeping, legal status of property is screwed up beyond belief. Youngest daughter, by virtue of being on the property, managed to replace shack with better but un-permitted house for herself, then second house (also without permits) for her son's family. All original heirs are deceased, so now there are 2nd and 3rd generation heirs. Tax liens from time to time because title was never properly transferred to 1st-generation heirs and notices delivered to property address, although taxes have been mostly paid by the 2nd/3rd heirs living in NY/NJ/CT/FL/HI.
Every few years, the question of what to do with it flares up again. Not an income property, no longer useful as farm, can't sell without agreement of all remaining heirs, and would have to tackle the C of O for the new houses, not to mention any liens, back taxes and re-survey -- all to happen within Puerto Rican bureaucracy. My brother took about 6 months last year speaking with a local lawyer about the survey and getting taxes current again -- but the question of forcing out the descendant living on the property or suing them touched off another round of recriminations ("Mom/Dad/abuela would have wanted us to ...").
So, 50 years later, each heir is fighting over 1/10th share or less, while not having enough money to buy out anyone else's share and repair the legal deficiencies of the property. I suppose they are all waiting for some mythical RE developer to hand them lottery-sized checks while picking up all the expenses, thus justifying the word "inheritance" but since it can't even be torched for profit and none of us are in the meth business, I think that relinquishing it all to the illegitimate grandson who lives on the property without compensation is worth the peace of mind.
My Mom periodically threatens to die just so that I, as her executor and oldest heir, can wade through this muck.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 05, 2016, 04:52:44 PM
^^I'm sorry, but if someone leaves a big hulking piece of furniture sitting in someone else's house for one year (let alone 15), then that person fully deserves to discover that it has disappeared.
Even if it's the only known door to Narnia, I agree.
Post by: Vanguards and Lentils on January 05, 2016, 04:58:41 PM
I'm not going into the whole drama, but my husband's grandmother specified that everything be split 50/50 between the two daughters. The only problem is that there were assets that there was no way could be split 50/50, in particular a piece of family land that had a cabin that the grandfather had built. But the grandmother just kept with, everything, 50/50. One daughter was sentimentally attached to the land and wanted to keep it in the family, the other wanted to either buy out the land/cabin at a discounted rate, or sell it and split the money 50/50.
Protip: If it's just between two people, there is an optimal way to split things 50/50. First note that selling the property and splitting the proceeds DOES benefit both parties equally; however something feels "wrong" with this approach since one was more attached to it than the other. And it might not be optimal if the property were, e.g., worth $70k to her, but she only received $50k as her share of the sale.
The best way to do it is to have each daughter make a silent bid (they could simultaneously exchange slips of paper on which they wrote their bid amount) to decide the winner. Then the winner gets to have the property, and gives some cash to the loser. With numbers, this might work as
A bids $70k
B bids $60k.
Then A gets the property, and sends $70k/2 = 35k to B. In the end, A feels like she received $35k and B feels like she received $35k, and neither "envies" the other's position.
Post by: BlueHouse on January 06, 2016, 07:51:40 AM
The last time he was here, he kept complaining that I got "all the family heirlooms". I finally said "take them. take whatever you want." It was then that he (and I) realized (again) that neither of us really wants any of it.
As an example, the last item that brought this out was an ugly-ass ceramic flower pot, in the shape of a donkey toting a cart (the pot part). My grandmother always kept it on her kitchen table with African Violets in it. It's so ugly, that it's somewhat appealing. Anyway, it always makes me laugh. So that flowerpot goes from the top shelf in my kitchen cabinet to on my kitchen table about once per year. My friends LOVE it when I put it out, because it is so NOT me. I have a mostly-minimalist house and this thing looks so out of place that you cannot help but stare at it and admire the crazy of anyone who likes it.
Post by: partgypsy on January 06, 2016, 09:34:18 AM
^^I'm sorry, but if someone leaves a big hulking piece of furniture sitting in someone else's house for one year (let alone 15), then that person fully deserves to discover that it has disappeared.
Even if it's the only known door to Narnia, I agree.
I agree. That's why I found it humorous. People get weird when people die. They want to grab a piece of them in the form of some memento that gets blown out of proportion.
For my family, the most important thing to me, was my piano music sheets, one of my grandmother's crocheted blankets- done and done), and family photos. I visited my Mom a few years ago and I wanted to take some personal effects of mine. It was about 5 inches of paperwork (first stories I ever wrote, drawings, school reports, sat, gre test results) stored in a cubby labeled with my name. She had thrown them out, though cubbies with the other kids' name still had their stuff. And she still had entire file cabinets filled with 20-40 year old papers of her own. She wouldn't give me any family photos or let me make copies. So I already know there is nothing in the house that I want. My father lives in an efficiency apartment. He allowed me to make a copy of a couple family photos (there is only a few) and so that's done. Neither has a will. It will be a mess when my Mom dies, for multiple reasons.
Post by: MgoSam on January 06, 2016, 09:37:00 AM
Post by: HairyUpperLip on January 06, 2016, 09:42:04 AM
I know when my paternal grandmother passed there was some drama but my parents refuse to share any of the details with my brothers or myself.
Post by: Pigeon on January 06, 2016, 10:05:44 AM
Post by: onlykelsey on January 06, 2016, 10:08:46 AM
Looking back, the reason it started with just threatening vague letters from a lawyer was that he had no leg to stand on, but jesus. and I still talked to him for several years after that! Idiotic.
Post by: Pooperman on January 06, 2016, 10:10:55 AM
My paternal grandparents are fairly wealthy AFAIK. The will, from what I remember seeing when I was a kid (so it may have since changed, I'm not sure) will split it 33% to each of the three children and 1% split between the 7 grandkids. I don't care if I see any of that money since I already have the inheritance I want. I am the custodian of family documents (pretty much intact) going back nearly 150 years. Civil War pension documents, WW1 enlistment record, wills, property deeds, etc. I doubt there will be any kind of fight between the kids, but if there is it'll be my uncle.
My maternal grandparents do ok but aren't on the same level of wealth as far as I can tell. No clue how they'll do things since their three kids are all well off. I don't think anything will happen there unless there's something with a cousin or two, which I hope won't happen.
As of yet, no issues in my family
DW's family is another matter. I know there's been some stuff that happened between some of her cousins, aunts, and stuff like that over inheritances. I'm not sure of any of the details though beyond the instance where one of her cousins that wanted the insurance money before his mother was even cold. He's an only child so there's no infighting, just greed. If there're any issues in the future, they'll come from her brother's wife (and I think the chances are pretty high of something happening knowing how she is).
Post by: pompera_firpa on January 06, 2016, 10:28:11 AM
My dad has some money set up (I think he was Mustachian before that was a thing) in trusts and investments and whatnot, but he knows that we give zero fucks about it, so he thinks it's hilarious to constantly tell me and my sister "I'M SPENDING YOUR INHERITANCE!" every time he buys something.
Post by: Frankies Girl on January 06, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Quicky background: both from poor/uneducated rural families, my grandparents worked themselves like dogs to run a gas station/mechanic shop/dry goods store in their small town, and ended up being very comfortable in their old age. 5 children, one son deceased, one living son (asshole uncle, or AU for short), 3 daughters (one my mom, one lazy/slightly dysfunctional one, and one druggie/alcoholic petty criminal one).
After my grandmother passed, uncle had insisted on reading the will while standing at the gravesite before she was even buried (as per my previous story). It actually took about a week after.
Among other things, there was a large parcel of land - abut 100 acres - that had been in my grandfather's family for at least 3 generations. It was left in my grandmother's will divided by 5 - the 4 living children and the only child of the deceased son (my cousin). It was mostly wooded, used as farmland many years ago, but allowed to return to nature in the past 60 years.
I have fond memories of going out there to cut our Christmas trees with my grandparents and them farming a few acres and helping to pick turnips or corn or the like. And it was really nifty to know we'd eventually get this land with so much history and a part of our family.
AU was always a lying, money-chasing asshole. He did quite well in that he was successful, but was pretty awful to both of his parents and treated his siblings like garbage (granted, one of them was, but there were 2 very successful ones, and one that was just average). He had a reputation for double-dealing and cheating people but staying just on the right side of the law to avoid prosecution. He truly thought he was better than everyone else, and made sure you knew it too.
In any case, AU couldn't stand the idea of what he thought of as his birthright (the land) being divided out among his siblings and forced everyone into putting the land up for auction. It basically was because he refused every attempt to subdivide it or come to any sort of resolution short of him buying everyone out of their share at a pittance. So the parcel went up for auction. He was sure he would be able to swoop in and get all of the family land for nothing.
The auction company advertised it, and the rest of the heirs figured at least if they were to lose the family land, they should get something decent from it, so they were very sad, but resigned. The thing is, in the past 50 or so years, the land had become quite valuable as it was near a lakefront area that had become highly sought after.
AU put on a great show at the auction for many minutes upping his bids to outbid the others that had showed up. But then he was outbid by a developer that intended to put in a premium resort home community. AU didn't have that kind of money, and because he thought he was such hot shit, it never even occurred to him that he might lose it. He forced the sale of the land to try to put one over the rest of the siblings because he was so greedy, and ended up costing all of them something that they should have been able to own and enjoy for many more generations.
I don't think any of the rest of the family has spoken to him since, (he'd done many horrible things over the years) and honestly all of them probably wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire.
Post by: Cookie78 on January 06, 2016, 10:48:57 AM
Just remembered another goodie...
Quicky background: both from poor/uneducated rural families, my grandparents worked themselves like dogs to run a gas station/mechanic shop/dry goods store in their small town, and ended up being very comfortable in their old age. 5 children, one son deceased, one living son (asshole uncle, or AU for short), 3 daughters (one my mom, one lazy/slightly dysfunctional one, and one druggie/alcoholic petty criminal one).
After my grandmother passed, uncle had insisted on reading the will while standing at the gravesite before she was even buried (as per my previous story). It actually took about a week after.
Among other things, there was a large parcel of land - abut 100 acres - that had been in my grandfather's family for at least 3 generations. It was left in my grandmother's will divided by 5 - the 4 living children and the only child of the deceased son (my cousin). It was mostly wooded, used as farmland many years ago, but allowed to return to nature in the past 60 years.
I have fond memories of going out there to cut our Christmas trees with my grandparents and them farming a few acres and helping to pick turnips or corn or the like. And it was really nifty to know we'd eventually get this land with so much history and a part of our family.
AU was always a lying, money-chasing asshole. He did quite well in that he was successful, but was pretty awful to both of his parents and treated his siblings like garbage (granted, one of them was, but there were 2 very successful ones, and one that was just average). He had a reputation for double-dealing and cheating people but staying just on the right side of the law to avoid prosecution. He truly thought he was better than everyone else, and made sure you knew it too.
In any case, AU couldn't stand the idea of what he thought of as his birthright (the land) being divided out among his siblings and forced everyone into putting the land up for auction. It basically was because he refused every attempt to subdivide it or come to any sort of resolution short of him buying everyone out of their share at a pittance. So the parcel went up for auction. He was sure he would be able to swoop in and get all of the family land for nothing.
The auction company advertised it, and the rest of the heirs figured at least if they were to lose the family land, they should get something decent from it, so they were very sad, but resigned. The thing is, in the past 50 or so years, the land had become quite valuable as it was near a lakefront area that had become highly sought after.
AU put on a great show at the auction for many minutes upping his bids to outbid the others that had showed up. But then he was outbid by a developer that intended to put in a premium resort home community. AU didn't have that kind of money, and because he thought he was such hot shit, it never even occurred to him that he might lose it. He forced the sale of the land to try to put one over the rest of the siblings because he was so greedy, and ended up costing all of them something that they should have been able to own and enjoy for many more generations.
I don't think any of the rest of the family has spoken to him since, (he'd done many horrible things over the years) and honestly all of them probably wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire.
That's incredibly sad. There's a piece of property that my great grandparents built a homestead on that my father owns now (His grandmother sold it to him). It's a meaningful piece of land, not just for my family, but for the entire extended family descended from the original owner. My father struggles with how to include it in his will to ensure that it stays in the family for a long time to come. There's no chance my brothers or I would ever sell it, but he's more worried about divorces and vindictive ex's and such. My father never talks about wills or inheritance, except in this case as it's so important to him. I'm glad that I trust both of my brothers that something like this would never happen.
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on January 06, 2016, 11:17:54 AM
My family today is still involved in a tussle over my great-grandfather's property following his death in the mid-1960s.
Bis-abuelo left his wife and 4 living adult children in NYC to go back to the hillbilly farm in Puerto Rico, found another woman to take care of him, and fathered one last daughter. Said farm was less than 10 acres, and a shack with no running water. All 5 children inherited equally, but because of bad blood between first family and second family, and bad official record-keeping, legal status of property is screwed up beyond belief. Youngest daughter, by virtue of being on the property, managed to replace shack with better but un-permitted house for herself, then second house (also without permits) for her son's family. All original heirs are deceased, so now there are 2nd and 3rd generation heirs. Tax liens from time to time because title was never properly transferred to 1st-generation heirs and notices delivered to property address, although taxes have been mostly paid by the 2nd/3rd heirs living in NY/NJ/CT/FL/HI.
Every few years, the question of what to do with it flares up again. Not an income property, no longer useful as farm, can't sell without agreement of all remaining heirs, and would have to tackle the C of O for the new houses, not to mention any liens, back taxes and re-survey -- all to happen within Puerto Rican bureaucracy. My brother took about 6 months last year speaking with a local lawyer about the survey and getting taxes current again -- but the question of forcing out the descendant living on the property or suing them touched off another round of recriminations ("Mom/Dad/abuela would have wanted us to ...").
So, 50 years later, each heir is fighting over 1/10th share or less, while not having enough money to buy out anyone else's share and repair the legal deficiencies of the property. I suppose they are all waiting for some mythical RE developer to hand them lottery-sized checks while picking up all the expenses, thus justifying the word "inheritance" but since it can't even be torched for profit and none of us are in the meth business, I think that relinquishing it all to the illegitimate grandson who lives on the property without compensation is worth the peace of mind.
My Mom periodically threatens to die just so that I, as her executor and oldest heir, can wade through this muck.
Eventually somebody will stop paying taxes on it and the government will solve the problem for you. I think you have the right idea.
Post by: mm1970 on January 06, 2016, 12:07:27 PM
When my mother (unmarried to my father, and the sole earner since my sister and I were born) tragically died when my sister and I were 16 and 13, and didn't leave 100% of her assets (mostly life insurance from her job) to our father, our father tried to sue me, his high school-aged daughter, for my share (properly recognizing that "caring" for my younger sister was a cash cow he shouldn't slaughter).OMFG
Looking back, the reason it started with just threatening vague letters from a lawyer was that he had no leg to stand on, but jesus. and I still talked to him for several years after that! Idiotic.
Post by: Kitsunegari on January 06, 2016, 08:18:35 PM
When my mother (unmarried to my father, and the sole earner since my sister and I were born) tragically died when my sister and I were 16 and 13, and didn't leave 100% of her assets (mostly life insurance from her job) to our father, our father tried to sue me, his high school-aged daughter, for my share (properly recognizing that "caring" for my younger sister was a cash cow he shouldn't slaughter).OMFG
Looking back, the reason it started with just threatening vague letters from a lawyer was that he had no leg to stand on, but jesus. and I still talked to him for several years after that! Idiotic.
Seriously, you won the shitty family stories competition.
Post by: onlykelsey on January 06, 2016, 08:20:06 PM
Quote
Seriously, you won the shitty family stories competition.
But I haven't told you about the time he drunk drove my 6 year old sister in to a pole! Winner all around.
Hopefully it's not genetic. I think it's definitely one of the reasons I'm so
Post by: cautiouspessimist on January 07, 2016, 09:36:26 AM
My one contribution to this thread is a piece of advice: if you’re writing a will or trust, or giving any advice whatsoever to anyone else who’s doing so, make sure that it is written to exclude anyone whom an heir adopts as an adult.
Hmm. I'm adopting my daughter out of foster care as a teenager, it's very likely that I will adopt more, and since I'm adopting teenagers (as opposed to the more fashionable babies or toddlers) it's probable that one or more will reach the age of majority, "aging out of the system", before the adoption is finalized. That wouldn't make them any less a son or daughter of mine. Now, my parents for a variety of logistics reasons aren't going out of their way to be welcoming or inclusive, but if they were to preemptively disinherit one of my kids for being adopted, or for being adopted after their 18th birthday because of administrative nonsense beyond their control, it would really piss me off.
Good for you! This is a topic I've looked into a bit more lately, and it really makes me sad how many kids age out without any family.
Post by: G-dog on January 07, 2016, 10:44:15 AM
My story has no real drama or conflict, but I'll toss it out there. My mom inherited everything (not much) when my dad died. I am one of the two kids they had. My sibling is about 9 years older than me. The plan was my mom would leave everything (still not much) to the two of us, but eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling. But, then when my mom finally did get sick one last time, I understood better why my mom had cut sibling out of the will. So, in the end, I followed the will's instructions, and accepted the estate.
BTW - I was the executor too, even for a simple will, it is a PITA! It must be extremely horrid for more complex will's and estates!
Post by: Daleth on January 07, 2016, 11:19:49 AM
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
Post by: G-dog on January 07, 2016, 11:41:53 AM
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
I had an attorney for probate, since I no longer live in the same county as my mom. I would have asked the attorney's advice. Of course, not everything in an estate is necessarily subject to probate. Why would I be paying taxes when giving something away? I can see the recipient having to pay tax....
I didn't expect or count on anything - I guess I am just glad it didn't cost me a bunch of money.
Post by: mtn on January 07, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
The silliness was when my great Aunt passed. She never married. She had 9 siblings, and countless [great [great [great]]] nieces and nephews. Of all of those, only my mom and my siblings really took care of her--my mothers siblings, along with one set of their cousins, were pretty good about helping, but they all live 4-8 hours away. It was mostly mom, and to a lesser extent my brothers and I.
She was overall pretty mustachian, and I know that her estate was well over 7 figures. Her siblings were not all well off. She divided everything very fairly--it was split evenly 9 ways; if that sibling had passed, it was split evenly among their kids--so my mom was one of 5, since her mother had passed she got 20% of 11% of the estate.
Well, great aunt's sister-in-law--who is separated from my great uncle, because she is a kook--has called my mother and her cousin asking for her copy of the will multiple times. It is just silly.
As for the "right way" vs. the "wrong way", my moms mom did it the wrong way--she didn't get rid of anything. They had an auction, estate sale, gave stuff away to their cousins--all the kids took the good stuff that they wanted, but it took a year to get everything done.
My dads parents did it the right way. For about 3 years before my grandma died (in their house) they were giving stuff away, telling their kids (and grandkids) to get whatever they wanted because it needed to go. When they sold their vacation home, the furniture and everything went with it (everyone had the chance to grab whatever they wanted). Grandpa then had an estate sale, moved to assisted living, and when he died we had a couch, buffet, small table, 2 chairs, bed, dresser, and bed side table left. We rented a UHaul and took it to Vincent DePaul (thrift store) and were done with it. Total time was a week.
Post by: Pooperman on January 07, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
I had an attorney for probate, since I no longer live in the same county as my mom. I would have asked the attorney's advice. Of course, not everything in an estate is necessarily subject to probate. Why would I be paying taxes when giving something away? I can see the recipient having to pay tax....
I didn't expect or count on anything - I guess I am just glad it didn't cost me a bunch of money.
Gift tax works like this: You can give a $14k gift to me (or anyone) once per year and not have to report it. You can give me a gift for $100k and you'd only have to report $86k of it to the IRS. Of this $86k you will pay... $0 in tax unless you've exceeded your lifetime limit (somewhere about $5,450,000).
Post by: Reynold on January 07, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
Post by: mtn on January 07, 2016, 01:07:33 PM
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
I had an attorney for probate, since I no longer live in the same county as my mom. I would have asked the attorney's advice. Of course, not everything in an estate is necessarily subject to probate. Why would I be paying taxes when giving something away? I can see the recipient having to pay tax....
I didn't expect or count on anything - I guess I am just glad it didn't cost me a bunch of money.
Gift tax works like this: You can give a $14k gift to me (or anyone) once per year and not have to report it. You can give me a gift for $100k and you'd only have to report $86k of it to the IRS. Of this $86k you will pay... $0 in tax unless you've exceeded your lifetime limit (somewhere about $5,450,000).
Can you give multiple people $14k gifts?
I don't think so, because I remember my grandparents paying my parents (and dads siblings) mortgages for a couple months to get around the gift tax stuff. Which is odd, because there wouldn't have been any tax on the estate.
Post by: Pooperman on January 07, 2016, 01:27:24 PM
...eventually got mad enough at my sibling that she removed them from the will. She told me she had done this, likely told sibling too. I wasn't sure she had, or if it was just a threat. I always thought that if it was true, when the time came I would just transfer 50% to my sibling.
For anyone who's thinking about doing something like this, remember you can't "just transfer" significant amounts of cash or property to someone--you will be on the hook for taxes on the amount you transfer, unless it's going to a spouse. Your state or country may also have a very short list of other people you can give it to without taxes--my point is, find out what your local law is if you're even remotely considering doing something like this.
IRS state that you can make tax-free gifts up to a certain amount to just about anyone.
"The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
The annual exclusion applies to gifts to each donee. In other words, if you give each of your children $11,000 in 2002-2005, $12,000 in 2006-2008, $13,000 in 2009-2012 and $14,000 on or after January 1, 2013, the annual exclusion applies to each gift. The annual exclusion for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is $14,000."
I had an attorney for probate, since I no longer live in the same county as my mom. I would have asked the attorney's advice. Of course, not everything in an estate is necessarily subject to probate. Why would I be paying taxes when giving something away? I can see the recipient having to pay tax....
I didn't expect or count on anything - I guess I am just glad it didn't cost me a bunch of money.
Gift tax works like this: You can give a $14k gift to me (or anyone) once per year and not have to report it. You can give me a gift for $100k and you'd only have to report $86k of it to the IRS. Of this $86k you will pay... $0 in tax unless you've exceeded your lifetime limit (somewhere about $5,450,000).
Can you give multiple people $14k gifts?
I don't think so, because I remember my grandparents paying my parents (and dads siblings) mortgages for a couple months to get around the gift tax stuff. Which is odd, because there wouldn't have been any tax on the estate.
You can give as many people as you want $14k gifts. None of them will need to be recorded with the IRS. Let's say your parents wanted to give you and your spouse $14k gifts. You could receive one from each of your parents and your spouse would as well, for a total of $52k that doesn't need to be reported. The lifetime gift exclusion is the same exclusion that is used for estates, since inheritances are treated as gifts! That's why you'd need an estate above $5,450,00 + # of recipients * $14k to pay any tax at all ;). In mustachian world, we call that 'a fuck ton' of money.
Post by: talltexan on January 07, 2016, 02:33:11 PM
I'm not going into the whole drama, but my husband's grandmother specified that everything be split 50/50 between the two daughters. The only problem is that there were assets that there was no way could be split 50/50, in particular a piece of family land that had a cabin that the grandfather had built. But the grandmother just kept with, everything, 50/50. One daughter was sentimentally attached to the land and wanted to keep it in the family, the other wanted to either buy out the land/cabin at a discounted rate, or sell it and split the money 50/50.
Protip: If it's just between two people, there is an optimal way to split things 50/50. First note that selling the property and splitting the proceeds DOES benefit both parties equally; however something feels "wrong" with this approach since one was more attached to it than the other. And it might not be optimal if the property were, e.g., worth $70k to her, but she only received $50k as her share of the sale.
The best way to do it is to have each daughter make a silent bid (they could simultaneously exchange slips of paper on which they wrote their bid amount) to decide the winner. Then the winner gets to have the property, and gives some cash to the loser. With numbers, this might work as
A bids $70k
B bids $60k.
Then A gets the property, and sends $70k/2 = 35k to B. In the end, A feels like she received $35k and B feels like she received $35k, and neither "envies" the other's position.
I agree with everything up until the amount of the check...I'd have it be for $30K, then A feels like she bought a $35K property for only $30K, and B should have accurately reported what sHe thought the property was really worth and ought not to complain.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 07, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
Post by: dandarc on January 07, 2016, 03:16:02 PM
I thought wills that set up trusts like this were supposed to have contingent trustees - in case first choice is unwilling or unable. I seriously doubt you'd have to serve as trustee if you don't want to.Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
Post by: sol on January 07, 2016, 03:20:40 PM
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
So say no.
You're not obligated to trustee their estate for them. Tell them you'll give him his portion up front and be done, or give him nothing ever, or they can find someone else to do it.
If they want a trustee to enforce conditions, every law firm will happily assume that duty for the right price. You shouldn't be expected to do it for free.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 07, 2016, 03:57:08 PM
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
So say no.
You're not obligated to trustee their estate for them. Tell them you'll give him his portion up front and be done, or give him nothing ever, or they can find someone else to do it.
If they want a trustee to enforce conditions, every law firm will happily assume that duty for the right price. You shouldn't be expected to do it for free.
I've said no, however I obviously can't control what other people put in their will. The fact I live in a different country will make it impossible to carry out the instructions even if I were willing. They don't seem to understand the difference between an executor and a trust administrator. I'm willing to be the executor if it's absolutely necessary (and would prefer that they pay somebody else to do it because of the logistics problem), but ongoing administration is out of the question.
Post by: Frankies Girl on January 07, 2016, 04:32:39 PM
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
So say no.
You're not obligated to trustee their estate for them. Tell them you'll give him his portion up front and be done, or give him nothing ever, or they can find someone else to do it.
If they want a trustee to enforce conditions, every law firm will happily assume that duty for the right price. You shouldn't be expected to do it for free.
I've said no, however I obviously can't control what other people put in their will. The fact I live in a different country will make it impossible to carry out the instructions even if I were willing. They don't seem to understand the difference between an executor and a trust administrator. I'm willing to be the executor if it's absolutely necessary (and would prefer that they pay somebody else to do it because of the logistics problem), but ongoing administration is out of the question.
Even if they insist on naming you as the trustee, you can still say no. If you are the executor, then you can probably name someone else like the estate lawyer to be the trustee (or at least ask them what to do since you're not going to do it) and whomever is appointed will also be able to charge an admin fee to do so against the brother's trust. But you definitely do not have to do it if you don't want to.
Post by: pdxbator on January 07, 2016, 04:40:45 PM
The problem wasn't with family in this scenario. It was her lawyer. A couple weeks prior to her death she changed her will to give a couple hundred thousand to a charity that the lawyer was involved with and no one knew she had any interest in. The lawyer was also appointed the person to take care of the estate. He was the one who had to sell the stocks, the house, etc. The lawyer could charge each hour for this and wound up billing the estate at least 200K. It sounded all super shady, but in my mind what can you really do other than throw money at more lawyers.
Well, that's what my other aunt, her sister, decided to do. She hired a lawyer to take this other lawyer to court. I didn't want to spend money on this. My aunt probably wound up spending at least 30K on her lawyer, or more. There were several hearings, lots of billable hours for lawyers etc. The judgement came.
Nada. The judge ruled that the lawyer was within his rights to do all this. My aunt spent tons of money that she actually could use as she's not wealthy and as far as I know has very little to live on. In addition, the judge ruled the lawyer could then charge the estate an additional 40K for the hours needed to defend himself. In the end I wound up having to pay for part of this case anyhow because that 40K came from the entire estate.
Lesson learned - lawyers are expensive.
Post by: notquitefrugal on January 07, 2016, 08:15:30 PM
Post by: sol on January 07, 2016, 08:58:45 PM
General observation from practicing law in a small town for almost a decade: A very high proportion of elderly couples who don't have children are wealthy.
Slight modification: a very high proportion of elderly couples with no children (who retire to small towns and can afford lawyers) are wealthy.
Post by: G-dog on January 07, 2016, 09:10:49 PM
General observation from practicing law in a small town for almost a decade: A very high proportion of elderly couples who don't have children are wealthy.
Slight modification: a very high proportion of elderly couples with no children (who retire to small towns and can afford lawyers) are wealthy.
LOL
Post by: Geostache on January 08, 2016, 07:45:14 AM
Back story: My maternal grandparents were very Mustachian, due to my Grand Father's (GF) sense of reason. He passed 11 years ago. My Grandmother is getting up in age, and keeps her son (my mother's brother) on adult welfare. To the tune of 10's of k per year. I've tried to talk to her about it, but whatever. It's her money. Now because G'ma is getting up in age, she's starting to get a little dementia. She's said some things that have made me say "what in the world are you talking about?" One of the things she has told me is that uncle told her he should have gotten half of my GF's money when he passed. I don't know if that was the dementia talking or not, but I would easily believe him saying something like that.
My Grandmother has made me executor of her will, and manager of my mother's trust (she has a mental illness and due to medicaid restrictions, cannot have many assets in order to qualify for help on her very expensive medicine). I was at one point manager of the trust set up for uncle. I told my grandmother that if she does that, I will immediately sign over his money to him anyway, since I knew that I would get harassed until I did. Grandmother changed the will. I have no idea what is happening with his money after she passes, although as executor, I know I'll find out when the time comes.
tl;dr: GF passed, partial-dementia grandma has son (my uncle) on adult life support, claims uncle wanted half of his father's money when he passed. I refused to be manager of uncle's trust, because I know he'd harass me until he got his money.
*edited for clarity.
Post by: Ashyukun on January 08, 2016, 12:02:11 PM
My maternal grandparents had two children: my Mom and her brother (my Uncle, of course). Uncle came back from Vietnam pretty messed up (was arrested upon entering the country for bringing in drugs) and spent pretty much his entire adult life being at least in some way supported by his parents. My Mom has led a fairly good life and done her best to never take anything from my Grandparents except in the form of loans despite their best efforts to give she and my Dad money over the years (because of how much they've given my Uncle). I learned a ways back though that my (now late, quite unfortunately) Grandfather was ridiculously meticulous with money before his Alzheimers got bad and that he had kept track of everything that he had ever given my Uncle (and my Mom, but that came largely to zero)- and that he and my Grandmother's wills were written such that the remaining assets when both had died would be split evenly- and then amount given to my Uncle over the years would subtracted from his share of the inheritance (having effectively already received it) and given to my Mom. Both my Mom and Uncle were informed of this, and until recently I figured it would be a source of acrimony between my family and my Uncle.
However in recent years he finally (somewhat...) pulled his life together and has been living without their support (somewhat ironically due to his finally being given a full disability by the VA). There's also the matter that my Grandmother is now living in an assisted-living facility- and hopefully she will live long enough there for there to be very little left of the would-be inheritance to be of concern.
SWMBO's family though... THAT will probably be something of a train wreck on multiple levels...
Post by: Hunny156 on January 08, 2016, 03:33:51 PM
Oh, and my Mom, her name actually IS Grace, and she almost got kicked out of a nursing home for dislocating a fellow resident's finger. See? Lots of similarities!
So Dad passed away weeks after I got married, and shortly thereafter we began to notice that he was hiding a secret from us, Mom was suffering from dementia. Still is actually, nearly 15 years later. My parents were fairly frugal, and they managed to amass an estate worth roughly 1 million at my Dad's passing. Some of that wealth disappeared as a result of the housing bubble, some as my Mom decided to enjoy life after his death with a shopping habit. Whatever, her money. What neither of them bothered to do was prepare for their eventual demise, so other than a basic will, nothing else was done.
My sibling shares many of the same negative traits my mother possesses, and has never fully grown up. To this day, she still lives in the illegal apartment my dad created in the basement of their home. My Mom has been living in a nursing home near me for the past 5 years, halfway across the country from this home. We had moved away 6 months earlier, and during that time, my sibling neglected my mom so badly that adult protective services was called in. She was thrilled to pieces when we agreed to bring her closer to us, so much so that she neglected to visit for the next three years. She also didn't care to handle my Mom's finances, so I took care of it all, through a joint checking account which we all had access to. Unfortunately, what I was not aware of at that time was that the sibling found a shady lawyer, and used $15K of my parents money to pay for said lawyer. The lawyer placed my Mom's cash into a trust. A revocable trust, in my siblings name. I was shocked when a few years ago, she ran low on cash and revoked the trust, profiting to the tune of 130K. My Mom's care was being covered by renting out the main portion of her home, and my sibling decided to leave Mom high and dry, and began taking that income as well. Oh, and the icing on that shitty cake was when the sibling befriended a crappy lawyer, who proceeded to call me at work and forbid me from contacting my sibling. I laughed and warned him that my sibling would neither sleep with him, nor pay him for his legal services, which he quickly figured out on his own. He sent a FedEx to my home a few weeks later, demanding an accounting of my Mom's finances for the past few years (hello, your client has access to the bank acct, it's all there!), which he didn't even send signature required, so there is no proof I ever received this demand, and nothing further came of it once he figured out my sibling is a professional mooch.
I took what little cash was left in the overflow savings account and pre-paid my Mom's final expenses, and handed the rest over to the nursing home administrator, as a cushion should my sibling continue to steal my Mom's rental income. These were not fun times, made worse when the funeral director called me, b/c my sibling was hounding him, demanding a refund of the money I sent him, b/c she was crying poverty. I was at a mental breaking point, so hubby stepped in and set the funeral director straight. He was welcome to refund the money to me, since I signed the contract and the check, and we would take the money to another funeral home. That solved that problem. Then the nursing home administrator (more like a small group home) contacted my sibling and explained that she would be returning my mother to her rightful home in her RV, unless the payments continue. Of course we were never going to make good on that threat, but we knew my sibling didn't want any responsibility of my Mom, so she has been covering the cost out of my Mom's rental income. What she has done with the trust money, don't know and don't care.
Of course, this is far from being a done deal. My sibling is an entitled anti-mustachian, who has never been responsible for herself, and enjoys consumerism. We haven't spoken in years, and the only asset left is the family home, which is owned jointly by the both of us, but with survivorship rights for my Mom. So the asset can not be touched until she passes. Every so often I check the title and tax records on the home, to make sure she is at least covering the taxes, and that the title hasn't somehow changed hands without my signature. I have no doubt that if she could find a way to do that, she would in a heartbeat.
I can only imagine how my mom's final services will be, and the fight that will occur over the home at her passing. My goal is to simply ignore her during the wake and funeral, and hire a lawyer to handle the sale of the house, which I have no doubt she will fight. Hubby thinks he can talk some sense into her, and advise her that it is best to complete this transaction as amicably as possible and go our separate ways, but I'm sure it won't be that simple.
It's a very sad way to terminate a family, as neither of us have procreated, and a rather ironic one at that. We continued the same cycle of drama that my parents taught us w/regards to family our entire lives. At the end of the day, if I get anything, great, it will speed up my FIRE date by about a year. And I will have the satisfaction of knowing that a part of my parents sacrifices will not go to waste. If I don't get anything, it won't impact my life much, but I know that my sibling will blow it all and be back to nothing in minimal time. I hope it was worth it - seems like a really small amount of money to burn the bridge of the only family member who always looked the other way and helped her out when she was in trouble. In the end though, my parents are ultimately responsible. They were well aware of the evil and irresponsibility lurking in my sibling, and they chose not to do anything to protect themselves, or us, from dealing with this inevitable drama. Hubby & I have already taken care of our final wishes, even down to the care of our pets, because we do not want to leave this type of mess behind to anyone else!
Post by: chaskavitch on January 08, 2016, 05:51:08 PM
He was also rich (possibly part of his appeal with the ladies?), and left his money in trust for his children and their offspring. The two catches are: they have to be 30 before the trust pays out, and the trust couldn't be disbursed until the third wife passed away, because she got to take her income from the trust.
Thirty odd years later, third wife FINALLY passes away. The whole time I've been part of this family, second wife's daughters have been bad mouthing their step mother because she gets ALL of this money and they've been waiting for soooooo long (they're in their 60s now). Realistically, disbursement of the trust will be amazingly helpful, because the grandson from wife two (he's 42) is a quadriplegic on medicare, and my husband and I have been covering the costs for his legal assistance (~$1200/mo) finding better home care, getting rid of bed bugs in his sketchy apartment, etc, and being reimbursed by the trust. The reimbursement isn't possible now since the money is being disbursed eventually, and having a special needs trust for him would be a life and sanity saver. His mom is also on govt assistance because she's legally unable to manage her own finances due to mental issues.
The other sister is ruining everything, though. She emailed the whole trust committee and the siblings of third wife within a day of finding out about her death asking when things will be resolved, how much they'll all be getting, and whether or not they can have all the "pre-third wife family memorabilia" that she was never given before. I don't care if she wants memorabilia, that makes sense, but she is being so pushy and rude that the executor of the will and all of the trust lawyers have stopped talking to any of us. DH and I won't get anything yet because he is only 28, and it will just go into savings anyway, but she is ruining her nephew's chance to get into a stable, clean living situation, and it sucks so stinking bad. We honestly can't afford to keep paying his bills by ourselves, and we are the best off of all the family financially, so he is just going to be sink further and further into a decaying apartment and bad medical care.
Post by: notquitefrugal on January 08, 2016, 07:45:53 PM
General observation from practicing law in a small town for almost a decade: A very high proportion of elderly couples who don't have children are wealthy.
Slight modification: a very high proportion of elderly couples with no children (who retire to small towns and can afford lawyers) are wealthy.
LOL... The ones who didn't have much came in to write wills, too. I think we charged $50 or $75 for a simple will for a single person. Wrote a will for an old Harley (condition unknown, but probably not worth much) to go to a grandkid who was underage at the time, to be held in trust until they turned 18. A terrible idea (and I asked questions which implied it was a terrible idea), but ultimately not my decision.
Post by: paddedhat on January 09, 2016, 07:25:28 AM
I thought wills that set up trusts like this were supposed to have contingent trustees - in case first choice is unwilling or unable. I seriously doubt you'd have to serve as trustee if you don't want to.Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
You do not have to get trapped in this mess. I posted my own personal, and long story, earlier on this thread. My mother was very clear in repeatedly claiming that she expected me to continue the "family tradition" of being an enabler, provider and manager of the mess my sister had become. On every occasion I firmly told her to make other plans, as there was no way in hell it was going to happen. She ignored me, and spell out her wishes, in detail, in her will. She even went as far a switching estate lawyers, since ours is a family friend who would of refused to allow such delusional nonsense to be entered into a will.
My Mother was a classic enabler, and completely self-deluded regarding my sister. Shortly before her death, she found a trust that had created an airtight way to protect assets willed to severely disabled children. My mother then misrepresented my sister's situation, and gained verbal assurance from the trust that they would take the money and provide social services and carefully directed distributions to keep everything legal. When my mom passed, our lawyer contacted the trust, gave then a very honest account of the potential client, and they flipped out. They stated that they did not agree to taking my sister unconditionally, and they had no prior knowledge of the substance abuse, DUI manslaughter, subsequent DUI, multiple rehabs, etc....Their mission was to do things like keeping Medicaid from claiming the assets, while they spent the money on things like additional rehab services, or other quality of life improvements for severely disabled or retarded adults, not getting involved in this enabling addicts with felony convictions. Eventually, after artful persuasion from our lawyer, and a carefully worded agreement, they took the case.
During that negotiation, I was obviously concerned that I might be trapped into managing my sisters affairs, but our lawyer was quite clear that I could still be the executor, and still divide the assets relatively quickly and easily, while removing that provision of the will. In the event that the trust would of refused to take my sister as a client, I would have to appear before the probate judge to seek relief from being the trustee. At that point, the judge would assign a local lawyer to the position, and that lawyer would be paid a reasonable, and ongoing fee to distribute the assets per the will and judges ruling.
Hopefully you can make your parents understand that you are NOT willing to accept the responsibility of being your brother's babysitter. Take the time to make it clear that you do not have to comply with any unreasonable directive of the will, and that the courts have a mechanism to place the unreasonable burden on a third party, if they insist on putting that nonsense in the will. Good luck, having abusive worthless siblings and enabling parents is a nasty combination. I hope it all works out for you.
Post by: TomTX on January 09, 2016, 05:24:09 PM
My family today is still involved in a tussle over my great-grandfather's property following his death in the mid-1960s.
Bis-abuelo left his wife and 4 living adult children in NYC to go back to the hillbilly farm in Puerto Rico, found another woman to take care of him, and fathered one last daughter. Said farm was less than 10 acres, and a shack with no running water. All 5 children inherited equally, but because of bad blood between first family and second family, and bad official record-keeping, legal status of property is screwed up beyond belief. Youngest daughter, by virtue of being on the property, managed to replace shack with better but un-permitted house for herself, then second house (also without permits) for her son's family. All original heirs are deceased, so now there are 2nd and 3rd generation heirs. Tax liens from time to time because title was never properly transferred to 1st-generation heirs and notices delivered to property address, although taxes have been mostly paid by the 2nd/3rd heirs living in NY/NJ/CT/FL/HI.
Every few years, the question of what to do with it flares up again. Not an income property, no longer useful as farm, can't sell without agreement of all remaining heirs, and would have to tackle the C of O for the new houses, not to mention any liens, back taxes and re-survey -- all to happen within Puerto Rican bureaucracy. My brother took about 6 months last year speaking with a local lawyer about the survey and getting taxes current again -- but the question of forcing out the descendant living on the property or suing them touched off another round of recriminations ("Mom/Dad/abuela would have wanted us to ...").
So, 50 years later, each heir is fighting over 1/10th share or less, while not having enough money to buy out anyone else's share and repair the legal deficiencies of the property. I suppose they are all waiting for some mythical RE developer to hand them lottery-sized checks while picking up all the expenses, thus justifying the word "inheritance" but since it can't even be torched for profit and none of us are in the meth business, I think that relinquishing it all to the illegitimate grandson who lives on the property without compensation is worth the peace of mind.
My Mom periodically threatens to die just so that I, as her executor and oldest heir, can wade through this muck.
This is a situation to GTFO. Tell all the relatives that you'll be happy to sell your(her) share. Either pick a number ($5k) or tell them whoever offers the most gets it.
Post by: TomTX on January 09, 2016, 08:16:02 PM
When my maternal grandmother passed (my grandfather having passed 30 years prior): my uncle was the executor, showed all the records to my mom and everything was well documented and split 50/50. Grandma was in care, so all the furniture and such had long ago been divided up and he house sold. Proceeds went toward care.
My paternal grandfather died perhaps 5 years before my grandmother. My aunt made all sorts of shady deals (joint vacation home, grandma paying for all expenses for all sorts of things, and I know grandma paid for at least half the vacation home) - but did spend a lot of time with grandma. When grandma finally died, aunt is the executor. My dad never gets to see the actual will. Somehow the vacation home was 100% my aunt's, my aunt claims or tosses every physical object and file. All the genealogy tossed. Birth certificates, marriage license, etc. My dad is given a small sum from the estate but doesn't fight it. Aunt has a pattern of buying an expensive house, remodeling it in stupid ways (replace perfect carpet with different carpet. Replace new granite counter tops with different granite counter tops, still isn't happy and sells it. Repeat about every 2 years.
Lucky me, I'm the executor for my parents. Ugh. My sister has her shit together, my brother is a crazy, lying, abusive addict - alcohol, prescription pills, brief jail stays til he and his lawyer bullshit his way out, etc. Can be incredibly convincingly nice when he wants to. Has "borrowed" a shit ton of money from my parents. I've been told repeatedly it's supposed to come out of "his share" of the inheritance and where the listing of debts is. Which I have no doubt will cause a firestorm and lawsuit against the estate.
Thankfully, my parents have now changed all the accounts to payable-on-death to just my sister and I. Bypassing the will entirely. We're both on the safe deposit box too. About the only thing left of real value for the will is the house and personal effects - mounds and mounds of personal effects. I'm going to have to get several big commercial dumpsters dropped off for emptying out that house.... At least it's clean and the public areas are quite nice. Just don't open the door into the back room in the basement. Or go in the den. Or my dad's "walk in" closet. Newspapers, magazines, books, 50 slide carousels...
Post by: Mormon Money Mustache on January 09, 2016, 11:12:49 PM
This was a long time ago - sometime in the 60s. When my maternal grandmother died, there were 4 adult sibs including my mother who were equal inheritors. While 3 of them were at the funeral, the fourth, my aunt, cleaned out the house of anything of value including a player piano. I'm sure there were many items of greater value, but this is the one that always came up as the biggest outrage.
This caused a rift of about 20 years. Then somehow there was a reconciliation and my mother sent me out to visit that aunt in Minnesota. There was the player piano in her summer house.
Wow that is pretty sick.
Post by: firelight on January 09, 2016, 11:13:19 PM
Also husband is of the idea that writing wills is tempting fate and wouldn't write his. I've written mine but not sure what will happen in case we need his (his is a bit complex situation). I'm tired of reasoning it out with him. How do you convince spouses to get their things in order?
Post by: pancakes on January 09, 2016, 11:30:35 PM
They've written the debt over to me and my siblings now (to be paid from my uncles estate) which seems to have been quite healing for them. I don't believe that we will ever be able to recover the money but as my siblings and I are not emotionally involved in the dispute, we are ok with that.
Post by: Astatine on January 10, 2016, 01:58:06 AM
Also husband is of the idea that writing wills is tempting fate and wouldn't write his. I've written mine but not sure what will happen in case we need his (his is a bit complex situation). I'm tired of reasoning it out with him. How do you convince spouses to get their things in order?
I'm of the view we will die regardless of whether we have a will or not. Nobody is immortal. I see it as a gift of love to have a will. Dying without a will leaves loved ones with extra stress and heartbreak.
My DH originally went pale whenever I first mentioned wills (it was all about the thought of me dying). He eventually became comfortable with the idea after I kept gently talking about it for a few years.
Post by: MayDay on January 10, 2016, 06:07:03 AM
Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
Mil tried this on H (for his loser sister). He told her that if she put the money in a trust for her with specific rules like disbursement guidelines, etc, he could manage it. But he wasn't just going to babysit her. Naturally doing a trust was too much work/money so the whole thing was dropped.
Post by: Daleth on January 10, 2016, 03:17:07 PM
Friend of ours had a brother, serious ner-do-well, as in regularly vanished for months or a year or two at a time, heavy drug user, etc. When his mother passed away, she left half to each of her children, with the proviso that our friend was supposed to manage the money for his brother, since the brother couldn't be trusted with it, unless the brother "got cleaned up". It wasn't a lot of money, I think a few tens of thousands for each.
The problem with this is that it puts an unending obligation on our friend to try to track down the brother, see what he needs, and how does he even decide if the brother got cleaned up? Its a rather unfair thing to do to someone unless you have discussed it with them before hand (which didn't happen here) and they agree to accept the responsibility. I also have no idea if it is even enforceable?
That's the obligation my parents are trying to put onto me: acting as a trustee for my brother's portion and taking over their lifelong role of babysitter for an abusive, alcoholic jerk who has physically assaulted me several times and made a credible e-mail threat to shoot me. My parents are classic enablers and don't consider this to be a problem.
It is enforceable if it's drafted right (put the money in a trust, make one sibling trustee for the other). I agree, having seen it in my family, that's it's a terrible job for the trustee sibling to have--all the more so because the will & trust almost never specifies that they should get paid anything for the work!
My advice: if you need to put money in trust for one child, appoint a financial institution as the trustee. Yes, it costs money, but it makes life so much easier for the other siblings.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 10, 2016, 04:07:12 PM
Also husband is of the idea that writing wills is tempting fate and wouldn't write his. I've written mine but not sure what will happen in case we need his (his is a bit complex situation). I'm tired of reasoning it out with him. How do you convince spouses to get their things in order?
Would it help to point out that he has a will already? It is whatever his state/province says happens to his estate when he dies intestate. If he is happy with the standard provisions, and OK with some judicially appointed executor, fine. If not, he needs to change his will (i.e. replace the state's provisions with his own) and executor to reflect his wishes.
Post by: sol on January 10, 2016, 04:08:23 PM
it's a terrible job for the trustee sibling to have--all the more so because the will & trust almost never specifies that they should get paid anything for the work!
If we die before our children are 18, our assets go to a trust for their care. Our will specifies who will care for the kids, and it certainly spells out "all reasonable" expenses to the trustee for the trouble of taking them in.
The common problem with trust documents seems to be the exact opposite of what you've identified. It's not that trustees get saddled with work and no pay for it, it's that trustees get to drain too much of the trust funds for themselves because the definition of "reasonable and appropriate" expenses for the trustee is so easy to manipulate.
In cases where the trustee is the beneficiary, that's not a problem. But in the case of a trust like ours that is set up to care for our kids, I'm pretty confident the trustee/godparent is going to immediately spend down our assets on a fancy car and a new home and justify it as "necessary" because now she has these extra kids. If my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
Post by: onlykelsey on January 10, 2016, 04:18:28 PM
Quote
If my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
You need better friends!
Post by: southern granny on January 10, 2016, 05:01:31 PM
Post by: hapstermeister on January 10, 2016, 07:09:34 PM
Post by: Travis on January 10, 2016, 09:21:22 PM
Also husband is of the idea that writing wills is tempting fate and wouldn't write his. I've written mine but not sure what will happen in case we need his (his is a bit complex situation). I'm tired of reasoning it out with him. How do you convince spouses to get their things in order?
Would it help to point out that he has a will already? It is whatever his state/province says happens to his estate when he dies intestate. If he is happy with the standard provisions, and OK with some judicially appointed executor, fine. If not, he needs to change his will (i.e. replace the state's provisions with his own) and executor to reflect his wishes.
Ask your husband why he spends money on insurance if being prepared is just "tempting fate."
Post by: Taran Wanderer on January 10, 2016, 11:55:10 PM
QuoteIf my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
You need better friends!
In our will, our kids go to DW's sibling and the trustee is my sibling. When we told DW's sibling and spouse about the trustee, they were upset. Then I said that between net worth and life insurance our estate would be well into seven figures, and we felt that having extra eyes on it would be reasonable. We also put very few restrictions on the trustee, so between them they could figure out if a bigger house and bigger car made sense to buy with out estate. There is risk, of course, but if they work together as a team, it should be okay. And they are all gainfully employed, which is a plus.
If the will ever gets used for this, I'll try to post something here, but I can't promise anything....
Post by: mxt0133 on January 11, 2016, 12:16:48 AM
it's a terrible job for the trustee sibling to have--all the more so because the will & trust almost never specifies that they should get paid anything for the work!
If we die before our children are 18, our assets go to a trust for their care. Our will specifies who will care for the kids, and it certainly spells out "all reasonable" expenses to the trustee for the trouble of taking them in.
The common problem with trust documents seems to be the exact opposite of what you've identified. It's not that trustees get saddled with work and no pay for it, it's that trustees get to drain too much of the trust funds for themselves because the definition of "reasonable and appropriate" expenses for the trustee is so easy to manipulate.
In cases where the trustee is the beneficiary, that's not a problem. But in the case of a trust like ours that is set up to care for our kids, I'm pretty confident the trustee/godparent is going to immediately spend down our assets on a fancy car and a new home and justify it as "necessary" because now she has these extra kids. If my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
In scenarios like this, one way to address it is to separate the guardian of the minors to the trustee of the trust. In my case I chose guardians that I feel will be better suited to take care of my children emotionally and choose a trustee that aligns more with my financial values. I trust both unconditionally also which helps me sleep better at night.
This might create a little tension separating the guardians and the trustee but I feel that having two parties involves helps keep accountability.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on January 11, 2016, 12:48:26 AM
Post by: iamlittlehedgehog on January 11, 2016, 12:03:40 PM
I don't have any juicy inheritance stories. My Mom Mom (grandmother) passed December '14 and left money and items to her 3 children and 2 grandkids (my sister and I). For some reason my uncle was very concerned that I would be offended that my sister got more money than I did, by about 10k. My mom told us separately and we both shrugged. My sister was the golden child and has kids of her own, it only makes sense that she got more.
Post by: Capsu78 on January 11, 2016, 01:26:12 PM
This thread is glorious. I hope there will be more posts soon.
I don't have any juicy inheritance stories. My Mom Mom (grandmother) passed December '14 and left money and items to her 3 children and 2 grandkids (my sister and I). For some reason my uncle was very concerned that I would be offended that my sister got more money than I did, by about 10k. My mom told us separately and we both shrugged. My sister was the golden child and has kids of her own, it only makes sense that she got more.
We have a small disparity between our daughters too- one has a small cash insurance policy and the other doesn't. I informed the daughters to work it out, even if that included a fist fight out in the driveway... and I didn't ever want to hear about it again..to my face...or behind my back... or I would direct the entire estate here, and they could figure out which one it was in tribute to: http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/
Post by: La Bibliotecaria Feroz on January 11, 2016, 01:27:42 PM
QuoteIf my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
You need better friends!
You really do. Is there NO ONE else you could have be the trustee? I have my sister as guardian and some friends as backup guardians and my mom as trustee. (I totally trust the sister and the friends, but my mom is more used to handling large sums of money--she is already taking care of her father's substantial $$$, so she seemed like the natural choice.) My mom is old enough that I would not want to saddle her with a pair of young kids but she could definitely do the money part.
Post by: LPeters on January 11, 2016, 04:41:16 PM
We have a small disparity between our daughters too- one has a small cash insurance policy and the other doesn't. I informed the daughters to work it out, even if that included a fist fight out in the driveway... and I didn't ever want to hear about it again..to my face...or behind my back... or I would direct the entire estate here, and they could figure out which one it was in tribute to: http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/...I think I may love you, haha— what an elegant solution!
Post by: money_bunny on January 11, 2016, 06:54:23 PM
He's been a positive influence on me with spending even if sites like this did not exist. I actually feel that part of his and his partner's concern is that they see the accumulation phase and me being 36 and single and they think "No life, no partner." I'm not comfortable telling them about FIRE as he came from nothing. I also can see why they are concerned since without the FIRE concept I probably would have hoarded money. Which many people do.
I had a near death experience at the end of 2014. I was in a bad car crash with a truck and I walked away. I had a friend recently almost die in an accident and was in the ICU and then rehab for almost 2 months. I realized after that my Mother who does not approve of my MMM type lifestyle as she is very consumerist, and my other choices would have gotten everything. I'm not even sure that my "Weird" friends would have been contacted/invited for the funeral. I've been trying to figure out how to make sure one of two sets of my friends gets notified if I am incapacitated.
I also want someone to go in and get certain things out of my house before my family gets in there.
This is something to think about if you are single. How are you going to have your send off? If the rest of your family is consumerist, they may think that the best solution is to box you off in cardboard off to the crematorium ASAP so that more money is remaining for them. Imagine finding out 3-4 months later that a friend passed away when you "Ghost" out and then the Cell Phone, Facebook, Email, and other means of communication start bouncing.
After that I changed all the beneficiary forms to my two closest friends for the Vanguard accounts which have the Stache. If I pass away my Sister and BIL are then "only children" and there are two Long Island homes coming to them and 4 adults stuff coming to them. I also want my friends children, charities I care about that are not the charities my Mother or Sister cares about taken care of.
My Sister and I (and possibly based on the rules listed above my BIL) have been getting checks for the last 3-4 years at the 14K amount from my Uncle. For me they are going right into my Vanguard account and moving my FIRE date forward. They have a new Jeep Liberty "I got a great deal on it." and my BIL is running around in a leased Dodge Hemi truck for one person. They have huge personal parties, one of them was 3-3.5K for one night, and I missed my Sisters graduation party which probably was in the 1-2K range.
I get to hear "Oh we can't afford to get a house..." so dual income, living with your in-laws (they are paying under-market rent). Having received enough money for 10% down and all closing costs...
Post by: iamlittlehedgehog on January 12, 2016, 05:18:13 AM
This thread is glorious. I hope there will be more posts soon.
I don't have any juicy inheritance stories. My Mom Mom (grandmother) passed December '14 and left money and items to her 3 children and 2 grandkids (my sister and I). For some reason my uncle was very concerned that I would be offended that my sister got more money than I did, by about 10k. My mom told us separately and we both shrugged. My sister was the golden child and has kids of her own, it only makes sense that she got more.
We have a small disparity between our daughters too- one has a small cash insurance policy and the other doesn't. I informed the daughters to work it out, even if that included a fist fight out in the driveway... and I didn't ever want to hear about it again..to my face...or behind my back... or I would direct the entire estate here, and they could figure out which one it was in tribute to: http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/
I like your style! From what I see at least telling them ahead of time tends to sooth ruffled feathers before the inheritance is actually received. Family should be there for each other in the time of death - not having a slap fight over the fine china in the driveway.
Post by: MM_MG on January 12, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
In our will...
If the will ever gets used for this, I'll try to post something here, but I can't promise anything....
LOL! I found the whole process of setting up a will and even life insurance a bit ironic. By the time either gets "used" I will not care what happens.
In scenarios like this, one way to address it is to separate the guardian of the minors to the trustee of the trust. In my case I chose guardians that I feel will be better suited to take care of my children emotionally and choose a trustee that aligns more with my financial values. I trust both unconditionally also which helps me sleep better at night.
This might create a little tension separating the guardians and the trustee but I feel that having two parties involves helps keep accountability.
Agreed. We recently completed our estate planning and separated the Guardian for the kids from the Trustee of the estate as well. Guardian is best to raise the kids and the Trustee is frugal as can be. Both are well of financially, so hopefully the estate will not be abused. We also have the money going to a trust that can only be used for education and necessities until the kids reach age 35. Sorry kids no free rides. ;)
I enjoyed reading this thread. Nothing to contribute other than I watched my side of the family fight over even items of little monetary value when my grandparents passed. 4/5 siblings acting rationally and the 5th could not help but act like a savage. The remaining four still do not talk to the 5th after ~20+ years. Sad really. I expect nothing and hope both our parents spend every last dime before they die. However, I am not sure the other siblings feel the same way. Maybe someday I'll have more to contribute.
Post by: Capsu78 on January 12, 2016, 02:37:34 PM
We have a small disparity between our daughters too- one has a small cash insurance policy and the other doesn't. I informed the daughters to work it out, even if that included a fist fight out in the driveway... and I didn't ever want to hear about it again..to my face...or behind my back... or I would direct the entire estate here, and they could figure out which one it was in tribute to: http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/...I think I may love you, haha— what an elegant solution!
Funny thing is they got a pretty good laugh out of it when I told them...until I proved to them that the Donkey Sanctuary charity actually exists! Then they said "...maybe Mom already has a stall purchased for you!"
Post by: JoeBlow on January 12, 2016, 09:33:34 PM
When my dad's mom slipped and fell into a coma in the old country, my dad immediately booked a ticket and flew over. Before flying out, he tried to get in contact with his sister who lived an hour away from us. She went completely AWOL. My dad even called the local police 'cause he was worried she was missing for some awful reason. Nope, she disappeared by choice and only showed up at the hospital weeks later after she 'finally checked her messages' and found out that the plug was going to be pulled. I wasn't told the specifics but arguments regarding the inheritance ensured and my dad was so pissed that he gladly gave up all his inheritance in exchange for eternal peace and quiet from his sister (they have a complicated history). My mom was so happy :)
I go backpacking for weeks at a time and am completely cutoff from cell service (battery & signal). Not saying this is your sisters excuse but it is a legitimate excuse for some people.
Post by: With This Herring on January 14, 2016, 10:02:32 AM
Post by: AlanStache on January 14, 2016, 03:11:05 PM
Post by: SpeedReader on January 15, 2016, 11:53:22 PM
DH considered taking some of his parents’ furniture as part of his share. As we had flown in for the funeral, he suggested driving MIL’s car home pulling a UHaul and selling the car for all to split proceeds once home. SIL was adamant that all property had to be valuated first and the car was not to leave FL. OK, except we learned she’d already offered the car to one of her daughters at well below market price.
I suggested that during the wake, friends of MIL should be allowed to select keepsakes from her large collection of fridge magnets and other decorative
DH wanted a mantel clock for sentimental reasons. SIL declared that she was keeping it, as “I’m the executor.” Later we learned she’d told her daughters that DH shouldn’t get any heirlooms because we don’t have children.
She declared herself “the family matriarch”. (This alone was enough to merit a facepunch, in my book.)
She prevented BIL and DH from dividing any small personal property items all week, until literally the day we were leaving for the airport. Once home, she sent us a letter about how she was going to divide all residual monies equally as MIL had wished. In the next letter she said that because her name was listed as joint owner on MIL’s bank accounts, her lawyer said she was legally the owner and didn’t have to split the money so she was keeping it.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
Post by: TheBuddha on January 16, 2016, 01:05:25 AM
Post by: browneyedgirl on January 16, 2016, 07:37:28 AM
Ten days later my grandfather died. My father had been living with him, and it was really too much for him to handle. My aunt was always difficult her entire life, but she was truly distressing at both funerals. There are a lot of stories I could tell about stuff she took out of the house, but I will talk specifically about the family silver. I don't know how much there was. I don't know if it was good looking. All I know is that the day after my father's wake, my grandfather said he wanted to show it to me. He went to his hidey hole. It was gone. He'd mentioned it earlier in passing, so my aunt had taken it out and given it to her adult daughter who came to the wake to take back to her house in another state. Then when my grandfather died. My uncle called my aunt's kids and told them whoever came to that funeral had to bring the funeral back. He snagged it and sold it for melt value (undoubtedly what it was worth). He split the money with me (thank goodness, being out of town for a month is expensive!) but I still wonder what it looked like.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on January 16, 2016, 09:07:59 AM
When my MIL died, my SIL was the executor. It was in the will that the assets would be split evenly between her three children......
......In the next letter she said that because her name was listed as joint owner on MIL’s bank accounts, her lawyer said she was legally the owner and didn’t have to split the money so she was keeping it.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
I want to say something very awful about SIL, but I won't. But really, what is wrong with these people?
Post by: Lookilu on January 16, 2016, 02:57:40 PM
When my MIL died, my SIL was the executor. It was in the will that the assets would be split evenly between her three children.Your SIL sounds like my two SILs, dear husband's sisters and co-executors of my in-laws' estate. Had they not sucked every last dollar out of my in-laws during their lives, that is. I visited MILs house on the day she died, within an hour of her death--she had been in in-home hospice care--and I was shocked to see that nearly every piece of furniture and bric-a-brac was already gone, taken to give to one or another of SILs' kids.
DH considered taking some of his parents’ furniture as part of his share. As we had flown in for the funeral, he suggested driving MIL’s car home pulling a UHaul and selling the car for all to split proceeds once home. SIL was adamant that all property had to be valuated first and the car was not to leave FL. OK, except we learned she’d already offered the car to one of her daughters at well below market price.
I suggested that during the wake, friends of MIL should be allowed to select keepsakes from her large collection of fridge magnets and other decorativecrapstuff the family didn’t want. (Most of these items had been gifts from those same friends and had no cash value.) SIL treated us to a monologue on how she needed to be alone in MIL’s house for at least a week, with every bit of stuff still in place, so she could “process” MIL’s death. She wanted us all to go home and to come back two months later to distribute the personal property. (MIL lived in Florida; BIL was working in Japan and we live in Washington State.) I gently pointed out that leaving the place unattended 2 months in that neighborhood would result in returning to a meth lab, and that DH was scheduled for spinal surgery at the time she was insisting on.
DH wanted a mantel clock for sentimental reasons. SIL declared that she was keeping it, as “I’m the executor.” Later we learned she’d told her daughters that DH shouldn’t get any heirlooms because we don’t have children.
She declared herself “the family matriarch”. (This alone was enough to merit a facepunch, in my book.)
She prevented BIL and DH from dividing any small personal property items all week, until literally the day we were leaving for the airport. Once home, she sent us a letter about how she was going to divide all residual monies equally as MIL had wished. In the next letter she said that because her name was listed as joint owner on MIL’s bank accounts, her lawyer said she was legally the owner and didn’t have to split the money so she was keeping it.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
DH ended up taking nothing. No, that's not true. What we do have are the cremains of both MIL and FIL. SILs were so busy taking everything else that they left the carved wooden caskets containing the ashes on the floor, uncomfortably close to a pile of trash, for days. My husband's brother begged him to take Mom and Dad home before "the girls" threw them out.
Neither of the girls has ever inquired as to the whereabouts of their parents.
Post by: sol on January 16, 2016, 03:10:33 PM
Party A says: my good for nothing drug addict family member never lifted a finger to help their ailing parent, and then had the nerve to show up at the funeral and demand part of the estate? We had to have the lawyers modify the trust documents so we wouldn't be on the hook for supporting those lowlifes. We haven't spoken since.
Party B says: my suck-up family member was always the golden child despite having way more money than all of the rest enough, but greed works in mysterious ways and before parent was even in the ground they had cleaned out the house of every trinket, frozen all of the accounts, and left us all with nothing. We haven't spoken since.
Any chance these two parties are siblings?
Post by: Capsu78 on January 16, 2016, 04:16:15 PM
While the "law of big numbers" says that scenario is a pretty remote possibility, it would be an interesting premise to kick off a novel or screenplay.
Post by: SpeedReader on January 16, 2016, 08:43:28 PM
I want to say something very awful about SIL, but I won't. But really, what is wrong with these people?
[/quote]
Taran Wanderer: Oh, please feel free to say it. :-)
Post by: SpeedReader on January 16, 2016, 08:49:20 PM
Neither of the girls has ever inquired as to the whereabouts of their parents.
[/quote]
That is beyond awful.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on January 16, 2016, 09:00:03 PM
I want to say something very awful about SIL, but I won't. But really, what is wrong with these people?
Taran Wanderer: Oh, please feel free to say it. :-)
[/quote]
I can't do it. It involves an uncouth participle and an unsayable word that rhymes with an action from American football.
Post by: SpeedReader on January 17, 2016, 06:57:53 AM
I want to say something very awful about SIL, but I won't. But really, what is wrong with these people?
Taran Wanderer: Oh, please feel free to say it. :-)
I can't do it. It involves an uncouth participle and an unsayable word that rhymes with an action from American football.
[/quote]
You're spot on. :-)
Post by: TomTX on January 17, 2016, 10:11:03 AM
it's a terrible job for the trustee sibling to have--all the more so because the will & trust almost never specifies that they should get paid anything for the work!
If we die before our children are 18, our assets go to a trust for their care. Our will specifies who will care for the kids, and it certainly spells out "all reasonable" expenses to the trustee for the trouble of taking them in.
The common problem with trust documents seems to be the exact opposite of what you've identified. It's not that trustees get saddled with work and no pay for it, it's that trustees get to drain too much of the trust funds for themselves because the definition of "reasonable and appropriate" expenses for the trustee is so easy to manipulate.
In cases where the trustee is the beneficiary, that's not a problem. But in the case of a trust like ours that is set up to care for our kids, I'm pretty confident the trustee/godparent is going to immediately spend down our assets on a fancy car and a new home and justify it as "necessary" because now she has these extra kids. If my wife and I both die, I'm sure my kids will live in a very fancy house for the next few years and then be penniless and on their own at age 18.
As with others, we split physical custody of our children (nearby friends first, MiniTX is friends with their kids, we see them a couple times a week. Sister as backup) - and financial custody. A different friend likes kids (teaches them martial arts part time) - but doesn't want any. She's by far the best with money. Widest knowledge, most MMM. With the friends, we all have each others's house keys.
Post by: HairyUpperLip on January 20, 2016, 08:01:24 AM
Later we learned she’d told her daughters that DH shouldn’t get any heirlooms because we don’t have children.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
Geez - that's some crazy shit.
How old are the SIL kids? Don't they care/wonder why they stopped talking to their uncle after their grandmother died?
Post by: With This Herring on January 20, 2016, 03:57:22 PM
When my maternal grandparents passed away they left all sentimental, generational family heirlooms to my uncle as he was the only son. In addition to letters and pictures was a family bible that had a handwritten account of births and deaths dating back over two hundred years as well as a handwritten account of the family's attempt to settle their farm land when they immigrated to the US (very cool).
My mother, the executor of the estate, was heartbroken to see my uncle get this family bible but stuck to the letter of my grandparents' will and doled out everything as they wanted.
Years later my uncle has blown through his money, lost his job, forgot to pay insurance on his house (in a flood plain), which was subsequently flooded, stopped paying his mortgage and eventually the bank was going to tear down the house as it was too damaged to salvage.
My mother and one of my aunts agreed to help him remove a few items from the home before it was razed (he had lost his license at that point) but on the appointed day he was MIA. My mother sat waiting for him for hours, just stewing over her brother's irresponsibility. Finally, she marched into the house, found the family bible and took it home.
The house (and everything in it) were gone by the end of the week but my mom had the bible cleaned and repaired by a professional book restorer and now it is safely tucked away in my parents' home. If my uncle ever mentions it I know she will give it back to him but I doubt he even remembers that he once had it.
I was not expecting that bittersweet ending. What a relief that your mother now has it! Maybe she can make copies of the history pages for your aunts to keep.
Post by: SpeedReader on January 21, 2016, 06:21:07 AM
Later we learned she’d told her daughters that DH shouldn’t get any heirlooms because we don’t have children.
No surprise, DH hasn’t spoken to her since.
Geez - that's some crazy shit.
How old are the SIL kids? Don't they care/wonder why they stopped talking to their uncle after their grandmother died?
Her kids are all grown; we have occasional contact with them. One of her daughters has also stopped talking to her, though not just over this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on January 21, 2016, 07:14:56 AM
Approximately 13 years ago, my husband's paternal grandfather dies. My future husband moves into his home and takes on the daunting process of clearing out all his belongings. Grandfather left his home and property to his two kids, my husband's dad and aunt. My husband's dad eventually decides he and his wife need to move into the house as they have both lost their jobs on the opposite coast and feel like their job prospects may be better here. Future husband moves out, they move in.
Apparently the Grandfather actually wanted the property to go to the 4 grandsons but the will was never updated. So, Father-in-law buys out his sister and her two sons, and the property now belongs to him and his two sons. Father-in-law then decides that it will be most lucrative to divide the property into 4 separate parcels and sell/build an investment property on the other 3 parcels, while he and his wife live in the home. In order to do this he needed money and my now husband, his brother, and my sign-off. Unfortunately, we were young and stupid and believed him when he told us we were just signing to get the lot lines redrawn. We were actually signing onto a loan to the tune of $149k to pay for all the fees associated with dividing up the lot. We found out about the loan while trying to refinance our home. We are essentially cosigners on this loan. What's even worse is that we have never seen the receipts for the actual cost of redrawing the lot lines and we now also know that they brought personal debt into this loan to the tune of 30k-50k. We have never been able to get our hands on that documentation either.
Just after the lot was subdivided the stock market crashed and the ability to sell those lots has been pretty much nonexistent. Husband's father and wife ONLY PAY THE INTEREST on this loan and have been for the past 10 years.
Some solutions my husband and I have offered are to 1) sell the lots and put the proceeds toward the loan, 2) we pay off the loan and they sign over all lots but the house to us, 3) have us all start paying down the loan based on our percentage of ownership, etc. There is no solution they're okay with. I should also mention that they carried over about 250k to the house they live in, which was paid off when they inherited it. Father-in-law is in his seventies, still working, and making zero progress on this loan. In the meantime they have bought a share in a condo in Hawaii and travel there twice a year.
I am so frustrated with this situation as it feels like there is no solution. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
I would pretty much freak out if i found out someone did that to me. I would talk to a lawyer if I was you.
I take that back, if I was you I would waterboard my FIL.
ok, vented. Seriously though I would sue them.
Post by: MayDay on January 21, 2016, 08:45:15 AM
7 kids (catholic family). 4 of the kids had undiagnosed, untreated mental health issues. By the time Grandpa had his stroke, Crazy Uncle still lived at home (in his 50's) had never held down a real job, did not use banks (money under mattress), etc.
So Grandpa has massive stroke and Super Catholic Uncle gets him put on a feeding tube, and he hangs on for 6 months in "rehab" before finally passing. Meanwhile, Crazy Uncle and Grandma live at home. It quickly becomes apparent that Grandma had been slipping mentally and Grandpa had been covering for her. Crazy Uncle is not covering for her. He is "taking care of her" but not well. Various attempts are made over a couple years to get him to do a better job of taking care of her in return for free room and board. In the end, Super Catholic Uncle (the only non-mentally ill one who lives locally) is doing all bill paying, checking in, scheduling, etc and Crazy Uncle is basically just a warm body in the house making sure Grandma doesn't wander out into traffic.
During these 2 years, there is much fighting amongst the siblings. Some of them do not ever visit Grandma. Some want the house sold and Grandma put in a home. Some want Crazy Uncle to continue "caring" for Grandma because the house is the main asset and if she goes in a home, there will be no inheritance (note: house was worth around 100K, and with 7 siblings it isn't like this is a ton of money we are talking about, making the whole thing even more sad). Alcoholic Uncle is an antiques hoarder and there is suspicion that he is nicking things from the house. Eventually Super Catholic Uncle, my dad, and Not-Crazy Aunt consult a lawyer, because getting Crazy Uncle out of the house is not super simple. They finally put Grandma in a nursing home, get Crazy Uncle out of the house, divide the possessions (this could be a whole separate story). By the time Grandma is in the home, she has lost a dangerous amount of weight, but she gains some weight in the home, continues to be a bitch on wheels (the more she lost her mind, the more bitchy she got. It was hilarious but also sad. She also got more and more racist to the point we would not take her out to lunch and stuff like that, as she would say LOUD "why is that black person in here" and things like that).
Grandma is in the home for about a year, slowly declining physically, totally not there mentally, the house gets sold, she dies before all the money is used, and everyone gets their 10K inheritance. Crazy Uncle is (we believe) getting some kind of section 8 type housing, Crazy Aunt*, Alcoholic Aunt, and Crazy Uncle #2 are basically never seen or heard from again. Alcoholic Uncle did not show up for the funeral. Crazy Uncle received his inheritance in cash. Crazy Aunt does still send wild emails to the whole family periodically so we know she is still alive. My dad, Not-Crazy Aunt, and Super Catholic Uncle still see each other a few times a year, with my dad and Not-Crazy Aunt being fairly close. Most of us grandkids (except my siblings and Not Crazy Aunt's kids) no longer see or talk to each other.
All that for 10K and some antiques.
*Tangential story about Crazy Aunt: Her oldest child gets into the state university, which has a very solid theater and film program, and he gets 100% financial aid because they have no money and no assets (they used to own a floral shop, but ran it into the ground, lost their paid off house, and declared bankruptcy. Totes the kind of people you want to be taking any kind of advice from). But he really wants to go out to CA to some fancy film school because he is going to be a famous director! For real!
So Cousin does 2 years for free at State, then quits to come home and start at Fancy Private Film School in the fall. He cannot actually get the loans for FPFS though, since neither he nor his parents can get them without some kind of co-signer. Crazy Aunt tries to convince everyone in the family to help pay for it, and everyone is like "WTF, your kid had a full ride, NO". So cousin works at the local movie theater for a couple years, then eventually somehow they scrape the money together and he moves out to Denver to go to some other "film "school" which is actually just an AA degree. Last I heard he is still working at a theater in Denver, never comes home (no money, no car) and has no other future plans.
Post by: LPeters on January 21, 2016, 09:20:01 AM
My paternal grandparents' deaths were full of drama.
7 kids (catholic family). 4 of the kids had undiagnosed, untreated mental health issues. By the time Grandpa had his stroke, Crazy Uncle still lived at home (in his 50's) had never held down a real job, did not use banks (money under mattress), etc.
So Grandpa has massive stroke and Super Catholic Uncle gets him put on a feeding tube, and he hangs on for 6 months in "rehab" before finally passing. Meanwhile, Crazy Uncle and Grandma live at home. It quickly becomes apparent that Grandma had been slipping mentally and Grandpa had been covering for her. Crazy Uncle is not covering for her. He is "taking care of her" but not well. Various attempts are made over a couple years to get him to do a better job of taking care of her in return for free room and board. In the end, Super Catholic Uncle (the only non-mentally ill one who lives locally) is doing all bill paying, checking in, scheduling, etc and Crazy Uncle is basically just a warm body in the house making sure Grandma doesn't wander out into traffic.
During these 2 years, there is much fighting amongst the siblings. Some of them do not ever visit Grandma. Some want the house sold and Grandma put in a home. Some want Crazy Uncle to continue "caring" for Grandma because the house is the main asset and if she goes in a home, there will be no inheritance (note: house was worth around 100K, and with 7 siblings it isn't like this is a ton of money we are talking about, making the whole thing even more sad). Alcoholic Uncle is an antiques hoarder and there is suspicion that he is nicking things from the house. Eventually Super Catholic Uncle, my dad, and Not-Crazy Aunt consult a lawyer, because getting Crazy Uncle out of the house is not super simple. They finally put Grandma in a nursing home, get Crazy Uncle out of the house, divide the possessions (this could be a whole separate story). By the time Grandma is in the home, she has lost a dangerous amount of weight, but she gains some weight in the home, continues to be a bitch on wheels (the more she lost her mind, the more bitchy she got. It was hilarious but also sad. She also got more and more racist to the point we would not take her out to lunch and stuff like that, as she would say LOUD "why is that black person in here" and things like that).
Grandma is in the home for about a year, slowly declining physically, totally not there mentally, the house gets sold, she dies before all the money is used, and everyone gets their 10K inheritance. Crazy Uncle is (we believe) getting some kind of section 8 type housing, Crazy Aunt*, Alcoholic Aunt, and Crazy Uncle #2 are basically never seen or heard from again. Alcoholic Uncle did not show up for the funeral. Crazy Uncle received his inheritance in cash. Crazy Aunt does still send wild emails to the whole family periodically so we know she is still alive. My dad, Not-Crazy Aunt, and Super Catholic Uncle still see each other a few times a year, with my dad and Not-Crazy Aunt being fairly close. Most of us grandkids (except my siblings and Not Crazy Aunt's kids) no longer see or talk to each other.
All that for 10K and some antiques.
*Tangential story about Crazy Aunt: Her oldest child gets into the state university, which has a very solid theater and film program, and he gets 100% financial aid because they have no money and no assets (they used to own a floral shop, but ran it into the ground, lost their paid off house, and declared bankruptcy. Totes the kind of people you want to be taking any kind of advice from). But he really wants to go out to CA to some fancy film school because he is going to be a famous director! For real!
So Cousin does 2 years for free at State, then quits to come home and start at Fancy Private Film School in the fall. He cannot actually get the loans for FPFS though, since neither he nor his parents can get them without some kind of co-signer. Crazy Aunt tries to convince everyone in the family to help pay for it, and everyone is like "WTF, your kid had a full ride, NO". So cousin works at the local movie theater for a couple years, then eventually somehow they scrape the money together and he moves out to Denver to go to some other "film "school" which is actually just an AA degree. Last I heard he is still working at a theater in Denver, never comes home (no money, no car) and has no other future plans.
Well, uh... bless their hearts. Hoo boy.
Post by: mtn on January 21, 2016, 09:52:56 AM
We were at a small family party last week, or two weeks ago, I think there were only 7 cousins there, and we were talking about how weird it was that a lot of folks we know don't hang out and have fun with their families. Then my cousin had the point: We were the weird ones.
My wife has commented a few times how my parents don't really have any friends (not true, but they don't get together that often so she doesn't see it). But they do--its family. My wife sees her cousins and aunts/uncles and grandma about three times a year. I see my family about 1-2 times a month and we all vacation together (same town, same beach, 1/4 mile or 15 miles apart).
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 21, 2016, 11:52:29 AM
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
Post by: Threshkin on January 21, 2016, 01:29:59 PM
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 21, 2016, 01:47:16 PM
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Thanks Threshkin - I agree and hummed and hahed my way out...
Post by: Cookie78 on January 21, 2016, 04:47:01 PM
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Thanks Threshkin - I agree and hummed and hahed my way out...
I'm quite pleased to hear this. :)
Post by: Megma on January 21, 2016, 06:41:53 PM
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Thanks Threshkin - I agree and hummed and hahed my way out...
Wait, do we have the same sister?
My sister always asks who gave me how much bc she doesn't want to check were getting the same but she wants more than I got. Sometimes I tell her is none of her beeswax, other times I say crazy amounts to mess with her. 😃
Post by: chouchouu on January 22, 2016, 02:39:05 AM
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 22, 2016, 07:19:58 AM
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
Thanks Threshkin - I agree and hummed and hahed my way out...
Wait, do we have the same sister?
My sister always asks who gave me how much bc she doesn't want to check were getting the same but she wants more than I got. Sometimes I tell her is none of her beeswax, other times I say crazy amounts to mess with her. 😃
LOL that's a good one too!
Maybe we do... :)
Last time I told her that the electronic transfer hadn't arrived yet... she didn't ask again... I suppose she got the point. I want her to get the same as I do! I really do - it's not fair to treat one kid different than the other - but I don't want her to be mad at ME if it's not the case.
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 22, 2016, 07:23:51 AM
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt. This brother used to bemoan the fact that he has siblings and if my mother had only had him her assets would not have to be divided up. My father who is divorced from my mother is quite the piece of work, he gloated that my mother never sought child support from him and she had the full financial burden of raising us four kids while he received the marital home. I no longer speak to him and my half sister has also cut him off and told him she would donate her inheritance to a cat shelter. My half brothers sister who has been on economic outpatient care her entire life will no doubt be kicking up a fuss when my childless aunt dies. I know that aunt is leaving significant assets to charities and an original of Australia's constitution to a library. I'm pretty sure sil will fight this and she somehow has all the valuable assets from when my grandmother passed away including a pair of Chippendale chairs which would be worth a small fortune. Despite her pretentions to class she squabbled with her sister over her own mothers valuables. That side of the family bemoan that my grandmother sold a valuable plot of land that is now worth several million. They are just obsessed with inheritance, I guess since they never bothered have proper careers themselves. Sil son had attended one of the most expensive prep schools in Australua (funded by gp I'm sure) but dropped out and last I heard from my father is selling valuables from his grandfather (on mothers side)for income. My father actually thinks this is a good business and is very proud of his grandson for being a prime mooch.
WOW - that's rich! How awful to be so spiteful!!!
Apparently greed is running in the other half of your family. Just stay away from it as far as you can. Don't get involved and if it gets too bad hire a lawyer and let them deal with it. I am so sorry though that you have to watch and listen to all this. :(
Post by: Neustache on January 22, 2016, 07:32:49 AM
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt. This brother used to bemoan the fact that he has siblings and if my mother had only had him her assets would not have to be divided up. My father who is divorced from my mother is quite the piece of work, he gloated that my mother never sought child support from him and she had the full financial burden of raising us four kids while he received the marital home. I no longer speak to him and my half sister has also cut him off and told him she would donate her inheritance to a cat shelter. My half brothers sister who has been on economic outpatient care her entire life will no doubt be kicking up a fuss when my childless aunt dies. I know that aunt is leaving significant assets to charities and an original of Australia's constitution to a library. I'm pretty sure sil will fight this and she somehow has all the valuable assets from when my grandmother passed away including a pair of Chippendale chairs which would be worth a small fortune. Despite her pretentions to class she squabbled with her sister over her own mothers valuables. That side of the family bemoan that my grandmother sold a valuable plot of land that is now worth several million. They are just obsessed with inheritance, I guess since they never bothered have proper careers themselves. Sil son had attended one of the most expensive prep schools in Australua (funded by gp I'm sure) but dropped out and last I heard from my father is selling valuables from his grandfather (on mothers side)for income. My father actually thinks this is a good business and is very proud of his grandson for being a prime mooch.
Don't things need to be notarized or witnessed? How would someone get away with forging a title? Maybe practices are different elsewhere...
Post by: Paul der Krake on January 22, 2016, 08:51:11 AM
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt.How is this not fraud and theft?
Why didn't you all report his sorry ass to the competent authorities if he refused to sign it back?
Post by: iris lily on January 22, 2016, 03:11:39 PM
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
And I would say that what her sis does with $10,000 is none of her business. It is certainly not snarkworthy for this website for f someone puts aside the money, giventhe dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
To each his own.
Post by: mm1970 on January 22, 2016, 06:31:31 PM
My paternal grandparents' deaths were full of drama.
7 kids (catholic family). 4 of the kids had undiagnosed, untreated mental health issues. By the time Grandpa had his stroke, Crazy Uncle still lived at home (in his 50's) had never held down a real job, did not use banks (money under mattress), etc.
So Grandpa has massive stroke and Super Catholic Uncle gets him put on a feeding tube, and he hangs on for 6 months in "rehab" before finally passing. Meanwhile, Crazy Uncle and Grandma live at home. It quickly becomes apparent that Grandma had been slipping mentally and Grandpa had been covering for her. Crazy Uncle is not covering for her. He is "taking care of her" but not well. Various attempts are made over a couple years to get him to do a better job of taking care of her in return for free room and board. In the end, Super Catholic Uncle (the only non-mentally ill one who lives locally) is doing all bill paying, checking in, scheduling, etc and Crazy Uncle is basically just a warm body in the house making sure Grandma doesn't wander out into traffic.
During these 2 years, there is much fighting amongst the siblings. Some of them do not ever visit Grandma. Some want the house sold and Grandma put in a home. Some want Crazy Uncle to continue "caring" for Grandma because the house is the main asset and if she goes in a home, there will be no inheritance (note: house was worth around 100K, and with 7 siblings it isn't like this is a ton of money we are talking about, making the whole thing even more sad). Alcoholic Uncle is an antiques hoarder and there is suspicion that he is nicking things from the house. Eventually Super Catholic Uncle, my dad, and Not-Crazy Aunt consult a lawyer, because getting Crazy Uncle out of the house is not super simple. They finally put Grandma in a nursing home, get Crazy Uncle out of the house, divide the possessions (this could be a whole separate story). By the time Grandma is in the home, she has lost a dangerous amount of weight, but she gains some weight in the home, continues to be a bitch on wheels (the more she lost her mind, the more bitchy she got. It was hilarious but also sad. She also got more and more racist to the point we would not take her out to lunch and stuff like that, as she would say LOUD "why is that black person in here" and things like that).
Grandma is in the home for about a year, slowly declining physically, totally not there mentally, the house gets sold, she dies before all the money is used, and everyone gets their 10K inheritance. Crazy Uncle is (we believe) getting some kind of section 8 type housing, Crazy Aunt*, Alcoholic Aunt, and Crazy Uncle #2 are basically never seen or heard from again. Alcoholic Uncle did not show up for the funeral. Crazy Uncle received his inheritance in cash. Crazy Aunt does still send wild emails to the whole family periodically so we know she is still alive. My dad, Not-Crazy Aunt, and Super Catholic Uncle still see each other a few times a year, with my dad and Not-Crazy Aunt being fairly close. Most of us grandkids (except my siblings and Not Crazy Aunt's kids) no longer see or talk to each other.
All that for 10K and some antiques.
*Tangential story about Crazy Aunt: Her oldest child gets into the state university, which has a very solid theater and film program, and he gets 100% financial aid because they have no money and no assets (they used to own a floral shop, but ran it into the ground, lost their paid off house, and declared bankruptcy. Totes the kind of people you want to be taking any kind of advice from). But he really wants to go out to CA to some fancy film school because he is going to be a famous director! For real!
So Cousin does 2 years for free at State, then quits to come home and start at Fancy Private Film School in the fall. He cannot actually get the loans for FPFS though, since neither he nor his parents can get them without some kind of co-signer. Crazy Aunt tries to convince everyone in the family to help pay for it, and everyone is like "WTF, your kid had a full ride, NO". So cousin works at the local movie theater for a couple years, then eventually somehow they scrape the money together and he moves out to Denver to go to some other "film "school" which is actually just an AA degree. Last I heard he is still working at a theater in Denver, never comes home (no money, no car) and has no other future plans.
Hooo wee wow.
Let's see, my family is also large and Catholic (you'll see my story on page 1, grandpa died, kids don't get money till his 2nd wife dies, she's almost 98 and still going strong). To put it in your terms:
Alcoholic uncle: died young, leaving his wife to raise 7 kids on her own. She's amazing. (Raised her kids by being a seamstress).
Normal awesome aunt: still kicking, really close with her kids and grandkids, she's my favorite. Healthy, happy, and awesome. Was good to her Step-mom
Crazy aunt: generally nice, but did not approve of the step-mom and marriage thing, got pretty bitter. She died of something a couple of years ago.
Crazy uncle who WANTED HIS MONEY an HOUR after grandpa died: he's not in the greatest of health. He may die before step mom.
My mom was always supportive of step-mom. She was the executor. (My mom died of alcoholism a few years ago)
Mean uncle who also didn't approve of step-mom. Well, at least he moved away? He's still alive
Favorite uncle: worked the business so got his inheritance while grandpa was still alive. Made a LOT more money just by being savvy with real estate. Buy an old house, fix it up himself, sell it for a profit. Lather, rinse, repeat. He does nice work.
Post by: AlanStache on January 22, 2016, 06:59:01 PM
Quote
given the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
Buying high and selling low is much easier too. It kind of all depends on where the condo is right, or like if one intended to own it and live in it.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Post by: JustGettingStarted1980 on January 22, 2016, 07:05:50 PM
Post by: sol on January 22, 2016, 07:18:27 PM
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Your family is apparently a little spicier than mine.
One of my grandpas definitely had a VHS porn stash, but several of us knew where it was (poorly) hidden and it mysteriously disappeared several years before he died. I like to think he had the foresight to to clean out his embarrassing stuff before his time came, in order to spare the family from any further gossip.
May we all be so thoughtful.
My other grandpa was diagnosed with severe emphysema and given a short time to live, while in his late 50s. He started writing a letter for his wife, on his computer, and left a printed letter with his will that had instructions for her on how to find it. He managed to keep it a secret while living another unexpected 14 years after that, and when she opened that letter on the computer it had 14 years of weekly messages to her, each describing how lucky he felt to have had that one additional week of experiences together and what they did that week that he most enjoyed. As love letters go, I'll never compete with that.
Post by: Sofa King on January 22, 2016, 07:23:31 PM
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
What your dad gives you for your birthday or Christmas is none of her business.
......also what the father gives the sister is not the OP business either (as well as what she does with it).
Post by: Taran Wanderer on January 22, 2016, 08:11:30 PM
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Your family is apparently a little spicier than mine.
One of my grandpas definitely had a VHS porn stash, but several of us knew where it was (poorly) hidden and it mysteriously disappeared several years before he died. I like to think he had the foresight to to clean out his embarrassing stuff before his time came, in order to spare the family from any further gossip.
May we all be so thoughtful.
My other grandpa was diagnosed with severe emphysema and given a short time to live, while in his late 50s. He started writing a letter for his wife, on his computer, and left a printed letter with his will that had instructions for her on how to find it. He managed to keep it a secret while living another unexpected 14 years after that, and when she opened that letter on the computer it had 14 years of weekly messages to her, each describing how lucky he felt to have had that one additional week of experiences together and what they did that week that he most enjoyed. As love letters go, I'll never compete with that.
I love this.
Post by: LPeters on January 22, 2016, 08:39:12 PM
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Your family is apparently a little spicier than mine.
One of my grandpas definitely had a VHS porn stash, but several of us knew where it was (poorly) hidden and it mysteriously disappeared several years before he died. I like to think he had the foresight to to clean out his embarrassing stuff before his time came, in order to spare the family from any further gossip.
May we all be so thoughtful.
My other grandpa was diagnosed with severe emphysema and given a short time to live, while in his late 50s. He started writing a letter for his wife, on his computer, and left a printed letter with his will that had instructions for her on how to find it. He managed to keep it a secret while living another unexpected 14 years after that, and when she opened that letter on the computer it had 14 years of weekly messages to her, each describing how lucky he felt to have had that one additional week of experiences together and what they did that week that he most enjoyed. As love letters go, I'll never compete with that.
I'm not crying, what are you talking about, YOU'RE CRYING
Post by: shelivesthedream on January 23, 2016, 04:13:13 AM
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Your family is apparently a little spicier than mine.
One of my grandpas definitely had a VHS porn stash, but several of us knew where it was (poorly) hidden and it mysteriously disappeared several years before he died. I like to think he had the foresight to to clean out his embarrassing stuff before his time came, in order to spare the family from any further gossip.
May we all be so thoughtful.
My other grandpa was diagnosed with severe emphysema and given a short time to live, while in his late 50s. He started writing a letter for his wife, on his computer, and left a printed letter with his will that had instructions for her on how to find it. He managed to keep it a secret while living another unexpected 14 years after that, and when she opened that letter on the computer it had 14 years of weekly messages to her, each describing how lucky he felt to have had that one additional week of experiences together and what they did that week that he most enjoyed. As love letters go, I'll never compete with that.
I'm not crying, what are you talking about, YOU'RE CRYING
No, YOU'RE definitely the one dribbling snot while simultaneously grinning like a loon.
Post by: chouchouu on January 23, 2016, 06:08:19 AM
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt. This brother used to bemoan the fact that he has siblings and if my mother had only had him her assets would not have to be divided up. My father who is divorced from my mother is quite the piece of work, he gloated that my mother never sought child support from him and she had the full financial burden of raising us four kids while he received the marital home. I no longer speak to him and my half sister has also cut him off and told him she would donate her inheritance to a cat shelter. My half brothers sister who has been on economic outpatient care her entire life will no doubt be kicking up a fuss when my childless aunt dies. I know that aunt is leaving significant assets to charities and an original of Australia's constitution to a library. I'm pretty sure sil will fight this and she somehow has all the valuable assets from when my grandmother passed away including a pair of Chippendale chairs which would be worth a small fortune. Despite her pretentions to class she squabbled with her sister over her own mothers valuables. That side of the family bemoan that my grandmother sold a valuable plot of land that is now worth several million. They are just obsessed with inheritance, I guess since they never bothered have proper careers themselves. Sil son had attended one of the most expensive prep schools in Australua (funded by gp I'm sure) but dropped out and last I heard from my father is selling valuables from his grandfather (on mothers side)for income. My father actually thinks this is a good business and is very proud of his grandson for being a prime mooch.
WOW - that's rich! How awful to be so spiteful!!!
Apparently greed is running in the other half of your family. Just stay away from it as far as you can. Don't get involved and if it gets too bad hire a lawyer and let them deal with it. I am so sorry though that you have to watch and listen to all this. :(
Yeah I intend to keep far away from that shitstorm! It's amazing how awful people can get about money they never earned.
Post by: chouchouu on January 23, 2016, 06:17:14 AM
My brother forged my mothers signature to have the title of one of her properties given to him. Recently he sold this property to an aunt.How is this not fraud and theft?
Why didn't you all report his sorry ass to the competent authorities if he refused to sign it back?
Don't things need to be notarized or witnessed? How would someone get away with forging a title? Maybe practices are different elsewhere...
[/quote]
This property is in Thailand, it is much easier to get away with dodgy dealings there, it's also very possible that bribes were handed over to help things along. My mother could take it up but doesn't want to. She's decided to disinherit him from her Australian assets instead. What he doesn't know is that she wants to disperse her assets now, I guess he probably would have challenged the will otherwise. She has also recently sold another of her Thai properties for 200k and will be selling the remaining one soon. Her Australian assets are worth quite a bit so he actually is missing out on a generous inheritance which he would have got if he hadn't stolen from her.
Post by: onlykelsey on January 23, 2016, 07:50:12 AM
Quote
She's decided to disinherit him from her Australian assets instead.
That is a sentence I have never read before. What a fascinating life.
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 23, 2016, 11:55:48 AM
Quotegiven the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
Buying high and selling low is much easier too. It kind of all depends on where the condo is right, or like if one intended to own it and live in it.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Thank you!
A condo in Iowa might not be a great investment...
and of course I would have much rather bought a 4 acre farm, but they are awfully hard to come by in downtown Toronto... ;)
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 23, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
Quotegiven the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
Buying high and selling low is much easier too. It kind of all depends on where the condo is right, or like if one intended to own it and live in it.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Thank you!
A condo in Iowa might not be a great investment...
and of course I would have much rather bought a 4 acre farm, but they are awfully hard to come by in downtown Toronto... ;)
HEY! Again, it would depend on where (location, location, location)!
Oh absolutely!! 100% agreed!
I mean... an igloo in Florida might not be a smart choice, but in Montreal or Quebec City... HUGE I mean HUGE return on investment!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6Pdvf3TpQ
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 23, 2016, 03:40:08 PM
I mean... an igloo in Florida might not be a smart choice, but in Montreal or Quebec City... HUGE I mean HUGE return on investment!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6Pdvf3TpQ
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 23, 2016, 03:47:30 PM
And then come June you have a nice swimming pool.
I mean... an igloo in Florida might not be a smart choice, but in Montreal or Quebec City... HUGE I mean HUGE return on investment!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ6Pdvf3TpQ
RIGHT?! Win win I'd say! ;)
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 23, 2016, 04:04:23 PM
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
Just curious - why did your dad give you 10K more? Or why didn't he give the same to your sister? That seems kind of.... unfair and sort of asking to foment trouble between siblings. Obviously a person can do whatever he wants with his money. But personally I wouldn't like it if one of my parents did that for no discernible reason other than my sibling wanted to buy real estate and I didn't.
You are completely right. It's not fair and I wish he would have split the money 50/50.
Luckily my sister and I both see that and she is not blaming me for his decision.
I can just hope that it will stay that way.
And why he did that? I say it's the intended investment that he prefers. But family issues run deep...
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 23, 2016, 04:10:08 PM
My own Inheritance drama is just beginning....
Father still alive gave a substantial amount to my sister and me 2 yrs ago as pre-inheritance. My sister had no plans for it and still doesn't. The money is literally losing value daily since it's in a savings account at the bank, at less than 2% interest eaten up by inflation.
I knew I would buy a condo and did that. Father being the way he is (frugal and a big supporter of RE investment) gave me about 10k more than her which I was happy for, but also felt bad towards her. She started to keep track which is totally fine, but now she is also asking what he gave me for my birthday and Christmas last year - to keep track.
I am afraid this is going to end up in trouble over the next 10 years.... and the real Drama that makes me sad is, that she isn't doing anything with her share to make it grow. But there is nothing I can do. She is grown up and knows better. :(
... to be continued...
Just curious - why did your dad give you 10K more? Or why didn't he give the same to your sister? That seems kind of.... unfair and sort of asking to foment trouble between siblings. Obviously a person can do whatever he wants with his money. But personally I wouldn't like it if one of my parents did that for no discernible reason other than my sibling wanted to buy real estate and I didn't.
You are completely right. It's not fair and I wish he would have split the money 50/50.
Luckily my sister and I both see that and she is not blaming me for his decision.
I can just hope that it will stay that way.
And why he did that? I say it's the intended investment that he prefers. But family issues run deep...
Just curious: If you wish your dad had made it even, have you considered giving your sister $5K to make it even?
Yes I have. And I have offered it to her. But I have also helped her out financially a few times in the past. She acknowledges that and didnt want me to pay her out. For now.
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 23, 2016, 04:14:46 PM
Well, it sounds like you have a great relationship. Good on you.
Thank you Joe. :)
Yes we do. I just hope it stays that way.
Post by: chouchouu on January 24, 2016, 04:49:48 AM
She's Thai but lives in Australia now. Many Australians hold assets in their ancestral countries, particularly Thais, Greeks and Lebanese.QuoteShe's decided to disinherit him from her Australian assets instead.
That is a sentence I have never read before. What a fascinating life.
Post by: Bicycle_B on January 26, 2016, 03:37:30 PM
Well, it sounds like you have a great relationship. Good on you.
Thank you Joe. :)
Yes we do. I just hope it stays that way.
Mermaid,
+1 on offering her the $5k and maintaining a good relationship. I have been through the gradual passing away of a parent and seen sibling relationships deepened and strengthened by treating each other well in the process. Great start by you and your dad. Good luck and best wishes!!
Post by: Bicycle_B on January 26, 2016, 06:51:38 PM
I'm not going into the whole drama, but my husband's grandmother specified that everything be split 50/50 between the two daughters. The only problem is that there were assets that there was no way could be split 50/50, in particular a piece of family land that had a cabin that the grandfather had built. But the grandmother just kept with, everything, 50/50. One daughter was sentimentally attached to the land and wanted to keep it in the family, the other wanted to either buy out the land/cabin at a discounted rate, or sell it and split the money 50/50.
Protip: If it's just between two people, there is an optimal way to split things 50/50. First note that selling the property and splitting the proceeds DOES benefit both parties equally; however something feels "wrong" with this approach since one was more attached to it than the other. And it might not be optimal if the property were, e.g., worth $70k to her, but she only received $50k as her share of the sale.
The best way to do it is to have each daughter make a silent bid (they could simultaneously exchange slips of paper on which they wrote their bid amount) to decide the winner. Then the winner gets to have the property, and gives some cash to the loser. With numbers, this might work as
A bids $70k
B bids $60k.
Then A gets the property, and sends $70k/2 = 35k to B. In the end, A feels like she received $35k and B feels like she received $35k, and neither "envies" the other's position.
Brilliant!!
Post by: iris lily on January 26, 2016, 07:12:43 PM
Quotegiven the dropping Dow this week.
I think condos are pretty awful "investments"
Buying high and selling low is much easier too. It kind of all depends on where the condo is right, or like if one intended to own it and live in it.
As much as I love this thread I am very disappointed with the lack of stories about people finding adult themed VHS tapes labeled "Mattock season III" that are really of grandpa & grandpa with the next door neighbor and a jar of mayonnaise.
Thank you!
A condo in Iowa might not be a great investment...
and of course I would have much rather bought a 4 acre farm, but they are awfully hard to come by in downtown Toronto... ;)
I apologize because a condo in Toronto is a decent place to park money. I had not paid attention to where you live.In the U.S. there are few markets that support condos. And you are right, Iowa aint one of them. I know. Ive lived there.
Post by: Mermaid3011 on January 27, 2016, 08:00:08 AM
I am trying. I guess all we can do is do our best. :)
Post by: Missy B on February 02, 2016, 10:17:01 PM
My mother's mother had always given one of her 4 kids -- a younger son -- special treatment. Always made excuses for him about why he wasn't doing well, gave him free rent while signing papers saying he was paying rent, so he could get higher welfare. Always excusing his bad decisions, saying he was unlucky, and trying to make up for how bad the world was treating him. Meanwhile, he is
1) getting let go from jobs because of his temper and difficulty in taking direction
2) taking jobs under the table so that he isn't paying tax and the employer isn't paying WCB or EI, meaning that when he gets injured on the under-the-table job he is unable to work with no income.
3) not getting jobs he could have had if he'd finished his training instead of quitting halfway through because the twenty minute commute to school 'was killing him'
4) racking up credit card debt and using an inheritance to buy an RV instead of paying their 50K credit card debt down, saying 'we'll pay the debt down when we're old. we're going to live while we're young'
He and his wife lived in my grandmother's house, and decided they wanted to move to the boonies and start their own business. My grandmother decided that she would sell the house and give all the money to the two younger sons. There were some pretty interesting justifications to the two older children, like "He hasn't had the opportunities you had. The economy is way worse than when you were his age, etc. The youngest son disagreed, saying that was bullshit and completely unfair to the older two, and it ought to split equally 4 ways. She told him if he didn't agree, he could get nothing too. And she went ahead and left everything to the one brother, which was what she wanted in the first place anyway.
This is totally fine with the inheriting brother, who believes it is perfectly fair and totally justified, because he has been so screwed by the world.
Then they move to the boonies and buy a house and a recession-sensitive business which they probably paid too much for, and which doesn't earn what they need, and proceeded to take out loans on the home equity until there is nearly nothing left.
Post by: markbike528CBX on February 03, 2016, 10:11:48 AM
However, my little sister and I were discussing what we would inherit, and how stuff would be divvied up.
She gets 1st floor and above (house stuff, knicknacks etc)
I get the basement, mostly Dad's ham radio stuff, train set etc.
My stepmother comes in and asks "What are you guys talking about?".
Us-- How we divvy stuff up, and then we explain it and got a nodding approval for the plan.
At the time, I was ~ 23 and Sis was ~ 14
My stepmother has mentioned giggly, that "I guess we are spending your inheritance", with new kitchen redoo, new garage,
all after my dad retired.
I said "It's your money".
Anyway, my stepmom is likely to last a long time, based on her mom's age, so I'm not looking for anything at all.
My guess that their income/wealth is mostly from dad's pension, which I can't inherit anyway.
Edit: well, I hope it all pans out that way.
Post by: Mermaid3011 on February 03, 2016, 04:54:10 PM
No drama here, mostly posting to follow.
However, my little sister and I were discussing what we would inherit, and how stuff would be divvied up.
She gets 1st floor and above (house stuff, knicknacks etc)
I get the basement, mostly Dad's ham radio stuff, train set etc.
My stepmother comes in and asks "What are you guys talking about?".
Us-- How we divvy stuff up, and then we explain it and got a nodding approval for the plan.
At the time, I was ~ 23 and Sis was ~ 14
My stepmother has mentioned giggly, that "I guess we are spending your inheritance", with new kitchen redoo, new garage,
all after my dad retired.
I said "It's your money".
Anyway, my stepmom is likely to last a long time, based on her mom's age, so I'm not looking for anything at all.
My guess that their income/wealth is mostly from dad's pension, which I can't inherit anyway.
That's a cute story! Thanks for sharing!
Post by: markbike528CBX on March 29, 2016, 08:09:17 PM
I thought it was a nice counterpoint to the rest of the thread.
didn't want to kill the thread with cuteness! Oops.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on March 29, 2016, 11:15:36 PM
This is deepening a rift that started nearly fifty years ago when grandfather and grandmother paid for uncle's private college education, and then "didn't have enough" to pay for father's education, so he went to community college, and then on to finish up at the state school. DW's father started bagging groceries after college, and then eventually landed a public sector union job. Lots of hard and sometimes dangerous work, but through a long career, miserly frugality, and careful money management, DW's father amassed a nearly $2 million nest egg and DW's parents were able to retire in their mid to late fifties.
Meanwhile, DW's uncle worked in accounting, bought a nice house in the suburbs, furnished it respectably and impeccably, traveled to Hawaii regularly, and is still working in his early sixties. But grandmother may now give uncle more "because he needs it more".
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
Back to DW's grandfather, I hope we make it through the funeral this week without big drama. There are already other issues surfacing about the remembrance video...
Post by: coin on March 30, 2016, 12:04:48 AM
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
I think most people do, but they rationalise it away as one son being emotionally hurt as a lesser evil than their other son actually starving/becoming homeless in retirement. Even when the starvation/homelessness/whatever is entirely self-inflicted.
In the Millionaire Next Door books the author talks about how wealthy parents can inadvertantly 'weaken' one child with what he called 'economic outpatient care'. EOC involved subsidising the child's lifestyle and perversely rewarding their bad behaviour.
Post by: boyerbt on March 30, 2016, 07:18:11 AM
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
I think most people do, but they rationalise it away as one son being emotionally hurt as a lesser evil than their other son actually starving/becoming homeless in retirement. Even when the starvation/homelessness/whatever is entirely self-inflicted.
In the Millionaire Next Door books the author talks about how wealthy parents can inadvertantly 'weaken' one child with what he called 'economic outpatient care'. EOC involved subsidising the child's lifestyle and perversely rewarding their bad behaviour.
I think that most parents and/or grandparents don't realize how their actions make the other siblings feel when they single out one to help even when the rest are financially and emotionally fine. If they do, they must believe that the other kids that "don't need it" understand and are okay with the additional help that is given. Because I do not have any kids I cannot speak from a parents point of view but I wonder if some of the extra giving is because parents want to feel needed and so they continue to give to the struggling children even if it is self-inflicted. Do any parents have thoughts on this?
I have experienced this firsthand and completely agree with "Economic Outpatient Care". My parents continue to financially help my soon to be 26 year old sibling even though she has a decent job ($45k) because she blows it on ridiculous stuff. I just sit back and wonder how long it will continue...?
Post by: elaine amj on March 30, 2016, 07:47:27 AM
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
I think most people do, but they rationalise it away as one son being emotionally hurt as a lesser evil than their other son actually starving/becoming homeless in retirement. Even when the starvation/homelessness/whatever is entirely self-inflicted.
In the Millionaire Next Door books the author talks about how wealthy parents can inadvertantly 'weaken' one child with what he called 'economic outpatient care'. EOC involved subsidising the child's lifestyle and perversely rewarding their bad behaviour.
I think that most parents and/or grandparents don't realize how their actions make the other siblings feel when they single out one to help even when the rest are financially and emotionally fine. If they do, they must believe that the other kids that "don't need it" understand and are okay with the additional help that is given. Because I do not have any kids I cannot speak from a parents point of view but I wonder if some of the extra giving is because parents want to feel needed and so they continue to give to the struggling children even if it is self-inflicted. Do any parents have thoughts on this?
I have experienced this firsthand and completely agree with "Economic Outpatient Care". My parents continue to financially help my soon to be 26 year old sibling even though she has a decent job ($45k) because she blows it on ridiculous stuff. I just sit back and wonder how long it will continue...?
As a parent of teens, I wonder how I would handle it. When we grew up, my older brother has received much more financial support from my parents than I have (my Dad bought him a car, etc). I don't ask for details so I don't know how much. He has always struggled on the edge financially and now, in his late 30s, with a wife and small baby to support, he still has to ask for financial help now and again. On the other hand, I've always been proud of being prudent financially. I got married young and DH and I have always been careful with our money. My parents have given us money for trips to visit them, generous gifts for all of us (I joke that all my "nice" furniture are gifts from my Dad) and so on but other than that, we support ourselves just fine.
At this point, I have no feelings of resentment or jealousy over the extra help my brother has gotten. Whether it was healthy for him is a whole 'nother topic. And I already find myself wanting to be extra generous towards his baby girl (I'm trying to convince DH to let me pay for all of us to have a vacation at Disney next summer).
I have a sneaky feeling that when it comes to dividing the estate, I will likely WANT to give a larger portion to my brother under the guise that "he needs it more". ACK - I am as bad as my parents!!!
Post by: Racer X on March 30, 2016, 07:47:57 AM
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Post by: Warlord1986 on March 30, 2016, 08:09:26 AM
Daddy shrugged, told me he would dead so he wouldn't care, then told me not to be bitter. Then he went on an hour long diatribe about what a mess my brother is, and how Daddy cried over him. I'm not the bitter one.
Post by: iris lily on March 30, 2016, 09:38:53 AM
The young man who is "getting more" was a meth head and lost his teeth. He has done a really really good job in turning his life around, and grandpa is paying multi thousands of dollars for dental implants.
Since his kid was dealt a harsh blow in life when his dad picked a loser woman for his mother, a lyng skanky person, the kid started out with less than his cousins.
So, in this case is it fine with me that the former meth kid hets etuff. After all, its just teeth and his cousns all have fine teeth.
Post by: MayDay on March 30, 2016, 09:43:31 AM
I have a kid with ASD and a neurotypical kid. We are already spending more resources on the ASD kid (private therapy lessons, etc) because he needs it more. Life will probably be harder for him as an adult because he lacks certain skills that DD has. At some point he will hopefully stand on his own two feet and manage his own life, but I can see how after 20 years of helping him along, it will be hard to transition to letting him navigate life on his own.
I see it mirrored somewhat in my H and his sister. His sister had/has ADHD as a child, and they tried medicating her but it did not work. As a child she got some special treatment because school was a lot harder for her. This is somewhat justified (see above comments about spending more on my own son) but MIL never transitioned to expecting more from SIL. And now at age 38, if MIL suddenly yanked all support, it would be a disaster, because she never let SIL fail while the stakes were lower.
MIL tried to pull the "you have to help SIL out once I am gone" on H, and he shut it down quick by telling her he would be ahppy to help her set up a trust for SIL. That is not what MIL meant, lol, so she dropped it. SIL is inheriting a considerably more valuable house than us (most of MIL's assets are houses that she rents out) because she "needs it more". Consensus is that she will not be able to pay the property taxes on the expensive house- once again MIL is doing her no favors by "helping" her. I don't care that SIL will get more*, I just hate that it will all be wasted. Oh well.
*most of the time I don't care. Sometimes I get really pissed on DH's behalf that his mother gives SIL 90% of her time and 60-70% of her resources.
Post by: MayDay on March 30, 2016, 09:50:27 AM
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Post by: Spork on March 30, 2016, 10:18:22 AM
I am just starting my own personal inheritance drama. But it hasn't played out yet, so very difficult to guess where it will go. Let's just say it all starts with one sibling that treated my parents very poorly, while consistently asking for (and receiving) handouts. Of the handouts I know of, I can easily add up to a 7 figure sum -- and it's just gone now. It went to fund a very spendy alcoholic lifestyle.
In the will the spendy alcoholic had their portion significantly reduced -- bypassing Spendy and going directly to Spendy's adult children.
Drama to follow...
Post by: coin on March 30, 2016, 10:34:44 AM
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Yeah I mentioned earlier in the thread that my parents told me my inheritance would be my then-8 year old brother plus a pile of money to ensure he was raised right. I was about... 15? Maybe 16?
Now that he's an adult they're still asking me to keep an eye on him. To be fair they aren't wrong to be so worried, but the solution is to coach him into fierce independence, not hope I catch him before he does anything too dumb.
He's part of the reason I want FI - he has learning problems and I worry about him. Plus, if I coach him into FI with me, we can hang out more often! :-)
Post by: Neustache on March 30, 2016, 10:35:02 AM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Awww....I love that story!!!
Post by: MgoSam on March 30, 2016, 10:45:31 AM
Post by: ducky19 on March 30, 2016, 11:09:56 AM
DW's dad and step-mother are both still alive and well, but I expect some drama when they do finally pass. My wife has 2 older brothers: the middle son is doing quite well and has MMM skills, the oldest drinks and spends too much (but his house is paid for and kids are grown, so could be much worse).
The problem is going to be with DW's step-sister. She's the same age as the older brother (late 40's?), is three times divorced, and is in general a complete train wreck. She married husband number three after dating for a couple months. He apparently told her he was a sex offender, but lied about his/the victim's ages. She had an in-home daycare that she's run for about 20 years. Suddenly, she is closing it without another job prospect. We all scratched our heads over this one, til it dawned on me that he must be a sex offender. Looked him up, sure enough - he was 19, she was 13. We passed that information on to DW's dad, who relayed it to her. Long story short, she booted him out, he landed back in jail (for like the third time) for being non-compliant. Not before he financed a car and ran up a bunch of credit cards in her name.
She decided against declaring bankruptcy, but is instead ignoring all of her bills/creditors (good plan). She's reopened her daycare, but is constantly complaining how she has no money. Meanwhile, on Facebook we see an endless procession of pictures/videos of her out at the bar with her friends each and every weekend, drinking it up. Did I mention she's friends with her daycare clients on Facebook!?!? Just the kind of person I'd want watching my kids... She's also taking a 7 day cruise in April with FIL and SMIL, but still has no money and can't figure out why. DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
To their credit, FIL and SMIL have changed their will so that she only gets an 1/8 of the estate. Her other half goes to her grown daughter who is unfortunately just like her mom. I can't see this ending well. I just hope it's years from now before we have to deal with it!
Post by: Kitsune on March 30, 2016, 11:35:32 AM
That reminds me, I need to get some new jeans, if they are comfortable and I like wearing them, I'll go and buy 5 more. I'm starting to love wearing identical things daily, it makes life a little easier.
I just found a pair of jeans that are dark-wash (so I can wear them to work with a blazer), fit PERFECTLY, and are 17$. I ordered 2 more pairs, no joke.
My inheritance drama involves my uncle denying my grandmother medical care so he could spend an extra 6 months raiding her retirement accounts. The case is still in court (elder abuse), and the lawyer and psychologist who helped him are being investigated by their professional orders. The psychologist, specifically, has been ordered to stop practicing until a verdict is reached, and THAT's in court, too.
Conclusion: don't mess with my mom. She's nice until you're not, and then you're TOAST.
Post by: Nederstash on March 30, 2016, 12:14:05 PM
Where to begin...
DW's dad and step-mother are both still alive and well, but I expect some drama when they do finally pass. My wife has 2 older brothers: the middle son is doing quite well and has MMM skills, the oldest drinks and spends too much (but his house is paid for and kids are grown, so could be much worse).
The problem is going to be with DW's step-sister. She's the same age as the older brother (late 40's?), is three times divorced, and is in general a complete train wreck. She married husband number three after dating for a couple months. He apparently told her he was a sex offender, but lied about his/the victim's ages. She had an in-home daycare that she's run for about 20 years. Suddenly, she is closing it without another job prospect. We all scratched our heads over this one, til it dawned on me that he must be a sex offender. Looked him up, sure enough - he was 19, she was 13. We passed that information on to DW's dad, who relayed it to her. Long story short, she booted him out, he landed back in jail (for like the third time) for being non-compliant. Not before he financed a car and ran up a bunch of credit cards in her name.
She decided against declaring bankruptcy, but is instead ignoring all of her bills/creditors (good plan). She's reopened her daycare, but is constantly complaining how she has no money. Meanwhile, on Facebook we see an endless procession of pictures/videos of her out at the bar with her friends each and every weekend, drinking it up. Did I mention she's friends with her daycare clients on Facebook!?!? Just the kind of person I'd want watching my kids... She's also taking a 7 day cruise in April with FIL and SMIL, but still has no money and can't figure out why. DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
To their credit, FIL and SMIL have changed their will so that she only gets an 1/8 of the estate. Her other half goes to her grown daughter who is unfortunately just like her mom. I can't see this ending well. I just hope it's years from now before we have to deal with it!
To be honest, if you find that out about your husband, you really need a drink.
Post by: ringer707 on March 30, 2016, 12:18:32 PM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Holy crap! That's incredible!
My mom has a similar, but not quite as badass story, about my great-grandmother. Great-grandma was born in 1904, married young, had grandpa, and divorced her alcoholic husband in 1926 (go, great-grandma!). She was a single mom raising grandpa through the prime-time of the Great Depression, so I can only imagine how tough it was on her. As many of her generation did, throughout the rest of her life she never again trusted the stock market, or most banks, and only took out U.S. Savings Bonds as her means of saving. As she got older and needed to be moved into a retirement home, she called my mom and instructed her to go into her house and remove the center leaf of her dining room table. My mom found what turned out to be approximately $15,000 worth of U.S. Savings Bonds in that table.
Post by: mtn on March 30, 2016, 12:22:33 PM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Holy crap! That's incredible!
My mom has a similar, but not quite as badass story, about my great-grandmother. Great-grandma was born in 1904, married young, had grandpa, and divorced her alcoholic husband in 1926 (go, great-grandma!). She was a single mom raising grandpa through the prime-time of the Great Depression, so I can only imagine how tough it was on her. As many of her generation did, throughout the rest of her life she never again trusted the stock market, or most banks, and only took out U.S. Savings Bonds as her means of saving. As she got older and needed to be moved into a retirement home, she called my mom and instructed her to go into her house and remove the center leaf of her dining room table. My mom found what turned out to be approximately $15,000 worth of U.S. Savings Bonds in that table.
We had to take my great aunt's house apart to find a stack of savings bonds worth over $100,000. She knew she put them somewhere safe, but couldn't remember where (small nook in the 2nd bedroom closet).
Post by: Spork on March 30, 2016, 12:31:01 PM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Holy crap! That's incredible!
My mom has a similar, but not quite as badass story, about my great-grandmother. Great-grandma was born in 1904, married young, had grandpa, and divorced her alcoholic husband in 1926 (go, great-grandma!). She was a single mom raising grandpa through the prime-time of the Great Depression, so I can only imagine how tough it was on her. As many of her generation did, throughout the rest of her life she never again trusted the stock market, or most banks, and only took out U.S. Savings Bonds as her means of saving. As she got older and needed to be moved into a retirement home, she called my mom and instructed her to go into her house and remove the center leaf of her dining room table. My mom found what turned out to be approximately $15,000 worth of U.S. Savings Bonds in that table.
We had to take my great aunt's house apart to find a stack of savings bonds worth over $100,000. She knew she put them somewhere safe, but couldn't remember where (small nook in the 2nd bedroom closet).
I would not be surprised to find this at my parents' house. Mom had Alzheimer's. The last few years she was home she was both increasingly paranoid (someone's going to steal my money!) and incredibly forgetful. She had a habit of hiding money, forgetting where she hid it and then demanding it was stolen. Assuming no one has found it (and actually stolen it) ... I bet there are a few thousand scattered here and there through the house.
Post by: Kitsune on March 30, 2016, 12:34:57 PM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Holy crap! That's incredible!
My mom has a similar, but not quite as badass story, about my great-grandmother. Great-grandma was born in 1904, married young, had grandpa, and divorced her alcoholic husband in 1926 (go, great-grandma!). She was a single mom raising grandpa through the prime-time of the Great Depression, so I can only imagine how tough it was on her. As many of her generation did, throughout the rest of her life she never again trusted the stock market, or most banks, and only took out U.S. Savings Bonds as her means of saving. As she got older and needed to be moved into a retirement home, she called my mom and instructed her to go into her house and remove the center leaf of her dining room table. My mom found what turned out to be approximately $15,000 worth of U.S. Savings Bonds in that table.
We had to take my great aunt's house apart to find a stack of savings bonds worth over $100,000. She knew she put them somewhere safe, but couldn't remember where (small nook in the 2nd bedroom closet).
I would not be surprised to find this at my parents' house. Mom had Alzheimer's. The last few years she was home she was both increasingly paranoid (someone's going to steal my money!) and incredibly forgetful. She had a habit of hiding money, forgetting where she hid it and then demanding it was stolen. Assuming no one has found it (and actually stolen it) ... I bet there are a few thousand scattered here and there through the house.
Yeah, my grandma did the same thing. Except she had 'usual' hiding places, and so 30K disappeared from her accounts in 1K chunks, mysteriously around the time he renovated his kitchen.
Families.
Post by: Paul der Krake on March 30, 2016, 12:48:10 PM
Post by: Nederstash on March 30, 2016, 01:24:32 PM
It is not uncommon for people who remember the Great Depression to bury things in their yard. There has to be millions of dollars of long forgotten wealth lying just a foot or two under the ground.
Is the 'Side hustles 2016' thread opened yet? Because I just got a great idea...
Post by: zinethstache on March 30, 2016, 01:31:32 PM
DH test drove a 2012 1 ton diesel dually. His father called me that day to offer this. Hey you know how I feel about used cars and always buy new? Well were thinking of giving XXX (DH's younger not very well off financially sister) 25k so she can get a different home (they are barely break even on their current one) and the wife and I have agreed to give you guys 25k toward a new truck.
I did some research on that. If my budget is 25k, and I have that saved, DH's dad kicks in his 25k... right? We STILL cannot buy a new truck because they START at 65k... so there ya go. I don't believe in buying new vehicles... EVER. And it rankled me that this man would only gift us this money if we use it one particular way.
My response was an email explaining that a 25k contribution was not enough. That we don't agree with buying a new vehicle. If he wanted to make it fair, he should give us 25k toward a property. (we are selling our clown house to buy another rental and 25k would really help us out).
I am not surprised... I never heard back.
We bought that used truck for 25k the next day. I feel great about what we bought. Even if it needed 10k worth of work it would NEVER, EVER come close to what we would have paid for new, and it does a great job. It is also loaded with options so I bet it would be more like 75k new... ack!
Post by: tomsang on March 30, 2016, 02:12:15 PM
With that being said. My firm learned that a client passed away who had an estate of $50 million plus(1990 dollars). A part that makes it unbelievable is this client almost died in an accident a few years prior and we and his attorney were pleading with him to get a will done. This guy was going to live forever or something. Very savvy businessman who used attorneys on a daily basis, yet he did not have a will.
Added to this was that he was recently remarried within 5 years of his death. He was rich prior to marriage. He brought in 2 young adult children and his new wife brought in two young adult children to their new family. They were probably all all minors upon marriage, and all adults or close to being an adult upon death. Young enough to be stupid, brash and entitled.
So we are told of the tragedy as follows:
Our client and his new wife are in the Bahamas or some amazing place on his 80 foot boat. They are out jet skiing by themselves with no personal flotation devices. He has a heart attack/stroke or something that is not good. She jumps off of her jet ski to try to save him and keep his head above water. They both die!
No will! Who died first? If her kids can prove that he died first. Then all of his assets would go to her. Then if she died 5 minutes later her kids could make a claim that all of his assets or most of his assets should go to them. Who died first?
The partner in charge of this estate was rightfully very worried about how the estate was going to go. Very complicated businesses to run, lots of money, heirs that may feel entitled or that the other potential heirs are not entitled, etc.
How did it go! It went ridiculously well. All of the kids decided to split the estate equally. Minimal drama as they all worked really well to ensure that the businesses were run well. I think both parents raised the kids well. They knew that that their dad loved his new wife, that he loved his new step-kids, and that he would want them to all work well together. The same could be said of his wife's kids.
After seeing/hearing people fighting over the silverware that is not listed in the will. We had a family who was fairly rich, with a new wife, no will, young heirs who handled the estate with respect.
Lots of estate stories out there. The moral of the story, don't have a will. No!!
Post by: LPeters on March 30, 2016, 05:31:23 PM
As an accountant, we have seen some iron clad wills contested until there were few assets left for the heirs. We have seen people fighting over the stupidest things, not because they had value or even sentimental value, just because they did not want the other heirs to have something. Lots of drama in estates. We cringe, when there is big dollars and a weak will or adversarial heirs.This may be the best story on this thread so far.
With that being said. My firm learned that a client passed away who had an estate of $50 million plus(1990 dollars). A part that makes it unbelievable is this client almost died in an accident a few years prior and we and his attorney were pleading with him to get a will done. This guy was going to live forever or something. Very savvy businessman who used attorneys on a daily basis, yet he did not have a will.
Added to this was that he was recently remarried within 5 years of his death. He was rich prior to marriage. He brought in 2 young adult children and his new wife brought in two young adult children to their new family. They were probably all all minors upon marriage, and all adults or close to being an adult upon death. Young enough to be stupid, brash and entitled.
So we are told of the tragedy as follows:
Our client and his new wife are in the Bahamas or some amazing place on his 80 foot boat. They are out jet skiing by themselves with no personal flotation devices. He has a heart attack/stroke or something that is not good. She jumps off of her jet ski to try to save him and keep his head above water. They both die!
No will! Who died first? If her kids can prove that he died first. Then all of his assets would go to her. Then if she died 5 minutes later her kids could make a claim that all of his assets or most of his assets should go to them. Who died first?
The partner in charge of this estate was rightfully very worried about how the estate was going to go. Very complicated businesses to run, lots of money, heirs that may feel entitled or that the other potential heirs are not entitled, etc.
How did it go! It went ridiculously well. All of the kids decided to split the estate equally. Minimal drama as they all worked really well to ensure that the businesses were run well. I think both parents raised the kids well. They knew that that their dad loved his new wife, that he loved his new step-kids, and that he would want them to all work well together. The same could be said of his wife's kids.
After seeing/hearing people fighting over the silverware that is not listed in the will. We had a family who was fairly rich, with a new wife, no will, young heirs who handled the estate with respect.
Lots of estate stories out there. The moral of the story, don't have a will. No!!
Post by: ringer707 on March 30, 2016, 06:03:32 PM
As an accountant, we have seen some iron clad wills contested until there were few assets left for the heirs. We have seen people fighting over the stupidest things, not because they had value or even sentimental value, just because they did not want the other heirs to have something. Lots of drama in estates. We cringe, when there is big dollars and a weak will or adversarial heirs.
With that being said. My firm learned that a client passed away who had an estate of $50 million plus(1990 dollars). A part that makes it unbelievable is this client almost died in an accident a few years prior and we and his attorney were pleading with him to get a will done. This guy was going to live forever or something. Very savvy businessman who used attorneys on a daily basis, yet he did not have a will.
Added to this was that he was recently remarried within 5 years of his death. He was rich prior to marriage. He brought in 2 young adult children and his new wife brought in two young adult children to their new family. They were probably all all minors upon marriage, and all adults or close to being an adult upon death. Young enough to be stupid, brash and entitled.
So we are told of the tragedy as follows:
Our client and his new wife are in the Bahamas or some amazing place on his 80 foot boat. They are out jet skiing by themselves with no personal flotation devices. He has a heart attack/stroke or something that is not good. She jumps off of her jet ski to try to save him and keep his head above water. They both die!
No will! Who died first? If her kids can prove that he died first. Then all of his assets would go to her. Then if she died 5 minutes later her kids could make a claim that all of his assets or most of his assets should go to them. Who died first?
The partner in charge of this estate was rightfully very worried about how the estate was going to go. Very complicated businesses to run, lots of money, heirs that may feel entitled or that the other potential heirs are not entitled, etc.
How did it go! It went ridiculously well. All of the kids decided to split the estate equally. Minimal drama as they all worked really well to ensure that the businesses were run well. I think both parents raised the kids well. They knew that that their dad loved his new wife, that he loved his new step-kids, and that he would want them to all work well together. The same could be said of his wife's kids.
After seeing/hearing people fighting over the silverware that is not listed in the will. We had a family who was fairly rich, with a new wife, no will, young heirs who handled the estate with respect.
Lots of estate stories out there. The moral of the story, don't have a will. No!!
I believe that there's a rule to the effect of if an heir dies within a certain amount of time after the deceased, they would not collect as they normally would under the will. Or perhaps it's only for intestate individuals? Any wills and estates attorneys on here, let me know if I'm remembering that correctly. I remember hearing something about it bar prep, but haven't done any wills and estates work. I thought it was something like if husband and wife both get in a car accident and husband dies, and then wife dies within 48 hours, wife's heirs would not inherit pursuant to his will.
Not that that's relevant to your story since it worked out well, but just food for thought!
Post by: elaine amj on March 30, 2016, 06:26:03 PM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
Ha ha - DHs grandma was like that. My SIL went through all her clothes after she passed away at 96 and found lots of cash in various pockets. And also found some of my DD's baby clothes from when we were living with her. She used to stash away her favourite dresses and pull them out a year or three later (after DD had outgrown it of course!). It was too funny!! (Good thing all DD's gorgeous dresses were $1-$5 apiece from yard sales!)
Post by: okits on March 30, 2016, 07:08:26 PM
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
If you'll be stuck looking after BIL and nephew no matter what, take however much your ILs want to give you to make things "even", then use that cash as bailout money when BIL/nephew need it. As you observed, just because they receive enough to correct their situation doesn't mean the money will be used for that. If the inheritance money gets doled out by you and DH you can at least be sure it's spent keeping them out of poverty, instead of six months of really awesome purchases he "deserves", then back at your door holding a hand out (which you'll be filling with your own hard-earned money.)
Post by: SweetTPi on March 30, 2016, 08:22:20 PM
The only drama that I know of after my Grandpa died was due to my Uncle, one of 4 kids, who was given an additional inheritance. There were 2 policies, and he was sole benificiary for one, while the other was evenly split between all 4 kids. The one protesting? The uncle in question, as he thought it was unfair to the others.
Turns out my Grandpa had done it intentionally, and had informed the other 3 siblings at the time of doing the paperwork. Uncle lived in the family home, which he had bought (all above board) from Grandpa, and had fixed it up, including converting part of the 1st floor into a bed/bath. He took years off from having any kind of steady job to take care of Grandpa as his health and mind deteriorated (dementia, driven in part by health issues). The other 'kids' were completely supportive of this action of Grandpa's, and insisted that Uncle take the money.
My brother and I have already started 'diving things up'- we've agreed that he gets picture X and I get painting Y. That's pretty much it. Forget any money- we want them to spend that on themselves. My parents are amused by our antics. When I was 22, they updated their will, and told me I was the executor. As executor, I would have to create a trust for myself if I was under 25 due to some insurance/pension/tax reason (?). And, as the executor creating the trust for myself, I was to name myself the trustee. Thankfully, I will not have to deal with that.
Post by: Primm on March 30, 2016, 09:10:48 PM
I would not be surprised to find this at my parents' house. Mom had Alzheimer's. The last few years she was home she was both increasingly paranoid (someone's going to steal my money!) and incredibly forgetful. She had a habit of hiding money, forgetting where she hid it and then demanding it was stolen. Assuming no one has found it (and actually stolen it) ... I bet there are a few thousand scattered here and there through the house.
My ex-husband's grandfather was like this before we found nursing home care for him. He used to ring the police saying his car had been stolen, someone had taken all his money or equally interesting stories. Small country town where everyone knew everyone, so the cops would ring me and I'd have to go looking for the location of where he had driven the car and then forgotten, and walked home. Yes, I tried to get his licence and car taken off him, but the police, the rest of the family and his health carers all said "he will be lost without it". Until the day he drove it into an (empty) pram beside a cafe...
When he died his 3 daughters wanted everything split equally, so they spent quite a bit of time making sure that happened. Right down to the antique encyclopaedia set that used to take pride of place above the fireplace. "Beth gets A-H, Jean, you take I-O and I'll have the rest..." Not even joking.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 30, 2016, 09:56:57 PM
Mom and Daddy are still alive. But were they to get hit by a low flying flamingo tomorrow, my older brother and I would inherit everything equally. They only difference is that I get my share upfront, while his is put in a trust with me as the executor. I told Daddy that my brother wouldn't be the rock I carry around my neck for the rest of my life, and that I would be releasing his money to him asap. The less I have to do with my sibling, the better.
Daddy shrugged, told me he would dead so he wouldn't care, then told me not to be bitter. Then he went on an hour long diatribe about what a mess my brother is, and how Daddy cried over him. I'm not the bitter one.
Holy crap. Are you my clone?
The only difference between your situation and mine is that my particular messed-up sibling happens to be younger than me.
Post by: Warlord1986 on March 31, 2016, 07:36:00 AM
Mom and Daddy are still alive. But were they to get hit by a low flying flamingo tomorrow, my older brother and I would inherit everything equally. They only difference is that I get my share upfront, while his is put in a trust with me as the executor. I told Daddy that my brother wouldn't be the rock I carry around my neck for the rest of my life, and that I would be releasing his money to him asap. The less I have to do with my sibling, the better.
Daddy shrugged, told me he would dead so he wouldn't care, then told me not to be bitter. Then he went on an hour long diatribe about what a mess my brother is, and how Daddy cried over him. I'm not the bitter one.
Holy crap. Are you my clone?
The only difference between your situation and mine is that my particular messed-up sibling happens to be younger than me.
My brother is almost 10 years older than me. He's a ne'er do well. I got horror stories. Last time I saw the guy I was 20, maybe 21. He told me I was ugly and fat. I'm 5'6" and at the time I weighed around 115. That was when I realized he was sick and I didn't need that negativity in my life.
Post by: Spork on March 31, 2016, 07:58:31 AM
I would not be surprised to find this at my parents' house. Mom had Alzheimer's. The last few years she was home she was both increasingly paranoid (someone's going to steal my money!) and incredibly forgetful. She had a habit of hiding money, forgetting where she hid it and then demanding it was stolen. Assuming no one has found it (and actually stolen it) ... I bet there are a few thousand scattered here and there through the house.
My ex-husband's grandfather was like this before we found nursing home care for him. He used to ring the police saying his car had been stolen, someone had taken all his money or equally interesting stories. Small country town where everyone knew everyone, so the cops would ring me and I'd have to go looking for the location of where he had driven the car and then forgotten, and walked home. Yes, I tried to get his licence and car taken off him, but the police, the rest of the family and his health carers all said "he will be lost without it". Until the day he drove it into an (empty) pram beside a cafe...
When he died his 3 daughters wanted everything split equally, so they spent quite a bit of time making sure that happened. Right down to the antique encyclopaedia set that used to take pride of place above the fireplace. "Beth gets A-H, Jean, you take I-O and I'll have the rest..." Not even joking.
Regarding the car... We had the same problem. It would come home with new dents on it every week. I followed her once and she nearly had multiple collisions (one near collision would have been head on at 45 mph). Hiding the keys did nothing. She would always dig up some spare set. One day I took her car to an alarm shop in town and said "I'll give you $50 if you can put a hidden kill switch under the dash in about an hour." Just adding a secret button you had to press to start the car pretty much fixed that.
Post by: tomsang on March 31, 2016, 10:05:08 AM
I believe that there's a rule to the effect of if an heir dies within a certain amount of time after the deceased, they would not collect as they normally would under the will. Or perhaps it's only for intestate individuals? Any wills and estates attorneys on here, let me know if I'm remembering that correctly. I remember hearing something about it bar prep, but haven't done any wills and estates work. I thought it was something like if husband and wife both get in a car accident and husband dies, and then wife dies within 48 hours, wife's heirs would not inherit pursuant to his will.
Not that that's relevant to your story since it worked out well, but just food for thought!
I don't deal with estates and I would think that would be the logical answer. The concern, was that the kids and their attorneys had $50 million+ reasons to make an argument that they were entitled to more or the other kids were entitled to less. Without a will, nothing was spelled out. There most likely was a prenup as well just to make it more exciting. I recall this estate, because of the size complexity and how diplomatic the kids were in resolving it in a manner that was fair to all.
Post by: Sibley on March 31, 2016, 10:54:45 AM
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Racer, if you do get that money, perhaps set it aside to be used to help your brother? You can make that as formal or informal as you'd like.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 31, 2016, 01:59:11 PM
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Racer, if you do get that money, perhaps set it aside to be used to help your brother? You can make that as formal or informal as you'd like.
Best to find a way to dodge the long-term personal responsibility, and I'm not speaking solely as a skiver. It's true I'm a slightly lazy version of evil incarnate, but there's more to my position than just my instinctive non-donation of rodent tush.
When it comes to genuine need, I've seen siblings take on the responsibility for caring for a developmentally delayed or less able brother or sister after the parents pass away. It's a huge commitment, roughly on par with accepting caregiving responsibility for a sick or aging parent or spouse, and it becomes more physically difficult over time as the needy child becomes physically larger or (in some cases) more needy as his or her disease progresses, while the caregiver's strength declines with age. The arrangement can work out well if the person in need doesn't have the type of need that expands to consume, and then exceed, all available resources. Also, it's vital that the sibling accepting the caregiving duties has the skills and resources to care for that individual and still meet his or her other commitments to work, kids, etc. There are some families where people willingly scale back their other commitments in anticipation of caring for someone else long-term, but I've also seen it destroy marriages and eat up the childhoods of kids who don't get to be kids. Having a high-needs individual definitely loads up the lifeboat, makes the family more vulnerable in difficult times, and reduces the pool of available time, energy, or resources available for other things or people. That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing... it just has to be planned intelligently and not taken on lightly.
But that's not what I think Racer is talking about. I don't think what Racer is talking about is a situation of genuine need.
Racer's talking about a basically able-bodied adult of what appears to be normal intelligence, who has a higher "need" for money due to past lifestyle decisions, and whose need is very likely to continue because the pattern of lifestyle decisions shows no sign of changing. That's not sustainable no matter who he or she gets dumped on, because the "need" expands to consume all the available resources since the spender simply cannot or will not self-regulate. It's nearly impossible to manage someone like that when they've got a peer relationship with you. A trust company, at least, can turn off the tap without massive social consequences.
Post by: Racer X on March 31, 2016, 02:00:30 PM
We're working through a "but X needs it more" situation at present, but with a slight twist.
DW's parents are both still with us, but they're doing some estate planning and DW, being the financially stable sibling, has been included in the conversation. My BIL is a walking financial disaster. Good guy, but some poor career decisions, bankruptcy, divorce, and a tendency to spend on things because he "deserves" them have all taken their toll. He and his young son have now moved back "home" with the in-laws. He has an OK job, but is basically living paycheck to paycheck. Anyway... the in-laws have come to the conclusion that they have assisted BIL more than DW, and want to correct that going forward. They are obsessed with making all financial things "even."
Our argument to them is - BIL needs it more. We don't need their money. We're FI. We have everything we want and need. If the in-laws aren't going to spend the money on themselves, then they should give it to BIL. If you don't give BIL enough money to correct his situation (set aside the debate as to whether or not he actually WOULD use it for that...) then his financial care falls on us when the in-laws are gone. Despite our frustrations with some of BIL's decisions, we're not so cold hearted that we're going to allow a sibling and nephew to live in poverty. We would prefer that my in-laws give him the money, and that way we're left out of it. Unfortunately the in-laws see it differently, and care of my BIL and nephew is going to fall squarely on our shoulders after they pass.
Racer, if you do get that money, perhaps set it aside to be used to help your brother? You can make that as formal or informal as you'd like.
Yeah. We'll spoil the crap out of our nephew, I'm sure. I didn't work hard for FI not to be the cool uncle. I don't know where DW is going to land on helping her brother, however. Some days you really feel sorry for the guy. Others you hear him complain about not having any money despite having lived at "home" (at the age of 43!) for 10 of the past 12 years, and having just purchased a brand new 4x4 truck. I mean, to not having any savings after that? I'd have to consciously TRY to waste that much money. What's become sort of the ultimate irony, is that every time we go to visit, he gives ME old hand me down clothes and tools. So I'm walking around all FI in my broke-ass BIL's hand me down sweatshirts. It's a crazy world.
Post by: iris lily on March 31, 2016, 02:09:01 PM
I was talking about this issue to my sister in law who works for the medical examiner in her county. She said that, in a situation of multiple deaths in a car accident "the person I walk up to first, died first" and thats that.
I guess the lesson here is that IF time of death matters, you might want to challenge your local authorities' decisions.
Post by: Apples on March 31, 2016, 02:44:58 PM
Regarding Economic Outpatient Care, I can see how it develops.
I have a kid with ASD and a neurotypical kid. We are already spending more resources on the ASD kid (private therapy lessons, etc) because he needs it more. Life will probably be harder for him as an adult because he lacks certain skills that DD has. At some point he will hopefully stand on his own two feet and manage his own life, but I can see how after 20 years of helping him along, it will be hard to transition to letting him navigate life on his own.
I see it mirrored somewhat in my H and his sister. His sister had/has ADHD as a child, and they tried medicating her but it did not work. As a child she got some special treatment because school was a lot harder for her. This is somewhat justified (see above comments about spending more on my own son) but MIL never transitioned to expecting more from SIL. And now at age 38, if MIL suddenly yanked all support, it would be a disaster, because she never let SIL fail while the stakes were lower.
MIL tried to pull the "you have to help SIL out once I am gone" on H, and he shut it down quick by telling her he would be ahppy to help her set up a trust for SIL. That is not what MIL meant, lol, so she dropped it. SIL is inheriting a considerably more valuable house than us (most of MIL's assets are houses that she rents out) because she "needs it more". Consensus is that she will not be able to pay the property taxes on the expensive house- once again MIL is doing her no favors by "helping" her. I don't care that SIL will get more*, I just hate that it will all be wasted. Oh well.
*most of the time I don't care. Sometimes I get really pissed on DH's behalf that his mother gives SIL 90% of her time and 60-70% of her resources.
Regarding your kids: My aunt and uncle have 3 autistic sons who now are in their 20's and all live in different forms of supervised housing situations. In in a group setting, one right down the road from them (so they check over all the time) and one still in a school/training place. It really depends where on the spectrum they fall, but I think the critical time for transition is the early 20's. There's a lot of programs and centers out there to help transition people to semi-independent living, which then helps the parents transition to expecting a bit more out of their kids. However, they don't have any neurotypical kids so there's no worries about things being "fair". If it helps, my dad always told us growing up that "fair and even aren't always the same thing". This usually applied to one of us getting a bigger cookie than the other, etc...but it also applied to them paying for college but it being different amounts depending on where we attended.
Post by: Kaspian on March 31, 2016, 02:48:51 PM
When my grandfather died about 5 years ago, he left verbal instructions with my mother to shell out $160K of his money to the grandkids ($40K each for 4 of us.) Well, my sister and I are fine but my two brother are financial dolts so instead of giving us the money my mom wrote these instructions into her will. But then she proceeded to hand some of it out--$34K for renovations for brother #3's house, $40K worth of grandpa's real estate for sister, about $2K a month to brother #2 who lives in a big city and him and wife can't support themselves. Me? Nothing. (Too independent apparently.)
My mom passed away in December and there staring my dad in the face of her will is this legal instruction to shell out $160K of their money to the four of us on her passing. Well, holy shitballs--there's no money left in the account! I was just generally disgusted that it wasn't given to us in the first place. In order to get the will properly out of probate, dad had to settle with everyone. He had to get my big city leech brother to sign saying he got his, sister to sign she'd gotten the properly in lieu, and renovation brother to sign that he'd gotten $34K. He then took out a line of credit to pay off me and the rest to the one brother. I was miserable about the whole thing--I didn't want "his" money.
So: Never will specific amounts to other people when you're married and your account doesn't have the money upon your death.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 31, 2016, 05:53:02 PM
I admire your father, he is very honest and upright, following your mother's wishes so well.
Here's my drama--played out over the last few months.
So: Never will specific amounts to other people when you're married and your account doesn't have the money upon your death.
Post by: Megma on March 31, 2016, 08:55:22 PM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
I love how you used the money!
We had a similar situation...
After my grandma had stroke, all of her jewelry suddenly went missing including her wedding ring. She had lots of nice jewelry too. We had no idea if it was taken or she'd hidden it or what but lots of nurses and therapists had been in the house as she was getting in home care, plus grandpa had done some renovations, so lots of strangers around. And grandma couldn't really talk after her stroke...
Afte months of having no idea what happened to all of her jewelry, one day grandpa pulled a blanket out of the bedroom closet and all of her jewelry came flying out from the folds of the blanket. Grandma was apparently nervous someone would try to steal it. Oh grandma. 😀
Post by: LeRainDrop on March 31, 2016, 10:37:41 PM
Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
I love how you used the money!
We had a similar situation...
After my grandma had stroke, all of her jewelry suddenly went missing including her wedding ring. She had lots of nice jewelry too. We had no idea if it was taken or she'd hidden it or what but lots of nurses and therapists had been in the house as she was getting in home care, plus grandpa had done some renovations, so lots of strangers around. And grandma couldn't really talk after her stroke...
Afte months of having no idea what happened to all of her jewelry, one day grandpa pulled a blanket out of the bedroom closet and all of her jewelry came flying out from the folds of the blanket. Grandma was apparently nervous someone would try to steal it. Oh grandma. 😀
LOL! Both of these are great stories. They make me so happy!
Post by: okits on April 01, 2016, 01:40:10 AM
He then took out a line of credit to pay off me and the rest to the one brother.
What a mess. Will he take back the $40k to pay off the LOC, now that everything in the will is settled? He might protest if you offer it as a gift but you could always tell him to leave it to you in his own will (if his estate has it; at least by then he'll have no use for it) or call it a loan (whether you charge interest or ever collect on it - meh.) Will a bank accept a payment on a LOC if the payment isn't made by the debt holder?
At least there was no nasty family fighting (that you mentioned), but it's awful your father lost his wife and simultaneously needed to cough up almost $50k that he didn't just have lying around (and now has interest expense he has to pay.)
Post by: franklin w. dixon on April 03, 2016, 07:17:14 PM
We were at a small family party last week, or two weeks ago, I think there were only 7 cousins there, and we were talking about how weird it was that a lot of folks we know don't hang out and have fun with their families. Then my cousin had the point: We were the weird ones.The other day my wife was like oh it's so good of you that you don't mind if my mom stays with us, all my friends can't stand their in-laws and could never live together, and I was like, ah, but how annoying are they? And she said "oh that's a good point."
Post by: mm1970 on April 04, 2016, 02:01:15 PM
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
I think most people do, but they rationalise it away as one son being emotionally hurt as a lesser evil than their other son actually starving/becoming homeless in retirement. Even when the starvation/homelessness/whatever is entirely self-inflicted.
In the Millionaire Next Door books the author talks about how wealthy parents can inadvertantly 'weaken' one child with what he called 'economic outpatient care'. EOC involved subsidising the child's lifestyle and perversely rewarding their bad behaviour.
This is it right here. People are irrational, but want to sound rational.
My mom was the same way. You know, I have an older sis and a younger brother. We chose different paths. We are a blue collar family. Sister got a job out of HS for an insurance company, and is the office manager. Her husband was in manual labor. Her son is a diesel truck mechanic (he's early 20s).
My brother spent a few years in the Air Force out of HS, then worked at the same manual labor job as my BIL, then drove trucks for awhile (went to school for free but didn't like the company that paid for it, quit, and had to pay them back). Now he's a prison guard. His wife has a degree, sold cell phones for 20 years, and now works at a bank.
I went to college on ROTC scholarship (mostly) and am an engineer. First in the family to go to college out of HS.
Mom/ step-dad's will splits everything 3 ways. Mom never had much money after the divorce, but step-dad is frugal and is worth about $0.5M, a lot in my dinky home town. He also has SS and a pension. (Mom died 4 years ago.)
However, there has been a lot of economic outpatient care. For my sister, it's emergencies only, and only once or twice. They bought a mobile home, put it on land given to them as a wedding gift, and paid it off in 11 years. For my brother, well, they like to spend money. SIL spends on clothing and toys for the girls. A LOT of them. She was driving 20k miles a year to work and to shop, easily. She ate out constantly. And don't get me started on the 9 cars in 5 years (mostly used, but still). My mother was guilted (you know, the divorce and all, she abandoned her baby...he was 14) into paying for all these "things" they couldn't afford. (My SIL was making $65k per year and the mortgage payment was $500 a month).
My mom had a home equity loan that my brother used. Then my niece needed braces. Guess who paid for that. When brother asked for $5000 for central air, mom laughed and said "if I had money for central air I'd put it in my own house!"
Now that mom is gone, step dad is mostly ignored by that family, unless they need emergency babysitting. Nevermind bringing him dinner (he has had many surgeries). Or saying hi. Just "here are the girls" and half the time they don't feed them before they get dropped off. My sister and her husband do a lot for him. I'm 3000 miles away.
For awhile, my mom would write me a check if she gave money to the others. She really wanted to be "fair", even if it wasn't "fair". She once bragged about how she gave everyone the same amount of money for their weddings. I said "mom, seriously, you paid for my sister and my brother's hotel room at my wedding. That is NOT paying for my wedding!" I didn't care, but she rationalized it all the same.
Thing is, it REALLY bothered my sister. A lot. My sister and her hubby probably made $60k combined. My brother and his wife were probably at $90k for awhile, though they are probably a bit higher now. We make at least 2x that and I DON'T CARE. I don't need the money. Sis was especially upset that my mom started college funds for all 3 grandchildren...but not my kid. Because "you don't need it".
My step-dad definitely prefers to be more fair. And I tell him I don't care. In fact, I tell him to spend it!
Sorry that was long, but people WANT to be fair and rational, so they tell themselves many things...
Post by: Kaspian on April 05, 2016, 02:03:17 PM
He then took out a line of credit to pay off me and the rest to the one brother.
What a mess. Will he take back the $40k to pay off the LOC, now that everything in the will is settled? He might protest if you offer it as a gift but you could always tell him to leave it to you in his own will (if his estate has it; at least by then he'll have no use for it) or call it a loan (whether you charge interest or ever collect on it - meh.) Will a bank accept a payment on a LOC if the payment isn't made by the debt holder?
At least there was no nasty family fighting (that you mentioned), but it's awful your father lost his wife and simultaneously needed to cough up almost $50k that he didn't just have lying around (and now has interest expense he has to pay.)
Yep, exactly what happened. Rule here: If you're supposed to give money to your kids from somebody else, do it! Even if 2/4 of them are irresponsible. Don't write a defined amount into your own will instead. Ersh...
I can help out my dad if needed, but my sister said I should not give a huge chunk ever because he'll just give it to the two brothers when they start whining.
Post by: auntie_betty on April 06, 2016, 01:06:15 AM
OH's mum has always given EOC to his brother who's never amounted to much. Nothing as exciting as on here, just bad choices and lack of application. No odds to OH, but I've always been concerned over her enabling him - and OH being expected to continue when she's gone (not from the financial view but from the 'grow up and take responsibility' view (he's 54 btw).
MIL now 92, in early stages of dementia and BIL looking after her at home - and doing a good job of it. Her will (I've seen it) leaves house to BIL and money to OH. I've always felt home should be 50/50 - not because we want it but to stop BIL selling it and frittering (aka drinking/gambling/new hobby) it away. Which I suppose is making me an enabler as well. Could never had suggested this to MIL as she's always had a paranoid fear OH is after her money and doesn't see what she's done is wrong (e.g. She gave him money once as he had to take a week's unpaid leave to sort out his car insurance - seriously, wtf?). We've also found out recently that she has more money than we thought so I suppose if OH des continue the EOC at least he can do it with her money.
Post by: merula on April 06, 2016, 12:58:24 PM
e.g. She gave him money once as he had to take a week's unpaid leave to sort out his car insurance - seriously, wtf?
That sounds to me like code for "got a DUI ticket and had license revoked".
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 06, 2016, 01:48:03 PM
MIL now 92, in early stages of dementia and BIL looking after her at home - and doing a good job of it. Her will (I've seen it) leaves house to BIL and money to OH.
That could put BIL on the short end of the stick, actually.
Caregiving for an adult with dementia is a brutal full-time job and it can drag on for years. Hopefully he is being compensated for it in a timely fashion instead of having to wait, so that he can take care of his own living and medical expenses. From what you've said he isn't the most financially responsible person, but the fact he's doing in-home caregiving means there's an enormous opportunity cost to him.
Post by: Kaydedid on April 06, 2016, 02:38:18 PM
My father was diagnosed with a terminal illness that left him unable to manage his affairs. The state appointed a legal guardian for him. My father owned quite a bit of land, which was the guardian sold to pay for his medical bills. Most of it was sold for a good price, but she sold several parcels at below-market value to a man (call him Al) that, according to the town gossips, was sleeping with her to get what he could.
My father was an eccentric man, and a well-educated hoarder. I spent several breaks sophomore year of college going through a some of his personal property, trying to salvage heirlooms etc. Al comes by the second day I'm there, and tries to convince me to give him permission to search the premises, since 'he knew where my dad would hide the valuable stuff'. I of course say no. A few months later, I get a call from a neighbor that Al has been digging holes on my dad's property, looking for gold. (My dad did have some precious metals, but they were all safe deposit boxes-he was also paranoid about thieves, perhaps because he knew Al?) Every time I talk to anyone in the area, I hear another story about how Al has been seen around my dad's properties, breaking in and/or stealing things.
The clincher-my dad had almost nothing of value outside of his safe-deposit boxes. He had more junk than you can imagine-he spent the last 10+ years of his life going to auctions 3-5x/week, never buying less than a pickup-truck load each time, since 'if you stay til the end, they pretty much give stuff away!' He had multiple properties, some commercial, none of them maintained, where he hoarded this junk. Everyone seemed very concerned about Al's thievery, but honestly, the thought that he was reducing the amount of crap to deal with was wonderful.
Post by: SailorGirl on April 09, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Friend had lived with her mom for about 25 years, mostly supporting Mom in exchange for help raising friend's daughter and general household stuff. Mom got a small SS check that she contributed towards the household but otherwise had no money. Mom's health had been declining over the last few years but she was diagnosed in December with pancreatic cancer. Bro and sis hadn't spent any time (or money) taking care of Mom for the last ten years and friend didn't expect any help from them now.
Friend spent whatever small amount of savings she had buying stuff for her mom that wasn't covered by medicare like a recliner to sleep in the living room because mom couldn't do stairs anymore and couldn't breathe while lying flat. As Mom got sicker friend took a leave from work to take care of her (couldn't afford a caregiver). Her daughter also came over every night and weekend to help.
When it became clear that Mom had hours left to live, bro and sis show up. Bro was actually helpful but sis - who owns four houses, each professionally decorated and landscaped and has a high-powered job - went through friend's house taking things she thought should be hers. Sis was actually screaming at friend about stuff she couldn't find while mom lay in the living room in the hospital bed (from hospice) gasping for air.
I don't even understand how someone could do that...
Post by: Sibley on April 09, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
A friend's mom passed away recently and I just got this story from her.
Friend had lived with her mom for about 25 years, mostly supporting Mom in exchange for help raising friend's daughter and general household stuff. Mom got a small SS check that she contributed towards the household but otherwise had no money. Mom's health had been declining over the last few years but she was diagnosed in December with pancreatic cancer. Bro and sis hadn't spent any time (or money) taking care of Mom for the last ten years and friend didn't expect any help from them now.
Friend spent whatever small amount of savings she had buying stuff for her mom that wasn't covered by medicare like a recliner to sleep in the living room because mom couldn't do stairs anymore and couldn't breathe while lying flat. As Mom got sicker friend took a leave from work to take care of her (couldn't afford a caregiver). Her daughter also came over every night and weekend to help.
When it became clear that Mom had hours left to live, bro and sis show up. Bro was actually helpful but sis - who owns four houses, each professionally decorated and landscaped and has a high-powered job - went through friend's house taking things she thought should be hers. Sis was actually screaming at friend about stuff she couldn't find while mom lay in the living room in the hospital bed (from hospice) gasping for air.
I don't even understand how someone could do that...
So, one sister was stealing items from the other sister's home? Sorry, but if my sister did that, she'd quickly find herself arrested.
Post by: SailorGirl on April 09, 2016, 04:56:05 PM
A friend's mom passed away recently and I just got this story from her.
Friend had lived with her mom for about 25 years, mostly supporting Mom in exchange for help raising friend's daughter and general household stuff. Mom got a small SS check that she contributed towards the household but otherwise had no money. Mom's health had been declining over the last few years but she was diagnosed in December with pancreatic cancer. Bro and sis hadn't spent any time (or money) taking care of Mom for the last ten years and friend didn't expect any help from them now.
Friend spent whatever small amount of savings she had buying stuff for her mom that wasn't covered by medicare like a recliner to sleep in the living room because mom couldn't do stairs anymore and couldn't breathe while lying flat. As Mom got sicker friend took a leave from work to take care of her (couldn't afford a caregiver). Her daughter also came over every night and weekend to help.
When it became clear that Mom had hours left to live, bro and sis show up. Bro was actually helpful but sis - who owns four houses, each professionally decorated and landscaped and has a high-powered job - went through friend's house taking things she thought should be hers. Sis was actually screaming at friend about stuff she couldn't find while mom lay in the living room in the hospital bed (from hospice) gasping for air.
I don't even understand how someone could do that...
So, one sister was stealing items from the other sister's home? Sorry, but if my sister did that, she'd quickly find herself arrested.
I suggested that. She's more of the mindset that letting it all go would be a) what her mom would have wanted, and b) the quickest way to recover her own piece of mind. Unlikely that she'll be speaking to her sister any time soon.
Post by: Kitsune on April 09, 2016, 05:55:20 PM
A friend's mom passed away recently and I just got this story from her.
Friend had lived with her mom for about 25 years, mostly supporting Mom in exchange for help raising friend's daughter and general household stuff. Mom got a small SS check that she contributed towards the household but otherwise had no money. Mom's health had been declining over the last few years but she was diagnosed in December with pancreatic cancer. Bro and sis hadn't spent any time (or money) taking care of Mom for the last ten years and friend didn't expect any help from them now.
Friend spent whatever small amount of savings she had buying stuff for her mom that wasn't covered by medicare like a recliner to sleep in the living room because mom couldn't do stairs anymore and couldn't breathe while lying flat. As Mom got sicker friend took a leave from work to take care of her (couldn't afford a caregiver). Her daughter also came over every night and weekend to help.
When it became clear that Mom had hours left to live, bro and sis show up. Bro was actually helpful but sis - who owns four houses, each professionally decorated and landscaped and has a high-powered job - went through friend's house taking things she thought should be hers. Sis was actually screaming at friend about stuff she couldn't find while mom lay in the living room in the hospital bed (from hospice) gasping for air.
I don't even understand how someone could do that...
So, one sister was stealing items from the other sister's home? Sorry, but if my sister did that, she'd quickly find herself arrested.
I suggested that. She's more of the mindset that letting it all go would be a) what her mom would have wanted, and b) the quickest way to recover her own piece of mind. Unlikely that she'll be speaking to her sister any time soon.
I think that's a very personal choice/mindset.
What everyone always wants is peace of mind to get on with their lives.
For some, that's best achieved through brushing it off, forgiving, and moving on with that person removed from their lives.
For others (like me)... cross the line and we're talking burn-the-bridge, salt-the-earth level policies. And once we're done, I will sleep soundly... but the forgive and forget method just leaves me feeling like that person is gonna come back and get worst until handled appropriately.
Probably a difference in formative years... :)
Post by: Taran Wanderer on April 09, 2016, 10:58:27 PM
For some, that's best achieved through brushing it off, forgiving, and moving on with that person removed from their lives.
For others (like me)... cross the line and we're talking burn-the-bridge, salt-the-earth level policies. And once we're done, I will sleep soundly... but the forgive and forget method just leaves me feeling like that person is gonna come back and get worst until handled appropriately.
Probably a difference in formative years... :)
I like how you know yourself and can speculate on the cause with humor. It's all a bit vindictive, but the the humor makes it more entertaining.
Post by: auntie_betty on April 10, 2016, 04:03:47 AM
He's living rent and board free with her and gets a carers allowance, plus it's UK so no medical costs. I need to look into the pension situation - I think he'll get national insurance contributions credited as he's a carer. He's never had any other pension arrangements and till he moved in with her wasMIL now 92, in early stages of dementia and BIL looking after her at home - and doing a good job of it. Her will (I've seen it) leaves house to BIL and money to OH.
That could put BIL on the short end of the stick, actually.
Caregiving for an adult with dementia is a brutal full-time job and it can drag on for years. Hopefully he is being compensated for it in a timely fashion instead of having to wait, so that he can take care of his own living and medical expenses. From what you've said he isn't the most financially responsible person, but the fact he's doing in-home caregiving means there's an enormous opportunity cost to him.
I couldn't do it but it's something he wanted to do.
Post by: The Happy Philosopher on April 10, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
I propose a weekend retreat with lot's of booze, I want to hear more of these stories!
;)
Post by: Seppia on April 10, 2016, 10:05:02 AM
The worst part is when they say "it's mine, I deserve it"
Shut up, you just won the lottery, at least don't act like you had the moral right to.
Personally the only thing I hope is that I inherit whatever it will be as late as possible.
Post by: Tabaxus on April 10, 2016, 01:42:13 PM
It's incredible how awful people can be.
The worst part is when they say "it's mine, I deserve it"
Shut up, you just won the lottery, at least don't act like you had the moral right to.
Personally the only thing I hope is that I inherit whatever it will be as late as possible.
Amen to that.
Post by: Shinplaster on April 10, 2016, 02:18:09 PM
Vultures! Hate them with a passion.
Post by: Seppia on April 10, 2016, 02:44:07 PM
I would have hardly resisted insulting her
Post by: kanga1622 on April 11, 2016, 10:16:16 AM
They had only been together a short time and engaged for a few months. We included her as much as possible in planning the funeral, receiving lines, etc. She was MAD that we cancelled the contract on the house Dad was buying for them to move into after the wedding (planned for a year later). Based on some of the things she said to us, it was almost like she was delusional and thought the wedding was still somehow going to take place and they "would have already been married if the Church hadn't made it so difficult." She totally burned her bridges with all of us (and we had barely spent time with her prior to the funeral as we all live a fair distance away) when she was OVER the top with theatrics at the wake and then arguing with us at the funeral meal that her kids DESERVED to take home the leftovers. We gave in on most of her demands that involved "things" and were very glad we dodged the bullet of having her as a step-mom.
When we were prepping for the estate sale (our mom passed 12 years earlier) we had to argue over who was MADE to take some items. :) Things that held sentimental value but none of us saw a real pressing need to have. It was some good natured bickering and everything worked out well. Somehow I became keeper of the photos even though I'm hardly in any of them! I truly appreciate that although we may have had little disagreements during the wrap up phase, we were all committed to the end result of us still being a family and not letting any money/item get in the way of that. We'd seen how it destroyed our Dad's family when siblings did things behind the backs of others.
Post by: Spork on April 11, 2016, 10:49:40 AM
When we were prepping for the estate sale (our mom passed 12 years earlier) we had to argue over who was MADE to take some items. :) Things that held sentimental value but none of us saw a real pressing need to have. It was some good natured bickering and everything worked out well. Somehow I became keeper of the photos even though I'm hardly in any of them! I truly appreciate that although we may have had little disagreements during the wrap up phase, we were all committed to the end result of us still being a family and not letting any money/item get in the way of that. We'd seen how it destroyed our Dad's family when siblings did things behind the backs of others.
I see this happening in my future. We're working towards an estate sale and there are quite a few sentimental items that no one really *wants* ... but no one wants to sell.
Post by: eyerishgold on April 11, 2016, 11:40:51 AM
My parents divorced when I was fairly young and my mom got to keep the house where she lived along with me and my siblings. My dad had a really strong attachment to that house for whatever reason. My mom has always been terrible with money and got herself into a bunch of debt and was behind on the mortgage and in danger of losing the house. My dad stepped in and bought the house from her for a fair price which allowed her to get completely out of debt. My dad died a number of years ago and a few years after buying the house from my mom. My 2 siblings lived in the house for a year or so until we figured out what to do with it. The price of the house had risen quite a bit between the time my dad bought if from my mom and the time my siblings and I sold it. We didn't quite sell at the peak of the market but close enough. We split around $70,000 between the 3 of us. I never spoke with my siblings about what they did with their portion of that money because it wasn't any of my business.
So, my wife has dinner with both siblings spouses yesterday and somehow money and that house comes up. I found out that my mom guilted both of my brothers into handing over a decent sized chunk of their portion from the sale of the house. I was never close with her and I had previously politely declined to co-sign a mortgage with her and her new husband so I think she knew better than to ask me for anything. I think even less of her than I did before. She had already been paid a fair price for that house and she asked for more just because we sold it for more than she did. Since this is such recent information, I'm still digesting it but it isn't sitting right at all. Both siblings have families and I'm sure there were better uses for it than giving it to her. I'm really sick about it.
Post by: merula on April 11, 2016, 12:09:06 PM
Both siblings have families and I'm sure there were better uses for it than giving it to her. I'm really sick about it.
I know it doesn't feel good, but your siblings made the decision that their relationship with Mom was worth that money. That was their decision to make.
You could offer some of your inheritance to them because you feel bad about it, but I don't think second-guessing their decision is going to help matters.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 11, 2016, 01:01:34 PM
Both siblings have families and I'm sure there were better uses for it than giving it to her. I'm really sick about it.
I know it doesn't feel good, but your siblings made the decision that their relationship with Mom was worth that money. That was their decision to make.
You could offer some of your inheritance to them because you feel bad about it, but I don't think second-guessing their decision is going to help matters.
^^^^ This. One of the worst things people do is find ways to make other people's problems into their own problems. Second-guessing the decision of another adult is a popular first step.
Post by: Sibley on April 11, 2016, 01:44:06 PM
At the time, absolutely no one in that family cared about genealogy. So all the old papers, pictures, etc I thought were at risk of being tossed out. My mom does genealogy as a hobby, so I'd grown up with you keep this sort of thing, even though it's not my hobby. So I took every photo album, boxes of pictures, boxes of slides, boxes of old 16mm film, and the slide projector and film projector. There was a TON of it. At the time, I kinda made an announcement at dinner, we were all sitting and eating, and I just told them that I was collecting all that sort of thing and would keep it together and safe. Ok.
Every couple years, someone asks about it, and once again I tell them I grabbed it. Last night, my aunt posts a picture from a few years ago that's the 3 kids, and as a joke I posted one of them and their grandparents from when they were kids. She'd never seen the picture. So I posted another one, taken a year or two later. My aunt facebook im'ed me, asking where I got them. So I told her, I'd scanned some of the pictures in. Honestly, I'd done more cleaning up and sorting of the physical pictures than actual scanning. I sent her all the pictures I have, about 60mg worth.
This family... sheesh. She'll forget again in a month or two, and ask again in a few years.
However, due to the other wackiness in the family - I'm not giving up these items. Sheer spite. I'll send copies, but I'm keeping the originals. No if, ands, or buts. I don't care how much I piss people off - they've earned it. Maybe they should treat my family like a member of the wider family if they don't like it.
Oh, and grandparents died while I was in college. They never knew or cared where the pictures went as far as I know.
Post by: pdxbator on April 11, 2016, 02:56:17 PM
They never knew or cared where the pictures went as far as I know.
You might be describing me. I'm just not very sentimental when it comes to historical stuff that is family related. My parents have a TON of stuff that is saved that they can't seem to part with. Even though they have no idea who are in the pictures, they still can't bear to part with it.
On the other hand I like things spare and clean. I can't stand having gobs of stuff sitting around.
Post by: Sibley on April 11, 2016, 03:12:10 PM
They never knew or cared where the pictures went as far as I know.
You might be describing me. I'm just not very sentimental when it comes to historical stuff that is family related. My parents have a TON of stuff that is saved that they can't seem to part with. Even though they have no idea who are in the pictures, they still can't bear to part with it.
On the other hand I like things spare and clean. I can't stand having gobs of stuff sitting around.
Yeah, but do you then act all surprised more than 10 years later that someone has photos you don't have and ask for copies? Plus, this isn't a one off. The whole family is like this, and this is actually the good parts. I don't spend a lot of time with this family.
Post by: AlanStache on April 11, 2016, 03:22:52 PM
When I was in high school, me, dad, and a bunch of extended family all went to my grandparent's house to move them out of it and into senior housing. This was badly needed for them. There was some family taking things home that they wanted. I'm not privy to everything, but there is some bad feelings over this.
At the time, absolutely no one in that family cared about genealogy. So all the old papers, pictures, etc I thought were at risk of being tossed out. My mom does genealogy as a hobby, so I'd grown up with you keep this sort of thing, even though it's not my hobby. So I took every photo album, boxes of pictures, boxes of slides, boxes of old 16mm film, and the slide projector and film projector. There was a TON of it. At the time, I kinda made an announcement at dinner, we were all sitting and eating, and I just told them that I was collecting all that sort of thing and would keep it together and safe. Ok.
Every couple years, someone asks about it, and once again I tell them I grabbed it. Last night, my aunt posts a picture from a few years ago that's the 3 kids, and as a joke I posted one of them and their grandparents from when they were kids. She'd never seen the picture. So I posted another one, taken a year or two later. My aunt facebook im'ed me, asking where I got them. So I told her, I'd scanned some of the pictures in. Honestly, I'd done more cleaning up and sorting of the physical pictures than actual scanning. I sent her all the pictures I have, about 60mg worth.
This family... sheesh. She'll forget again in a month or two, and ask again in a few years.
However, due to the other wackiness in the family - I'm not giving up these items. Sheer spite. I'll send copies, but I'm keeping the originals. No if, ands, or buts. I don't care how much I piss people off - they've earned it. Maybe they should treat my family like a member of the wider family if they don't like it.
Oh, and grandparents died while I was in college. They never knew or cared where the pictures went as far as I know.
I scanned every physical picture I had years ago, hardest part was deciding to do it. A computer/scanner/netflix & alcohol are really all you need; insert picture, press button, watch movie for 45sec, remove picture, repeat. So glad I have backups in more than one place now. Once digitized you can send a mass email with a dropbox link.
Post by: notquitefrugal on April 11, 2016, 04:28:11 PM
Post by: Sibley on April 11, 2016, 06:51:39 PM
Post by: meghan88 on April 12, 2016, 07:42:34 AM
Depending who was in her good books, she'd promise various things at various times to the offspring. She'd changed her mind several times over the years as to who got what.
As a result, the offspring fought over it bitterly when she died. My father had a row with my sister because he was insanely jealous that she got the silverware from Harrod's.
Upon inspection and appraisal, all of her stuff was found out to be not what it seemed. Her large "oil" paintings turned out to be gesso reproductions, and a set of silver from Harrod's turned out to be silver plate. The figurines and lamps all had cracks and chips on closer inspection. Even the "good" stuff, bone china service for 12 in Minton and service for 8 in Aynsely, is hardly worth anything these days just because it's fallen out of favour. I have the Aynsely and all I do is pack it up and stress over it, for no reason, each time we move house.
Ahhhh ... family.
Post by: Inaya on April 12, 2016, 08:20:43 AM
When my grandma passed, my mom and uncle held an estate sale. Everything that looked remotely like somebody might want to buy it spilled out of the house into the front lawn.
My uncle was speaking with a customer discussing the price of a fairly nice looking pottery jar. As he's collecting the cash, my mom walks out of the house. Her eyes bulge and she screams, "You can't sell that!"
"Why not?"
"THAT'S MOM!!!"
Sadly, my uncle passed last year. But there were jovial discussions of selling his ashes at his own estate sale.
Post by: iris lily on April 12, 2016, 10:10:51 AM
Not precisely inheritance drama, but there is an estate sale involved.
When my grandma passed, my mom and uncle held an estate sale. Everything that looked remotely like somebody might want to buy it spilled out of the house into the front lawn.
My uncle was speaking with a customer discussing the price of a fairly nice looking pottery jar. As he's collecting the cash, my mom walks out of the house. Her eyes bulge and she screams, "You can't sell that!"
"Why not?"
"THAT'S MOM!!!"
Sadly, my uncle passed last year. But there were jovial discussions of selling his ashes at his own estate sale.
Best story!
Post by: Megma on April 12, 2016, 12:49:14 PM
Not precisely inheritance drama, but there is an estate sale involved.
When my grandma passed, my mom and uncle held an estate sale. Everything that looked remotely like somebody might want to buy it spilled out of the house into the front lawn.
My uncle was speaking with a customer discussing the price of a fairly nice looking pottery jar. As he's collecting the cash, my mom walks out of the house. Her eyes bulge and she screams, "You can't sell that!"
"Why not?"
"THAT'S MOM!!!"
Sadly, my uncle passed last year. But there were jovial discussions of selling his ashes at his own estate sale.
That is hilarious. And about the level of communication in my family.
Post by: cautiouspessimist on April 12, 2016, 03:54:37 PM
Post by: HairyUpperLip on April 13, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
Post by: Inaya on April 13, 2016, 01:10:03 PM
Don't leave us hanging - did they go through with the sale?As far as I know, grandma is still with our family.
Post by: kiwidollabill on April 13, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11622453 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11622453)
Post by: Dicey on April 14, 2016, 08:31:49 AM
After my FIL died, we realized DH's mom had what turned out to be Alzheimer's. They had two homes, so we cleaned out their weekend home first. I noticed a nightstand had some grossness dribbled down one side, so I moved it to clean it up. Found a pouch full of cash underneath. Later, found more cash in the linen closet. On day two of the Estate Sale, I moved a lamp and found a couple hundred more underneath. God knows how much we missed, but what we found came to about $11 grand, plus we made about $2.5k more on the estate sale. They were huge garage salers, so we probably got back as much as they spent to furnish the house.Here is a funny story that is not exactly inheritance related.
My grandma died, and we were all helping my Grandpa clean out her stuff. She was a huge clotheshorse. She had certain jeans she loved, so she had 20 identical pairs. She had 10 nearly identical black purses. Etc. Because, you know, Kohls was having a sale. But she grew up SUPER poor, so we all understood why she was like that.
My mom is going through the clothes, filling up like 20 bags with goodwill stuff, and she checks a pocket for some reason, and discovers 100$. And then later she finds another few hundred. And so at this point, we unpack all the bags and check all the pockets in clothes and purses in case there is more.
We found over 10,000$.
My grandpa had no clue any of it existed. From what we could figure out, whenever she had a little extra cash, either from the budget or from selling Mary Kay, or from a holiday, she would stash it. I am sure it started when she was a young, poor housewife, from a dysfunctional family who would not have helped her if she needed it, and this was her emergency stash. But by the time she died, she and my grandpa were worth millions thanks to judicious saving and living frugally.
We used the money to hold a kick ass memorial reception, which she would have loved.
I love how you used the money!
We had a similar situation...
After my grandma had stroke, all of her jewelry suddenly went missing including her wedding ring. She had lots of nice jewelry too. We had no idea if it was taken or she'd hidden it or what but lots of nurses and therapists had been in the house as she was getting in home care, plus grandpa had done some renovations, so lots of strangers around. And grandma couldn't really talk after her stroke...
Afte months of having no idea what happened to all of her jewelry, one day grandpa pulled a blanket out of the bedroom closet and all of her jewelry came flying out from the folds of the blanket. Grandma was apparently nervous someone would try to steal it. Oh grandma. 😀
LOL! Both of these are great stories. They make me so happy!
True story: they used to take the train to this house. They'd walk to the grocery store across from the train station and then walk the mile or so to the house. People were always offering to buy them groceries. Yes, there was a car in the garage of their nice 1800 sf weekend house, and clearly plenty of mobey, but they looked poor, so people made assumptions. My MIL is still alive, and her estate is worth about 2.5 million. Crazy.
Post by: Nederstash on April 14, 2016, 11:47:58 AM
After my FIL died, we realized DH's mom had what turned out to be Alzheimer's. They had two homes, so we cleaned out their weekend home first. I noticed a nightstand had some grossness dribbled down one side, so I moved it to clean it up. Found a pouch full of cash underneath. Later, found more cash in the linen closet. On day two of the Estate Sale, I moved a lamp and found a couple hundred more underneath. God knows how much we missed, but what we found came to about $11 grand, plus we made about $2.5k more on the estate sale. They were huge garage salers, so we probably got back as much as they spent to furnish the house.
True story: they used to take the train to this house. They'd walk to the grocery store across from the train station and then walk the mile or so to the house. People were always offering to buy them groceries. Yes, there was a car in the garage of their nice 1800 sf weekend house, and clearly plenty of mobey, but they looked poor, so people made assumptions. My MIL is still alive, and her estate is worth about 2.5 million. Crazy.
Ha! I aspire to be that kind of old lady. I would probably hide three lockboxes with money over the house and label them 1, 2 and 4. Then laugh my spectral ass off when I haunt the house and see people going nuts to find box #3.
Post by: talltexan on April 14, 2016, 11:58:26 AM
Post by: Pooperman on April 14, 2016, 12:18:19 PM
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
How about something in the middle? Child A gets 37%, Child B gets 37%, and the grandkids each get their share of 24% (3% each). Then when Child A dies, grandkid gets 37% (40% total) while when child B dies, each kid ends up with just under 9%, or 60% total.
Post by: onlykelsey on April 14, 2016, 12:21:42 PM
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
I think states follow two main schools of thought if someone dies intestate (with no will) and a spouse is not inheriting/has predeceased.
1. Divide the money at the first generation (each sibling gets 1/2, they can pass their 1/2 on to kids, giving grandkid of A 1/2 the estate and grandkids of B 1/14 each, or not).
2. Focus on ultimate number of lineal descendants (here, 8) and divide accordingly.
Why would the family be focusing on grand kids and not just giving to the two children?
Post by: Paul der Krake on April 14, 2016, 12:31:43 PM
Typically, children are well into middle age or nearing retirement themselves, and "need" it less than grandchildren (obviously this varies greatly by families). Receiving, say, $50,000 at 55 vs 25 is completely different. That's why many choose to partially or entirely skip a generation.A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
I think states follow two main schools of thought if someone dies intestate (with no will) and a spouse is not inheriting/has predeceased.
1. Divide the money at the first generation (each sibling gets 1/2, they can pass their 1/2 on to kids, giving grandkid of A 1/2 the estate and grandkids of B 1/14 each, or not).
2. Focus on ultimate number of lineal descendants (here, 8) and divide accordingly.
Why would the family be focusing on grand kids and not just giving to the two children?
Post by: AmandaS1989 on April 14, 2016, 12:35:10 PM
Post by: geekette on April 14, 2016, 12:43:18 PM
With the number of siblings his great aunt had, perhaps my DH will end up with about 1% - whee!
I figure with the property and land sales, this'll take at least 2 years to settle out... I do wonder if any of the money was in the market, or just the very grateful local small town bank.
Post by: slugline on April 14, 2016, 12:47:39 PM
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Post by: Ann on April 15, 2016, 12:59:21 AM
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Agreed. Obviously the inheritance can be weighed based on the relationship or on need -- whatever the grandparents want -- but this way would seem to be the most fair if all other factors excluded. Child A's kid got 100% of the parental attention and resources growing up. It's not unfair to have the share equally (for once) with other kids.
Post by: Fishingmn on April 15, 2016, 06:09:22 AM
Totally disagree. 50% to each child. If one child is dead then their children split the child's 50%.A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Agreed. Obviously the inheritance can be weighed based on the relationship or on need -- whatever the grandparents want -- but this way would seem to be the most fair if all other factors excluded. Child A's kid got 100% of the parental attention and resources growing up. It's not unfair to have the share equally (for once) with other kids.
Post by: Paul der Krake on April 15, 2016, 06:22:01 AM
Post by: LPeters on April 15, 2016, 07:21:01 AM
Post by: merula on April 15, 2016, 08:23:04 AM
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
I think the default is that it's split evenly with each successive generation. You could do it otherwise, but I think that'd be more about need. (The child of A is presumably her parents' sole heir, so if A and spouse are doing good, maybe evenly among all 8 makes sense, because A will be getting another inheritance.)
When my great-grandpa died, the inheritance was divided as follows because one child and one grandchild had predeceased him:
One-third to each child (two living, one deceased)
Deceased child's share divided among 4 grandchildren (three living, one deceased)
Deceased grandchild's 1/12 share divided between two great-grandchildren
Post by: sol on April 15, 2016, 08:31:31 AM
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids. Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.
Post by: mm1970 on April 15, 2016, 09:29:48 AM
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids. Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.
Yeah, I guess I don't see a reason to leave anything to grandchildren either, unless you really don't like or trust your children. At least, my grandfather's estate gets divided among the children.
Oddly though. Because boys are more important, they got his share of the "business" (which is gone now, but the sale of it netted about $500k). So that's divided 3 ways, except one son was part of the biz, so he got his already. What is left goes to the other 2.
The girls (4 of them) get proceeds from the house ($100k divided by 4). Now, as my mother is dead, and my aunt is dead, that means that I will inherit 1/3 of my mother's 1/4. My cousins (3 boys) will each inherit 1/3 of their mother's 1/4.
Now, if you are talking millions and billions and it's the way your family "does things" to pass on to grandkids, knock yourself out. My parents started small college funds for their grandkids when they were alive. I think my stepdad has changed his will to give a little bit of cash ($2k?) to each grandkid and great grandkid when he dies, but the rest goes to the 3 stepchildren.
Post by: plainjane on April 15, 2016, 09:41:36 AM
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
We're struggling with this (which is why we still don't have a will). We have no kids, and our siblings are well set up in life, so our thought was to give it to the nieces & nephews if we both die at the same time. However, there are more kids on one side than the other. Plus, the siblings on one side have a different number of children.
Right now, the thought is half to each side, and then evenly split among that generation. So it will be (assuming no more kids) - 25% for the kids on one side, and 6.25% for the ones on the other.
Fair? Maybe not, but nothing else is either.
Post by: slugline on April 15, 2016, 09:48:14 AM
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids. Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.
My response was accepting the assumption of "skipping" the inheritance directly to the grandkids. But actually, if that could be discarded I would be in favor of your solution of dividing things equally among the children. That seems even more sensible to me.
Post by: mtn on April 15, 2016, 10:22:49 AM
A): 50/50 among the kids
B): Evenly into separate funds for the grandkids
Bi): Evenly to each grandkid, but 5% of total goes to each of kids (so grandkids split 90%). Change those percentage to fit the bill.
My great aunt would be a decent example of this. She never married and had 9 siblings, around 45 nieces/nephews, and beyond that it is probably in the 100's of [great[great]] grand nieces/nephews. My mother and my siblings and I cared for her more than any other family member. Our family is probably among the more well off of her relatives. Do we get more because we put in all the work? Do we get less because we need it more?
What she did was very fair. Everything was split evenly among those 9 siblings. If they had passed, it was split evenly among their kids. Makes it simple.
Post by: AlanStache on April 15, 2016, 10:31:34 AM
A family friend had two children. One child had one kid, the other had seven. What is the fair way to divide up an estate among this brood? Equal shares for all of the grandkids hardly seems right, Child A's descendants would only get 1/8 of the total.
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Agreed. Obviously the inheritance can be weighed based on the relationship or on need -- whatever the grandparents want -- but this way would seem to be the most fair if all other factors excluded. Child A's kid got 100% of the parental attention and resources growing up. It's not unfair to have the share equally (for once) with other kids.
Careful, having few or no siblings cuts both ways especially when the parents start getting older. When the parents need help there is no dividing the costs (time and monetary) up among many siblings. Just because they were an only child does not guarantee they got more resources growing up.
Not sure there can be a good universal rule here, in each family you need to look at the specifics and make judgement calls on what is best and what can be done with what is available.
Post by: BlueHouse on April 15, 2016, 12:17:21 PM
Yeah, but do you then act all surprised more than 10 years later that someone has photos you don't have and ask for copies?
Yep, but that's part of the fun, I think. I'm like you, I keep the stuff, organize it, keep it safe. Then every few years, I surprise the hell out of someone by pulling out an old photo and emailing it, just for the hell of it. It's great fun.
Post by: chesebert on April 15, 2016, 12:31:00 PM
Post by: BTDretire on April 15, 2016, 02:09:35 PM
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
Post by: Noodle on April 15, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
An equal share to each grandchild sounds exactly right to me. Otherwise it can look like an heir is being penalized for being born to the wrong parents.
Sounds exactly wrong to me. Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?
If I had asymmetric grandchildren, I might give them each a little token (like $5k for their college funds) but the bulk of my estate would be split evenly between my kids. Except in my particular case I also have step-kids, which complicates things even further because they may also inherit from their biological father.
My response was accepting the assumption of "skipping" the inheritance directly to the grandkids. But actually, if that could be discarded I would be in favor of your solution of dividing things equally among the children. That seems even more sensible to me.
My grandparents on both sides were subject to a lot of family drama when their parents died, which created hard feelings that lasted for decades. They were resolved not to put their children through the same thing, and both ended up going the "split it equally between the kids, let them figure out what to do about grandkids" route. On one side, one child was married with children and the other was single and childfree, and I think the belief was that the singleton might actually need the money more having no spouse or children (in later years) to help her out if things went wrong. On the other side, one child had fairly recently remarried and brought stepchildren into the family who were not very close to their new relatives(they were teenagers and not all that interested in hanging out with family of any kind) but Grandma knew that son would be hurt if his family was left out. So the least touchy way to handle it was to base the division on the kids.
One advantage to that approach is that if more grandchildren are born later, they can get an even share when their own parents divide things...my single aunt did marry and have children several years after her parents passed.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 15, 2016, 09:32:18 PM
Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.
Post by: Ann on April 15, 2016, 11:49:38 PM
Careful, having few or no siblings cuts both ways especially when the parents start getting older. When the parents need help there is no dividing the costs (time and monetary) up among many siblings. Just because they were an only child does not guarantee they got more resources growing up.
Actually, I think skipping the children's generation and dividing directly into grandkids is odd. But I do think it is fair to divide whatever you are going to leave specifically to grandkids evenly among grandkids. Those children themselves will receive a greater or smaller inheritance from their OWN parents based on sibling number.
Why WOULD you skip the children, especially if they will need help in retirement? If they absolutely need no help (multimillionaires), then why would the single grandkid need more money than the multiple cousins?
Not sure there can be a good universal rule here, in each family you need to look at the specifics and make judgement calls on what is best and what can be done with what is available.
That I can agree with! Certainly I can type all day about how I think things "would" be fair, everything else being even. But every situation is unique. Just piss them all off and give it all to charity!
Quote from: Sol
Why should one kid's family be impoverished just because their sibling decided to pop out more kids?That's the attitude I dislike about inheritance drama. The attitude that NOT being GIFTED an inheritance is "impoverishing" you. You either already are or aren't impoverished, by luck or life choices. Inheritance surely can help, but at the cost of the life of your loved one.
Post by: Nederstash on April 16, 2016, 02:17:58 AM
The inheritance? All 300k went to charity.
Not saying the poor lady had a 'right' to inheritance because she took care of her friend in her last months, but the rich lady could've made more of a gesture!
Post by: Ann on April 16, 2016, 02:53:17 AM
Post by: Cyaphas on April 16, 2016, 04:30:23 AM
The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.
Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.
If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.
If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.
At least... I believe that's how that works.
Post by: Paul der Krake on April 16, 2016, 05:13:04 AM
As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.
The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.
Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.
If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.
If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.
At least... I believe that's how that works.
Post by: gaja on April 16, 2016, 05:14:46 AM
Post by: Cyaphas on April 16, 2016, 05:20:50 AM
As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.
The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.
Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.
If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.
If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.
At least... I believe that's how that works.
It's the transfer of the wealth from the Parent to the Grandkid when the Parent dies, that they'd be avoiding the taxes on. Not the initial estate distribution from the Grandparent. I wish I could be more clear on my example but I'm sick and tired. I'll hopefully be off in dreamland shortly.
Post by: Paul der Krake on April 16, 2016, 05:28:46 AM
Gotcha. I see the reasoning now.As for skipping generations when dolling out inheritance. My parent's and their siblings have all managed to blow through hundreds of thousands in inheritance, we're talking really stupid materialism, and when they all die won't leave much. It doesn't bother me, but from a neutral point of view it seems kind of a shitty thing to do.Nope, it's the total size of the estate that triggers the federal estate tax. Doesn't matter if it's left to one heir or fifty. A co (mon strategy, however, is to give tax-free gifts to everyone before death to reduce the size of the estate. Obviously that only works if you have liquid-ish assets to gift. Not practical for estates where the main source of wealth is from a primary residence.
The reason very wealthy skip generations? If the estate is large enough ($5 million+ in the US?,) you can avoid transfers of wealth being taxed on death by willing portions to the grand kids.
Example:
Grandparent has $10m in assets.
If they give the it all to the Parent anything over 5 million is taxed at a high rate. It will be taxed again when the Parent gives it to the Grandkid.
If they give $5M to Parent and $5M to the Grandkid. When the Parent dies they've avoided paying the death tax twice on the original wealth.
At least... I believe that's how that works.
It's the transfer of the wealth from the Parent to the Grandkid when the Parent dies, that they'd be avoiding the taxes on. Not the initial estate distribution from the Grandparent. I wish I could be more clear on my example but I'm sick and tired. I'll hopefully be off in dreamland shortly.
Post by: BTDretire on April 16, 2016, 11:46:52 AM
The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
Post by: SwordGuy on April 16, 2016, 02:48:11 PM
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change. I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.
That also protects you if she gets a scuzzy boyfriend who gets doped up, trips and injures himself. You won't be the deep pockets on the deed to sue.
Post by: Spork on April 16, 2016, 03:00:09 PM
Careful, having few or no siblings cuts both ways especially when the parents start getting older. When the parents need help there is no dividing the costs (time and monetary) up among many siblings. Just because they were an only child does not guarantee they got more resources growing up.
Actually, I think skipping the children's generation and dividing directly into grandkids is odd. But I do think it is fair to divide whatever you are going to leave specifically to grandkids evenly among grandkids. Those children themselves will receive a greater or smaller inheritance from their OWN parents based on sibling number.
Why WOULD you skip the children, especially if they will need help in retirement? If they absolutely need no help (multimillionaires), then why would the single grandkid need more money than the multiple cousins?
Currently ongoing example in my family. Judge for yourself it if was the right or wrong thing. It is causing a little bit of conflict so far... unknown how it will end.
Mom/Dad had 3 kids. One of them has a long history of substance abuse and a long history of spending more than she makes. Any amount of money that comes her way is soon zero. She is estranged from her adult kids. Dad split it 1/3, 1/3 for 2 of the siblings. But for the kid with substance/money abuse, he split her share evenly between her and her children. I.e: 1/3, 1/3, 1/9, 1/9, 1/9.
His reasoning was that her kids would never see a dime of it.
The unfortunate side of this is that he never told her and never left any message telling her why. He just did it and said it was going to be our problem when he died.
Post by: Megma on April 16, 2016, 06:15:54 PM
I've told him several times this is a bad idea and to make an official will but he seems to forever to pass the buck to me and let me figure it all out. Thanks dad! He's still pretty young so maybe he'll change it.
Post by: Kitsune on April 16, 2016, 07:50:39 PM
Fortunately, they have separate bank accounts... Because they are still married.mto each other.
I've been hassling each of them to tell the other, but no idea if they have. THATS gonna go well...
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 16, 2016, 10:48:37 PM
The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
Just having power of attorney over an account doesn't make the money hers. Unless they actually made it a joint account?
You may be able to solve the house problem by writing out a zero-interest mortgage for your share of the equity. She will now have control of 100% of the inheritance (which should thrill her since she's a dirty thief). But the house can't be sold without you getting paid off. Also, since you would no longer be the owner of the house, just the mortgage holder, you're not liable if someone trips on the sidewalk and sues.
Post by: coolistdude on April 16, 2016, 11:57:54 PM
Post by: Tjat on April 17, 2016, 06:19:06 AM
Post by: Nederstash on April 17, 2016, 06:54:15 AM
No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.
I cringed so hard I threw my back out.
Post by: radram on April 17, 2016, 06:58:54 AM
Sign over your portion to your sister. Consider your mothers gift to you helping to prepare you for your success. That may have been by direct lessons from her, or just placing you in a place in your life to learn them much on your own. Your sister did not receive or accept that lesson for some reason. Maybe your strength to move 1000 miles away led to your success?
In a few months when you have made the money back, you won't give it a second though. Your concerns for your sisters well being will of course continue indefinitely.
Let us know how it goes.
Post by: coolistdude on April 17, 2016, 10:23:43 AM
No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.
*slow clap* People just are not taught to process anymore. My little kiddo is going to be annoyed at me making her process big decisions. "But dad, why can't I just do what I want like my other friends? They have all that they want!"
Post by: Tjat on April 17, 2016, 06:57:24 PM
No real drama here, just wall of shame material. My grandparents passed away and distributed their estate of approximately $300k equally to their 4 children. One of them who is woefully inept with money decided to "retire" after receiving this "life changing amount" ($75,000). He left a pretty decent custodial job and proceeded to buy a used motorhome and roadtrip south to Disney world, spent a few weeks, and road tripped to Disney Land. He then ran out of money, sold the motorhome, and had to buy a minivan to drive back in. He now commutes 45 minutes to work in a toll booth.
*slow clap* People just are not taught to process anymore. My little kiddo is going to be annoyed at me making her process big decisions. "But dad, why can't I just do what I want like my other friends? They have all that they want!"
Oh, this family is a treasure trove of wall of shame comedy (and seem to have an odd fetish with Disney). Here's one from an earlier thread...
I have an estranged Aunt and Uncle that took out credit cards to buy his & her compact VW Cabrio convertibles. They are both obese so they each needed their own, so everywhere they went, they drove their cars separately. I was 12 at the time and couldn't stop laughing when they tootled up to the house. Eventually they lost the cars to a title loan they had to take out so they could go on their annual trip to Disney World
Post by: Dollar Slice on April 17, 2016, 11:54:44 PM
Apparently the real estate lawyer was in tears because of both the last-minute threats to cancel and also how nasty they were being about it. Happy ending for my brother and his family: things eventually went as planned. We will presumably never know about the almost certainly unhappy ending for the other family.
I cringed so hard I threw my back out.
Poor thing. Let me help you hobble over to the Mustachian People Problems thread where you can tell us all about your cringe-induced injury... ;-)
Post by: Frankies Girl on April 18, 2016, 12:50:31 AM
Once the final inlaw died, MIL bee-lined up to their house and scooped up everything and trucked it back to her house.
She had Polaroids of all of the furnishings and carried them around in her purse and would whip them out to show anybody she could get to stand still for 5 minutes: the mailman, the neighbor, the checkout clerk, the waiter... gloating over each one and would end with "and it's all MINE!" with a huge grin on her face. It was kind of sick and REALLY embarrassing when we happened to be with her.
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on April 18, 2016, 02:59:24 AM
Post by: Sibley on April 18, 2016, 09:59:17 AM
Yeah, but do you then act all surprised more than 10 years later that someone has photos you don't have and ask for copies?
Yep, but that's part of the fun, I think. I'm like you, I keep the stuff, organize it, keep it safe. Then every few years, I surprise the hell out of someone by pulling out an old photo and emailing it, just for the hell of it. It's great fun.
I wish it worked that way in my family. There's decades of bad history, and I am taking a perverse pleasure in having something that everyone else wants fully in my control. Teach you to exclude me and my sister from family activities...
Post by: BTDretire on April 18, 2016, 01:38:40 PM
The lawyer that settled the estate said, the bank account was hers. Her name on the account, her money. As for the house, I still own 1/2 of it, yes, I could force a sale and get her out and end up with $25k or $30k. Then my sister who has nothing , (by her own choices) will not even have a home to live in. She has spent time living in a van with her girlfriend.Oh good, a place to rant. :-)
Mom died about 4 years ago, she was living on a small SS check, I talked to her every Sunday but only saw her once a year at Christmas. (1000 mile distance) Every visit I would bring $1,500
to $3,000 to supplement her income.
She left everything and the house to my sister and I, she had as close as I know about $20,000 in savings.
After the funeral and things got settled, my sister was going to sell the house. I told her to split the savings account and send me half, she said she needed that money to fix the house! In the end, she never sold the house, the money was spent and the house was not fixed. She has had 4 years of paying zero rent on my half of the house.
Some of the fact that she kept the house is on me, I suggested she needs to live someplace and that house would be much cheaper than any apartment she could find. That would be true even if she paid me $300 a month for my half.
The problem, she has nothing! She has a part time job and is not trying to get anything else.
Not technically true, the job she has is through AARP and is a training job to get a job. Every time I talk to her, I ask if she has found a job, she always says, well I'm updating my resume,
Huh! Anyway the point is, she has nothing, so I can't force her to pay anything.
From my point of view, she lives easy walking distance from 35 or 45 businesses, If she made that tour once a week and said, I'm here, available for work, after a year or two, some manager would decide to put her to work.
Now, to give sis some credit, she stayed with mom the last six months of mom's life and took care of her, but mom also supported her during that time.
During that time she got her name on the bank accounts--to pay bills? Legally her name on the account makes it her money.
OK, rant over.
No, actually, it doesn't. She may have had the right to access it, but she didn't have the right to steal it. The estate didn't go through probate, and it's not legally "her" house even though she's living in it. I recommend you see a good estate lawyer who may also recommend filing a criminal complaint.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
I have thought about forcing it to go to my heirs when she dies, but it my just be a nuisance
for them to have a property 1000+ miles away.
QuoteJust having power of attorney over an account doesn't make the money hers. Unless they actually made it a joint account?
Joint account is how I understood it.QuoteYou may be able to solve the house problem by writing out a zero-interest mortgage for your share of the equity. She will now have control of 100% of the inheritance (which should thrill her since she's a dirty thief). But the house can't be sold without you getting paid off. Also, since you would no longer be the owner of the house, just the mortgage holder, you're not liable if someone trips on the sidewalk and sues.Yes, to you and Swordguy, the liability has been a thought on my mind.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on April 18, 2016, 01:53:09 PM
So DW's grandparents have a clause in their will, basically stating, "If anyone complains or protests, they get nothing."
Post by: BTDretire on April 18, 2016, 01:55:24 PM
Qmavan - when you have 2 million(congrats on this), your money should me making $25,000 every 3 or 4 months. Why in the world would you consume 4 YEARS of your life worrying about it? Would we consider this a reverse face punch?
That's a large exaggeration to say I would, "consume 4 YEARS of your life worrying about it"
I haven't. It has been my hope that she would get a job and be able to make a rent payment,
but that hasn't happened.
Quote
Sign over your portion to your sister. Consider your mothers gift to you helping to prepare you for your success. That may have been by direct lessons from her, or just placing you in a place in your life to learn them much on your own. Your sister did not receive or accept that lesson for some reason. Maybe your strength to move 1000 miles away led to your success?
Don't know, she moved 250 miles away before 15 years before I moved 1000.
Quote
In a few months when you have made the money back, you won't give it a second though. Your concerns for your sisters well being will of course continue indefinitely.
Let us know how it goes.
We'll see, I know she has a limited time left in her job training program, maybe she will get serious about a job when it runs out.
Post by: Papa Mustache on April 18, 2016, 02:43:53 PM
We have a drama in progress. DW's grandfather passed away recently. Grandmother is still kicking at 90, but feeling old and alone. Their plan had always been to split the estate evenly between DW's father and uncle, their two children. Now, grandmother is thinking of leaving more to the uncle, "because he needs it more."
This is deepening a rift that started nearly fifty years ago when grandfather and grandmother paid for uncle's private college education, and then "didn't have enough" to pay for father's education, so he went to community college, and then on to finish up at the state school. DW's father started bagging groceries after college, and then eventually landed a public sector union job. Lots of hard and sometimes dangerous work, but through a long career, miserly frugality, and careful money management, DW's father amassed a nearly $2 million nest egg and DW's parents were able to retire in their mid to late fifties.
Meanwhile, DW's uncle worked in accounting, bought a nice house in the suburbs, furnished it respectably and impeccably, traveled to Hawaii regularly, and is still working in his early sixties. But grandmother may now give uncle more "because he needs it more".
The thing I don't understand is how parents can be so obtuse with these things. Can they not see the emotional damage they are wreaking? I love what my mom and stepfather have done: with my mom's two and my stepfather's three kids, they have said that they plan to split everything 5 ways. Plain and simple. If one goes before the other, I guess that could potentially change, but given who they are, how they live, and how generous and kind they are, I doubt it. And if so, so what? We are all grown ups and don't "deserve" anything.
Back to DW's grandfather, I hope we make it through the funeral this week without big drama. There are already other issues surfacing about the remembrance video...
Parents can just be warped sometimes. No fix possible.
Best to just move on sometimes I think. I expect estate issues someday as supposedly I'm the executor of their will but I expect my parents to drift towards my out of state sibling in time. Absence makes the heart fonder and all that stuff.
My sibling is a snowflake. I'm the one that never quite meets their expectations. I can give you a dozen examples but you get the idea. I've heard a few lifetime long criticisms of their siblings who could never live up to my parents' expectations so is little doubt of our (myself and DW) position in my parents' minds.
We have a good marriage, good income, stable careers, etc. Good kids, good home, etc. We don't NEED them and that is likely a key problem. My sibling has relied on them for alot - funding, repairs, upgrades, etc. I was never given the same opportunities in the first place but I also recognized the baggage that came with that so I avoided asking them for anything in decades but their time - an opportunity to spend time with them. Nope - now that is in short supply and has been for years. Same with sibling. Yet parents can travel multiple states away and spend a week or more with sibling and family. We're closer on the map.
WTF??? I think DW and I understand the problem pretty well now and see that things will likely never change. Was painful when we didn't get it and were grasping at straws. My kids are noticing now as they get older. We've discussed it with them.
My parents have likely poisoned their relationships with our kids I fear. I just wanted my kids to have a similar positive relationship with our parents similar to the one that I had with my grandparents. Guess not.
Post by: Papa Mustache on April 18, 2016, 03:04:40 PM
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
This over and over and over... ;)
Post by: Kitsune on April 18, 2016, 03:40:27 PM
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
This over and over and over... ;)
This, 100%.
Or teachable moments for US. I've found such value in looking at people do things (usually things that start off smart and then just go downhill until you're like WTF what were you thinking??!) and swearing 'if it was me I wouldn't do that!!' and then like 6 months later I'm in a situation that I can see slipping down in the same way and I'm just like NOPE, see what happened to that person, you swore you wouldn't! And then I don't. Very educational!
Post by: AMandM on April 21, 2016, 06:27:17 PM
We have a good marriage, good income, stable careers, etc. Good kids, good home, etc. We don't NEED them and that is likely a key problem.
Some people's only way of relating to others is by helping them. I have a relative like that. If we say, "Wanna come have fun at the zoo with us and the kids Saturday?" she'd say no. But if we said, "We want to go to the zoo but we can't handle all the kids. Would you be able to come along to help us keep the toddlers safe?" she'd cancel a doctor's appointment and pack a picnic. We joke that if she gets sent to Hell when she dies, she'll find out it's a spa.
Post by: Apples on April 22, 2016, 11:29:18 AM
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
This over and over and over... ;)
I'm a young adult who has mildly antimustachian family, and crazy insane antimustachian in-laws, and I thank my parents every day for being sensible people, and my dad for pointing things out and using them as "teachable moments". Both to teach us better money management and decision making, and as a "everyone is different, and you must treat them with respect, but don't do what they do!" moments.
Post by: mm1970 on April 22, 2016, 01:19:34 PM
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change. I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.
That also protects you if she gets a scuzzy boyfriend who gets doped up, trips and injures himself. You won't be the deep pockets on the deed to sue.
I agree. Just give her your half and be done with it.
Post by: mm1970 on April 22, 2016, 01:26:25 PM
My family was rural, poor, Catholic, and large. At some point my grandfather and his brothers built a business. While my mom was a child they were very poor, but they had enough money to send the youngest to trade school.Sadly, this lovely step-grandmother of mine just passed last weekend. She didn't outlive the nasty uncle, and the second nasty uncle and his wife. She almost made it to 98.
Eventually the business did well, and I'd say my grandparents were worth about a million, a lot of money in my home town. One of my brothers was working the business also, so he got his inheritance (part of the business) while alive. The trust/ will set up was to divide the money left in the business (when it was sold) between the boys. The house (worth a lot less), would be sold and proceeds would go to the girls.
Well, my grandmother died in her early 60's, and my grandfather remarried within a year. This caused a rift. He traveled quite a bit with grandma, but that upset some aunts/ uncles with the new wife because he's spending their inheritance. My grandpa worked very hard. His new wife? Raised 11 children essentially on her own and also worked very hard. Wonderful woman (and my grandpa would not have done well single).
Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years. After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k). My grandpa was not even buried yet.
Here's the thing - the trust was set up so that his second wife could live off the interest of the trust - AND THE PRINCIPAL IF NECESSARY, until she dies. She didn't really need much - she has a pension from working at the library while raising her family, plus social security. When they married, she kept her house and eventually moved back into it.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.
I'd like to have more stories of how the distribution of the trust rolls out, but I live 2500 miles away.
Maybe my sister will give me the dirt if she hears it.
Post by: Papa Mustache on April 22, 2016, 02:14:12 PM
DW and I just shake our heads and use it as a teachable moment for our kids.
This over and over and over... ;)
I'm a young adult who has mildly antimustachian family, and crazy insane antimustachian in-laws, and I thank my parents every day for being sensible people, and my dad for pointing things out and using them as "teachable moments". Both to teach us better money management and decision making, and as a "everyone is different, and you must treat them with respect, but don't do what they do!" moments.
I'm teaching my kids b/c my parents didn't do enough to teach us about those occasions IMHO. That or I had a thick teenager skull back then and wasn't paying attention. ;)
Don't want our kids to stumble around for too long figuring out adulthood after they are out on their own. I made alot of expensive mistakes (relative to my then 80s minimum wage income) during that period. Wish MMM/Internet existed in the 80s... ;)
Had SO many questions back then - some really stupid too - and few people around me who had reliable answers because the subjects of money, income and a few others were secrets akin to secrets or gossiping. And you never (get caught) gossip(ing).
Post by: Reynold on April 22, 2016, 02:39:42 PM
It doesn't sound like she is ever going to change. I would give her a quit-claim deed and be done with it.
On the other hand our NW is near 2M, by our choices, so it won't make much difference
to my retirement. It is just a bit of a thorn, that I'll use a coupon to save 40 cents and she's costing me $300 a month.
It also protects you if, as I have seen with a case involving my DW who was helping a poor, elderly friend, the house gets run down enough that it is condemned by the town, or even overgrown and they decide to mow the lawn. If so, they will happily go after anyone else on the deed to bill for any expenses, at 100% if they can't collect from the indigent sister.
And by the way, if you go the quit-claim route, don't just send it to her and be done. If she was the kind of person who would go register it properly, she would probably have a job and be paying you rent. Make sure of what needs to be filed with the town, county, whatever and make sure it gets done yourself.
Post by: Villanelle on April 22, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
We have no kids, but we each having a living parent or parents (one of his and both of mine), one sibling each, and 2 niece/nephews on his side.
A large % of the estate will go to a charity. Easy. He feels obligated to give something to the niece and nephew, not because he is close to them (we aren't close at all), but because he thinks it would be "weird not to". I disagree. I'm expecting (terrible word, but you hopefully know what I mean) nothing from any of aunts an uncles. It doesn't seem abnormal at all not to send money that way, though admitedly they all have kids to leave things to and we don't. These children are relative strangers to us, due to family drama, divorce, other messy things, and also to us living overseas for most of their lives thus far. And because DH and his family have never been emotionally close to each other.
My solution is that of the non-charity money, we each "get" 50% to allocated as we see fit. My parents have more money than they know what to do with. My sister and BIL (no kids) are very well off, but somewhat spendypants. I am sure they have savings and retirement so they are better off than most, but will probably not be able to RE, though my guess is that at ~60, they will have more than enough. I'd leave them all of the "my side" money, because I don't know where else I'd send it and because Sister will be our executor and dealing with some of the ILs warrants some compensation beyond the typical executor fee. ;) He would likely leave some to his mom who makes very solid money, but also spends most or all of it, as far as we can tell and shows no signs of ever being able to retire. Some would go to BIL, but for various reasons, leaving him large sums of money would be a bad idea, and the rest of that "side" would go to niece and nephew. DH can determine the %s as he sees fit.
My family will not care what we do. They are reasonable, sane people who are either great with money or at least not desperate or greedy.
Does this seem like a recipe for disaster? It could see my sibling getting 50% of the non-charity portion, and DH's sibling only getting 20% (or some other amount <50%). 50/50 among them is a bad idea, and it doesn't allow DH to help his mom, which he'd like to do. Leaving money to my parents to make it equal to what goes to MIL would be weird and silly. Thoughts?
Post by: former player on April 22, 2016, 03:54:01 PM
Thoughts?You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance? Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.
I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.
Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point? Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?
I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family. I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly? To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care. You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.
Post by: mm1970 on April 22, 2016, 05:02:33 PM
I don't even know who the executor is, because when my grandpa died, it was my mom. And my mom died 4 years ago.Sorry for you loss. And my further sympathies to the executor(s) of the trust and any further will.My family was rural, poor, Catholic, and large. At some point my grandfather and his brothers built a business. While my mom was a child they were very poor, but they had enough money to send the youngest to trade school.Sadly, this lovely step-grandmother of mine just passed last weekend. She didn't outlive the nasty uncle, and the second nasty uncle and his wife. She almost made it to 98.
Eventually the business did well, and I'd say my grandparents were worth about a million, a lot of money in my home town. One of my brothers was working the business also, so he got his inheritance (part of the business) while alive. The trust/ will set up was to divide the money left in the business (when it was sold) between the boys. The house (worth a lot less), would be sold and proceeds would go to the girls.
Well, my grandmother died in her early 60's, and my grandfather remarried within a year. This caused a rift. He traveled quite a bit with grandma, but that upset some aunts/ uncles with the new wife because he's spending their inheritance. My grandpa worked very hard. His new wife? Raised 11 children essentially on her own and also worked very hard. Wonderful woman (and my grandpa would not have done well single).
Anyway, my grandfather died in his 80's (17 years ago), and at that point, he'd been married to his second wife for more than 15 years. After the funeral, my uncle called my mom (the executor) and wanted to know WHEN HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY BECAUSE HE'S WAITED HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR HIS MONEY (probably $250k). My grandpa was not even buried yet.
Here's the thing - the trust was set up so that his second wife could live off the interest of the trust - AND THE PRINCIPAL IF NECESSARY, until she dies. She didn't really need much - she has a pension from working at the library while raising her family, plus social security. When they married, she kept her house and eventually moved back into it.
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.
I'd like to have more stories of how the distribution of the trust rolls out, but I live 2500 miles away.
Maybe my sister will give me the dirt if she hears it.
Post by: Villanelle on April 22, 2016, 05:14:50 PM
Thoughts?You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance? Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.
I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.
Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point? Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?
I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family. I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly? To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care. You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.
I should have mentioned this in my post, but we'd be first leaving everything to each other, should one spouse outlive the other. This is the back up to that, and the longer term plan.
Getting to know the N&N is not really possible. BIL doesn't have an especially large role in their life for various reasons--some it fault and some not,-- though certainly he does seem them and presumably love them. And we are about to move back overseas for 3 years, so there is little chance we'll see them at all during that time.
I definitely do worry about MIL's financial situation, and I certainly hope DH and I outlive her, but I think he wants to include her lest that not happen.
Post by: TomTX on April 23, 2016, 05:38:00 PM
I have the n'er do-well brother: Alcohol abuse, drug abuse, can't keep a job, indicted for hitting someone else's child, indicted for (briefly) taking a child of a former girlfriend (thankfully nothing abusive) etc. Extremely manupulative, entitled, et cetera. I don't see him much.
Parents keep bailing him out and paying for a lawyer. And they say they have taken him mostly out of the will. And keep a list of his debts to them for bailouts.
And I am the executor. Ugh. Drama is almost certain.
Post by: Freedomin5 on April 24, 2016, 07:22:42 AM
My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.
The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...
Post by: onlykelsey on April 24, 2016, 09:40:33 AM
I guess this is inheritance-related...
My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.
The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...
Holy crap. Sometimes I get glimpses of this sort of wealth through my clients, but that is intense.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 24, 2016, 12:01:14 PM
I guess this is inheritance-related...
My cousin, who lives with my aunt, got married. She couldn't afford her own place, so my aunt bought a $2 million apartment for them. Oh, and then hired a maid to help them clean the place. But I digress.
The inheritance ridiculousness is that my aunt then promptly bought $2 million apartments for each my cousin's siblings because "it wouldn't be fair for my cousin to get a condo and for the others to get nothing". Did I mention that none of the siblings live in the country in which the condos were purchased? My aunt has already purchased for them condos in the respective cities in which they live, but not ones worth $2 million, so therefore, it is still unfair unless they all get condos that cost the same price in the same building.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief...
Holy crap. Sometimes I get glimpses of this sort of wealth through my clients, but that is intense.
And, it's extremely unlikely the wealth will survive into the next generation. We've all read Stanley and Danko's chapter on Economic Outpatient Care and its effects on asset accumulation.
Post by: CindyBS on April 24, 2016, 06:50:27 PM
Thoughts?
I think all non-charity money should go in a trust to take care of MIL, then a plan to distribute from there. She could be quite old and unable to work, while nieces and nephews who are presumably able to work, would get the money.
I had 2 relatives who did not have children and left some of their estate to me, and IMO, although I loved getting the money, I think it was ultimately the wrong decision and it should not have been left to my generation.
Scenario 1) Dad's brother dies at age 53, no kids - splits his estate among his 6 nieces and nephews. I am one of them and 4 of the cousins are from my fathers other brother (3 brothers total).
Fortunately, it ended very amicably, but my uncle (P) had inherited some very sentimental items when my grandmother died. My cousin, who was 25 at the time, wanted some of them. He had never even met the grandmother b/c she died young. My dad was legally entitled to absolutely nothing - no money, no belongings. My cousin was ok with my dad taking them, but could have caused a real stink. My dad also had to help break up the estate, get the house ready to sell, etc. and since most of us were still teenagers or kids - we couldn't do much to help. My dad got exactly $0 for all his work, all though he did get some items. I didn't think that was right.
Scenario 2) great aunt didn't have children. My parents literally spent decades with some sort of level of care for her including things like bill management and at the end of her life she got dementia and my mother had to do all sorts of medical decisions on her behalf, file tax returns, etc. She split her estate 8 ways, including with the great nieces and nephews. So for her decades of (uncompensated) work, my mom got the same amount of money as my cousin who never saw her or took care of her. I didn't think that was right either.
IMO - siblings or direct children should inherit money from the generation above, then let them decide how to pass it on. Younger people have time on their sides - older people do not.
Post by: With This Herring on April 26, 2016, 07:21:41 AM
Thoughts?You don't mention this, but are you are each leaving enough money to maintain current living/retirement standards to the other in the first instance? Another thing you don't mention is friends: I have some lifelong friends that I have left reasonably significant amounts to.
I hope it is unlikely that your DH's mother would survive him: if I were you I might be more worried about having to support his mother while you are both alive than after DH's death.
Any chance you could get to know DH's niece and nephew at some point? Find out what they are like as people and whether or not you like them?
I don't see anything wrong with your proposed distribution among the family. I wonder whether your concern is that BIL might react badly? To which the only answer is: you will be dead enough not to care. You can protect the executor by putting in a clause saying that anyone who contests the will gets nothing.
I should have mentioned this in my post, but we'd be first leaving everything to each other, should one spouse outlive the other. This is the back up to that, and the longer term plan.
Getting to know the N&N is not really possible. BIL doesn't have an especially large role in their life for various reasons--some it fault and some not,-- though certainly he does seem them and presumably love them. And we are about to move back overseas for 3 years, so there is little chance we'll see them at all during that time.
I definitely do worry about MIL's financial situation, and I certainly hope DH and I outlive her, but I think he wants to include her lest that not happen.
May I make a suggestion? First, leave your money to each other. Then, leave it to any children you have, including natural, adopted, or of which you are the primary caretakers. You may not have kids now or ever intend to have them, but just in case you end up taking over care of a friend's or relative's kids or some other surprise life circumstance comes up, you would want that in place.
Post by: plainjane on April 26, 2016, 03:02:48 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/prince-no-will/
Post by: Dollar Slice on April 26, 2016, 03:18:31 PM
Apparently Prince died without a will. I anticipate inheritance drama.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/prince-no-will/
I'm sure there won't be dozens of people coming out of the woodwork to claim he was secretly their long-lost father...
Post by: Capsu78 on April 26, 2016, 04:24:02 PM
That being said, some very (old) negative financial assessments exist that say getting paid by the Artists accounts payable department was a problem at least earlier in his career:
http://princetext.tripod.com/n_1995.html
Post by: meghan88 on April 27, 2016, 09:06:38 AM
He died about 12 years ago and left me $1000 out of "spite". The step-family got a whole lot more but I didn't care. I happily invested the check.
The step-mom is still alive and will probably outlive both me and my sister because evil never dies.
Post by: Inaya on April 27, 2016, 09:53:23 AM
I lost my mom to cancer when I was a toddler and father married the step-mom-from-hell three years later. She worked tirelessly to turn my dad against my sister and I, to the point where (in his eyes) everything we did was wrong, wrong, wrong.
I had an evil step family too, and I totally sympathize. It was me vs. step-mom, step-grandma, and 4 older step-siblings. Step-sibs wanted something, it was, "Prove you're willing to be a father figure." I wanted something, it was, "Quit babying her/playing favorites."
Fortunately, step-mom was scamming my dad, planning from the beginning to have him pay for her kids' private school and then divorce him and take every dime she could get away with. So I only had to suffer for 5 years or so. Plus 15 years crippling self-esteem and anxiety issues, but eh. That which doesn't kill you, or whatever.
I'm sorry you lost both parents and your relationship with your dad. I've been fortunate to get back to a mostly normal relationship with mine.
Post by: JustGettingStarted1980 on April 27, 2016, 10:17:29 AM
I myself have an evil step-mother. Wife and I have been killing her with kindness for years.... it drives her crazy. I'm fully aware that if I want to have any relationship with my father, I have to "handle" her behavior and demands, and pretend she is a normal person.
On the Inheritance Drama front, I'm also fully aware that my siblings and I will likely never get a penny once my father passes, and I've warned my siblings to ensure they don't need or expect it, either. Ahhh, love is blind, I guess.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 27, 2016, 10:41:07 AM
Sadly, children are more likely to be abused or even murdered by Mommy's new romantic interest than by any other person.
Post by: mm1970 on April 27, 2016, 10:54:22 AM
The male equivalent to the evil stepmother is either the pervo stepfather who molests the kids, or the abusive wingnut who beats the stuffing out of them.I gotta say, while I'm not a general fan of Dr. Laura - she lives locally, and used to be on the radio on my way home from work (irony there, listening to Dr. Laura on my way to pick up my kid from daycare).
Sadly, children are more likely to be abused or even murdered by Mommy's new romantic interest than by any other person.
One thing that she used to say, that I don't disagree with for the most part, is to just not get married again if you have kids and get divorced or become a widow. Not that bad things always happen (they don't), but they are often so messy.
(That said, had my father followed that advice, I wouldn't be here!)
Post by: meghan88 on April 27, 2016, 10:56:13 AM
I had an evil step family too, and I totally sympathize. It was me vs. step-mom, step-grandma, and 4 older step-siblings. Step-sibs wanted something, it was, "Prove you're willing to be a father figure." I wanted something, it was, "Quit babying her/playing favorites."
Fortunately, step-mom was scamming my dad, planning from the beginning to have him pay for her kids' private school and then divorce him and take every dime she could get away with. So I only had to suffer for 5 years or so. Plus 15 years crippling self-esteem and anxiety issues, but eh. That which doesn't kill you, or whatever.
Ugh! Yes, that which doesn't kill you, indeed. And living well is the best revenge, and I practice that daily.
Did she actually succeed in scamming your dad? It's a shame if she did.
Post by: CheapskateWife on April 27, 2016, 11:30:53 AM
This has been a fantastic discussion to follow as it has made me realize that we need to make some adjustments to my husband's will as each of his kids age out of their mother's home to include a percentage of his estate instead of leaving everything to me to distribute appropriately. That way, its clear that they got what their dad wanted them to have, and it isn't me "short-changing" them, or "buying" their love with money.
And in defense of the evil step mom....some of us really just want to be mom 2.0; someone a kid can come to love, trust, confide in, and maybe even need a little. Sometimes mom 1.0 makes that really hard and can make the kids feel like loving mom 2.0 is wrong and disloyal. So to all you Mom 1.0's out there, please encourage your kids to love their stepmom's as much as possible. You will never be replaced, but its awesome for a kid to not feel like he/she has to pick sides.
(prances off to encourage DH to adjust his will)
Post by: Inaya on April 27, 2016, 11:51:50 AM
Evil Step-mom here!I wouldn't call a step-mom evil just for being a step-mom. I also had a non-evil step-mom. (My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding]. Evil step-mom was #3. #4 was also #5 and not evil during either stint. His current girlfriend of over a decade refuses to marry him--smart woman. She and I get along swimmingly.) But my evil step-mom was absolutely evil. Not only scamming my dad, but doing everything in her power (with the help of her hellspawn) to intentionally shatter my self confidence and any stability in my life.
This has been a fantastic discussion to follow as it has made me realize that we need to make some adjustments to my husband's will as each of his kids age out of their mother's home to include a percentage of his estate instead of leaving everything to me to distribute appropriately. That way, its clear that they got what their dad wanted them to have, and it isn't me "short-changing" them, or "buying" their love with money.
And in defense of the evil step mom....some of us really just want to be mom 2.0; someone a kid can come to love, trust, confide in, and maybe even need a little. Sometimes mom 1.0 makes that really hard and can make the kids feel like loving mom 2.0 is wrong and disloyal. So to all you Mom 1.0's out there, please encourage your kids to love their stepmom's as much as possible. You will never be replaced, but its awesome for a kid to not feel like he/she has to pick sides.
(prances off to encourage DH to adjust his will)
Seems like you're the polar opposite of evil step-mom.
Did she actually succeed in scamming your dad? It's a shame if she did.
Oh yeah. Almost a decade of private school for her 4 hellspawn, and maybe a couple of years of college? Had him custom build a $500,000 house (in 1994 dollars) in an exclusive neighborhood. After a few years they sold at great profit and "downsized" to a more modest place in a more modest neighborhood.
Less than a year later she and the hellspawn went on a cruise on my dad's dime, and when they came back she wanted a divorce and presumably got half of all those house profits and alimony and whatever else. Details are fuzzy because I estranged myself once I was old enough to realize I had that option.
Post by: MandyM on April 27, 2016, 11:58:58 AM
My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding].
My step father was the best man when my parent's got married! I love telling people that when I am explaining my family. (Also - my step mother was my father's secretary at one time...we hit all the cliches).
I have a non-evil step mother. And a non-evil step father. I am EXTREMELY lucky in the parents and step-parents department - four good ones.
Post by: Inaya on April 27, 2016, 12:05:31 PM
My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding].
My step father was the best man when my parent's got married! I love telling people that when I am explaining my family. (Also - my step mother was my father's secretary at one time...we hit all the cliches).
I have a non-evil step mother. And a non-evil step father. I am EXTREMELY lucky in the parents and step-parents department - four good ones.
Ooh, does that mean you had 8 grandparents? My mom was my dad's secretary when he and #1 split, so I can check that box too!
I sometimes wish my mom had remarried (I'm confident that she has better taste than my father); I think she would have been happier. But she was burnt too badly by my dad to even date.
Post by: Hadilly on April 27, 2016, 12:07:02 PM
My parents have also been very forthright about estate planning which is nice.
Post by: MandyM on April 27, 2016, 12:16:24 PM
My dad married 5 times; my mom was wife #2 [and in a twist, was maid of honor at #1's wedding].
My step father was the best man when my parent's got married! I love telling people that when I am explaining my family. (Also - my step mother was my father's secretary at one time...we hit all the cliches).
I have a non-evil step mother. And a non-evil step father. I am EXTREMELY lucky in the parents and step-parents department - four good ones.
Ooh, does that mean you had 8 grandparents? My mom was my dad's secretary when he and #1 split, so I can check that box too!
I sometimes wish my mom had remarried (I'm confident that she has better taste than my father); I think she would have been happier. But she was burnt too badly by my dad to even date.
Most of my grandparents passed long ago - only one of the original four was still alive when my parents divorced. But my step mother is significantly younger than my father (of course) and so I did gain two grandparents on that side. They are lovely. My (step) grandmother once struggled with how she should introduce me because she didn't like "step granddaughter" or "Jack's daughter" but the people that have known her awhile would be confused if she just called me her granddaughter. We settled on Bonus Granddaughter :)
My mom went on one date after the divorce and hated every minute of it. She didn't date again for 6 years. When a longtime friend ended up with lung cancer, she traveled to visit her several times. After she passed, mom hooked up with her friend's widow. They've been married 14 years now. I'm glad she married. She was perfectly fine single, but her life is a lot easier in many ways now.
Post by: Threshkin on April 27, 2016, 12:20:31 PM
Post by: Capsu78 on April 27, 2016, 12:52:06 PM
And as for being a step parent, with zero practical training, it always seemed to come easy for me to determine what "First do no evil" meant. My daughter and my step daughter are both my daughters, no questions asked.
Post by: CheapskateWife on April 27, 2016, 12:58:36 PM
Post by: meghan88 on April 27, 2016, 06:25:50 PM
This whole discussion just makes me want to give you all internet hugs. Such a great community...now, back to the drama please!Thanks for the hugs!! You sound like a great step-mom. And yes, I know - and admire - many blended families that are working things out in an exemplary manner. We just happened to get the shit end of the stick, but then again Dad was no trip to the big leagues, nor was he a paragon of virtue ... just a bitter old man by the time he remarried (I was born when my parents were in their 40's ... very, very old in many ways for the "Mad Men" era, but not today).
Either you go the same path as your family or you change things. Me, I've tried to opt to not be a judgmental, classist, miserly, out-of-shape bigot. Hopefully succeeding.
Post by: JustGettingStarted1980 on April 27, 2016, 06:50:02 PM
This whole discussion just makes me want to give you all internet hugs. Such a great community...now, back to the drama please!
Step-CheapskateWife seems like a very nice Step-person, I congratulate her!
On the other hand ..."Better a serpent than a stepmother!" Euripides
Post by: CheapskateWife on April 28, 2016, 08:41:45 AM
No kidding! There is no love for the step-mom's of the world! At least as a serpent I could bite in self defense; as a step-mom, just have to grin and bear it.This whole discussion just makes me want to give you all internet hugs. Such a great community...now, back to the drama please!
Step-CheapskateWife seems like a very nice Step-person, I congratulate her!
On the other hand ..."Better a serpent than a stepmother!" Euripides
Post by: Captain FIRE on April 28, 2016, 09:09:46 AM
The posts about rationale for dividing up estates among differing generations and relationships were quite timely. DH and I are doing our wills in a couple weeks and trying to figure out a plan, and we are disagreeing.
We have no kids, but we each having a living parent or parents (one of his and both of mine), one sibling each, and 2 niece/nephews on his side.
A large % of the estate will go to a charity. Easy. He feels obligated to give something to the niece and nephew, not because he is close to them (we aren't close at all), but because he thinks it would be "weird not to". I disagree. I'm expecting (terrible word, but you hopefully know what I mean) nothing from any of aunts an uncles. It doesn't seem abnormal at all not to send money that way, though admitedly they all have kids to leave things to and we don't. These children are relative strangers to us, due to family drama, divorce, other messy things, and also to us living overseas for most of their lives thus far. And because DH and his family have never been emotionally close to each other.
My solution is that of the non-charity money, we each "get" 50% to allocated as we see fit. My parents have more money than they know what to do with. My sister and BIL (no kids) are very well off, but somewhat spendypants. I am sure they have savings and retirement so they are better off than most, but will probably not be able to RE, though my guess is that at ~60, they will have more than enough. I'd leave them all of the "my side" money, because I don't know where else I'd send it and because Sister will be our executor and dealing with some of the ILs warrants some compensation beyond the typical executor fee. ;) He would likely leave some to his mom who makes very solid money, but also spends most or all of it, as far as we can tell and shows no signs of ever being able to retire. Some would go to BIL, but for various reasons, leaving him large sums of money would be a bad idea, and the rest of that "side" would go to niece and nephew. DH can determine the %s as he sees fit.
My family will not care what we do. They are reasonable, sane people who are either great with money or at least not desperate or greedy.
Does this seem like a recipe for disaster? It could see my sibling getting 50% of the non-charity portion, and DH's sibling only getting 20% (or some other amount <50%). 50/50 among them is a bad idea, and it doesn't allow DH to help his mom, which he'd like to do. Leaving money to my parents to make it equal to what goes to MIL would be weird and silly. Thoughts?
I've heard the thing to do when making potential controversial decisions is to write a letter to the heirs. This way the decision can be explained, which can help the heirs understand why it's divided that way (but it's not in the will so it could be challenged).
Post by: Captain FIRE on April 28, 2016, 09:21:45 AM
First, because I would have had the choice of the number of kids I had and raised them. While I would love all grandkids, I would not have chosen the number of the grandkids or (presumably) raised them. It's not up to me to support the 7, it's up to the parent (my kid).
Second, I wouldn't know whether the kids would have more kids, adopt kids later in life, marry people with young children they raise as their own, etc. I sure as heck wouldn't be having more kids myself though. As someone marrying 10 years later in life than my siblings, who both married immediately after college, I'm sensitive to not penalizing people for later life decisions.
Third, because if you take the scenario further and imagine 1 kid has 0 children and the other has 7, I can't imagine cutting a child out of my will because they did not procreate, so why would I do something similar (to a lesser degree) if they simply procreated less?
Post by: BFGirl on May 13, 2016, 01:54:00 PM
Post by: Bicycle_B on May 15, 2016, 09:17:28 PM
I have a non-evil step mom but it took quite a few years to figure that out. My (much) older sister firmly believes our step mom is evil and had me convinced for several years. I wised up and went neutral on the subject until my dad died a couple of years ago. At that point the actions of my sister showed me who was truly "evil".
A story of drama, told with admirable brevity. Threshing strictly the wheat, no chaff!
Post by: Daleth on May 16, 2016, 03:27:23 AM
If you do this, any competent estate planner will have you also specify what happens to any money that's left in the trust if the beneficiary (the terrible-with-money son) dies. And if what you put is something along the lines of "the money goes to my descendants" (i.e. it gets split between your kids and/or grandkids, including any kids of the son), guess what? All your dissolute son has to do is adopt a friend of his and boom, a proportional chunk of your money will go to that random friend of his, diminishing the amount that goes to your kids/grandkids/etc. This works whether he adopts the friend before or after your death.
If your will is interpreted under Colorado law that won't happen, AFAIK, because Colorado law makes people who are adopted as adults the heirs of their adoptive parent(s) but not the legal relatives of anyone else in the family (only people adopted as children become relatives of the entire family). But in every other state whose law I'm familiar with, adult adoption works like regular adoption: it makes the adoptee a legal relative of the entire family, so any references in wills or trusts to descendants, children, grandchildren, etc., include that person. If you google it, you'll see a few court cases where the dissolute heirs of ultra-rich families adopted some random friend or lover to try and rope them into the fortune. It's not at all what the person making the will intended, but it's what happens.
Post by: Ann on May 16, 2016, 04:04:27 AM
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates? So what if he wants to leave his stuff to a drunken friend? What if he had a feckless son? Would you try to take back what you willed beyond the grave?
Once you give a gift, doesn't it belong to the recipient?
Edited to say: I guess I don't understand how trusts work. So normally once the receptient dies, anything left in the trust goes back to the original estate?
Post by: SwordGuy on May 16, 2016, 04:31:40 AM
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates? So what if he wants to leave his stuff to a drunken friend? What if he had a feckless son? Would you try to take back what you willed beyond the grave?
Once you give a gift, doesn't it belong to the recipient?
Exactly. It's theirs to do with as they will, for good or ill.
On another note, an aunt of my wife died recently. She's always been reputed to be wealthy, with gobs of Krugerrands, etc.
My wife's worthless sister, who in her 50s still think the world revolves around her and her wants, has been sucking up to said aunt for the last couple of years as the aunt's health failed. This was so the aunt would give her all the money.
She's been playing the "I prayed and God told me to tell you to do {fill in the blank action that benefits her}." card ever since her dad died. When she pulled that on my wife, telling her that their recently departed father had appointed the sister as his spokesperson here on Earth.
"Oh, really? How did he do that? Did he phone you? Or send you a telex?" They haven't spoken since and that's been twenty five years or so. My wife won't put up with her crap and her sister knows it.
Anyway, the sister apparently overplayed her hand. She started telling the aunt that God had instructed her to tell the aunt to do {fill in the blank}." The aunt changed her mind and is only giving her a small amount, enough to pay off her house and car, instead. She was expecting multiple millions.
As disinterested parties, we find that very funny. Sadly, those who think they deserve all the aunt's money are now tying things up in court. That means the people who should really inherit it will get less after the legal fees and much delayed, as well. We don't have a dog in that hunt so it's no skin off our back either way.
This is the same sister who told her mom, back in 1999, that her mom should go ahead and put mom's house in sister's name. That way, when the nation imploded from the year 99 bug, sister in California could sell the property in WV. After all, with the country fallen apart, she wouldn't be able to get back to the homestead to do that. Her mom's response was "How stupid does she think I am?" along with "No."
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 16, 2016, 09:06:37 AM
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE. Heirs sometimes adopt adults who are friends of theirs, lovers, whatever, solely to make that friend/lover/whatever inherit property from someone else. For instance, let's say granny leaves money in trust for a son; let's say she did it that way instead of just leaving the money for him to spend at will because he's terrible with money and she wanted to make sure his basic expenses would be covered so he wouldn't just waste all the money and end up in the gutter.
If you do this, any competent estate planner will have you also specify what happens to any money that's left in the trust if the beneficiary (the terrible-with-money son) dies. And if what you put is something along the lines of "the money goes to my descendants" (i.e. it gets split between your kids and/or grandkids, including any kids of the son), guess what? All your dissolute son has to do is adopt a friend of his and boom, a proportional chunk of your money will go to that random friend of his, diminishing the amount that goes to your kids/grandkids/etc. This works whether he adopts the friend before or after your death.
If your will is interpreted under Colorado law that won't happen, AFAIK, because Colorado law makes people who are adopted as adults the heirs of their adoptive parent(s) but not the legal relatives of anyone else in the family (only people adopted as children become relatives of the entire family). But in every other state whose law I'm familiar with, adult adoption works like regular adoption: it makes the adoptee a legal relative of the entire family, so any references in wills or trusts to descendants, children, grandchildren, etc., include that person. If you google it, you'll see a few court cases where the dissolute heirs of ultra-rich families adopted some random friend or lover to try and rope them into the fortune. It's not at all what the person making the will intended, but it's what happens.
In order to enforce this, or any attempt to control one's heirs beyond the grave, one has to set up a trust that is administered by a neutral third party such as a bank or a law firm. A person can put absolutely anything into their will, but the executor will ultimately do whatever he or she wants. You can sue after the fact if you get screwed over, but you can't prevent the person in charge of administering the estate to do what they want instead of following instructions.
Post by: Villanelle on May 16, 2016, 12:11:29 PM
If anyone adopts any kids or anything, that's on them, and doesn't change our views. Listing specific people makes it very clear that any future kids, natural or adopted or whatever, don't change things. Of course, this works for us because we don't have kids so we weren't worried about leaving out future offspring. But with these things, the more specific you can be, the better.
OTOH, I'll be dead. If there was some scenario where some adoptee (for the purposes of inheriting) got some of my money down the road, meh. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I had other kids, away from whom that would be taking money, but I don't. And I generally think that trying to control one's heirs from beyond the grave is manipulative and often creates from awful situations for families to wade through. Take what I offer, and if you spend it in a month on hookers and blow, whatever. Your problem, not mine.
Post by: Digital Dogma on May 16, 2016, 01:46:18 PM
His sister had originally set up a trust and a will to pass on any inheritance equitably between families on her side, and her husband's side. She passed away after becoming suddenly incapacitated, then my Father had to make the decision to take her off life support given what was in the will and what we learned about her condition. Simultaneously, her husband was experiencing mid to late stage Alzheimers symptoms, and he wasn't all together. Shortly after the passing of my father's sister, her former husband begins 'dating' again. This quickly lead to money draining out of the Trust to pay for nightly dinners at expensive restaurants with the concept that they'll use that trust money instead of either of their accounts so that when my uncle passed away they could give the maximum inheritance to the uncles side of the family at the expense of our side of the family. Thats a pretty shitty thing to do, and to do it while exploiting someone's medical condition just makes it worse.
It wasn't much longer than a year or so till my Uncle passed away as well, leaving another battle to execute the trust, change lawyers, and clean up the mess.
My Father treated the trust as his Sister's last wishes and fought tooth and nail for it to be executed properly so he could finally achieve some peace of mind. That taught me something. He made it clear that I'll be the executor of their will in the future rather than my older sibling. I plan on being equitable, fair, and transparent. Money is the last thing I will want to think about when that day comes.
Post by: Daleth on May 17, 2016, 09:27:29 AM
I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates?
Not if you leave it in trust, as in the example I gave. When you create a trust, you dictate who the beneficiary is and what happens to the money. Normally the interest, or the interest and some very small part of the principal, goes to the beneficiary and the only time major chunks of the principal can be paid out is for necessary expenses you define (medical care, education, etc.). The reason people do this can be because the beneficiary is terrible with money, or too old/incapacitated to deal with money, or is handicapped and you want to ensure they have money for major medical expenses for however long they live. Stuff like that.
And because you don't know how long the beneficiary will live, you have to dictate what happens to any remaining money if the beneficiary dies before it's all spent. You will probably want that remaining money to go to the people and/or charities of your choice. But if you set it up to go to "your descendants" or "your grandchildren" or any other defined group of relatives, which is usually how it's set up when it's not all going to charity, a relative of yours can do an adult adoption to bring in someone you never had any intention of giving it to. It could even bring in someone you specifically intended to disinherit. For instance, if you left it to "your descendants," a child of yours could adopt their girlfriend to make her one of your descendants, and then they get two shares of the money instead of just the one share you meant each of your children to get.
Post by: Daleth on May 17, 2016, 09:30:26 AM
Listing specific people makes it very clear that any future kids, natural or adopted or whatever, don't change things.
Listing specific people means that if they die before you, you have to go in and change your will, unless you put something in your will for that contingency (i.e. said who gets the money if they predecease you).
Post by: mm1970 on May 17, 2016, 11:30:53 AM
This is interesting because, as mentioned upthread, my grandfather died decades ago and left a trust to his children, but not to be disbursed until his second wife died (which she did, just recently). I got a packet yesterday mentioning that I get 1/7 of what's left after my uncles get 1/3. And...I can't figure out that math. My math tells me that it should be 1/12. Because my mom would have gotten 1/4 of the remaining (but she died first), and she has 3 kids.I might have already mentioned this on here a long while back, but in case I didn't, here's a pro tip that I learned from unfortunate personal experience with a family member's estate: PUT SOMETHING IN YOUR WILL THAT PREVENTS STUFF GOING TO AN ADULT ADOPTEE.I'm not quite sure why this is a concern. You have money and leave it to a relative (let's say nephew). Isn't it his now? When he dies, wouldn't it now be part of his estate and go to whom his will dictates?
Not if you leave it in trust, as in the example I gave. When you create a trust, you dictate who the beneficiary is and what happens to the money. Normally the interest, or the interest and some very small part of the principal, goes to the beneficiary and the only time major chunks of the principal can be paid out is for necessary expenses you define (medical care, education, etc.). The reason people do this can be because the beneficiary is terrible with money, or too old/incapacitated to deal with money, or is handicapped and you want to ensure they have money for major medical expenses for however long they live. Stuff like that.
And because you don't know how long the beneficiary will live, you have to dictate what happens to any remaining money if the beneficiary dies before it's all spent. You will probably want that remaining money to go to the people and/or charities of your choice. But if you set it up to go to "your descendants" or "your grandchildren" or any other defined group of relatives, which is usually how it's set up when it's not all going to charity, a relative of yours can do an adult adoption to bring in someone you never had any intention of giving it to. It could even bring in someone you specifically intended to disinherit. For instance, if you left it to "your descendants," a child of yours could adopt their girlfriend to make her one of your descendants, and then they get two shares of the money instead of just the one share you meant each of your children to get.
But one of my aunts also died. And she has 3 kids. There are 2 living aunts. So I just can't come up with 1/7 in any way, shape, or form. My mom was the executor when my grandfather passed, so I'm going to chalk it up to my bad memory, or my just not understanding it all.
Post by: merula on May 17, 2016, 12:14:24 PM
This is interesting because, as mentioned upthread, my grandfather died decades ago and left a trust to his children, but not to be disbursed until his second wife died (which she did, just recently). I got a packet yesterday mentioning that I get 1/7 of what's left after my uncles get 1/3. And...I can't figure out that math. My math tells me that it should be 1/12. Because my mom would have gotten 1/4 of the remaining (but she died first), and she has 3 kids.
But one of my aunts also died. And she has 3 kids. There are 2 living aunts. So I just can't come up with 1/7 in any way, shape, or form. My mom was the executor when my grandfather passed, so I'm going to chalk it up to my bad memory, or my just not understanding it all.
I would ask the trustee. I'm not entirely clear, but it sounds like your grandfather had 6 children? (You said "uncles", your mother, one deceased aunt and two living aunts.) If so, then wouldn't each child get 1/6 and if the child had predeceased the step-mother, their heirs would split their share?
It could be that your grandfather designed the math to be funky, or it could be that the trustee is really bad with fractions.
Post by: Villanelle on May 17, 2016, 01:32:37 PM
Listing specific people makes it very clear that any future kids, natural or adopted or whatever, don't change things.
Listing specific people means that if they die before you, you have to go in and change your will, unless you put something in your will for that contingency (i.e. said who gets the money if they predecease you).
That's what we did. X% to sister. If sister isn't around, her x% goes to dad. if dad isn't around, it goes to mom. In reality, if sister passes away, we'd likely redo the will. The only thing we didn't do a chain of if/thens for was the money going to charity. They are all major charities, extremely unlikely to disappear, but if that happens, admittedly there would be some mess for the executor.
Again, this may not be a good path for people who have kids, thus creating a more obvious chain of inheritance. But for us, it made much more sense than listing a category of people ("siblings"). Also, the % going to my side is going to a different relationship than the % going to DH's side (sister vs. mom) so it made the most sense to be very specific. We are fine with the possibility of having to redo the wills someday, so that's not a major concern. If several levels of people die in a catastrophe, it's possible we won't have enough layers, but in that case, even having listed levels of relationships rather than specific people would likely have done little good because we both have small immediate families.
Post by: mm1970 on May 17, 2016, 04:55:28 PM
I'm voting bad with fractions!This is interesting because, as mentioned upthread, my grandfather died decades ago and left a trust to his children, but not to be disbursed until his second wife died (which she did, just recently). I got a packet yesterday mentioning that I get 1/7 of what's left after my uncles get 1/3. And...I can't figure out that math. My math tells me that it should be 1/12. Because my mom would have gotten 1/4 of the remaining (but she died first), and she has 3 kids.
But one of my aunts also died. And she has 3 kids. There are 2 living aunts. So I just can't come up with 1/7 in any way, shape, or form. My mom was the executor when my grandfather passed, so I'm going to chalk it up to my bad memory, or my just not understanding it all.
I would ask the trustee. I'm not entirely clear, but it sounds like your grandfather had 6 children? (You said "uncles", your mother, one deceased aunt and two living aunts.) If so, then wouldn't each child get 1/6 and if the child had predeceased the step-mother, their heirs would split their share?
It could be that your grandfather designed the math to be funky, or it could be that the trustee is really bad with fractions.
Actually, there were 7 children.
4 boys, 3 girls
1 boy died young (ish), with a wife and 6 kids
1 of the other uncles was part of my grandpa's business, so he got his "inheritance" while still living
As I recall it, there was "money" in the trust that would get split between the 2 living uncles.
And there was the house, to be sold, that would be split among the 3 daughters and daughter-in-law.
The house was sold long before my step-grandmother died, as she preferred to move to her own home that she'd kept.
So I still can't figure out the 1/7...unless my living aunt got hers while living? (When the house sold, her son bought it, so maybe...?)
In any event, the trust folks can figure it out. By my calculation, it's about $5000, so I'm not going to sweat it. While it's nice to have the money, it means we'll have to file state taxes in TWO states for the year, whenever it all gets disbursed, which is a PITA.
Post by: tomsang on May 17, 2016, 05:04:42 PM
In any event, the trust folks can figure it out. By my calculation, it's about $5000, so I'm not going to sweat it. While it's nice to have the money, it means we'll have to file state taxes in TWO states for the year, whenever it all gets disbursed, which is a PITA.
Why will you have to file in TWO states? Did the estate have a business? You don't claim inheritance as income. Just curious.
Post by: Capsu78 on May 18, 2016, 09:17:54 AM
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=191458
My takeaway remains the same: Cost justify having a proper will drawn up by a lawyer because instead of a DIY project, you have the benefit of a lawyer whose last appointment or next appointment is with a client involved in this type of a drama.
Post by: Spork on May 18, 2016, 11:14:15 AM
In any event, the trust folks can figure it out. By my calculation, it's about $5000, so I'm not going to sweat it. While it's nice to have the money, it means we'll have to file state taxes in TWO states for the year, whenever it all gets disbursed, which is a PITA.
Why will you have to file in TWO states? Did the estate have a business? You don't claim inheritance as income. Just curious.
Straight inheritance: you are correct. But it's unclear what is in the trust. Some entities do create a taxable event. For example, annuities. Also, since this has been sitting in a trust for a while, I would assume even things like stocks are going to be taxable if sold. The basis would have been established on date of death. They could have increased in value since then.
Post by: mm1970 on May 18, 2016, 11:33:08 AM
In any event, the trust folks can figure it out. By my calculation, it's about $5000, so I'm not going to sweat it. While it's nice to have the money, it means we'll have to file state taxes in TWO states for the year, whenever it all gets disbursed, which is a PITA.
Why will you have to file in TWO states? Did the estate have a business? You don't claim inheritance as income. Just curious.
Straight inheritance: you are correct. But it's unclear what is in the trust. Some entities do create a taxable event. For example, annuities. Also, since this has been sitting in a trust for a while, I would assume even things like stocks are going to be taxable if sold. The basis would have been established on date of death. They could have increased in value since then.
Yeah, pretty much this. PA requires it in any event. Had to do the same when my father passed away a few years ago.
Post by: CALL 911 on May 22, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
Grandpa got a cancer scare when I was ~14 and didn't want the guns in the house anymore (suicidal?). They were given to me for safe keeping, until I was old enough to keep them for real (huh?).
25 years later (grandpa passed 10 years ago), I found out that the pro gun control uncle has been pissed for 25 years that I have them. To his credit, he's hid it well (unless the relative who spilled the beans is making up stories). I offered to give them up on the condition that they come back to me. I was rebuffed, so it may all be a misunderstanding.
If you rant about the inappropriateness of firearms in homes, why would you be mad at being deprived of firearms in your home?
Post by: zolotiyeruki on May 23, 2016, 08:06:42 AM
Grandpa got a cancer scare when I was ~14 and didn't want the guns in the house anymore (suicidal?). They were given to me for safe keeping, until I was old enough to keep them for real (huh?).So....he doesn't like guns, but he's upset that he didn't get them? Something doesn't add up here.
25 years later (grandpa passed 10 years ago), I found out that the pro gun control uncle has been pissed for 25 years that I have them. To his credit, he's hid it well (unless the relative who spilled the beans is making up stories). I offered to give them up on the condition that they come back to me. I was rebuffed, so it may all be a misunderstanding.
If you rant about the inappropriateness of firearms in homes, why would you be mad at being deprived of firearms in your home?
Post by: Dicey on May 23, 2016, 08:10:55 AM
If you rant about the inappropriateness of firearms in homes, why would you be mad at being deprived of firearms in your home?Possibly because you want the chance to take them out of circulation by destroying them, or you want to sell them off and get the money they represent, which is its own kind of twisted.
Post by: Ann on May 23, 2016, 08:26:09 AM
.
Grandpa got a cancer scare when I was ~14 and didn't want the guns in the house anymore (suicidal?). They were given to me for safe keeping.....
I found out that the pro gun control uncle has been pissed for 25 years that I have them.
Is it possible he thought the decision to give guns to a 14-year-old was inappropriate? I could see how someone could be concerned. That's right at the beginning of the rebellious, reckless years and also when a lot of people go through periods of depression. Maybe not. You know him, and I just read a paragraph about him in a post. I was trying to put a positive spin on it, because, yeah, otherwise it's just odd.
Post by: merula on May 23, 2016, 08:34:13 AM
.
Grandpa got a cancer scare when I was ~14 and didn't want the guns in the house anymore (suicidal?). They were given to me for safe keeping.....
I found out that the pro gun control uncle has been pissed for 25 years that I have them.
Is it possible he thought the decision to give guns to a 14-year-old was inappropriate? I could see how someone could be concerned. That's right at the beginning of the rebellious, reckless years and also when a lot of people go through periods of depression. Maybe not. You know him, and I just read a paragraph about him in a post. I was trying to put a positive spin on it, because, yeah, otherwise it's just odd.
I agree with Ann. If I found out my parents had given my 14-year-old nephew guns, I would be extremely concerned. But I would have brought it up to both sets of parents (my parents and the nephew's) as being a terrible idea. Maybe your uncle did that, was told that they were OK with the decision and he should butt out, and that view was what was told to you by your other relative.
And if my now-39-year-old nephew had offered me the guns back, I wouldn't take them. You're obviously trustworthy with guns at this point, and I don't want them in my house.
Post by: mm1970 on May 26, 2016, 12:57:25 PM
#1: they are trying to give money in the trust to the 2 uncles. Um, no, they have a separate trust.
#2: the trust had $240k in it in 2007, and now has $180k. Hmm...fishy, when grandma was not touching the principal
#3: They are not interpreting the division correctly (the division by 7? Not correct. At best I should get 1/12, my aunt should get 1/4 not 1/7)
Anyway, my sister has asked for some documentation on the value of the trust every year since 2007. She also has a copy of the will, and plans to have a discussion about the proper splitting of the trust (to ensure that the lawyer is reading it correctly). In any event, they cannot disburse any funds until all of the beneficiaries agree. So I am very much happy to refuse to sign papers until they get it right. (To ensure my aunt gets her fair share, and that the uncles get nothing. Their separate trust has approx 1/2 million in it, they aren't entitled to any part of the second trust.)
Post by: Reynold on May 26, 2016, 02:23:45 PM
Why will you have to file in TWO states? Did the estate have a business? You don't claim inheritance as income. Just curious.
Straight inheritance: you are correct. But it's unclear what is in the trust. Some entities do create a taxable event. For example, annuities. Also, since this has been sitting in a trust for a while, I would assume even things like stocks are going to be taxable if sold. The basis would have been established on date of death. They could have increased in value since then.
I ran into this with an inheritance with a trust recently, my father passed away in state #1, so his estate owed state #1 income taxes for income that year, since he had lived there part of that year. My brother, the trustee for his living trust, lived in state #2, so the trust was considered to "reside" in state #2, and my brother had to pay state #2 income taxes for income generated while the money was in the trust.
[posted by mm1970]
"So it seems the trust/ bank is messing things up.
#1: they are trying to give money in the trust to the 2 uncles. Um, no, they have a separate trust.
#2: the trust had $240k in it in 2007, and now has $180k. Hmm...fishy, when grandma was not touching the principal
#3: They are not interpreting the division correctly (the division by 7? Not correct. At best I should get 1/12, my aunt should get 1/4 not 1/7)"
I've seen banks mess up with trusts and distributions, so definitely ask for documentation.
Post by: iris lily on May 28, 2016, 11:40:46 AM
So--her elderly father was failing and ahe moved in to take care of him. He became too frail for her to manage, and he went to a nursing home. A couple of years later, he died. She was living in his house still at the time since she was separated from her husband.
She is the eldest of a large family. She and the siblings got together to get their father's house ready to sell. It was small and old, not worth a lot of money, maybe $125,000 - $150,000. His estate which chiefly was made up of this house, was to be divided among about 8 children. I mentioned t her that I hoped she wasnt going to drag on the "fixup" since Id
seen too many people put more money into little old houses than they were worth, and I thought "as is" selling was the way to go in family estate situations.
But no, she was hell bent on improvements so that they could sell the house for top dollar. Her nephew was going to perform much of the repairs so they would "save money" that way. She paid for all materials and repair process drug on. Then the nephew was unable to complete the work due to an injury. My friend then funded some more work, hiring outside firms, from her anticipated proceeds of the house, and some of her siblings gave her money toward the repairs.
All siblings were becoming unhappy with the long period to settle the estate.
Finally, the house was ready. They sold it. But, Oops! Medicaid came after the proceeds! Medicaid took it all! My friend, very bossy and a know it all, didnt know it all about Medicaid and her father's estate. She got nothing and was actually OUT money for repairs, as were her siblings. Wait, she DID gain something: a whole lot of acrimony from her siblngs.
Post by: SwordGuy on May 28, 2016, 01:21:23 PM
Is it possible he thought the decision to give guns to a 14-year-old was inappropriate? I could see how someone could be concerned. That's right at the beginning of the rebellious, reckless years and also when a lot of people go through periods of depression. Maybe not. You know him, and I just read a paragraph about him in a post. I was trying to put a positive spin on it, because, yeah, otherwise it's just odd.
I had my own .22 rifle when I was in 8th grade. I bought it with my own money. I would have been 13 or so. I still think it was perfectly reasonable for me to own that rifle because I was a responsible, well-adjusted kid who actually listened to the safety rules and paid attention to them 100%.
I've also known 40 year olds who shouldn't be entrusted with anything that might be used as a weapon, to include cars.
Post by: LeRainDrop on May 28, 2016, 06:14:50 PM
Finally, the house was ready. They sold it. But, Oops! Medicaid came after the proceeds! Medicaid took it all! My friend, very bossy and a know it all, didnt know it all about Medicaid and her father's estate. She got nothing and was actually OUT money for repairs, as were her siblings. Wait, she DID gain something: a whole lot of acrimony from her siblngs.
Oh, damn!
Post by: prudent_one on May 30, 2016, 07:26:04 AM
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
Post by: Paul der Krake on May 30, 2016, 07:52:41 AM
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
Post by: prudent_one on May 30, 2016, 08:05:37 AM
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 30, 2016, 09:32:45 AM
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Unreasonable expectations from in-laws can be a symptom of other kinds of unreasonable behavior.
Post by: Nederstash on May 30, 2016, 02:12:22 PM
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Unreasonable expectations from in-laws can be a symptom of other kinds of unreasonable behavior.
This would be a brilliant reversed Joe Millionaire tactic! Pretend you're loaded, see how people react and when you finally find The One (who doesn't give a rat's ass about inheritance), you reveal that you're just Average Joe.
I would say I'd pay to watch that, but you guys know better...
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 30, 2016, 02:26:20 PM
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Unreasonable expectations from in-laws can be a symptom of other kinds of unreasonable behavior.
This would be a brilliant reversed Joe Millionaire tactic! Pretend you're loaded, see how people react and when you finally find The One (who doesn't give a rat's ass about inheritance), you reveal that you're just Average Joe.
I would say I'd pay to watch that, but you guys know better...
Wasn't there a reality TV show with that theme once?
Post by: LeRainDrop on May 30, 2016, 07:36:08 PM
This is more like pre-inheritance drama, related to me by my cousin.What. The. Hell.
My cousin's FIL arranges a meeting with the adult children and their spouses and his lawyer to brief the children on the FIL's estate plan. It's complicated but well planned. FIL uses vague numbers but it becomes obvious to my cousin and his siblings that there is likely to be a pretty nice sized inheritance for each child. The children aren't financial whizzes so there's really nothing to discuss, it's just FIL and the lawyer explaining the big picture so the children are aware. FIL wraps up his explanation, politely asking if there are any questions.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
My cousin said the lawyer jumped right in using that politician's tactic of appearing to answer a question but instead just talking in generalities and that diffused the tension. After the meeting broke up, my cousin approached the lawyer and thanked him for handling that awkward moment so effectively, and the lawyer said, "I've heard that question asked dozens of times just that way, and I'm always ready just in case."
Crazy.
I wonder if the estate plans suddenly got amended that day.
No, but as it turned out that marriage broke up a couple years later, so the spouse who asked that question is now out of the picture. Probably unrelated to that crass question, there were other issues apparently.
Unreasonable expectations from in-laws can be a symptom of other kinds of unreasonable behavior.
This would be a brilliant reversed Joe Millionaire tactic! Pretend you're loaded, see how people react and when you finally find The One (who doesn't give a rat's ass about inheritance), you reveal that you're just Average Joe.
I would say I'd pay to watch that, but you guys know better...
Wasn't there a reality TV show with that theme once?
Yes. It was actually called Joe Millionaire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Millionaire
Post by: Nederstash on May 30, 2016, 11:49:55 PM
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 31, 2016, 06:06:21 AM
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money? And he had lots of ideas about what to do with my inheritance. So what is yours is yours, but what is mine is (y)ours? Interesting attitude there.
One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
Post by: Capsu78 on May 31, 2016, 08:09:20 AM
I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.We totally love our kids responsible spouses, but when we redid our will my lawyer strongly suggested not mentioning or involving them in any way, shape or form. Gift the inheritance to the kids, and "peace out". If they choose to co mingle the money into their family finances, that is a decision best left up to them. He told us several stories of other clients but the story above is the gist of them. Also told my kids to expect the same from their spouses- not a shared asset until they declare it so.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money? And he had lots of ideas about what to do with my inheritance. So what is yours is yours, but what is mine is (y)ours? Interesting attitude there.One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
Post by: iris lily on May 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I signed some kind of document that stated I have no claim on my father in law's trust, as did all spouses of his children. It was fine with me, no big deal.I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.We totally love our kids responsible spouses, but when we redid our will my lawyer strongly suggested not mentioning or involving them in any way, shape or form. Gift the inheritance to the kids, and "peace out". If they choose to co mingle the money into their family finances, that is a decision best left up to them. He told us several stories of other clients but the story above is the gist of them. Also told my kids to expect the same from their spouses- not a shared asset until they declare it so.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money? And he had lots of ideas about what to do with my inheritance. So what is yours is yours, but what is mine is (y)ours? Interesting attitude there.One of the children's spouses - not the child, the spouse - asks "So when Mr. Smith dies, how much would I get?"
Post by: MishMash on May 31, 2016, 10:21:26 AM
Well DH's dad and step mom are now getting a divorce. He was a HIGH income earner, she never worked. Reason for the divorce is pretty much he wanted to retire, she wanted to keep spending and got pissed when he wouldn't get another job after being laid off at 65. They sold the million dollar plus house, she took half, left him the rest (which is fine, they were married 20 years). DH's father is now living in an extended stay hotel, and has been for months, to the tune of several thousand a month between rent and storage locker expenses. DH offered to have his father stay with us (not what either of us want but it's family and you do what you have to, plus we move in 2-3 years to god knows where so we've told him that's his time limit to figure his shit out).
We live on the other side of the continent from his father. Sister calls this weekend, DH says he made the offer, sister tells him it's a bad idea (it is, we know it but what are you going to do) and then goes on and on and on, about all the stuff she wants out of his storage locker and how we can ship it to her etc. It's furniture, I"m not paying to ship HER furniture. We have no idea how she knows what's in the storage locker as she lives several states away. Sadly, this isn't the first time. We found out DH's mom had a storage locker of stuff that his dad was paying rent on to keep for when the kids got older. By the time we found out it even existed, the sisters had taken everything out of it and shut it down, we got a trunk that had a lot of family history out of the other sister. The other one, sold everything. DHs dad also did an unclaimed funds search and found like 30k from their moms estate, sister filled out the paperwork as DH was deployed. 3 years later he was like Huh, I wonder what happened with that. She'd gotten the money, and split it with the other sister, completely leaving DH out of it.
So she's got a ton of inheritance cash and stuff, and now she wants their fathers stuff. Dude isn't even dead yet, he's just possibly moving. And he needs the cash so if ANYTHING is going to happen to it, it's gonna be a Craigslist sale.
Post by: CU Tiger on June 03, 2016, 11:05:01 AM
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up. As you will see, the problem is not so much with the wills as it is with people who should mind their own business sticking their noses in.
Four siblings in their 70s, all retired. From oldest to youngest, they are Adam, Bob, Carl, and Denise.
Bob and Carl both married and have kids. Bob has two adult children, Robert and Roberta. Carl has one adult son, Carl Junior.
Neither Adam or Denise ever married. All four siblings had good jobs and retired comfortably. Adam owns the old family home, a building in the middle of their small town. That house is the single most valuable thing anyone in the family owns because it is next to town hall, the bank, all the shopping, etc. The house is kind of shabby and run-down, but the ground it is on is worth millions. Several people have wanted to buy it to build offices on, but Adam isn’t interested in selling. He plans to die there, and that is where the will comes in.
After retirement, Denise moved back into the family home with Adam, and when they wrote their wills, they each said that their entire estate went to each other. Then when the second one died, the estate would be split between the three niece/nephews. When Denise died several years ago, everything she had went to Adam. He’s in frail health now in his 80s, but keeps chugging along.
A few years after Denise died, Carl’s wife heard that Adam’s estate would skip over the Carl/Bob generation and go to the younger generation. She started agitating with Carl, and she and Carl went to Adam and convinced him this wasn’t the right/smart thing to do. The next thing you know, Adam changed his will, splitting his estate 50/50 between Carl and Bob. Mr. and Mrs. Carl claim that it’s because brothers/nearest kin will pay fewer taxes than their kids would. I have NO idea if this is true or not, all this drama is taking place in Europe, and I don’t know what inheritance laws are like there.
Under the original will, Robert, Roberta, and Carl Junior would each receive 33.3% of the Adam/Denise estate.
Under the new will, Carl and Bob each get 50% of the Adam/Denise estate. Their kids get nothing.
If Carl and Bob each put their inheritance away and never touched a cent of it, and left it to their children, equally, Robert and Roberta would get 25% of the original Adam/Denise estate and Carl Jr. would get 50% of it.
Mr. and Mrs. Bob then got mad at the Carls, and the person who was madder than anyone was Roberta. At one point, she had expectations of 33.3% of a very large estate. Now, if her parents inherit, even if they never touch a dime of the worth of the house, she’s only going to get 25% of it, because her parents will split the value evenly between Robert and Roberta. Possibly her parents will spend the money they inherited on slot machines and blow and she’ll never see a dime of it. She will also have to wait longer for any possible inheritance she does inherit, because her father is considerably younger than Adam. She’s also pissed because Mrs. Carl, who is not even a blood relation stuck her nosy nose in and got that will changed. This benefits the Carls and Carl Junior. One might say she should be mad at Adam...but it's always easier to be mad at non-relatives, and honestly...Mrs. Carl is a buttinski.
Robert, Roberta, and Carl Junior all get along, and are trying not to let this family drama change their relationships, but it is hard. Roberta can barely be in the same room with Mrs. Carl and for several years the Carls and the Bobs had a definite coolness between them. The brothers have made up, but the wives still are not very warm with each other.
My personal feeling is that since Adam and Denise made their plans, and she died believing her wishes would be honored, it wasn’t right of Carl and Mrs. Carl to get things changed to benefit them. I am a distant inlaw to Carl and his wife and have kept my nose out of it and have not shared my opinions with anyone, I just watch and wonder how it will all shake out.
Post by: sol on June 03, 2016, 11:25:22 AM
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
This sounds like s classic example of the age old conflict between per capita and per stirpes distribution.
I think grandkids should butt out, in virtually every scenario. You are "entitled" to nothing.
Post by: merula on June 03, 2016, 12:07:11 PM
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
This sounds like s classic example of the age old conflict between per capita and per stirpes distribution.
I think grandkids should butt out, in virtually every scenario. You are "entitled" to nothing.
See, I think the in-laws should butt out. They're less "entitled" to anything than the niece/nephews. Adam and Denise made a decision that they would pass along their estate(s) to the niece/nephews in equal shares. Presumably because they wanted to be "fair" and give each one an equal part. Not half to CJ and quarters to Robert and Roberta.
Post by: Sibley on June 03, 2016, 12:27:50 PM
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
This sounds like s classic example of the age old conflict between per capita and per stirpes distribution.
I think grandkids should butt out, in virtually every scenario. You are "entitled" to nothing.
See, I think the in-laws should butt out. They're less "entitled" to anything than the niece/nephews. Adam and Denise made a decision that they would pass along their estate(s) to the niece/nephews in equal shares. Presumably because they wanted to be "fair" and give each one an equal part. Not half to CJ and quarters to Robert and Roberta.
Everything should have gone into a trust, before anyone died. Make it so it can't be changed. Would've avoided all of this.
Post by: Villanelle on June 03, 2016, 09:16:10 PM
I have another family inheritance drama. Long story, I hope I can simplify a little.
This one is about four older siblings and how their wills are set up.
This sounds like s classic example of the age old conflict between per capita and per stirpes distribution.
I think grandkids should butt out, in virtually every scenario. You are "entitled" to nothing.
See, I think the in-laws should butt out. They're less "entitled" to anything than the niece/nephews. Adam and Denise made a decision that they would pass along their estate(s) to the niece/nephews in equal shares. Presumably because they wanted to be "fair" and give each one an equal part. Not half to CJ and quarters to Robert and Roberta.
I agree with both of you. Mrs. Carl (and Carl) were likely out of line in working to convince A to change his will, since I think that's generally no one else's business and it is in poor taste to badger someone in to leaving you money. On the other hand, A has every right to change his will for whatever reason (even if that reason is a bug in his ear from the Carls), and for the kids to be upset about it does seem to smack of entitlement. He's decided the new plan is best. That should be the end of it.
D should have left her estate in a trust. It's unfortunate that A changed his mind and went back on his word, but that's a risk D took.
Post by: noodlestache on June 04, 2016, 03:16:31 PM
An uncle on my mother's side was very ill with cancer back in the mid 90's, and while undergoing aggressive treatment he met and married a gold-digging woman (GD), who became pregnant shortly thereafter. A daughter was born and his cancer went into remission. After a few years uncle and GD separate, with the daughter living with GD.
Uncle's cancer returned in early 2010's so he modified his will to leave everything to his daughter, with the majority of his estate in a trust to be available to her when she is 30 years old (she is 17y/o at that point and still under control of GD). He appoints my mother as the executor of his estate since he entrusts her to protect it from GD, and states to his lawyer that GD is not allowed to live in his house if he were to die. A year later he becomes terminally ill and enters hospice care.
Extended family comes to take care of him in his home in his final days, where he starts to give away his belongings, basically telling us to take whatever we wanted. It was a pretty sad and difficult time for everyone, especially for my older grandparents who are in their late 80s/early 90s. GD and Daughter have to be told to come see him since he was asking to see his daughter. Daughter would rather see movies and wanted GD to drive her back to the gas station they just filled up at because some hot guys were 'hollering' at her. We were all disappointed that GD was actually entertaining the thought. (Actually, we weren't that surprised).
My uncle passed away and a memorial was held at a restaurant with 50+ attendees. GD and Daughter arrived extremely late and walked in while the eulogy was being given by my siblings and I. Grandparents scatter his ashes without GD and Daughter since they did not care to ask. The house is appraised & inspected since executor wants to put it up for sale (uncle's wishes) with the proceeds going back to the trust. House is deemed not in livable condition, as renovations would be tens of thousands of dollars, which are not available.
GD lawyers up and contests the sale of the house, at which point funds start draining profusely from the estate. GD accuses family from stealing property that was in the house since they were not there when he was giving away his belongings. GD's 30y/o son from a previous marriage accuses my 90 year old WWII Vet grandfather from stealing money from his own son. My grandfather is the most honest man I've ever known and had absolutely no reason to steal anything.
Daughter becomes pregnant within a year (called it!) and together with GD wastes a lot of time/$$ with the estate's lawyer and GD's lawyer. They take it to court and basically continue to duke it out till there are very little funds left. To my knowledge the house is being sold, or has been sold at this point. It's a very unfortunate tale for the daughter and her kid and I expect that a lot of funds could have been preserved if they just allowed the sale of the house from the very beginning, or had a better relationship with the family.
Post by: merula on June 04, 2016, 08:33:41 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster here since I have a story to contribute to this awesome thread.
complete shitshow
Sounds like they got exactly what they deserve. I feel bad for your mother, though.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on June 04, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster here since I have a story to contribute to this awesome thread.
complete shitshow
Sounds like they got exactly what they deserve. I feel bad for your mother, though.
Poetic justice.
Post by: k-vette on June 04, 2016, 10:52:32 PM
Post by: SailorGirl on June 05, 2016, 11:33:22 AM
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I'm pretty sure I'm still co-executor of my dad's will. None of my siblings would fuss because not only am I the responsible one, none of us is really interested in inheriting anything. My financial advice to my dad is to live it up and spend everything he has. :)
Post by: Villanelle on June 05, 2016, 02:37:23 PM
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I would encourage your parents to be up front about it and tell everyone now, so they can hear it from mom and dad instead of mom and dad's lawyer. My parents have made my sister the executor and they were very upfront about that. (I'm not at all upset. I trust my sister and it's generally a pain in the ass job, with little reward.) But the point is that my parents sat us down together, went over the basics of their estate, which bank has the safe deposit box, and a few other details, and told us, together. The news is going to go over much better that way, and if someone feels inclined to argue his case for begin executor instead, he has a chance to do it (though in most cases he'd be an ass for doing so). These things are always much worse when they are surprises. Ask mom and dad to please let everyone know.
Post by: AMandM on June 05, 2016, 08:36:16 PM
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on June 06, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I would encourage your parents to be up front about it and tell everyone now, so they can hear it from mom and dad instead of mom and dad's lawyer. My parents have made my sister the executor and they were very upfront about that. (I'm not at all upset. I trust my sister and it's generally a pain in the ass job, with little reward.) But the point is that my parents sat us down together, went over the basics of their estate, which bank has the safe deposit box, and a few other details, and told us, together. The news is going to go over much better that way, and if someone feels inclined to argue his case for begin executor instead, he has a chance to do it (though in most cases he'd be an ass for doing so). These things are always much worse when they are surprises. Ask mom and dad to please let everyone know.
I agree, this caused a shitstorm when my father, the youngest of 4, turned out to be the executor.
Post by: Captain FIRE on June 06, 2016, 12:41:54 PM
I hope I never have something for this thread. I had a call from my parents several months ago. They have many years to go, but are making plans should anything be left. I'm the youngest of 6 kids and they put me in charge of the trust. Wonder how that will go over when everyone else finds out....
I would encourage your parents to be up front about it and tell everyone now, so they can hear it from mom and dad instead of mom and dad's lawyer. My parents have made my sister the executor and they were very upfront about that. (I'm not at all upset. I trust my sister and it's generally a pain in the ass job, with little reward.) But the point is that my parents sat us down together, went over the basics of their estate, which bank has the safe deposit box, and a few other details, and told us, together. The news is going to go over much better that way, and if someone feels inclined to argue his case for begin executor instead, he has a chance to do it (though in most cases he'd be an ass for doing so). These things are always much worse when they are surprises. Ask mom and dad to please let everyone know.
I agree, this caused a shitstorm when my father, the youngest of 4, turned out to be the executor.
Yep, best to be upfront now. In fact, my parents asked me to be the executor (due to my profession), and I said I'd be happy to - but suggested they check with my older sister first to make sure she'd be ok with it. It turned out she wanted to be executor (and lived in the same state, closer to my parents by an hour), so they made her it. Then they didn't want anyone to feel left out so they made each of us 3 kids primary one item and secondary on another (will, health care proxy &...I can't remember the third).
Post by: Chris22 on June 06, 2016, 01:36:27 PM
I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money?
Maybe he didn't deserve anything, I don't disagree, but let me tell you the flip side of that story: My wife (along with her 2 sisters) will be a 1/3rd beneficiary to a substantial inheritance, a large part of which is vacation properties. The properties are very maintenance intensive. The other two siblings don't use them as much as we do (one lives far away, the other just doesn't, and part of the reason we go there as much as we do is as a favor to my wife's parents) but we know all will be split evenly. As the inlaws age, there has been a push for the daughters (and their families) to start taking over some of the work on the properties. I've resisted as much as I politely can, because A) the other two families don't contribute much, if at all, and we already contribute some, and B) I will not be inheriting anything personally, and even if my wife rolls it in with our assets, I still won't be able to sell because of sentimentality and the three sisters will never agree to. So, basically, I would be setting a precedent of doing a lot of work so others could enjoy property I don't really have a stake in. I'm not interested in doing that. So I kinda see if your spouse was spending a lot of his free time maintaining something for everyone to enjoy, feeling a little screwed.
Post by: PencilThinStash on June 07, 2016, 03:31:56 PM
My great-grandfather on my dad's side had two kids. Bob (my grandfather, currently 86) and Delores (passed at ~90 a few years back).
At some point while Bob was still a minor, G-Gpa made Delores the executor of the will. Once Bob got out of college, G-Gpa decided to make him the executor because he was more stable/responsible. Delores also had some vindictive tendencies - I guess she never really forgave Bob for being born and stealing her "only child" status. G-Gpa was worried she'd try to fight his wishes and keep everything for herself out of spite for Bob, but knew Bob would be fair.
Unfortunately, nobody ever told Delores she wasn't the executor anymore. Bob assumed G-Gpa had informed Delores, and since it never came up in conversation, she spent DECADES assuming she'll be the one "in charge" after G-Gpa passes.
G-Gpa eventually does pass, and it's only when Delores shows up to the lawyer's office after the funeral that she learns that Bob is the executor. Throws a fit, accusing Bob of trying to "steal what's hers." My grandpa may have his flaws, but being dishonest isn't one of them. Bob follows the will down to the letter. He actually felt guilty that Delores was only finding out at that moment, he'd really had no idea that she didn't know. He went so far as to give her certain pieces from the estate that were specifically willed to him, knowing they had sentimental value to her, trying to smooth things over.
Didn't help, though. Delores refused to talk to Bob for 30+ years.
She eventually started to come around somewhere in her late 70s. Grandpa got a few years of civility before she started to develop dementia, and then tried to help with that burden as much as he could.
It's a weird dichotomy, G-Gpa was this legendary badass of a man (worked in a shipyard forging huge anchor chains at 12 years old, was athletic and flexible enough in his 70s to kick the top of a doorframe, etc), but his whole legacy was stained by this awful relationship his children had.
Thankfully, Grandpa saw firsthand what can happen when communication isn't clear around wills and last wishes. Goes out of his was every time the family is together to mention any changes and make sure everybody is on the same page. I'll be shocked if there's any drama when he passes.
Mom's side, on the other hand... that grandpa refuses to say anything. Hinted once that it's not an even four-way split between his kids, so none of the four daughters have any clue what they're getting, or why their share could be different than their sisters'. That one's going to be a powder keg.
Post by: Cyaphas on June 09, 2016, 04:38:54 PM
When my maternal grandmother passed, my aunts and uncles went about cleaning up the old homestead. My grandfather was trying to downsize into a much smaller home. It was a very emotional time for all of them. My mother and her sister were born in that house and my grandparents had built it with their own two hands. Anyways, while they were cleaning up the attic/kids room, they found over twenty coffee cans stuffed with cash. All different denominations. My grandfather had known nothing about it. There were also some bonds that had matured over 20 years prior. I can't imagine what amounts that money would've generated had she invested it. It would've been invested during the late 80's to late 90's had she not stashed it away.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 09, 2016, 05:32:33 PM
Yeah, different circumstances. Opening and closing (the heavy duty stuff) were group effort, all hands on deck. We did more regular maintenance than my sister and her family, but we used the cottage a lot more too. Actually, I did a lot of the general maintenance (things like cutting the grass) since I was there more than Ex. General expenses were evenly split.I thought I didn't have a story for here, but have realized I do.
When my MIL and FIL died I was left nothing, the estate went to my husband and his siblings. I didn't expect anything, why would they leave anything to spouses? And he decided what to do with the money.
When my father died my DH (now Ex) was all pissed because he was left nothing, after all the things he had done (basically cottage opening and closing and maintenance, from which we definitely benefited). Huh? You did what family does, you contributed and benefited, why should there be money?
Maybe he didn't deserve anything, I don't disagree, but let me tell you the flip side of that story: My wife (along with her 2 sisters) will be a 1/3rd beneficiary to a substantial inheritance, a large part of which is vacation properties. The properties are very maintenance intensive. The other two siblings don't use them as much as we do (one lives far away, the other just doesn't, and part of the reason we go there as much as we do is as a favor to my wife's parents) but we know all will be split evenly. As the inlaws age, there has been a push for the daughters (and their families) to start taking over some of the work on the properties. I've resisted as much as I politely can, because A) the other two families don't contribute much, if at all, and we already contribute some, and B) I will not be inheriting anything personally, and even if my wife rolls it in with our assets, I still won't be able to sell because of sentimentality and the three sisters will never agree to. So, basically, I would be setting a precedent of doing a lot of work so others could enjoy property I don't really have a stake in. I'm not interested in doing that. So I kinda see if your spouse was spending a lot of his free time maintaining something for everyone to enjoy, feeling a little screwed.
TBH, my Ex has a well developed sense of entitlement. He would laugh himself sick at the mustachian attitudes on this forum. Which is why I am in better financial shape at this point, even though the divorce cost me a lot more than it cost him.
Post by: Bobberth on June 10, 2016, 04:06:58 PM
With it being a farm family, most of the wealth is tied up in the farmhouse, land, cattle and machinery. Cattle and machinery can be sold easily. The problem is going to be the land. Lots of farming families want to keep the land in the family. The boys feel like it should stay in the family since they have worked it all their lives, so they should just get it. They forget that the girls were out working the land as well, then had to come, prepare the food, clean up, and then go back out to the fields as well. Take the land away from the estate, there isn't going to be much left over for the girls if it's divided that way. If it's forced to sale to make it a fair split, the boys are going to be pissed because that was the family land. It's a standoff. There is no way for the estate to be split without half the family being pissed off. Nobody knows for sure what the will says. There are rumors that Grandma said, "It's not what people are expecting." Well, the boys are expecting all the land. Some of the boys may even be expecting more than just an even split of the land for themselves. And the girls are expecting things to be even. And nobody knows what will happen with the share of the one brother that already passed. Nobody even knows for sure who the executor(s) are.
I'm betting the land is going to the boys. They've been favored this long, why not keep the abuse up even after death? My Grandfather was a cheapskate, too miserly to be called Mustachian. A couple years before he died, he bought his first brand-new anything, a John Deere tractor. Despite having plenty of shed space a their place, he decided to store it at two of the boys' houses (one lives across the fence line, 1/4 mile drive out and around, and the other 1/4 mile down the road). A couple of my Great Aunts died recently and between initial inventory and the dividing of things out, valuable items (jewelry, gold and silver coins) went missing after some of the boys showed up. They've been favored for too long for my Grandmother to see anything else. Time will tell. My Grandmother is getting more frail and really shouldn't be living by herself in that farm house any more, so it could be sooner rather than later.
The sad part of this is the family part. One Thanksgiving get together my Grandmother was pissed because so many were going to their in-laws that she said, "If only 75 people are going to be here, why even have it!" It's a huge family and it's fun to go back a couple times a year as there is perpetually a baby, toddlers and kids of every age as there are so many different stages of life in the family, somebody is constantly having a baby. It's going to be torn to shreds once my Grandmother is gone and the money fight commences.
Post by: Ladychips on June 10, 2016, 04:23:11 PM
I know a situation that has none of the abuse or meanness, but all of the the-boys-should-get-the-land stuff. The irony is, none of the boys outlived the grandmother, so if there had actually been a will (instead of the 'understanding that boys inherit'), daughter-in-laws would have inherited all of the 'family' land.
Post by: Papa Mustache on June 14, 2016, 03:04:18 PM
Clearly the sexes are different in obvious ways (personalities, priorities, etc) but I have never seen a reason to make women take a back seat to the men except in feats of physical strength.
I hope humanity always continues to evolve....
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on June 14, 2016, 09:01:05 PM
Wow - what a screwed up set of values our elders had back then. Boys vs girls, basically considered them different species, the different races, etc.
Clearly the sexes are different in obvious ways (personalities, priorities, etc) but I have never seen a reason to make women take a back seat to the men except in feats of physical strength.
I hope humanity always continues to evolve....
Locally there are a few cultures where all the material wealth is owned or controlled by women, and it's been that way since before recorded history. The Acoma and Navajo nations come to mind. Except for a few things like kivas where women aren't allowed, men own diddly-squat. On Navajo, a man's belongings are inherited by his sister's children. Overall it's led to a lot of depression and apathy among the men especially when they see men in other cultures leading a more equal life. I think that being screwed over sucks no matter what gender you are.
Post by: Daleth on June 15, 2016, 11:27:38 AM
OMG Bobberth, that's a rough story. i'd suggest auctioning the land..and if the boys want to buy it (together even), they can.
I know a situation that has none of the abuse or meanness, but all of the the-boys-should-get-the-land stuff. The irony is, none of the boys outlived the grandmother, so if there had actually been a will (instead of the 'understanding that boys inherit'), daughter-in-laws would have inherited all of the 'family' land.
I just gotta pipe up to say that if grandma's (or whoever's) will says "I leave my land to my sons X, Y and Z" but X, Y and Z predecease her, that doesn't mean the land goes to the widows of X, Y and Z. It doesn't go to their widows because it didn't get to them first--in other words, it never became part of the property of X, Y and Z because they died before it could, and so it wasn't theirs to leave to their widows.
When the beneficiaries die before the person who wrote the will, the gift is said to "lapse." In practice what that means, at least in most states, is that the gift--in this case, the land--reverts to the estate of the person who wrote the will, and gets distributed however the rest of the estate is supposed to be distributed. For instance, if the will says "my land goes to my sons X, Y and Z and the remainder of my estate goes to my grandniece Eunice," then Eunice gets the land too. Most states have passed laws to get around that, but that means your land will pass however state law says it should--which may mean it goes to someone you didn't intend it to go to.
If you don't want that to happen with your estate, you have to say in your will who gets the land (or whatever other bequest) if the intended beneficiary predeceases you.
Post by: mm1970 on June 15, 2016, 12:20:19 PM
Wow - what a screwed up set of values our elders had back then. Boys vs girls, basically considered them different species, the different races, etc.Yeah, I guess in my home town, the girls were supposed to be taken care of by their husbands.
Clearly the sexes are different in obvious ways (personalities, priorities, etc) but I have never seen a reason to make women take a back seat to the men except in feats of physical strength.
I hope humanity always continues to evolve....
i think that's why my grandpa's estate went the way it did. (half a million to the 2 boys, $180k to the 3 girls, one surviving daughter in law)
Post by: Jtrey17 on June 15, 2016, 07:49:00 PM
My Mom's family is going to be a 'best of' the worst parts of this thread when my Grandmother finally passes. My Mom is the oldest girl (third kid) out of 13 kids. 8 girls, 5 boys. One of the boys died of cancer in the 90s. My Grandparents are/were terrible people. Beat their kids with leather belts to the point where it's not, 'back in my day you spanked your kids' but actual, full-on abuse. Girls are/were worthless. At least the youngest 4 girls were sexually molested by family. It's still pretty hush-hush so I'm not sure if it was an older brother or uncle or cousin or even a bit of all three. I think my Mom escaped as she was either too old or too big as she is a big-boned, muscular, German Woman. Grandma wouldn't do anything about it because she didn't want to cause a scene in a small town and girls weren't valuable enough to get into that. At Christmas I go back and ask my Grandma how she is doing, "I'm doing good. I have THREE BOYS WHO TAKE GOOD CARE OF ME." Raising her voice so everybody around her can hear. Never mind that my Aunt took 2 weeks off work to stay with her while she was sick and has driven her to all her doctors appointments for years or that other Aunts come and bring her food or clean her house for her. It's a farm family so the boys take care of the cows and that is what matters most. The only good thing I can say about my Grandma is that she would run interference for my Mom and Aunts and let them know when my Grandpa was coming in the house because if he caught any of the girls reading a book or studying for school, he would beat them with the leather belt. Not only were the boys greatly favored over the girls, the 4 blonde haired boys were preferred over the one dark haired boy, who was still way better than any of the girls. Not a big fan of my Grandparents but I'm sure I'm jaded a bit by my Mom's view on all of this because she was more of a mother to her sisters at a young age and took care of them and was there to comfort them after being abused than their actual Mother was. I'm an only child as my Mother had already raised a family.Wow! That's a hard story to read and comprehend. Sorry your Mom lives it.
With it being a farm family, most of the wealth is tied up in the farmhouse, land, cattle and machinery. Cattle and machinery can be sold easily. The problem is going to be the land. Lots of farming families want to keep the land in the family. The boys feel like it should stay in the family since they have worked it all their lives, so they should just get it. They forget that the girls were out working the land as well, then had to come, prepare the food, clean up, and then go back out to the fields as well. Take the land away from the estate, there isn't going to be much left over for the girls if it's divided that way. If it's forced to sale to make it a fair split, the boys are going to be pissed because that was the family land. It's a standoff. There is no way for the estate to be split without half the family being pissed off. Nobody knows for sure what the will says. There are rumors that Grandma said, "It's not what people are expecting." Well, the boys are expecting all the land. Some of the boys may even be expecting more than just an even split of the land for themselves. And the girls are expecting things to be even. And nobody knows what will happen with the share of the one brother that already passed. Nobody even knows for sure who the executor(s) are.
I'm betting the land is going to the boys. They've been favored this long, why not keep the abuse up even after death? My Grandfather was a cheapskate, too miserly to be called Mustachian. A couple years before he died, he bought his first brand-new anything, a John Deere tractor. Despite having plenty of shed space a their place, he decided to store it at two of the boys' houses (one lives across the fence line, 1/4 mile drive out and around, and the other 1/4 mile down the road). A couple of my Great Aunts died recently and between initial inventory and the dividing of things out, valuable items (jewelry, gold and silver coins) went missing after some of the boys showed up. They've been favored for too long for my Grandmother to see anything else. Time will tell. My Grandmother is getting more frail and really shouldn't be living by herself in that farm house any more, so it could be sooner rather than later.
The sad part of this is the family part. One Thanksgiving get together my Grandmother was pissed because so many were going to their in-laws that she said, "If only 75 people are going to be here, why even have it!" It's a huge family and it's fun to go back a couple times a year as there is perpetually a baby, toddlers and kids of every age as there are so many different stages of life in the family, somebody is constantly having a baby. It's going to be torn to shreds once my Grandmother is gone and the money fight commences.
Post by: deadlymonkey on June 16, 2016, 12:42:15 PM
Just trying to think of ideas to head off drama. DW family has had lots of dram in the past and no one there likes to talk about money at all.
Post by: TheInsuranceMan on June 16, 2016, 01:12:12 PM
My Mom's family is going to be a 'best of' the worst parts of this thread when my Grandmother finally passes. My Mom is the oldest girl (third kid) out of 13 kids. 8 girls, 5 boys. One of the boys died of cancer in the 90s. My Grandparents are/were terrible people. Beat their kids with leather belts to the point where it's not, 'back in my day you spanked your kids' but actual, full-on abuse. Girls are/were worthless. At least the youngest 4 girls were sexually molested by family. It's still pretty hush-hush so I'm not sure if it was an older brother or uncle or cousin or even a bit of all three. I think my Mom escaped as she was either too old or too big as she is a big-boned, muscular, German Woman. Grandma wouldn't do anything about it because she didn't want to cause a scene in a small town and girls weren't valuable enough to get into that. At Christmas I go back and ask my Grandma how she is doing, "I'm doing good. I have THREE BOYS WHO TAKE GOOD CARE OF ME." Raising her voice so everybody around her can hear. Never mind that my Aunt took 2 weeks off work to stay with her while she was sick and has driven her to all her doctors appointments for years or that other Aunts come and bring her food or clean her house for her. It's a farm family so the boys take care of the cows and that is what matters most. The only good thing I can say about my Grandma is that she would run interference for my Mom and Aunts and let them know when my Grandpa was coming in the house because if he caught any of the girls reading a book or studying for school, he would beat them with the leather belt. Not only were the boys greatly favored over the girls, the 4 blonde haired boys were preferred over the one dark haired boy, who was still way better than any of the girls. Not a big fan of my Grandparents but I'm sure I'm jaded a bit by my Mom's view on all of this because she was more of a mother to her sisters at a young age and took care of them and was there to comfort them after being abused than their actual Mother was. I'm an only child as my Mother had already raised a family.
With it being a farm family, most of the wealth is tied up in the farmhouse, land, cattle and machinery. Cattle and machinery can be sold easily. The problem is going to be the land. Lots of farming families want to keep the land in the family. The boys feel like it should stay in the family since they have worked it all their lives, so they should just get it. They forget that the girls were out working the land as well, then had to come, prepare the food, clean up, and then go back out to the fields as well. Take the land away from the estate, there isn't going to be much left over for the girls if it's divided that way. If it's forced to sale to make it a fair split, the boys are going to be pissed because that was the family land. It's a standoff. There is no way for the estate to be split without half the family being pissed off. Nobody knows for sure what the will says. There are rumors that Grandma said, "It's not what people are expecting." Well, the boys are expecting all the land. Some of the boys may even be expecting more than just an even split of the land for themselves. And the girls are expecting things to be even. And nobody knows what will happen with the share of the one brother that already passed. Nobody even knows for sure who the executor(s) are.
I'm betting the land is going to the boys. They've been favored this long, why not keep the abuse up even after death? My Grandfather was a cheapskate, too miserly to be called Mustachian. A couple years before he died, he bought his first brand-new anything, a John Deere tractor. Despite having plenty of shed space a their place, he decided to store it at two of the boys' houses (one lives across the fence line, 1/4 mile drive out and around, and the other 1/4 mile down the road). A couple of my Great Aunts died recently and between initial inventory and the dividing of things out, valuable items (jewelry, gold and silver coins) went missing after some of the boys showed up. They've been favored for too long for my Grandmother to see anything else. Time will tell. My Grandmother is getting more frail and really shouldn't be living by herself in that farm house any more, so it could be sooner rather than later.
The sad part of this is the family part. One Thanksgiving get together my Grandmother was pissed because so many were going to their in-laws that she said, "If only 75 people are going to be here, why even have it!" It's a huge family and it's fun to go back a couple times a year as there is perpetually a baby, toddlers and kids of every age as there are so many different stages of life in the family, somebody is constantly having a baby. It's going to be torn to shreds once my Grandmother is gone and the money fight commences.
Curious, as we farm as well, where are you located?
There is a good reason that people don't like to sell land, at least in our area, and that's because a piece of land only comes for sale once in most people lifetimes. If you sell it, you'll never get it back. You'll lose yearly income off of it, whether that's if the family farms it, or you rent it to another farmer. Given, I know land prices were high, they aren't as high anymore, and I know that changes between areas.
Right now, rent on land goes from $225-$350 an acre in my location (Iowa), depending on the farmer and how aggressive they are. So, let's say you inherit a quarter section of ground (160 acres), and you rent it to the biggest farmer in the area at $350 an acre. That gives you $56,000 a year in land rental income. Now, you could sell that piece of ground for $7,000-$9,000 an acre, or 1.12m - 1.44m (again, in our area....land of dark, rich soil). Personally, we'd farm it ourselves, but if we were to get out of farming, we'd rent it, and in no way shape or form, would it be sold, unless we had to in order to avoid bankruptcy.
Farming is a totally different life style than 99% of this board knows about!
***If all goes well on my end, I'll be helping farm 2k acres, and have a share in 450 acres, that would be paid off already. That is a lot of potential profit from farming it ourselves, without any land payments to be made.
Post by: merula on June 16, 2016, 01:44:14 PM
Not a story but a question that might help prevent a story in the future. My FIL and MIL own a business worth quite a bit. It is expected that the business will be passed down to the eldest son because he is the only one in the family to work there and runs it now. No drama on that, totally expected by all the children. The issue I forsee is that they also have a cottage near the shore that is in a very valuable location. FIL and MIL have just finished major renovations to it so that "no money needs to be spent on it for quite a while". All the children use this cottage in the summer for the respective family vacations. No one knows where this cottage goes for inheritance. Based on location, property taxes, utilities and upkeep are probably pretty expensive. Can a will give the cottage to the other sibling while requiring the eldest (who controls the significant income from the business) to be responsible for costs associated with it?
Just trying to think of ideas to head off drama. DW family has had lots of dram in the past and no one there likes to talk about money at all.
The cottage along with an amount of money for upkeep can be put into a trust with all children as beneficiaries. I don't think you could enforce a provision requiring Child A to pay for the upkeep if it's owned jointly by all children.
Or, the trust could be the cottage plus a share of the business, so a small amount of the business earnings pay for the upkeep.
Post by: Goldielocks on June 16, 2016, 05:35:59 PM
The remainder man inherits the capital once everyone else is dead. Along the way they are the main ones on the hook for maintenance and repair to keep it valuable. The occupants can be made to pay for utilities over a minimum, and anything the other chooses not to, but you could end up with a destroyed cottage in 35+ years.
Post by: Spiffsome on June 16, 2016, 06:14:41 PM
Remaindering was traditionally a good way for a man to pass property down to sons if his wife survived him; she would have a 'life estate' or a right to live on the property until she died, and it would automatically go to the sons after that without any danger that it would go to a new family if she re-married.
Post by: former player on June 17, 2016, 12:44:15 AM
The house I live in was shared by 3 siblings as a holiday home for 20 years (their mother died, father remarried, new wife wanted to live elsewhere). It meant that the house was neglected for 20 years, because the siblings either couldn't agree on what money to spend or didn't have the time to do or organise anything (they all lived at least 200 miles away). There was also a rift between the siblings when eventually one forced its sale through against the wishes of the others. So I would strongly argue against any sort of shared inheritance. On the other hand, giving it to one person will create ill feeling, and making one person responsible for maintenance while others have the use of it will create even more.Not a story but a question that might help prevent a story in the future. My FIL and MIL own a business worth quite a bit. It is expected that the business will be passed down to the eldest son because he is the only one in the family to work there and runs it now. No drama on that, totally expected by all the children. The issue I forsee is that they also have a cottage near the shore that is in a very valuable location. FIL and MIL have just finished major renovations to it so that "no money needs to be spent on it for quite a while". All the children use this cottage in the summer for the respective family vacations. No one knows where this cottage goes for inheritance. Based on location, property taxes, utilities and upkeep are probably pretty expensive. Can a will give the cottage to the other sibling while requiring the eldest (who controls the significant income from the business) to be responsible for costs associated with it?
Just trying to think of ideas to head off drama. DW family has had lots of dram in the past and no one there likes to talk about money at all.
The cottage along with an amount of money for upkeep can be put into a trust with all children as beneficiaries. I don't think you could enforce a provision requiring Child A to pay for the upkeep if it's owned jointly by all children.
Or, the trust could be the cottage plus a share of the business, so a small amount of the business earnings pay for the upkeep.
I'd strongly suggest that the holiday cottage should go on the market, and if any of the siblings can afford to buy it, they can do so. I doubt FIL and MIL will be persuaded of this view, though.
Post by: Miss Unleaded on June 17, 2016, 04:08:10 AM
When my grandmother was diagnosed with a terminal illness years ago, one of my aunts (Bertha) decided that, as the eldest daughter, she was entitled to everything. Jewellery, photographs, china and other items would go missing from the house and turn up at Bertha's place. 'Oh this was mine, I thought I would get it back now' or 'Mum wanted me to have it'.
Bertha 'borrowed' my grandparents' car to take grandmother to medical appointments but even after grandma was in hospice care full time she kept it, leaving my grandfather without a vehicle. He had to get other people to take him to visit his wife, because Bertha was usually too busy to drive all that distance to take him. Then grandma died bequeathing most of her personal items to the youngest daughter (Judith). When Judith went to collect it, almost everything was already gone.
My grandfather died later and left the house to Judith, because he was worried she wouldn't be able to support herself (she had never been able to hold down a steady job and had never married). Well Bertha thought that this was the biggest injustice ever and started harassing Judith to give the house to her. The harassment intensified when Judith's boyfriend died and she inherited from him as well, because it was obviously unfair for Judith to inherit from two people while poor Bertha got 'nothing'.
The last I heard is that Judith and Bertha are not talking. Bertha has also barely spoken to my dad since before my grandmother's death. I sometimes wonder if the jewellery she stole from a dying woman was worth alienating all of her siblings.
I'm afraid that when my parents die there's going to be a lot of unpleasantness because one of my brothers is quite avaricious. He brought an engraver to my parents' place and engraved his name on many of my dad's wood and metal working tools. He also married a woman who spends money like water, so I think she will put a lot of pressure on him to get as much as he can. I'm encouraging my parents to sell their farm and spend their remaining years having fun so that hopefully there's nothing left by the time they go. So far I haven't convinced them.
My husband is also dealing with an inheritance at the moment. One of his childless relatives died and left her admittedly nice but probably not so valuable possessions to be divided between about half a dozen heirs. It hasn't gotten nasty yet but they can't come to an agreement on how to split everything. So her silver, paintings and furniture are gathering dust while ever longer and more complicated proposals are being argued back and forth and we get late night updates on the situation from my stressed out brother in law.
Post by: Catbert on June 17, 2016, 01:01:54 PM
There were 3 siblings: older sister, middle brother and younger brother (my BIL). When father died he left significant assets most of which were easily divisible. But there was a vacation cabin that older sister and younger brother both wanted. Sister thought she have first dibs bc she was oldest. She also though she should pay an apparently random figure that she thought it was worth. Younger brother guessed that it was worth 1/3 more and wasn't willing to let her have it just bc she was older.
There was briefly a proposal by older sister for all 3 to jointly own the cabin. That was a no-go. Younger brother had done all the work opening and closing the cabin for years (father died in his 90s) and wasn't willing do that for the rest of his life while sister got a free ride. He also knew that owning anything together would be a constant fight over everything.
Sister tried to drag the whole thing out with multiple calls to the attorney costing the estate money figuring eventually they would give in. Younger brother wouldn't give in. He had two proposals: both submit sealed bids on the property and highest bid gets it or get an appraisal to set value and then flip a coin. Eventually all three agreed agreed to flipping a coin. (Remember there is a middle brother who wasn't interested in owing the property.) Professional appraisal come in around where younger brother guessed and significantly more than older sister wanted to pay. When she lost the coin toss the real drama started! She cried to every one about losing the cabin. Her daughters called their cousins (younger brothers daughters) bc he was being mean to his sister. Older sister's daughters said they had fond memories of summers at the cabin (as if their younger cousins didn't!). Lots more pressure and drama that I don't recall the details of. But younger brother held fast...until middle brother retroactively decided that a coin toss wasn't the way to go. Sister had worked her magic on him and he was always the people pleaser.
At the point younger brother gave in and gave up the cabin. At least the estate got full value (it was actually in a trust). Younger brother bought another vacation cabin in a different area. I think everyone is speaking again but it was a tough couple of years.
These were grown ass people. Sister was probably 70 at the time and brothers in their 60s.
Post by: mtn on June 17, 2016, 01:45:01 PM
Ah, family vacation homes. Apparently the cause of lots of inheritance drama. No inheritance drama of any kind in my family, but my BIL had a doosey.
There were 3 siblings: older sister, middle brother and younger brother (my BIL). When father died he left significant assets most of which were easily divisible. But there was a vacation cabin that older sister and younger brother both wanted. Sister thought she have first dibs bc she was oldest. She also though she should pay an apparently random figure that she thought it was worth. Younger brother guessed that it was worth 1/3 more and wasn't willing to let her have it just bc she was older.
There was briefly a proposal by older sister for all 3 to jointly own the cabin. That was a no-go. Younger brother had done all the work opening and closing the cabin for years (father died in his 90s) and wasn't willing do that for the rest of his life while sister got a free ride. He also knew that owning anything together would be a constant fight over everything.
Sister tried to drag the whole thing out with multiple calls to the attorney costing the estate money figuring eventually they would give in. Younger brother wouldn't give in. He had two proposals: both submit sealed bids on the property and highest bid gets it or get an appraisal to set value and then flip a coin. Eventually all three agreed agreed to flipping a coin. (Remember there is a middle brother who wasn't interested in owing the property.) Professional appraisal come in around where younger brother guessed and significantly more than older sister wanted to pay. When she lost the coin toss the real drama started! She cried to every one about losing the cabin. Her daughters called their cousins (younger brothers daughters) bc he was being mean to his sister. Older sister's daughters said they had fond memories of summers at the cabin (as if their younger cousins didn't!). Lots more pressure and drama that I don't recall the details of. But younger brother held fast...until middle brother retroactively decided that a coin toss wasn't the way to go. Sister had worked her magic on him and he was always the people pleaser.
At the point younger brother gave in and gave up the cabin. At least the estate got full value (it was actually in a trust). Younger brother bought another vacation cabin in a different area. I think everyone is speaking again but it was a tough couple of years.
These were grown ass people. Sister was probably 70 at the time and brothers in their 60s.
My grandparents, to the dismay of everyone (kids and grandkids) sold their place 4 and 6 years before they passed away. Second best decision they ever made, as now 2 kids own a place (one next door and one 15 miles up the same road) and a 3rd is trying to buy one 10 houses down--if that falls through, he might try to buy the original place!
Just a whole lot less drama. My in-laws on the other hand... what a cluster that is. Grandpa wants a place in the vacation spot where they've been renting for years, but can't afford it. So all the kids put in $5k each for the downpayment, and grandpa puts down either $5k or $10k. Then they split the housing payments equally, and pay $5 a night per person when they stay there.
Well grandpa dies. Grandma is a bitch, so is one of the aunts who is a teacher and single/no kids--she's up there the entire summer! If you want to go up there during the summer, you have to deal with her. My FIL has 2 kids, is trying to run a business, and his wife (daughter of the grandpa) has MS now (did I mention the house is a split level?). FIL wants to sell because when he can go up, he has to deal with his shitty SIL, and his wife (sister of SIL) can't really even be there due to the stairs. The others don't want to sell--they'll give him his $5,000 back, but he's been making payments for 20 years!
I'll never buy any property that isn't a rental BUSINESS with anyone who isn't my wife.
Post by: jinga nation on June 17, 2016, 02:16:52 PM
Post by: Goldielocks on June 17, 2016, 08:17:47 PM
Sure, you can do that, but it's a fairly sure way to ensure drama. The people who are enjoying it now don't have to worry about upkeep or even treating it well, because it's never going to be theirs. The person paying for all of it doesn't get to enjoy it until someone else dies and they get what's left over at the end.Yep. I wasn't recommending it..especially for this scenario. deadlymonkey wanted to know if it was possible, and it is.
Remaindering was traditionally a good way for a man to pass property down to sons if his wife survived him; she would have a 'life estate' or a right to live on the property until she died, and it would automatically go to the sons after that without any danger that it would go to a new family if she re-married.
It is a good plan for a disabled child, too, to have a life interest in living in a home, if a trustee is responsible for maintenance of the property, and then it passes (when the child dies) to the designated recipient.
Post by: Spiffsome on June 18, 2016, 06:09:07 PM
IAALBINYL (I am a lawyer but I'm not YOUR lawyer): another popular option in Australia and similar systems is joint tenancy - two people own the real estate as joint tenants, meaning that when one of them dies the other automatically becomes full owner. No wills, no way to contest anything.
Post by: frugledoc on June 19, 2016, 07:27:58 AM
My mother has COPD and doesn't have much time left with us. She's accepted the fact. On Sunday, I'm going to my parents' house and sitting with her; she wants me to help her write her will. I'm hoping she'll keep it simple and no twists. Otherwise you'll get an update on inheritance drama.
Have seen lots of patients including my grandad with end stage copd survive many years.
Post by: Rubic on June 19, 2016, 09:35:14 AM
Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
I can see myself someday -- as I approach my personal expiration date -- gifting cash/stocks to my heirs which won't exceed the maximum exclusion amount ($14,000 in 2015). Even prior to that date -- for my nieces and nephews -- I'm considering offering them an IRA match to encourage them to save.
We're fortunate in that we have had no drama in my immediate family. My brother and I will be our parents' executors and the other siblings are fine with that. I even tried to get my father to exclude me from the inheritance (since I don't need the money), but he refused, thinking it would be unseemly.
I suppose being financially independent helps to insulate you from the inheritance drama. After lurking on this thread for the past few months, I realize how blessed our family has been to avoid the bad karma of fighting over an inheritance.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
Post by: zolotiyeruki on June 19, 2016, 09:42:48 AM
My grandparents gifted each grandkid some money for college, etc. I love the idea, because gifts to the kids generally aren't (or shouldn't be) necessary, and the grandkids will have the benefit of compound interest more than the kids.Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
I can see myself someday -- as I approach my personal expiration date -- gifting cash/stocks to my heirs which won't exceed the maximum exclusion amount ($14,000 in 2015). Even prior to that date -- for my nieces and nephews -- I'm considering offering them an IRA match to encourage them to save.
We're fortunate in that we have had no drama in my immediate family. My brother and I will be our parents' executors and the other siblings are fine with that. I even tried to get my father to exclude me from the inheritance (since I don't need the money), but he refused, thinking it would be unseemly.
I suppose being financially independent helps to insulate you from the inheritance drama. After lurking on this thread for the past few months, I realize how blessed our family has been to avoid the bad karma of fighting over an inheritance.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
When my grandmother died, my dad was the executor, and AFAIK, there was zero drama. Of course, my dad was already retired, and the others were very much self-sufficient. I agree that being financially independent, or at least financially responsible, can certainly cut down on the drama. My dad asked all the kids to submit their requests for sentimental items, and each person was expected to pay the estate market value for the object(s) they received.
Post by: Villanelle on June 19, 2016, 02:31:13 PM
Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
I can see myself someday -- as I approach my personal expiration date -- gifting cash/stocks to my heirs which won't exceed the maximum exclusion amount ($14,000 in 2015). Even prior to that date -- for my nieces and nephews -- I'm considering offering them an IRA match to encourage them to save.
We're fortunate in that we have had no drama in my immediate family. My brother and I will be our parents' executors and the other siblings are fine with that. I even tried to get my father to exclude me from the inheritance (since I don't need the money), but he refused, thinking it would be unseemly.
I suppose being financially independent helps to insulate you from the inheritance drama. After lurking on this thread for the past few months, I realize how blessed our family has been to avoid the bad karma of fighting over an inheritance.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
There was minor drama when my grandma died, but it was pretty minor. But there was also a generous gesture. Grandma's health was just starting to decline when Husband and I happened to move to her city. We were engaged, but not yet married. grandma offered me a $400/mo to help her out a bit. At first, this was a fair sum, and it included things like helping with some housework, grocery runs, picking up prescriptions, etc. I lived with DH (then DF) and a roommate, and went to grandmas most days. As she got more and more sick, it became a full time job. I moved in with her because she couldn't be alone over night. It went from grocery shopping to cleaning up after accidents. I was happy to do it, but it truly was full time, to the point that I had to ask a one of her neighbors to sit with her if I had to run to the grocery store or pharmacy, as she really couldn't be alone at all. She was adamant about not wanting to leave her home. Of course this meant there was no way I could look for a job. Husband and I were okay financially, but would have been more okay if I'd been working. It didn't feel right to ask her for more money, so she continued to give me $400 per month. None of there 3 children lived local.
Grandma got pretty unhappy, and the job turned rather unpleasant as she often lashed out, but it meant something to me to be able to help her, even though it was one of the most difficult things I've done.
After she died, her 3 children decided to pay me some additional money from the estate, beyond the $400/mo I'd been getting. I think it was a gesture of appreciation for what I did, since none of them were in a position to do so, and an acknowledgement that it was definitely more than a $400 job.
Post by: PharmaStache on June 19, 2016, 04:57:05 PM
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
My husband's grandfather has a very generous pension and lives an extremely frugal life. Since before I met my husband, his grandpa has given all of his kids and grandkids very generous gifts at Christmas (close to $1000 now, and I assume he gives the same amount to each person so that's between 10-20k a year). Plus when he sold his house (probably worth about 100k) and moved into an apartment, he split the profits between all of his kids and grandkids again, giving each person several thousand dollars. I don't think he has any assets left other than the pension, so I doubt there would be any inheritance when he dies. I think he's doing a really cool thing!
Post by: Spiffsome on June 19, 2016, 05:44:04 PM
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
Amazingly, I do. My housemate's uncle died childless and he showed me the will. It was the most complicated division I'd ever seen. Non-liquid assets, ten-way split, charities involved, delayed sell-off. My housemate was left a house full of his uncle's collectibles. I was convinced it was all going to go to heck in a handbasket. But it didn't. The family got together, helped him move into the house, peacefully took home some small possessions with sentimental value to each of them, and divided the rest of the assets with minimal drama.
Post by: geekette on June 19, 2016, 08:53:09 PM
Absolutely no drama, unless you count the "oh, you can have (some valuable thing)". "Oh no, I think it means more to you" type of drama.
I hope (and expect) my sisters to behave when our parents are gone as well.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 20, 2016, 05:38:29 AM
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?When my Mom died, after things settled down, my sister and I went to our parents house and went through all Mom's things. Our Dad couldn't handle doing that, he wanted us to do it. We sorted everything, decided amiably about what went where (clothes, jewellery, etc.), took donations to the donation place, and left our Dad with a sense of peace. We didn't argue at all. We did the same after Dad died. Both parents had wills (nice clear ones), so this was more the personal stuff.
We had had the advantage of watching grabby relatives take a lot of our Grandmother's stuff, and watched our uncle be mean to Mom at our Grandmother's funeral (no-one told her that Granny didn't want an open casket, her brother was so nasty she never spoke to him again), and we were both determined that we were not going down that path.
Post by: BlueHouse on June 20, 2016, 05:41:56 AM
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?Yes. After my grandmother died, she split her money in half between her two kids. Seems fair at face value, but Those of us who saw the years of hard effort and sacrifice that my mom had put in to care for her bedridden mother knew the "even split" was not equitable. My mom never said a bitter word about it.
The kind and generous part of the story is about my mom, who, like thousands of other people, don't talk about the inequity to their children or other family members. The only thing that would come from that would be that now our family would be mad at uncle's family and two sets of cousins would resent one another because of the "unfairness". We know my mom went above and beyond, and we just chalk that up to her being a very special person and we don't equate it to money.
Many of the horror stories above are about an older generation in a family, but somehow, the info is getting to the kids because someone is bitter. I can only advise to let it go, don't share the bitterness with your kids, and then it ends rather than starting a multi-generational war.
Here's to all the moms and dads that took an unfair situation and just let it die without telling their kids how poorly they had been treated. THATS the real gift of a kind and generous spirit!
Post by: Adventine on June 20, 2016, 07:10:08 AM
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?Here's to all the moms and dads that took an unfair situation and just let it die without telling their kids how poorly they had been treated. THATS the real gift of a kind and generous spirit!
Exactly right!
Post by: MoneyCat on June 20, 2016, 07:23:23 AM
Post by: Spork on June 20, 2016, 07:49:14 AM
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
While this is entirely 100% true.... the folks creating the drama are likely the ones that absolutely do not understand that. I see it as "Yesterday, this money/stuff wasn't mine. Today, I have a gift I didn't ask for that will remind me of a loved one." Those that are the drama queens are the ones that think their gift "isn't enough."
Post by: jinga nation on June 20, 2016, 07:53:08 AM
My mother has COPD and doesn't have much time left with us. She's accepted the fact. On Sunday, I'm going to my parents' house and sitting with her; she wants me to help her write her will. I'm hoping she'll keep it simple and no twists. Otherwise you'll get an update on inheritance drama.
Have seen lots of patients including my grandad with end stage copd survive many years.
Actually, it's not COPD but Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. She was initially diagnosed COPD, then further testing revealed IPF. It has aggressively spread in the last year.
Post by: AlanStache on June 20, 2016, 08:33:54 AM
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
Yep. Buddy of mine will get the "inheritance" of no longer supporting his father when he goes.
Post by: gaja on June 20, 2016, 09:31:24 AM
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
Inheritance isn't just about money, often people fight about stuff of no or little value because of sentimental attachment. Other times, the argument is really about something completly different but the death brings it to the surface.
There wasn't really anything of value when my grandmother died. I remember she split her money between the grandkids before she died, and it was just enough for each of us to get a new (relatively cheap) winter coat. But there was an old house. It costs more in upkeep than it is worth, old, bad quality materials, not possible to use in wintertime, but it was a childhood home. Two of the kids agreed to buy the other three out, with agreement that they all could keep using it. But one of the older boys did not agree with the realtor's assessment, he wanted it on the open market. The difference in price would maybe be a thousand dollars, so it clearly wasn't about the cash. The argument that ensued caused a rift that lasted till that uncle died. In it, all the old resentment from the last 50 years came to the surface.
The fun part of that was that his wife thought he was dead wrong, and made sure that she and the kids attended all family gatherings, wrote Christmas cards, etc.
Post by: Shinplaster on June 20, 2016, 11:10:42 AM
But, the reason she's been so organized is that she watched her younger sister pillage their father's and aunt's small estates. She let it go, but never forgot the anger and hurt over such petty behaviour.
Post by: talltexan on June 20, 2016, 01:14:06 PM
Post by: Chris22 on June 20, 2016, 01:32:50 PM
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
My dad's mom passed about 10 months ago, estate was split about 40/40/20 between 2 brothers and then random gifts to random groups of people (church, grandkids, friends, etc, in the amounts of $10-20k). Basically all cash/cash equivalents, she had sold her house and most property and moved to assisted living. The two brothers get along just find, all is well, except that neither one particularly needs the money (estate was maybe $300-400k and ~80% was already executed?) so neither is any hurry to wrap it all up. Not a big deal, but I would like my small share in my investment account instead of in trust/escrow somewhere....
Post by: Chris22 on June 20, 2016, 01:36:31 PM
In all honesty, you should feel grateful if there is "inheritance drama". Inheritance may as well be strange customs of an alien culture as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. My grandparents just died and they had retired to a trailer in Florida and then moved in with my aunt when they got too old and frail to take care of themselves anymore. No money to dish out. My family has ten children that were raised on one government employee income. I'm going to get jack squat when my father dies. If you have "inheritance drama", you are living the good life. Be thankful for it.
Eh, yes and no, I mean, there are worse problems to have, but if you inherit property jointly with other people, especially maintenance intensive property, you've likely inherited a burden, not a gift.
Post by: mm1970 on June 20, 2016, 02:07:43 PM
When my dad died, he left everything to the 7 kids. It wasn't much (I got about $10k). His will stated that everything be sold and divided up. But honestly, he didn't have anything worth selling (he gave me his copy of Walden years before, to give you an idea).Seriously - the lowest drama method is to give it away before you die. Want a family heirloom to go to someone special? Hand it to them while you can still remember who they are.
I can see myself someday -- as I approach my personal expiration date -- gifting cash/stocks to my heirs which won't exceed the maximum exclusion amount ($14,000 in 2015). Even prior to that date -- for my nieces and nephews -- I'm considering offering them an IRA match to encourage them to save.
We're fortunate in that we have had no drama in my immediate family. My brother and I will be our parents' executors and the other siblings are fine with that. I even tried to get my father to exclude me from the inheritance (since I don't need the money), but he refused, thinking it would be unseemly.
I suppose being financially independent helps to insulate you from the inheritance drama. After lurking on this thread for the past few months, I realize how blessed our family has been to avoid the bad karma of fighting over an inheritance.
Does anyone have stories of pleasant "non-dramatic" inheritance situations? Stories where the family members went out of their way to be kind and generous to everyone?
After his burial, we went back to the house and drank beer and ate bad food and talked for hours. My sister the executor said: "take whatever you want, the rest is going to a dumpster" (because it wasn't worth much). So, I got the corn dishes. (Ceramic dishes shaped like corn. That my mom made, and left when she divorced him. She always regretted not taking them). We dug through a closet and found his WWII Army uniform, hidden behind a prom dress, in a garment bag. I hope someone kept that.
My big sis the executor handled everything, and the rest of us were happy!
Post by: Kitsune on June 20, 2016, 06:37:20 PM
My grandmother had specified where the items of value (specific pieces of jewelry, leather furniture, etc) were going. My mom made sure that things went where they were needed ("oh, we have used-but-great-quality towels, single beds, and sheets. Maybe the cousin who is a single mom working minimum wage would appreciate those for her daughters, since apparently they are using sleeping bags" or "X person cooks, so should get the stacks of pie plates", or "person who does woodworking should look through the shop for things they can use") - practical decisions for things that couldn't be sold but could definitely be used and appreciated.
And then she made sure that sentimental items went to the right people - my cousin brought my grandmother roses every week, and she'd always put them in this case she treasured and it made her happy: he got the vase. That kind of thing.
In the middle of a situation filled with abuse, social workers, lawyers, and a dickbag of an uncle, I though that the thoughtfulness of how she split up material belongings showed a lot of grace.
Post by: CU Tiger on June 20, 2016, 09:01:09 PM
In the middle of a situation filled with abuse, social workers, lawyers, and a dickbag of an uncle, I though that the thoughtfulness of how she split up material belongings showed a lot of grace.
I find the phrase "dickbag of an uncle" strangely hilarious, but I am sorry you have one...an uncle who is a dickbag, I mean.
Post by: Kitsune on June 21, 2016, 06:54:45 AM
In the middle of a situation filled with abuse, social workers, lawyers, and a dickbag of an uncle, I though that the thoughtfulness of how she split up material belongings showed a lot of grace.
I find the phrase "dickbag of an uncle" strangely hilarious, but I am sorry you have one...an uncle who is a dickbag, I mean.
Sometimes standard insults are just not sufficient. ;)
Post by: deadlymonkey on June 22, 2016, 09:36:49 AM
Post by: MgoSam on June 22, 2016, 02:01:33 PM
The estates where there's little to fight over seem to have the most vicious fighting in my estimation.
Reminds me of a joke I once heard.
Q: Why are academic politics so heated?
A: Because the stakes are so low.
Post by: Dicey on June 22, 2016, 02:17:19 PM
Q: Why do grandparents and grandchildren get along so well?
A: They have a common enemy.
Post by: Rural on June 22, 2016, 02:54:54 PM
The estates where there's little to fight over seem to have the most vicious fighting in my estimation.
Reminds me of a joke I once heard.
Q: Why are academic politics so heated?
A: Because the stakes are so low.
Gospel truth right there.
Post by: WGH on June 24, 2016, 03:20:07 PM
Sidetrack, but here's another one MgoSam -
Q: Why do grandparents and grandchildren get along so well?
A: They have a common enemy.
Fair warning I am stealing this one :)
Post by: nonurseorpurse on June 24, 2016, 07:54:27 PM
In the middle of a situation filled with abuse, social workers, lawyers, and a dickbag of an uncle, I though that the thoughtfulness of how she split up material belongings showed a lot of grace.
I find the phrase "dickbag of an uncle" strangely hilarious, but I am sorry you have one...an uncle who is a dickbag, I mean.
Sometimes standard insults are just not sufficient. ;)
Love this insult! :) I can apply it to two brothers, both who showed their dickbagginess the last few years of our mother's life. Hopefully, this will help others avoid this problem.
My parents had a revocable living trust with a pour over will in place when my dad died. Everything went to my mom. The problem begins when mom shows signs of dementia immediately after my dad's funeral. The short story is the 2 brothers had frequent economic outpatient care from our parents before and after my dad's death. The disturbing part was when the 2 brothers decided they were immediately entitled to the proceeds from selling the farm because they had a penis. They were unable to have the proceeds titled in their name (mom is still alive) but proceeded to trade stocks and mutual funds as if the money was theirs. Brother 1 had also signed a promissory note for $25K to invest in his "business."
The worst part was when Brother 1 takes mom to a new attorney and has the living revocable trust rewritten to exclude me and my sister. All proceeds from the estate would go to the 2 brothers. Brother 1 has the trust rewritten again to exclude Brother 2. All this is happening while mom's dementia is getting worse. She admitted in a lawyer's office she didn't understand what she had signed. Fortunately, about 2 months later, she has a moment of clarity and demands that the original trust be reinstated. She paid for all 3 revisions of the trust and Brother 1 continues to get money from her (she can't say no).
The only consolation for my sister and I is that mom kept records of some of the amounts she gave to Brother 1. We had the $25,000 promissory note, which he repaid $0 and copies of checks and wire transfers that were sent to him. A clause in the trust allowed my sister and I as co-trustees, to deduct the gifts and amount borrowed from his inheritance. Brother 2 had his economic outpatient care in the form of cash, because he lived close, so we could not document any amount for equalization.
I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice and don't know if this will work in every state. Here's the clause in her trust
Grantor wishes to make certain monetary gifts during Grantor's lifetime to one or more of Grantor's children. Records of said gifts will be located within Grantor's personal papers. In the event that Grantor has made such gifts, upon final distribution, Grantor directs that a like sum, equal to the amount of the gifts, be distributed to each of Grantor's other children listed in paragraph (c) below. The intent of this paragraph is to equalize the distributions among Grantor's children and this paragraph should be construed to effect this equalizing distribution. Grantor trusts the Trustees in setting the amounts for distribution under this paragraph and no person shall challenge the exercise of this discretion by the Trustees.
This clause will be included in my trust on it's next revision. I don't anticipate any problems with my heirs but better safe than sorry. Sharing a copy of the trust and net worth statement with my children every 2-3 years is also part of my plan. There are no secrets.
Post by: Mrs. S on June 27, 2016, 01:25:12 AM
On my dad's side it was a big mess. My dad kept on telling his father to just hand it over to one person (7 children) and be done with it instead of assuming people will distribute it later and leaving equal shares. He did not and one of the uncles still lives in the huge house my granddad had. It can't be sold and he actually stopped talking to everyone else for sometime since everyone wanted to settle the issue. There is another property that no body uses which can't be sold either because it requires all the siblings to sign off. No clue how it is going to end.
I am happy I don't want anything from my parents and it can be divided howsoever they want and same for DH's parents. They helped us out when we had locked up money and had to close our house. For some reason they refuse to take the money back and I believe that combined with whatever they spent on our marriage is enough for my inheritance.
It sure feels good when you know you will not need the outpatient care.
Post by: Sibley on July 11, 2016, 10:57:37 AM
My great-uncle passed away recently. No word on any inheritance drama and I don't really anticipate any given the circumstances, but there is most certainly drama on the memorial. Due to family location, etc, it's been decided that a memorial will be held this coming winter sometime. No word on the date yet.
Location is the fun part. They had a number of children, all of whom now live somewhere in the south. Florida, Texas, etc. There is apparently one person who wants the memorial to be held in Michigan, where everyone grew up. They're making a fuss about this. They've been emailing, sending FB or linked in messages, etc to everyone remotely related to ask us to support them.
I would also love it if the memorial was in Michigan, it would be LOT easier for me to attend. Not sure I can otherwise. But the ONLY thing I'm going to say to my great aunt is that I love her. I don't even have a phone number! Dear lord, I hope this one wacko person is kept far away from the estate. They're even more remote than I am, so I think there's a pretty good chance.
Post by: Undefined on July 11, 2016, 11:42:24 AM
{Nice inheritance story removed at the request of other family members also on this board}
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 11, 2016, 01:29:10 PM
DH's grandmother passed away. She left written instructions her jewelry should be divided by her children picking in turns by age. MIL and her SIL went and got the jewelry appraised. Nothing of real value but a diamond ring (maybe 1-3k, not her wedding ring). Some costume jewelry as well.
MIL is the oldest sibling, so she's to pick first and could take the ring if she wanted to do so. She tried to get her siblings instead to agree to sell it and divvy up the pot, but that apparently didn't fly. Instead they agreed to draw names out of a hat for it. MIL won the draw, so twice over now the ring is hers (and the siblings still insisted she pick first).
Siblings all picked out the jewelry by turn quite happily. (MIL tried to get me or her other DIL to make picks on her turns, but we declined - thought she should.) They also set out the costume jewelry for any of the 30+ grandkids/spouses to just grab what they wanted. Everyone who wanted got at least one if not several items, and no fuss/fights or problems. (This is a positive turn from when DH's grandfather passed away and MIL was out of the country. A sibling got rid of much of his stuff before she had a chance to object.)
Post by: mm1970 on July 11, 2016, 03:41:00 PM
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
Post by: Metric Mouse on July 12, 2016, 12:46:58 AM
Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
I hope my parents live to see me in my 70's.
Post by: mm1970 on July 12, 2016, 09:43:40 AM
Right? My parents died when I was 37 (dad) and 41 (mom), and neither of them lived to see the birth of my second child.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
I hope my parents live to see me in my 70's.
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 12, 2016, 09:58:45 AM
Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
If the girl's trust is smaller (and there are more recipients?), $60k missing may not be so insignificant for everyone receiving under it. Doesn't the trustee have records of any disbursements? (Wouldn't the trustee also be on the hook for an improper disbursement?) Or is it possible that step-grandma spent it and it's not missing after all?
Post by: Papa Mustache on July 13, 2016, 08:40:54 AM
Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
I grew up watching some people drool over money they assumed would be their's someday. Money wrecked that family.
Post by: mm1970 on July 13, 2016, 09:11:54 AM
My sister has asked for annual statements going back to the year that it had more money in it. She hasn't gotten them yet. If the boys raided it, it would totally suck, and there is virtually no chance of getting the money back now. You can't hold up the big trust to sort it out, anyway. Not legally. We both, of course, hope that step-grandma needed it and used it.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
If the girl's trust is smaller (and there are more recipients?), $60k missing may not be so insignificant for everyone receiving under it. Doesn't the trustee have records of any disbursements? (Wouldn't the trustee also be on the hook for an improper disbursement?) Or is it possible that step-grandma spent it and it's not missing after all?
You are right that it's not insignificant. $60k equates 1/4 of the total.
Post by: Hall11235 on July 13, 2016, 01:24:08 PM
1. My dad's dad started working for 3M back in the 60's and worked there is whole career. My father has confirmed that his parents are worth at least 3 million. Grandpa Skip is a Mustachian Ninja. The family calls him "El Cheapo." Now that he is in his mid seventies, he is unwilling to give any money to the Government in the form of the estate tax. His solution: he has 6 kids, and once a year he gives each child 10k in cash.
2. My mom's dad died several years ago. My mom and her sisters were concerned about my grandma's money situation. Whenever they would raise the issue, Grandma would say, "I don't know much, but I know Jim took care of me." Then my aunt snuck around and discovered my Grandpa's retirement account that he left to my grandma was at least a million dollars. Now, we don't ask her too much on how she is doing money wise. Grandma spends very little, just money on Neon Nikes and gardening supplies.
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 13, 2016, 02:23:26 PM
My sister has asked for annual statements going back to the year that it had more money in it. She hasn't gotten them yet. If the boys raided it, it would totally suck, and there is virtually no chance of getting the money back now. You can't hold up the big trust to sort it out, anyway. Not legally. We both, of course, hope that step-grandma needed it and used it.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
If the girl's trust is smaller (and there are more recipients?), $60k missing may not be so insignificant for everyone receiving under it. Doesn't the trustee have records of any disbursements? (Wouldn't the trustee also be on the hook for an improper disbursement?) Or is it possible that step-grandma spent it and it's not missing after all?
You are right that it's not insignificant. $60k equates 1/4 of the total.
Interesting, I would have assumed the trustee would have a fiduciary duty to only make proper disbursements, and thus you'd have legal recourse against them if they breached that duty by permitting someone who was not authorized to take money. It's not any different if they gave me the money or an unpermitted family member. And of course, you could go after the uncles (if you wished to accept with the associated fallout from it) because it's considering stealing to take money that they have no right to. Anyways, hopefully it was step-grandma!
Post by: The Fake Cheap on July 13, 2016, 06:37:15 PM
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Post by: With This Herring on July 13, 2016, 08:03:33 PM
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
Post by: kayvent on July 13, 2016, 08:19:30 PM
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
If Jonny wants to get his share early and be written out of the will I don't see an issue with that....
A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.
Post by: Dicey on July 13, 2016, 09:11:45 PM
A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.Um, No? Getting a pile of money will not teach them how to be better with it, they'll just burn through it and want more. In my family, it would be sister, not uncle. Different gender, same bad behavior.
Post by: TexasRunner on July 13, 2016, 09:27:50 PM
Mostly posting to follow. I will post up stories when I get the chance... But I did just go and update mine and my spouse's wills tonight to sign TOMORROW. Lol, I don't anyone to have to deal with this kind of crap... :/
Post by: Goldielocks on July 14, 2016, 03:32:13 AM
Grandparents were always in DH's life, from babysitting while mom worked, to fishing, etc... So after we were married, we made a point to travel to see them about once a year, sometimes 2x per year. We were 22-30 at this time, so using up a week of vacation to go drive to visit elderly grand parent -in-laws was not really that exciting, but we were glad to see them.
Well, life got pretty busy for us with small children, a move to California (now to far to travel to see them), and then DH was sick with mono for a year... Meanwhile, we could never get through on Grandpa's phone, so no contact with him for 2 years, and never followed up that diligently either...
So when grandpa passed away a couple of years ago, we had a bit of shock to learn that DH's Aunt had previously moved him to a care facility nearer to her (great!) but never called us so we could have a chance to see him --as the new city was one we did go to sometimes--, and worst of all, upon death decided to hold no funeral (Grandpa was depressed in the last years, and we knew this was likely his wish), but did not even call DH to say that grandpa had passed away. We found out because another elderly relative (other side of family) reads the obits put out by funeral homes -- read that it stated "no funeral", and had posted a few details about his life / family and recognized him and let us know.
As DH had been adopted by another man some 15 years before, (mom remarried) the sole inheritor by intestate rules would have been DH's aunt.. but man, it is so odd because Grandpa used to talk about his will sometimes to us (but not about money in it), and it seems so strange that DH and his great grandkids would have been deliberately cut out. We are surmising in the best possible way that there was no money left, even after grandpa's home was sold....(the care facility would have cost close to the government monthly stipend, so not drawn from his personal monies, except for the transfer and for clothing). At the end of it all, all DH only really wanted a small decorative wooden tray his dad had made before he died... that grandpa had treasured more than anything else, and kept with him. Ugh. Probably put into the trash.
What do you do when relatives don't even have the courtesy to tell the only other direct descendant that the patriarch was moved to a care home and then that he died a year later? Especially if there is hints that this was done to mask plundering of any remaining accounts (using power of attorney / joint banking, etc)?
Post by: kayvent on July 14, 2016, 03:44:19 AM
A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.Um, No? Getting a pile of money will not teach them how to be better with it, they'll just burn through it and want more. In my family, it would be sister, not uncle. Different gender, same bad behavior.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I meant to say that it is a technique to avoid strife caused by the inheritor while they wait. Not that the inheritor will use it properly.
Post by: Warlord1986 on July 14, 2016, 07:27:18 AM
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
If there's someone out there who will ask for it, there is someone out there who will give it. My older brother had the nerve to ask Mom and Daddy for his inheritance early. He wanted to buy tenant housing in NYC and be a slumlord.
Mom told him she wasn't done spending his inheritance.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on July 14, 2016, 07:52:22 AM
If there's someone out there who will ask for it, there is someone out there who will give it. My older brother had the nerve to ask Mom and Daddy for his inheritance early. He wanted to buy tenant housing in NYC and be a slumlord.BWAHAHAHAHA! My parents have said the same thing on many occasions! :D
Mom told him she wasn't done spending his inheritance.
Post by: Kitsune on July 14, 2016, 08:11:45 AM
If there's someone out there who will ask for it, there is someone out there who will give it. My older brother had the nerve to ask Mom and Daddy for his inheritance early. He wanted to buy tenant housing in NYC and be a slumlord.BWAHAHAHAHA! My parents have said the same thing on many occasions! :D
Mom told him she wasn't done spending his inheritance.
OMG, I would never dream of asking my parents for 'early inheritance'. Wtf. It's THEIR money, not mine. Should they die and have some left, it will become (partially) mine (and, realistically, they have hefty life insurance policies, so there will be SOME inheritance, but I'm not banking on it wtf).
How shameless do you have to be? "Hey, I'm earmarking this part of your money as mine when you croak, so can you just give me multiple thousands right now because you owe me your money because I decided?" What on earth??
(Situation changes somewhat if it's, like, family inheritance and trust funds going back generations, with the expectation that any one generation has the obligation to hand it down to the next one, I guess. But that's far from the majority...)
Post by: Dicey on July 14, 2016, 08:22:05 AM
I assure you, it never avoids strife. Real life other branch of the family example: four cousins inherit a property that their father owned as a rental. One son lives in it (stipulated in the will). He has been allotted a very generous amount of time to fix it up in his spare time. It really needs it and he has the skillz. One sibling had a medical issue and needed money. He bought out her share and everyone was happy for a while. Now this house has skyrocketed in value, sister's husband just died and sis has nothing to live on. Can you see where this is going? And this is not the sister referenced earlier. I don't have the stomach to write about that drama fest yet.A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.Um, No? Getting a pile of money will not teach them how to be better with it, they'll just burn through it and want more. In my family, it would be sister, not uncle. Different gender, same bad behavior.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I meant to say that it is a technique to avoid strife caused by the inheritor while they wait. Not that the inheritor will use it properly.
Post by: shelivesthedream on July 14, 2016, 09:27:33 AM
1. No.
2. No, but we will loan you the money on generous terms, provided we have confidence in your business plan.
3. Yes, but our intention was always that you and your brother should inherit equally so if for any reason the total value of the estate is less than £25,000 when we die, we expect you to even it up with him.
However, factors to be considered here are:
1. It's a question, not a demand.
2. It is for a specific and legitimate purpose.
3. There is value in the inheritor having the money now and not later.
4. The inheritor has worked and saved, so they have put effort in.
5. In my family the inheritance situation would be very simple: split evenly between two people. Very easy to see if any evening up needs to happen.
6. Barring epic long term health issues, I would expect "my half" to definitely be above £25,000 even if my parents bought everything they wanted.
Post by: PencilThinStash on July 14, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
Grandparents were proud of them for trying to turn their financial lives around and wanted to help, but once they started crunching the numbers they realized that giving away 1/3 of their estate now would put them in a place where they'd be chipping away at their investment principal every month instead of living off the interest. Would have left their other kids with a significantly lower inheritance. Didn't think that was fair, so they scrapped the idea.
Post by: mm1970 on July 14, 2016, 11:09:04 AM
You would think. But there was a clause in there about "severe financial need". The problem is, when the bank handling the trust first sent out the recent letters, they mentioned that a small portion of the "girl's" trust was going to go to the boys. My sister is the one that got them to review that (my sister has a copy of all the documents, my mother having been in banking). When they re-read it, they corrected it.My sister has asked for annual statements going back to the year that it had more money in it. She hasn't gotten them yet. If the boys raided it, it would totally suck, and there is virtually no chance of getting the money back now. You can't hold up the big trust to sort it out, anyway. Not legally. We both, of course, hope that step-grandma needed it and used it.Ah well, the grandpa's estate closure is going along on the death of his 2nd wife.
My two shitty uncles continued their shitty trend of calling (someone) and wanting to know "when do I get my money??" (I'm guessing the boys' trust was quite large, over half a million). These guys are in their 70s, WTF?
My sister has not figured out what happened to $60k of the missing trust for the girls. She suspects the boys raided it.
Based on a letter she sent to the trust people, they amended their letter and the amounts that each beneficiary gets - and it's now correct. So, I told my sister she should get a cut of it since she did their job for them! Sheesh.
In any event, I was visiting and she is so frustrated with how horrible our uncles are, how there is money missing, and how upset my mother would be if she were alive. I told her to let it go. We aren't talking a lot of money here. Mom is dead, so she doesn't know any better. Don't worry about things you cannot control. So the uncles' wives get the money and blow it all - great! it goes into the economy. You can't change it. They are old and miserable and will continue to be so. Can you imagine waiting until you are over 70 to get a windfall so that you can "enjoy life"???
If the girl's trust is smaller (and there are more recipients?), $60k missing may not be so insignificant for everyone receiving under it. Doesn't the trustee have records of any disbursements? (Wouldn't the trustee also be on the hook for an improper disbursement?) Or is it possible that step-grandma spent it and it's not missing after all?
You are right that it's not insignificant. $60k equates 1/4 of the total.
Interesting, I would have assumed the trustee would have a fiduciary duty to only make proper disbursements, and thus you'd have legal recourse against them if they breached that duty by permitting someone who was not authorized to take money. It's not any different if they gave me the money or an unpermitted family member. And of course, you could go after the uncles (if you wished to accept with the associated fallout from it) because it's considering stealing to take money that they have no right to. Anyways, hopefully it was step-grandma!
Which leads me to believe that it's entirely possible that they let the boys raid the girls' trust, if they didn't even read the damn trust documents until last month.
Post by: mm1970 on July 14, 2016, 11:11:02 AM
The one *good* uncle I had worked very hard with my grandpa in the family business. He got *his* inheritance in the form of part of the business when he was in his 30's or 40's (grandpa still alive), and of course, did very well with it. That's why even though there are 3 boys, only 2 are part of the trust.This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
If Jonny wants to get his share early and be written out of the will I don't see an issue with that....
A few posts up we have grumpy 70-year old uncles waiting for their inheritance. Giving them a dozen thousand four decades ago would have stopped all that grief. A person is entitled to their share of the estate....sometimes it is easier just to give them it.
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 14, 2016, 11:13:01 AM
You would think. But there was a clause in there about "severe financial need". The problem is, when the bank handling the trust first sent out the recent letters, they mentioned that a small portion of the "girl's" trust was going to go to the boys. My sister is the one that got them to review that (my sister has a copy of all the documents, my mother having been in banking). When they re-read it, they corrected it.
Which leads me to believe that it's entirely possible that they let the boys raid the girls' trust, if they didn't even read the damn trust documents until last month.
Delightful. If that's true, can it be recovered from the boys trust before releasing those funds to them? Or would you (your sister) have to actually sue them to get it back?
I'm pretty glad your step-grandma lived a long time given their bad behavior!
Post by: mm1970 on July 14, 2016, 11:14:38 AM
My FIL used to say "my kids are my retirement plan". And then he cheated on his wife (MIL) and they divorced. Good luck with that buddy.If there's someone out there who will ask for it, there is someone out there who will give it. My older brother had the nerve to ask Mom and Daddy for his inheritance early. He wanted to buy tenant housing in NYC and be a slumlord.BWAHAHAHAHA! My parents have said the same thing on many occasions! :D
Mom told him she wasn't done spending his inheritance.
Recently FIL, SIL and hubby were talking retirement. FIL has SS and small state pension. SIL works for school district, will get a pension.
"Do you have a pension hubby?" Nope, just 401ks and IRAs.
Post by: Lookilu on July 14, 2016, 02:03:01 PM
Quote
What do you do when relatives don't even have the courtesy to tell the only other direct descendant that the patriarch was moved to a care home and then that he died a year later? Especially if there is hints that this was done to mask plundering of any remaining accounts (using power of attorney / joint banking, etc)?
I'm not sure how unusual this is, but a similar situation happened to my Dad.
Dad was the oldest of five siblings and always a worker and a saver, along with my Mom. Two of his brothers and his sister were ne'er-do-wells, always looking for capital for their get rich quick schemes or for bailouts. After unsuccessfully hitting my parents up for money, my two uncles and aunt stopped speaking to my folks, and apparently Grandma sided with them, so it was radio silence from that side of the family for several years.
Then one day they called my Dad to let him know that their mother had died and, oh, by the way, the funeral was last week/last month/last year. (I really can't remember; I was a kid.)
That's how he found out his mother had died. I don't think he ever spoke to any of them again.
I am sorry to hear about your situation though. It sucks.
Post by: geekette on July 14, 2016, 03:10:43 PM
The annuity company asked friend for separation papers and divorce decree, which she sent on, but their request for a certified death certificate from her seemed absurd (and how would she get it anyway?)
Change your beneficiaries, y'all!
Post by: Pooperman on July 14, 2016, 03:14:49 PM
Odd inheritance story, and I don't know how it will end. Friend's ex listed her as a beneficiary on an annuity dating back to their separation over 10 years ago. Friend's ex remarried, adopted a child, and recently died unexpectedly.
The annuity company asked friend for separation papers and divorce decree, which she sent on, but their request for a certified death certificate from her seemed absurd (and how would she get it anyway?)
Change your beneficiaries, y'all!
Just put me down. I'll take good care of the money! :P
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on July 14, 2016, 11:19:15 PM
This one is less drama and more anti-mustachian.
My dad, who is actually a very wise fellow, but HORRIBLE with money, took his share of his parents estate early, about 12 years ago, the other siblings permitted him to do so, so he got a cheque. And no, he did not invest it wisely, or pay off debt, it was just burned.
Fast forward to when my grandfatherr (his father) dies last year. After the estate is all settled, he tells me that his brothers and sisters are getting a nice big cheque for about $30,000 each from the estate. So I ask, "And you got one too?" "No" he says "I took my share on it about 12 years ago, I was about $8,000."
Ouch.
Parents still sometimes give children a share of the estate early? I thought that only happened in the biblical story of the Prodigal Son. I can't picture anyone even wanting to ask their parents for early death-money.
I have a younger sibling who did. He's basically waiting around like a vulture hoping our folks will leave him a ton of cash. Other than that he wants nothing to do with them and prefers zero contact unless he's hitting them up for something.
Sadly, they considered doing just that, except they need the income from their investments to live on.
Post by: Dee18 on July 15, 2016, 10:10:15 AM
Post by: geekette on July 15, 2016, 10:18:33 AM
Re Geekette's question: a death certificate is a public record. For a few dollars your friend can get it from the state that issued the death certificate. Just tell her to Google it.
They requested a certified copy, which is only issued to next of kin (at least in that state; I did Google). Besides, she's the named beneficiary, so why should she jump through more hoops to attempt to decline the money?
Post by: Dee18 on July 15, 2016, 10:29:26 AM
A year ago my mother decided to change the trustee on her trust. The trust (and my deceased father's trust) had been drafted by a prominent, and expensive, law firm, and amended by the firm over the years. My mother had recently heard an elder law attorney speak at her church group and wanted to go there, so we did. In preparation for going, I read the trust documents. There were inconsistencies in amendments: a key one being that my daughter (the only grandchild) was written into the trust 15 years ago, but when other changes were made later, the law firm copied the beneficiaries from an early version, omitting my daughter. Because my father had died, the trust could not be changed, leaving my sister and me as the sole beneficiaries upon my mother's death. My mother said the intent had been for my daughter to get 1/5 and my sister and I to each get 2/5 of my parents' estate, which had been the family lore, so she added my daughter as a beneficiary to her trust, essentially achieving the desired result. (Btw, the elder law firm was fabulous at explaining all this to my mother and walking her through it all, and they charged only $250 for the entire process, including three meetings. How do they make money?). I'm so glad that we did not discover the error after my mom's death. I confess I omitted the drama part relating to the changing of the trustee....no need for another "families behaving badly" vignette!
Post by: Dee18 on July 15, 2016, 10:35:00 AM
Post by: mm1970 on July 15, 2016, 10:56:43 AM
Check those trust documents!My grandfather's bank changed the manager of the trust (or whatever it's called...not enough coffee) from his family lawyer to themselves, just by sneaking a paper into a big pile that he was signing. Yeah, my mom and other family members were PISSED - they didn't find THAT out until grandpa died and the lawyer contacted them ... and they said "nope, he signed a paper right here!"
A year ago my mother decided to change the trustee on her trust. The trust (and my deceased father's trust) had been drafted by a prominent, and expensive, law firm, and amended by the firm over the years. My mother had recently heard an elder law attorney speak at her church group and wanted to go there, so we did. In preparation for going, I read the trust documents. There were inconsistencies in amendments: a key one being that my daughter (the only grandchild) was written into the trust 15 years ago, but when other changes were made later, the law firm copied the beneficiaries from an early version, omitting my daughter. Because my father had died, the trust could not be changed, leaving my sister and me as the sole beneficiaries upon my mother's death. My mother said the intent had been for my daughter to get 1/5 and my sister and I to each get 2/5 of my parents' estate, which had been the family lore, so she added my daughter as a beneficiary to her trust, essentially achieving the desired result. (Btw, the elder law firm was fabulous at explaining all this to my mother and walking her through it all, and they charged only $250 for the entire process, including three meetings. How do they make money?). I'm so glad that we did not discover the error after my mom's death. I confess I omitted the drama part relating to the changing of the trustee....no need for another "families behaving badly" vignette!
Post by: dpfromva on July 15, 2016, 01:25:49 PM
So many awful stories about split shares of real estate. My Dad remarried a nice lady a few years after my Mom died. He told me he was changing his will to leave his house 1/3 to me and 2/3 to her. I began imagining sharing the house with her kids after she died and visions of real estate nightmares danced in my head. "Oh hell no, Dad," I told him, "Leave her the whole house. And may you die with a smile on your face and a dollar left in your pocket."
I'm his executor and I know where the will is, but I don't even care what's in it. He has me joint on a small bank account, which will cover the funeral and a send off with plenty of booze at the local fire hall. That's good enough for me.
Just changed my will -- I bought a modest rental house and my tenant is daughter #2, in the city where she graduated and is pursuing her professional career. Daughter #1 is in NYC and told her, "Sweetie, I can't afford to buy a parking space to rent to you." The house is willed to daughter #2, and I rebalanced my life insurance so Daughter #1 gets additional insurance proceeds equivalent to the value of the house. I'll revisit the amount annually based on housing market appreciation (the area is gentrifying so the expected trend is upward). I would never want to leave my daughters a legacy of dispute and estrangement due to shared real estate.
Post by: redbird on July 15, 2016, 02:22:35 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on July 15, 2016, 06:24:31 PM
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Post by: Frankies Girl on July 15, 2016, 07:53:47 PM
I have a story to share... Well, it is DH's story. You see, his dad died when he was young, leaving a sister parents, him, and a widow.
Grandparents were always in DH's life, from babysitting while mom worked, to fishing, etc... So after we were married, we made a point to travel to see them about once a year, sometimes 2x per year. We were 22-30 at this time, so using up a week of vacation to go drive to visit elderly grand parent -in-laws was not really that exciting, but we were glad to see them.
Well, life got pretty busy for us with small children, a move to California (now to far to travel to see them), and then DH was sick with mono for a year... Meanwhile, we could never get through on Grandpa's phone, so no contact with him for 2 years, and never followed up that diligently either...
So when grandpa passed away a couple of years ago, we had a bit of shock to learn that DH's Aunt had previously moved him to a care facility nearer to her (great!) but never called us so we could have a chance to see him --as the new city was one we did go to sometimes--, and worst of all, upon death decided to hold no funeral (Grandpa was depressed in the last years, and we knew this was likely his wish), but did not even call DH to say that grandpa had passed away. We found out because another elderly relative (other side of family) reads the obits put out by funeral homes -- read that it stated "no funeral", and had posted a few details about his life / family and recognized him and let us know.
As DH had been adopted by another man some 15 years before, (mom remarried) the sole inheritor by intestate rules would have been DH's aunt.. but man, it is so odd because Grandpa used to talk about his will sometimes to us (but not about money in it), and it seems so strange that DH and his great grandkids would have been deliberately cut out. We are surmising in the best possible way that there was no money left, even after grandpa's home was sold....(the care facility would have cost close to the government monthly stipend, so not drawn from his personal monies, except for the transfer and for clothing). At the end of it all, all DH only really wanted a small decorative wooden tray his dad had made before he died... that grandpa had treasured more than anything else, and kept with him. Ugh. Probably put into the trash.
What do you do when relatives don't even have the courtesy to tell the only other direct descendant that the patriarch was moved to a care home and then that he died a year later? Especially if there is hints that this was done to mask plundering of any remaining accounts (using power of attorney / joint banking, etc)?
By your own words, you say your husband got too busy and made no effort to stay in basic contact with his grandfather and after trying by phone and having it be disconnected (?) you didn't try other attempts (mail? other relatives? go visit?). You moved away, ceased all contact and apparently did not even write letters or send cards, because if you did, likely someone would have written you back to let you know where he ended up.
Looking at if from the other side:
Grandfather was probably sad and hurt but realized that was your husband's decision to cut him out of his life for some reason, and moved on and stopped thinking about him. His daughter who was there and likely a much closer relationship, took care of him and had to step in and deal with his taxes and bills and other day to day as he aged and became more feeble, and she would have needed the power of attorney and to be on a joint account to make things easy for her to take care of the things as needed (this is not in any way suspicious unless she has a history of being dishonest or evil - it is VERY common). Who is doing all this "hinting" that grandfather's accounts were being plundered? You haven't been in contact with that side of the family in years, right?
The daughter did inform everyone the best she could by placing a public obituary - that's what those things are for. I think it is very unrealistic to have expected her to put her own grief and dealing with the mess of closing an estate aside to try to track down and personally contact an estranged relative (your husband) who had moved out of the area and had lost contact with his grandfather for YEARS, and likely she herself had no contact info for, especially right after her own father's death.
So it's a little sad, but what one should expect if you let the relationship die away and make no effort at all.
Post by: Dicey on July 15, 2016, 11:07:10 PM
Post by: former player on July 16, 2016, 12:48:24 AM
Post by: frugledoc on July 16, 2016, 02:56:42 AM
This thread is ADDICTIVE.
So many awful stories about split shares of real estate. My Dad remarried a nice lady a few years after my Mom died. He told me he was changing his will to leave his house 1/3 to me and 2/3 to her. I began imagining sharing the house with her kids after she died and visions of real estate nightmares danced in my head. "Oh hell no, Dad," I told him, "Leave her the whole house. And may you die with a smile on your face and a dollar left in your pocket."
I'm his executor and I know where the will is, but I don't even care what's in it. He has me joint on a small bank account, which will cover the funeral and a send off with plenty of booze at the local fire hall. That's good enough for me.
Just changed my will -- I bought a modest rental house and my tenant is daughter #2, in the city where she graduated and is pursuing her professional career. Daughter #1 is in NYC and told her, "Sweetie, I can't afford to buy a parking space to rent to you." The house is willed to daughter #2, and I rebalanced my life insurance so Daughter #1 gets additional insurance proceeds equivalent to the value of the house. I'll revisit the amount annually based on housing market appreciation (the area is gentrifying so the expected trend is upward). I would never want to leave my daughters a legacy of dispute and estrangement due to shared real estate.
sounds like a lot of hassle to me personally. Cant you just adjust your will to say that daughter 2 gets life insurance amount of 100% of property value given to daughter 1?
Post by: Dee18 on July 16, 2016, 06:16:42 AM
Post by: Dicey on July 16, 2016, 06:20:25 AM
My in-laws just told me and my husband that they want my husband to be both the will executor and trustee. They want to work it so their assets will be placed in a trust to avoid probate. He accepted this job and the details are still being worked. The only thing we worry about is my husband and his sister didn't get along at all in childhood and haven't spoken in years. I have not even met her as a result of this despite having been dating + married to him for so many years. The sister is being given 1 important role, medical power of attorney, because she lives only a few minutes' drive away from his parents and could act faster if needed. This makes sense. We currently live several hours away. Being ER, we could easily stay in his parents' town if something happens, but that would require a day or two to act, so we couldn't help with medical things as much. But the sister isn't very reliable for many reasons and thus why this was the only responsibility she was given. His parents will probably be around for another 10-15 years or so, but whenever they do both die - hopefully the sister doesn't try to cause any drama. We have the time to take care of his parents' estate however is needed, but I don't like family drama in general. :/Redbird, this gave me chills to read, especially the bolded parts. My brain is screaming Nooooooooooooo! Your in-laws are thinking "acute medical emergency, where time is of the essence", which is actually a less common scenario than "gradual age-related decline". In this day of efficient communication, proximity does not trump reliability. For context, both of my parents have passed away in the last two years. I have alluded to this situation upthread. I don't want to discuss it at great length, but for your sake, I will share what, I assure you, is only the tip of the Titanic-sized iceberg..
I'm from a large family. When my parents established their trust, they gave two sisters medical POA and made a brother and me executors and trustees, with the intent of easing the burden*. From sad experience, I can tell you it didn't work out so well, as the line between the responsibilities gets fuzzy with age. For example, parents were both in a rehab facility for different reasons. Dad improved and no longer qualified for insurance coverage, but couldn't really go home. He didn't want to, because he wanted to be near mom. He was incontinent, barely ambulatory and couldn't get back and forth on his own. For him to stay there cost nearly 12k per month out of pocket. Medical decision or financial decision? We agreed to keep him there, but medical POA/spendthrift sister kept doing things llike ordering physical therapy at added cost (!) so dad would get "better". Dad didn't want it but didn't have the energy to fight with her, so he would go and do absolutely nothing. The facility happily and expensively kept up this charade until the fiscal team intervened.
Next, the spendthrift medical POA sister (hereafter, Sister X) lived closest to my parents, and was conveniently unemployed (by choice). As they aged, my parents relied on her to get to medical appointments, do pharmacy and grocery runs, etc. Over time, it became "easier" if she was on their credit cards. As they got less comfortable driving, my sister started using their car for all of her own driving, charging all gas and maintenance to their CC. They bought a new car and within three years, my jobless sister racked up 77k miles on it.
My parents paid her for her time*, then started paying her rent, too. Pretty soon she was buying all her own groceries, plus whatever else she wanted, with her copy of their Costco Amex Card. Gradually, my parents grew terribly dependent on her and she grew to resent them. Not enough to get a job, of course. But enough to feel that jaunts to casinos on their credit card were justified, to the tune of Eleven Thousand Dollars before we caught on. (Thanks, facebookr!) None of us resented the money my parents were giving her until that came to light and she was completely unrepentant. Yup, when questioned, she said she deserved it and enjoyed spending the money, accckk!!!
I could sadly go on, but this drama is still unfolding and I haven't the stomach to write more about it yet. Just know that dividing these duties may backfire in ways none of you can imagine. For everyone's sake, have a heart-to-heart with all parties and encourage them to consider this decision more carefully.
*My mom was a geriatric nurse and Director of Nurses at a large Convalescent Hospital, as there were called in her day, for 25 years. She'd seen first hand all the family drama and thought she had done everything she could to see that it didn't happen in her family. She hated that they grew so dependent on Sister X. She would call and say they hadn't heard from Sister X for four days or that Sister X had promised to be over in the morning, but hadn't shown up at all that day, etc.
Post by: LeRainDrop on July 16, 2016, 09:24:13 AM
My in-laws just told me and my husband that they want my husband to be both the will executor and trustee. They want to work it so their assets will be placed in a trust to avoid probate. He accepted this job and the details are still being worked. The only thing we worry about is my husband and his sister didn't get along at all in childhood and haven't spoken in years. I have not even met her as a result of this despite having been dating + married to him for so many years. The sister is being given 1 important role, medical power of attorney, because she lives only a few minutes' drive away from his parents and could act faster if needed. This makes sense. We currently live several hours away. Being ER, we could easily stay in his parents' town if something happens, but that would require a day or two to act, so we couldn't help with medical things as much. But the sister isn't very reliable for many reasons and thus why this was the only responsibility she was given. His parents will probably be around for another 10-15 years or so, but whenever they do both die - hopefully the sister doesn't try to cause any drama. We have the time to take care of his parents' estate however is needed, but I don't like family drama in general. :/Redbird, this gave me chills to read, especially the bolded parts. My brain is screaming Nooooooooooooo! Your in-laws are thinking "acute medical emergency, where time is of the essence", which is actually a less common scenario than "gradual age-related decline". In this day of efficient communication, proximity does not trump reliability. . . .
I could sadly go on, but this drama is still unfolding and I haven't the stomach to write more about it yet. Just know that dividing these duties may backfire in ways none of you can imagine. For everyone's sake, have a heart-to-heart with all parties and encourage them to consider this decision more carefully.
Redbird, I'm with Diane C on this. I'm my father's medical POA even though I live about a thousand miles away. All his doctors have a copy of the paperwork on file (and I have a copy, too, in case I need to fax it to a new doctor/emergency room), and as medical issues happen, we discuss them and deal with them over the phone until I can get there. Medical decisions should be in the hands of those who are prudent and thinking in the best interests of the patient, not just the person who physically lives closest. If the person who lives closest fits the bill, all the better, but if not, things can be done over the phone.
Diane C, I'm very sorry to hear that you and your family are going through this. Wishing you all the best.
Post by: wevan on July 16, 2016, 03:09:39 PM
My grandpa died a couple years back. He'd been in declining mental health for the last ten years or so, but before then, he had the good sense to put his rather large farm (which he'd already been leasing out) in a trust managed by my uncle. His will said everything would be divided equally among his four children; I don't know if there were any more specifications.
Once Grandpa died, Uncle - who works in farm equipment sales, so he knows about farming - called together his siblings (Mom + two Aunts), laid out the figures, and asked what to do. Uncle and Mom wanted to hold on to the property and keep it in the family; Older Aunt wasn't sure at first but eventually decided she wanted to keep it too. Younger Aunt (who's taken somewhat-early retirement after her husband sold a business he founded, and is now living an un-Mustachian life of travel; her finances are her own business and I don't pry), on the other hand, wanted to sell a good part of her share now.
For a few months, things looked unstably like Younger Aunt was going to force either a division and sale of her share (which would lower the value of the whole farm since it'd be a smaller unit), or a sale of the whole thing (due to some rather confusing tax bases.) But, after looking at their own finances, Mom, Uncle, and Older Aunt decided to buy out part of Younger Aunt's share so the whole farm would stay in the family - and after a tense week or two, Younger Aunt accepted.
So, after a drama-free meeting following a family wedding where we verified figures and signed paperwork, we've got a family farm that's formally divided into three roughly-equal plots of land and one smaller plot, Younger Aunt has her cash, Uncle is still managing the whole farm as a unit, and the same reliable tenants that Grandpa was leasing to for the last twenty years are still living there happily.
Post by: PointC on July 17, 2016, 09:58:01 AM
15ish years ago my paternal grandparents did the whole sticky note on the bottom of things you want to inherit thing while they downsized. They let all 3 of the children and the 5 grandchildren claim anything they wanted. Not very much crossover, things were negotiated, it all seems to have worked out okay.
I however am quite a bit younger than my siblings/cousins, they were all older teenagers, I was a child at this point. Everyone walks out with their names on furniture, antiques, china etc. I walk out with my name on a single item, a large stuffed bear :D
To this day this has never been revisited, my name is still on that bear and nothing else, I find it hilarious.
Post by: Pro_Amateur on July 17, 2016, 02:46:06 PM
My maternal grandmother used to say every Christmas that she felt that "this was going to be her last winter". At first it was a bit odd, but she kept doing it for like 20 years so after a while we started joking about it. If she bought a new piece of furniture, our family would comment that it might not have been a good investment considering her remarks, or we'd simply say "hey! you're spending our money here!". Everybody would have a good laugh, including granny.
Despite her old age (94), it was still a surprise when she suddenly died a couple of years ago. She had three children: two sons and my mother. One of the sons died about ten years ago. He had one daughter.
When grandma died, I pointed out to my parents that the daughter, my cousin, was legally entitled to the share of my deceased uncle. My parents told me that the cousin needed to reach out to them instead of the other way around and some other crap to get around their obligations. I'm a lawyer by training and I pointed out that they were running some risks here. Well guess who needed a lawyer when they got their behinds sued by my cousin. I kindly referred them to someone else. Even though I'm not close to my cousin, there's no way I'm going to get professionally mixed up in a messy situation within my family.
My grandma didn't have a lot of money, even so little that tax-wise we only had to report her passing, not even file papers or anything. Eventually my cousin dropped the lawsuit without getting any money. I'm certain my parents pilfered some money because they suddenly both had a new car. I don't know the details and I don't want to know.
On a funnier note: my seriously un-mustachian spendthrift other cousin (in a debt relief program, kids have only old and dirty clothes, yet he drives a new SUV and keeps buying horses and trailers that he doesn't tell the debt relief lawyer about) recently got eyes on his grandma's bank statements and was already telling everybody what he would do with his part of the money. There is only one minor hiccup in his plan: the money will go to his seriously un-mustachian spendthrift mother before it reaches him...
I smile every time I think about this.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on July 18, 2016, 07:42:31 AM
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Ummm, people get (part of) their inheritance early really frequently in my family. I never thought of it as weird before reading this thread. Is it the ASKING for the inheritance that you find inappropriate or the giving pre-death?
I've been offered a pre-inheritance a couple of times from various relatives (when I was either considering buying a house or (pre-mmm) sorting out my financial shit). I don't know the details of it but I know that my siblings have been given pre-inheritances at expensive stages of their lives (house buying, fertility treatment, illness, relationship break-up). I also don't know the asking/offering dynamic with the siblings' share, but there was no demanding and everyone gets on well. I know that one of my great-aunts gave aunts/uncles pre-inheritances when they asked - her will just reflected the amounts given when she died.
Before reading this thread, if I was in the example Shelivesthedream gave, I would have totally asked (not demanded) if they would consider a pre-inheritance. Is this an Atlantic divide thing, or a family dynamic thing?
[If people think I am a terrible person for thinking this, please keep your comments to academic study of why/how/what rather than name calling. ]
Post by: Kitsune on July 18, 2016, 07:48:59 AM
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Ummm, people get (part of) their inheritance early really frequently in my family. I never thought of it as weird before reading this thread. Is it the ASKING for the inheritance that you find inappropriate or the giving pre-death?
I've been offered a pre-inheritance a couple of times from various relatives (when I was either considering buying a house or (pre-mmm) sorting out my financial shit). I don't know the details of it but I know that my siblings have been given pre-inheritances at expensive stages of their lives (house buying, fertility treatment, illness, relationship break-up). I also don't know the asking/offering dynamic with the siblings' share, but there was no demanding and everyone gets on well. I know that one of my great-aunts gave aunts/uncles pre-inheritances when they asked - her will just reflected the amounts given when she died.
Before reading this thread, if I was in the example Shelivesthedream gave, I would have totally asked (not demanded) if they would consider a pre-inheritance. Is this an Atlantic divide thing, or a family dynamic thing?
[If people think I am a terrible person for thinking this, please keep your comments to academic study of why/how/what rather than name calling. ]
It's the asking. Totally the asking.
If my parents want to say "hey, we've earmarked this money for you, you can either get it now when we think you need it or after we die, your choice", they've chosen what to do with their money, and I'd take it if I needed it and be appreciative.
That's different from saying "I've decided that this part of your money is my money and can I have it now."
Frankly, in my family, if I went to my parents and said "hey, could I borrow X amount and we could discuss a payment plan", it'd likely be offered up as a pre-inheritance... but I wouldn't assume that that money is earmarked as mine unless it was explicitly stated.
Post by: Spork on July 18, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Ummm, people get (part of) their inheritance early really frequently in my family. I never thought of it as weird before reading this thread. Is it the ASKING for the inheritance that you find inappropriate or the giving pre-death?
I've been offered a pre-inheritance a couple of times from various relatives (when I was either considering buying a house or (pre-mmm) sorting out my financial shit). I don't know the details of it but I know that my siblings have been given pre-inheritances at expensive stages of their lives (house buying, fertility treatment, illness, relationship break-up). I also don't know the asking/offering dynamic with the siblings' share, but there was no demanding and everyone gets on well. I know that one of my great-aunts gave aunts/uncles pre-inheritances when they asked - her will just reflected the amounts given when she died.
Before reading this thread, if I was in the example Shelivesthedream gave, I would have totally asked (not demanded) if they would consider a pre-inheritance. Is this an Atlantic divide thing, or a family dynamic thing?
[If people think I am a terrible person for thinking this, please keep your comments to academic study of why/how/what rather than name calling. ]
It's the asking. Totally the asking.
If my parents want to say "hey, we've earmarked this money for you, you can either get it now when we think you need it or after we die, your choice", they've chosen what to do with their money, and I'd take it if I needed it and be appreciative.
That's different from saying "I've decided that this part of your money is my money and can I have it now."
Frankly, in my family, if I went to my parents and said "hey, could I borrow X amount and we could discuss a payment plan", it'd likely be offered up as a pre-inheritance... but I wouldn't assume that that money is earmarked as mine unless it was explicitly stated.
It is the asking... but it's more than that, too.
Let's say I have $1M in the bank, 2 children and I live entirely off the investment income of $1M.
Child 1 demands their half. I give them $500k. Now I am living off of the investment income of $500k. My lifestyle is such that it's okay, but I am starting to draw down the $500k. When I die, the remaining child gets their inheritance and it's only $250k.
But it is the asking. It's presumptuous. "Oh, I see you have lots of money. It's mine, right?"
Post by: Kitsune on July 18, 2016, 08:37:30 AM
I don't know, I can see some circumstances in which a child might ask for some inheritance money early. For example, if I wanted to start a business and needed £50,000 and didn't want to take out a loan if possible and only had £25,000 saved up, I might ask my parents if they would be willing to give me the other half against any money I might inherit when they die.
Oh, hell no.
I would ask to borrow some money from my parents and pay it back. I simply cannot imagine asking my parents for "my" share of their estate.
Ummm, people get (part of) their inheritance early really frequently in my family. I never thought of it as weird before reading this thread. Is it the ASKING for the inheritance that you find inappropriate or the giving pre-death?
I've been offered a pre-inheritance a couple of times from various relatives (when I was either considering buying a house or (pre-mmm) sorting out my financial shit). I don't know the details of it but I know that my siblings have been given pre-inheritances at expensive stages of their lives (house buying, fertility treatment, illness, relationship break-up). I also don't know the asking/offering dynamic with the siblings' share, but there was no demanding and everyone gets on well. I know that one of my great-aunts gave aunts/uncles pre-inheritances when they asked - her will just reflected the amounts given when she died.
Before reading this thread, if I was in the example Shelivesthedream gave, I would have totally asked (not demanded) if they would consider a pre-inheritance. Is this an Atlantic divide thing, or a family dynamic thing?
[If people think I am a terrible person for thinking this, please keep your comments to academic study of why/how/what rather than name calling. ]
It's the asking. Totally the asking.
If my parents want to say "hey, we've earmarked this money for you, you can either get it now when we think you need it or after we die, your choice", they've chosen what to do with their money, and I'd take it if I needed it and be appreciative.
That's different from saying "I've decided that this part of your money is my money and can I have it now."
Frankly, in my family, if I went to my parents and said "hey, could I borrow X amount and we could discuss a payment plan", it'd likely be offered up as a pre-inheritance... but I wouldn't assume that that money is earmarked as mine unless it was explicitly stated.
It is the asking... but it's more than that, too.
Let's say I have $1M in the bank, 2 children and I live entirely off the investment income of $1M.
Child 1 demands their half. I give them $500k. Now I am living off of the investment income of $500k. My lifestyle is such that it's okay, but I am starting to draw down the $500k. When I die, the remaining child gets their inheritance and it's only $250k.
But it is the asking. It's presumptuous. "Oh, I see you have lots of money. It's mine, right?"
That's m point, though. It's NOT their half to demand. It's yours. And quite frankly, if you decided to spend the last year of your life flying business class around the world and staying at every expensive hotel you can find, it'd STILL be yours, and they wouldn't be entitled to say 'that's my money you're spending'. And if you died and decided that that 500K was meant to go to a homeless shelter for elderly cats, well, now it belongs to the homeless shelter for elderly cats, and not to child #1, because it isn't and never was their money.
If you say to child #1 "hey, I think you might need some help now, I can float you 50K against that sum in your inheritance", then it BECOMES their money because you have made it so. But otherwise, it's just not theirs to demand.
(Kind of like how my parents are absolutely free to help my younger brother (mental health issues, combined with general immaturity, is a shitty combination) with whatever amount they want, because it is THEIR MONEY. If they have money issues in retirement and need my help, then I'll feel like I can have a say in how they spend MY money, but as long as it's theirs, it's actually theirs to decide what to do with.)
Post by: BTDretire on July 18, 2016, 10:53:26 AM
She's lived in it rent free for about 4 years now. She's make little money
couldn't buy it or pay me rent if she had such an inclination.
But after reading some of the the other posts, I have a question.
I'd like get my name off the title for liability reasons, but I'm thinking
I'd like the house to go to me or my kids when she dies.
Is this reasonable to setup, I think I could push this without a
great problem because after few more years I will have forgiven as
many dollars as much as her value in the house.
We both still expect another 20 to 25 years of life.
No, I don't want to force a sale, sis has nothing and has lived in
a van, and would probably end up there again. I just think someone
on my side deserves something from the inheritance even if it's 25
years later!
Post by: dpfromva on July 18, 2016, 01:20:04 PM
The life insurance mention reminded me of my decision a few years ago to include my SO in my estate plan. We were quite serious, but not married, so I made him a beneficiary on part of my (work provided) life insurance. I could go online and and change that at any time in 60 seconds (which I did a few years later). No need to write a codicil to the will. (Of course, one could just as easily change beneficiaries to IRA accounts.)
Reminds me of when my future spouse and bought a house together -- we each took out life insurance so the other could afford to remain in the house in case something happened to one of us. We also had a rather complicated divvying up of finances -- some payments 50-50, some in proportion to our relative incomes. He was an attorney and put a clause in our signed agreement "Null and void if she every agrees to marry me."
Life insurance proceeds are not an inheritance and I don't think could easily be addressed in a will. What you could do is set up trust for the life insurance proceeds and set parameters for the trust beneficiaries, but I think that's more of a hassle than just updating the insurance beneficiary amounts periodically -- easy to do online, as you say.
Post by: Sibley on July 18, 2016, 02:24:50 PM
Earlier in the thread I related the house that mom left sis and I.
She's lived in it rent free for about 4 years now. She's make little money
couldn't buy it or pay me rent if she had such an inclination.
But after reading some of the the other posts, I have a question.
I'd like get my name off the title for liability reasons, but I'm thinking
I'd like the house to go to me or my kids when she dies.
Is this reasonable to setup, I think I could push this without a
great problem because after few more years I will have forgiven as
many dollars as much as her value in the house.
We both still expect another 20 to 25 years of life.
No, I don't want to force a sale, sis has nothing and has lived in
a van, and would probably end up there again. I just think someone
on my side deserves something from the inheritance even if it's 25
years later!
Not a lawyer, but I thought that having your name on the title meant that you owned it (or part of it). Sounds like you might need an actual lawyer.
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 18, 2016, 02:31:16 PM
Earlier in the thread I related the house that mom left sis and I.
She's lived in it rent free for about 4 years now. She's make little money
couldn't buy it or pay me rent if she had such an inclination.
But after reading some of the the other posts, I have a question.
I'd like get my name off the title for liability reasons, but I'm thinking
I'd like the house to go to me or my kids when she dies.
Is this reasonable to setup, I think I could push this without a
great problem because after few more years I will have forgiven as
many dollars as much as her value in the house.
We both still expect another 20 to 25 years of life.
No, I don't want to force a sale, sis has nothing and has lived in
a van, and would probably end up there again. I just think someone
on my side deserves something from the inheritance even if it's 25
years later!
Not a lawyer, but I thought that having your name on the title meant that you owned it (or part of it). Sounds like you might need an actual lawyer.
Just relying on her to give you her share in a will is risky because she could always change it. You need a lawyer to set it up so she has a life interest in the house, but you retain remainder rights to it after her death. Also consider how taxes and insurance will be paid if she's low income.
Post by: gggggg on July 18, 2016, 06:58:31 PM
Post by: Goldielocks on July 18, 2016, 10:35:29 PM
I have a story to share... Well, it is DH's story. You see, his dad died when he was young, leaving a sister parents, him, and a widow.
Grandparents were always in DH's life, from babysitting while mom worked, to fishing, etc... So after we were married, we made a point to travel to see them about once a year, sometimes 2x per year. We were 22-30 at this time, so using up a week of vacation to go drive to visit elderly grand parent -in-laws was not really that exciting, but we were glad to see them.
Well, life got pretty busy for us with small children, a move to California (now to far to travel to see them), and then DH was sick with mono for a year... Meanwhile, we could never get through on Grandpa's phone, so no contact with him for 2 years, and never followed up that diligently either...
So when grandpa passed away a couple of years ago, we had a bit of shock to learn that DH's Aunt had previously moved him to a care facility nearer to her (great!) but never called us so we could have a chance to see him --as the new city was one we did go to sometimes--, and worst of all, upon death decided to hold no funeral (Grandpa was depressed in the last years, and we knew this was likely his wish), but did not even call DH to say that grandpa had passed away. We found out because another elderly relative (other side of family) reads the obits put out by funeral homes -- read that it stated "no funeral", and had posted a few details about his life / family and recognized him and let us know.
As DH had been adopted by another man some 15 years before, (mom remarried) the sole inheritor by intestate rules would have been DH's aunt.. but man, it is so odd because Grandpa used to talk about his will sometimes to us (but not about money in it), and it seems so strange that DH and his great grandkids would have been deliberately cut out. We are surmising in the best possible way that there was no money left, even after grandpa's home was sold....(the care facility would have cost close to the government monthly stipend, so not drawn from his personal monies, except for the transfer and for clothing). At the end of it all, all DH only really wanted a small decorative wooden tray his dad had made before he died... that grandpa had treasured more than anything else, and kept with him. Ugh. Probably put into the trash.
What do you do when relatives don't even have the courtesy to tell the only other direct descendant that the patriarch was moved to a care home and then that he died a year later? Especially if there is hints that this was done to mask plundering of any remaining accounts (using power of attorney / joint banking, etc)?
By your own words, you say your husband got too busy and made no effort to stay in basic contact with his grandfather and after trying by phone and having it be disconnected (?) you didn't try other attempts (mail? other relatives? go visit?). You moved away, ceased all contact and apparently did not even write letters or send cards, because if you did, likely someone would have written you back to let you know where he ended up.
Looking at if from the other side:
Grandfather was probably sad and hurt but realized that was your husband's decision to cut him out of his life for some reason, and moved on and stopped thinking about him. His daughter who was there and likely a much closer relationship, took care of him and had to step in and deal with his taxes and bills and other day to day as he aged and became more feeble, and she would have needed the power of attorney and to be on a joint account to make things easy for her to take care of the things as needed (this is not in any way suspicious unless she has a history of being dishonest or evil - it is VERY common). Who is doing all this "hinting" that grandfather's accounts were being plundered? You haven't been in contact with that side of the family in years, right?
The daughter did inform everyone the best she could by placing a public obituary - that's what those things are for. I think it is very unrealistic to have expected her to put her own grief and dealing with the mess of closing an estate aside to try to track down and personally contact an estranged relative (your husband) who had moved out of the area and had lost contact with his grandfather for YEARS, and likely she herself had no contact info for, especially right after her own father's death.
So it's a little sad, but what one should expect if you let the relationship die away and make no effort at all.
Sorry for the late reply... I can see how you would think that, and some of it is true.
We did send a few letters, left messages, etc.
Auntie was also in a different city and rarely saw grandpa as well. I think a friend of his locally, who we met every time we visited, called her up when grandpa was having trouble, but that friend did not have our contact info, and Auntie was the closest "mature" relative to contact, anyway. Auntie was the one who broke off contact with us, years before. Just sort of faded away...
You are right that DH "ended" or put off contact other than letter and calls. But in this day and age, for a younger grandson who moves to another country and is starting a young family, to not put additional effort into reaching grandpa (who was increasingly senile) for a few years is not really unusual. I don't know many that actually do call grandma / grandpa on their own, really... I am sure you call/ see your grandparents, but it is increasingly rare.
The obit was not initiated by auntie, but by the care facility that he lived in. They put a free one on their website / blog? for everyone who was in their care at some point. Nothing made it to the paper... I think our friend / relative that saw it, only saw a note with web address where to find the facility's overall blog posting, then started to check that one out regularly, too.
We were in contact (physical / visiting) grandpa withing 2-3 years of his passing, then just the mail / phone calls that were unanswered. DH was ok with that at the time, though maybe he could have tried harder, but I think the next step may have been to call the police to check on grandpa.
We weren't too shocked by the outcome,given our communication lapse, but saddened that Auntie who did have DH's number and DH's parent's number (but we did not have hers) never thought to call at all.
ETA: The part that keeps me gnawing at it, is not about the money, as I think there would be very little... it is the logic -- that we knew that a will existed, and as executrix, she would have needed to attempt to contact all the named beneficiaries...but we were never contacted and the will was never put through probate, so
1) Grandpa and grandma lied to us about a will (discussed before grandma died)
2) Grandpa changed his will (or invalidated it) to exclude his grandson after he started to become senile
3) She hid the fact that a will existed / ignored it out of convenience.
Given the history, I am leaning towards the last one.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on July 18, 2016, 11:07:20 PM
Earlier in the thread I related the house that mom left sis and I.
She's lived in it rent free for about 4 years now. She's make little money
couldn't buy it or pay me rent if she had such an inclination.
But after reading some of the the other posts, I have a question.
I'd like get my name off the title for liability reasons, but I'm thinking
I'd like the house to go to me or my kids when she dies.
Is this reasonable to setup, I think I could push this without a
great problem because after few more years I will have forgiven as
many dollars as much as her value in the house.
We both still expect another 20 to 25 years of life.
No, I don't want to force a sale, sis has nothing and has lived in
a van, and would probably end up there again. I just think someone
on my side deserves something from the inheritance even if it's 25
years later!
Not a lawyer, but I thought that having your name on the title meant that you owned it (or part of it). Sounds like you might need an actual lawyer.
Just relying on her to give you her share in a will is risky because she could always change it. You need a lawyer to set it up so she has a life interest in the house, but you retain remainder rights to it after her death. Also consider how taxes and insurance will be paid if she's low income.
Why not execute a sale agreement to your sister? Make it her house with a note outstanding to you for your half of the current value. Establish a very long term with a very low interest rate, no payment, and the very low interest adds to the principal owed (in line with the expected appreciation of the house). She pays nothing, and if she dies, you or your children inherit the receivable. The house can be sold out of her estate to satisfy the note. Or she could choose to pay it off early, and you get your half of the house before she passes. This way you have a security interest in the house, but you don't "own" it. You address your concern about liability, ensure you get some value out of the house (your inheritance), and avoid increasing your sister's cost as it sounds like she couldn't afford to buy you out anyway. The big concern, of course, is that if she doesn't take care of the house, it may not be worth much in 20-25 years, but presumably the land underneath it would still have some value.
Post by: LeRainDrop on July 18, 2016, 11:24:08 PM
We weren't too shocked by the outcome,given our communication lapse, but saddened that Auntie who did have DH's number and DH's parent's number (but we did not have hers) never thought to call at all.
My whole life I have been very close with my great-aunt and uncle on my dad's side, I think mostly because my dad's mom died when he was very young and his dad basically abandoned his kids for a new woman, so this great-aunt and uncle were very much like my dad's parents. Anyhow, my dad has controlling tendencies, and one of these is that he always wanted to be the direct point of contact with that whole side of the family. For example, every time I wanted to visit them, like when I came home on college break, I was supposed to ask my dad to call them and check on scheduling. Even though I had their phone numbers and mailed them cards and such, it would have been (unreasonably) offensive to my dad to not go through him for in-person visits.
Anyway, both my great-aunt and uncle got very sick around the same time and were moved into the same facility. We had thought that great-uncle was worse off, and I was having pretty regular calls with them, my cousins (their kids), and my dad. One week I had to go on an extremely demanding business trip and was getting about 1-2 hours of sleep per night to the point that I had a call with my dad on Friday night that I essentially have no recollection of because I was falling over from sleep deprivation and telling him I'd have to talk to him after I got back from my work trip. (Another aspect of his narcissism is demanding phone calls whenever he wants them for however long he wants them so that he can ramble on and on.) So, work trip ends on Sunday, I go back to the office, where it is a week-from-hell, especially with my bully boss, and I'm still working around the clock. Wednesday comes and I get a weird text from my mom to call her ASAP. My two parents were in a hearing for their divorce and it was disclosed to the judge that my dad couldn't be available the next day because he had to go to such-and-such area of the state for a funeral. Mom gets very concerned because she is also very close to great-aunt and uncle, and she looks up online fearing that she may find uncle has passed away. But no, it was great-aunt who passed away that Sunday.
Dad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.
No inheritance component -- just a family member being a jerk about a loved one's death.
Post by: kayvent on July 19, 2016, 04:41:27 AM
We weren't too shocked by the outcome,given our communication lapse, but saddened that Auntie who did have DH's number and DH's parent's number (but we did not have hers) never thought to call at all.
My whole life I have been very close with my great-aunt and uncle on my dad's side, I think mostly because my dad's mom died when he was very young and his dad basically abandoned his kids for a new woman, so this great-aunt and uncle were very much like my dad's parents. Anyhow, my dad has controlling tendencies, and one of these is that he always wanted to be the direct point of contact with that whole side of the family. For example, every time I wanted to visit them, like when I came home on college break, I was supposed to ask my dad to call them and check on scheduling. Even though I had their phone numbers and mailed them cards and such, it would have been (unreasonably) offensive to my dad to not go through him for in-person visits.
Anyway, both my great-aunt and uncle got very sick around the same time and were moved into the same facility. We had thought that great-uncle was worse off, and I was having pretty regular calls with them, my cousins (their kids), and my dad. One week I had to go on an extremely demanding business trip and was getting about 1-2 hours of sleep per night to the point that I had a call with my dad on Friday night that I essentially have no recollection of because I was falling over from sleep deprivation and telling him I'd have to talk to him after I got back from my work trip. (Another aspect of his narcissism is demanding phone calls whenever he wants them for however long he wants them so that he can ramble on and on.) So, work trip ends on Sunday, I go back to the office, where it is a week-from-hell, especially with my bully boss, and I'm still working around the clock. Wednesday comes and I get a weird text from my mom to call her ASAP. My two parents were in a hearing for their divorce and it was disclosed to the judge that my dad couldn't be available the next day because he had to go to such-and-such area of the state for a funeral. Mom gets very concerned because she is also very close to great-aunt and uncle, and she looks up online fearing that she may find uncle has passed away. But no, it was great-aunt who passed away that Sunday.
Dad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.
No inheritance component -- just a family member being a jerk about a loved one's death.
Gasp. At first, and I apologize, I read "controlling tendencies" and dismissed it. 'Cause even the more liberal parents can be seen to have controlling tendencies. But then I kept reading. Gulp. And kept reading. Wide-eyed. No other words can describe my reaction to your story.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 19, 2016, 06:04:50 AM
ETA: The part that keeps me gnawing at it, is not about the money, as I think there would be very little... it is the logic -- that we knew that a will existed, and as executrix, she would have needed to attempt to contact all the named beneficiaries...but we were never contacted and the will was never put through probate, so
1) Grandpa and grandma lied to us about a will (discussed before grandma died)
2) Grandpa changed his will (or invalidated it) to exclude his grandson after he started to become senile
3) She hid the fact that a will existed / ignored it out of convenience.
Given the history, I am leaning towards the last one.
Or the place was a mess and she never found the will.
Post by: Papa Mustache on July 19, 2016, 07:53:16 AM
The older I get the more I realize well-adjusted and reliable must be pretty rare qualities in people...
I hope life delivers more of what you want from life LeRainDrop. You've certainly been tested enough.
Post by: Sibley on July 19, 2016, 09:26:15 AM
A friend once told us "you get to your twenties and realize the whole damn family is crazy..." ;)
The older I get the more I realize well-adjusted and reliable must be pretty rare qualities in people...
I hope life delivers more of what you want from life LeRainDrop. You've certainly been tested enough.
I realized it in my teens. I think I was just precocious, because the extended family, while crazy, isn't THAT bad really.
Post by: debbie does duncan on July 19, 2016, 10:21:58 AM
Quote
Dad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.WOW.....I am surprised that anyone even speaks to your dad !
Post by: LeRainDrop on July 19, 2016, 10:42:25 AM
QuoteDad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.WOW.....I am surprised that anyone even speaks to your dad !
Well, they pretty much avoid talking to him for the most part, not just for this incident but also because his self-centeredness is really exhausting to deal with. I myself did not speak with him for several months after confronting him about his hurtful way of handling news of my great-aunt's death. But, in the end, he's still my dad, who honestly did many great things for me throughout my life, and he personally has been through a lot of trauma and is lonely. I feel bad for him, even if a large part of his isolation is due to his own actions. Now, I'm glad to have a relationship with him in which I actually put up and enforce healthy boundaries. That took a good deal of therapy and reading self-help books to finally get to the place where I could do that!
Post by: Dicey on July 19, 2016, 10:51:45 AM
Now, I'm glad to have a relationship with him in which I actually put up and enforce healthy boundaries. That took a good deal of therapy and reading self-help books to finally get to the place where I could do that!Now, there's a legacy Aunt Mertle would be proud of!
Post by: hoping2retire35 on July 26, 2016, 01:38:49 PM
We weren't too shocked by the outcome,given our communication lapse, but saddened that Auntie who did have DH's number and DH's parent's number (but we did not have hers) never thought to call at all.
My whole life I have been very close with my great-aunt and uncle on my dad's side, I think mostly because my dad's mom died when he was very young and his dad basically abandoned his kids for a new woman, so this great-aunt and uncle were very much like my dad's parents. Anyhow, my dad has controlling tendencies, and one of these is that he always wanted to be the direct point of contact with that whole side of the family. For example, every time I wanted to visit them, like when I came home on college break, I was supposed to ask my dad to call them and check on scheduling. Even though I had their phone numbers and mailed them cards and such, it would have been (unreasonably) offensive to my dad to not go through him for in-person visits.
Anyway, both my great-aunt and uncle got very sick around the same time and were moved into the same facility. We had thought that great-uncle was worse off, and I was having pretty regular calls with them, my cousins (their kids), and my dad. One week I had to go on an extremely demanding business trip and was getting about 1-2 hours of sleep per night to the point that I had a call with my dad on Friday night that I essentially have no recollection of because I was falling over from sleep deprivation and telling him I'd have to talk to him after I got back from my work trip. (Another aspect of his narcissism is demanding phone calls whenever he wants them for however long he wants them so that he can ramble on and on.) So, work trip ends on Sunday, I go back to the office, where it is a week-from-hell, especially with my bully boss, and I'm still working around the clock. Wednesday comes and I get a weird text from my mom to call her ASAP. My two parents were in a hearing for their divorce and it was disclosed to the judge that my dad couldn't be available the next day because he had to go to such-and-such area of the state for a funeral. Mom gets very concerned because she is also very close to great-aunt and uncle, and she looks up online fearing that she may find uncle has passed away. But no, it was great-aunt who passed away that Sunday.
Dad found out the news on Sunday and was supposed to have told me, mom, and my brothers, but out of spite he did not. Spite to my mom due to their divorce (he didn't think she deserved half because he was the higher income earner and he's selfish). As for me, I later got a text from my dad after the funeral that was something like, "Just went to your Aunt Mertle's funeral. She died." I later confronted him about why he didn't tell me about it when he found out so that I could have been there and that I was so hurt he didn't tell me. His answer, which to this day he maintains is justified, is that I did not call him back on Monday after I got home from my work trip, so obviously I did not care enough to know what was going on with him and the family. Of course, the rest of the family was horrified when they found out that dad withheld the info from us. Now we don't care about dad's rule and just always communicate directly.
No inheritance component -- just a family member being a jerk about a loved one's death.
LOL, sounds like my own mother. she doesn't necessarily demand to be the go between but stays so busy contacting everyone else that she always knows what is going on and gets really angry if she does not get to talk to you on the phone. my sisters have said some really weird things that I know she said to them to discredit me. ~I'm not on speaking terms with her at the moment
Wasn't this supposed to be a funny yet sad thread?? sorry to bring it down.
Ill add something. My mother is an absurd hoarder; she would mortify the producers of TLC show. So she moves into my grandpas house, PT just to help him out and watch after him, a few years before he passes. He wasn't the neatest person to begin with but of course things start piling up. This whole time my aunts and uncles are perfectly fine. So grandpa passes about two years ago, and immediately(before the funeral) all my aunts and uncles move into his house. it was kinda weird like they were peeing in their own little corner and claiming their territory or something. Anyways, the day after the funeral they confront her and tell her to move out. I just thought it was funny how they all moved in to basically push her out. Would have been nice had they used that opportunity to tell her to clean up her life but instead they just told her to get out of theirs.
sorry if the story doesn't make sense or is unrelateable, haven't told many others.
Post by: financialfreedomsloth on July 29, 2016, 08:14:30 AM
My mom isn’t talking to her sister anymore partly due to inheritance issues (big part also because sister is really terrible with money, which was the root cause of the inheritance issues).
My dad’s side of the family … Well, discovering the dead stepmother, being interrogated by the police for several hours during several days and then months later discovering my nephew (his sisters son) was the actual killer kinda destroyed any family relationship that was left with his sister. Root cause being my grandfather who (despite being ill for several years) did not have a will and did not express his wishes to anybody resulting in the stepmother have large amounts of cash in the house (because she didn’t really have any legal claim on the money, because my grandfather didn’t do any arrangements!!). So frail old lady with big cash pile and family members in debt mooching of her and fearing the gravy train would stop = disaster on multiple levels.
Get a will people, and get stuff sorted out before people die, afterwards is a lot more difficult!
Post by: Lanthiriel on July 30, 2016, 12:31:42 AM
My grandmother was recently diagnosed with early stage breast cancer (nothing a lumpectomy and a few rounds of chemo won't fix), and said uncle thinks it's a good time to "confront" her about his upbringing. After berating her for an hour, his conclusion is that as penance for being a bad mother, he "deserves" the house when she dies.
Never mind that my grandma and stepgrandpa are only in their early 70s. Or that he has two other siblings who had the same childhood. Or that of the three siblings, he's already received by far the most economic outpatient support. Or that maybe it's really awful to have this conversation with a woman who just found out she has cancer.
Same uncle wants to confront my mom about her role in making his childhood awful, but she says she'll only participate if his therapist will moderate. He refuses.
I'm exceptionally glad I don't need or want anyone's inheritance so I can stay with it of the fray when the time comes.
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 01, 2016, 08:56:09 AM
Post by: Astatine on August 01, 2016, 10:35:58 PM
What's the point of bringing up old history like that? How can that help anything? Let it fade into history. Forgive and forget. And certainly not when the lady is sick... PEOPLE!
Eh, I disagree. His timing probably could have been better (and really should NOT have asked for the house), but forgive and forget is often not an option if childhood was abusive.
Post by: PAstash on August 02, 2016, 12:06:26 AM
Anyways! part of the jewel collection was either a Onyx or Ruby ring. As I understand it was HUGE in size. No doubt by the stories it was valuable. It denoted more then value. Historically in my family the Ring was given to the eldest male in our family that person decides the direction of the family business cash and precious metal assets as well as the direct operator of the estate.
Well my grand father went off over seas to fight in a war. While he was gone his younger brother younger by a few HOURS "stole" or if you ask him was given the ring by his father(my great great grand father) for safe keeping in the event his brother my grandfather did not make it back. He refused to give it back upon my grandfathers return.
The little brother to this day still controls the money businesses ect in our family after his father passed away.
I didn't discover all of this till I was 18ish. It is EXTREMELY taboo. like don't talk about it. The story goes also that my grandfathers wife was stepping out on him with the younger brother. They are not together (the younger brother and my grandfathers first wife) However my grandfather and his first wife who was Italian(more on this later) did get divorced which was a bit more taboo during the time period. My mother is from his first marriage. My mother sided with her father which is why I know about most of this. He remarries outside of Italian heritage which till recent times was strongly frowned upon in my house.
The women is native American and has a very strong distaste for Italian men/white men surprisingly tho she is married to one. After years of my step grandmothers abuse she was very rude to me my mother and my sister one thanks giving dinner. we had it out in a big fight. Later that night my mother sat me down over a few drinks to tell me the previous story about the ring.
My detective work has led me to believe that it is very possible my grandfather stepped out on his first wife with my current step grandmother. When his first wife found out about this she stole the ring told the story to the younger brother and the rest is history.
My mother adamantly denies this. You know tho sometimes when asking someone they give you THE LOOK... you know the maybe I've been the one that's been lied to for YEARS look. When I explained what I discovered my mom gave me the look. That brings us to current date. who knows?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 02, 2016, 08:21:41 AM
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 02, 2016, 08:35:18 AM
What's the point of bringing up old history like that? How can that help anything? Let it fade into history. Forgive and forget. And certainly not when the lady is sick... PEOPLE!
Eh, I disagree. His timing probably could have been better (and really should NOT have asked for the house), but forgive and forget is often not an option if childhood was abusive.
If she is dying then she can't hurt anyone anymore.
If the abuser had years left then you damn well better believe there would be some discussions held.
Post by: LeRainDrop on August 02, 2016, 09:44:07 AM
This thread is kind of like every soap opera or telenovela in the world, at the same time, but without the commercials.
The commercial break comes when you read up through the most current post in the thread and have to wait for someone else to post a new episode!
Post by: BlueHouse on August 03, 2016, 09:14:36 AM
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
Post by: Dicey on August 03, 2016, 09:42:59 AM
Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.Your points are valid. I do find them useful, if only as cautionary tales. I am sort of an interested bystander, as we are in the process of settling my parent's estate. I have one highly "challenging" sibling, so I've actually gleaned a few useful tips from this thread.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
Post by: paddedhat on August 03, 2016, 10:01:13 AM
Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? Wene you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
Post by: Spork on August 03, 2016, 10:07:56 AM
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? We you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
What amazes me when I read this thread is: Just how many of us have a sibling exactly like what Paddedhat describes. One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
I haven't given my full inheritance story here, as it just unfolded within the last few months (and still has little new dramas pop up). It isn't altogether different from so many above, so I'll just refrain from long detailed story.
Post by: paddedhat on August 03, 2016, 10:12:43 AM
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? We you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
What amazes me when I read this thread is: Just how many of us have a sibling exactly like what Paddedhat describes. One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
I haven't given my full inheritance story here, as it just unfolded within the last few months (and still has little new dramas pop up). It isn't altogether different from so many above, so I'll just refrain from long detailed story.
The "4th Law" rocks. After my dad announced that he and his 4th wife were divorcing, I looked him in the eye and said, "ya know, maybe it's you" LOL. Thanks for laugh.
Post by: TomTX on August 03, 2016, 02:04:13 PM
Grandma dies in her 90s after a few months of stepped up nursing home care, which mercifully cut short both her cognitive decline and the outflow of assets from the trust to the care facility. Grandma's will for her estate and the Trust are carefully poured over for instructions. The Trust allows for extra expenses from the estate to be paid with Trust funds and remaining funds are to be distributed to heirs per stirpes minus any outstanding loans. Grandma's estate is to be divided among the three surviving children, cutting myself and my siblings out entirely. Sis1 and my mom are outraged and Bro1 doesn't care as long as he gets money (which he won't). Sis2 pretends to be outraged, but takes the opportunity to also pretend she's magnanimous by declaring that she only wants a few items (never mind they are jewelry pieces holding almost half the value of the estate) and that my sibs and I should benefit from the estate (subtracted from Sis1 and Bro1's portion, natch).
That's not how per stirpes works. "Per stirpes" translates as "by branch" - if any of the original descendants is already dead, their share passes to their own descendants. In this case: Bro2 is dead, so his kids get his share. It does NOT go back into the pot for the remaining siblings.
Post by: BlueHouse on August 03, 2016, 02:07:45 PM
Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? Wene you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
When I said "we're perpetuating a family feud" I meant the authors of the stories, including me. Not anyone who is simply reading someone else's tale.
PaddedHat, I'm sorry you have had this experience, and my comment wasn't intended to invalidate your stories. My comment was designed to make us all aware that your sister's perspective may be getting written somewhere as well, or passed on to her heirs, who end up thinking that you're the jerk. It's probably also very likely that some of us on this board may be "Spork's Crazies". And by "us", I definitely don't mean "me". ;)
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 03, 2016, 02:49:25 PM
Grandma dies in her 90s after a few months of stepped up nursing home care, which mercifully cut short both her cognitive decline and the outflow of assets from the trust to the care facility. Grandma's will for her estate and the Trust are carefully poured over for instructions. The Trust allows for extra expenses from the estate to be paid with Trust funds and remaining funds are to be distributed to heirs per stirpes minus any outstanding loans. Grandma's estate is to be divided among the three surviving children, cutting myself and my siblings out entirely. Sis1 and my mom are outraged and Bro1 doesn't care as long as he gets money (which he won't). Sis2 pretends to be outraged, but takes the opportunity to also pretend she's magnanimous by declaring that she only wants a few items (never mind they are jewelry pieces holding almost half the value of the estate) and that my sibs and I should benefit from the estate (subtracted from Sis1 and Bro1's portion, natch).
That's not how per stirpes works. "Per stirpes" translates as "by branch" - if any of the original descendants is already dead, their share passes to their own descendants. In this case: Bro2 is dead, so his kids get his share. It does NOT go back into the pot for the remaining siblings.
I think the point was to illustrate that the terms of the trust were ignored from the beginning.
Post by: kayvent on August 03, 2016, 02:54:42 PM
What amazes me when I read this thread is: Just how many of us have a sibling exactly like what Paddedhat describes. One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
I haven't given my full inheritance story here, as it just unfolded within the last few months (and still has little new dramas pop up). It isn't altogether different from so many above, so I'll just refrain from long detailed story.
I had a dear acquittance who's father died a few years prior to me meeting him. It was a devastating lost to himself and his mother (he was about twelve at the time). They went to counselling, etc.... When I met him he jokingly, perhaps seriously, told me that his philosophy was to not associate with people who have not spoken to a therapist (psychologist? _I'm horrible with the titles in that field_). The rationale was simple: everyone has something wrong with them.
Post by: kayvent on August 03, 2016, 03:09:40 PM
The "4th Law" rocks. After my dad announced that he and his 4th wife were divorcing, I looked him in the eye and said, "ya know, maybe it's you" LOL. Thanks for laugh.
I think that is a lesson that many of us need to learn more regularly. The world may be messed up but sometimes when our lives our continually so, it may be use who are the issue.
My fourth year of university:
- During a 48-hour programming contest, in the last 18 hours my teammembers basically collapsed and the team had to withdraw
- For the ACM Programming contest qualifier when my school was deciding on three three-person teams to send, my teammates from the previous bullet petitioned the coach to not place me on a team with them. I also petitioned the coach to place any girls before me in our internal ranking _iff_ we were close in ranking (I wanted some gender diversity instead of fielding three three-man teams). These two things worked against me and despite ranking about tied for 2nd in our internal ranking, I effectively finished in 11th.
- Final commerce project, someone got a bit frustrated at me.
- Team effectively dissolved in final CS team project. In-fighting
- Interviewed for a job at Company X. Did stellar at it. Didn't get position
A few months later I cold call Company X. I get hired. Fantastic job. Loved my colleagues. Months after being an employee my supervisor pulls me aside and says they have to be honest with me. They were the one that suggested not to hire me out of university and disagreed with my hiring. They said they sensed they wouldn't have worked well with me but the evidence after working alongside for months 'proved' otherwise. I explained their initial expectation was correct. I explained my last year of university to them and how I realized after graduating that it is almost impossible that all those things happened and I wasn't at fault for causing it. I looked at my self, contemplated ways to change and improve and it is that version that he liked working with.
Post by: Inaya on August 03, 2016, 04:56:11 PM
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
Post by: paddedhat on August 03, 2016, 05:51:59 PM
When I said "we're perpetuating a family feud" I meant the authors of the stories, including me. Not anyone who is simply reading someone else's tale.
PaddedHat, I'm sorry you have had this experience, and my comment wasn't intended to invalidate your stories. My comment was designed to make us all aware that your sister's perspective may be getting written somewhere as well, or passed on to her heirs, who end up thinking that you're the jerk. It's probably also very likely that some of us on this board may be "Spork's Crazies". And by "us", I definitely don't mean "me". ;)
Oh, I see what you are saying. I never took your comments as invalidating anything anybody was writing, actually. The whole idea of a mirrored reality, where the other side is also banging away at the key board, venting about their bat shit crazy relatives, (who by their definition are you and I) is actually a pretty entertaining thought. It does have some basis in my case, as my sister has effectively burned all bridges to close relatives, mutual friends, people who have never been involuntarily committed on psychatric holds, other gainfully employed rational adults, etc.....But, I do receive the occasional report that she managed to strike up Facebook relationships with really strange, and/or very distant relatives. Maybe she is plotting something........................................
Post by: Paul der Krake on August 03, 2016, 09:12:20 PM
Right? Not sure if Spork is the ultimate skilled troll or a astute scholar of highly uncomfortable truths.One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
*storms out to interrogate relatives*
Post by: TomTX on August 04, 2016, 05:28:45 AM
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
Only one? Woo!
Post by: elaine amj on August 04, 2016, 07:41:35 AM
The "4th Law" rocks. After my dad announced that he and his 4th wife were divorcing, I looked him in the eye and said, "ya know, maybe it's you" LOL. Thanks for laugh.
I think that is a lesson that many of us need to learn more regularly. The world may be messed up but sometimes when our lives our continually so, it may be use who are the issue.
My fourth year of university:
- During a 48-hour programming contest, in the last 18 hours my teammembers basically collapsed and the team had to withdraw
- For the ACM Programming contest qualifier when my school was deciding on three three-person teams to send, my teammates from the previous bullet petitioned the coach to not place me on a team with them. I also petitioned the coach to place any girls before me in our internal ranking _iff_ we were close in ranking (I wanted some gender diversity instead of fielding three three-man teams). These two things worked against me and despite ranking about tied for 2nd in our internal ranking, I effectively finished in 11th.
- Final commerce project, someone got a bit frustrated at me.
- Team effectively dissolved in final CS team project. In-fighting
- Interviewed for a job at Company X. Did stellar at it. Didn't get position
A few months later I cold call Company X. I get hired. Fantastic job. Loved my colleagues. Months after being an employee my supervisor pulls me aside and says they have to be honest with me. They were the one that suggested not to hire me out of university and disagreed with my hiring. They said they sensed they wouldn't have worked well with me but the evidence after working alongside for months 'proved' otherwise. I explained their initial expectation was correct. I explained my last year of university to them and how I realized after graduating that it is almost impossible that all those things happened and I wasn't at fault for causing it. I looked at my self, contemplated ways to change and improve and it is that version that he liked working with.
Good for you for taking an honest look at yourself and then determining to change. This is what I try to teach my children. My son complains that he "can't help" some of his more annoying traits. I am trying to teach him that if he wants to be a courteous, caring person that other people like to be around - it is actually possible to work on improving/eliminating annoying behavior. e.g. I grew up with a lot of sarcastic humor and most of of friendly teasing involved sarcasm. When I moved to Canada, I quickly discovered that it was not appreciated - particularly among people I had only known for a few months. It was hard and required some vigilance on my part but after many years, I did manage to curb most of those sarcastic tendencies and I am less likely to offend folks.
Post by: Inaya on August 04, 2016, 07:50:09 AM
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
Only one? Woo!
I guess that's the optimistic way of looking at it!
Post by: G-dog on August 04, 2016, 08:10:18 AM
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
Only one? Woo!
Well played all!
Post by: K-ice on August 04, 2016, 08:47:56 AM
Our uncle (the executor of the will) discreetly passed it to her and said something like "Grandma was always looking out for you."
The reason, her father (my other uncle) was killed in an accident when we were teens.
In the end I don't think Gram had much left, thousands maybe, I would be surprised if it was tens of thousands.
Whatever the amount, I'm happy my cousin got it.
Post by: TravelJunkyQC on August 04, 2016, 09:53:07 AM
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
How about if we're all a bit crazy?
Post by: Goldielocks on August 04, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
I disagree with this. The anonymous internet lets a person get a story / viewpoint off their chest and out of their head, without harming anyone. It is one of the best ways to let go an issue that has been bothering you.... A bit like a journal or writing a letter that you throw away.Whenever I read the stories in this thread, I try to imagine the other person's perspective and how they would tell the story differently.
When I hear from someone's kid about the circumstances of their parents' fair or unfair inheritances, I am even less inclined to believe we're getting the whole story.
Some of these are funny and shocking, but the majority of them are just sad because we're perpetuating a family feud of which we weren't even involved and thus cannot know the truth of the matter.
I disagree. By reading a first person account of a stranger's story, you perpetuate exactly nothing. You're not involved, will likely never get to know the author on a personal level, and you could quite possibly be reading totally fabricated fiction, for all that it matters. As for getting the whole story, it's an interesting thought. I contributed to this thread a long time ago. I am executor of my mother's estate. My half sister is a drug and alcohol addict, mentally ill, and suffers from a finely honed entitlement/victim delusion that was shaped by years of therapy with a string of "professionals" who taught her that your failures are always attributable to being wronged by others. The estate was carefully divided under the watchful eye of a number of lawyers, advocates and a trust representative. There is no way in hell that any rational person could claim, much less prove, that she wasn't treated fairly and to the letter of the law. As you note, she does have a very different perspective on the probate and how it has damaged her, and her future. In her mind, she had the family home stolen from her, and any liquid assets were her's alone, and to be used for her care, forever. The fact that her mother clearly directed that assets be divided equally among the three children, and that she directed that the family home be liquidated is meaningless to my sister. The fact that she would of been unable to keep any significant assets, and still be eligible for Medicaid or other state and federal aid, is meaningless to her. The fact that she would of possibly been forced to forfeit a million dollars in assets to repay these agencies is also not every going to be a part of her reality. So, like many of the Bat Shit crazy families that members here rant about, my sister has a very different perspective an opinion of our personal inheritance drama. Is it rational to listen to both sides of the story, and reach a conclusion, when one side is not really "all there" due to substance abuse, mental illness, or much more commonly, having become obsessed with greed to the point that they are no longer rational? Wene you hear a story of a multi-generational battle that wages on, since somebody is sure that they got screwed out of aunt Bessie's baby grand piano, in 1956, it says much about the human condition. Expecting that the "other side" of the story is a valuable and missing piece, can often lead to disappointment.
When I said "we're perpetuating a family feud" I meant the authors of the stories, including me. Not anyone who is simply reading someone else's tale.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 04, 2016, 12:06:18 PM
Estate thieves and bad executors never see themselves as incompetent or malicious. Maybe, in their minds, they're correcting a past wrong of some kind. Perhaps they're collecting what they believe is rightfully theirs because they've somehow earned it in a way someone else has it. Maybe they believe their need really is greater or more legitimate than other people's. But they genuinely don't see their depredations as screwing over other people or violating the intent of the deceased. In fact, they don't understand when the people they rip off object to it: if what they're doing is reasonable, the objections are evidence that the other person is being Unreasonable. In fact, when the relationship with the person they screw over is permanently ruptured, it often comes as a genuine surprise to the person who sabotaged it.
Post by: PencilThinStash on August 04, 2016, 01:06:17 PM
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
How about if we're all a bit crazy?
That's my family. One of the uncles once custom printed a batch of t-shirts for us that said "(LastName) Family Reunion: You don't have to be crazy to be part of this family, but it sure helps!"
Also, everybody reading this - As a mustachian, you're definitely the crazy person in society's eyes.
Post by: Wilson Hall on August 05, 2016, 02:38:53 PM
One of my sayings always was (let's call this Spork's 4th law): "Every family has a crazy. If you look at your family and do not see someone that is bat shit crazy: it's you."
Well, shit.
How about if we're all a bit crazy?
That's my family. One of the uncles once custom printed a batch of t-shirts for us that said "(LastName) Family Reunion: You don't have to be crazy to be part of this family, but it sure helps!"
Also, everybody reading this - As a mustachian, you're definitely the crazy person in society's eyes.
I like this!
On the other hand, as a mustachian, I like to believe that not counting on any inheritance and saving for retirement accordingly makes me more rational than most.
Post by: With This Herring on August 05, 2016, 02:43:13 PM
When I said "we're perpetuating a family feud" I meant the authors of the stories, including me. Not anyone who is simply reading someone else's tale.
PaddedHat, I'm sorry you have had this experience, and my comment wasn't intended to invalidate your stories. My comment was designed to make us all aware that your sister's perspective may be getting written somewhere as well, or passed on to her heirs, who end up thinking that you're the jerk. It's probably also very likely that some of us on this board may be "Spork's Crazies". And by "us", I definitely don't mean "me". ;)
Oh, I see what you are saying. I never took your comments as invalidating anything anybody was writing, actually. The whole idea of a mirrored reality, where the other side is also banging away at the key board, venting about their bat shit crazy relatives, (who by their definition are you and I) is actually a pretty entertaining thought. It does have some basis in my case, as my sister has effectively burned all bridges to close relatives, mutual friends, people who have never been involuntarily committed on psychatric holds, other gainfully employed rational adults, etc.....But, I do receive the occasional report that she managed to strike up Facebook relationships with really strange, and/or very distant relatives. Maybe she is plotting something........................................
Just one more point:
Every so often, you will read someone's first-person account of Drama, and you will realize that the Teller is DEFINITELY the one in the wrong. It's kind of funny, really, that someone's description that is so clearly biased towards themselves also points them out as the ultimately guilty party. And then you think, "Wow, if this is the impression I get from Teller's words, what the heck would the Other Side sound like?" I haven't seen it happen often on this forum, but if you look at sites like etiquettehell.com, you will see it occasionally.
Post by: Frankies Girl on August 05, 2016, 03:12:08 PM
Just one more point:
Every so often, you will read someone's first-person account of Drama, and you will realize that the Teller is DEFINITELY the one in the wrong. It's kind of funny, really, that someone's description that is so clearly biased towards themselves also points them out as the ultimately guilty party. And then you think, "Wow, if this is the impression I get from Teller's words, what the heck would the Other Side sound like?" I haven't seen it happen often on this forum, but if you look at sites like etiquettehell.com, you will see it occasionally.
You mean like this (http://www.askamanager.org/2016/08/i-emailed-my-girlfriends-boss-to-complain-that-he-encroached-on-our-relationship.html)?
Just mind-blowingly clueless about how totally inappropriate and disgusting this was. Wow. Trainwreck douchecanoe there, and I hope to high heaven the girlfriend dumped his ass the instant she got home.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 05, 2016, 07:09:21 PM
Just one more point:
Every so often, you will read someone's first-person account of Drama, and you will realize that the Teller is DEFINITELY the one in the wrong. It's kind of funny, really, that someone's description that is so clearly biased towards themselves also points them out as the ultimately guilty party. And then you think, "Wow, if this is the impression I get from Teller's words, what the heck would the Other Side sound like?" I haven't seen it happen often on this forum, but if you look at sites like etiquettehell.com, you will see it occasionally.
You mean like this (http://www.askamanager.org/2016/08/i-emailed-my-girlfriends-boss-to-complain-that-he-encroached-on-our-relationship.html)?
Just mind-blowingly clueless about how totally inappropriate and disgusting this was. Wow. Trainwreck douchecanoe there, and I hope to high heaven the girlfriend dumped his ass the instant she got home.
Golly.
Post by: With This Herring on August 06, 2016, 10:22:09 AM
Just one more point:
Every so often, you will read someone's first-person account of Drama, and you will realize that the Teller is DEFINITELY the one in the wrong. It's kind of funny, really, that someone's description that is so clearly biased towards themselves also points them out as the ultimately guilty party. And then you think, "Wow, if this is the impression I get from Teller's words, what the heck would the Other Side sound like?" I haven't seen it happen often on this forum, but if you look at sites like etiquettehell.com, you will see it occasionally.
You mean like this (http://www.askamanager.org/2016/08/i-emailed-my-girlfriends-boss-to-complain-that-he-encroached-on-our-relationship.html)?
Just mind-blowingly clueless about how totally inappropriate and disgusting this was. Wow. Trainwreck douchecanoe there, and I hope to high heaven the girlfriend dumped his ass the instant she got home.
Oh yes, that's it on the nose. Wow. I kind of want a thread of just these stories, as it is just so fascinating to see that utter lack of self-awareness.
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Post by: geekette on August 06, 2016, 09:07:08 PM
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Post by: secondcor521 on August 07, 2016, 12:40:54 AM
Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
I'm no expert, but perhaps a partial disclaimer will work.
Post by: TomTX on August 07, 2016, 06:38:07 AM
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Post by: DeepEllumStache on August 07, 2016, 08:49:28 AM
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on August 07, 2016, 09:19:50 AM
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
And what if somebody breaks their face on one of the properties - do you want to be involved in a lawsuit in North Carolina? It might be worth paying a North Carolina real estate lawyer for a day to see if you can un-claim all of them.
Post by: lemanfan on August 07, 2016, 10:25:30 AM
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Oh my god. And the same person posted this (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/4vgwrq/caught_at_marshalls_but_i_ran_from_lp_and_got_away/) just a few days ago...
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on August 07, 2016, 11:43:23 AM
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Oh my god. And the same person posted this (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/4vgwrq/caught_at_marshalls_but_i_ran_from_lp_and_got_away/) just a few days ago...
Wow, that is horrifying.
Post by: Pooperman on August 07, 2016, 11:44:05 AM
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Oh my god. And the same person posted this (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/4vgwrq/caught_at_marshalls_but_i_ran_from_lp_and_got_away/) just a few days ago...
Wow, that is horrifying.
TIL: /r/shoplisting exists.
Post by: LeRainDrop on August 07, 2016, 12:05:42 PM
Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
I'm no expert, but perhaps a partial disclaimer will work.
Here's a good starting point for your research on turning down the real estate. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/disclaimers.html
Post by: Paul der Krake on August 07, 2016, 01:41:22 PM
Post by: With This Herring on August 07, 2016, 03:43:29 PM
DBF found this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/3du5iq/got_caught_at_target_and_now_im_fucked/) in some "Best of Reddit" post.
Oh my god. And the same person posted this (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/comments/4vgwrq/caught_at_marshalls_but_i_ran_from_lp_and_got_away/) just a few days ago...
Just made a new thread! Sorry for the derailment!
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/op-is-the-only-one-who-doesn't-see-it/
Post by: paddedhat on August 07, 2016, 07:52:04 PM
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
I once had a true good ole' boy from the swamps of Louisiana, as an employee. He came to me with a document, as he needed a witness. He was inheriting a couple of hundred bucks as a very distant relative of a long departed, VERY large landholder in the swamps. I asked how many of his kin were getting a little bit of the pie? He told me that they numbered in the hundreds. I imagine at that point, it's a bit like a class action suit. legal council makes a ton, to make sure that each third cousin get's a bit.
I have another buddy that ended up with a hell of a pile of cheddar, well over a million, but it took nearly forty years until the estate was finally settled. His grandfather was sharp and bought a ton of farm land, and woodland, before WW2, when our local farmers were basically operating on a sustenance level, and barely feeding their own families. A lot of farms were bought for less than $10/acre. He held on to most of it, then died, quite old, in the early 1960s. The battle to decide exactly who got what % of the pie lasted for the next twenty years, or more, before the first property was liquidated. The battle even went to the state supreme court. As sons and daughters died off, it would cause new pissing contests to flare up. It became the life's work of one estate attorney, who even wrote a book about handling one of the longest contested estates in our state's history. The final property was liquidated in the early 2000s.
Post by: Kitsune on August 08, 2016, 06:00:05 AM
Inherited real estate is a nightmare because inevitably one or more of the recipients values it well above market price. Sometimes it's somewhat legitimate (childhood home, lots of memories, whatever), but often there's just something about owning a piece of property that fries people's brains. It becomes their God-given duty to act in the best interests of everyone else, even if nobody else sees it that way.
This, so true.
When my husbands grandfather died, my MIL and her brother were the executors of the estate (modest, overall). The family home went up for sale in an area with a super-slow real estate market. Her other brother was PISSED at her for agreeing to sell it for 3k under what he felt it should be sold for after it had been on the market for 2 years. She felt that keeping it on the market for another 6 months would cost 3k in taxes, and that it was a smarter move to cut losses. Oh, man.
This is also the dude who insisted on lugging 50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue and the phone book out of his parents attic and into his because "someone will want them". The look on his kids face was just... "Oh, great, we're now getting visions of having to empty all this stuff out. AGAIN."
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 08, 2016, 07:56:32 AM
Might be worth $3K not to get dragged into a headache deal that could last years.
Post by: Cressida on August 08, 2016, 01:26:20 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
Post by: AlanStache on August 08, 2016, 02:06:06 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
Looks like much of this is already on line:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wishbook/sets/1360453/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wishbook/sets/1360453/)
Post by: Kitsune on August 08, 2016, 02:14:03 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
Post by: LadyMuMu on August 08, 2016, 03:37:47 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
Post by: paddedhat on August 08, 2016, 08:33:35 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
As technology marches on, LOL. I have a box in the local post office, since our neighborhood cannot get delivery to individual houses. every year, at least two idiot phone book companies pay the post office to deliver a metric shit ton of their latest phone books. This involves the local postal employees being forced to stuff thousands of books into PO BOXES that are too small, and pissing off hundreds of customers who have to dig them out of the boxes and stack them on the floor, any available counter space, and wherever there is room to leave them behind at the post office. The vast majority of the customer base has zero interest in a phone book, but the publishers still trick idiot businesses into spending silly amounts to advertise, based on the huge volume of books they place in every home in the area. The USPS then pays a recycling outfit to pick up a few thousand pounds of worthless phone books. It's capitalism at it's best.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on August 08, 2016, 08:49:57 PM
As technology marches on, LOL. I have a box in the local post office, since our neighborhood cannot get delivery to individual houses. every year, at least two idiot phone book companies pay the post office to deliver a metric shit ton of their latest phone books. This involves the local postal employees being forced to stuff thousands of books into PO BOXES that are too small, and pissing off hundreds of customers who have to dig them out of the boxes and stack them on the floor, any available counter space, and wherever there is room to leave them behind at the post office. The vast majority of the customer base has zero interest in a phone book, but the publishers still trick idiot businesses into spending silly amounts to advertise, based on the huge volume of books they place in every home in the area. The USPS then pays a recycling outfit to pick up a few thousand pounds of worthless phone books. It's capitalism at it's best.
So, my post office is not unique. I don't know whether to feel comforted or horrified.
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 08, 2016, 10:04:25 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I have a reprint of a 1906 Sears catalog that has been in the family since I was born. Have thumbed through that thing a thousand times. I'd love to look through the different catalogs but I don't want to own them. Once upon a time yes when I was more of a packrat, not now.
Telephone books were bagged and laid at the end of the driveway of everyone for miles. We picked up our's and put it straight into the recycle bin. Hate it but we haven't used a phone book in years.
Post by: misshershey on August 08, 2016, 10:25:14 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I have a reprint of a 1906 Sears catalog that has been in the family since I was born. Have thumbed through that thing a thousand times. I'd love to look through the different catalogs but I don't want to own them. Once upon a time yes when I was more of a packrat, not now.
Telephone books were bagged and laid at the end of the driveway of everyone for miles. We picked up our's and put it straight into the recycle bin. Hate it but we haven't used a phone book in years.
Ooooh, I can help with this! Go to www.yellowpagesoptout.com (http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com) and you can get off the delivery lists for phone books. I had to do it a year or so ago--we get 4 *different* phone books every year--what a ridiculous waste of paper.
Post by: AlanStache on August 09, 2016, 05:33:17 AM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I have a reprint of a 1906 Sears catalog that has been in the family since I was born. Have thumbed through that thing a thousand times. I'd love to look through the different catalogs but I don't want to own them. Once upon a time yes when I was more of a packrat, not now.
Telephone books were bagged and laid at the end of the driveway of everyone for miles. We picked up our's and put it straight into the recycle bin. Hate it but we haven't used a phone book in years.
Ooooh, I can help with this! Go to www.yellowpagesoptout.com (http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com) and you can get off the delivery lists for phone books. I had to do it a year or so ago--we get 4 *different* phone books every year--what a ridiculous waste of paper.
Surprisingly interesting article from msn: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-infuriating-reason-you-still-get-a-phonebook-delivered-every-year/ar-AA5VCAJ (http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-infuriating-reason-you-still-get-a-phonebook-delivered-every-year/ar-AA5VCAJ) Apparently as of even a few years ago yellow pages were profitable even with tens of millions being tossed in the trash.
Post by: DeepEllumStache on August 09, 2016, 06:42:02 AM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
I have a reprint of a 1906 Sears catalog that has been in the family since I was born. Have thumbed through that thing a thousand times. I'd love to look through the different catalogs but I don't want to own them. Once upon a time yes when I was more of a packrat, not now.
Telephone books were bagged and laid at the end of the driveway of everyone for miles. We picked up our's and put it straight into the recycle bin. Hate it but we haven't used a phone book in years.
Ooooh, I can help with this! Go to www.yellowpagesoptout.com (http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com) and you can get off the delivery lists for phone books. I had to do it a year or so ago--we get 4 *different* phone books every year--what a ridiculous waste of paper.
Surprisingly interesting article from msn: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-infuriating-reason-you-still-get-a-phonebook-delivered-every-year/ar-AA5VCAJ (http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-infuriating-reason-you-still-get-a-phonebook-delivered-every-year/ar-AA5VCAJ) Apparently as of even a few years ago yellow pages were profitable even with tens of millions being tossed in the trash.
Businesses still pay for ads, especially if their clientele skews older. I worked around the industry and talked to more than a few customers. Their older customers still were using phone books.
The industry still exists because there is still money and you don't have to spend much in capital to keep it coming. Just manage your costs (aka downsizing each year). Being there was like we were working on the Titanic. They still talked about how the glory days were great but everyone knew that we had hit the iceberg and we're going down.
Post by: paddedhat on August 09, 2016, 06:59:01 AM
This one of the few things that I am unable to opt out of. The phone book companies will bomb the local post office with tons of books, all addressed as "postal customer" and zip code. I have discussed the issue with our local postal employees. They are honest about the fact that they are a bit paranoid with congress attempting to destroy their pensions, and all the other BS their employer dishes out. Their take is that ANY piece of mail, junk or not, is a good thing, so the ritual of hauling a few tons of new phone books off to the recycler is just another way to stay busy, and employed.
Surprisingly interesting article from msn: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-infuriating-reason-you-still-get-a-phonebook-delivered-every-year/ar-AA5VCAJ Apparently as of even a few years ago yellow pages were profitable even with tens of millions being tossed in the trash.
Interesting. My brother is a salesman, not just any salesman, but the kind of guy who could sell birth control pills to nuns, with a 200% commission, and leave the nuns looking forward to calling him personally for their next refills. He currently makes $70-80K selling advertising on the back of cash register tapes, which still blows my mind. He had a good run selling phone book ads, and gave it up a few years back. The market deteriorates every year, as advertisers become more convinced that they are wasting their money. Every market has multiple publishers fighting for the same dollars. Successful sales require convincing businesses that it's risky to not be in YOUR book, since you have the one the public is actually NOT going to throw out, and instilling fear based on the "fact" that your competitors bought huge ads this year, and you will be committing suicide by not even being on the page, when the customer is trying to find you. Naturally, this is done to the constant beating by management, who is disappointed that your numbers are not increasing by double digits, like they projected, but falling. MY bro. might be one slippery bugger, but he is smart, and he knew when to abandon ship.
Post by: Ann on August 09, 2016, 07:01:00 AM
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 09, 2016, 07:15:46 AM
Post by: With This Herring on August 09, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Ooooh, I can help with this! Go to www.yellowpagesoptout.com and you can get off the delivery lists for phone books. I had to do it a year or so ago--we get 4 *different* phone books every year--what a ridiculous waste of paper.
This one of the few things that I am unable to opt out of. The phone book companies will bomb the local post office with tons of books, all addressed as "postal customer" and zip code. I have discussed the issue with our local postal employees. They are honest about the fact that they are a bit paranoid with congress attempting to destroy their pensions, and all the other BS their employer dishes out. Their take is that ANY piece of mail, junk or not, is a good thing, so the ritual of hauling a few tons of new phone books off to the recycler is just another way to stay busy, and employed.
*snip*
I feel like everyone would be better served if they just set up a table across from your post office boxes and stacked up books under and on it instead of trying to stuff them in boxes at all. Also, refuse to accept any books over say 10% added onto what was actually taken last year. So, if last year people took 50 of the 300 books at the post office, tell the phone book company they won't take more than 55 books. Tell the company that the removing the books from PO boxes was difficult for their elderly mail recipients, and the books also were a tripping hazard.
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 09, 2016, 07:57:43 AM
Post by: infogoon on August 09, 2016, 10:48:28 AM
Post by: Inaya on August 09, 2016, 11:18:36 AM
Wait, if you opt out of getting a phone book, what does your kid sit on for his haircuts?LadyMuMu's MIL's Encyclopedia Britannica.
Post by: alme on August 09, 2016, 12:53:43 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
My FIL is a hoarder, and one of the things I dread most in life is having to clean out his house when he is gone. I hope things work out in a way that I don't have to be involved.
Post by: TexasRunner on August 09, 2016, 03:37:55 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
My FIL is a hoarder, and one of the things I dread most in life is having to clean out his house when he is gone. I hope things work out in a way that I don't have to be involved.
Doh! I see a divorce on the horizon!
(LOL hope not)
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 09, 2016, 03:43:21 PM
Post by: LeRainDrop on August 09, 2016, 03:59:28 PM
My FIL is a hoarder, and one of the things I dread most in life is having to clean out his house when he is gone. I hope things work out in a way that I don't have to be involved.
Just call the local fire dept. Maybe they'd like to use the house for a training day. That is literally what happened here once.
Interesting. I remember seeing on one of the Hoarders TV shows how dangerous hoarded homes are for fire-fighters. IIRC, they may have condemned a home or taken it off the list of places where the fire department would enter due to the extreme danger that the interior conditions posed. Sorry if their house burns, but I wouldn't want a fire-fighter to risk their life trying to get through all the booby-traps.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on August 09, 2016, 05:56:45 PM
This all makes me grateful for how my parents live: they're getting up in years, and they've been steadily decluttering their home, shipping and/or delivering boxes of their kids stuff to all the kids, getting rid of lots of old stuff, etc. A couple months ago, Mom brought me a 12" stack of my kindergarten schoolwork. DW and I had an enjoyable half hour going through it, and we kept a few things, but tossed the rest.My FIL is a hoarder, and one of the things I dread most in life is having to clean out his house when he is gone. I hope things work out in a way that I don't have to be involved.Just call the local fire dept. Maybe they'd like to use the house for a training day. That is literally what happened here once.
Interesting. I remember seeing on one of the Hoarders TV shows how dangerous hoarded homes are for fire-fighters. IIRC, they may have condemned a home or taken it off the list of places where the fire department would enter due to the extreme danger that the interior conditions posed. Sorry if their house burns, but I wouldn't want a fire-fighter to risk their life trying to get through all the booby-traps.
Now I'll admit that my parents have something like 60 years of National Geographic on their basement shelves, but it's all very neatly organized and out of the way. And they religiously avoid bringing more clutter into their home, barring personal sentimental items.
Post by: Spork on August 10, 2016, 08:30:49 AM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
As technology marches on, LOL. I have a box in the local post office, since our neighborhood cannot get delivery to individual houses. every year, at least two idiot phone book companies pay the post office to deliver a metric shit ton of their latest phone books. This involves the local postal employees being forced to stuff thousands of books into PO BOXES that are too small, and pissing off hundreds of customers who have to dig them out of the boxes and stack them on the floor, any available counter space, and wherever there is room to leave them behind at the post office. The vast majority of the customer base has zero interest in a phone book, but the publishers still trick idiot businesses into spending silly amounts to advertise, based on the huge volume of books they place in every home in the area. The USPS then pays a recycling outfit to pick up a few thousand pounds of worthless phone books. It's capitalism at it's best.
I love phone books! Every year right about the start of winter, 3 or more companies send me their phone books. I stack them neatly beside the wood stove. Every new fire gets 10-15 pages to get the kindling going. It's much neater and compact than a big stack of newspapers.
Post by: debbie does duncan on August 10, 2016, 08:37:39 AM
I am so sorry you had to put up with this "stinkin thinking".
May this be resolved in your favour, soon.
Good Luck.
Post by: mm1970 on August 10, 2016, 08:45:15 AM
Eternal Wonderer ...........this is a terrible story!I agree. I hope you are able to find some legal help. I would like to think that the law in Canada would require his assets go to his children, but I don't really know.
I am so sorry you had to put up with this "stinkin thinking".
May this be resolved in your favour, soon.
Good Luck.
Post by: Captain FIRE on August 10, 2016, 09:40:29 AM
Eternal Wonderer ...........this is a terrible story!I agree. I hope you are able to find some legal help. I would like to think that the law in Canada would require his assets go to his children, but I don't really know.
I am so sorry you had to put up with this "stinkin thinking".
May this be resolved in your favour, soon.
Good Luck.
It's possible. A quick google search pulls this up: http://www.lbwlawyers.com/publications/child-and-spousal-support-obligations-after-death/ I have no idea if it's accurate or not (and what province you are in), but Eternal Wonder, you should look into it. And quickly, as you probably need to file a timely claim against the estate. Does the $40k cover the remaining child support obligation or does it fall short?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 10, 2016, 09:51:47 AM
Eternal Wonderer ...........this is a terrible story!I agree. I hope you are able to find some legal help. I would like to think that the law in Canada would require his assets go to his children, but I don't really know.
I am so sorry you had to put up with this "stinkin thinking".
May this be resolved in your favour, soon.
Good Luck.
It depends on the province you live in. Ottawa's in Ontario so that's the provincial law that will apply.
Much may depend on whether he had a will. But she'll want to get a lawyer who works pro bono or on contingency because fights like this can be drawn out and expensive.
Post by: Captain FIRE on August 10, 2016, 02:04:09 PM
Also see if Canada has state support as well. In the US, kids can collect social security due to their deceased parent.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on August 10, 2016, 08:06:35 PM
Post by: Villanelle on August 11, 2016, 01:33:17 AM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool.
Post by: Villanelle on August 11, 2016, 01:40:27 AM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
That was my thing - he didn't thumb through them at all!! He moved them from his dad's attic to his, and there they'll stay until their kids empty out that house.
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool. Sadly, the cost to ship something that large and heavy would no doubt be prohibitive
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 11, 2016, 07:13:29 AM
Wait, if you opt out of getting a phone book, what does your kid sit on for his haircuts?
Our dog of course. (I like a challenge...)
Post by: With This Herring on August 11, 2016, 12:57:57 PM
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool. Sadly, the cost to ship something that large and heavy would no doubt be prohibitive
If you want one, keep an eye on CraigsList and maybe make a post requesting one. People are giving them away or selling them very cheap. Also look out for any schools or libraries in your area that are moving, renovating, etc. Go to your library's annual used book sale, if they do that (most libraries in my area do this, usually from books donated for the purpose). When my high school was building a new library, they gave away a bunch of books (including two full encyclopedias) rather than move them.
Post by: AlanStache on August 11, 2016, 02:11:21 PM
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool. Sadly, the cost to ship something that large and heavy would no doubt be prohibitive
If you want one, keep an eye on CraigsList and maybe make a post requesting one. People are giving them away or selling them very cheap. Also look out for any schools or libraries in your area that are moving, renovating, etc. Go to your library's annual used book sale, if they do that (most libraries in my area do this, usually from books donated for the purpose). When my high school was building a new library, they gave away a bunch of books (including two full encyclopedias) rather than move them.
Also try calling the local second hand book stores.
ebay has the last edition printings going for 7500$, might have been worth buying a few copy's of the last run to hold onto unopened just to create some inheritance drama in 100 years. I can see some great grand kids and inlaws arguing over if the books should be deviled over up by count or pound or should Sally get the S's cuz her names starts with S ...
Post by: cloudsail on August 11, 2016, 02:53:15 PM
My MIL passed away earlier this year. She fought lung cancer for a year, so before she died she was very explicit about how she wanted things distributed. They have three kids, my husband is the youngest. She willed an apartment in Taipei to their daughter, who currently lives there. It's worth approximately $800,000. She willed their primary residence in Vancouver BC to the oldest son. It was purchased for approximately $1.6M. She wanted my BIL to give us $800,000 CDN as half the value of the house.
Now my husband has this extreme aversion to taking money from his relatives. It really just makes him feel bad. At first he said he didn't want any of it, and that his brother had a right to the house since he was going to be living in it with their dad and taking care of him. But obviously my MIL was not going to agree to not leaving her youngest anything. She was very insistent on everything being equal. So we said okay.
My BIL is an upstanding guy and even before my MIL passed has been asking us to setup a Canadian dollar account so he can wire the money to us. But my husband has been trying to avoid it. He basically just changes the subject whenever his brother brings it up. I talked about going to the nearest HSBC and setting up an account but he never seems to want to do it. There was also talk about buying property on Vancouver Island, at which point he actually expressed the wish for his brother to retain ownership of any properties purchased. So essentially he just doesn't want the money.
We are very stable financially and well on our way to FI in about six years, but $800,000 CDN is a lot of money. Even just sitting in a savings account at 1% interest that's $8000 a year. Knowing my BIL he would try very hard to get the money to us, but it kind of galls me that that kind of money meanwhile is just sitting there. Also I'm not sure how hard he would try if my husband just doesn't want to cooperate. My fear is that eventually the issue might just die.
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
Post by: LeRainDrop on August 11, 2016, 03:23:15 PM
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
What in the world could be causing your husband to want to dishonor his mother's wishes for distribution of her assets? And to instigate an unnecessary conflict with his brother, who just wants to put this all to rest?
Post by: cloudsail on August 11, 2016, 04:35:28 PM
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
What in the world could be causing your husband to want to dishonor his mother's wishes for distribution of her assets? And to instigate an unnecessary conflict with his brother, who just wants to put this all to rest?
He has self esteem issues, and defines success as making his own fortune. Receiving money from his parents makes him feel like a failure, and the greater the amount of money the bigger of a failure it makes him feel.
He's also not very empathic and has trouble looking at things from other people's point of view -- for example, his brother's, who is even better off than we are financially and probably doesn't feel great hanging on to money that his late mother designated to his younger brother. Or his late mom's, who wanted each of her children to equally inherit her wealth, as any parent of multiple children should understand.
Post by: IndyPendent on August 11, 2016, 08:00:05 PM
He has self esteem issues, and defines success as making his own fortune. Receiving money from his parents makes him feel like a failure, and the greater the amount of money the bigger of a failure it makes him feel.
He's also not very empathic and has trouble looking at things from other people's point of view -- for example, his brother's, who is even better off than we are financially and probably doesn't feel great hanging on to money that his late mother designated to his younger brother. Or his late mom's, who wanted each of her children to equally inherit her wealth, as any parent of multiple children should understand.
He should accept it and give it to a willing recipient. I'll volunteer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TomTX on August 11, 2016, 08:56:36 PM
50 years of back-issues of the Sears catalogue
I have to admit, I would find it pretty entertaining to thumb through those. But not enough to store or move them.
For several years I provided housing to a pile of NatGeo mags. I kept the most interesting dozen and gave the rest away. You can get the whole collection on DVD for cheap.
Yeah, I agreed she could get the DVD.
Then she still hung onto the paper mags. Arg.
Post by: Villanelle on August 11, 2016, 09:48:21 PM
I feel their pain. I've spent a significant amount of time this week trying to convince my MIL that her Encyclopedia Brittanica is not worth keeping when she downsizes into a 1-br apartment from a 3,000 sq ft home. I made the mistake of saying something like, with Google and Wikipedia, they don't even make those any longer. Her response? Well, then they'll be valuable one day! Argh! Even the used bookstore and the Goodwill won't take them!
If I lived near your MIL, I would not only take that EB set, I'd pay her for it!! I deeply regret not taking my parents' set when they downsized in a move. It's a nostalgia thing for me, and kind of a decor thing I guess, not a research tool. Sadly, the cost to ship something that large and heavy would no doubt be prohibitive
If you want one, keep an eye on CraigsList and maybe make a post requesting one. People are giving them away or selling them very cheap. Also look out for any schools or libraries in your area that are moving, renovating, etc. Go to your library's annual used book sale, if they do that (most libraries in my area do this, usually from books donated for the purpose). When my high school was building a new library, they gave away a bunch of books (including two full encyclopedias) rather than move them.
Sadly, I'm in Japan, so any set I might manage to track down probably wouldn't be quite what I wanted. Actually, having a Japanese set would be kind of cool, but it's not what I truly want.
My parents live in a retirement community, which seems like it would have a lot of encyclopedia sets floating around, and there are lots of estate sales. When I'm closer to the dye we move back Stateside, I'll ask mom to keep a look out. I don't want them to have to house it for 3 years, but 6-8 months they would do happily.
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 12, 2016, 08:07:28 AM
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
What in the world could be causing your husband to want to dishonor his mother's wishes for distribution of her assets? And to instigate an unnecessary conflict with his brother, who just wants to put this all to rest?
He has self esteem issues, and defines success as making his own fortune. Receiving money from his parents makes him feel like a failure, and the greater the amount of money the bigger of a failure it makes him feel.
He's also not very empathic and has trouble looking at things from other people's point of view -- for example, his brother's, who is even better off than we are financially and probably doesn't feel great hanging on to money that his late mother designated to his younger brother. Or his late mom's, who wanted each of her children to equally inherit her wealth, as any parent of multiple children should understand.
Take it, put it in a separate account and let it grow separately than the money you've made/saved/invested.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on August 12, 2016, 08:41:14 AM
That's what I would suggest. Let the money sit there unmolested until emotions have plenty of time to settle. It's not like you're in desperate need of that money now. And you could always give it back later if, a few years down the road, that's what you want to do.Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
What in the world could be causing your husband to want to dishonor his mother's wishes for distribution of her assets? And to instigate an unnecessary conflict with his brother, who just wants to put this all to rest?
He has self esteem issues, and defines success as making his own fortune. Receiving money from his parents makes him feel like a failure, and the greater the amount of money the bigger of a failure it makes him feel.
He's also not very empathic and has trouble looking at things from other people's point of view -- for example, his brother's, who is even better off than we are financially and probably doesn't feel great hanging on to money that his late mother designated to his younger brother. Or his late mom's, who wanted each of her children to equally inherit her wealth, as any parent of multiple children should understand.
Take it, put it in a separate account and let it grow separately than the money you've made/saved/invested.
Post by: talltexan on August 12, 2016, 08:43:02 AM
Post by: FIPurpose on August 12, 2016, 08:43:11 AM
Post by: Captain FIRE on August 12, 2016, 09:12:56 AM
- If he doesn't accept the money, maybe remind him that you would possibly liable for gift taxes (as you are giving it to one brother rather than simple disclaiming the inheritance).
- Also ask him how the sister might feel about this situation - where one brother gets nothing, and the other brother gets 2x what she got. Could this set up bad blood between siblings?
- Do you have kids? Do you plan to? Ask him whether he thinks his mom would be upset that the money didn't go to benefit your kids (presumably down the line many years when you pass away) as she intended. See if he might be interested in using the money to set up a family trust for them.
- Tell him even if he doesn't want keep the money, he could give this away to charities who can make great use of it.
- Remind him he doesn't need to decide now what to do with the money.
- Gently, very diplomatically, convey that while this is his inheritance, you are married, a team, and you would like him to consider your opinions and how it affects you and your life too.
- See if maybe he'd go to counseling. Maybe some unresolved issues with mother's death that are wrapped up here in addition to his ideas of success/failure.
Post by: BlueHouse on August 12, 2016, 09:24:49 AM
- Remind him he doesn't need to decide now what to do with the money.
- See if maybe he'd go to counseling. Maybe some unresolved issues with mother's death that are wrapped up here in addition to his ideas of success/failure.
Great advice so far. I'd also suggest that you remind him that the money isn't about him and what he wants -- it's about his mom's wishes and that includes the wish for her children to continue to get along with each other. Creating an inequality can throw off the equilibrium. Don't let him be responsible for that.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on August 12, 2016, 09:53:38 AM
[I'd have issues about taking a handout that I didn't need from a sibling - this is clearly not the case here. But maybe the notion of getting a cheque / bank transfer with brother's name on it is confusing matters.]
Post by: Taran Wanderer on August 12, 2016, 09:04:20 PM
Post by: kayvent on August 13, 2016, 06:24:28 AM
If it were my husband, I'd be tempted to shake him until some sense dropped in.
- If he doesn't accept the money, maybe remind him that you would possibly liable for gift taxes (as you are giving it to one brother rather than simple disclaiming the inheritance).
- Also ask him how the sister might feel about this situation - where one brother gets nothing, and the other brother gets 2x what she got. Could this set up bad blood between siblings?
- Do you have kids? Do you plan to? Ask him whether he thinks his mom would be upset that the money didn't go to benefit your kids (presumably down the line many years when you pass away) as she intended. See if he might be interested in using the money to set up a family trust for them.
- Tell him even if he doesn't want keep the money, he could give this away to charities who can make great use of it.
- Remind him he doesn't need to decide now what to do with the money.
- Gently, very diplomatically, convey that while this is his inheritance, you are married, a team, and you would like him to consider your opinions and how it affects you and your life too.
- See if maybe he'd go to counseling. Maybe some unresolved issues with mother's death that are wrapped up here in addition to his ideas of success/failure.
I was thinking about the sister in China too. While I disagree with the brother not wanting to take 800K, he might as well tell the other brother to give 400K to make it fair between his siblings that are willing to accept the inheritance.
Post by: human on August 13, 2016, 08:46:09 AM
Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
I once had a true good ole' boy from the swamps of Louisiana, as an employee. He came to me with a document, as he needed a witness. He was inheriting a couple of hundred bucks as a very distant relative of a long departed, VERY large landholder in the swamps. I asked how many of his kin were getting a little bit of the pie? He told me that they numbered in the hundreds. I imagine at that point, it's a bit like a class action suit. legal council makes a ton, to make sure that each third cousin get's a bit.
I have another buddy that ended up with a hell of a pile of cheddar, well over a million, but it took nearly forty years until the estate was finally settled. His grandfather was sharp and bought a ton of farm land, and woodland, before WW2, when our local farmers were basically operating on a sustenance level, and barely feeding their own families. A lot of farms were bought for less than $10/acre. He held on to most of it, then died, quite old, in the early 1960s. The battle to decide exactly who got what % of the pie lasted for the next twenty years, or more, before the first property was liquidated. The battle even went to the state supreme court. As sons and daughters died off, it would cause new pissing contests to flare up. It became the life's work of one estate attorney, who even wrote a book about handling one of the longest contested estates in our state's history. The final property was liquidated in the early 2000s.
I don't have any stories, but do you have the title of this book? Haven't googled anything just curious if you knew it offhand.
Post by: iris lily on August 13, 2016, 10:38:45 PM
Or try Charles Dickens' Bleak House that includes, the story of a long running lawsuit in Jardyce vs Jardyce about an inheritance. Old Dickens knew his human race, they had greedy lawyers even back then tying up estates in the courts for decades, them earning much on the backs of inheritors.Not really drama, but we've got an unusual situation (I think). DH got a letter from the trustee of an estate today, and his share is <2% of said estate. The money, fine, he'll be happy to take that, but he also will get the same small percentage of a dozen properties in and around a small town in NC, some of which is vacant land, some is vacant buildings, and some, I believe, is rented. So now there will be over 40 people, spread out across the country, who each own a small amount of this bunch of real estate.
At this point, we don't even know if the rents will cover taxes and maintenance, and nothing really sells in that area. Plus, trying to get over 3 dozen people to agree on anything... Is it possible to say "no thanks" to the real estate part and keep the cash?
Get the estate to liquidate the real estate and distribute cash. Or at the very least put the beneficiaries in touch so that you can sell off your share (if you go cheap enough, someone will want it.)
Seriously.
Getting that many people to ever agree will be a nightmare. A friend of mine spent about 10 years untangling a situation where about 10 family members inherited a property. It was ridiculous.
I once had a true good ole' boy from the swamps of Louisiana, as an employee. He came to me with a document, as he needed a witness. He was inheriting a couple of hundred bucks as a very distant relative of a long departed, VERY large landholder in the swamps. I asked how many of his kin were getting a little bit of the pie? He told me that they numbered in the hundreds. I imagine at that point, it's a bit like a class action suit. legal council makes a ton, to make sure that each third cousin get's a bit.
I have another buddy that ended up with a hell of a pile of cheddar, well over a million, but it took nearly forty years until the estate was finally settled. His grandfather was sharp and bought a ton of farm land, and woodland, before WW2, when our local farmers were basically operating on a sustenance level, and barely feeding their own families. A lot of farms were bought for less than $10/acre. He held on to most of it, then died, quite old, in the early 1960s. The battle to decide exactly who got what % of the pie lasted for the next twenty years, or more, before the first property was liquidated. The battle even went to the state supreme court. As sons and daughters died off, it would cause new pissing contests to flare up. It became the life's work of one estate attorney, who even wrote a book about handling one of the longest contested estates in our state's history. The final property was liquidated in the early 2000s.
I don't have any stories, but do you have the title of this book? Haven't googled anything just curious if you knew it offhand.
Post by: Beaker on August 15, 2016, 03:47:16 PM
Or try Charles Dickens' Bleak House that includes, the story of a long running lawsuit in Jardyce vs Jardyce about an inheritance.
Jarndyce vs Jarndyce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce#Real-life_cases) was supposedly based on Jennens estate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennens). That dispute had been running for 55 years when Bleak House was published, and ended up running for 117 years in total. I'm not sure that a century long lawsuit counts as dramatic though - I'd imagine most of it was incredibly tedious.
Post by: Sailing on August 16, 2016, 08:49:46 PM
Flash forward 20 years. FIL is now 85 and starting to flag. MIL has spent all her cash long ago, and swoops in. FIL signs power of attorney for her. She takes possession of his car, and sells the caravan for slightly more than we paid, moves him into aged care and starts to run interference on any discussions with FIL. I asked him (politely) what the plans were, and he told me with a big grin he planned to spend the lot. MIL rushed in at that point and starts screaming at me for upsetting FIL. "What's he supposed to do, save it for his old age" etc. I was really rattled so left it, although I was really CROSS. Later same day MIL tried to smooth it over saying how much she appreciated our help cleaning out the van, which really gave me the yucks.
Two weeks later MIL sends an email that FIL has decided to hand over the van money, which I was not expecting. She really tried not to, it was difficult, she had to consult with Centrelink etc that it would not affect his pension. The money was eventually ungraciously handed over and she put on the transfer "gift from Dad" which irked me but whatever. Note that she did not hand over all of it, only refunded the purchase price from 20 years prior and she retains the $2000 extra. I cop a lot of flack from extended In laws for hounding FIL for the money, even though literally all I had done was ask what his plans were.
Flash forward one more year and FIL dies. The will has been recently rewritten so that MIL shares in the (very small estate) equally. We paid for the funeral, (despite the fact she picked everything) she kept the car which apparently is not part of the estate and a share of the cash (a few thousand) while we got $200 after paying for the funeral.
What's the moral of this tale? I really don't know. It took me a long time to get over the anger, looking back maybe I should have written off the $20k, we don't really need the money now, but at the time it was a lot of money, eg the deposit for our house was $7500 only 3 years earlier, so it was a lot then. We were put under a lot of pressure from my husbands extended family to do it. My MIL now tells anyone who will listen all I care about is money, but I think she is projecting her own actions onto me. So I learnt some hard lessons and moved on. Would I do it again? NO!!
Post by: Dicey on August 16, 2016, 09:24:46 PM
You write as if you're a regular here, yet this is your "first" post. I'm guessing you've assumed a new identity for the sake of sharing this story. I hope that in time, the pain she has caused will ease. You don't deserve it.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 16, 2016, 10:19:06 PM
It seems to me that your lying sneak of a MIL has indeed managed to turn some of the extended family against you, if they're weighing on on a question you asked her ex-husband. This is what manipulative people do to either get their way or to punish other people for asserting reasonable boundaries or holding up their end of a deal. Sadly, the fact they believed her indicates that her "complain loudly enough and other people will pile on" belief has a basis in fact. This isn't a healthy group of people. I'm sorry.
It sounds to me like you got the best part of that family.
Post by: Sailing on August 16, 2016, 11:56:17 PM
We have a very lucky life, doing well financially. My husband does not like to discuss his mothers behaviour, and will defend her, but he also does not want to see her without other family present. So we see her once a year at Xmas. I don't think anyone takes her complaints about me too seriously, after piling on that one time.
I often use my MIL's latest antics to make my family laugh, and/or shake their head, which helps me confirm I'm not insane. This is actually my very first post, but have been devouring the MMM columns and then the forums avidly. It's a great resource, apologies if I brought anyone down, totally not my intent. What nice people you all are. I was simply thinking Inheritance drama, yep got something to contribute there! :)
Post by: HairyUpperLip on August 17, 2016, 07:28:26 AM
apologies if I brought anyone down
You are good. This thread is for these types of stories.
And I agree with the others, your MIL sounds horrible.
Post by: Papa Mustache on August 17, 2016, 08:30:09 AM
My MIL now tells anyone who will listen all I care about is money, but I think she is projecting her own actions onto me. So I learnt some hard lessons and moved on. Would I do it again? NO!!
Gawd I hate projectionists... Wait - maybe that isn't the right word. ;) Just trying to inject some silliness into a serious story. Yep - sounds like she is projecting. We have witnessed this from a certain person as well. DW & I find it a bit entertaining now that we see the situation for what it is.
Post by: DeepEllumStache on August 18, 2016, 11:06:32 AM
Post by: mtn on August 22, 2016, 07:28:40 AM
Oh no. No no no no no. My wife and I don't ever want to live there. My BIL, 30, still lives there. If the house is left to "us", it will basically be left to my BIL. FIL says that then he'd have to buy us out of it--that doesn't work!
I told him that the easisest estates that my parents have dealt with (3 of them) were the ones that had basically nothing of value left--the cars and jewelry had been gifted or sold; any real estate had been sold, etc. The ones that had a car or a house left were a pain. PLEASE do not leave anything of value when you die, otherwise we'll have to deal with BIL, who IMHO is an idiot.
Post by: paddedhat on August 22, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
My FIL was telling me he is meeting with a lawyer to put everything into a trust. He's trying to figure out how to get the house passed to my wife and my BIL.
Oh no. No no no no no. My wife and I don't ever want to live there. My BIL, 30, still lives there. If the house is left to "us", it will basically be left to my BIL. FIL says that then he'd have to buy us out of it--that doesn't work!
I told him that the easisest estates that my parents have dealt with (3 of them) were the ones that had basically nothing of value left--the cars and jewelry had been gifted or sold; any real estate had been sold, etc. The ones that had a car or a house left were a pain. PLEASE do not leave anything of value when you die, otherwise we'll have to deal with BIL, who IMHO is an idiot.
You might want to see if you can steer the FIL toward an estate lawyer who will handle EVERYTHING, including liquidating assets, showing the BIL the door, and generally making it as stress free as possible. I have a good friend who has been an estate attorney forever. A big part of her job is engaging in very detailed pre-planning of the estate, then executing the plan, when the time comes. In reality, one of the most important task she tackles is dealing with estates where one heir has the potential to really be a problem child, and would create years of headaches and stress, if they have the opportunity, and another heir was executor. There is nothing that shuts down the bullshit more than an estate lawyer telling the problem heir, "I am following the wishes of the deceased, and the letter of the law, which is what I am paid to do. If you find issue with my work, please retain council to protect your own interests, if you feel the need". 99% of the time, the problem one ends up at another lawyer for their "free initial consultation" and gets politely told that they are wrong, don't have a case, and need to get over it.
Doing it this way, you simply don't have to deal with the BIL. Dad hired the lawyer, all the decisions were made by dad and not negotiable. The BIL's job is to dummy up, move out, and provide his forwarding address so the lawyer can send the check for his cut.
Post by: Spork on August 22, 2016, 09:51:02 AM
My FIL was telling me he is meeting with a lawyer to put everything into a trust. He's trying to figure out how to get the house passed to my wife and my BIL.
Oh no. No no no no no. My wife and I don't ever want to live there. My BIL, 30, still lives there. If the house is left to "us", it will basically be left to my BIL. FIL says that then he'd have to buy us out of it--that doesn't work!
I told him that the easisest estates that my parents have dealt with (3 of them) were the ones that had basically nothing of value left--the cars and jewelry had been gifted or sold; any real estate had been sold, etc. The ones that had a car or a house left were a pain. PLEASE do not leave anything of value when you die, otherwise we'll have to deal with BIL, who IMHO is an idiot.
My dad's will explicitly said "sell the house, split my stuff fairly and sell what is left". That was a godsend. Keep pushing.
Post by: nawhite on August 24, 2016, 04:02:00 PM
Post by: bebegirl on August 25, 2016, 04:06:46 PM
3 sisters did have children. 1 sister did not have any.
The single sister started approaching really old age and was apparently manipulating all her nieces and nephews by telling each of them that her one bedroom condo right at the beach of Azov sea will go to them if they take care of her.
My mother, one of her nieces, also was receiving her promises about condo. She was single mother by that time for many years and was not rich.
Finally single sister decided (or was helped with her decision) to move to one of her sisters children in another part of the country (not to my mother) and right after that she died very quickly leaving them her condo.
That particular family was very active around single sister after she announced considering giving away her condo. They were already very rich, possessing property and having several doctors in the family.
My mother (who was promised the condo many times) told that that was a huge mistake of her aunt to move to that other sisters family. If she continued living by the seaside, she would not die that quickly for sure. (Azov sea is well known for healing high blood pressure, skin problems, preventing flu etc, very warm and healthy sea)
Post by: Bicycle_B on August 29, 2016, 02:32:56 AM
Youtube version begins here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFSQ_1wpdA
Not trying to cross promote, but paid version is here:
https://louisck.net/show/horace-and-pete
It certainly involves a story of inheritance drama...
Post by: RunningWithScissors on August 30, 2016, 02:06:56 PM
Unfortunately, dementia stalks my family - all six of my grandmother's sisters developed it in their late seventies but are incredibly long-lived. My grandmother, now in her mid-90's has had to watch her sisters slowly succumb to a vegetative state. Although none were well off, they had small pensions and savings. There's two sisters now in care and both have been the center of a legal drama.
Several years ago, the eldest sister (ES) went into care and a niece and nephew took on the role of managing personal affairs as well as financial. The nephew, an accountant, was told by the other cousin to hand over all money to her as it was hers to spend as she liked. Evil Cousin actually took him to court, but ended up having her legal ass handed back to her on a platter by the judge. The judge also informed Evil Cousin that she had no right to prevent visits from any family members. Things carried on quietly until just last week, when Evil Cousin tried to prevent the family from visiting ES on her birthday and told the care home to block them from entering. So, a lawsuit will be filed in the next week to remove Evil Cousin from her position of authority, or to ensure a court order exists maintaining family access.
Even more upsetting and unbelievable is the fact that a similar situation exists with another sibling of my grandmother, who unfortunately decided to sign over all power of attorney including financial control to Evil Cousin. Evil Cousin promptly placed this sister in a care center (not telling anyone else in the family where she was) and informed management not to allow any outside visits (including threatening to have my grandmother arrested if she trespassed). I wrote a formal letter of complaint to the local agency who oversees the care of 'vulnerable adults' but was told that because Evil Cousin has paperwork authorizing her control over this elderly lady with dementia, that there's nothing we can do except to file a lawsuit. We simply don't have the means to take someone who likely has a serious personality disorder (sociopath, borderline personality) to court. And to add insult to injury, Evil Cousin has not visited this poor lady in the nursing home once since having her admitted several year ago.
Seems to be a case of neglect and clear manipulation - just makes me sick to think of it.
Bleah. It's a bad day.
Post by: Daleth on August 30, 2016, 03:01:33 PM
Of course I still do need to keep pushing to find out once and for all if he had a will and take it from there.
If Canada works at all like the US, which it might since we're both originally based on UK law, anyone who dies leaves an estate that must be probated, i.e., dealt with in court. The only way around that in the US is to leave everything to a trust, but I gather that most countries don't have trust laws as liberal as the US. Here's an article I just found that says that in Canada, basically it's got to be probated unless every single thing he left was either jointly owned (e.g. a house jointly owned with a spouse) or was the type of asset with a named beneficiary (e.g., life insurance policies):
http://estatelawcanada.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-every-will-have-to-be-probated.html
More on Canadian probate:
http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/retirement/inheritance/to-probate-or-not-to-probate
That explains how probate works in Canada. Note this interesting point: "Once a grant of probate is granted by the court, the probated will becomes a public document, available for viewing by anyone interested in searching for it."
So, find out where he died and where he lived when he died (which could be two different places). What province? Then call the main courthouse in that province and say, "My children's father recently died and I need to find out what court his estate is being probated in. Is there a special court for probating wills and estates?" They should be able to point you to the right place and even give you a phone number. Call that court and explain that your children's father recently died and you don't know who the executor is, so you're calling the court to find out what's going on and how to lodge a claim.
If he died without a will and with some assets that don't have named beneficiaries and aren't jointly owned, some of his assets should automatically go to his children. In the US that's called dying intestate (without a testament, i.e. without a will). Each state, and presumably each province in Canada, has rules about what happens to people's assets when they die without a will--as many people do, particularly people who are on the younger side as your ex was. And those rules ALWAYS give some portion of the assets to the person's children.
If he died with a will, you need to know what it said.
In the meantime, definitely collect that $40k from the insurance company! If they send you any documents to sign, though, read through them and if you suspect that signing would mean you would have no further claims against the insurance company, have a lawyer look at it first. The insurance company is probably handling it properly but it would be sad if they were actually supposed to give your kids more than the $40k but you signed away the right to sue them to get the full amount. This is a purely hypothetical problem though... at least get started with the insurance company, and call the court in the province where your husband died. Call the court in his town or city if there is one, or if he lived in a very rural area perhaps try the courts in the nearest town or city.
Best of luck!
Post by: Rubic on September 01, 2016, 11:59:53 AM
Credit card debt after cosigner dies
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/70191/credit-card-debt-after-cosigner-dies
"My father is a cosigner on my brothers credit cards. He died last month.
My brother is not paying off the debt. Can we remove my fathers name? Is
my dads estate responsible? My brother owes more than the estate is worth.
My mom will be left destitute if the credit companies go after the estate."
Post by: kayvent on September 02, 2016, 02:55:44 AM
Interesting situation here:
Credit card debt after cosigner dies
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/70191/credit-card-debt-after-cosigner-dies
"My father is a cosigner on my brothers credit cards. He died last month.
My brother is not paying off the debt. Can we remove my fathers name? Is
my dads estate responsible? My brother owes more than the estate is worth.
My mom will be left destitute if the credit companies go after the estate."
I saw that post early yesterday and thought "The mother will be destitute with the debt but alright otherwise? How much money can someone possibly owe on a credit card that needs a cosigner?"
The OP later qualified in a comment:
My mom is in I)linois. The estate is only about 150,000. The debt on the car loans my brother has in my dads name is about 70,000. Credit cards are over 60,000.
Yikes, I feel bad for the mother. Husband dies, she has 7x years of income (more if she will now collect her deceased husbands pension, works etc...) OR will be left with little because somehow her son has 130,000$ in debt from cars and CC.
Post by: Sibley on September 02, 2016, 10:08:49 AM
Interesting situation here:
Credit card debt after cosigner dies
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/70191/credit-card-debt-after-cosigner-dies
"My father is a cosigner on my brothers credit cards. He died last month.
My brother is not paying off the debt. Can we remove my fathers name? Is
my dads estate responsible? My brother owes more than the estate is worth.
My mom will be left destitute if the credit companies go after the estate."
I saw that post early yesterday and thought "The mother will be destitute with the debt but alright otherwise? How much money can someone possibly owe on a credit card that needs a cosigner?"
The OP later qualified in a comment:
My mom is in I)linois. The estate is only about 150,000. The debt on the car loans my brother has in my dads name is about 70,000. Credit cards are over 60,000.
Yikes, I feel bad for the mother. Husband dies, she has 7x years of income (more if she will now collect her deceased husbands pension, works etc...) OR will be left with little because somehow her son has 130,000$ in debt from cars and CC.
Well, the vehicles get sold ASAP, that wipes out the car debt, and hopefully helps with the CC debt. And the cards have to be closed yesterday. And talk to a lawyer about what to do about the CC debt. Hopefully can just get the husband's name off them somehow.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 03, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
Interesting situation here:
Credit card debt after cosigner dies
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/70191/credit-card-debt-after-cosigner-dies
"My father is a cosigner on my brothers credit cards. He died last month.
My brother is not paying off the debt. Can we remove my fathers name? Is
my dads estate responsible? My brother owes more than the estate is worth.
My mom will be left destitute if the credit companies go after the estate."
I saw that post early yesterday and thought "The mother will be destitute with the debt but alright otherwise? How much money can someone possibly owe on a credit card that needs a cosigner?"
The OP later qualified in a comment:
My mom is in I)linois. The estate is only about 150,000. The debt on the car loans my brother has in my dads name is about 70,000. Credit cards are over 60,000.
Yikes, I feel bad for the mother. Husband dies, she has 7x years of income (more if she will now collect her deceased husbands pension, works etc...) OR will be left with little because somehow her son has 130,000$ in debt from cars and CC.
Well, the vehicles get sold ASAP, that wipes out the car debt, and hopefully helps with the CC debt. And the cards have to be closed yesterday. And talk to a lawyer about what to do about the CC debt. Hopefully can just get the husband's name off them somehow.
Illinois isn't a community property state, so unless her signature is on the dotted line as a co-signer, she isn't. Things he owned such as the cars should be liquidated, but I think the smartest thing for her to do would be to declare bankruptcy immediately, hire a lawyer to protect her assets, and make an intelligent argument that everything that can be protected under bankruptcy is "hers" and not her husband's. How the courts determine what belonged to whom will probably be more generous to her than just trying to deal directly with creditors or with the no-good spendypants son.
Post by: Daleth on September 03, 2016, 04:25:22 PM
Illinois isn't a community property state, so unless her signature is on the dotted line as a co-signer, she isn't. Things he owned such as the cars should be liquidated, but I think the smartest thing for her to do would be to declare bankruptcy immediately, hire a lawyer to protect her assets, and make an intelligent argument that everything that can be protected under bankruptcy is "hers" and not her husband's. How the courts determine what belonged to whom will probably be more generous to her than just trying to deal directly with creditors or with the no-good spendypants son.
All true: a spouse is not personally liable for the debts of a deceased spouse. Ask a lawyer if you're in a community property state, but most states aren't that. But she shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy for debts of his that she didn't co-sign on. What she needs is a consumer's rights or debtor's rights attorney, not a bankruptcy attorney.
As for things he owned, whether they should be liquidated depends on how they were held. If they were jointly owned with a right of survivorship, or owned as a "tenancy by the entireties" (something that's only possible between spouses), then they automatically became 100% hers the minute he died--they were never part of his estate and shouldn't be liquidated. If it was a bank account with a payable on death feature, so he owned it alone but it was payable on death to her, I'm 95% sure it should go to her without passing through his estate at all.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 03, 2016, 05:29:11 PM
Real estate, for sure, unless it's tenancy in common which I've heard is the default in Illinois. For a bank account I don't believe it will necessarily be that cut and dried. I've heard of too many cases where a joint account gets frozen after a monetary judgment is awarded. Ideally she shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy for debt that isn't hers, but marriage creates all kinds of financial pitfalls to go along with the tax perks.Illinois isn't a community property state, so unless her signature is on the dotted line as a co-signer, she isn't. Things he owned such as the cars should be liquidated, but I think the smartest thing for her to do would be to declare bankruptcy immediately, hire a lawyer to protect her assets, and make an intelligent argument that everything that can be protected under bankruptcy is "hers" and not her husband's. How the courts determine what belonged to whom will probably be more generous to her than just trying to deal directly with creditors or with the no-good spendypants son.
All true: a spouse is not personally liable for the debts of a deceased spouse. Ask a lawyer if you're in a community property state, but most states aren't that. But she shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy for debts of his that she didn't co-sign on. What she needs is a consumer's rights or debtor's rights attorney, not a bankruptcy attorney.
As for things he owned, whether they should be liquidated depends on how they were held. If they were jointly owned with a right of survivorship, or owned as a "tenancy by the entireties" (something that's only possible between spouses), then they automatically became 100% hers the minute he died--they were never part of his estate and shouldn't be liquidated. If it was a bank account with a payable on death feature, so he owned it alone but it was payable on death to her, I'm 95% sure it should go to her without passing through his estate at all.
Post by: Daleth on September 07, 2016, 02:34:31 PM
Real estate, for sure, unless it's tenancy in common which I've heard is the default in Illinois. For a bank account I don't believe it will necessarily be that cut and dried. I've heard of too many cases where a joint account gets frozen after a monetary judgment is awarded.
A joint account isn't the same as one that's payable on death to someone else. If the account holder dies and title transfers to someone else, the person to whom title transfers can take all the money out that day and go put it in a different bank so that there is nothing left in the debtor's account for creditors to attach or, as you said, freeze. The same is actually true of joint accounts, of course, except that that can be done when the other account holder is still alive--that's one of the risks of joint accounts.
As for real estate, the situation in Illinois is that UNLESS the title says something else, the property is presumed to be held as a tenancy in common, which basically means that each person owns half and neither of them automatically becomes the owner of the other half when the other co-owner dies. But married couples in Illinois can own in a tenancy by the entireties, and anyone (married or not) can be joint tenants with right of survivorship (when one owner dies, the other owner automatically owns the whole property). So you do need to look at the relevant paperwork and not just assume that this is a tenancy in common.
Info on Illinois:
http://www.illinois-attorney.com/news/options-for-holding-title-to-real-property/
Ideally she shouldn't have to declare bankruptcy for debt that isn't hers, but marriage creates all kinds of financial pitfalls to go along with the tax perks.
There isn't really a grey area like that. Putting aside community property states (most states are not community property), nobody ever has to declare bankruptcy for debt that isn't theirs. Sometimes people feel that's what they're doing, because they're filing for bankruptcy over their child's or spouse's or whoever's debt that they cosigned on... but cosigning on a debt makes it your debt.
And there are hugely unethical debt collectors who call grieving spouses and basically convince them that they are liable for their dead spouse's debt, and then "help" them set up manageable payment plans. I mention this scam because YOU CANNOT INHERIT YOUR SPOUSE'S DEBT but unfortunately, if your spouse dies and you then agree to pay a debt collector money that your spouse owed, you just got suckered into an actual enforceable contract and are now on the hook for that debt. (If that happens to you or anyone you know, contact a debtor's rights lawyer--they may be able to help).
But basically, if you didn't cosign on someone's loan (or lease or whatever other contract under which they owed money), and you didn't agree to a payment plan with someone's creditor, you are not liable for that debt. If someone's harassing you to pay it, what you need is not a bankruptcy lawyer but a debtor's rights lawyer (sometimes called consumer's rights lawyer).
Post by: Goldielocks on September 07, 2016, 03:29:30 PM
This is true, but prior to distribution to the wife, the will must pay off all debtors. Leaving very little $ to transfer to the spouse. That is the true problem here... (assets protected by beneficiary designations are exempt)
In addition, many cosigned debts are considered due in full upon death of one of the cosignees...and trigger a claim against the estate for the full amount. This has been a challenge for student loans, for example, cosigned by an aged grandparent who then passes, creating poor credit history.
Unless the son agrees to sell the cars to help pay off the debt, it will likely be applied in full against the estate leaving the wife with very little.
Post by: mtn on September 07, 2016, 03:41:22 PM
RE: YOU CANNOT INHERIT YOUR SPOUSE'S DEBT
This is true, but prior to distribution to the wife, the will must pay off all debtors. Leaving very little $ to transfer to the spouse. That is the true problem here... (assets protected by beneficiary designations are exempt)
In addition, many cosigned debts are considered due in full upon death of one of the cosignees...and trigger a claim against the estate for the full amount. This has been a challenge for student loans, for example, cosigned by an aged grandparent who then passes, creating poor credit history.
Unless the son agrees to sell the cars to help pay off the debt, it will likely be applied in full against the estate leaving the wife with very little.
Actually, the cars may be repossessed and sold before they go after the accounts in question.
Post by: Papa Mustache on September 08, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
My thought: Be very worried about your retirement and save accordingly. Who would take someone at their word - even family's word - that there would be a lump of money coming some day far off into the future? There are no guarantees.
All I could think of was a conversation 30 years into the future on someone's death bed that amounted to "sorry, we thought we had enough money to live like we did. Good luck with your own elder years with no substantial savings. I wish you could live like we did..."
No word on amounts, what their burn rate is and so forth.
Yeah, just trust me. "You'll be taken care of."
All I could think of was a few members of the extended family sparring over money and inheritances during my childhood.
It was like watching a British medieval period drama where allegiances are made and broken, favors bestowed upon one person and another ignored, lies and promises broken, etc.
And all over very modest amounts of money so a couple of relatives who never made much money of their own could spend freely for a short time.
Post by: iris lily on September 08, 2016, 11:16:34 AM
Recently overheard: "Don't worry about your retirement. You'll be taken care of..."This is a great post, great for its imagery of the famly alignments and its sheer truthfulness.
My thought: Be very worried about your retirement and save accordingly. Who would take someone at their word - even family's word - that there would be a lump of money coming some day far off into the future? There are no guarantees.
All I could think of was a conversation 30 years into the future on someone's death bed that amounted to "sorry, we thought we had enough money to live like we did. Good luck with your own elder years with no substantial savings. I wish you could live like we did..."
No word on amounts, what their burn rate is and so forth.
Yeah, just trust me. "You'll be taken care of."
All I could think of was a few members of the extended family sparring over money and inheritances during my childhood.
It was like watching a British medieval period drama where allegiances are made and broken, favors bestowed upon one person and another ignored, lies and promises broken, etc.
And all over very modest amounts of money so a couple of relatives who never made much money of their own could spend freely for a short time.
It is amazing what small amounts of money people will fight over.
An idea related to the "dont worry, I will leave you money for your old age" ida is the demand from potential inheritors to "give me my inheritence NOW". This assumes that elderly parents will drop dead cleanly, never needing their assets for end of life care which is very expensive.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 08, 2016, 12:25:03 PM
Recently overheard: "Don't worry about your retirement. You'll be taken care of..."This is a great post, great for its imagery of the famly alignments and its sheer truthfulness.
My thought: Be very worried about your retirement and save accordingly. Who would take someone at their word - even family's word - that there would be a lump of money coming some day far off into the future? There are no guarantees.
All I could think of was a conversation 30 years into the future on someone's death bed that amounted to "sorry, we thought we had enough money to live like we did. Good luck with your own elder years with no substantial savings. I wish you could live like we did..."
No word on amounts, what their burn rate is and so forth.
Yeah, just trust me. "You'll be taken care of."
All I could think of was a few members of the extended family sparring over money and inheritances during my childhood.
It was like watching a British medieval period drama where allegiances are made and broken, favors bestowed upon one person and another ignored, lies and promises broken, etc.
And all over very modest amounts of money so a couple of relatives who never made much money of their own could spend freely for a short time.
It is amazing what small amounts of money people will fight over.
An idea related to the "dont worry, I will leave you money for your old age" ida is the demand from potential inheritors to "give me my inheritence NOW". This assumes that elderly parents will drop dead cleanly, never needing their assets for end of life care which is very expensive.
There actually used to be mechanisms for giving an inheritance "now", and in fact the regional economy, legal, and business structure depended on it. It's called a "dowry" system. It worked very well in an agrarian/guild/mercantile economy but not as well in an investment or knowledge economy.
The dowry system was the means by which young women got their share of their parents' assets. Since women in Europe and the Middle East were typically leaving their family home and moving elsewhere, possibly to another village or to another nomadic tribe, it eliminated the difficulty of tracking them down and distributing assets years later after the parents died. Typically this was not given in cash (medieval economies were cash poor) but in household goods, animals, land, furniture, or other assets. The remaining assets went to the sons who presumably continued to work in and build the family business until the father died. These sons obviously didn't get dowries from their own parents, however when they married they could generally expect a dowry from their wife's family. This dowry, when combined with the tools and personal assets the young man accumulated after finishing his education, would generally be enough to start up a very basic, minimalist household according to the prevailing socioeconomic standards of the families in question. But the new wife wouldn't be involved in future inheritance discussions and was essentially out of the picture except perhaps for small personal items like jewelry or clothing.
The dowry system worked because the kind of goods being given were things a young couple needed, wanted, and could use. They would generally live nearby (as opposed to far away) and were nearly always involved in the same kind of work as their parents. For peasants or servants who did not own the means of production, all they really needed was a few household goods and a hut or else servants' quarters to move into.
How inheritance worked back then varied depending on the region, the type of asset, and whether the husband or wife died first. Death did tend to be relatively quick and clean: medical technology just wasn't far enough along to keep people alive if they had something seriously wrong with them.
Source: "The Prospect Before Her", Olwen Hufton.
The dowry system started to break down during the Renaissance, which is when peasant life started to go seriously downhill due to human induced ecology change and a population explosion. The Industrial Revolution also messed up the neat, tidy class and income assumptions everybody had up until that time and shifted the economy to a currency based system which made dowries no longer viable for wage earners or small business owners. In a few of the Italian city-states, cash dowry expectations were so out of control that people passed sumptuary laws regulating them.
Source: "The Waning of the Middle Ages", Johan Huizinga.
Post by: CheapskateWife on September 08, 2016, 12:44:42 PM
Now, back to the drama!
Post by: Papa Mustache on September 08, 2016, 01:15:53 PM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
This is fantastic Squeaker, I had always assumed (maybe incorrectly) that a dowry was an enticement offered to a prospective husband's family as payment for the "trouble" of taking on the family's "worthless girl child". This perspective adds a new level of nuance to the transaction.
Now, back to the drama!
Truly worthless children were killed at birth.
Post by: Papa Mustache on September 08, 2016, 03:23:41 PM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 08, 2016, 07:56:32 PM
I agree - I too assumed it had something to do with offloading a "worthless girl child". Great little history lesson. I love studying history.
Nope, it was a form of early inheritance in which a woman received her share of her parents' estate when she married, as opposed to after the parents' death.
There were similar forms of early inheritance for second, third, and other superfluous sons: parents might purchase a military commission, a prelacy, an apprenticeship, stock in trade to start him out as a merchant. They might also educate him in some kind of income-earning profession that wasn't too embarrassing to the wealthier or titled branches of the family, although there were some restrictions in terms of what a respectable young man might be allowed to study. Like the daughters who got the use of their dowry assets earlier in their lifetime, non-eldest sons often received a lesser share of an estate overall, but they had the benefit of the money or opportunity while they were still young enough to build on it.
Post by: Goldielocks on September 08, 2016, 11:23:01 PM
There actually used to be mechanisms for giving an inheritance "now", and in fact the regional economy, legal, and business structure depended on it. It's called a "dowry" system. It worked very well in an agrarian/guild/mercantile economy but not as well in an investment or knowledge economy.
The dowry system was the means by which young women got their share of their parents' assets. .........This dowry, when combined with the tools and personal assets the young man accumulated after finishing his education, would generally be enough to start up a very basic, minimalist household ........
Awesome...
I think today's equivalent of a "Dowry" intended to set a young couple on the path to setting up a basic household would be....
... a subsizided college education (by parents).....?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 09, 2016, 08:04:00 AM
There actually used to be mechanisms for giving an inheritance "now", and in fact the regional economy, legal, and business structure depended on it. It's called a "dowry" system. It worked very well in an agrarian/guild/mercantile economy but not as well in an investment or knowledge economy.
The dowry system was the means by which young women got their share of their parents' assets. .........This dowry, when combined with the tools and personal assets the young man accumulated after finishing his education, would generally be enough to start up a very basic, minimalist household ........
Awesome...
I think today's equivalent of a "Dowry" intended to set a young couple on the path to setting up a basic household would be....
... a subsizided college education (by parents).....?
- Subsidized higher education (in some families)
- Work experience in a family business
- Opportunity to buy into a family business at a greatly reduced rate
- Wedding shower (household goods)
- Overpriced fancy-pants wedding paid for by the bride's parents (which is what the dowry mutated into, in former British colonies)
- A vehicle
- Hand-me-down furniture, cookware, linens, and other things given to a young person for a dorm or a first apartment
- In rural families, a trailer or small house on the family land or in the family compound
- The invitation to take out a life insurance policy on an older family member (Irish Traveler tradition)
- Any other deliberate wealth transfer from the older generation to the younger
- Estate reduction gifts to the next generation in order to avoid estate taxes
Post by: Sibley on September 09, 2016, 09:44:46 AM
I do want to add however, in individual situations, there could be an element of "getting rid of an inconvenient child", though it was rarely that simple. Desire to look good to the neighbors by dedicating a child to the service of God (nuns/monks/priests), and sometimes said individual was mentally ill, and that sometimes involved payments. In general, truly unwanted children would be abandoned, killed, sold into slavery/bondage, etc. Options, criteria, and frequency would vary with the time and culture.
If you're thinking that humans aren't always very nice, you're correct.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 09, 2016, 11:50:32 AM
Squeaker, you're absolutely correct.
I do want to add however, in individual situations, there could be an element of "getting rid of an inconvenient child", though it was rarely that simple. Desire to look good to the neighbors by dedicating a child to the service of God (nuns/monks/priests), and sometimes said individual was mentally ill, and that sometimes involved payments. In general, truly unwanted children would be abandoned, killed, sold into slavery/bondage, etc. Options, criteria, and frequency would vary with the time and culture.
If you're thinking that humans aren't always very nice, you're correct.
Humans are almost never nice unless it suits their interests.
Feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating a child, and then setting him or her up for a decent start in life wasn't considered a "getting rid of" behavior until late in the 20th century. It was considered the absolute pinnacle of parenting.
Throughout most of human history, "getting rid of" behavior happened *before* the parent(s) made a sizable investment in the kid.
Unwanted babies were left to die of exposure throughout the Roman Republic and Empire, and were often strangled at birth elsewhere especially if the family already had too many mouths to feed. Sometimes an abandoned baby was picked up by speculators and raised/sold as a slave, but more often feral dogs got to them first. In times of famine, children were sometimes sold into slavery in order to feed the remaining family members. The children least able to contribute work to benefit the family were the first to be sold off. Young people who showed evidence of serious mental illness or developmental delay were generally relegated to "village idiot" status or alms-beggars in the streets, assuming they were not directed into prostitution or organized theft. Dumping the kid on the Church was sometimes an option, IF the dumped child was accompanied by a suitable financial gift. Children with normal or above-normal aptitude were sometimes trained as clerks or caregivers to the elderly. Less capable children were very likely to be used for menial or repetitive work, such as scrubbing floors or mucking out horse stalls. Defiant or hard to manage children, sadly, were more likely to be whipped or hit until they either complied or died.
Post by: former player on September 09, 2016, 12:23:23 PM
Post by: Capsu78 on September 09, 2016, 12:37:18 PM
Feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating a child, and then setting him or her up for a decent start in life wasn't considered a "getting rid of" behavior until late in the 20th century. It was considered the absolute pinnacle of parenting.
Throughout most of human history, "getting rid of" behavior happened *before* the parent(s) made a sizable investment in the kid.
Unwanted babies were left to die of exposure throughout the Roman Republic and Empire, and were often strangled at birth elsewhere especially if the family already had too many mouths to feed. Sometimes an abandoned baby was picked up by speculators and raised/sold as a slave, but more often feral dogs got to them first. In times of famine, children were sometimes sold into slavery in order to feed the remaining family members. The children least able to contribute work to benefit the family were the first to be sold off. Young people who showed evidence of serious mental illness or developmental delay were generally relegated to "village idiot" status or alms-beggars in the streets, assuming they were not directed into prostitution or organized theft. Dumping the kid on the Church was sometimes an option, IF the dumped child was accompanied by a suitable financial gift. Children with normal or above-normal aptitude were sometimes trained as clerks or caregivers to the elderly. Less capable children were very likely to be used for menial or repetitive work, such as scrubbing floors or mucking out horse stalls. Defiant or hard to manage children, sadly, were more likely to be whipped or hit until they either complied or died.
[/quote]
I was voted "Most likely to be sold into slavery first by Mom" at our family reunion. :-)
Post by: Papa Mustache on September 09, 2016, 02:11:15 PM
And let's be clear: this is not just confined to history but is going on today on a big scale. Newborn girls in many parts of the world have much less chance of making it through childhood than boys, sometimes through neglect, sometimes through more specific action. Older girls are sold to people traffickers and forced to become prostitutes in first world countries. Child murder and child slavery are modern day evils, not just historical ones.
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY! Ought to be easier and encouraged to anyone that isn't dedicated to raising and loving their children. The world is plenty full. I witnessed another tired mother berating and impatient with her two little children last night. They were unhappy. She was unhappy.
We had kids but we never behaved like that!
Post by: firelight on September 09, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
The problem is rampant in some parts of the world mainly for girl kids. Because the parents want a boy baby but can't afford to feed all the girl kids that are born before the boy kid is possibly born, they end up killing the girl kids or leaving them as orphans or selling them. In some rural areas, girl kids survived if they were the oldest (so there is atleast one kid for the parents in case they don't have any more despite trying - also useful to take care of younger siblings because girls were trained in household chores) or if they were the last kid after a slew of boys. As people are getting more educated, this is going down but even now, dowry is a big issue and people try to avoid girl children as a result.And let's be clear: this is not just confined to history but is going on today on a big scale. Newborn girls in many parts of the world have much less chance of making it through childhood than boys, sometimes through neglect, sometimes through more specific action. Older girls are sold to people traffickers and forced to become prostitutes in first world countries. Child murder and child slavery are modern day evils, not just historical ones.
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY! Ought to be easier and encouraged to anyone that isn't dedicated to raising and loving their children. The world is plenty full. I witnessed another tired mother berating and impatient with her two little children last night. They were unhappy. She was unhappy.
We had kids but we never behaved like that!
People prefer boy kids because they will continue the family name and bring in wealth through marriage while girl kids will take away wealth from the parental home. As a result the sex ratio in some parts of Asia is pathetic (700 girls for 1000 boys). This in turn leads to less exposure to women in daily life for guys leading to not knowing how to act in a normal relationship (or friendship) with a woman which sadly leads to more crime and violence against women.
This is a worrying trend and the future is not going to be pretty when the 1000 boys grow up and want to get married and don't have 1000 women to get married to.
Post by: mxt0133 on September 09, 2016, 10:42:46 PM
The way my children behave sometimes, I can see how some parents would consider selling a child or two. Again I'm not saying I would actually do it but I am beginning to understand the thought process that goes into it. Lord help me when they become teenagers........ ugghhh. =(
Post by: Bicycle_B on September 09, 2016, 10:56:45 PM
Squeaker, you're absolutely correct.
I do want to add however, in individual situations, there could be an element of "getting rid of an inconvenient child", though it was rarely that simple. Desire to look good to the neighbors by dedicating a child to the service of God (nuns/monks/priests), and sometimes said individual was mentally ill, and that sometimes involved payments. In general, truly unwanted children would be abandoned, killed, sold into slavery/bondage, etc. Options, criteria, and frequency would vary with the time and culture.
If you're thinking that humans aren't always very nice, you're correct.
Humans are almost never nice unless it suits their interests.
Feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating a child, and then setting him or her up for a decent start in life wasn't considered a "getting rid of" behavior until late in the 20th century. It was considered the absolute pinnacle of parenting.
Throughout most of human history, "getting rid of" behavior happened *before* the parent(s) made a sizable investment in the kid.
Unwanted babies were left to die of exposure throughout the Roman Republic and Empire, and were often strangled at birth elsewhere especially if the family already had too many mouths to feed. Sometimes an abandoned baby was picked up by speculators and raised/sold as a slave, but more often feral dogs got to them first. In times of famine, children were sometimes sold into slavery in order to feed the remaining family members. The children least able to contribute work to benefit the family were the first to be sold off. Young people who showed evidence of serious mental illness or developmental delay were generally relegated to "village idiot" status or alms-beggars in the streets, assuming they were not directed into prostitution or organized theft. Dumping the kid on the Church was sometimes an option, IF the dumped child was accompanied by a suitable financial gift. Children with normal or above-normal aptitude were sometimes trained as clerks or caregivers to the elderly. Less capable children were very likely to be used for menial or repetitive work, such as scrubbing floors or mucking out horse stalls. Defiant or hard to manage children, sadly, were more likely to be whipped or hit until they either complied or died.
Ok, true, fine. But Squeaker, you have finally earned the Grim part of your name!
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on September 10, 2016, 12:04:17 AM
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY!
PSA: you probably mean tubal ligitation and vasectomies for everyone. It doesn't rhyme as well; but a hysterectomy is a serious surgery with serious consequences that go beyond reproduction. Suggesting mass hysterectomies is akin to suggesting that all guys have their testicles cut off.
Post by: Dollar Slice on September 10, 2016, 12:17:43 AM
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY!
PSA: you probably mean tubal ligitation and vasectomies for everyone. It doesn't rhyme as well; but a hysterectomy is a serious surgery with serious consequences that go beyond reproduction. Suggesting mass hysterectomies is akin to suggesting that all guys have their testicles cut off.
Tubal ligation and castration for everyone! (Hey, that rhymes too...)
Post by: Freedomin5 on September 10, 2016, 06:44:00 AM
People prefer boy kids because they will continue the family name and bring in wealth through marriage while girl kids will take away wealth from the parental home. As a result the sex ratio in some parts of Asia is pathetic (700 girls for 1000 boys). This in turn leads to less exposure to women in daily life for guys leading to not knowing how to act in a normal relationship (or friendship) with a woman which sadly leads to more crime and violence against women.
This is a worrying trend and the future is not going to be pretty when the 1000 boys grow up and want to get married and don't have 1000 women to get married to.
We are seeing that now where we live. Lots of stressed out parents buying wives for their sons. The parents with young sons are stressing out trying to save enough money to buy a condo/house for their son because no one will be willing to marry him unless he has a house.
The crime and violence towards women can also at least partially be attributed to little boys being treated like little emperors and being doted upon by parents and two sets of grandparents. Parents are usually working crazy hours (so they can afford to buy a house for the kid) so the kid is raised by grandparents, who often bring their uneducated backwards mentality regarding child rearing. When you grow up believing you are the center of the universe, and you are allowed to do whatever you like and treat adult caregivers however you want without consequences, you often end up treating others badly, including women whom you have been socialized to believe are "less than" men.
Post by: kayvent on September 10, 2016, 08:17:26 AM
The crime and violence towards women can also at least partially be attributed to little boys being treated like little emperors and being doted upon by parents and two sets of grandparents. Parents are usually working crazy hours (so they can afford to buy a house for the kid) so the kid is raised by grandparents, who often bring their uneducated backwards mentality regarding child rearing. When you grow up believing you are the center of the universe, and you are allowed to do whatever you like and treat adult caregivers however you want without consequences, you often end up treating others badly, including women whom you have been socialized to believe are "less than" men.
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
Post by: Freedomin5 on September 10, 2016, 08:45:16 AM
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit...was intrigued by your claim, so I looked up the Statistics Canada report on domestic violence, and I quote:
"females had more than double the risk of males of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (407 victims per 100,000 population versus 180 victims per 100,000). This increased risk was primarily attributed to females’ higher representation as victims of spousal violence."
But I was actually referring to Asia in my post, because cutenila was talking about Asia. Hope that clears it up a bit.
Post by: iris lily on September 10, 2016, 08:49:57 AM
The crime and violence towards women can also at least partially be attributed to little boys being treated like little emperors and being doted upon by parents and two sets of grandparents. Parents are usually working crazy hours (so they can afford to buy a house for the kid) so the kid is raised by grandparents, who often bring their uneducated backwards mentality regarding child rearing. When you grow up believing you are the center of the universe, and you are allowed to do whatever you like and treat adult caregivers however you want without consequences, you often end up treating others badly, including women whom you have been socialized to believe are "less than" men.
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
...Settling in with popcorn...
Post by: kayvent on September 10, 2016, 10:46:35 AM
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit...was intrigued by your claim, so I looked up the Statistics Canada report on domestic violence, and I quote:
"females had more than double the risk of males of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (407 victims per 100,000 population versus 180 victims per 100,000). This increased risk was primarily attributed to females’ higher representation as victims of spousal violence."
But I was actually referring to Asia in my post, because cutenila was talking about Asia. Hope that clears it up a bit.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion. I dunk and dive between various threads so sometimes I lose track of what is being talked about where. :)
Post by: TomTX on September 10, 2016, 12:44:45 PM
Three quarters of the time when their is domestic violence in a couple, the woman has abused the man. At least in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it is different where you leave. But in my context, I don't really get what you are meaning. If that was the case, we'd see the rate be a fraction of what it is.
Apologies for derailing the thread a bit...was intrigued by your claim, so I looked up the Statistics Canada report on domestic violence, and I quote:
"females had more than double the risk of males of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (407 victims per 100,000 population versus 180 victims per 100,000). This increased risk was primarily attributed to females’ higher representation as victims of spousal violence."
But I was actually referring to Asia in my post, because cutenila was talking about Asia. Hope that clears it up a bit.
Bolded for emphasis.
In the West, women are FAR more likely to actually report abuse, and to have that report taken seriously. Men are much more likely to be simply ridiculed.
Post by: iris lily on September 10, 2016, 01:01:24 PM
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
Post by: coin on September 10, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
I can't imagine the mental acrobatics she went through to come to the conclusion she "deserves" more than half.
Also, hasn't it occurred to her that her brother might have done the exact same thing with his inheritance?
Post by: PAstash on September 10, 2016, 08:56:10 PM
Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
I read this and I think it's just uncanny. I can live on about 400$ /m. How does one even spend 450k? Did she buy formula 1 cars and mansions?
Post by: iris lily on September 10, 2016, 09:04:41 PM
100 year old commercial building in need of complete renovation and a business. And a vacation cabin. That is really chump change for these purchases. And thats the problem, she thought it was a lot of money. I dont think its much money. Hence, I know it would be easy to spend all of it. For her, such a big amont all in one place at one time must make it difficult to spend out until gone.Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
I read this and I think it's just uncanny. I can live on about 400$ /m. How does one even spend 450k? Did she buy formula 1 cars and mansions?
We have different views of money.
Post by: iris lily on September 10, 2016, 09:08:29 PM
Yes, I did suggest that he probably sent his children to college with the money and it is probably gone.Well, I just remembered this one. It isnt big and dramatic, but it shows how inheritences breed entitlement.
My friend is a huge consumer who blows through whatever money she has while still being responsible with all payments. She inherited about $300,000 when her mother died. Her brother got the same amount.
Not surprisingly, she blew through that inheritance along with another $150,000 she got when cashing out a piece of real,estate to buy business ventures. They went belly up.
So, $500,000 in the red later, she is age mid sixties and still working full time at a well paying job and she is still making mortgage payments because when you treat your home equity like an ATM, you dont pay off your house! Who knew!???
Anyway, she was moaning some time ago that her brother should give her some of the $300,000 that he received in the inheritance because, well, she needs it! She needs it to blow on stupid consumer crap! And doesnt he know that his children will be her heirs, anyway!??? He should just hand over some of that $300,000.
And I am thinking to myself, Lady, you wont HAVE anything to leave to heirs, I dont even know how you are going survive if you ever retire from your well paid job.
I can't imagine the mental acrobatics she went through to come to the conclusion she "deserves" more than half.
Also, hasn't it occurred to her that her brother might have done the exact same thing with his inheritance?
She wasnt sure about that.
Post by: Papa Mustache on September 11, 2016, 02:49:24 PM
The problem is rampant in some parts of the world mainly for girl kids. Because the parents want a boy baby but can't afford to feed all the girl kids that are born before the boy kid is possibly born, they end up killing the girl kids or leaving them as orphans or selling them. In some rural areas, girl kids survived if they were the oldest (so there is atleast one kid for the parents in case they don't have any more despite trying - also useful to take care of younger siblings because girls were trained in household chores) or if they were the last kid after a slew of boys. As people are getting more educated, this is going down but even now, dowry is a big issue and people try to avoid girl children as a result.And let's be clear: this is not just confined to history but is going on today on a big scale. Newborn girls in many parts of the world have much less chance of making it through childhood than boys, sometimes through neglect, sometimes through more specific action. Older girls are sold to people traffickers and forced to become prostitutes in first world countries. Child murder and child slavery are modern day evils, not just historical ones.
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY! Ought to be easier and encouraged to anyone that isn't dedicated to raising and loving their children. The world is plenty full. I witnessed another tired mother berating and impatient with her two little children last night. They were unhappy. She was unhappy.
We had kids but we never behaved like that!
People prefer boy kids because they will continue the family name and bring in wealth through marriage while girl kids will take away wealth from the parental home. As a result the sex ratio in some parts of Asia is pathetic (700 girls for 1000 boys). This in turn leads to less exposure to women in daily life for guys leading to not knowing how to act in a normal relationship (or friendship) with a woman which sadly leads to more crime and violence against women.
This is a worrying trend and the future is not going to be pretty when the 1000 boys grow up and want to get married and don't have 1000 women to get married to.
Just watched a segment on this very problem in Albania on Dwelle-TV last night.
http://www.dw.com/en/albania-no-girls-allowed/av-17953909
Post by: Papa Mustache on September 11, 2016, 02:56:32 PM
I guess I really was born on second, maybe third base. I always believed I hit at least a double with my hard work and smart choices. I should be glad that my parents actually cared about our education and worked their asses off to leave a third world country to come here and give us better opportunities.
The way my children behave sometimes, I can see how some parents would consider selling a child or two. Again I'm not saying I would actually do it but I am beginning to understand the thought process that goes into it. Lord help me when they become teenagers........ ugghhh. =(
http://lynncinnamon.com/2015/09/in-1948-a-woman-put-her-four-children-up-for-sale-heres-what-became-of-them/
This story is one thing that has shaped my ideals about creating babies. That and watching parents swatting crying children in the store. We have kids but we were never those kinds of people. We've had some tough moments like any parents but the kid is crying for a reason and blindly hitting isn't the answer. Reason and learning helps prevent those tough moments.
Some people just aren't "wired" to be parents. I'd love to see society adjust itself so not everyone was so encouraged to have children i.e. "just what we are supposed to do" - and make permanent contraception available at no cost or little cost. Of course politics and religion is wrapped up in this and makes much of it "off limits" so we'll need to wait another several generations I suppose.
Post by: Papa Mustache on September 11, 2016, 02:57:27 PM
Hysterectomies and vasectomies for everyone! SERIOUSLY!
PSA: you probably mean tubal ligitation and vasectomies for everyone. It doesn't rhyme as well; but a hysterectomy is a serious surgery with serious consequences that go beyond reproduction. Suggesting mass hysterectomies is akin to suggesting that all guys have their testicles cut off.
Yep. You just saw my brain on fast forward where detail and facts are not always reliable. Sorry 'bout that.
Post by: Physicsteacher on September 25, 2016, 03:35:21 PM
WAU is outraged that my mother, the executrix of my grandmother's estate, gets to distribute my grandmother's remaining possessions and has announced that he will take anything he wants. He will soon receive certified letters formally notifying him that my mother is the executrix and he is not to remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any of my late grandmother's possessions and that he is an at will tenant and is to move out by a specified date. I seriously doubt he will leave the house without police involvement. It sucks so badly that my mom just lost her mother and now must also deal with this.
Post by: Bicycle_B on September 25, 2016, 04:14:37 PM
My grandmother died last week at the age of 91, and it appears there will be inheritance drama aplenty. My grandmother died with a small amount of money in the bank and a paid off house in a trust for her four living children. The challenge is that my worthless alcoholic uncle (WAU) is living in the house and has announced he has no intention of moving out until he receives his share of the estate. Several years ago he convinced my grandmother, who was unhappy and not adjusting well to her move into an assisted living facility that she should move back home and he would move in with her. This was, not coincidentally, the same time that my other uncle informed him that he was getting out of the rental property business and would therefore be selling the house WAU had been living in rent free for the previous few years. As everyone in the family except my dear grandmother predicted, having WAU move in with my mildly demented grandmother proved to be a terrible situation. While WAU was never physically abusive, his proclivity for getting drunk and belligerent upset my grandmother greatly, and after she made numerous 911 calls adult protective services intervened. She and her cat moved into a different assisted living facility where she remained until her mental capacity deteriorated so severely she had to move to a nursing home with a specialized dementia ward.
WAU is outraged that my mother, the executrix of my grandmother's estate, gets to distribute my grandmother's remaining possessions and has announced that he will take anything he wants. He will soon receive certified letters formally notifying him that my mother is the executrix and he is not to remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any of my late grandmother's possessions and that he is an at will tenant and is to move out by a specified date. I seriously doubt he will leave the house without police involvement. It sucks so badly that my mom just lost her mother and now must also deal with this.
Condolences re your grandmother. Agree 100% re your mom.
Your story makes me so grateful that my sister and I have been cooperating so openly and responsibly re our dad's dementia, his passing last year and his estate. He had signed us up with powers of attorney and a simple before it was too late, and that made all the difference. (The last loose ends will be tied up in another couple of months, we think.)
Post by: TomTX on October 01, 2016, 07:05:06 AM
My grandmother died last week at the age of 91, and it appears there will be inheritance drama aplenty. My grandmother died with a small amount of money in the bank and a paid off house in a trust for her four living children. The challenge is that my worthless alcoholic uncle (WAU) is living in the house and has announced he has no intention of moving out until he receives his share of the estate. Several years ago he convinced my grandmother, who was unhappy and not adjusting well to her move into an assisted living facility that she should move back home and he would move in with her. This was, not coincidentally, the same time that my other uncle informed him that he was getting out of the rental property business and would therefore be selling the house WAU had been living in rent free for the previous few years. As everyone in the family except my dear grandmother predicted, having WAU move in with my mildly demented grandmother proved to be a terrible situation. While WAU was never physically abusive, his proclivity for getting drunk and belligerent upset my grandmother greatly, and after she made numerous 911 calls adult protective services intervened. She and her cat moved into a different assisted living facility where she remained until her mental capacity deteriorated so severely she had to move to a nursing home with a specialized dementia ward.
WAU is outraged that my mother, the executrix of my grandmother's estate, gets to distribute my grandmother's remaining possessions and has announced that he will take anything he wants. He will soon receive certified letters formally notifying him that my mother is the executrix and he is not to remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any of my late grandmother's possessions and that he is an at will tenant and is to move out by a specified date. I seriously doubt he will leave the house without police involvement. It sucks so badly that my mom just lost her mother and now must also deal with this.
On the positive side: Congratulations on having a mother with a backbone. Plenty of families will just let scumbag freeloaders continue to freeload - and even subsidize it by paying for upkeep, property taxes, etc. You might hint to her that costs related to kicking out the freeloader be deducted from freeloader's share of the estate.
Post by: Blindsquirrel on October 06, 2016, 09:25:12 PM
My tale is one from when I was a twerp until college. My mother was a saint, absolutely a charitable heart from the core up. In the 70s the city I lived in had a program for people to drive the elderly where they needed to go etc. My mother drove elderly folks of all kinds all over the place to make their lives easier. Long story short, she makes a great number of friends this way as she made friends every single place she went and could talk the ears off of a hound dog. One friend she made, a widow named Lilly, became kind of a step grandmother for 20 years. Lily had been all over the world as an opera singer and was not wealthy but certainly had been wealthy at one time given the beautiful settings and furniture in her apartment. (giant rings, grand piano as I recall.) She was also a stunning beauty as a young woman (born 1890s). Whenever Lilly fell, had health problems, needed a hand, my mother and father and I when I was older helped her out. Late night calls, 2 am rescues, she was ill,etc my parents were always there. They bought a house with/for her as remainder man situation and as she needed a place with no stairs. They paid me to cut the grass and my dad took care of the place for her for about 15 years. Mom took her shopping every week and was kind of an unpaid nurse. I knew she had kids but I had never seen them except for once in my life. Anyway,Lilly lived to be very old, 99 as I recall.
When Lily died, my mother was executor of the estate though not a party to any inheritance and she did not expect any. As we were sorting out the house, her adult son and I think his wife -it may have been the other way around, showed up to help.
The event that will stick in my mind forever is I watched as the guy, removed a picture of Lilly as a stunning young lady from a very, very heavy ornate silver picture frame. The frame was probably a couple pounds of silver. He threw the fricken picture away and kept the frame. Not really drama but what a rotten person. I was stunned.
Post by: Threshkin on October 07, 2016, 10:39:37 AM
My paternal grandparents lived across the pond. They used to have a lot of money but WW2 wiped them out. They were still middle class but also had all the trappings of an upper class life (house, furniture, art, reputation). I knew them but had only visited a few times due to the distance and cost.
Fast forward to 1980. My Grandfather is dead, Grandmother is deaf, blind and does not have long to live. I was pulled out of school to go see her before she died.
I stayed with my Uncle and cousins who were about my age. They did not want to go to see grandma because she was old and smelled. Eventually we went. She had moved out of the old, grand house into an apartment. Most of the furniture and art had moved with her. The apartment was packed!
Since I was essentially a stranger and grandma did not speak English I was extremely polite. I sat with her for a while and then she toured me around the apartment. Every time I commented on how nice something was, one of my cousins would speak up, saying "Grandma has promised that to me."
I was appalled, I did not want any of the stuff, I was just being polite. But they assumed I was there to stake my claim on her stuff. They were just waiting for her to die, they did not want to spend time with her. I kept my mouth shut but this created a rift between me and my cousins that never really healed.
Grandma died a few months later. If there was any drama I was not involved. My dad, the only child to move overseas only received a few items from the estate, I remember him being displeased but he did not get involved in any drama that i know of.
I have one reminder of my grandma. Shortly after the war grandpa commissioned a painting of my grandma. He hired the best artist available. The painting had hung in the library of the old house, surrounded by smaller portraits of her firstborn grandchildren. My dad got that painting because no one else wanted it. He didn't really want it either. When I learned he had it stored in the rafters of his garage I immediately asked if I could have it. It now hangs proudly in a protected place in my house.
Grandma was strict with a strong sense of propriety. She was not well loved by anyone in her family. IMO this is besides the point, she was my grandma it is my responsibility to respect, love and honor her.
p.s. Wow, this was incredibly emotional to write. I am tearing up.
Post by: zephyr911 on October 19, 2016, 12:17:54 PM
BACKGROUND:
Parents got divorced back in 1992, and it was really ugly. Dad went to prison briefly, and his parents really spooked us by trying to get formal visitation rights, which we all thought was just a backdoor to keeping him in our lives regardless of other legal agreements and our mother's wishes. It failed, and after we moved far away, most of the connections between my parents' families died permanently. But the youngest of my siblings established regular contact over time, and I eventually re-established contact with my dad's parents and a couple of his siblings. I didn't see Dad again until my favorite uncle got married in mid-2014, and we've only had a couple of emails since then; he has 3 stepchildren and 3 more sons by his new wife so I figure he's busy and so am I. Pretty much everything I hear about him is secondhand.
MORE RECENTLY:
My uncle is the youngest, only 10 years older than I, and 20 years younger than my dad, but has had major health issues and a disability that limits his earning. He and his new wife moved into my grandparents' house with the express intent (and consent of all) to care for the parents until their death and keep the house. Things went fine for a couple of years.
Then I heard that my dad's mother was in decline, probably not going to last the year. Along with my sisters, who hadn't met her since the divorce, I booked a November trip to see her one last time. Unfortunately, following one last sojourn to say goodbye to the other side of the family, she spiraled down pretty fast, and I had to settle for a phone call last week, just before she passed. Two of us rebooked our tickets and converged over the weekend for the service, with my still-living grandpa at home, his two (local) sons in attendance, and the two daughters flying in.
THE DRAMA:
Due to my uncle's current issues and all the memories in the house, my grandpa is now moving to live with his daughter (the aunt I know best), probably for the rest of his life.
Said uncle and aunt came to pick me up, she jumped out to come hug me, and her first words were about my dad.
Me: How are you doing?
Her: Really not well! Zephdad's being a jerk!
Oh boy.
It turns out my dad has been exhausting all ends to get his share of the assets immediately, even with his dad alive and his mother barely dead. I have no idea of his financials - I know he had massive legal bills into his 40s and his train of kids isn't cheap, but I'd have thought he'd at least be okay after ~30yrs at one highly technical job and no extravagant habits. Still, it seems that at 67 with retirement plans in the works (and his youngest still only 12!), he really wants his piece. I didn't press for details, but they implied that each share of the trust is worth about as much as the house, so probably a couple hundred at least.
With grandpa moving, there was little reason to delay the home's title transfer, so that's proceeding now. However, the retirement accounts are a separate issue - grandpa is still alive, and could need the money for the move, medical bills, or any number of other possibilities. Regardless, my dad argued for an early division, until the point of hostility with all the other sibs. When countered with the obvious reply, that his father is still alive, with ongoing material needs, he said they could always send some back if they needed to.
Because no family has ever been torn apart by a handshake agreement like that....
At one point, I heard my uncle angrily saying to grandpa that "he tried to steal all your money!" When I said something about these situations bringing out the worst in people, he said "This is just how he is all the time. He's never done anything that wasn't completely self-serving."
Anyway, the consensus went against division, whereafter he apparently resorted to sneaking into the house to go through documents and computer accounts.
Then they changed the locks, and found evidence that he'd tried again when he knew they were gone. They held a meeting with the trust manager to add more safety measures against any transfer or disposal, apparently fearing he'd wait till the crowd is gone and coerce his dad into something.
At this point, it's a stalemate, and with another sibling now required to sign for any changes, the funds will probably sit until grandpa passes.
Based on what I've heard this week, I'd be surprised if my dad leaves much of an estate, nor do I really care. I've never been so glad to finally have my shit together... I know I will never want more money (in any amount) badly enough to instigate this kind of drama, least of all against my own family while they're grieving. I honestly wish they hadn't even told me... I can't do anything about it, and it's not my place to even say anything. It's just fucking sad.
*kicks dust*
*mutters* doodyhead....
Post by: merula on October 19, 2016, 12:59:42 PM
*complete shitshow*
Just....wow......
Looking for a silver lining, if you ever felt like you missed out on something growing up without a relationship with your father, I guess you now know that all you were missing was more shit like this.
Post by: zephyr911 on October 19, 2016, 01:14:54 PM
*complete shitshow*
Just....wow......
Looking for a silver lining, if you ever felt like you missed out on something growing up without a relationship with your father, I guess you now know that all you were missing was more shit like this.
You don't know the half of it... *chuckles*... that divorce was traumatic, but clearly still one of the best things to ever happen to me. The stepdad I got in high school ended up sucking (and leaving) too, but at least he taught me the importance of confidence... been making up for lost time ever since. I could list all kinds of additional wretched shit on the parental front, but what matters is that I made it through. Even still have one parent I really like*! :D
*and who is guaranteed to die penniless so I'll never have to argue over money with my sisters...
Post by: K-ice on October 19, 2016, 02:00:36 PM
I am quite sure in my family too if something happens to my parents (step), siblings on both sides will be demanding their part of 1/2 the assets. Even though all money is supposed to transfer to the surviving spouse first.
I have seen the wills. There are 5 siblings 2 & 3 so the split is:
25%
25%
16.66%
16.66%
16.66%
Some siblings have mentioned that they do not think the division is fair. It was a second marriage for both so they both agreed "my children get my share and your children will get your share". This has been mentioned at family dinners etc for literally decades, but I do expect some fighting one day.
The absolute worst case scenario is if one parent passes and then the other re-writes their will leaving our the other children. I would contest that will even if it worked out in my favor. I don't really see that happening but it depends how long the other parent lives. What if they marry again?
People just don't realize, its not your money, it never was your money, your are freeken lucky if it is not all donated to some charity. And even luckier if your parents live well & long enough to spend it all.
Post by: zephyr911 on October 19, 2016, 03:00:54 PM
People just don't realize, its not your money, it never was your money, your are freeken lucky if it is not all donated to some charity. And even luckier if your parents live well & long enough to spend it all.YES.
I used to entertain hopes of some kind of substantial inheritance bumping me up along the FIRE path, and honestly, it was pretty liberating once I finally believed all sources thereof were gone. It's hard enough dealing with the emotional, logistical, and other practical aspects of a death in the family, without having major assets at stake.
Ironically, we did get a 5-figure surprise from my FIL's estate a few years after he passed, even though MIL is alive and well. We paid off some debt, invested the rest, and kept doing our thing, with gratitude.
Post by: K-ice on October 19, 2016, 05:17:57 PM
Sometimes I think even just a few thousand allotted to the kids, grand-kids (one day), nieces or nephews if I pass.
Even if my spouse is still alive, they will not need all of my estate.
Just a little, I didn't forget about you. Here is your $1000-$5000 (or whatever) now.
Maybe that would stop the sibling squabbling. Maybe even some people deserve $1.
My cousin actually got what I imagine to be a small amount at my Grandma's funeral. I saw my uncle give something to her and her alone. But her father passed away when she was a teen and as our uncle (the executor) gave her the envelope with a check he said "Grandma never forgot about you." She has had a pretty rough life. We don't live close and don't know each other well. She looked quite well at the funeral and is doing OK but I know not as well as me. I feel somewhat guilty for having a brief snarky moment of wondering "Why is she getting something?". But would I trade a few thousand dollars for my father's life? Nope! So I have no problem with her being the only grandchild to get any inheritance from Grandma.
Post by: merula on October 20, 2016, 07:59:54 AM
My cousin actually got what I imagine to be a small amount at my Grandma's funeral. I saw my uncle give something to her and her alone. But her father passed away when she was a teen and as our uncle (the executor) gave her the envelope with a check he said "Grandma never forgot about you." She has had a pretty rough life. We don't live close and don't know each other well. She looked quite well at the funeral and is doing OK but I know not as well as me. I feel somewhat guilty for having a brief snarky moment of wondering "Why is she getting something?". But would I trade a few thousand dollars for my father's life? Nope! So I have no problem with her being the only grandchild to get any inheritance from Grandma.
Assuming that her father was your grandmother's son, and she's the only child, it's actually pretty standard for her to get her fathers share.
I may have shared this earlier (so forgive me), but I had a great-grandma who was predeceased by both a daughter and a granddaughter. When she passed, each living child got 1/3, while the deceased daughter's portion was split in four. 1/4 of the 1/3 went to each living child of that daughter, and the deceased granddaughter's portion was split between her two kids.
While that meant that my cousins got money when I didn't, and that my mom got money when her cousins didn't, it seems way more fair than excluding the deceased from the inheritance altogether. Like, should my great-aunt and great-uncle get more because their sister died young, leaving four children? Should my mother get more because her sister died young leaving two children?
Post by: talltexan on October 20, 2016, 09:04:27 AM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 20, 2016, 09:12:03 AM
My cousin actually got what I imagine to be a small amount at my Grandma's funeral. I saw my uncle give something to her and her alone. But her father passed away when she was a teen and as our uncle (the executor) gave her the envelope with a check he said "Grandma never forgot about you." She has had a pretty rough life. We don't live close and don't know each other well. She looked quite well at the funeral and is doing OK but I know not as well as me. I feel somewhat guilty for having a brief snarky moment of wondering "Why is she getting something?". But would I trade a few thousand dollars for my father's life? Nope! So I have no problem with her being the only grandchild to get any inheritance from Grandma.
Assuming that her father was your grandmother's son, and she's the only child, it's actually pretty standard for her to get her fathers share.
I may have shared this earlier (so forgive me), but I had a great-grandma who was predeceased by both a daughter and a granddaughter. When she passed, each living child got 1/3, while the deceased daughter's portion was split in four. 1/4 of the 1/3 went to each living child of that daughter, and the deceased granddaughter's portion was split between her two kids.
While that meant that my cousins got money when I didn't, and that my mom got money when her cousins didn't, it seems way more fair than excluding the deceased from the inheritance altogether. Like, should my great-aunt and great-uncle get more because their sister died young, leaving four children? Should my mother get more because her sister died young leaving two children?
What is left to each child of the inheriting generation gets passed down to the heir's children in due time. Cutting out an entire branch of the family-- a whole bunch of heir's children-- and giving their share to the other branches just because a their member of the inheriting generation died young would be cruel.
Post by: jinga nation on October 20, 2016, 09:24:03 AM
In the Old Country in Africa, my great-grandfather built a mansion for his wife and 7 kids. My grandfather was the oldest, he was treated like dirt by his step-mother. (His mother, who gave birth to all 7 kids, died when the last child was a few years old, thus my gramps helped raise the rest of the brood, since step-mother was crazy evil.)
The house was to be divided between the six brothers; the youngest, a sister was excluded per custom. Granpappy married, and my grandma was also treated like dirt by the step-mum. So they left the big house and started a family. Grandpa realized early on that A. he wasn't going to move back into the old man's mansion as long as crazy evil step-mum was there, and B. The folly of trying to divide the mansion 6 ways, and C. He had good relationships with his brothers and sister, and didn't want to destroy the harmony.
Last week, my dad and I were talking about my recent trip to Old Country in Africa, and the asshole descendants of one of my grandpa's brothers (who was my dad's favorite uncle and a respected elder in the community). My dad said it was a shame that the descendants can't get along to come up with a plan to demolish the old home, build a commercial/residential mix high-rise, and generate income and free housing.
I said fuhgeddaboutit. Grandpa forfeited his stake, so my dad and uncle have no stake, thus my brother, my cousins and I have zilch. I told him I have a zero tolerance policy for assholes, so let it go. Let. It. Go. There's no amount of money on this earth that could convince me to deal with relatives who would rather be jerking off the elephant while standing on their dicks.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 20, 2016, 09:49:36 AM
Let. It. Go. There's no amount of money on this earth that could convince me to deal with relatives who would rather be jerking off the elephant while standing on their dicks.
You win my scythe for a day, for the most amazing metaphor that I can't help trying to visualize. Complete with a "Frozen" reference, no less.
Post by: Papa Mustache on October 20, 2016, 01:43:44 PM
Post by: joleran on October 20, 2016, 02:21:06 PM
Indeed, a 5-figure surprise sounds a lot nicer than a 5-finger surprise.
A 5 finger surprise gives a whole new meaning to UFIA.
Post by: zephyr911 on October 21, 2016, 11:20:49 AM
That image will be in my head for a while.Let. It. Go. There's no amount of money on this earth that could convince me to deal with relatives who would rather be jerking off the elephant while standing on their dicks.
You win my scythe for a day, for the most amazing metaphor that I can't help trying to visualize. Complete with a "Frozen" reference, no less.
More like BOHICA.Indeed, a 5-figure surprise sounds a lot nicer than a 5-finger surprise.
A 5 finger surprise gives a whole new meaning to UFIA.
Post by: Bicycle_B on October 21, 2016, 02:12:08 PM
*complete shitshow*
Just....wow......
Looking for a silver lining, if you ever felt like you missed out on something growing up without a relationship with your father, I guess you now know that all you were missing was more shit like this.
You don't know the half of it... *chuckles*... that divorce was traumatic, but clearly still one of the best things to ever happen to me. The stepdad I got in high school ended up sucking (and leaving) too, but at least he taught me the importance of confidence... been making up for lost time ever since. I could list all kinds of additional wretched shit on the parental front, but what matters is that I made it through. Even still have one parent I really like*! :D
*and who is guaranteed to die penniless so I'll never have to argue over money with my sisters...
Zephyr,
Reading your posts it seems the original divorce + prison escapade went down when you were maybe 14. Tough row to hoe, glad you came out with a strong attitude and self reliance. Good for you.
Btw, I always like seeing your posts because your sig line makes me chuckle. Cheers.
Post by: zephyr911 on October 21, 2016, 02:27:56 PM
Zephyr,Close... 13. And such an emo drama queen, too. I was a mess.
Reading your posts it seems the original divorce + prison escapade went down when you were maybe 14. Tough row to hoe, glad you came out with a strong attitude and self reliance. Good for you.
I credit my mom and her parents (both of whom were with us until just a couple of years ago, almost reaching 90) for what stability I did have in my life, and for recognizing early on that I was a sensitive mofo and always striving to give me the right blend of support and growth challenges.
Quote
Btw, I always like seeing your posts because your sig line makes me chuckle. Cheers.I'm glad it amuses you... it's the reality here. A cog needs to keep its shape to function. Our work demands a slippery substance they can apply on demand to prevent vital components (uptight senior leaders, *cough*) from rubbing each other the wrong way. We keep the squeaky wheels (and cogs) quiet so things run smoothly. xD
Plus, lubricant *giggles*... {/part of me is still 13}
Post by: K-ice on October 26, 2016, 07:45:37 PM
Why was only $40K on a $300K policy released?
Did you actually get that money?
I think it may be worth trying to fight him with that money.
Can you do some of your own research? I have no idea what the case law is on this but it seams reasonable that children should be protected.
Was he paying child support? You might have a right to that from his estate until the kids are 18.
Worst case. I think your kids should get 20% of his RRSP ASAP as the will does state that.
I don't know what your communications have been like between lawyers. But maybe if the BIL knows you aren't comming after everything they will be more willing to settle out of court.
Post by: okits on October 27, 2016, 01:36:12 AM
If your kids should get 20% of the assets, how much would that be (high/low range), compared to possible legal costs? Comparing those numbers could help you sort out how far you'll pursue this. (While you feel that there must be assets, if your ex quit work in 2013 and drank himself to death it's possible he mismanaged or spent a lot of that money).
I vaguely recall the Ontario provincial government announcing that through a collection of different programs, post-secondary tuition would be free/near-free, based on income. Hopefully you're getting some significant Canada Child Benefits, in the meantime.
It's sad that your ex's family has turned their backs on your children, but it kind of suggests maybe they aren't family worth having around. Your kids deserve people in their lives who love them, and that doesn't necessarily mean related by blood.
Post by: former player on October 27, 2016, 02:26:50 AM
If the insurance policy directed the proceeds to be paid directly to beneficiaries then those proceeds are probably outside the will and contesting the will does not get them back. You need to forget about any money under the insurance policy which was not specifically directed to be paid to you or your children. It's a lot of money: sorry. Same for any retirement etc. accounts: if they were directed to be paid to a named beneficiary they probably fall outside the will/probate system.
If there are substantial assets in the estate, the Will is going to have to be probated, which will include an inventory of assets as a sworn statement. So you need to ask your BIL if the estate is going to be probated and if it is for the inventory of assets. If BIL says that the will is not to be probated because there is not enough in the estate, without evidence that you do not have there is probably little to be done about it.
The main thing to remember here is that you are not the potential beneficiary here: your children are. So any legal advice you are getting is not for you, it is for your children. As they have no money (I assume), have you tried to get legal aid for them? I don't see why you should be paying out your own money on lawyers if legal aid or pro bono advice is available to them.
At 12 and 14, your children are old enough to be told of the situation and make their own decisions, whether they want to try to get a lawyer to act for them on legal aid, and whether they would want to be DNA tested if there was any money. Sorry, they are going to have to know what a jerk their father was, although you can perhaps say that it was the illness of alcoholism talking.
I don't understand how your ex-husband's lawyer's wife benefitted from his will, if that is what you are saying. A witness cannot benefit from a will. If it is just that her husband was getting money for acting as your ex's lawyer, that does not count - it's very common for eg employees of a legal firm which is being paid by a client to act as witnesses, and this is no different.
You say your kids have no-one except you. What arrangements have you made in your own will for guardianship of them if anything happens to you? If you have not made any arrangements, they would have to go into government care. Your ex BIL would be a better option, if fences can be mended.
Post by: kayvent on October 27, 2016, 06:08:27 AM
Your ex's family are being a bit of douches and throwing a red herring. As far as I am aware, it is irrelevant, both morally and legally, whether your children were genetically his or not. (For comparison, if they were adopted they'd have the same rights as biological children.) I bring this up because it frustrates me when people throw shade for no reason.
Post by: Freedomin5 on October 27, 2016, 06:39:37 AM
Also, if your kids are hardworking and smart, I wouldn't worry about tuition. I'm sure they would qualify for merit-based scholarships. If 50% of their tuition is covered, it's totally possible to earn the other 50%. I have several friends who were in Waterloo's computer/electrical/mechanical engineering co-op programs and earned their entire tuition and living expenses through their co-op placements. There are so many opportunities for youth in Ontario to earn and save money.
Post by: financialfreedomsloth on October 27, 2016, 07:49:29 AM
Earlier this year I shared details about my situation. A basic detail... I am in Ontario, Canada.Walk away from it and focus your time and energy on matters that are in your own hands and of which the impact on your finance/well being is certain.
I will recap here and add a few more points. I am a bit desperate about coming to a decision without wasting another penny on unhelpful advice from lawyers.
1. July 2016 I found out that my former husband (divorced May 2014, property settlement finalized October 2014) died when our insurance company contacted me to release $40K on a $300K policy. (Policy started a month before our beautiful daugher was born.) I eventually found out that he died horribly (alcoholic's death, bleeding in the brain, etc.) in May 2016... which explains why he would not respond to my attempts to contact him. (The children 12 and 14 years old, last saw their father in early April.)
2. My EX's family refuses to respond to my enquiries about the location of his remains, if there was a will, etc.
3. I post on this forum and also go to the courthouse looking for a will... for a record of someone applying to execute the will, etc. and I consult 3 different lawyers.
4. Finally I settle on a lawyer who seems reasonable, competent, etc. A letter is sent out and my EX's brother finally coughs up a will, which is awful. I see that my EX wrote the will a few months before we reached a settlement with the help of his slimey lawyer, who evidently asked his wife to witness my EX's will signing. (Why not? She benefitted financially too from my EX's crazy, bitter decision-making.)
It tuns out my EX basically left everything to his brother (a very well off professional married to another well off professional with only one child, fully grown and with a computer science degree from a top notch school)... and 10% to each of his 2 children, if and only if they have a DNA test first to prove that they are his children. However, it is 10% of nothing b/c my former BIL claims that my EX was destitute. Yet, I am 99.99% certain that he was named as the other beneficiary of the life insurance policy and a direct beneficiary on all other accounts with significant funds.
5. My lawyer asks for my former BIL (through his lawyer) to give details about the life insurance policy and the registered retirement savings accounts my EX has (worth about $300K in late 2014). He refuses and threatens me with legal costs if I proceed with a claim on behalf of my children for dependant's relief.
6. Today my lawyer sends me an email hinting that I should not proceed because I (who will not benefit in any direct way from the claim) risk incurring significant legal costs. (Unfortunately at 54, with the current labour market not good even if one has a grad degree... I don't have much of a financial future. I currently work on contract at $15 (CDN) per hour.)
So do I let the "bad guys" win? Incidentally, the former BIL stopped sending birthday cards to my children, the year I left his brother. My EX's family somehow sees me as an evil woman who abandoned her poor husband in times of trouble... and somehow my children are tainted too.
Incidentally, my EX probably blew through $100 to $150K, as he fought to keep me from getting full custody and then any of the assets (acquired during our marriage). I myself had $55K approx. in legal costs... that were not directly connected to prepping or making a court appearances. (I kind of despise family lawyers. They profit from so much misery. If I hadn't fought for what I was legally entitle too, I'd have had next to nothing instead of approx. $150K.)
My children live in Canada... so they are not starving. And there are programs to borrow money to go to college. However....I am still tempted to risk paying my former BIL's fat cat lawyer... b/c it is so wrong and really, there MUST have been some significant assets. But I don't have any proof.
Also, my kids have no one else, really... no aunts, uncles, grandparents, no cousins... just me. One family friend, but now dead for another reason.
I loved my husband but I also feared him. One of my biggest regrets is that he died not knowing how sad I was about having to leave him, for my sake and for our children's sake.
Any advice? I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum. But it's where I began, reaching out for help.
This fight would be an uphill and long battle and the outcome a big uncertainty. The BIL has the upperhand in this one it seems to me. Do not pick a fight you will not win and will only cost you money, time and effort. Is it fair and just? No. But what will bring you the most happiness? Fighting this and probably losing or having a good and happy life the next few years?
If you are 54, working and have a stash of 150K I wouldn’t worry too much. If you can keep working and not have to touch the stash for another 10 years it will have doubled to 300K + you will have a pension from the government. You will be fine. With some ingenuity and all the time in the world (because retired) your golden years can still definitely be golden!
I get the feeling you have still not really worked through the divorce and are still ‘hang up’ in the past. In what could have been (if the EX had been nicer I could have had a nice marriage, if the EX had not fought the custody we both would have had more money, if BIL was not such an asshole my children would have a nice inheritance …).
Let it go. Look at all the positive you have, focus on the things you can improve and which will have a direct and positive impact on your life. And enjoy your life. Find happiness
Post by: Goldielocks on October 27, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
Have you applied for the survivors benefit for your children? If you don't have RESPs for them and can live without the money, you could put the survivor's benefit in an RESP for them. The government top ups would go a long way even in this short period of time. (I am not sure if there are special rules against starting late at 12 and 14).
Your ex's family are being a bit of douches and throwing a red herring. As far as I am aware, it is irrelevant, both morally and legally, whether your children were genetically his or not. (For comparison, if they were adopted they'd have the same rights as biological children.) I bring this up because it frustrates me when people throw shade for no reason.
Don't forget about the Canada Education Savings Grants (CESG) matching with the RESP's.
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/student_grants/cesg.page (http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/student_grants/cesg.page)
Everyone can get 20% match for education, up to $7200 per lifetime ($1000/yr).
PLUS
-another 20%, if net family income is $45,282 or less e.g., if you put in $1000 this year, you get $400 in matching.
-or another $50, if net family income is between $45,282 and $90,563
PLUS, there is the Canada Learning Bond
Free money.. Free money.. Free money..
[/size][/color][/b] http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/education_savings/clb.page (http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/education_savings/clb.page)
You need to open an RESP with a bank that does accounting for CLB. (e.g., not TD, but nearly everyone else, including Questrade does).
The Canada Learning Bond is available to children:
who were born after December 31, 2003; and
whose families receive the National Child Benefit Supplement
The money you get for your child could include:
$25 to help cover the cost of opening the RESP;
$500 to add to the RESP now, to help you start saving early; and
an extra $100 each year until the calendar year he or she turns 15, as long as you continue to receive the National Child Benefit Supplement.
Post by: talltexan on October 28, 2016, 07:56:02 AM
Most people aren't wired to be involved in the roller-coaster of a law suit. The things that lawyers write aren't readable by normal people, they sound shockingly horrible. From going through the divorce, you may have recollections of what it's like to read those documents, demand letters, etc. If both #2 and #3 are in your favor, then go for it!
Post by: kayvent on October 28, 2016, 09:05:09 AM
Post by: TexasRunner on November 01, 2016, 02:17:48 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-man-buried-mother-collect-retirement-funds-article-1.2854210 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-man-buried-mother-collect-retirement-funds-article-1.2854210)
Quote
Florida man buried his mother in their backyard to collect her $35,345 retirement funds
Post by: fredbear on November 21, 2016, 03:27:31 PM
If you want vengeance - just sayin' - go ahead, document the shit out of it even to hiring an audit, and give him his full share as a lump sum.
Post by: Margie on November 21, 2016, 05:10:40 PM
I do know that our will includes a stipulation that only "children of the marriage" are counted. So, a random person couldn't come forward saying they were mine or my husband's baby after we died.
(we don't have any other children but our lawyer said to include the statement so we did)
Anyhow, I think it is very mean spirited to not want to help the minor children have access to their parent's estate to provide for them.
Maybe you can get a children's lawyer and legal aid will pay for it? I am not sure entirely how that works but I have heard of cases where mom has a lawyer, dad has a lawyer and the children have one appointed by the courts so their interests are heard.
Good luck!
Post by: Dicey on November 21, 2016, 11:46:10 PM
Post by: LuxuryIsADrug on November 22, 2016, 02:12:43 AM
The son allowed my father to continue being executor and the house will be split among the 3 step-children and the 1 blood relative.
The house was used by my fathers family and this was the first time anyone had met the blood relative so it's great it has worked out so smoothly.
Post by: Bicycle_B on December 01, 2016, 09:38:47 AM
Earlier this year I shared details about my situation. A basic detail... I am in Ontario, Canada.
I will recap here and add a few more points. I am a bit desperate about coming to a decision without wasting another penny on unhelpful advice from lawyers.
1. July 2016 I found out that my former husband (divorced May 2014, property settlement finalized October 2014) died when our insurance company contacted me to release $40K on a $300K policy. (Policy started a month before our beautiful daugher was born.) I eventually found out that he died horribly (alcoholic's death, bleeding in the brain, etc.) in May 2016... which explains why he would not respond to my attempts to contact him. (The children 12 and 14 years old, last saw their father in early April.)
2. My EX's family refuses to respond to my enquiries about the location of his remains, if there was a will, etc.
3. I post on this forum and also go to the courthouse looking for a will... for a record of someone applying to execute the will, etc. and I consult 3 different lawyers.
4. Finally I settle on a lawyer who seems reasonable, competent, etc. A letter is sent out and my EX's brother finally coughs up a will, which is awful. I see that my EX wrote the will a few months before we reached a settlement with the help of his slimey lawyer, who evidently asked his wife to witness my EX's will signing. (Why not? She benefitted financially too from my EX's crazy, bitter decision-making.)
It tuns out my EX basically left everything to his brother (a very well off professional married to another well off professional with only one child, fully grown and with a computer science degree from a top notch school)... and 10% to each of his 2 children, if and only if they have a DNA test first to prove that they are his children. However, it is 10% of nothing b/c my former BIL claims that my EX was destitute. Yet, I am 99.99% certain that he was named as the other beneficiary of the life insurance policy and a direct beneficiary on all other accounts with significant funds.
5. My lawyer asks for my former BIL (through his lawyer) to give details about the life insurance policy and the registered retirement savings accounts my EX has (worth about $300K in late 2014). He refuses and threatens me with legal costs if I proceed with a claim on behalf of my children for dependant's relief.
6. Today my lawyer sends me an email hinting that I should not proceed because I (who will not benefit in any direct way from the claim) risk incurring significant legal costs. (Unfortunately at 54, with the current labour market not good even if one has a grad degree... I don't have much of a financial future. I currently work on contract at $15 (CDN) per hour.)
So do I let the "bad guys" win? Incidentally, the former BIL stopped sending birthday cards to my children, the year I left his brother. My EX's family somehow sees me as an evil woman who abandoned her poor husband in times of trouble... and somehow my children are tainted too.
Incidentally, my EX probably blew through $100 to $150K, as he fought to keep me from getting full custody and then any of the assets (acquired during our marriage). I myself had $55K approx. in legal costs... that were not directly connected to prepping or making a court appearances. (I kind of despise family lawyers. They profit from so much misery. If I hadn't fought for what I was legally entitle too, I'd have had next to nothing instead of approx. $150K.)
My children live in Canada... so they are not starving. And there are programs to borrow money to go to college. However....I am still tempted to risk paying my former BIL's fat cat lawyer... b/c it is so wrong and really, there MUST have been some significant assets. But I don't have any proof.
Also, my kids have no one else, really... no aunts, uncles, grandparents, no cousins... just me. One family friend, but now dead for another reason.
I loved my husband but I also feared him. One of my biggest regrets is that he died not knowing how sad I was about having to leave him, for my sake and for our children's sake.
Any advice? I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum. But it's where I began, reaching out for help.
Are there any accounts that might still list you as beneficiary? Beneficiary designation trumps the will. A financial institution will not pay out anything to the BIL if you are listed as beneficiary.
Sometimes after a divorce people forget to change beneficiaries and the money ends up going to an ex. Sometimes even there is a new spouse -- and the new spouse is out of luck.
I'm not positive about this but I believe you can approach financial institutions that you suspect might list you or your kids as beneficiaries on his accounts and ask. Probably best to have a copy of the death certificate. I believe the executor doesn't even have to know.
The bolded part is true in USA too. I don't know Canadian law but the roots of US law are in English common law from centuries ago - the overall situation for you might be exactly the same as mine. If it is, here's why you should consider leaving the lawyers alone and just try JoeO's suggestion (note that I am not a lawyer or giving legal advice, just summarizing what I learned from my own inheritance adventures):
1. From an inheritance law standpoint, it's often legal for most of the assets NOT to be part of the estate and NOT to be in the will. Generally the will determines disposal of assets that were not in "beneficiary accounts" - but if all of the money was transferred to accounts that name beneficiaries, such as bank accounts and mutual fund accounts, the money doesn't become part of the estate, doesn't come under the directions of the will; the money or stocks or whatever just go directly to the named beneficiary based on presentation of the birth certificate. So JoeO's advice appears spot on.
2. If you have any right to the money, it would be (I speculate here) on the basis that your ex evaded the law regarding fair division of marital assets. But you would have to prove that (difficult considering the chief witness is dead), then retrieve assets from accounts that probably have clear instructions that would have emptied the accounts by now (good luck collecting, even if you win). The lawyers will charge you regardless.
I wouldn't give your valuable energy and emotional life to the schemes of a dead man. Find peace where you can and move on. If his remaining living family are trying to defraud you, maybe that is the price of keeping them out of your children's life. Could be cheap at the price, eh?
Post by: bugbaby on December 05, 2016, 09:13:34 AM
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Post by: Greenway52 on December 10, 2016, 08:38:04 PM
Background: My maternal grandparents were well-off people in my country. My grandfather is a well known scholar in the country and my grandmother while a homemaker, herself came from a wealthy family. They had five children, all daughters. My mother is the second daughter and lives in Canada. The oldest daughter and the fourth daughter still lives in the same country in my grandparent’s house, while the third daughter and the fifth (and youngest) daughter immigrated to England.
My grandfather died in 1997 and my grandmother then passed away a couple of years ago. Since then, oh boy, it has been non-stop inheritance drama. While my grandfather has a bunch of property and a bunch of farmland, and my grandmother has some jewelry, the bulk of their estate is the main house that the oldest daughter and the fourth daughter lives in. I would hazard to guess that the house represents about 90% of their estate. The house is three stories and the second and third stories are split into 2 units each (so 4 units). How it was intended to be split up is that the ground floor would go to the youngest daughter, and 4 units in the second and third floors would go to the other 4 daughters (i.e. each daughter gets 1 unit). While the house is old and is in pretty bad shape, the real value comes from the land, which is in a central place in the capital city. The land itself would be worth about $1.5M when converted to Canadian dollars.
My mom and the third daughter who lives in England don’t really care for any of the inheritance. The third daughter is quite wealthy and so doesn’t really care for the money. My mom, would like the money, but doesn’t want to get involved in all of the inheritance drama as it’s a pretty toxic environment and my mom isn’t the confrontational type. Plus she’s not in very good health, and she’s not the same country as the property, so any kind of legal work would be more difficult.
The eldest daughter is a spendaholic and have been spoilt my grandparents. She worked as a judge and lost her job because of her all her debt (I can post many more stories about her in the Anti-Mustachian Relatives section). She’s also not in very good health. She doesn’t really care about getting the inheritance, as she cares more about just being able to live in the house and feed her spending habit. Since my grandmother died, she has started selling items in the household to fuel her spending addiction. She recently sold this grand cabinet that was in my grandmother’s room that my grandmother got from her mother. The first daughter sold it off for pennies on the dollar (literally for about 5% of its value), so that she can fuel her spending for a week or so. I’m sure she’s selling more stuff, but I don’t get to hear since I’m in Canada.
So the real fight for the inheritance comes between the fourth daughter and the fifth daughter. As mentioned the fifth daughter lives in England, so doesn’t get to see the house often. The fourth daughter has essentially taken over the ground floor which was supposed to go to the fifth daughter and has made significant structural changes. My grandfather didn’t have a will that specified his wishes, so all daughters have 1/5 th right to the property.
The youngest daughter recently went back home and visited the house to see all of the changes made to her section (she didn’t know about it beforehand; the changes were done to her section without her knowledge). The youngest daughter stated that she either wants the ground floor as she was promised, or if the fourth daughter wants to use the ground floor, the fourth daughter will have to buy out the youngest daughter’s portion (quite fair in my opinion). The problem is the fourth daughter doesn’t have the money to buy her out, but she also doesn’t want to give access to the youngest daughter to the ground floor.
So the youngest daughter is now considering legal actions. Making matters more complicated, when the fourth daughter made those structural changes to the house, it was most likely done without the proper city permits. And the fourth daughter took a loan to pay for it (and is still paying the loan). If there is a lawsuit, the illegal construction might be found out, and she will have to tear them out.
Right now there is a bunch of vicious emails flying between the daughters in which all daughters are CCed in as the youngest daughter is threatening a lawsuit and the fourth daughter wants to prevent one as she has the most to lose.
I get it that inheritances have huge financial consequences. But as an outside observer, I can’t help thinking that they’re fighting over things that they didn’t even work for. These are wealth their parents have built over their lifetime. I just find it weird that their parent have died and instead of trying to get along, they’re all fighting to get a bigger piece of the pie that their parent’s built.
I’ve told my parents, I don’t really care if I get any inheritance from them. If they want to leave something for me, make sure to put it in their will, but there’s no obligation to leave anything to me. My FI plans assume receiving nothing from my parents.
The drama is still ongoing. If there is interest, I can post updates as they happen.
Post by: mtn on December 12, 2016, 08:12:28 AM
Thank god they already decided to sell their vacation home that they own with 3 of my MIL's siblings and her mother. That would have been a shit show.
Post by: shelivesthedream on December 12, 2016, 10:41:30 AM
Post by: firelight on December 12, 2016, 12:23:09 PM
This thread has made me very sure that if anyone ever leaves me anything other then money jointly, if we can't amicably work out what to do with it within six months, I will simply relinquish all claim to it. Not worth it.We have an inheritance story brewing (old grand dad not ready to split property between kids (that was bequeathed to them by their grand parents), one of the kids (! In their late 60s) trying to cheat the other kid out of their share and younger generation from both sides trying to get the best part of the pie). The problem is compounded by the fact that the property in question is worth millions and some of the younger generation (kid trying to cheat and their progeny) are financially dependent on the cash flow from the property. And the kid being cheated and their progeny don't want to fight too hard but want the others to settle fairly.
I've got popcorn popping!!
Shelivesthedream, exactly my sentiments! But in the above story, it's harder to let go because of the value of the property (think a set of real estate and profitable buildings in Manhattan). Thankfully it's not my direct problem (will help my kids though) but also makes it harder because it brings up the question should I fight for my kids since they are < 3 years old and would feel later on that mom should've fought for what was given to us. Makes the decision to let go harder when it's not your own stake.
Our FIRE plans are independent of this shitstorm since we firmly believe our FIRE shouldn't include any inheritance.
Post by: talltexan on December 13, 2016, 10:01:13 AM
But as I started to type this comment, it occurred to me that there are so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances, that I cannot judge harshly someone who used an inheritance to create a modest lifestyle freed from the tyrrannies of relentless employment.
Post by: merula on December 13, 2016, 10:18:26 AM
so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances
Anyone else picturing a boxy Toyota blowing through a trust fund?
Post by: dandarc on December 13, 2016, 10:33:51 AM
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances
Anyone else picturing a boxy Toyota blowing through a trust fund?
Post by: LeRainDrop on December 13, 2016, 07:31:50 PM
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances
Anyone else picturing a boxy Toyota blowing through a trust fund?
An honest-to-goodness LOL from me!
Post by: gimp on December 13, 2016, 07:45:15 PM
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.
Story of my car enthusiast life.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on December 14, 2016, 10:03:50 AM
Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.
Story of my car enthusiast life.
I happen to drive an orange Scion, dubbed "the Toaster" by one of my teammates, which I could actually dress up as the Kool-Aid man since it's about the right color.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 15, 2016, 01:43:39 AM
I happen to drive an orange Scion, dubbed "the Toaster" by one of my teammates, which I could actually dress up as the Kool-Aid man since it's about the right color.Now I've got an image of a car blowing through a wall of cash like the Kool-aid man stuck in my head.Story of my car enthusiast life.
Please do this. Even with Photoshop.
Post by: zephyr911 on December 15, 2016, 01:27:16 PM
My first reaction was that part of the appeal of FIRE is having achieved it yourself.Short of "not stealing it", etc, I don't think I will derive any particular extra pleasure from the means of FIRE. DW did inherit five figures unexpectedly a couple of years ago, and we invested the shit out of it, probably pushing us up a couple of years. I don't think it takes anything away from the fun we're about to have.
But as I started to type this comment, it occurred to me that there are so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances, that I cannot judge harshly someone who used an inheritance to create a modest lifestyle freed from the tyrrannies of relentless employment.
Post by: MgoSam on December 15, 2016, 01:39:51 PM
My first reaction was that part of the appeal of FIRE is having achieved it yourself.Short of "not stealing it", etc, I don't think I will derive any particular extra pleasure from the means of FIRE. DW did inherit five figures unexpectedly a couple of years ago, and we invested the shit out of it, probably pushing us up a couple of years. I don't think it takes anything away from the fun we're about to have.
But as I started to type this comment, it occurred to me that there are so many stories of horrible Scion squandering their inheritances, that I cannot judge harshly someone who used an inheritance to create a modest lifestyle freed from the tyrrannies of relentless employment.
I'm perfectly willing to inherit my way to FIRE. I won't even losing any sleep about not "earning it," as the way I see it, I would be lucky to inherit the money but 99% of people would blow such a windfall.
Post by: merula on December 15, 2016, 03:41:33 PM
Short of "not stealing it", etc, I don't think I will derive any particular extra pleasure from the means of FIRE. DW did inherit five figures unexpectedly a couple of years ago, and we invested the shit out of it, probably pushing us up a couple of years. I don't think it takes anything away from the fun we're about to have.
I'm 100% with you. "Appreciation" is about the person, not the money.
For example, I have two different families of cousins who paid their own ways through college, while my parents paid my tuition and my siblings'. My parents were told by their siblings(in-law) that they were spoiling us and we wouldn't appreciate it and we'd waste our time.
We kids are all now 25-35. Me and my siblings all graduated in 4 years and are in successful careers at least somewhat related to our fields of study. Of the seven cousins, two did some college but didn't graduate. Of the other five, only one got out in 4 years. And only one (not the same one who graduated on time) is doing a job requiring a college degree.
Looking back, I think my siblings and I are the way we are because our parents taught us good resource management. Those skills are what allowed them to pay our tuition in the first place, and we didn't need to pay our own ways to learn that lesson.
I don't think any of those aunts/uncles have the discipline to save for their children's education, so they weren't able to teach their kids resource management, so the kids can't manage their resources.
The boiling water that softens the potato hardens the egg. It's not your circumstances but what you're made of.
Post by: Villanelle on December 15, 2016, 10:25:34 PM
Also, I know my parents want to leave us a large sum (they once told my DH they are hoping to leave both my sister and me seven figures). They would be absolutely thrilled if that is what allowed us to FIRE and to live the kind of life we hope for in retirement. It would give them great satisfaction. So if that was what put us over the edge to FIRE, it would make me feel good knowing that their money did something that would have pleased them.
Post by: auntie_betty on December 16, 2016, 03:23:03 AM
It doesn't spoil my enjoyment one little bit :) As others have said, plenty folks inherit similar and blow it.
Post by: talltexan on December 16, 2016, 07:59:00 AM
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 16, 2016, 08:05:24 AM
Explaining your FIRE status to a normal person is challenging. I see how the question of whether you inherited your stash would be part of that, and explaining that, yes, you did, might actually seem more normal than, "Actually, I was really focused for 16 years and saved 48% of every dollar I touched"
I agree that more people would understand an inheritance rather than MMMing, but I'd be concerned that they'd think that I was totally minted rather than careful. Enter requests for cash, lawsuits, long-lost children appearing, etc. I'm all about the stealth.
Post by: Just Joe on December 16, 2016, 08:18:44 AM
Our plans are independent of any promises made by anyone else.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 16, 2016, 09:17:44 AM
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
This is basically the first chapter of Pride & Prejudice.
Post by: Just Joe on December 16, 2016, 09:22:33 AM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on December 16, 2016, 09:25:47 AM
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
This is basically the first chapter of Pride & Prejudice.
Likewise in the second half of The House of Mirth, and the heroine really landed on her face as a result.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 16, 2016, 09:30:42 AM
Likewise in the second half of The House of Mirth, and the heroine really landed on her face as a result.Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.This is basically the first chapter of Pride & Prejudice.
Yes! A much better example. Thanks TGS.
Post by: talltexan on December 16, 2016, 01:17:22 PM
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 16, 2016, 01:57:30 PM
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.
Wow, that is brutal. Do you know these couples professionally or personally? I can't get over how many people rely on an inheritance, when it isn't their money and you never know how much care someone will need or how the older relatives choose to spend their money.
Post by: mtn on December 16, 2016, 02:27:17 PM
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.
Wow, that is brutal. Do you know these couples professionally or personally? I can't get over how many people rely on an inheritance, when it isn't their money and you never know how much care someone will need or how the older relatives choose to spend their money.
My dad has been threatening for years to buy a ridiculously unmustachian boat. Hasn't happened yet, but I'd be happy for him if he does. That would put a big dent in my inheritance though.
Post by: talltexan on December 16, 2016, 02:38:36 PM
Post by: Spork on December 16, 2016, 02:58:20 PM
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.
My sister claims my dad said he'd take care of her with what she'd inherit. (I'm skeptical.) But 10 years of RMDs went by... and sis was a royal bitch (understatement) to dad and her own children. It turns out her share was much less... and that dad pre-divided it between her and her children because he didn't think she would pass anything on to them.
Post by: iris lily on December 16, 2016, 03:03:05 PM
Gillian Anderson is in a great film production of that book.Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
This is basically the first chapter of Pride & Prejudice.
Likewise in the second half of The House of Mirth, and the heroine really landed on her face as a result.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 16, 2016, 03:23:25 PM
to Playing with fire: I served as an expert witness in these cases.
That sounds fascinating, and horrifying.
Post by: Villanelle on December 17, 2016, 01:40:22 AM
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
Our plans are independent of any promises made by anyone else.
I don't really count on it (in the sense that when we look at our numbers and plans, we don't automatically add in dollar amount for a future inheritance), but it's very much in the back of my mind as an additional safety factor. And perhaps it makes me feel a bit better about pulling the trigger with a slightly tighter annual withdraw amount. Knowing the details I do about my parents, I don't actually think I'd be misguided if I did somewhat count on it. They have a positive cash flow, even in their 70s. (2 generous pensions, plus social security, plus a consulting gig dad continues to do because he finds it rewarding, and a few other things). They have great healthcare, and are fairly modest spenders. It's hard to imagine a scenario where they'd blow through the roughly 2mm they are hoping to leave to my sibling and me. And our family dynamics are incredibly healthy and stable, so someone getting disowned is so far-fetched that it's laughable. And sibling and I have both been clearly told that we stand to inherit, and that $1mm per child figure was thrown out (though it was a goal at the time, and they weren't quite there yet as of several years ago when we we last discussed actual amounts). Maybe I'd only get $6-700k instead of $1mm. But nothing or very little? I don't see any realistic scenario where that would happen.
Again, I don't count on it, and I fully recognize their right to do whatever the heck they want with their money. I truly wish they'd spend more. It makes me crazy to be out with mom and have her comment on how pretty a sweater is, but then refuse to buy it. (And we are talking $50 sweaters, not $500.) And if they wanted to leave it all to cancer research of the local library or whatever, great. But they very much *want* to leave us that money, and I don't see that suddenly changing. So while we don't really count on it, I think that as long as one is looking honestly at the situation and the people and factors involved, and has been told what is in the will (with specifics), I don't think it's foolhardy to assume that what one is told will happen will actually happen. And even to plan accordingly.
Post by: Jakejake on December 17, 2016, 07:25:50 AM
Her question: She has trouble paying her mortgage and due to bad credit has a high interest rate. Would it be okay with me if she had mom and dad pay off her mortgage and she would pay them back? Our parents are in their mid 70's, with health problems. With 20 years left on her current mortgage, there's zero chance she will actually pay it back to them.
What she eventually got to: Am I okay with her borrowing both her share and potentially my share of our inheritance? And do I have any problem with my parents setting me up to be her personal mortgage company after they pass away?
WTF. I'm right now processing vegetables I got from dumpster diving, while she goes out to eat on a regular basis and was eating lunches out at restaurants (not even take out) every day when she had a full time job, and I couldn't talk her out of that.
Ugh. I noped my way out of that conversation and told her I'm not involved in any financial dealings between her and our parents.
But I'm a little stunned that given their health issues (major surgeries this year), her thought is "Shit, the parent bank might not be around that much longer, how can I get my hands on as much as possible while it's still in their name?" and that she would think that asking to borrow potentially most of their savings when they are coming up on end of life care needs is in any way appropriate.
Post by: TallFrodo on December 17, 2016, 07:38:07 AM
As a young man, Grandpa Al came to Australia with nothing but a suitcase and a dream. In that suitcase was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius) violin however, so he had that going for him. Skip forward a couple decades and Grandpa Al has become older and frailer and it's up to his youngest daughter Belle to look after him in his final years since everyone else has moved interstate.
When Grandpa Al finally passes most of the family hasn't spoken to him in months and despite having 5 children, only a few bother to show up to his funeral.
Now, what DOES get their attention is that stradivarius violin that he'd kept locked up tight. Probably worth millions, the rest of his estate consists of his humble abode, its contents and the land it sat on. Something like 100k all up and his will is a barebones matter saying that everything is to be split evenly between the 5 children.
Immediately, children who didn't bother to show up to the funeral are calling Belle and pestering her about the Violin which had been Grandpa Al's pride and joy but never specifically mentioned in the will or insured because he wasn't a banking sort of guy. Everyone insists they had been promised it verbally and within days Belle is being pestered by four different lawyers and urged to take her own due to the amount of money involved.
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Long story short, most of the family still won't talk to each other and the fake violin is sitting in a dusty cupboard somewhere in Belle's new house.
Post by: iris lily on December 17, 2016, 07:56:31 AM
Never count on inheritances. We were assured we'd "be taken care of" someday. Due to family dynamics I feel that is uncertain. And "taken care of" was never even close to defined.
Our plans are independent of any promises made by anyone else.
I don't really count on it (in the sense that when we look at our numbers and plans, we don't automatically add in dollar amount for a future inheritance), but it's very much in the back of my mind as an additional safety factor. And perhaps it makes me feel a bit better about pulling the trigger with a slightly tighter annual withdraw amount. Knowing the details I do about my parents, I don't actually think I'd be misguided if I did somewhat count on it. They have a positive cash flow, even in their 70s. (2 generous pensions, plus social security, plus a consulting gig dad continues to do because he finds it rewarding, and a few other things). They have great healthcare, and are fairly modest spenders. It's hard to imagine a scenario where they'd blow through the roughly 2mm they are hoping to leave to my sibling and me. And our family dynamics are incredibly healthy and stable, so someone getting disowned is so far-fetched that it's laughable. And sibling and I have both been clearly told that we stand to inherit, and that $1mm per child figure was thrown out (though it was a goal at the time, and they weren't quite there yet as of several years ago when we we last discussed actual amounts). Maybe I'd only get $6-700k instead of $1mm. But nothing or very little? I don't see any realistic scenario where that would happen.
Again, I don't count on it, and I fully recognize their right to do whatever the heck they want with their money. I truly wish they'd spend more. It makes me crazy to be out with mom and have her comment on how pretty a sweater is, but then refuse to buy it. (And we are talking $50 sweaters, not $500.) And if they wanted to leave it all to cancer research of the local library or whatever, great. But they very much *want* to leave us that money, and I don't see that suddenly changing. So while we don't really count on it, I think that as long as one is looking honestly at the situation and the people and factors involved, and has been told what is in the will (with specifics), I don't think it's foolhardy to assume that what one is told will happen will actually happen. And even to plan accordingly.
I think you are right. 70 year olds who are modest spenders dont suddenly start being consuma suckers. But an Alzheimer's Disease diagnosis could put one of them in a nirsing home which would eat into their assets. With each parent having a decent pensins and Social security, though, those jncome woild pay for half amd the other half would,have to come iut of their savings. figure $100,000 annually to start.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 17, 2016, 12:23:16 PM
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
This is so sad.
Post by: kayvent on December 17, 2016, 02:01:30 PM
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 18, 2016, 04:04:33 AM
King Solomon was right: the violin should have been cut into five pieces. Would have saved everyone tens of thousands of dollars.
Or at least appraised...
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 18, 2016, 05:41:50 AM
Ugh. I noped my way out of that conversation and told her I'm not involved in any financial dealings between her and our parents.
But I'm a little stunned that given their health issues (major surgeries this year), her thought is "Shit, the parent bank might not be around that much longer, how can I get my hands on as much as possible while it's still in their name?" and that she would think that asking to borrow potentially most of their savings when they are coming up on end of life care needs is in any way appropriate.
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?
Post by: Jakejake on December 18, 2016, 07:01:29 AM
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
Then it was clear she was calling them to say she was about to be foreclosed on, homeless, etc, which was true - but then spending thousands on vet bills for pets, and still acquiring/hoarding more pets instead of understanding she can't afford them. I think at that point they switched to "loans" instead of gifts, but I don't think she's ever paid them back.
They have to weigh being angry about her choices, understanding they are enabling her (which they get), vs. not wanting their kid to be destitute. It's scary in part because my mother's got the beginnings of cognitive impairment, so it's really on my dad's shoulders to make sure they are protecting their assets so if he passes away first, there's savings to cover memory care for my mom if she needs it. And if my mom is the sole survivor and gets worse, it would be very easy to scam her.
Post by: Spork on December 18, 2016, 08:28:59 AM
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
Then it was clear she was calling them to say she was about to be foreclosed on, homeless, etc, which was true - but then spending thousands on vet bills for pets, and still acquiring/hoarding more pets instead of understanding she can't afford them. I think at that point they switched to "loans" instead of gifts, but I don't think she's ever paid them back.
They have to weigh being angry about her choices, understanding they are enabling her (which they get), vs. not wanting their kid to be destitute. It's scary in part because my mother's got the beginnings of cognitive impairment, so it's really on my dad's shoulders to make sure they are protecting their assets so if he passes away first, there's savings to cover memory care for my mom if she needs it. And if my mom is the sole survivor and gets worse, it would be very easy to scam her.
I know this is your parents and you don't have any say in this but... She will likely not change. The most likely thing that would "help" her is to let her see the results of her own actions and let her fix her own problems. The bail outs make matters worse. This is personal experience talking here... My sister is almost 60. Both of my parents died recently and she's suddenly "on her own" for the first time in her life. I'm not expecting success.
Post by: With This Herring on December 18, 2016, 10:11:13 AM
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
Then it was clear she was calling them to say she was about to be foreclosed on, homeless, etc, which was true - but then spending thousands on vet bills for pets, and still acquiring/hoarding more pets instead of understanding she can't afford them. I think at that point they switched to "loans" instead of gifts, but I don't think she's ever paid them back.
They have to weigh being angry about her choices, understanding they are enabling her (which they get), vs. not wanting their kid to be destitute. It's scary in part because my mother's got the beginnings of cognitive impairment, so it's really on my dad's shoulders to make sure they are protecting their assets so if he passes away first, there's savings to cover memory care for my mom if she needs it. And if my mom is the sole survivor and gets worse, it would be very easy to scam her.
Oh goodness. Your father's best bet may be to set up some sort of trust with the majority of their assets that will only be able to provide living expenses and care for your mother. I think it could be set up so that, when your mother passes, the balance would be split between you and your sister (or, heck, left entirely to charity), with or without adjustments made for outstanding loans.
Post by: Jakejake on December 18, 2016, 11:11:03 AM
My sister is almost 60. Both of my parents died recently and she's suddenly "on her own" for the first time in her life. I'm not expecting success.If you don't mind sharing a bit more, what do you see happening with her? Is she going to be able to downsize and cut expenses? Will you be guilted into rescuing her if she ends up homeless?
These are long-term side-concerns I have with my sister.
Post by: iris lily on December 18, 2016, 01:00:36 PM
This sounds scary. Do you think your parents would be strong armed into favouring her financially?They've always tried to me incredibly equal in how they treat my sister and me. At first when she would call and say she needed a couple thousand dollars, they would give it to her but mail me an unsolicited check for the same amount.
Then it was clear she was calling them to say she was about to be foreclosed on, homeless, etc, which was true - but then spending thousands on vet bills for pets, and still acquiring/hoarding more pets instead of understanding she can't afford them. I think at that point they switched to "loans" instead of gifts, but I don't think she's ever paid them back.
They have to weigh being angry about her choices, understanding they are enabling her (which they get), vs. not wanting their kid to be destitute. It's scary in part because my mother's got the beginnings of cognitive impairment, so it's really on my dad's shoulders to make sure they are protecting their assets so if he passes away first, there's savings to cover memory care for my mom if she needs it. And if my mom is the sole survivor and gets worse, it would be very easy to scam her.
[/quote
The thing is, if one spouse is dead, then the rest of it is easier sailing. When funds run out she is cared for by the taxpayers.
Ive always been more concerned about two spouses ina a household and one needs lots of care.
Post by: Spork on December 19, 2016, 07:43:11 AM
My sister is almost 60. Both of my parents died recently and she's suddenly "on her own" for the first time in her life. I'm not expecting success.If you don't mind sharing a bit more, what do you see happening with her? Is she going to be able to downsize and cut expenses? Will you be guilted into rescuing her if she ends up homeless?
These are long-term side-concerns I have with my sister.
I don't honestly know. She's been given money from my parents well into 7 figures over her lifetime. No amount of money has ever made a difference. She continually moves from one self-created crisis to the next.
She's burned her bridges with me and her other siblings... and with her own children. No idea how it will pan out. But I don't think she is in a position to apply guilt successfully to her side of the family. Possibly she can apply guilt to her husband's side of the family.
Post by: CheapskateWife on December 19, 2016, 07:57:42 AM
I've seen many divorce cases in which the husband assured his wife that they didn't need to be saving for retirement because they would inherit some family resources. Then they got divorced while MIL was still alive, and wife had no claim to MIL's resources or estate, and there was nothing saved.Ouchie...this actually happened to my husband in his first marriage. The second time around, he married up ;-)
Post by: talltexan on December 19, 2016, 08:20:13 AM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: zephyr911 on December 21, 2016, 11:17:39 AM
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
This is so sad.
Personally, I find it hilarious.
They all chose to prioritize their imaginary future wealth over their relationships. And in the end, because they all acted like selfish assholes, they got less than nothing for it. GOOD.
Post by: zephyr911 on December 21, 2016, 11:18:12 AM
Indeed, my MIL was trying to attribute our success to some family money that my wife inherited before we were married. She can be forgiven for not knowing what's in our 401-k statements.
Keep it that way. ;)
Post by: firelight on December 21, 2016, 05:33:08 PM
Update: the fight is starting to get intense and 60+ years of relationships are being destroyed. The older sibling (who was the reason for all these fights) now claims her dad never gave her anything despite him bankrolling her lifestyle (and her entire family, including kids and their families) for around 50 years. Cousins that grew up together as one family are so distrustful of each other now and are trying to get others (tenants of the buildings in question) to side with them so they can take over by force (since justice by law will take years to settle) if necessary.This thread has made me very sure that if anyone ever leaves me anything other then money jointly, if we can't amicably work out what to do with it within six months, I will simply relinquish all claim to it. Not worth it.We have an inheritance story brewing (old grand dad not ready to split property between kids (that was bequeathed to them by their grand parents), one of the kids (! In their late 60s) trying to cheat the other kid out of their share and younger generation from both sides trying to get the best part of the pie). The problem is compounded by the fact that the property in question is worth millions and some of the younger generation (kid trying to cheat and their progeny) are financially dependent on the cash flow from the property. And the kid being cheated and their progeny don't want to fight too hard but want the others to settle fairly.
I've got popcorn popping!!
Shelivesthedream, exactly my sentiments! But in the above story, it's harder to let go because of the value of the property (think a set of real estate and profitable buildings in Manhattan). Thankfully it's not my direct problem (will help my kids though) but also makes it harder because it brings up the question should I fight for my kids since they are < 3 years old and would feel later on that mom should've fought for what was given to us. Makes the decision to let go harder when it's not your own stake.
Our FIRE plans are independent of this shitstorm since we firmly believe our FIRE shouldn't include any inheritance.
I would think it's hilarious if I weren't related to them. Now, it's more like a slow moving train wreck from which I can't avert my eyes :(
Post by: coin on December 22, 2016, 08:34:54 AM
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Oh, I actually know a little bit about fake Stradivarius's
Antonio Stradivarius was very famous in his own lifetime, and was charging a pretty penny for his violins. So, some enterprising people in other countries (Germany, iirc?) would manufacture dodgy knockoff Stradivarius violins and sell 'em. So! The violin may very well have been from the time of Stradivarius, which means it's still a pretty damn old violin... Just that some enterprising fellow a few hundred years ago slapped a Stradivarius label on it to make money.
Post by: dandarc on December 22, 2016, 08:49:03 AM
Label's on instruments manufactured today still will often say "Stradivarius" somewhere on them. But it indicates using a Stradivarius pattern, which if the label is read entirely is clear. Back when I worked at a music store, probably every 6 months someone would come in with a violin all excited. "Is this really a Stradivarius violin!? We found it in Grandma's attic!" "No - see the label says it was made in 1954. <explanation of why everyone uses Strad patterns> Might still be a nice violin though, would you like our shop to take a look at at?"By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Oh, I actually know a little bit about fake Stradivarius's
Antonio Stradivarius was very famous in his own lifetime, and was charging a pretty penny for his violins. So, some enterprising people in other countries (Germany, iirc?) would manufacture dodgy knockoff Stradivarius violins and sell 'em. So! The violin may very well have been from the time of Stradivarius, which means it's still a pretty damn old violin... Just that some enterprising fellow a few hundred years ago slapped a Stradivarius label on it to make money.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 23, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Indeed, my MIL was trying to attribute our success to some family money that my wife inherited before we were married. She can be forgiven for not knowing what's in our 401-k statements.Keep it that way. ;)
Yes. It depends on context and your family but my MILs have never started an inappropriate conversation about their past kindness without it leading to an opportunity for us to pay it back.
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on December 27, 2016, 03:18:44 AM
Home for Christmas, Mum asked me to order her a copy of a book I knew she already owned.
Turns out she had loaned it to her father, who loaned it to his neighbour, who went into aged care and then ... died.
My dad (jokingly) suggested she make a claim against the estate, but Mum has sort of resigned herself to not getting the book back.
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 04:29:36 AM
A very minor, light-hearted contribution.
Home for Christmas, Mum asked me to order her a copy of a book I knew she already owned.
Turns out she had loaned it to her father, who loaned it to his neighbour, who went into aged care and then ... died.
My dad (jokingly) suggested she make a claim against the estate, but Mum has sort of resigned herself to not getting the book back.
Ha! I think I'd like your dad.
Post by: Dicey on December 27, 2016, 10:59:25 AM
A very minor, light-hearted contribution.Hmmm, was it by any chance a copy of "Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande?
Home for Christmas, Mum asked me to order her a copy of a book I knew she already owned.
Turns out she had loaned it to her father, who loaned it to his neighbour, who went into aged care and then ... died.
My dad (jokingly) suggested she make a claim against the estate, but Mum has sort of resigned herself to not getting the book back.
Post by: Jakejake on December 27, 2016, 04:53:12 PM
I had a moment of wondering if I should tell my MIL how much I love it and that I am grateful for it. Then I remembered my SIL took the guy's car, heh. No matter, I'm still really excited to have easy mashed potatoes with no effort.
Post by: Rubic on December 27, 2016, 06:12:21 PM
I had a moment of wondering if I should tell my MIL how much I love [the potato ricer] and that I am
grateful for it. Then I remembered my SIL took the guy's car, heh. No matter, I'm still really excited to
have easy mashed potatoes with no effort.
You win the anti-drama category. ;-)
Post by: farmerj on December 27, 2016, 08:58:03 PM
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Her only heirs were my grandfather and his brother. Her will left everything to one of them. In her apartment was found another will that left everything to the other. Both my grandfather and his brother are lawyers... and they split everything amicably down the middle.
Post by: carolinap on December 27, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Since we're opening up to anti-drama:
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Her only heirs were my grandfather and his brother. Her will left everything to one of them. In her apartment was found another will that left everything to the other. Both my grandfather and his brother are lawyers... and they split everything amicably down the middle.
that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
Post by: marion10 on December 27, 2016, 11:07:55 PM
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 28, 2016, 08:08:28 AM
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
I'm not condoning this behaviour, but I am going to use this story the next time I cook and someone is less than appreciative.
Post by: shelivesthedream on December 28, 2016, 09:54:59 AM
Since we're opening up to anti-drama:
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Her only heirs were my grandfather and his brother. Her will left everything to one of them. In her apartment was found another will that left everything to the other. Both my grandfather and his brother are lawyers... and they split everything amicably down the middle.
that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.
Post by: Dicey on December 28, 2016, 10:05:42 AM
Sister? What sister?Since we're opening up to anti-drama:
My great-aunt was a... rather difficult person in life. Four husbands, I believe, at a time when nobody outside of Hollywood would consider that. Got in trouble at her retirement home for pulling a pistol on her boyfriend (he had apparently criticized her cooking).
Her only heirs were my grandfather and his brother. Her will left everything to one of them. In her apartment was found another will that left everything to the other. Both my grandfather and his brother are lawyers... and they split everything amicably down the middle.
that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on December 28, 2016, 11:07:13 AM
The sister who died and left two conflicting wills :)Sister? What sister?that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.
Post by: No Name Guy on December 28, 2016, 01:03:37 PM
If they were dated the same....it sounds like malpractice on the part of the lawyer that drew them up.
Post by: Dicey on December 28, 2016, 01:22:23 PM
<<Head in hands, moaning: Oh, I can't keep up.>> Duh: Their sister. Thank you.The sister who died and left two conflicting wills :)Sister? What sister?that is some NEXT LEVEL petty stuff
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.
Post by: Jakejake on December 28, 2016, 02:06:35 PM
SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.It's equally likely that the aunt was starting to have some sort of cognitive decline and was confused about the two of them in some way. My mom's starting to get to that point, for example complaining to my sister recently about how she always thought I was so awful doing a particular thing. Except the thing she didn't like about me was actually something my sister's been doing; not me! Luckily my sister and I have a sense of humor about it, but I can see how false memories could leave someone confusing two relatives, or forgetting they'd already made a will.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on December 28, 2016, 02:10:05 PM
Indeed. My great-aunt, who was supported financially by my parents and my mother in particular for many years, left everything to a niece who physically resembled her but who had not helped at all during her illness and last decline. It was extremely ironic to see assets provided by my parents given to a relative that despised them.SUCH POINTS to the brothers, though. They probably knew first-hand exactly how much of a pain it was going to be to contest the other will, and perfectly ruined the sister's attempt to cause a rift.It's equally likely that the aunt was starting to have some sort of cognitive decline and was confused about the two of them in some way. My mom's starting to get to that point, for example complaining to my sister recently about how she always thought I was so awful doing a particular thing. Except the thing she didn't like about me was actually something my sister's been doing; not me! Luckily my sister and I have a sense of humor about it, but I can see how false memories could leave someone confusing two relatives, or forgetting they'd already made a will.
Post by: farmerj on December 28, 2016, 03:28:49 PM
Quote
It's equally likely that the aunt was starting to have some sort of cognitive decline and was confused about the two of them in some way.
She definitely was on the decline, but she always beforehand went back and forth on who was In and who was Out. The lurid family theory was that the multiple wills were a last bid for notoriety. While she didn't have any children, there are many stories about her that are being carried on to future generations.
Post by: rachellynn99 on December 28, 2016, 03:49:54 PM
Post by: geekette on December 28, 2016, 05:11:23 PM
Post by: appleblossom on December 28, 2016, 08:07:07 PM
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.
To an extent this was a thing with my grandmother's house as well. Things were specifically earmarked by her for particular people, and when she died for the most part they went there, except there weren't notes and my aunt got carried away and gave some things to the wrong people.
But if it is just people claiming things, rather than the owner assigning them, its a bit distasteful.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on December 28, 2016, 11:54:22 PM
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.
To an extent this was a thing with my grandmother's house as well. Things were specifically earmarked by her for particular people, and when she died for the most part they went there, except there weren't notes and my aunt got carried away and gave some things to the wrong people.
But if it is just people claiming things, rather than the owner assigning them, its a bit distasteful.
This was a thing in our family as well. When my grandparents died, we all went in and picked up the things that we had previously claimed. Then we sat down as a family and talked about some of the larger things like the piano, dining room table, and other large items. Those things that were wanted were removed. Then we held an estate sale and the house was cleaned out. I mean, it was amazing, all the stuff that our family rejected just disappeared out the door like it was gold or something.
I really wanted one of the sewing machines because, really, how can you live your life without a sewing machine? And I picked up a few picture frames and knickknacks, mostly things that I had given to my grandparents as Christmas gifts over the years. The whole labeling thing made it really easy.
Post by: Villanelle on December 29, 2016, 01:26:51 AM
I do wish mom would put this in writing, but I understand why she doesn't want to. My sister is a reasonable person, and I know she couldn't quibble over the value of the items, but if she happens to want the same items, then it could get difficult, I suppose. There may be other things that I'd be able to use, but those are the only things I'd be disappointed if I don't get. I can't think of a tactful way to ask mom to tell sister, or write it down, so I guess I'll just have to hope for the best.
Post by: merula on December 29, 2016, 07:57:41 AM
My grandma died when I was 2. Some of her books that she wanted my dad to have been on shelves in their house, more or less untouched, ever since.
Except for her copy of Jane Eyre, which I found and read when I was around 12, and became my favorite novel. I've mentioned a few times how much I loved reading her copy of the book, and how much I'd love to have it, but every time it seemed to go in one ear and out the other. To the point that, if they were downsizing, they might get rid of it without realizing what it meant to me.
So I enlisted my sister to suggest that they could give me that book for Christmas and I'd love it. And they did. And both me and my dad were tearing up on Christmas morning, me out of gratitude and he thinking how much Grandma would've loved my love of books.
If I get nothing else from my parents, I will still be happy.
Post by: K-ice on December 29, 2016, 09:27:04 AM
I have mixed feelings about the naming of items.
But at the same time it's good to let people know you appreciate stuff.
My mom had some of my grandmother's clothse. I liked one particular long dress with a cape trimmed in fur. My fur feelings are mixed & I would not buy fur today but this was a vintage, classy piece.
Sadly, I found out it got donated when my mom was decluttering. :(
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on December 30, 2016, 01:09:02 AM
My mom had some of my grandmother's clothse. I liked one particular long dress with a cape trimmed in fur. My fur feelings are mixed & I would not buy fur today but this was a vintage, classy piece.
Sadly, I found out it got donated when my mom was decluttering. :(
When my grandfather sold his farm and began preparing to downsize, Mum mentioned that his granddaughters (including me) would like his racing silks.
His response? "Oh, I burned those."
Not sentimental about possessions, the old man.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 30, 2016, 01:22:51 AM
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
Post by: GilbertB on December 30, 2016, 01:36:33 AM
I take time to go there to help my mum and aunt.
(Side note, my mum and aunt are borderline poverty level, but educated)
I go with her around the house, and she is interested in the big value items.
But I notice that my gramps has accumulated maybe 200 to 400 tech/history magazines from the 1950 to 1980, i tell her that those are worth 5 to 20€ each on EBay, so at least 2000€ net.
Same thing with books and other things, all in all a minimum of 15000€, and I also offer to buy some books that have a sentimental value above EBay prices etc.
I also offer that between my sister, cousin (aunt's daughter) we take charge of that and only skim enough to pay postage on the items as neither my Aunt or Mum "do" internet...
Aunt starts to get $ signs in her eyes, starts getting suspicious, says that me coming to help is strange, and finally says to my mum that I'm dishonest and probably there to steal them...
And she shuts the whole thing down..
At that moment, my sister, brother, cousin and I had started to create a common EBay account so we could divide the work and help our Mums by donating time and hassle:
- Sister would do the clothes as she is good at floging that.
- Brother would do all the small but valuable.
- Cousin would do all the big items (very nice furniture, decorative items...)
- I would do the magazines and books...
Both brother and sister had to cancel booked flights etc, when aunt lost it.
In the end, we salvaged bits and bobs, and the big ticket items got sold way too cheap...
Both my mum were totally incapable of selling anything else...
The books and furniture got donated, the rest went in the trash.
All in all my mum and aunt pissed on at least 20 000€ (one year of post tax earning each) because they could not trust their kids... All of us have jobs, families and no history of shenanigans, so I am lost for words about their behaviour and some valuable (to me) heirlooms of my gramp are in some trash heap somewhere.
Pathetic.
Post by: StarBright on December 30, 2016, 07:20:04 AM
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
That is amazing! Little bits like this often remind me of how GOOD people are - love it and thanks for sharing.
Post by: infogoon on December 30, 2016, 01:09:09 PM
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
An old work friend of mine went to his father's house to visit -- when he got there, his dad was decluttering the downstairs living space and had tossed his wedding portrait in the garbage.
"Dad, you can't throw out your wedding picture. That's been over the fireplace forever."
"Eh, fuck it. She's dead."
I thought I was unsentimental, but that was a whole new level.
Post by: gaja on December 30, 2016, 06:01:22 PM
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
An old work friend of mine went to his father's house to visit -- when he got there, his dad was decluttering the downstairs living space and had tossed his wedding portrait in the garbage.
"Dad, you can't throw out your wedding picture. That's been over the fireplace forever."
"Eh, fuck it. She's dead."
I thought I was unsentimental, but that was a whole new level.
This is the best one yet. Don't know if that level of living in the now is something to strive for or something to avoid...
Post by: firelight on December 30, 2016, 10:16:02 PM
I can totally see my husband do it. He doesn't like any of our wedding pics. If anything, he'd hang on to the engagement pics and candid shots of us since those are his favorites.We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
An old work friend of mine went to his father's house to visit -- when he got there, his dad was decluttering the downstairs living space and had tossed his wedding portrait in the garbage.
"Dad, you can't throw out your wedding picture. That's been over the fireplace forever."
"Eh, fuck it. She's dead."
I thought I was unsentimental, but that was a whole new level.
This is the best one yet. Don't know if that level of living in the now is something to strive for or something to avoid...
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on December 31, 2016, 02:49:21 AM
We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
That is amazing! Little bits like this often remind me of how GOOD people are - love it and thanks for sharing.
Yes, it was a wonderful thing to do. She explained all the things that she'd done (looking up marriage records, school uniforms, churches) to track us down.
Post by: Kitsune on December 31, 2016, 08:33:01 AM
I can totally see my husband do it. He doesn't like any of our wedding pics. If anything, he'd hang on to the engagement pics and candid shots of us since those are his favorites.We got a random call from someone who had bought a photo album from a charity shop and found all our family photos in it. They'd tracked us down to give them back. It was really good of them. These covered generations and most of them were before photography went digital so they were a unique collection.
My unsentimental family had tossed them all out while decluttering.
An old work friend of mine went to his father's house to visit -- when he got there, his dad was decluttering the downstairs living space and had tossed his wedding portrait in the garbage.
"Dad, you can't throw out your wedding picture. That's been over the fireplace forever."
"Eh, fuck it. She's dead."
I thought I was unsentimental, but that was a whole new level.
This is the best one yet. Don't know if that level of living in the now is something to strive for or something to avoid...
Meanwhile, my husband has our wedding picture on his desk and a different one as one of the backgrounds to his phone, and I recently overheard him explaining to our toddler "that's a picture from when I married your mama! Isn't she so pretty?" :)
THAT said, we don't have any engagement pics, and fairly few candid pics since I'm usually the one with the camera, so...
Post by: talltexan on January 03, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
Post by: BabyShark on January 03, 2017, 09:19:40 PM
I've got some impending potential drama brewing.
Bit of background: my dad stopped speaking to his brother and sister probably 15 and 10 years ago respectively. They both live in the same state as their dad, but my immediate family all lived in a different state. Of the three, my dad was the one who took care of grandpa, making sure he was covered, paying for his house and all that even when my aunt moved in with grandpa rent free during her separation and eventual divorce. Grandpa didn't like the idea of my dad just giving him money so he signed promissory notes indicating that the money dad gave him would be paid back by grandpa's estate. The notes were clear and they were even mentioned in grandpa's will. Dad was supposed to be the executor of grandpa'a estate.
Fast forward to December 2015 and my dad passes away after a decently lengthy cancer battle that eventually went to his brain, making him bed ridden and not all with it. Grandpa is still living. My mom has decided she's going to enforce the promissory notes against grandpa's eventual estate, not because she'll need the money, but to prevent aunt and uncle, who suddenly reappeared to play the roles of grieving siblings at my dad's service, from getting the money. Mom thinks they don't know about the notes, I'm not too sure. Grandpa claims about six months before dad died, dad told him he was ripping up the notes and not to worry about them.
Not a week after my dad's funeral, we learn that uncle has taken grandpa to get his will redrafted. Not looking forward to the near certain drama over this. Even without the notes, the estate won't be worth much. I've been trying to convince my mom it's not worth fighting with my aunt and uncle but I've gotten nowhere.
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on January 03, 2017, 09:38:53 PM
I love this thread.
I've got some impending potential drama brewing.
Bit of background: my dad stopped speaking to his brother and sister probably 15 and 10 years ago respectively. They both live in the same state as their dad, but my immediate family all lived in a different state. Of the three, my dad was the one who took care of grandpa, making sure he was covered, paying for his house and all that even when my aunt moved in with grandpa rent free during her separation and eventual divorce. Grandpa didn't like the idea of my dad just giving him money so he signed promissory notes indicating that the money dad gave him would be paid back by grandpa's estate. The notes were clear and they were even mentioned in grandpa's will. Dad was supposed to be the executor of grandpa'a estate.
Fast forward to December 2015 and my dad passes away after a decently lengthy cancer battle that eventually went to his brain, making him bed ridden and not all with it. Grandpa is still living. My mom has decided she's going to enforce the promissory notes against grandpa's eventual estate, not because she'll need the money, but to prevent aunt and uncle, who suddenly reappeared to play the roles of grieving siblings at my dad's service, from getting the money. Mom thinks they don't know about the notes, I'm not too sure. Grandpa claims about six months before dad died, dad told him he was ripping up the notes and not to worry about them.
Not a week after my dad's funeral, we learn that uncle has taken grandpa to get his will redrafted. Not looking forward to the near certain drama over this. Even without the notes, the estate won't be worth much. I've been trying to convince my mom it's not worth fighting with my aunt and uncle but I've gotten nowhere.
Wow, I read this with interest expecting the aunt and uncle to be trouble, but I did not expect that twist from Grandpa!
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 04, 2017, 04:53:24 AM
If you keep one picture of someone, you probably want it to be the wedding one. It's the one you paid the most to get, after all.
One can certainly give up a lot for those photos.
Post by: BabyShark on January 04, 2017, 07:14:36 AM
I love this thread.
I've got some impending potential drama brewing.
Bit of background: my dad stopped speaking to his brother and sister probably 15 and 10 years ago respectively. They both live in the same state as their dad, but my immediate family all lived in a different state. Of the three, my dad was the one who took care of grandpa, making sure he was covered, paying for his house and all that even when my aunt moved in with grandpa rent free during her separation and eventual divorce. Grandpa didn't like the idea of my dad just giving him money so he signed promissory notes indicating that the money dad gave him would be paid back by grandpa's estate. The notes were clear and they were even mentioned in grandpa's will. Dad was supposed to be the executor of grandpa'a estate.
Fast forward to December 2015 and my dad passes away after a decently lengthy cancer battle that eventually went to his brain, making him bed ridden and not all with it. Grandpa is still living. My mom has decided she's going to enforce the promissory notes against grandpa's eventual estate, not because she'll need the money, but to prevent aunt and uncle, who suddenly reappeared to play the roles of grieving siblings at my dad's service, from getting the money. Mom thinks they don't know about the notes, I'm not too sure. Grandpa claims about six months before dad died, dad told him he was ripping up the notes and not to worry about them.
Not a week after my dad's funeral, we learn that uncle has taken grandpa to get his will redrafted. Not looking forward to the near certain drama over this. Even without the notes, the estate won't be worth much. I've been trying to convince my mom it's not worth fighting with my aunt and uncle but I've gotten nowhere.
Wow, I read this with interest expecting the aunt and uncle to be trouble, but I did not expect that twist from Grandpa!
Yea, we're not sure when this would have happened because those six months would have been when dad was at his least coherent and was only really able to have conversations for a few minutes at a time. He never mentioned this to my mom which is what makes it suspicious because when he was with it, they talked a lot about future plans since it was clear he was deteriorating pretty rapidly.
Uncle and dad also owned a building in the city in which my parents live, even though they didn't speak, dad would still send him his portion of the rental income every month or so. Again, less than a week after dad's death, uncle starts hounding mom about selling the building because uncle wants his money from it. Mom eventually bought uncle out, so that headache has ended fortunately. It's just going to be a nightmare.
And I'm sure if one of my cousins or even my aunt/uncle was telling this story, it'd be all about how my mom is an evil in-law. Really, it's just a crappy situation all around because my dad was supposed to be here to mediate with his family and now my mom is left doing it and she never really got along with her in-laws in the first place.
Post by: Spiffy on January 04, 2017, 11:41:20 AM
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
Post by: CheapskateWife on January 04, 2017, 12:33:35 PM
There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on January 04, 2017, 02:26:44 PM
Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
Post by: LeRainDrop on January 04, 2017, 02:55:20 PM
Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
My mom gave me her wooden spoon, though she's still alive and well :-)
Post by: CheapskateWife on January 04, 2017, 02:59:12 PM
My actual inheritance when my dear Grandfather passed away was a stuffed piranha...its 30 years old and still sticky. Grandpa got it as a joke for Christmas from his best friend, and kept it in his office for years. He is hideous, and I love it.Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
My mom gave me her wooden spoon, though she's still alive and well :-)
Post by: mtn on January 04, 2017, 03:10:25 PM
Hmmm. I wonder if my parents still have that pink hairbrush they used to spank us.... I want my name on that one!There is an artisan glass bowl in my Mom and Dad's house that is the most hideous thing I've ever seen; and gets used as a weapon to make us behave..."If you don't straighten up, I'm giving you the bowl." Works every time.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
My mom gave me her wooden spoon, though she's still alive and well :-)
While I do not--and my parents did not--condone hitting kids, my mother broke her wooden spoon on my brothers head. But at 13 he was bigger than her, and he should have known better than to say that word in front of her. He deserved it.
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 04, 2017, 03:38:36 PM
A friend of mine's sister sued her stepmother after their dad died. She was convinced that he was a secretly a millionaire and that they stepmother had been stealing his money and hiding it in off-shore accounts and that she had made him change his will, etc. She even had my friend and her family followed by a private detective because she was convinced that they were helping the stepmother. She didn't think his wife deserved anything even though they had been married for over 20 years at this point. In reality, he left enough to for his widows to live out her last years in comfort, but not enormous wealth by any means. The stepmother was pretty kind in general and had offered for both my friend and her sister to come and get all the family heirlooms so that they would stay in the family.
The worst thing about the whole thing is that the sister married into a wealthy family, lives in a huge house, and doesn't need a dime. On the advice of her attorney, the stepmother offered a small amount of money (less than 10K) to make the whole thing go away and keep her from dragging her husband's name through the mud in the small town where they lived. The whole thing was just sad.
This seems to be a thing, kids thinking that their thrifty parents were rich. When my very poor grandma died, my aunts and uncles accused my mother of stealing the chest of gold pieces that they just knew my grandmother had. The whole thing was absurd of course.
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Post by: mtn on January 04, 2017, 03:48:58 PM
He had an aunt who was the head buyer for womens clothing at Dillards. She made good money. She married a career Navy man. He made good money. They never had kids, and I don't think that he had very many relatives.
This women was always a mean old [bad word] to everyone. She'd visit and tell my FIL that he wasn't visiting his mother (her sister) enough--even though his mother had Alzheimers, couldn't remember him, was in a nursing home, and lived 2 hours away. And my FIL would come every single weekend and spend 4 hours minimum with a woman who had no idea who he was. She'd tell everyone what they were doing wrong, how they couldn't cook, etc. No body liked her; a few hadn't spoken with her in a long time out of feuds. Well, she outlives her husband, and finally passes away in the early 90's. My FIL, to his surprise, is left $12,000! So are MOST of his cousins--but the supposed favorite cousin of the Aunt's was left nothing! Not that he needed it as he was retired and without kids, but still!
My FIL's one cousin kept asking my FIL "why the hell did she give me and you money? She hated us!"
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 04, 2017, 04:10:50 PM
This seems to be a thing, kids thinking that their thrifty parents were rich.
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of money and resources spent on them growing up, especially with regard to the opportunity cost they created for the parents. Much of the spending and time investment happens when the parents are in their twenties and thirties, and that's when a person gets the biggest bang for the buck from earning and investing.
Post by: gimp on January 04, 2017, 05:33:02 PM
Just heard a good one from my FIL:
He had an aunt who was the head buyer for womens clothing at Dillards. She made good money. She married a career Navy man. He made good money. They never had kids, and I don't think that he had very many relatives.
This women was always a mean old [bad word] to everyone. She'd visit and tell my FIL that he wasn't visiting his mother (her sister) enough--even though his mother had Alzheimers, couldn't remember him, was in a nursing home, and lived 2 hours away. And my FIL would come every single weekend and spend 4 hours minimum with a woman who had no idea who he was. She'd tell everyone what they were doing wrong, how they couldn't cook, etc. No body liked her; a few hadn't spoken with her in a long time out of feuds. Well, she outlives her husband, and finally passes away in the early 90's. My FIL, to his surprise, is left $12,000! So are MOST of his cousins--but the supposed favorite cousin of the Aunt's was left nothing! Not that he needed it as he was retired and without kids, but still!
My FIL's one cousin kept asking my FIL "why the hell did she give me and you money? She hated us!"
Maybe her one final fuck-you was to get people to squabble over the money. "I'll cut out the one I like, give money to the ones I don't, this'll be a riot. Fuck 'em."
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 04, 2017, 05:43:24 PM
Sharing this one on behalf of my boss' wife, as it was told to me after a few beers - fake names used just to prevent any confusion since it all sounded a little too perfect to be true.
As a young man, Grandpa Al came to Australia with nothing but a suitcase and a dream. In that suitcase was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius) violin however, so he had that going for him. Skip forward a couple decades and Grandpa Al has become older and frailer and it's up to his youngest daughter Belle to look after him in his final years since everyone else has moved interstate.
When Grandpa Al finally passes most of the family hasn't spoken to him in months and despite having 5 children, only a few bother to show up to his funeral.
Now, what DOES get their attention is that stradivarius violin that he'd kept locked up tight. Probably worth millions, the rest of his estate consists of his humble abode, its contents and the land it sat on. Something like 100k all up and his will is a barebones matter saying that everything is to be split evenly between the 5 children.
Immediately, children who didn't bother to show up to the funeral are calling Belle and pestering her about the Violin which had been Grandpa Al's pride and joy but never specifically mentioned in the will or insured because he wasn't a banking sort of guy. Everyone insists they had been promised it verbally and within days Belle is being pestered by four different lawyers and urged to take her own due to the amount of money involved.
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Long story short, most of the family still won't talk to each other and the fake violin is sitting in a dusty cupboard somewhere in Belle's new house.
Now THAT is a great story with a great moral. Sounds like an old folk tale almost.
Post by: shelivesthedream on January 04, 2017, 06:02:08 PM
This seems to be a thing, kids thinking that their thrifty parents were rich.
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of money and resources spent on them growing up, especially with regard to the opportunity cost they created for the parents. Much of the spending and time investment happens when the parents are in their twenties and thirties, and that's when a person gets the biggest bang for the buck from earning and investing.
I think a lot of people also underestimate how expensive being old is. Any kind of professional care, be it a full-on nursing home or just someone who pops in to help with the shopping, gets expensive fast. If there's anything about our financial plans that keeps me up at night, it's the idea of burning through all our money in a few years of end-of-life care and then running out. My parents' house is worth a ton of money, almost a million pounds, but I can well imagine my generation not seeing any of it because of my parents needing to sell and spend all the money on just being really old. So even if there was money when the parent retired, it's not necessarily there when they die.
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on January 04, 2017, 06:05:02 PM
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
Post by: Dave1442397 on January 05, 2017, 06:31:06 AM
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
When my in-laws bought their house (now our house) back in 1976, they found five $100 bills under the rug in the living room.
On another note, a friend of ours inherited her mother's house a few years ago. The backstory on this one is kind of funny. This lady is one of those people who's never happy unless there's drama in her life, so she was always at odds with her husband's family. They pretty much only talked to her when they had to.
So now her mom dies, and she inherits a three-family home in Edison, NJ. Her mom was a college professor, so she wasn't expecting to be left much apart from the house. The house was full (not quite Hoarders level, but close) with periodicals and books, and they decided to start clearing it out and doing a reno before renting it out.
As they started moving stacks of magazines, they started finding mail, banknotes and financial documents between the pages and buried in the stacks. Instead of a weekend of clearing clutter, they spent six months going through the place. When all was done, the estate came out to just over $5,000,000, and when they started they only knew about the house (worth $600k or so) and around $100k in various bank accounts.
That was the good news. Of course, they couldn't keep it to themselves, so now her in-laws find out about it and start sucking up to her, looking for loans and handouts, and trying to get to the money through her husband. Lots more drama (the stories are like a bad sitcom).
Their son never did very well in school before the inheritance, and has since quit community college and is living at home, doing nothing much. His girlfriend also moved in (a whole other story of an abusive family) and they both hang out playing video games all day. I don't know if they've figured the parents' life expectancy into the equation, but they seem to think they'll never need to work.
Post by: CheapskateWife on January 05, 2017, 08:52:55 AM
That's it...I'm changing my will to reflect this exact plan.My FIL's one cousin kept asking my FIL "why the hell did she give me and you money? She hated us!"
Maybe her one final fuck-you was to get people to squabble over the money. "I'll cut out the one I like, give money to the ones I don't, this'll be a riot. Fuck 'em."
Post by: Spiffy on January 05, 2017, 09:12:21 AM
And some hide other things. A friend of my family with dementia hid jars of pee! Not what you want to find at the back of a closet.My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
Post by: Spork on January 05, 2017, 09:16:42 AM
And some hide other things. A friend of my family with dementia hid jars of pee! Not what you want to find at the back of a closet.My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
Reminds me of a Frank Zappa song...
Post by: mm1970 on January 05, 2017, 01:46:19 PM
Yes, this. Which is how it should be. If you've worked hard and saved money, and you get old - you use that money for care. With money, you can live in a nicer place, have better food, and get better care. (I've seen a variety of retirement homes, some are darned near depressing.)This seems to be a thing, kids thinking that their thrifty parents were rich.
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of money and resources spent on them growing up, especially with regard to the opportunity cost they created for the parents. Much of the spending and time investment happens when the parents are in their twenties and thirties, and that's when a person gets the biggest bang for the buck from earning and investing.
I think a lot of people also underestimate how expensive being old is. Any kind of professional care, be it a full-on nursing home or just someone who pops in to help with the shopping, gets expensive fast. If there's anything about our financial plans that keeps me up at night, it's the idea of burning through all our money in a few years of end-of-life care and then running out. My parents' house is worth a ton of money, almost a million pounds, but I can well imagine my generation not seeing any of it because of my parents needing to sell and spend all the money on just being really old. So even if there was money when the parent retired, it's not necessarily there when they die.
I mean, it's great if you can inherit, but don't bet on it.
Post by: jslasher88 on January 05, 2017, 02:28:24 PM
My brother-in-law recently inherited 80k from his deceased grandma's estate. Not exactly ideal for a 26-year-old father of 2 who can't hold a job due to extreme anger/alcoholism.
Since graduating with a degree in Music Business 3 years ago, he has worked for less than 3 months of that time. He quit a Home Depot part time job, was fired from a bank, and then moved his family into his mom's house to live rent-and-responsibility free until they left due to arguments with his brother.
Since inheriting 80k last summer, he now has less than half of it left. He hasn't worked since June, lost his kids in August, and now spends all day drinking with my sister in their 4-bedroom apartment (she refuses to work as well). They eat out at restaurants every day, window-shop, spend hundreds on iTunes, Amazon, etc. Meanwhile, I work 3 jobs to pay into their food stamps.
The money will be gone by summer. Meanwhile, my 60 year old parents are now raising a 4 and 1-year-old because of the horrible situation. The people at fault here refuse to acknowledge that they have a substance problem while they hemorrhage a gift that could have turned into $1.2M in 40 years if they had invested 75% of it.
Post by: Spork on January 05, 2017, 03:10:13 PM
Ooh, I've got a story.
My brother-in-law recently inherited 80k from his deceased grandma's estate. Not exactly ideal for a 26-year-old father of 2 who can't hold a job due to extreme anger/alcoholism.
Since graduating with a degree in Music Business 3 years ago, he has worked for less than 3 months of that time. He quit a Home Depot part time job, was fired from a bank, and then moved his family into his mom's house to live rent-and-responsibility free until they left due to arguments with his brother.
Since inheriting 80k last summer, he now has less than half of it left. He hasn't worked since June, lost his kids in August, and now spends all day drinking with my sister in their 4-bedroom apartment (she refuses to work as well). They eat out at restaurants every day, window-shop, spend hundreds on iTunes, Amazon, etc. Meanwhile, I work 3 jobs to pay into their food stamps.
The money will be gone by summer. Meanwhile, my 60 year old parents are now raising a 4 and 1-year-old because of the horrible situation. The people at fault here refuse to acknowledge that they have a substance problem while they hemorrhage a gift that could have turned into $1.2M in 40 years if they had invested 75% of it.
Firstly: My sympathies. I've been in almost exactly your shoes and watched this go down.
Secondly, some unsolicited advice. If your parents are actually raising their grandchildren, that's probably optimal. If, on the other hand, they're subsidizing your sister and they're living with her... I would advise you to advise them to stop.
My parents went through this. Sis would call and say she just needed $100 for some milk, food and diapers for the kids. Well, when the oldest kid grew up and forced my parents to talk to a substance abuse specialist, that guy tore my parents a new asshole. He said that Dad didn't give her $100 for milk. He gave her $100 for vodka. All the while, oldest kid (now a smart young adult) was nodding and saying "amen, brother."
Post by: jslasher88 on January 06, 2017, 06:44:44 AM
My parents thankfully are not enabling the rampant destructive lifestyle of my sister and her husband. The latter two have their own apartment (which they never really should have qualified for due to no work history) and are now paying $900/month for a 4-bedroom unit for just the two of them. The apartment is in the same rental house as mine, unfortunately, which means I get to hear the drunken screaming and drama through the wall several times per week.
My parents are raising the kids at my parents' house 20 minutes away. They are both retired and FI, and thankfully are quite wise overall. They refuse to do any more enabling and said that their daughter and son-in-law's next stop is public housing when the money runs dry. I just feel bad that they are not able to enjoy the retirement they planned, now that they have to repeat the parenting cycle all over again with a 4 and 1-year-old. It's a screwed-up situation, but we're trying to make the best of it.
Post by: jslasher88 on January 06, 2017, 06:55:18 AM
2003: Grandma died, leaving my grandpa a widower. Grandpa has lived modestly and amassed a multiple-million $ net worth. 3 children, including my mom.
2006: Grandpa inexplicably re-marries a miserable old shrew of a woman who shows nothing but distaste for our whole family, who tried very hard to be welcoming to her.
2009: Grandpa passes away from illness. Our family finds out that his 2nd wife had convinced him to change his entire estate, so all the money is left to her and her son from a previous marriage. Her son, who had been semi-friendly in our few interactions with him, completely ghosts during this fall-out.
Not getting money from my grandpa's estate wasn't a huge blow to my mom or her one brother, who both have been successful financially. But the third child, my other uncle, really could have benefited from a hand-out. He is deaf and has 4 children, and has always struggled to advance in his career due to his handicap. He works his butt off but has been stuck at the same level for a number of years because he can't pass performance tests.
Post by: plainjane on January 06, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
All in all my mum and aunt pissed on at least 20 000€ (one year of post tax earning each) because they could not trust their kids...
I've been thinking about this a lot, especially since we don't have kids. We talk about how the elderly get paranoid, but we also know that the elderly are more vulnerable to being ripped off than the general population. So they probably know someone who was ripped off by a beloved child, niece/nephew, grandchild.
They know that they aren't as sharp as they were, they know that they don't understand the current economy, they don't want to get taken in by someone who just said a bunch of gobblygook. But they also know that they aren't qualified to tell the difference between gobblygook and not. Hell, have you seen some of the writing by people who work in social media about the companies who are being taken to the cleaners by companies who just use the right buzzwords?
My parents are loyal to their financial adviser - is he fleecing them more than usual? We don't have visibility. They're mostly ok atm, but in 5 years? And what about me? How do I protect _our_ assets from our likely decline in interest / context if not ability (no history of dementia on my side among those who lived past 90, but the SO's family medical history is murky)?
Post by: Dicey on January 06, 2017, 09:02:49 AM
Here's my family's version of this: My semi-deadbeat sister (I'm trying to be kind) shimmied under the parent's new-ish car and wrote her name on the chassis. We all knew about it and took it as a joke. Fast forward a year or two and both my parents are gone. My sibs decided to interpret that as she gets the car outside of her share of the estate because she wrote her name on it when my parents were alive. Um, no. Mom intended for their estate to be divided equally. She did not mean equal slices, plus a car on top of my sister's slice, but the car wasn't in the trust, so therefore open to interpretation. My take is that the sibs who had little involvement in my parent's end-of-life care are feeling a little guilty, so they voted for her to have it.* FWIW, my parent's estate was significantly reduced due to all of the life support they'd given that particular sister (plus what she'd embezzled from them) over the years.Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
My parents had updated wills and trusts and paid good money for these documents. Alas, they are so vaguely written that shit like this has happened, PLUS there will be a load of taxes due because the documents are too non-specific. There's a lesson or twenty in all of this.
Fortunately, since I'm FIRE, none of this matters financially. However, I'm pissed at the way the non-helpers chose to re-interpret our parent's wishes. So, I'm fixing that by changing my own will. Why the hell was I planning to leave them so much anyway? I know that makes me sound a tad bitter, but the re-allocated money will go to charities I actively support now, so I'm good with that, I think.
*Regarding this sister: if the entire balance of my parent's modest estate went to her and her alone, she would:
A) Forever and fervently believe she deserved all of it and then some.
B) Have zero concern for any of her other sibling's financial situations.
C) Blow all of it in very short order.
D) Expect the rest of us to pretend not to notice any of this and still love and treat her equally.
E) Exert considerable and nasty* pressure on the rest of us for money for the rest of her life.
*Have I mentioned that she took post-mortem, pre-cremation, behind the scenes at the mortuary and undoubtedly without authorization (or taste) pictures of our mother's body? No? On the first Mother's Day after Mom's death she texted one of those photos to another sister. Yes, she did, she really did. Special place in hell for that dick move.
Post by: JustGettingStarted1980 on January 06, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
All in all my mum and aunt pissed on at least 20 000€ (one year of post tax earning each) because they could not trust their kids...
I've been thinking about this a lot, especially since we don't have kids. We talk about how the elderly get paranoid, but we also know that the elderly are more vulnerable to being ripped off than the general population. So they probably know someone who was ripped off by a beloved child, niece/nephew, grandchild.
They know that they aren't as sharp as they were, they know that they don't understand the current economy, they don't want to get taken in by someone who just said a bunch of gobblygook. But they also know that they aren't qualified to tell the difference between gobblygook and not. Hell, have you seen some of the writing by people who work in social media about the companies who are being taken to the cleaners by companies who just use the right buzzwords?
My parents are loyal to their financial adviser - is he fleecing them more than usual? We don't have visibility. They're mostly ok atm, but in 5 years? And what about me? How do I protect _our_ assets from our likely decline in interest / context if not ability (no history of dementia on my side among those who lived past 90, but the SO's family medical history is murky)?
When I'm old and gray, I plan to use Vanguard Advisory Services. Very reputable, charge a fair amount for their services, and they KEEP IT SIMPLE. This will greatly improve the transition to after I die as well to my loved ones (if they are smart enough to keep on using them until they can take over themselves)
Post by: BlueHouse on January 06, 2017, 10:42:16 AM
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
Some dementia patients are known to hide money.
My aunt ignored my grandmother for months, then suddenly showed up to help clear out the house because she'd (correctly) heard my grandmother had been hiding jars and envelopes full of money.
I don't think I have dementia yet, and I forget where I "hide" things all the time. I have a closet where the baseboard section has built-in hiding spaces -- no one knows they're there unless you've been told. Instead of using that, I've bought my second safe so that I can put that in an easy-to see spot so I don't forget it exists. On the lighter note, I was happy when I found $50 in a coat pocket last week!
Post by: CheapskateWife on January 06, 2017, 10:47:05 AM
My parents just did this but with Fidelity. Dad feels more than competent right now, but mom is a bit of a wild card on financial management. Dad thinks of it kind of like an insurance plan in that not only will mom have money if he goes before her, but will also have a relationship built with a financial advisor who can help advise her. She has me too, but sometimes its hard for parents to think of going to their kids for advice. :)All in all my mum and aunt pissed on at least 20 000€ (one year of post tax earning each) because they could not trust their kids...
I've been thinking about this a lot, especially since we don't have kids. We talk about how the elderly get paranoid, but we also know that the elderly are more vulnerable to being ripped off than the general population. So they probably know someone who was ripped off by a beloved child, niece/nephew, grandchild.
They know that they aren't as sharp as they were, they know that they don't understand the current economy, they don't want to get taken in by someone who just said a bunch of gobblygook. But they also know that they aren't qualified to tell the difference between gobblygook and not. Hell, have you seen some of the writing by people who work in social media about the companies who are being taken to the cleaners by companies who just use the right buzzwords?
My parents are loyal to their financial adviser - is he fleecing them more than usual? We don't have visibility. They're mostly ok atm, but in 5 years? And what about me? How do I protect _our_ assets from our likely decline in interest / context if not ability (no history of dementia on my side among those who lived past 90, but the SO's family medical history is murky)?
When I'm old and gray, I plan to use Vanguard Advisory Services. Very reputable, charge a fair amount for their services, and they KEEP IT SIMPLE. This will greatly improve the transition to after I die as well to my loved ones (if they are smart enough to keep on using them until they can take over themselves)
Post by: kms on January 06, 2017, 10:48:58 AM
Seriously. If I'd ever catch my brother going through our parents' stuff while either one of them is on their death bed I would beat the living shit out of him. Fortunately for me he would do the same thing to me if the roles were reversed. And, more importantly, this is never ever going to happen. We have an excellent relationship, we're both financially responsible adults in our mid to late 30s now, we both have financially responsible spouses, and love and value our parents and inlaws so much more than any amount of money or stuff. Our parents have also always treated us equally. Not in a 'I gave your brother $2,000 to help finance his wedding so here's your $2,000 check' kinda of way but in that they helped us both out individually when we were in need. When I got married eight years ago we were still both in grad school and didn't have much money, so my parents offered to help us finance the wedding and made it clear from the very beginning that the money was a wedding gift, and that they don't ever want any of it back. My brother on the other hand got married much later in life and him and his wife already had a steady income when they got married so they didn't get any money for their wedding from them because, well, there was no need. In return when him and his wife bought their own condo to live in in 2015 I know for a fact that my parents chipped in on the downpayment and helped them get a better deal on their mortgage. I know this for a fact because I offered to chip in as well, and he told me he didn't need any more for the downpayment but he would be very grateful if I could help him purchase a kitchen for their new place instead (quite common in Germany to purchase a condo without even a toilet bowl in it). We are very open about our financial situations to each other, and there are no hard feelings either way. I have absolutely no idea how much my parents gave him and whether or not he has to pay back any of it (I highly doubt it though), and quite frankly I don't give a tiny rat's ass. The bottom line is that we're never asking for any help from them or each other, we offer it to each other if we feel they might need it for one thing or another. Which is probably why neither of us ever had any feeling of entitlement or guilt.
This thread makes me appreciate my family even more. Methinks I should tell them that more often.
Post by: K-ice on January 06, 2017, 11:47:43 AM
I just remembered another good inheritance story that happened to my family a few years ago.
2003: Grandma died, leaving my grandpa a widower. Grandpa has lived modestly and amassed a multiple-million $ net worth. 3 children, including my mom.
2006: Grandpa inexplicably re-marries a miserable old shrew of a woman who shows nothing but distaste for our whole family, who tried very hard to be welcoming to her.
2009: Grandpa passes away from illness. Our family finds out that his 2nd wife had convinced him to change his entire estate, so all the money is left to her and her son from a previous marriage. Her son, who had been semi-friendly in our few interactions with him, completely ghosts during this fall-out.
2nd marraiges can get so complicated. I am surrounded by multiple in my extended family. The best ones are those where there is clear transparency & a pre-nup & openly discussed wills.
There is still some tension but it's much better. One example, if either die the other spouse gets $200K from the estate. They each have seperate property & finances. The property they live in is currently owned by spouse A. If they die spouse B gets to live in it for 1y then it goes to the estate & Spouse A's children. Spouse B has a rental. If they die first Spouse A gets the rent for one year then it goes back to the estate. .
The children of spouse A & B say hi at family events but are not really on speaking terms. So having a clear will is the best.
Another example, 2nd marraige, spouse A 3 kids, spouse B 2 kids. Wills written up so estate goes to other spouse first. If they are both gone then it gets split 16.666 x 3 & 25 x 2. There is a bit of tension as to why it's not 5x20. But for 40y the wills have been written this way. (They've been updated but virtually unchanged.) My only concern is if one spouse passes long before the other. If that spouse remarries then what would happen? Also, even if that spouse were to spend a large portion of the estate I can see at least one child on each side getting pretty antsy they arn't getting their "share" yet. I can see lots of tension unless some clear agreement is made with the third spouse.
That 3rd spouse should probably get something but I think completely cutting out ones children (unless they are estranged assholes) is wrong.
Give it all to charity instead, but the post above just describes manipulative gold diggers.
Post by: radram on January 06, 2017, 02:30:47 PM
Man... this thread is GOLD! I just binge-read all 19 pages (on a totally different note those are 7 hours of my life I'm never getting back, but it was totally worth it!). I knew that people turn batshit crazy as soon as money is involved but holy cow!
Seriously. If I'd ever catch my brother going through our parents' stuff while either one of them is on their death bed I would beat the living shit out of him. Fortunately for me he would do the same thing to me if the roles were reversed. And, more importantly, this is never ever going to happen. We have an excellent relationship, we're both financially responsible adults in our mid to late 30s now, we both have financially responsible spouses, and love and value our parents and inlaws so much more than any amount of money or stuff. Our parents have also always treated us equally. Not in a 'I gave your brother $2,000 to help finance his wedding so here's your $2,000 check' kinda of way but in that they helped us both out individually when we were in need. When I got married eight years ago we were still both in grad school and didn't have much money, so my parents offered to help us finance the wedding and made it clear from the very beginning that the money was a wedding gift, and that they don't ever want any of it back. My brother on the other hand got married much later in life and him and his wife already had a steady income when they got married so they didn't get any money for their wedding from them because, well, there was no need. In return when him and his wife bought their own condo to live in in 2015 I know for a fact that my parents chipped in on the downpayment and helped them get a better deal on their mortgage. I know this for a fact because I offered to chip in as well, and he told me he didn't need any more for the downpayment but he would be very grateful if I could help him purchase a kitchen for their new place instead (quite common in Germany to purchase a condo without even a toilet bowl in it). We are very open about our financial situations to each other, and there are no hard feelings either way. I have absolutely no idea how much my parents gave him and whether or not he has to pay back any of it (I highly doubt it though), and quite frankly I don't give a tiny rat's ass. The bottom line is that we're never asking for any help from them or each other, we offer it to each other if we feel they might need it for one thing or another. Which is probably why neither of us ever had any feeling of entitlement or guilt.
This thread makes me appreciate my family even more. Methinks I should tell them that more often.
We are here to help push each other to action when we can, so here goes:
Go tell your family, and then come back and tell us what they said :)
Post by: mbk on January 15, 2017, 02:52:19 PM
Sharing this one on behalf of my boss' wife, as it was told to me after a few beers - fake names used just to prevent any confusion since it all sounded a little too perfect to be true.
As a young man, Grandpa Al came to Australia with nothing but a suitcase and a dream. In that suitcase was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius) violin however, so he had that going for him. Skip forward a couple decades and Grandpa Al has become older and frailer and it's up to his youngest daughter Belle to look after him in his final years since everyone else has moved interstate.
When Grandpa Al finally passes most of the family hasn't spoken to him in months and despite having 5 children, only a few bother to show up to his funeral.
Now, what DOES get their attention is that stradivarius violin that he'd kept locked up tight. Probably worth millions, the rest of his estate consists of his humble abode, its contents and the land it sat on. Something like 100k all up and his will is a barebones matter saying that everything is to be split evenly between the 5 children.
Immediately, children who didn't bother to show up to the funeral are calling Belle and pestering her about the Violin which had been Grandpa Al's pride and joy but never specifically mentioned in the will or insured because he wasn't a banking sort of guy. Everyone insists they had been promised it verbally and within days Belle is being pestered by four different lawyers and urged to take her own due to the amount of money involved.
By the time the dust settles, the family that was once distant is now fractured, family members and their spouses have lied to each other, had screaming matches, etc etc. Four lawyers' fees taken out of the estate have reduced it down to a fraction of its meagre amount and the Stradivarius is finally retrieved and valued at... less than a grand.
Turns out it was a fake. Either Grandpa Al had been swindled back in his 20s or he had bought the thing more recently and just spun a very convincing tall tale without realising how much strife it would cause.
Long story short, most of the family still won't talk to each other and the fake violin is sitting in a dusty cupboard somewhere in Belle's new house.
Post by: rpr on January 27, 2017, 06:01:52 PM
Grandpa had 9 kids :) -- S1, S2, S3, S4, D1, D2, S5, D3, D4. This was over a period of 20 years.
When above grandpa died, he left behind grandma and the following kids/grandkids.
S1 married, no kids
S2 married with 2 sons and 1 daughter -- S2S1, S2S2, S2D1
S3 married with 1 daughter and 1 son -- S3D1, S3S1
S4 married with 1 daughter -- S4D1
D1 married with 3 sons and 1 daughter -- D1S1, D1S2, D1S3, D1D1
D2 married with 1 son and 2 daughters -- D2S1, D2D1, D2D2
S5 was secretly married when grandpa died (grandpa and grandma would have strongly disapproved)
D3 married with 1 daughter and 1 son -- D3D1 and D3S1
D4 married and just about to deliver any day (in fact D4D1 born 3 days after grandpa died)
According to most known wills and grandpa's wishes prior to his death everything was supposed to have been divided equally among all children.
But the will that emerged contained the following.
Property (mainly consisting of a house which was prime real estate) was divided into 5 shares. Also the property was completely in grandpa's name only with grandma having no rights to it. Plus grandma had zero assets of her own.
Grandma gets nothing (but see below).
S1 gets nothing
S2 gets nothing directly BUT grandkids S2S1 and S2S2 get 1 share each
S3 gets 1 share
S4 gets 1 share
S5 gets 1 share
D1 through D4 get nothing.
Grandma was allowed to live in the above property as long as she was alive OR for seven years whichever was shorter. If she lived longer than seven years, then she was at the mercy of her children.
This will caused a huge drama in the family. The remaining sons felt that S2 had contrived to get more than his share. The daughters were pissed that they had gotten nothing. This was despite the fact that D1 and D4 had taken care of grandpa when the sons did not. The sons and daughters would not speak to each other. Lawsuits were filed in court. After many years there was a settlement and the daughters got a small pittance.
Seven years had passed and grandma was still alive. She was evicted from the house as the sons claimed their shares. The house was sold to a developer and demolished in order to construct a big apartment block. None of the daughters in law wanted to keep grandma in their house as they did not get along. Also grandma was too proud to go and live with any of her daughters.
With his share of the money S5 bought an apartment and had grandma stay there with him. But he brought along his wife. Grandma would have nothing to do with the daughter in law as she completely disapproved of this marriage (equivalent to inter-racial).
In the meanwhile, S1 had passed away. Grandma went to live with her first daughter in law (wife of the disinherited S1). She finally passed away after having outlived grandpa by almost two decades.
What a freaking mess. The ramifications of this continue to this day more than thirty years after grandpa passed away.
PS: Karma's a bitch -- S2 was always known to be extremely greedy when it came to money. He got married to a woman who was even more greedier than him. This woman DIL2 was a single child who parents were extremely wealthy. DIL2 was so horrible that she alienated her own parents. After a fight between DIL2 and her mom, her mom passed away. DIL2's father blamed his daughter for causing her moms death. When DIL2's father died, his will completely disinherited DIL2 (his own daughter) and he gave the property to some distant relatives who cared for him his last few years. That will was brutal. S2 and DIL2 were always good at lawyering up and they managed to get back some of the money.
Post by: CU Tiger on January 27, 2017, 07:43:04 PM
I think the Rom had the right idea when they burned the vardo after someone died. All their possessions - up in smoke. Nothing to fight over...
But in your story, it was beyond cruel to leave his wife with no resources.
Post by: Captain FIRE on January 27, 2017, 07:49:07 PM
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 27, 2017, 07:49:58 PM
Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
This would make me think that my entire house was just a $250K case for my $500k violin... And my car was a $3,000 armored transport for my $500K violin. It would skew my world-view to have an object so valuable in my possession...
Post by: rpr on January 27, 2017, 08:13:23 PM
rpr, not a dower right state, I take it? Or an option to take an elective share? I'm surprised the grandmother couldn't sue for a portion of the inheritance (considering the daughters managed to get a small share). Google seems to say most states are covered by the elective share or community property state. (Unless they are not in the states.)
Wow, rpr, that is a terrible story! Doesn't it seem like some folks are so mean that they use their wills to continue making people miserable long after they are dead?
I think the Rom had the right idea when they burned the vardo after someone died. All their possessions - up in smoke. Nothing to fight over...
But in your story, it was beyond cruel to leave his wife with no resources.
Not from the US. Property rights are very poor for women in this country. The only way women can easily inherit is if there are no male siblings. I have seen wills and testaments. To this day, property usually belongs solely to the husband. Some men write into the will that their wives can stay there as long as they are alive. However they cannot sell the house.
Also, grandma did not object too much to the will initially. She was really hoping that S2/DIL2 would take care of her. Alas, that was not to be.
In her culture, she viewed daughters as being worth much less than sons. Furthermore, once the daughter was married, then the daughter did not belong to her family. Thus, she would not be able to go live with her daughter. Two of the daughters did ask her to live with them. But she refused. Still, one of the daughters would go over several times a week to help grandma and DIL1 who were living together. Both of them had practically no money to their names.
The real sad part of this is that grandma grew up in a culture where women were brainwashed into believing that men were superior to women and that it was her lot to suffer. Things are changing slowly.
Post by: Captain FIRE on January 27, 2017, 09:02:44 PM
Maybe should have given S2 both shares rather than his kids, if they wanted him to take care of mom (and made it contingent on taking care of mom). So was dad just oblivious to the troubles that could happen to his wife, didn't care or what?
Post by: rpr on January 27, 2017, 10:48:47 PM
So what happens then, if none of the sons take in the mom? Are there any social supports? Or are there a lot of widows that are out on the streets if the kids don't choose to take care of her?Typically there is lots of extended family around and the inheriting sons/DIL's often feel enough guilt via social/community pressure from family elders to take care of the mom.
Maybe should have given S2 both shares rather than his kids, if they wanted him to take care of mom (and made it contingent on taking care of mom). So was dad just oblivious to the troubles that could happen to his wife, didn't care or what?
Things are changing but slowly. For example, a more recent will/testament I have seen allows the wife to stay in the dead husband's house as long as she is alive and without any time limits. That's an improvement ;)
In some ways, it almost seems better if the husband dies intestate. The law then treats the wife as an equal claimant along with the children. There is some hope in that situation and the widow can then block any sales.
Sometimes the extended family can help directly as well. There maybe siblings of the widow along with kindly nephews and nieces (*) who may feel enough pity to help.
S2 was well aware as he schemed to get two shares to his two kids while claiming that he was disinherited. Other than S2's sons, none of the other grandkids inherited anything. Rumors abound that at the time the will was written, grandpa was not in good health both physically and mentally. S2 was the richest and most well off among all of the children but was always greedy for more along with DIL2.
(*) -- S2 is now dead while DIL2 is still alive. None of DIL2's two DILs will have anything to do with her due to her behaviour. Ironically, the one person who does pay attention to some extent to DIL2 is her niece (D1D1) who lives nearby and feels sorry for her. This is even though both D1D1 and her mom D1 were disinherited in grandpa's will due to the machinations of S2 and DIL2.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 28, 2017, 11:45:30 AM
So what happens then, if none of the sons take in the mom? Are there any social supports? Or are there a lot of widows that are out on the streets if the kids don't choose to take care of her?Typically there is lots of extended family around and the inheriting sons/DIL's often feel enough guilt via social/community pressure from family elders to take care of the mom.
Maybe should have given S2 both shares rather than his kids, if they wanted him to take care of mom (and made it contingent on taking care of mom). So was dad just oblivious to the troubles that could happen to his wife, didn't care or what?
Things are changing but slowly. For example, a more recent will/testament I have seen allows the wife to stay in the dead husband's house as long as she is alive and without any time limits. That's an improvement ;)
In some ways, it almost seems better if the husband dies intestate. The law then treats the wife as an equal claimant along with the children. There is some hope in that situation and the widow can then block any sales.
Sometimes the extended family can help directly as well. There maybe siblings of the widow along with kindly nephews and nieces (*) who may feel enough pity to help.
S2 was well aware as he schemed to get two shares to his two kids while claiming that he was disinherited. Other than S2's sons, none of the other grandkids inherited anything. Rumors abound that at the time the will was written, grandpa was not in good health both physically and mentally. S2 was the richest and most well off among all of the children but was always greedy for more along with DIL2.
(*) -- S2 is now dead while DIL2 is still alive. None of DIL2's two DILs will have anything to do with her due to her behaviour. Ironically, the one person who does pay attention to some extent to DIL2 is her niece (D1D1) who lives nearby and feels sorry for her. This is even though both D1D1 and her mom D1 were disinherited in grandpa's will due to the machinations of S2 and DIL2.
This would actually make a very good soap opera.
Post by: fredbear on January 28, 2017, 01:19:02 PM
Post by: Adventine on January 28, 2017, 10:29:44 PM
When my ex-in-laws died, they had left half the estate in 5 parts, once part to each of their children; and the other half to the middle son, who was the executor. Knowing all the offspring and having been divorced from one of them, I thought this a recipe for catastrophe, but it actually revealed their real insight into their children's characters. I am decades out of the marriage that connected me to them, but still see him with pleasure and admiration. Back when the parents were still alive, it was he who persuaded them to set up education trusts for each of the grandchildren, then invested them and doled them out, at least initially. The other siblings were, and are, bubbling in a vat of dysfunction, envy, and barely-suppressed conflict. He served honorably as the executor and wound up his parents' lives without the help of his siblings though with their complaint and sniping, so that when the first half of the estate was parted out, there was more money for each of them than there would have been. He accepted the other half of the inheritance and grew it. He told them he did not want to screw his brothers and sisters, but if they could not behave, he would. This largely checked their unruliness and public misbehavior, though it did nothing to stem the bitching. When all was settled, he split the second inheritance into 5 parts. Though it was his to keep by will and by right, he gave it to them equally. I don't know if any of them ever thanked him, and from a fullness of experience, very much doubt any did. The parents recognized his frugality, competence, generous spirit, and general crustiness, and they were right about him. To my children he is and will always be the favorite Reprobate Uncle. I conclude from his example that there are some very large people among us, and many of those they benefit will never realize they have been supported by a better than they.
That is a wonderful story. I want to be one of those Reprobate Aunts too!
Post by: DaMa on January 29, 2017, 03:31:23 PM
[
My parents bought an old house from the estate of a rather eccentric old lady. We started working on the house, and some of the lady's kids stopped by to probe us to see if we found anything in the remodel.
My grandfather used to hide money in the house. My grandma and aunt went through the place carefully after he died and found almost $10k, but my father doubts they found it all. The house was sold shortly after and has been extensively remodeled. I have often thought about stopping and asking if they found more money. Not that I want any, but just out of curiosity.
Post by: paddedhat on January 29, 2017, 07:25:00 PM
My parents had updated wills and trusts and paid good money for these documents. Alas, they are so vaguely written that shit like this has happened, PLUS there will be a load of taxes due because the documents are too non-specific. There's a lesson or twenty in all of this.
My mom made this same mistake. Shortly before she passed, she dumped about $900 into having her will redrawn. The lawyer who did the work was a fuck up who ended up CREATING loose ends and causing the executor (me) needless headaches and legal expenses to get things straightened out. I have a suspicion that she did it because she wanted to "protect" my younger half sister, who is a dysfunctional mess and a monument to entitlement delusions. Mom wanted to include a clause that I, as the older brother, responsible adult and executor, would assume the position of chief enabler, and continue to coddle and support a grown woman who desperately needed a nuclear grade kick in the ass. I'm pretty sure that the document was such a poorly written piece of garbage due to the fact that other competent estate attorneys told her that they could not, and would not, include such a ridiculous and unenforceable clause.
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
So yea, I know how it feels to discover that a clown of a lawyer, who drafts a screwed up will, isn't much better than no will at all.
Post by: rpr on January 29, 2017, 07:37:22 PM
This would actually make a very good soap opera.
Indeed. The first decade after grandpa died was interesting, to say the least ;)
Post by: JrDoctor on January 30, 2017, 05:30:13 AM
I think a lot of people also underestimate how expensive being old is. Any kind of professional care, be it a full-on nursing home or just someone who pops in to help with the shopping, gets expensive fast. If there's anything about our financial plans that keeps me up at night, it's the idea of burning through all our money in a few years of end-of-life care and then running out. My parents' house is worth a ton of money, almost a million pounds, but I can well imagine my generation not seeing any of it because of my parents needing to sell and spend all the money on just being really old. So even if there was money when the parent retired, it's not necessarily there when they die.
One thing which annoys me is the fact that many people think they should get to keep their assets (especially their house) and expect the state to pay for care/nursing home costs so they can pass wealth onto the next generation. It's reductive, passes wealth onto the already wealthy and effectively makes normal tax payers subsidise someone's inheritance. One patient yesterday said she hadn't quit smoking because she hadn't got into the GP's for nicotine replacement and when her relative quipped you could buy it over the counter the patient said 'why should she?'. Alot of the elderly greatly overestimate the amount of tax they have paid in versus how much they have had out. The majority have had more out of the state than they ever put in.
Post by: paddedhat on January 30, 2017, 05:41:57 AM
I think a lot of people also underestimate how expensive being old is. Any kind of professional care, be it a full-on nursing home or just someone who pops in to help with the shopping, gets expensive fast. If there's anything about our financial plans that keeps me up at night, it's the idea of burning through all our money in a few years of end-of-life care and then running out. My parents' house is worth a ton of money, almost a million pounds, but I can well imagine my generation not seeing any of it because of my parents needing to sell and spend all the money on just being really old. So even if there was money when the parent retired, it's not necessarily there when they die.
One thing which annoys me is the fact that many people think they should get to keep their assets (especially their house) and expect the state to pay for care/nursing home costs so they can pass wealth onto the next generation. It's reductive, passes wealth onto the already wealthy and effectively makes normal tax payers subsidise someone's inheritance. One patient yesterday said she hadn't quit smoking because she hadn't got into the GP's for nicotine replacement and when her relative quipped you could buy it over the counter the patient said 'why should she?'. Alot of the elderly greatly overestimate the amount of tax they have paid in versus how much they have had out. The majority have had more out of the state than they ever put in.
It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
Post by: JrDoctor on January 30, 2017, 05:46:55 AM
It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The cognitive dissonance is amazing, they use roads and infrastructure paid by the state, healthcare, social care and every facet of their life involves state expenditure. Its worse in the UK with the elderly not realising a hospital bed costs £300 a night, that one week stay with sepsis wiped out probably a year of tax they paid in one go. Hip replacement £7,000... it goes on and on. Then they likewise get racist and blame immigrants for the NHS's struggles, especially with brexit, not realising young immigrants are one of the main reason the UK's health service is still standing despite the greying of the country.
Post by: JustGettingStarted1980 on January 30, 2017, 06:27:01 AM
Goes to show, it pays to VOTE!
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on January 30, 2017, 07:16:10 AM
The Average Medicare Beneficiary gets 3$ back for every 1$ contribution to the plan. How is that sustainable?
Inflation adjusted dollars or not?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 30, 2017, 09:39:08 AM
The Average Medicare Beneficiary gets 3$ back for every 1$ contribution to the plan. How is that sustainable?
It can be sustainable if there's a big enough pool of people who pay into it but who never become beneficiaries. Maybe they die early in a traffic accident, maybe they're undocumented and have the contributions deducted from their paycheck but aren't eligible to claim anything later, maybe they move overseas to live out their golden years in a place with year-long summer weather, or maybe they just don't apply for it because they genuinely believe they don't need it.
Post by: Zoot on January 30, 2017, 09:49:50 AM
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unequal-inheritance-what-would-you-do/
Post by: gaja on January 30, 2017, 09:54:18 AM
The Average Medicare Beneficiary gets 3$ back for every 1$ contribution to the plan. How is that sustainable?
It can be sustainable if there's a big enough pool of people who pay into it but who never become beneficiaries. Maybe they die early in a traffic accident, maybe they're undocumented and have the contributions deducted from their paycheck but aren't eligible to claim anything later, maybe they move overseas to live out their golden years in a place with year-long summer weather, or maybe they just don't apply for it because they genuinely believe they don't need it.
And it can be sustainable on a society level if it keeps a larger part of the population healthy and in the work force for a longer time.
Post by: Just Joe on January 30, 2017, 09:59:12 AM
Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
This would make me think that my entire house was just a $250K case for my $500k violin... And my car was a $3,000 armored transport for my $500K violin. It would skew my world-view to have an object so valuable in my possession...
When we watch "Antiques Roadshow" and the mystery knick-knack from the garage sale gets valued at hundred of thousands of dollars. All I can think of is if the "expert" says it is worth $500K then I'd gladly and eagerly sell it for $500K right then and there. Not because I'm greedy but because I don't want to own any sort of artwork or other treasure that is worth that much. Too many ways to lose that value.
Post by: dandarc on January 30, 2017, 10:07:38 AM
The real question is - would you sell it for $250K (or whatever wholesale offer you can get out of the guy) right then and there? Much more likely to find a buyer quickly if you leave them room to make some money flipping the thing.Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
This would make me think that my entire house was just a $250K case for my $500k violin... And my car was a $3,000 armored transport for my $500K violin. It would skew my world-view to have an object so valuable in my possession...
When we watch "Antiques Roadshow" and the mystery knick-knack from the garage sale gets valued at hundred of thousands of dollars. All I can think of is if the "expert" says it is worth $500K then I'd gladly and eagerly sell it for $500K right then and there. Not because I'm greedy but because I don't want to own any sort of artwork or other treasure that is worth that much. Too many ways to lose that value.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 30, 2017, 10:42:37 AM
Hmm, flipping isn't a skill I have for anything more complicated than pancakes. I don't know that I'd be able to line up a qualified real buyer-- I would stand a good chance of getting ripped off-- and there's also the chance that the appraiser is mistaken and the on-the-spot offer is too high. So I'd be likely to go with the bird in the hand.The real question is - would you sell it for $250K (or whatever wholesale offer you can get out of the guy) right then and there? Much more likely to find a buyer quickly if you leave them room to make some money flipping the thing.Long time ago, I got few violin lessons from an old lady in exchange of helping her with emailing and printing documents from computer. She retired as a violinist after spending her entire career at a big symphony orchestra. One day she told me her violin would sell for more than $500k. I never knew violins could be so expensive. The violin I used for classes was rented for $30 bucks/month. :)
This would make me think that my entire house was just a $250K case for my $500k violin... And my car was a $3,000 armored transport for my $500K violin. It would skew my world-view to have an object so valuable in my possession...
When we watch "Antiques Roadshow" and the mystery knick-knack from the garage sale gets valued at hundred of thousands of dollars. All I can think of is if the "expert" says it is worth $500K then I'd gladly and eagerly sell it for $500K right then and there. Not because I'm greedy but because I don't want to own any sort of artwork or other treasure that is worth that much. Too many ways to lose that value.
Post by: Secretly Saving on January 30, 2017, 11:06:09 AM
Actually this is a "thing" in our family, too, and encouraged. Things that are special to someone are generally marked (with permission, of course). Nothing of great consequence, but my name's on a mantle clock I remember working on with my Dad as a child (okay, Dad worked, I watched). I'm pretty sure my sisters have something with their name on it as well.This is a joke in my family. Whenever my parents get something new, my brothers or I say, "put my name on that!" Or if there is something really ugly my Mom asks,"Shall I put your name on this?" We all think it is hilarious and I do not doubt that we will find thing with our names actually on them after our parents are gone (a long time from now, hopefully). And we will laugh through the tears.
*Have I mentioned that she took post-mortem, pre-cremation, behind the scenes at the mortuary and undoubtedly without authorization (or taste) pictures of our mother's body? No? On the first Mother's Day after Mom's death she texted one of those photos to another sister. Yes, she did, she really did. Special place in hell for that dick move.
I AM SPEECHLESS. THIS IS AWFUL.
Post by: Dicey on January 30, 2017, 11:34:57 AM
Huh. My other sister was here this weekend. She reminded me that the reason my parents were so insistent on updating their wills and trust was that they had decided to reinstate my deadbeat sister, who had been showing signs of improvement. So they put her back into the will at a significant cost. She then reverted to her old ways and stole over $11k from them in addition to their ongoing life support for her before they died. She also helped herself to Mom's address book, which contained everyone's SSN'S. I'll be watching for that shoe to drop for the rest of my life.
My parents had updated wills and trusts and paid good money for these documents. Alas, they are so vaguely written that shit like this has happened, PLUS there will be a load of taxes due because the documents are too non-specific. There's a lesson or twenty in all of this.
My mom made this same mistake. Shortly before she passed, she dumped about $900 into having her will redrawn. The lawyer who did the work was a fuck up who ended up CREATING loose ends and causing the executor (me) needless headaches and legal expenses to get things straightened out. I have a suspicion that she did it because she wanted to "protect" my younger half sister, who is a dysfunctional mess and a monument to entitlement delusions. Mom wanted to include a clause that I, as the older brother, responsible adult and executor, would assume the position of chief enabler, and continue to coddle and support a grown woman who desperately needed a nuclear grade kick in the ass. I'm pretty sure that the document was such a poorly written piece of garbage due to the fact that other competent estate attorneys told her that they could not, and would not, include such a ridiculous and unenforceable clause.
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
So yea, I know how it feels to discover that a clown of a lawyer, who drafts a screwed up will, isn't much better than no will at all.
We will be receiving another installment this week, bringing the total $ dispersed to $16k. Deadbeat sister has blown through the first $8k, so it's pretty likely that she'll do the same with the new check. Sad that what could have been a boost is just vapid squandering of my parent's hard earned money.
Post by: gimp on January 30, 2017, 03:32:32 PM
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
That's amazing. "You suck at money so much that we're treating you as disabled. Here's your monthly dole."
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 30, 2017, 03:55:34 PM
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
That's amazing. "You suck at money so much that we're treating you as disabled. Here's your monthly dole."
There's always been such a thing as "spendthrift" trusts which are indeed released in occasional chunks.
A few years ago I met a guy whose trust company paid for his apartment and utilities directly and gave him a stipend for food and other expenses... of course he was that much of a goof-up so I think whoever set up the trust got it right.
Post by: paddedhat on January 30, 2017, 04:57:02 PM
in the end, much to most of the player's collective surprise, the sister's share was accepted by a trust designed to protect the inheritable assets of disabled adults. Personally, I thought it was an embarrassing misuse of the trust's intent and mission, but OTOH, it eliminated a big problem of how to move on and disengage from her never ending drama and bullshit.
That's amazing. "You suck at money so much that we're treating you as disabled. Here's your monthly dole."
There's always been such a thing as "spendthrift" trusts which are indeed released in occasional chunks.
A few years ago I met a guy whose trust company paid for his apartment and utilities directly and gave him a stipend for food and other expenses... of course he was that much of a goof-up so I think whoever set up the trust got it right.
You guys make me smile. Actually, the half sister is disabled in real life. She is an addict, frequent flier when it comes to DWI,DUI busts, and did time for vehicular manslaughter after she caused a head-on, driving the wrong way on the freeway, lead story on the morning news, explosive car crash. She scored a .36 BAC. AFTER losing quarts of blood at the scene and in the trauma center, and no the blood alcohol level is not a typo. She barely survived the carnage, and hobbles around with a cane, with a pelvis that was broken in too many places to count. My parents devoted decades to coddling and enabling her, which was in some ways the cause and the effect of her behavior. When mom died, despite being told directly that it wasn't going to happen, she attempted to sign me up as the next in line to support her daughter's bullshit. The managed trust is understandable, and not uncommon. My issue is that this specific trust is a neat tool for cases like when an elderly parent is looking to protect a special needs child, and gives them the ability to inherit significant sums without fear of the feds. or state claiming the funds as restitution for services rendered in the past. My shitbag sister doesn't deserve such a free pass.
The "spendthrift trusts" you speak of are actually very simple to create and common, as long as you can find a willing administrator, who takes a set percentage fee every year to do the work. As a backup plan, since my estate lawyer found it unlikely that the special needs trust was going to take my sister's case, I was prepared to go before the probate judge to solve the matter. This is usually a quick case of explaining the situation to the judge, who then "recruits" an attorney (maybe some poor young, newly minted lawyer, who was unlucky enough to be standing in the back of the courtroom,LOL), and assigns then the case. If the client is low maintenance, it's an easy, profitable gig. If not, you're screwed.
Post by: Sibley on February 02, 2017, 12:46:12 PM
It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The cognitive dissonance is amazing, they use roads and infrastructure paid by the state, healthcare, social care and every facet of their life involves state expenditure. Its worse in the UK with the elderly not realising a hospital bed costs £300 a night, that one week stay with sepsis wiped out probably a year of tax they paid in one go. Hip replacement £7,000... it goes on and on. Then they likewise get racist and blame immigrants for the NHS's struggles, especially with brexit, not realising young immigrants are one of the main reason the UK's health service is still standing despite the greying of the country.
How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
Post by: mtn on February 02, 2017, 01:31:45 PM
It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The cognitive dissonance is amazing, they use roads and infrastructure paid by the state, healthcare, social care and every facet of their life involves state expenditure. Its worse in the UK with the elderly not realising a hospital bed costs £300 a night, that one week stay with sepsis wiped out probably a year of tax they paid in one go. Hip replacement £7,000... it goes on and on. Then they likewise get racist and blame immigrants for the NHS's struggles, especially with brexit, not realising young immigrants are one of the main reason the UK's health service is still standing despite the greying of the country.
How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
My MIL is somewhat similar. Been a democrat most of her life. Feminist even. Hated Hillary. Thinks its insane to allow refugees in. Agrees with Trumps "not a Muslim" ban. It baffles me.
Thankfully she did not vote Trump at least.
Post by: 4alpacas on February 02, 2017, 01:38:40 PM
Maybe if you get her out of her bubble. If she has positive, personal interactions withe people who are different than her, then she probably won't be so scared of different types of people.It's amazing. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching a few older folks who spend their golden years wasting away in front of a TV, or computer, spewing propaganda from Fox news and the like. They then develop the delusion that they (being white,and the chosen ones) have "earned" everything they receive from the social welfare system, and more. They are also convinced that, as special snowflakes, they are in fact NOT getting a dime from any socialist program, only having their hard earned contributions returned to them. This coupled with the fact that they are entitled to keeping all of their assets, until such time as they transfer to the children, since the "government only wants to steal it". Naturally, all this is accompanied by the less than subtle racist undertones that "others" don't deserve the same benefits, since you know......................
The cognitive dissonance is amazing, they use roads and infrastructure paid by the state, healthcare, social care and every facet of their life involves state expenditure. Its worse in the UK with the elderly not realising a hospital bed costs £300 a night, that one week stay with sepsis wiped out probably a year of tax they paid in one go. Hip replacement £7,000... it goes on and on. Then they likewise get racist and blame immigrants for the NHS's struggles, especially with brexit, not realising young immigrants are one of the main reason the UK's health service is still standing despite the greying of the country.
How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
Post by: talltexan on February 02, 2017, 02:28:45 PM
Post by: Just Joe on February 02, 2017, 03:18:10 PM
Get a 100% pure dose of whatever ideology often enough to the exclusion of other ideas - and a person gets a little extreme - assuming they are the type who can be persuaded.
Is this similar to leaving our previous life roles as good American consumers in favor of frugality?
Still can't see how anyone could support Trump with all his bad behavior. Lousy manners, hateful friends, mental issues, communication issues, selfish, and on and on and on...
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 02, 2017, 06:04:16 PM
Still can't see how anyone could support Trump with all his bad behavior. Lousy manners, hateful friends, mental issues, communication issues, selfish, and on and on and on...You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton on more conservative sites! :P
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 02, 2017, 06:23:36 PM
Post by: Abe on February 02, 2017, 07:56:55 PM
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 02, 2017, 09:29:06 PM
Oh no here it goes.Sorry, I didn't mean to start anything--just trying to inject a little perspective with a bit of humor before anyone gets stuck in an echo chamber :D
Post by: infogoon on February 03, 2017, 06:41:15 AM
Sudden behavior changes in elderly may be a sign of dementia.
Sometimes it's a sign of "nothing to do in retirement but watch cable news and melt into the couch".
Post by: Sofa King on February 03, 2017, 07:51:40 AM
Still can't see how anyone could support Trump with all his bad behavior. Lousy manners, hateful friends, mental issues, communication issues, selfish, and on and on and on...You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton on more conservative sites! :P
I concur!!!
Post by: jinga nation on February 03, 2017, 08:11:07 AM
You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Libertarian sites!Still can't see how anyone could support Trump with all his bad behavior. Lousy manners, hateful friends, mental issues, communication issues, selfish, and on and on and on...You know, it's funny, because I see those exact sentiments expressed about Hillary Clinton on more conservative sites! :P
Post by: Just Joe on February 03, 2017, 08:39:25 AM
Oh no here it goes.Sorry, I didn't mean to start anything--just trying to inject a little perspective with a bit of humor before anyone gets stuck in an echo chamber :D
Yep - backing away from the abyss. Sorry folks...
Post by: talltexan on February 03, 2017, 01:18:52 PM
10 years ago this month, her grandfather died, and her father managed the estate. We weren't married at the time, but based on several clues, I've calculated that more estate tax was paid than the total career after tax earnings of my father-in-law up to that point. That sort of event has to burn, having the gov't take away that kind of cheddar in one moment (and a moment in which you're hurting).
Post by: mtn on February 03, 2017, 01:35:36 PM
My wife claims her parents have become much more extreme conservatives over the last ten years (which completely envelope our relationship).
10 years ago this month, her grandfather died, and her father managed the estate. We weren't married at the time, but based on several clues, I've calculated that more estate tax was paid than the total career after tax earnings of my father-in-law up to that point. That sort of event has to burn, having the gov't take away that kind of cheddar in one moment (and a moment in which you're hurting).
I've always had a problem with estate taxes. I understand them, but the money has already been taxed--probably multiple times (income, then capital gains). Then they tax it again?
Obviously nowadays it is a HUGE estate if it is getting taxed, but it still irks me.
Post by: radram on February 03, 2017, 02:55:28 PM
This is no longer precise under current law. It is true that taxes would have been paid for income, some dividends, rents collected, etc. It is also true that taxes would have been paid on monies used to buy investments (stocks, bonds, property, etc.), unless of course they were purchased within a tax sheltered account.My wife claims her parents have become much more extreme conservatives over the last ten years (which completely envelope our relationship).
10 years ago this month, her grandfather died, and her father managed the estate. We weren't married at the time, but based on several clues, I've calculated that more estate tax was paid than the total career after tax earnings of my father-in-law up to that point. That sort of event has to burn, having the gov't take away that kind of cheddar in one moment (and a moment in which you're hurting).
I've always had a problem with estate taxes. I understand them, but the money has already been taxed--probably multiple times (income, then capital gains). Then they tax it again?
Obviously nowadays it is a HUGE estate if it is getting taxed, but it still irks me.
There are no capital gains taxes on any unrealized gains until they are realized. As you said, unless your estate is huge ($5.6MM single, $11MM married), all unrealized gains are transferred to beneficiaries having paid no tax. If you purchase stocks that do not pay a dividend, that can easily be millions of dollars in gains that were never taxed.
With a tax sheltered account, the government realizes the money has never been taxed. As a result, the beneficiaries are responsible for paying the tax on distributions. Would you agree that is fair?
What I see as unfair is that all unrealized gains are not treated the same way as tax sheltered accounts. It seems unfair that millions of dollars of wealth can be transferred without ever paying a tax.
I also disagree with different monies being taxed at different rates (income vs. capital gains for example). My .04% checking account, my rents collected, and bonds are taxed at my income rate (25%), but my qualified dividends are taxed at my capital gain tax rate (0%). Unfair, yet I am taking full advantage. Under current rules, income is for suckers.
I would expect future tax law to modify this by treating rental receipts as a capital gain instead of income. Why? What does Trump do for a living? Also, if you think the estate tax exemption is huge now, just wait. I truly believe it will be 0% tax for 100% of all estates in the next 4 years. It sounds like this is what you want, but I find it anything but fair. I still intend to take full advantage, as I hope you do as well.
Good day to you.
Post by: dogboyslim on February 03, 2017, 03:20:36 PM
I would agree that makes no sense. I don't think it should be forced to be recognized as a gain upon passing of the asset either, but the gain (when sold) should be off the original basis.
Post by: Just Joe on February 03, 2017, 03:25:07 PM
Post by: Sibley on February 03, 2017, 03:43:12 PM
Doesn't make a good case for shifting wealth to your children bit by bit long before death?
It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are cases where gifting during life is a better idea than inheritance, but you really need to get a tax expert involved to determine it. I used to know one, and worked as staff on a few projects with him. It is not simple.
Post by: radram on February 03, 2017, 03:47:56 PM
Doesn't make a good case for shifting wealth to your children bit by bit long before death?
Shifting wealth is also interesting and a bit unfair to me as well.
I can give a total of $14,000 to each person I choose tax free. Yet when I pay my daughters $10.00 an hour to help paint our rental property, it is taxed as income for them. So I can give them money tax free for doing nothing, but they are taxed for earning it. Just sounds messed up to me.
It just doesn't seem right that I can gift anyone I want 1 years salary of a minimum wage earner for doing nothing, yet the minimum wage earner pays SS, medicare, and even a little income tax. My giftee does nothing to help society, yet the minimum wage earner contributes quite a bit.
Post by: rpr on February 03, 2017, 04:53:08 PM
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-largest-tax-expenditures (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-largest-tax-expenditures)
Post by: BlueHouse on February 03, 2017, 05:32:04 PM
As you said, unless your estate is huge ($5.6MM single, $11MM married), all unrealized gains are transferred to beneficiaries having paid no tax. If you purchase stocks that do not pay a dividend, that can easily be millions of dollars in gains that were never taxed.
Don't forget about State Inheritance and tax laws. In DC, the inheritance tax kicks in at $1M.
Post by: radram on February 03, 2017, 09:49:59 PM
As you said, unless your estate is huge ($5.6MM single, $11MM married), all unrealized gains are transferred to beneficiaries having paid no tax. If you purchase stocks that do not pay a dividend, that can easily be millions of dollars in gains that were never taxed.
Don't forget about State Inheritance and tax laws. In DC, the inheritance tax kicks in at $1M.
In WI, it is the same as federal, so $0 for 99.6% of all estates.
Post by: nawhite on February 04, 2017, 11:48:20 AM
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
Post by: TomTX on February 04, 2017, 04:56:45 PM
Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
The truly wealthy will hide it all in trusts and other shelters anyway.
Post by: former player on February 04, 2017, 05:05:59 PM
Trusts and other shelters are all created under laws, and if the lawmakers wanted to ensure that money in them was taxed, they could. The fact that they don't, and that the fact that they don't is used to argue against having the tax, is itself telling.Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
The truly wealthy will hide it all in trusts and other shelters anyway.
I'm with nawhite: estate tax is the only way to prevent oligarchy - which you pretty much already have in the USA, right?
Post by: Dave1442397 on February 04, 2017, 06:46:57 PM
All the multi-millionaires I know (we're talking people with assets in the hundreds of millions) have structured their businesses to bypass the estate tax completely.
As an immigrant, three of the things I was amazed at in the Land of the Free were property taxes, estate taxes, and having to pay money to go to a beach (NJ shore).
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 05, 2017, 08:56:52 PM
Nah, the US is just fine on that front. Dynastic wealth is the exception, not the rule.Trusts and other shelters are all created under laws, and if the lawmakers wanted to ensure that money in them was taxed, they could. The fact that they don't, and that the fact that they don't is used to argue against having the tax, is itself telling.Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
The truly wealthy will hide it all in trusts and other shelters anyway.
I'm with nawhite: estate tax is the only way to prevent oligarchy - which you pretty much already have in the USA, right?
Inheritance taxes are a complex subject and it's really hard to draw any conclusions on what the best approach should be because wealth comes in all shapes and sizes. It's really, really hard to come up with rules that are fair to everyone.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 05, 2017, 10:09:19 PM
Nah, the US is just fine on that front. Dynastic wealth is the exception, not the rule.Trusts and other shelters are all created under laws, and if the lawmakers wanted to ensure that money in them was taxed, they could. The fact that they don't, and that the fact that they don't is used to argue against having the tax, is itself telling.Estate taxes should have nothing to do with tax basis or what kind of income it was our anything else. It's a tax on dying with money because we as society think that people dying with money is bad for society long term. It leads to inequality, a landed gentry and oligarchy.
Personally I think the estate tax should be more like 100% on all assets over $10 million or so with no exceptions at all. It's enough to not need to sell most farms or houses and if liquid assets, it allows you to provide a median income to 5 children for the rest of their lives. That will never pass though.
The truly wealthy will hide it all in trusts and other shelters anyway.
I'm with nawhite: estate tax is the only way to prevent oligarchy - which you pretty much already have in the USA, right?
Inheritance taxes are a complex subject and it's really hard to draw any conclusions on what the best approach should be because wealth comes in all shapes and sizes. It's really, really hard to come up with rules that are fair to everyone.
Indeed, especially when wealth from a family business or farm that requires daily work and attention is treated the same as wealth from a stock portfolio. The assets don't behave the same way.
A person who inherits, say, a home in a HCOL area might receive only a 2000 sqft place on a quarter of an acre (which is more than sufficient for the average Mustachian family), but if that quarter acre and 2000 sqft house is on Mulholland Drive, that individual might as well have received three full sections of arable land in wheat country, a light industrial real estate property that throws off $300k a year in income, a fair bit of VTSAX, or two paintings by reasonably famous people. If all those estates were taxed at a rate of, say 25%, the heir who received the home would most likely have to liquidate.
Here's my explanation. The VTSAX heir has the most options, and can use dividend or appreciated income in order to pay taxes. It's very easy to liquidate just a small portion. The person inheriting farmland is also sitting pretty. He or she could, at need, sell off a quarter-section or half-section to satisfy the tax man even though land isn't exactly a liquid asset. He or she could also borrow against the income producing capacity of the land (measurable in terms of rent or crop profit). After a few good years, the mortgage against the land will be paid off. In the event of a bad year, the crop is insured. The person with the light industrial property cannot sell off a portion of it and must borrow against income. If there is a vacancy the property bleeds value quickly. But after a few years the property should still repay the mortgage out of cash flow; the risk is just higher because it's harder to get insurance against losses in a bad year. You can insure against the place burning down (and the related loss of income) but you can't buy insurance against the tenant deciding to leave at the end of the lease term. The person with two paintings can potentially sell one of them, or borrow against the value of one of the paintings, but there's no cash flow associated with the paintings since they don't generate income. They also don't generate much in terms of expenses. As long as they're insured against fire and theft, and stored in a reasonable way, they don't cost a lot just to own. They can be kept for years and then sold. Any money to be made, or any disappointing losses, don't occur until sale. So the heir pretty much has to sell one of the paintings. If there's something about the paintings that makes them only valuable as a set, both must be liquidated to satisfy the tax. The person with the house, though, is pretty much screwed. Unless it's possible to rent the place out for income (unlikely, in that neighborhood), the heir will pretty much have to sell. There are significant expenses associated with owning the home because of property taxes and maintenance costs.
Trying to write a law that takes all those scenarios into account and taxes each person fairly would be nearly impossible. Estate taxes are vicious to people who inherit illiquid assets or assets that require upkeep or maintenance costs. For most non-Mustachian affluent people, a substantial amount of wealth is still in the family home. Most of us believe that if your home is your most expensive asset you're in serious trouble, but the vast majority of humans don't agree with us and the laws do tend to be written to cater to the majority. Or the influential.
Post by: RecoveringCarClown on February 05, 2017, 11:07:08 PM
Most of us believe that if your home is your most expensive asset you're in serious trouble, but the vast majority of humans don't agree with us and the laws do tend to be written to cater to the majority. Or the influential.
I never thought of it that way, but I agree with you. Thanks for pointing it out!
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on February 06, 2017, 01:11:18 AM
Indeed, especially when wealth from a family business or farm that requires daily work and attention is treated the same as wealth from a stock portfolio. The assets don't behave the same way.
...
Trying to write a law that takes all those scenarios into account and taxes each person fairly would be nearly impossible. Estate taxes are vicious to people who inherit illiquid assets or assets that require upkeep or maintenance costs. For most non-Mustachian affluent people, a substantial amount of wealth is still in the family home. Most of us believe that if your home is your most expensive asset you're in serious trouble, but the vast majority of humans don't agree with us and the laws do tend to be written to cater to the majority. Or the influential.
The bit that really gets me is why the inheritance laws try to protect so many of these scenarios. If I've arranged my entire financial life so that my sole asset is a (literal or metaphorical) white elephant that is valuable but needs expensive feed and medical care why should my heirs be protected from my bad choices. They shouldn't be obliged to accept land or elephants that they don't want or the upkeep makes them uneconomic (this is already the case here, I think it is the same other places?). But I see no reason that estates should be protected anymore than I should be protected if I have all my wealth in my house and can't pay my cable bill. Or have all my wealth in my elephant and can't pay the vet. If you have an asset and can't pay a bill you need to raise capital or sell the asset.
Post by: shelivesthedream on February 06, 2017, 02:20:17 AM
Indeed, especially when wealth from a family business or farm that requires daily work and attention is treated the same as wealth from a stock portfolio. The assets don't behave the same way.
...
Trying to write a law that takes all those scenarios into account and taxes each person fairly would be nearly impossible. Estate taxes are vicious to people who inherit illiquid assets or assets that require upkeep or maintenance costs. For most non-Mustachian affluent people, a substantial amount of wealth is still in the family home. Most of us believe that if your home is your most expensive asset you're in serious trouble, but the vast majority of humans don't agree with us and the laws do tend to be written to cater to the majority. Or the influential.
The bit that really gets me is why the inheritance laws try to protect so many of these scenarios. If I've arranged my entire financial life so that my sole asset is a (literal or metaphorical) white elephant that is valuable but needs expensive feed and medical care why should my heirs be protected from my bad choices. They shouldn't be obliged to accept land or elephants that they don't want or the upkeep makes them uneconomic (this is already the case here, I think it is the same other places?). But I see no reason that estates should be protected anymore than I should be protected if I have all my wealth in my house and can't pay my cable bill. Or have all my wealth in my elephant and can't pay the vet. If you have an asset and can't pay a bill you need to raise capital or sell the asset.
I'm inclined to agree with this. If an estate is taxed so that an heir ends up with NOTHING, that is not very kind. But if an estate is taxed such that an heir has to either take on the normal responsibilities of owning such a thing (like putting down a deposit before you can own a house) or sell up, I can't really see what there is to object to. Even if they have to sell the house, they're still hundreds of thousands of pounds up on where they were before. You can't be all "Oh, boo hoo, I got a free thing and now I have to actually take responsibility for it which means I get slightly less free thing!"
I can see two scenarios in which this might be difficult:
1. If the person who died had died LONG before expected. Like if they made a will in their forties expecting to die in several decades time and then died the next day. I can see how the inevitably young heirs might not be prepared for that.
2. If you're leaving someone a house so they can live in it - like a disabled child. In this case, perhaps a fair law would be that no inheritance tax is paid as long as the child is living in the house but when they move out or die, the estate is taxed double? (Once for the original deceased and once for the disabled child?)
I quite like the idea of a high threshold for inheritance tax and 99% tax above it. I wonder what that threshold would need to be for inheritance tax receipts to remain the same. I don't know how to work it out. I did just do a quick google, though, and seems like in America you can leave $5.45m in your estate before paying any tax. Is that right? In the UK you're not taxed on the first £325,000 (or up to £650,000 if you're the surviving spouse - any unused exemption gets transferred), so people can get into real trouble leaving property, especially in the South East.
Post by: talltexan on February 06, 2017, 07:13:49 AM
Post by: radram on February 06, 2017, 09:32:00 AM
The main reason these kinds of situations develop is due to the way the US allows heirs to inherit things with a stepped up basis. It encourages elderly people to hang on to assets long past the time they may need or be able to manage them well, just to avoid the tax hit. And the costs of not understanding this can be huge. I am a little worried about my mom, for example. She has gotten the idea in her head that since the people next door have expressed an interest in her house, maybe she should sell it to them. I keep telling her that since her original plan was that the house would go to my brother, she should stick to that. Because if she sells to the neighbors now, not only would she probably get less than it is worth (she thinks it is only worth the tax assessed value, which is way lower than market value), she would take a HUGE tax hit. Whereas if we hang on to the house until she passes, my brother would then get the house at the stepped up basis, and be able to sell it for much more (he is not sentimental about it going to the neighbors) besides.
Reminder to self: Put getting a meeting with a lawyer scheduled on the to do list soon. We need proper power of attorney to make sure mom doesn't do anything crazy.....
Don't forget the $250,000 federal capital gains exclusion of primary residence. Is her gain, less cost basis, higher than that? Did you remember to include all repairs to the home like roofs, remodels etc.
Your post sounds like you believe your mother can no longer make decisions for herself. If so, I wish you well. Trying to convince your mother, or a court, that her decisions need to be scrutinized is hard to be a part of. You are essentially saying her mind is no longer capable of telling right from wrong. The fact that she did not set this up ahead of time makes it much more complicated and difficult.
Post by: radram on February 06, 2017, 10:38:05 AM
The house was built in the late '60s/early '70s. A new roof was put on several years ago, but it has otherwise not been updated. But it is a fairly large waterfront property within an hour's drive of Seattle. The capital gains will far exceed the $250k tax-free allowance (my mom was widowed over 30 years ago).
She is still with it mentally, does not have dementia, and I don't think she would do anything rash with the property, but we do need to get power of attorney set up so that we can step in as needed to oversee these higher level decisions. She has granted my sister durable POA if she is incapacitated, but we probably need a higher level of oversight than that.
Just for the record, all of us would be totally ok if she did sell the property and spend all the money down. It just would not be the most prudent financial approach. It is not likely to come to that because she still has a significant amount in savings to cover any assisted living costs over and above what she gets from soc sec and her REIT investments.
I am really glad you clarified the issue with this follow-up post.
For a while there, it was sounding to me like you were about to act in your/your brother's best interest, not necessarily your mothers. That is a hard thing to accuse someone of, especially a stranger. Glad to see I was on the wrong track.
Goo day to you.
Post by: dogboyslim on February 06, 2017, 11:11:45 AM
I do appreciate the listing of the different kinds of assets, but wealthy people who own these assets also have access to insurance markets, from which they can buy an insurance policy to generate the cash that would pay tax for the value of the estate. Insurance companies should be lobbying to keep the estate tax.
Why do you think Warren Buffett is such a fan of the estate tax?
Post by: G-dog on February 06, 2017, 11:21:29 AM
I do appreciate the listing of the different kinds of assets, but wealthy people who own these assets also have access to insurance markets, from which they can buy an insurance policy to generate the cash that would pay tax for the value of the estate. Insurance companies should be lobbying to keep the estate tax.
Why do you think Warren Buffett is such a fan of the estate tax?
But he's not leaving any money to his kids. Not sure about his wife (I assume some sort of trust, or co-ownership so not an inheritance). He is giving away most of his wealth (along with Bill and Melinda Gates, etc.). Of course, even his leftovers are sizable.
Post by: talltexan on February 06, 2017, 02:57:33 PM
And, yes, he's done really well from understanding insurance and re-insurance as well.
But--in his defense--this required identifying businesses that were stable enough that when control was passed, they wouldn't fail. Nebraska furniture mart is an example that comes to mind. Many family firms quickly lose momentum when the scion fails to have the head for business of the patriarch (or Matriarch).
Post by: act0fgod on February 06, 2017, 04:17:50 PM
But he's not leaving any money to his kids. Not sure about his wife (I assume some sort of trust, or co-ownership so not an inheritance). He is giving away most of his wealth (along with Bill and Melinda Gates, etc.). Of course, even his leftovers are sizable.
Not sure I'd go so far as saying Buffett isn't leaving any money to his kids. He's given a couple billion to each of the foundations his kids run, ie the foundations that pay his kids.
Like all of these threads on inheritance and the drama that goes with them, it's never really straight forward.
Post by: talltexan on February 07, 2017, 08:21:37 AM
He is truly the Mozart of Free enterprise.
Post by: mtn on February 07, 2017, 08:22:43 AM
Buffet has so much money that his statements are slightly skewed. He could leave his kids only .001% (1/10,000) of his net worth, and they would still be considered independently wealthy (this is completely ignoring any and all taxes and assuming his net worth is all in cash, which is obviously completely missing the point). Yes, he is doing more good than almost anyone, and I greatly admire him, but don't think that he's not leaving his kids a fortune. It just isn't one of the largest fortunes in history that will be left to them.
Post by: MMMaybe on February 09, 2017, 05:35:15 AM
Post by: mtn on February 09, 2017, 08:10:16 AM
I think I just got my first taste of whats to come. My in-laws made us walk around their house and put our names on things we wanted to inherit. I found it really awkward, like being a vulture!
How did your spouse feel though? That stuff probably feels like hers/his anyways.
Post by: Chris22 on February 09, 2017, 09:09:06 AM
Personally I really admire how both Buffett and Gates have handled the succession issue.
I admire what Buffett and Gates do because I think it makes them good people, but that doesn't mean I think their actions should be law. Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.
Post by: Chris22 on February 09, 2017, 09:17:21 AM
I think I just got my first taste of whats to come. My in-laws made us walk around their house and put our names on things we wanted to inherit. I found it really awkward, like being a vulture!
My grandmother recently passed, and because most of her/our family is scattered pretty far around the country, we took some time when we were all in town for the funeral (grandkids/spouses, kids/spouses, etc) and went through her whole house and distributed as much as could be while everyone was there. Did feel a little odd to do that the night of the wake/before the funeral (i.e., she wasn't even buried yet) but it made practical sense. And honestly, she had plenty of "stuff" but almost none of it was anything anyone really wanted. The Waterford crystal and china was distributed amongst the granddaughters and female grand-spouses, a few more valuable pieces of jewelry to the daughter and female spouses of the sons and the rest to the grandkids as they wanted, and then the odd picture or other memento was claimed, but in reality there is a whole small townhome's worth of stuff that no one really wants and is hard to give away. Sadly, most of it just went into a dumpster. The fortunate thing was that even though that side of the family doesn't always get along, the whole process with like 15 of us in the house was very civil and no one got bent out of shape about anything. Anything saleable remaining (house, car, etc) will be sold and distributed equally to the three children of my grandma.
Post by: mtn on February 09, 2017, 09:32:14 AM
Personally I really admire how both Buffett and Gates have handled the succession issue.
I admire what Buffett and Gates do because I think it makes them good people, but that doesn't mean I think their actions should be law. Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.
Not to mention that with the size of their estates it really is a different picture entirely. If they lost roughly 80% of their net worth, they'd still be in the top 50 wealthiest people in the world, or close to it. It is really easy to say "Yeah, I'm going to donate 97% of my estate" when your estate is $2BIL (like the Hilton Fortune) because the remaining 3% is $60MIL.
I've always considered monetary wealth to be around $5,000,000. That gives you an annual residual income of $200k. That is wealthy. But it isn't in the same ballpark, or even same sport as the billionaires of the world. Hell, even with 3 heirs, a $12 million dollar estate doesn't even get each of the heirs the $5 million that I consider to be the wealthy marker.
(Don't dig deep into this--just take it on the surface level. I've left out taxes, the probably leg ups that a child of a 12mil estate has had their entire lives, etc.)
Post by: mtn on February 09, 2017, 09:33:25 AM
I think I just got my first taste of whats to come. My in-laws made us walk around their house and put our names on things we wanted to inherit. I found it really awkward, like being a vulture!
My grandmother recently passed, and because most of her/our family is scattered pretty far around the country, we took some time when we were all in town for the funeral (grandkids/spouses, kids/spouses, etc) and went through her whole house and distributed as much as could be while everyone was there. Did feel a little odd to do that the night of the wake/before the funeral (i.e., she wasn't even buried yet) but it made practical sense. And honestly, she had plenty of "stuff" but almost none of it was anything anyone really wanted. The Waterford crystal and china was distributed amongst the granddaughters and female grand-spouses, a few more valuable pieces of jewelry to the daughter and female spouses of the sons and the rest to the grandkids as they wanted, and then the odd picture or other memento was claimed, but in reality there is a whole small townhome's worth of stuff that no one really wants and is hard to give away. Sadly, most of it just went into a dumpster. The fortunate thing was that even though that side of the family doesn't always get along, the whole process with like 15 of us in the house was very civil and no one got bent out of shape about anything. Anything saleable remaining (house, car, etc) will be sold and distributed equally to the three children of my grandma.
No estate sale?
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 10, 2017, 05:44:56 AM
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Post by: jinga nation on February 10, 2017, 05:47:54 AM
Uncle Sam wants you to use it or lose it. And he doesn't want you to enjoy 'Hookers & Blow'.Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Post by: former player on February 10, 2017, 05:54:31 AM
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?Donald J Trump.
Post by: plainjane on February 10, 2017, 07:12:24 AM
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Beyond the moral hazard, the US already has a fairly poor amount of generational movement between the quintiles. Wealth inequality is associated with social unrest, because the people who are at the bottom don't see any value in playing by the rules. Bread and circuses only work so well. History shows if you don't give people legitimate opportunity for success, they will find other ways (crime, violence, rebellion) or they will drop out (drugs/alcohol).
For me, this is much like the question of why we vaccinate, or educate kids. It doesn't just make it better for them, it makes it better for everyone to live in a society where people have a chance to do cool things.
Post by: talltexan on February 10, 2017, 07:18:06 AM
And, yes, there's a fee to pay for this guarantee, with larger estates paying more.
Post by: radram on February 10, 2017, 08:13:05 AM
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
I do not understand either of these positions, and I sincerely ask for clarity. Other than the "all taxes are evil" position, I come to this discussion with the premise that SOME taxes are a necessity and the only decision is to be what we tax (losers), and what we do not tax(winners), and of course the percentages of said necessities. If it helps in the conversation, assume that the federal government needs $1(one) dollar to operate on an annual basis, and we are determining the best way to fund it fairly.
I do not understand why the entirety of someone's estate is to automatically be put into the winners column. I understand a certain amount excluded, I would understand treating already taxed net worth differently than unrealized capital gains. I would also understand keeping the original cost basis to defer taxes in order to prevent a forced sale of a family business. I respectfully ask for both of you to further explain why you feel my position is incorrect.
Do you both agree that unrealized gains should continue to be taxed at 0% and stepped up in basis for the first $5 million? What about after that amount. Current taxes for the living maxes out at 20% for long term capital gains, but 39.6% for income. What are your positions as to why this is "fair"? Max inheritance tax is 40%, very similar to the max income rates. Why should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than income. To that end, why should my rental income be treated as regular income, but my dividends are not? Why shouldn't all income taxed the same?
Would you both agree that the cost basis should not be taxed at all since it has already been taxed, but any gains, unrealized or not, should eventually be taxed. That may be by the beneficiary when they eventually sell at the ORIGINAL cost basis with the profit taxed at their tax rate.
Why should anyone receive any gain without being taxed eventually, minus reasonable exclusions like primary residence home selling or the multi-millions in inheritance exclusion from taxes as examples?
If I take my income, after it is taxed, and hire someone to do work for me, they will also be taxed on THEIR income. That was originally simply MY already taxed income. I would argue this money should not be taxed well before inheritance money is excluded, they at least did something for it. Why should an inheritance get MORE favorable treatment than labor?
Post by: iris lily on February 10, 2017, 08:30:08 AM
He is a good kid. They are both good kids.
The estranged one is a solid citizen, she is just permenantly mad at her parents for reasons I no longer try to understand. She would not blow the money, and there is a fair amount, probably a couple million.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 10, 2017, 09:02:10 AM
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
So far as I know, everything you mentioned is taxed. There are indeed taxes on real estate (property tax and sometimes state tax), on vehicles (registration and state taxes), at restaurants (sales taxes), and any other way a person might spend the money. Hookers and blow might be the exception, but only because people who sell illegal things aren't known for being proactive in collecting and remitting tax. If there was a viable way to tax hookers and blow, governments would do that too.
Post by: secondcor521 on February 10, 2017, 09:17:50 AM
You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Anybody who is in federal estate tax territory is NOT going to deplete their assets by giving their kids/grandkids 14k/year. As noted upthread, state taxes may be a different ballgame.
I don't see why this isn't practical. Seems like an excellent way for those near the federal taxable thresholds to ensure they limit the taxes and maximize money going to the family.
After consultation with a CPA, we are doing this - well, at least we are prepared to do this - in my family. 529 5-year gifting is also another excellent addition to the tool set.
The two tricks seem to be to be aware of the situation before the crossover point and have enough beneficiaries that you like. If you only have one kid and your estate is growing at 10% through the ~$5.5M estate tax exemption number that is growing at inflation, you're going to have a problem because you can't give the money away fast enough. In our particular scenario, the estate is expected to grow at about 8% and there are 12 beneficiaries, and so if we see it getting close to the limit, full-on gifting to everyone can keep it below the limit.
We also are careful not to go to far the other way; it is a first priority that the money is there to take care of the person who worked very hard to earn it his entire life. In our case it doesn't look like this will be a problem.
No state inheritance or estate taxes in our case.
Post by: TomTX on February 10, 2017, 09:22:28 AM
Personally, I'm of the mind that estates should pass how the person who has the estate wants, and the state has no right to that money. If the person who earned or otherwise held the money thinks it should go to their Paris Hilton-esque daughter to blow in a lifetime of partying and drugs and bullshit, so be it; I don't think the government should get their greedy hooks in it.Yeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Really? What restaurants outside of Delaware have no sales tax? If i buy a Bentley there is sales tax, pkus registration and inspection tax.
Transfers of money are often taxed
Post by: JrDoctor on February 10, 2017, 10:57:35 AM
How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
I have no idea, sadly racism often goes with stupidity. A few nights ago a patient started getting racist about the foreign doctors in A&E. Of four of us I was the only 'English' doctor (ironically not born in England but white so that was good enough for the patient). The racist ignoramus didn't realise there would be no A&E service without foreign doctors.
Post by: Dicey on February 10, 2017, 11:46:50 AM
Sadly, hate is taught and is based on fear. Hard as it seems to muster, a grain of empathy that the person in question was taught by bigots might help a tiny bit. In the case of dementia, once the rational mind has checked out, fear and paranoia often step in to fill the gap. Hateful, absolutely, but not always within the hater's control, strange as that sounds.How do you combat this? My mom has suddenly (at least that her DD's knew of) turned into the worst example of US Conservative there is. Racist, prejudiced, intolerant, etc. If you don't discuss politics or current events, you'd never know.
I have no idea, sadly racism often goes with stupidity. A few nights ago a patient started getting racist about the foreign doctors in A&E. Of four of us I was the only 'English' doctor (ironically not born in England but white so that was good enough for the patient). The racist ignoramus didn't realise there would be no A&E service without foreign doctors.
MIL has Alzheimer's. She hasn't seen her wildly dysfunctional daughter in four years, yet any time something goes missing, she says "SuzieQ took it when she was here the other day." Um, no. Once, we were sitting in the car, waiting for DH to return from a seperate errand. She was in the back seat. A man of color approached, on his way you his own car. She reached over and locked her door. Asshole. I constantly have to tell myself that she can't help it. Constantly. Did I mention constantly?
Post by: TomTX on February 10, 2017, 12:22:20 PM
Remember that it is $14k per person. A couple with 3 married kids could transfer $162k per year. Each unmarried grandkid, nephew and whatnot is another $28k per yearYou can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Anybody who is in federal estate tax territory is NOT going to deplete their assets by giving their kids/grandkids 14k/year. As noted upthread, state taxes may be a different ballgame.
I don't see why this isn't practical. Seems like an excellent way for those near the federal taxable thresholds to ensure they limit the taxes and maximize money going to the family.
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 10, 2017, 12:41:27 PM
Yup. And people who are well into the federal estate tax territory hopefully don't start their estate planning 6 months before croaking. Say you expect to die at 85 (the wealthy tend to live longer than most), at 70 you've already been retired a couple of years and know what your future looks like. You can start your "exit strategy" and give away millions over the next decade+, provided you have enough heirs and charitable recipients. You do this every January 1 by sitting down with your spouse and writing all your checks for the year in 30 minutes.Remember that it is $14k per person. A couple with 3 married kids could transfer $162k per year. Each unmarried grandkid, nephew and whatnot is another $28k per yearYou can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Anybody who is in federal estate tax territory is NOT going to deplete their assets by giving their kids/grandkids 14k/year. As noted upthread, state taxes may be a different ballgame.
I don't see why this isn't practical. Seems like an excellent way for those near the federal taxable thresholds to ensure they limit the taxes and maximize money going to the family.
Post by: Just Joe on February 10, 2017, 02:59:37 PM
Post by: secondcor521 on February 10, 2017, 05:12:09 PM
Could you cash those checks and just put it in the safe? I mean its your money - who is to say you don't like to spend alot? Then hand over the cash to the family later when you feel like it?
Sure, but cash on hand, if it's still "yours", is counted for the purposes of estate taxes. I thought the discussion was about how to avoid estate taxes. Unless you've completed the gift, it would still be included in your estate.
Also, if you accumulated several years' worth of giving in your safe, then when you did hand it over, you might run afoul of the $14K per person per year limit, which would either result in gift taxes or a reduction in your estate tax exemption later when you did pass away.
Or, if you did have a safe full of cash and didn't declare it, then you'd probably be committing federal felonious tax evasion and/or perjury if you later sign an income tax or estate tax return.
Post by: Catbert on February 11, 2017, 11:52:25 AM
Could you cash those checks and just put it in the safe? I mean its your money - who is to say you don't like to spend alot? Then hand over the cash to the family later when you feel like it?
Sure, but cash on hand, if it's still "yours", is counted for the purposes of estate taxes. I thought the discussion was about how to avoid estate taxes. Unless you've completed the gift, it would still be included in your estate.
Also, if you accumulated several years' worth of giving in your safe, then when you did hand it over, you might run afoul of the $14K per person per year limit, which would either result in gift taxes or a reduction in your estate tax exemption later when you did pass away.
Or, if you did have a safe full of cash and didn't declare it, then you'd probably be committing federal felonious tax evasion and/or perjury if you later sign an income tax or estate tax return.
On the plus side though, stacks of cash in a house after the owner dies are likely to generate more stories for this thread...
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 13, 2017, 07:31:13 AM
Interesting--I was unaware that the basis was reset on inheritance. I think that either the basis should remain as-is OR the money gets taxed when transferred. Or allow the inheritors to stick it in an IRA :DYeah, I don't quite understand it either. If the wealthy person decides to spend the money on a yacht or a mansion or a Bentley or eating at fancy restaurants, there's no extra tax. But if they want to give it to their kids (upon their death), then the tax man demands an extra pound of flesh. You can do the whole $14k-per-year thing, but it's not practical for large estates, and you also run the risk of depleting your assets too soon if you live too long.
Other than a blatant grab for cash, what's the purpose behind an inheritance tax? What is the negative outcome that such a tax is preventing?
Do you both agree that unrealized gains should continue to be taxed at 0% and stepped up in basis for the first $5 million? What about after that amount. Current taxes for the living maxes out at 20% for long term capital gains, but 39.6% for income. What are your positions as to why this is "fair"? Max inheritance tax is 40%, very similar to the max income rates. Why should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than income. To that end, why should my rental income be treated as regular income, but my dividends are not? Why shouldn't all income taxed the same?
Would you both agree that the cost basis should not be taxed at all since it has already been taxed, but any gains, unrealized or not, should eventually be taxed. That may be by the beneficiary when they eventually sell at the ORIGINAL cost basis with the profit taxed at their tax rate.
Why should anyone receive any gain without being taxed eventually, minus reasonable exclusions like primary residence home selling or the multi-millions in inheritance exclusion from taxes as examples?
If I take my income, after it is taxed, and hire someone to do work for me, they will also be taxed on THEIR income. That was originally simply MY already taxed income. I would argue this money should not be taxed well before inheritance money is excluded, they at least did something for it. Why should an inheritance get MORE favorable treatment than labor?
Why do I oppose an inheritance tax? I believe any burden a government places on citizens should be tied to some benefit the government provides in exchange, e.g. gas taxes that pay for road maintenance, income and sales taxes that fund the law enforcement,and a judicial system that ensure stability and predictability, social security taxes that pay retirees (even if I wish I could opt out of it, at least the taxes are directly related to a govt function). Inheritance taxes aren't tied to a government function of any sort, other than what talltexan mentioned about ensuring the orderly transferring of the estate.
Really? What restaurants outside of Delaware have no sales tax? If i buy a Bentley there is sales tax, pkus registration and inspection tax.To clarify, I said "extra" taxes. Whether Grandpa Moneybags spends the money on a yacht, or his kids spend it on Gucci purses, it'll get taxed at that point.
Transfers of money are often taxed
Post by: Spork on February 13, 2017, 07:51:36 AM
Interesting--I was unaware that the basis was reset on inheritance. I think that either the basis should remain as-is OR the money gets taxed when transferred. Or allow the inheritors to stick it in an IRA :D
If nothing else, resetting the basis makes sense from a record keeping standpoint. Maybe this gets less important as brokers have become more computerized... but there will be holdovers for decades even with that. The beneficiaries may not be able to find records of ownership. Consider, for instance, the headache in determining the basis on a 100lb bucket of silver coins. The best guess would be to set the basis at the "newest" coin.
edit: bad quotiness
Post by: radram on February 13, 2017, 09:02:17 AM
Interesting--I was unaware that the basis was reset on inheritance. I think that either the basis should remain as-is OR the money gets taxed when transferred. Or allow the inheritors to stick it in an IRA :D
If nothing else, resetting the basis makes sense from a record keeping standpoint. Maybe this gets less important as brokers have become more computerized... but there will be holdovers for decades even with that. The beneficiaries may not be able to find records of ownership. Consider, for instance, the headache in determining the basis on a 100lb bucket of silver coins. The best guess would be to set the basis at the "newest" coin.
I would prefer to tax yearly unrealized gains before accepting that lazy paperwork is a valid reason to allow millions of a persons inheritance to be transfered to others at a rate of 0%.
How about if you have no paperwork, it is all taxed at the tax rate of the beneficiaries. I have a feeling excellent records would then be kept, don't you?
As a side note, I absolutely HATE the phrase "paying your fair share". I find the phrase absolutely worthless and not at all helpful. I get angry when I hear someone use it. How in the world could a billionaires "fair share" be millions or billions, while an unemployed persons is $0. They are living in the same country. To me, it is all about the fairness of the tax SYSTEM we choose, not in what the overall dollar value one ends up paying. I am sure most billionaires disagree with me.
Post by: radram on February 13, 2017, 09:11:11 AM
Why do I oppose an inheritance tax? I believe any burden a government places on citizens should be tied to some benefit the government provides in exchange, e.g. gas taxes that pay for road maintenance, income and sales taxes that fund the law enforcement,and a judicial system that ensure stability and predictability, social security taxes that pay retirees (even if I wish I could opt out of it, at least the taxes are directly related to a govt function). Inheritance taxes aren't tied to a government function of any sort, other than what talltexan mentioned about ensuring the orderly transferring of the estate.
Very interesting position. I could see this as some combination of your overall tax bill, superimposed over those popular charts that show where $1 is spent. I do like the idea of everyone seeing your total tax burden, and where exactly it goes. Maybe people would be a little more aggressive is demanding we pay down the debt. 6% of every dollar in 2013 was used to pay interest on debt.
It could lead to a more informed dialog, if that is really what we want. I am not so sure the people that make those decisions are in favor of a more informed populous.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 13, 2017, 09:23:12 AM
I would prefer to tax yearly unrealized gains before accepting that lazy paperwork is a valid reason to allow millions of a persons inheritance to be transfered to others at a rate of 0%.It *does* seem a bit odd that inheritors get a free Basis reset
How about if you have no paperwork, it is all taxed at the tax rate of the beneficiaries. I have a feeling excellent records would then be kept, don't you?
As a side note, I absolutely HATE the phrase "paying your fair share". I find the phrase absolutely worthless and not at all helpful. I get angry when I hear someone use it. How in the world could a billionaires "fair share" be millions or billions, while an unemployed persons is $0. They are living in the same country. To me, it is all about the fairness of the tax SYSTEM we choose, not in what the overall dollar value one ends up paying. I am sure most billionaires disagree with me.
When inheriting an IRA, beneficiaries can roll it into their own IRA, or take withdrawals over 5 years and pay income taxes at their marginal rate, if I understand it correctly, so that they don't have to pay the highest marginal rates.
As for the tax system, yeah, the "your fair share" argument really appeals to the less-educated, populist emotions. It's a bit disingenuous to attack a billionaire for making use of all the legal tax-avoidance strategies available to him/her, while ignoring the system that makes it possible. To be fair, politicians usually bring it up as an argument to reform the tax system in some way.
Very interesting position. I could see this as some combination of your overall tax bill, superimposed over those popular charts that show where $1 is spent. I do like the idea of everyone seeing your total tax burden, and where exactly it goes. Maybe people would be a little more aggressive is demanding we pay down the debt. 6% of every dollar in 2013 was used to pay interest on debt.I'm guessing the general population already pays more than 6% of their income on interest as it is, so I'm not sure how effective that argument would be :) But yeah, I wish government expenditures were better publicized.
It could lead to a more informed dialog, if that is really what we want. I am not so sure the people that make those decisions are in favor of a more informed populous.
Part of the complication of our government system is the fact that we have extra layers of taxation and spending. For example, some people are bothered because the federal government spends 10x as much on the military as on education, but they forget that education is funded mostly on the state level.
Post by: Candace on February 13, 2017, 09:25:23 AM
Thanks.
Post by: Dicey on February 14, 2017, 12:51:27 AM
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?+1
Thanks.
Post by: LPeters on February 16, 2017, 09:05:21 PM
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
As the OP— for whatever tiny authority that grants me— I agree. While interesting on their own, inheritance law and taxes belong in their own separate thread, please.
Post by: radram on February 17, 2017, 07:38:29 AM
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 17, 2017, 03:09:04 PM
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
What he's proposing is not illegal. He's within his rights to dispose of what he owns before dying.
Post by: radram on February 17, 2017, 03:45:10 PM
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
What he's proposing is not illegal. He's within his rights to dispose of what he owns before dying.
Not before he dies. He wants me to remove items after his death, and not claim these items as belonging to the estate. I should have phrased that better.
Post by: Spork on February 17, 2017, 04:33:16 PM
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
What he's proposing is not illegal. He's within his rights to dispose of what he owns before dying.
Not before he dies. He wants me to remove items after his death, and not claim these items as belonging to the estate. I should have phrased that better.
Maybe not worth the cost of updating a will... but it really seems like it would be easier to just specify things like that. My Mom's/Dad's wills had some line in it (paraphrasing and IANAL) "I reserve the right to attach a list of stuff and designate whom it should go to." They never created the list... but it seems like they were thinking ahead on giving away the silver to someone other than Aunt Ruthie and giving the coin collection to little Bobby.
Post by: radram on February 17, 2017, 11:40:38 PM
Can we please get this thread back on the original subject? Could you start a new thread for the political and tax discussions?
Thanks.
I'll own this. It looks like it was me that took the thread in a different direction. Quite honestly, it was a few posts before I realized this conversation was even in this thread. Sorry about that.
I will steer the conversation back to the original thread while still tying in to my runaway post.
I am the executor for my father. We differ politically, but we still have mutual respect for each others position. There is no way either of us will change each others mind. He has never really played by the rules, he believes they are for other people, not him. I am very much a play by the rules kind of person.
He would rather I remove worth from his estate than leave it in his estate to be taxed. I will not, and I keep telling him I will not. It is a crime, and his money is not worth going to jail for. I am not naive, I know it happens, a LOT. Even little things like "take the silverware so Aunt Ruth doesn't get it", or "remove the coin collection from the house when I die" kind of instructions happen all the time. I will not play that game. It does lead to some very interesting conversations, but fewer and fewer of them as time moves on. I guess not really true drama, but it sure could have been, with a potential prison story to boot.
What he's proposing is not illegal. He's within his rights to dispose of what he owns before dying.
Not before he dies. He wants me to remove items after his death, and not claim these items as belonging to the estate. I should have phrased that better.
Maybe not worth the cost of updating a will... but it really seems like it would be easier to just specify things like that. My Mom's/Dad's wills had some line in it (paraphrasing and IANAL) "I reserve the right to attach a list of stuff and designate whom it should go to." They never created the list... but it seems like they were thinking ahead on giving away the silver to someone other than Aunt Ruthie and giving the coin collection to little Bobby.
I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 18, 2017, 05:42:03 AM
I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
Post by: coin on February 18, 2017, 07:55:18 PM
I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
Post by: firelight on February 19, 2017, 07:29:48 AM
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 19, 2017, 07:42:51 AM
A to-do list that says, "Remember to return the coin collection I gave to Bobby."
Post by: Just Joe on February 19, 2017, 10:47:15 AM
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
Who would friggin' know unless it was referenced on insurance documents and there was a big investigation? I'm not feeling the urge to tell the gov't every last detail about my things. Of course this urge isn't important b/c I don't have anything of value to worry about. ;)
I can only imagine that in the well-moneyed families that things are quietly moved from generation to generation all the time.
Post by: With This Herring on February 19, 2017, 10:51:11 AM
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
Who would friggin' know unless it was referenced on insurance documents and there was a big investigation? I'm not feeling the urge to tell the gov't every last detail about my things. Of course this urge isn't important b/c I don't have anything of value to worry about. ;)
I can only imagine that in the well-moneyed families that things are quietly moved from generation to generation all the time.
Let's not promote tax fraud, please.
Post by: Tabaxus on February 19, 2017, 11:35:08 AM
If he were to give it away, it would still be subject to the $14k per year per person limit right?I am really explaining this poorly. He was requesting that I embezzle funds from his estate in order to keep the value of his estate below taxable amounts. If I give Bobby the $12,000,000 coin collection like he wants, but do not claim that as belonging to the estate, that is a crime the executor is committing, and I would be risking prison time just to give away stuff. The value of the collection in this example is simply for emphasis.Aren't there ways around this, like a trust of some sort? I'm not an estate lawyer, just curious.
I imagine he could give it away before he dies - that would sidestep the issue neatly.
Who would friggin' know unless it was referenced on insurance documents and there was a big investigation? I'm not feeling the urge to tell the gov't every last detail about my things. Of course this urge isn't important b/c I don't have anything of value to worry about. ;)
I can only imagine that in the well-moneyed families that things are quietly moved from generation to generation all the time.
And every time it's done, everyone involved is committing a crime. So, yeah.
Post by: radram on February 19, 2017, 04:03:22 PM
How would you respond to the following document found in your dad's desk:
A to-do list that says, "Remember to return the coin collection I gave to Bobby."
I would do whatever the estate attorney and accountant say to do with it. I would think in this particular example, they would advise to list it as an asset in the estate, and do with it whatever the will/ trust instructions say to do. No way a piece of paper in a drawer would super seed these documents.
Post by: talltexan on February 20, 2017, 07:14:21 AM
Or, you could put that collection within a trust.
Post by: radram on February 21, 2017, 06:20:48 AM
The coin collection would be problematic if it were being insured as a rider to the deceased's home owner's policy. Now it's documented, even has an assessed value, and ought to be taxed (subject to the exemption, of course).
Or, you could put that collection within a trust.
Why would documentation be a problem? Everything owned by a person should be taxed upon death, subject to the exemption, under current rules. That is why my I posted my story to begin with.
The collection placed within a trust makes good sense. Defined beneficiary policy, and of course the trust would be subject to taxation above the exemption amount.
After AGAIN hijacking this thread inadvertently, I will now ask that this thread be put back on topic. I apologize again.
Stories anyone? PLEASE?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 27, 2017, 05:09:04 AM
I like this thread because inheritances bring the best and worst out of functional and dysfunctional families.
The good: my mum's side, her parents bought 3 different lots for 3 children so each child would equally share in property; close friends: they've bought land over 2 lots for their 2 kids.
Lesson: I'm seeing a pattern here.
The bad: my mum's relationship with my dad made her confide in me she's only leaving $5,000 to him which is a big FU for the hell he's put her through. The probs: he will contest it once he realises the paltry amount.
Lesson: Mum, please don't die before dad; be FI so don't have to deal with the consequential shit.
Post by: talltexan on February 27, 2017, 08:50:34 AM
Post by: Sydneystache on February 27, 2017, 01:31:13 PM
Post by: SweetLife on February 28, 2017, 06:08:21 AM
1 acre owned with my brother (whom I adore) ... But this is creating a huge issue for me ... My brother wants to give me $20,000 for it ... and he will pay the tax on it. However there are no building lots available in our area right now and the housing prices are through the roof so I have been counselled to get an appraisal on the land before I sell it. On one hand I don't want to alienate my brother on the other if the land is actually worth $70000 - or more (rather than the $60000) it was appraised for when my Mom passed away it would make a pretty large difference to our bank account. There is more to the story but this is the simplified version.
Try and make your wills "clean" not messy for whomever is inheriting.
I'm not sure what Mom was thinking when she did this 50/50 split but it is just a big headache.
Post by: talltexan on February 28, 2017, 08:07:25 AM
Post by: Spiffy on February 28, 2017, 10:25:25 AM
Whatever you do don't give a lot to two people 50/50 ... that is what I am going through right now....
I'm not sure what Mom was thinking when she did this 50/50 split but it is just a big headache.
Yes, this! I think land is the most difficult thing to deal with as an inheritance. We will be dealing with this soonish (my beloved grandmother is a healthy 93). Almost all of her wealth is in farming and ranching land. So around 2000 acres will be split between my mom and her 2 siblings and the children of her deceased brother. Grandmother has not farmed the land herself since my grandfather died. I has been leased out for years. My grandmother has done her best to divide the land equally, not in acreage, but in worth. So that means some parts being leased by one farmer will be owned by two people. It is going to be a nightmare to figure out the money involved with this because the owner pays for land taxes, crop insurance and fertilizer, etc. while the farmer pays the lease and seeds, then gives a portion of the crops back to the owner, etc. It's all very feudal. I think it would be so much easier to just sell the land! No one is going to want to farm it themselves, or even knows how to anymore.
edited to add: one of Mom's siblings and children of deceased brother have already built houses on some of the land they will inherit and others use some for hunting and fishing, but Grandmother still pays the taxes. So this could also be posted under the unequal inheritance thread, if we get technical about it!
Post by: Spork on February 28, 2017, 10:56:03 AM
Not everything your parents plan to leave behind is valuable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2017/02/12/sorry-nobody-wants-your-parents-stuff/#7072571724ed
This article is pretty spot on to what we recently experienced. Even "expensive stuff" that my parents carried insurance riders on for years were just not worth much -- unless you were willing to drop them at a consignment dealer and wait months for the right buyer.
Post by: tyrannostache on February 28, 2017, 01:22:54 PM
Not everything your parents plan to leave behind is valuable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2017/02/12/sorry-nobody-wants-your-parents-stuff/#7072571724ed
This article is pretty spot on to what we recently experienced. Even "expensive stuff" that my parents carried insurance riders on for years were just not worth much -- unless you were willing to drop them at a consignment dealer and wait months for the right buyer.
Ugh, indeed. I've tried to point this out to my parents, and it didn't seem to sink in. They recently downsized into a retirement community, and my dad has 2 storage lockers filled with furniture and "stuff" from the old house that he is holding on to because he thinks the kids might want that stuff someday. And yet he and my mom are still buying new furniture and oriental rugs with the idea that they will be "family heirlooms." Also because a high-pressure rug salesman came to their house and convinced them that it was a really good idea.
Pops also just commissioned for himself a huge custom-made $4k+ desk, and he messaged both my sibling and I to find out what our preferences would be for the finish, since it will clearly be residing in one of our homes one day. I had to repeat, once again, that we don't want his furniture (except that one comfy chair. I love that comfy chair).
My parents have always been the antithesis of mustachianism, saved only by virtue of having a high income. (I just found out that for the last several years, they were paying nearly $1000 per MONTH for lawn care service. For a guy to mow every other week, rake leaves in the fall, trim bushes, etc on a 1/2-acre lot.)
Post by: mtn on February 28, 2017, 03:08:54 PM
Go to any estate sale on the last day. Stuff is usually 50% off. Look at how much is still there, being sold for pennies on the dollar. Even nice stuff.
My wife and I just got 2 recliners, very good condition, for $500 total. Cost of them new? Over $2,000 EACH. My wife buys kitchen stuff like its going out of style at these things.
My parents, even though they still buy a lot at these things, are also getting rid of stuff quickly. They've basically told us (my brothers and I) that if we want something, tell them, otherwise it is liable to disappear.
Post by: Villanelle on February 28, 2017, 09:44:44 PM
He/we paid a fair price--the appraised, fair market value minus what they would have had to pay a realtor. Everyone was fair and reasonable about it, no one quibbled over a few thousand here or there. (Could they have sold that home for $3000 more, or would it have actually gotten $4000 less?)
In their case, leaving property worked just fine. I guess the issue is when it's super complicated (like the farm division above, with unclear boundaries), or when one person wants to keep and one wants to sell (and the estate doesn't have enough money to settle the difference, or the parties involved can't be reasonable).
There's a chance DH and I would actually want my parents' current home by the time we inherit, which is hopefully way in the future. I'd fully expect to pay my sister for her fair share of the value. I also fully anticipate both of us being reasonable about what that value is. (Perhaps I'm setting myself up for disappointment there. :lol) Thankfully, we are both reasonable people, and we are financially secure enough (and likely will be even more so by the time we are inheriting) that a few thousand dollars won't make any difference, so we will be able to afford to be magnanimous with sale prices and estimate commission. I'd never expect for her to give me the property obscenely cheaply, and nor would I think she'd try to get more out of the deal than she would with her half of the proceeds of a traditional sale.
As with so many of these things, I think family dynamics is important when considering what will work. I would have for my parents to sell off things they want or think are important to try to prevent drama between my sister and I down the road.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 28, 2017, 10:08:07 PM
My uncle handles dealing with the farmers and he mails my share of the profits as they come in.
He's taught his son and grandson what they need to know so they can pick up when he can't do it any more. (He's in his 90s.)
There's no need to sell the land. It reliably sheds off $20k per year as my share. If the farm was a stock portfolio my share of that portfolio would be worth $500k according to the 4% rule. I don't believe we could sell both farms for that much cash based on its current land value. Certainly couldn't get enough cash to give each person a stock portfolio big enough to get the same returns on a 4% rule.
Thankfully, neither my aunt nor my uncle are motivated to sell. There are 6 cousins (3 each) that might inherit from each of them. 4 of them are completely reasonable and are unlikely to try to force a sale. The other 2? Who knows. Hopefully we can buy them out at a fair price if they just want quick cash and won't settle for long term income.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that it can work out just great if you're dealing with fair-minded, reasonable people who love one another as opposed to selfish, greedy, foolish, they-are-the-center-of-the-universe kind of people.
Post by: Sydneystache on February 28, 2017, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: swordguy
There are 6 cousins (3 each) that might inherit from each of them. 4 of them are completely reasonable and are unlikely to try to force a sale. The other 2? Who knows. Hopefully we can buy them out at a fair price if they just want quick cash and won't settle for long term income.
That's something I am thinking about say 10, 20 years down the track. There are 4 of us first cousins, then there are 3 second cousins so far. Before my beloved grandma died, she was worried about the future of her estate because she thought her kids were disinterested. The thing is the legacy can be bit of a burden (but also how one frames it) so I concur with the comments about the 'stickiness' of inheritances. Ideally, I don't want my mother's lot sold because it is my link to my grandma, however, if it becomes too much of a burden, then I'd prefer to see it go rather than the family torn apart. The estate is our link to each other and will become even more so when it goes down to the second cousins. It's the "emotional ownership" part that will be our Achilles' heels.
However, I think us first cousins are pretty all financially independent of the estate so we don't need it. Out of us 4, it will be a toss up between me and my older cousin as to who will be buying the others out so it is going to be a matter of maintenance and being an absentee landlord if it comes to that.
For my own situtation, I've ensured my son will inherit landed assets independent of the estate so he won't feel he has to fight his second cousins - if it ever eventuates - for his share. He doesn't need this particular inheritance.
Post by: talltexan on March 01, 2017, 07:04:23 AM
Post by: Spiffy on March 01, 2017, 08:34:00 AM
My uncle handles dealing with the farmers and he mails my share of the profits as they come in.
He's taught his son and grandson what they need to know so they can pick up when he can't do it any more. (He's in his 90s.)
So, I guess what I'm saying is that it can work out just great if you're dealing with fair-minded, reasonable people who love one another as opposed to selfish, greedy, foolish, they-are-the-center-of-the-universe kind of people.
Yes, thankfully my family is reasonable and loving and I don't think it will cause relationship problems and my Mom is trying to learn everything she can now to run the farm smoothly. She grew up on that farm and now has a small hobby farm with my dad, but once she can't do it anymore, I wonder who will. I like cows. I guess I better get busy learning! But my oldest brother is already retired, maybe he will do it. Second brother doesn't live close, but has no kids. Maybe he can manage it. See, once it gets to the third generation it gets more complicated.
Post by: Spork on March 01, 2017, 08:47:28 AM
My parents, and I as well, love to go to estate sales.
Go to any estate sale on the last day. Stuff is usually 50% off. Look at how much is still there, being sold for pennies on the dollar. Even nice stuff.
My wife and I just got 2 recliners, very good condition, for $500 total. Cost of them new? Over $2,000 EACH. My wife buys kitchen stuff like its going out of style at these things.
My parents, even though they still buy a lot at these things, are also getting rid of stuff quickly. They've basically told us (my brothers and I) that if we want something, tell them, otherwise it is liable to disappear.
And at the end of the estate sale, Salvation Army (or the charity of your choice) will show up and take everything for nothing on the dollar. My parents' house was a truckload.
Post by: Just Joe on March 01, 2017, 10:57:05 AM
Post by: mtn on March 01, 2017, 12:15:52 PM
My parents, and I as well, love to go to estate sales.
Go to any estate sale on the last day. Stuff is usually 50% off. Look at how much is still there, being sold for pennies on the dollar. Even nice stuff.
My wife and I just got 2 recliners, very good condition, for $500 total. Cost of them new? Over $2,000 EACH. My wife buys kitchen stuff like its going out of style at these things.
My parents, even though they still buy a lot at these things, are also getting rid of stuff quickly. They've basically told us (my brothers and I) that if we want something, tell them, otherwise it is liable to disappear.
And at the end of the estate sale, Salvation Army (or the charity of your choice) will show up and take everything for nothing on the dollar. My parents' house was a truckload.
At my grandparents, they had a deal where the estate sale company basically gave them $3,000 for everything in the house, ran the sale from the house for 2 days, then took everything else to a junk shop. There were a few items that were separate from that deal (antique pedal car, highly collectible stereo, and one original oil painting), but otherwise it was $3,000.
I can't even begin to imagine the cost of everything new. Probably about $20k in furniture (over 65 years of marriage, remember) alone, clothes, kitchen stuff, golf clubs, decorations, etc.
And wanna know what probably sold for the most overall? The real junk that my aunt tried to throw away before my parents and the company stopped her. Half a bottle of rubbing alcohol. Half a roll of tape. Opened container of Solo cups. Which makes sense, those are the things that people will actually use. The special items all sold for their asking price, because we advertised them well, but everything else basically was given away.
Post by: joleran on March 01, 2017, 03:06:04 PM
And wanna know what probably sold for the most overall? The real junk that my aunt tried to throw away before my parents and the company stopped her. Half a bottle of rubbing alcohol. Half a roll of tape. Opened container of Solo cups. Which makes sense, those are the things that people will actually use.
Wait, what? That seems difficult to believe, people showing up and bidding, what, 15 cents for half a bottle of rubbing alcohol? I'd think it wouldn't be worth the time.
Post by: mtn on March 01, 2017, 03:15:15 PM
And wanna know what probably sold for the most overall? The real junk that my aunt tried to throw away before my parents and the company stopped her. Half a bottle of rubbing alcohol. Half a roll of tape. Opened container of Solo cups. Which makes sense, those are the things that people will actually use.
Wait, what? That seems difficult to believe, people showing up and bidding, what, 15 cents for half a bottle of rubbing alcohol? I'd think it wouldn't be worth the time.
Estate sale, not auction. Rubbing alcohol costs what, $8? Buy the mostly full bottle at the estate sale for $2. Same with the alcohol, oil in the garage, tape, etc.
The people go to the estate sale for something else, but while they're there see a package of AA batteries for $2, and throw them in the basket. Think about it--if you see a can of Off Bug Spray, or WD-40, what does it matter if it is half used? That stuff is expensive. Folks will buy it. I think that someone even bought bottles of shampoo and conditioner.
Post by: Villanelle on March 01, 2017, 09:47:11 PM
My parents, and I as well, love to go to estate sales.
Go to any estate sale on the last day. Stuff is usually 50% off. Look at how much is still there, being sold for pennies on the dollar. Even nice stuff.
My wife and I just got 2 recliners, very good condition, for $500 total. Cost of them new? Over $2,000 EACH. My wife buys kitchen stuff like its going out of style at these things.
My parents, even though they still buy a lot at these things, are also getting rid of stuff quickly. They've basically told us (my brothers and I) that if we want something, tell them, otherwise it is liable to disappear.
And at the end of the estate sale, Salvation Army (or the charity of your choice) will show up and take everything for nothing on the dollar. My parents' house was a truckload.
This is what we did with my grandmother's condo after family had taken out valuables and sentimental items. I think it was AMVETs, but they had no problem showing up with a truck and taking everything, even though surely lots of it was just trash.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 01, 2017, 10:38:02 PM
My parents, who are not at all Mustachian anymore because they started making serious money later in life, wanted me to be the executor for their estate and to-- get this-- manage my estranged fuckup sibling's trust and dole out such money as he needs to continue enabling his cranially-rectally-inverted ways while still saddling me with the responsiblity of making sure the moron doesn't drink himself to death or throw a booze-filled tantrum and drive into someone who matters. After decades of enabling the little dipshit they wanted to drag me onto the codependent merry-go-round in their place. This is despite the fact I took off nearly twenty years ago and left the freaking country to avoid the stupid family drama.
Luckily, they found an estate lawyer who bitchslapped some sense into them. They aren't going to make my idiot sibling executor (said sibling went bankrupt without having actual bad life experiences, just bad financial decision making). We will be paying someone else to just liquidate everything in sight.
I am So. Fucking. Relieved.
Post by: Sydneystache on March 01, 2017, 11:01:55 PM
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 02, 2017, 05:43:46 AM
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Post by: BabyShark on March 02, 2017, 06:47:46 AM
In that same vein, I was just talking to my mom because she needs to have all of her documents rewritten since dad passed. I (and my two sisters) live out of state but Mom is still planning to name me as executrix. That was always the plan but I'm a little wary on it. I fortunately don't have the issues that TGS does but I'm still wondering if I should recommend Mom have an instate, non-family member handle it.
Post by: Pigeon on March 02, 2017, 07:52:54 AM
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.
I guess I'm just not that sentimental. I see absolutely no reason why the property shouldn't be sold off if one person wants to keep it and the others don't want to buy them out.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 02, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 02, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Being raised differently is a given. I was the older, my parents learned on me (the experimental model/lab rat/guinea pig) and were much easier on my younger sister. Both my parents were younger kids in their families, I don't think they had a clue about what it is like being the oldest.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 02, 2017, 11:07:50 AM
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Being raised differently is a given. I was the older, my parents learned on me (the experimental model/lab rat/guinea pig) and were much easier on my younger sister. Both my parents were younger kids in their families, I don't think they had a clue about what it is like being the oldest.
There was more to it in our family, it was downright odd in some respects but not something I feel comfortable discussing online since the other people aren't here to refute what I say or to present their own interpretations of events.
Post by: talltexan on March 02, 2017, 12:02:05 PM
But I can see how having a cranium/rectum confused sibling might make things even worse.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 02, 2017, 02:18:11 PM
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Being raised differently is a given. I was the older, my parents learned on me (the experimental model/lab rat/guinea pig) and were much easier on my younger sister. Both my parents were younger kids in their families, I don't think they had a clue about what it is like being the oldest.
There was more to it in our family, it was downright odd in some respects but not something I feel comfortable discussing online since the other people aren't here to refute what I say or to present their own interpretations of events.
No problem, just thought it interesting that you were being cast in the typical oldest child responsible for everything role. And lo and behold, you were the oldest.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 02, 2017, 03:55:05 PM
Congrats @TheGrimSqueaker! What a weight off your shoulders! You sometimes wonder how in the world you could ever be possibly related to them or came out of the same uterus.
I was just looking at a birth order book - think Jimmy Carter and his brother Billy (American president and major goof-off.) TGS, are you the older?
Yes, by three years, however we were raised quite differently.
Being raised differently is a given. I was the older, my parents learned on me (the experimental model/lab rat/guinea pig) and were much easier on my younger sister. Both my parents were younger kids in their families, I don't think they had a clue about what it is like being the oldest.
There was more to it in our family, it was downright odd in some respects but not something I feel comfortable discussing online since the other people aren't here to refute what I say or to present their own interpretations of events.
No problem, just thought it interesting that you were being cast in the typical oldest child responsible for everything role. And lo and behold, you were the oldest.
What can I say: sometimes a stereotype has a basis in fact.
Post by: Villanelle on March 02, 2017, 10:34:50 PM
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.
I guess I'm just not that sentimental. I see absolutely no reason why the property shouldn't be sold off if one person wants to keep it and the others don't want to buy them out.
This. While I understand that 1 or 2 of 6 siblings (or whatever) might have emotional attachment to a home or farm or lake house, if they can't afford it, they can't afford it. So if they can't pay the other siblings, the house is sold. I wonder if it would help if something like this was laid out in the will. "The house will be sold and the proceeds divided evenly between the 4 children. If any sibling or group of siblings is interested in purchasing the house, they can negotiate among each other. If no agreement on price can be made within 120 days of my death, the house will be listed for sale."
I'm sure some families would still find ways to make it dramatic. "You aren't even willing to negotiate!" (Despite the fact that an offer is far less or more than market value.) But at least that removes the pressure of thinking mom wanted the property kept in the family.
My sister is the executor for my parents' estate. She's out of state, but at the moment at least, I'm out of the country. She's also the more organized one, though I'm sure both of us would do just fine. I believe it entitles her to an extra bit of the estate (1%, maybe??), and I'm sure that will be money very well-earned.
Post by: Sydneystache on March 02, 2017, 11:16:30 PM
After a couple of generations, control gets diluted eg dividing a company amongst 50 cousins etc. so these clauses are vital say if you are from a Ford family or a Kennedy family type.
To keep on topic, I spoke to a friend today and she told me how her siblings' claws came out when she was made POA. While her mother has since passed away, the POA still is a cause of resentment in her family. A poisoned chalice for her if anything.
Post by: Jenny1974 on March 09, 2017, 11:02:48 AM
When the payout came, I took a couple thousand of my half and put it in an account for my DD (Dad's granddaughter) as I knew he would like her to have something from him since she was so young when he died and signed the rest over to my stepmother. My older sister (who has since passed) took the money and ran! Being mustachian made it an easy choice for me as I didn't NEED the money and I know it really helped my stepmother survive after my Dad died.
God help us all when my mother and stepfather pass. My stepsister has already blown through the inheritance her mom left, doesn't work . . . and will be waiting with her hand out when the time comes. I told my mom they need to have their wishes spelled out in stone as I'm not going to try to make responsible and fair decisions with someone who operates the way she does.
Post by: rpr on March 09, 2017, 11:37:52 AM
When the payout came, I took a couple thousand of my half and put it in an account for my DD (Dad's granddaughter) as I knew he would like her to have something from him since she was so young when he died and signed the rest over to my stepmother. My older sister (who has since passed) took the money and ran! Being mustachian made it an easy choice for me as I didn't NEED the money and I know it really helped my stepmother survive after my Dad died.
buchanaj -- What a wonderful gesture!! It is nice to hear stories of decency prevailing over greed. Thank you for doing the right thing.
Post by: marion10 on March 10, 2017, 08:06:34 AM
Post by: MgoSam on March 10, 2017, 09:07:00 AM
Many years ago, we had a case at work where an employee has named his long term girl friend as beneficiary of an employer life insurance policy- however HR did not process it properly (did not get the required witness signatures) and the insurance company ruled it invalid and paid out to his siblings (there were several). They all turned the money over to the girlfriend.
That's good, otherwise it does sound like your company would face a serious lawsuit from the girlfriend.
Post by: wevan on March 10, 2017, 12:33:00 PM
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.Yep. When my mom and her three siblings inherited my grandpa's farm, one of them wanted ready cash instead. Fortunately, the other three had enough money to partially buy her out, and she was fine with keeping some land - otherwise, there would've been problems with breaking up the farm.
(As it was, it's now technically divided into three equal sections and one smaller section, but still being managed together, which makes everything a lot easier.)
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 10, 2017, 12:40:45 PM
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.Yep. When my mom and her three siblings inherited my grandpa's farm, one of them wanted ready cash instead. Fortunately, the other three had enough money to partially buy her out, and she was fine with keeping some land - otherwise, there would've been problems with breaking up the farm.
(As it was, it's now technically divided into three equal sections and one smaller section, but still being managed together, which makes everything a lot easier.)
Some families use life insurance to balance out a lopsided estate so that no asset has to be divided or owned jointly. "OK, Johnny gets the house, Susie gets the investment property, and DeShawn gets the art collection, movable assets, and bank accounts" doesn't always ensure an equitable split. Insurance can even it out.
Post by: BabyShark on March 10, 2017, 12:42:52 PM
reviewing these stories, I'm really seeing the argument for taking out enough life insurance that you can provide liquidity to siblings/heirs for buying out each others' stakes in a real estate-type property.Yep. When my mom and her three siblings inherited my grandpa's farm, one of them wanted ready cash instead. Fortunately, the other three had enough money to partially buy her out, and she was fine with keeping some land - otherwise, there would've been problems with breaking up the farm.
(As it was, it's now technically divided into three equal sections and one smaller section, but still being managed together, which makes everything a lot easier.)
Some families use life insurance to balance out a lopsided estate so that no asset has to be divided or owned jointly. "OK, Johnny gets the house, Susie gets the investment property, and DeShawn gets the art collection, movable assets, and bank accounts" doesn't always ensure an equitable split. Insurance can even it out.
Yup, that's essentially what my Dad did. Older sister got one property, I got another property, Younger sister got life insurance policy essentially equal to the value of our properties so she could, in theory, buy her own.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 10, 2017, 04:55:23 PM
... but the burdens of managing them [parents] through end of life may still be significant.
But I can see how having a cranium/rectum confused sibling might make things even worse.
My mother-in-law went into the hospital this week. At this point we don't know for sure whether she'll make it. She's about 95.
I asked my lovely wife if her sister had shown up, or if they had even told her about the situation.
The response from her brother was, "She'll find out about it when she gets the letter from the executor of the estate."
After what the sister did when her father and aunt died, I can't find it in my heart to disagree with the decision of my wife and her two brothers.
Post by: markbike528CBX on March 11, 2017, 09:31:54 AM
........After what the sister did when her father and aunt died, I can't find it in my heart......
Please don't leave us hanging like that. Could you find it in your heart to tell the story?
Post by: SweetLife on March 11, 2017, 11:20:40 AM
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
Post by: plainjane on March 11, 2017, 07:35:43 PM
........After what the sister did when her father and aunt died, I can't find it in my heart......Please don't leave us hanging like that. Could you find it in your heart to tell the story?
earlier in the thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/inheritance-drama-you-got-any-stories-wanted/msg1087471/#msg1087471
Post by: markbike528CBX on March 11, 2017, 07:59:02 PM
Post by: Sydneystache on March 11, 2017, 08:02:51 PM
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
That happened to my MIL. One of her nieces came up to ask for specific porcelain from her mother at the wake that was promised to her. She had just spent the last week organising the funeral. Talk about inappropriate and I understand why she was keen but jeez...don't know if she ever gave the porcelain though.
Post by: notquitefrugal on March 15, 2017, 07:47:17 PM
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 16, 2017, 07:59:27 AM
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.Aren't they also free from federal tax? This never occurred to me as a way to avoid estate tax/death tax. Interesting.
Post by: iris lily on March 16, 2017, 08:51:25 AM
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.Aren't they also free from federal tax? This never occurred to me as a way to avoid estate tax/death tax. Interesting.
My friend was the beneficiary of his motjer's life insurance policy. That was the only thing she was able to leave him since all of her assets were used in her nursing home care.
I never thought of that aspect of life insurance. It isnt useful to me since DH does not need cash if I die, and it is not a priority to leave anyone else money when I die. But that use f life insurance seemed practical.
Post by: Spork on March 16, 2017, 09:02:53 AM
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.
You've probably handled this properly, but a general warning: Many life insurance policies are structured like an annuity. This makes them taxable on the federal level (and presumably also on some state levels). And just because the insurance sales guy says the tax is inconsequential or non-existent, does not make it so. (Life lesson recently learned.)
Post by: BlueHouse on March 17, 2017, 06:21:44 AM
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.I'm confused with how this is carried out on a joint account. How does anyone know what is inherited in a joint account vs what's already yours?
Post by: secondcor521 on March 17, 2017, 07:08:27 AM
My state levies an inheritance tax on some distant relatives as well as all non-relatives who inherit as a result of a will, joint account, or transfer-on-death designation, but doesn't levy that tax on funds those same people receive as a result of being a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. I have no human dependents, but I still have life insurance to make things more flexible in terms of avoiding the state inheritance tax, both now and in the future. Life insurance is inexpensive at my age, but I will definitely reevaluate that decision when I am older and it becomes more expensive.I'm confused with how this is carried out on a joint account. How does anyone know what is inherited in a joint account vs what's already yours?
I don't know about notquitefrugal's state. But I do know that it varies by whether or not your state is a community property state. In my state, which is a community property state, 50% of the value of the joint account as of the date of death (including accrued but not paid interest; not like that is any real world factor, but I'm dealing with an attorney) is included for purposes of the estate valuation for estate tax purposes.
What happens in actual fact is the attorney asks the executor to calculate the number and provide it to them, then the attorney puts that number into a big long legal document, then the executor signs that document and then the attorney submits that document to the probate court as part of the estate settlement process. One could guess or take shortcuts or lie, but I'm sure there is some sort of statement or oath the executor must make about accuracy and completeness. So in our case we figured it properly to the penny; fortunately it was an account with little activity and no interest, so easy to calculate.
For Vanguard accounts, you can call up a special department there and they'll run a report for you that does essentially the same thing. Weirdly, in my state one gets a step-up in the entire basis (not just half of the account's basis) to value as of date of death. I don't know why, but that's what I was told to do when I looked into it.
Again, this all varies state to state, so even though people say a lot of stuff about how estates work, the answer in almost every case is to consult an estate attorney in the applicable state who comes with good recommendations.
Post by: radram on March 17, 2017, 07:14:23 AM
For Vanguard accounts, you can call up a special department there and they'll run a report for you that does essentially the same thing. Weirdly, in my state one gets a step-up in the entire basis (not just half of the account's basis) to value as of date of death. I don't know why, but that's what I was told to do when I looked into it.
So are you saying if I create a joint account that is a ratio of a million to 1, and then the $1 dies, the million gets stepped up in cost basis? I smell loophole :)
What is your state?
Post by: secondcor521 on March 17, 2017, 08:02:11 AM
For Vanguard accounts, you can call up a special department there and they'll run a report for you that does essentially the same thing. Weirdly, in my state one gets a step-up in the entire basis (not just half of the account's basis) to value as of date of death. I don't know why, but that's what I was told to do when I looked into it.
So are you saying if I create a joint account that is a ratio of a million to 1, and then the $1 dies, the million gets stepped up in cost basis? I smell loophole :)
What is your state?
Idaho.
I think your "loophole" would work, but understand that the $1 person, while alive and a joint owner, has every right to sell "your" million and give it away or blow it on whatever. It's also fairly easy to get a divorce in Idaho, and financials are usually split close to 50/50 regardless of who brings or earns the money, who does what with whom, and who decides to leave.
Post by: Capsu78 on March 31, 2017, 04:24:19 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367858/Evil-son-50-burnt-sister-alive-jailed-27-years.html
Post by: protostache on April 01, 2017, 08:53:05 AM
My brother in law and his wife have, for the entire time I've known them, been salivating over this day and I don't really understand why. There's nothing of value left in the house other than furniture and a few paintings that the other three kids have already split amongst themselves. BIL has said "he'll take whatever's left" but we've been pretty clear that anything left has to go to auction so it can help pay for FIL's nursing home. There's some decent furniture that would probably generate $1000 or more after auction fees.
BIL, through various shenanigans, on short notice forced today to be the day when all of this happens so my wife went early this morning to rescue the few important family heirlooms still in the house and things FIL wants before BIL gets there. Shortly before she left, BIL texted my wife and said "whole family is coming" when the other three siblings had communicated just yesterday that it was to be a siblings-only thing so they could get stuff done without kids in the way.
Turns out the only reason the whole family is coming is so they could bring two cars to haul away more stuff. Stuff that should be sold at auction for FIL's benefit. BIL also lied to my wife about my sister in law telling him it was ok. SIL is just as surprised and appalled as my wife.
I'm disgusted with their behavior. The man isn't dead! He's less than half an hour away from the house! Are they going to go visit him in the nursing home? Of course not. They're going to pack up his things and take them back to their house where they can sell it all at their leisure on eBay and keep the money for themselves.
As she was leaving my wife said that after FIL passes away we probably will never talk to BIL or his family every again, which sucks because they're the geographically closest family we have and I would like my daughter to have a relationship with her cousins.
Post by: Just Joe on April 03, 2017, 10:58:46 AM
Just an uplifting inheritance story (sarc) to bump this thread:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367858/Evil-son-50-burnt-sister-alive-jailed-27-years.html
That's horrible. I wished I had not read the link.
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
Post by: protostache on April 03, 2017, 02:16:29 PM
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
A sick little addendum: turns out BIL also asked the neighbor about taking back the very nice snowblower FIL gifted to him. Neighbor came around yesterday when BIL wasn't there and told us all about it, just to make sure it was still his! We wouldn't have ever known if the neighbor hadn't said anything.
Post by: AlanStache on April 03, 2017, 03:17:53 PM
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
A sick little addendum: turns out BIL also asked the neighbor about taking back the very nice snowblower FIL gifted to him. Neighbor came around yesterday when BIL wasn't there and told us all about it, just to make sure it was still his! We wouldn't have ever known if the neighbor hadn't said anything.
Sorry for your situation re BIL. Is your family and the other siblings families estates properly setup to defend from BIL?
Post by: SwordGuy on April 03, 2017, 04:57:52 PM
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
If you are sick and tired of dealing with BIL and you are the executor, call the police and have him arrested for burglary.
Post by: protostache on April 03, 2017, 06:02:13 PM
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
A sick little addendum: turns out BIL also asked the neighbor about taking back the very nice snowblower FIL gifted to him. Neighbor came around yesterday when BIL wasn't there and told us all about it, just to make sure it was still his! We wouldn't have ever known if the neighbor hadn't said anything.
Sorry for your situation re BIL. Is your family and the other siblings families estates properly setup to defend from BIL?
My wife and I have a very good will that unfortunately we just recently updated, otherwise we would update it to remove BIL and family from one of the contingencies where they're named (if all of us die simultaneously the estate gets split amongst all of siblings to avoid the default estate rules). My other BIL I believe has things set up properly. He's a banker so I would be surprised if they hadn't. SIL does not, as far as we know, have anything set up.
If you are sick and tired of dealing with BIL and you are the executor, call the police and have him arrested for burglary.
That's the thing though. FIL isn't dead! He's very much alive, so the executor angle doesn't really come into play. Other BIL has power of attorney but he's not going to call the cops. The actual valuables are out of the house so he's just damaging his relationship with the rest of us now.
Post by: shelivesthedream on April 09, 2017, 04:44:00 AM
Post by: protostache on April 09, 2017, 06:36:41 AM
I wrote a will today. Well, a draft. I'm going to sit on it for a while and check I haven't missed anything out. But I just wanted to say how much this thread had helped! It's a simple will, but I've put in what happens if we have children, if any of them are under eighteen, if any of them have died and have a surviving spouse or children (including children adopted under the age of sixteen!)... And I've kept it simple: sell everything and split the money. If anyone wants to buy anything, it's at full market value and counts as part of their share. If more than one person is interested in something, they have six months to come to an agreement about who it is or it gets sold by a third party and the money divided.
I would humbly suggest running your will past an estate attorney in your jurisdiction prior to signing it. If they're reviewing what you've already written it shouldn't cost a whole lot and you'll have more confidence that it won't be contested for some weird technical drafting error when the time comes.
Post by: Reynold on April 11, 2017, 12:47:39 PM
I would humbly suggest running your will past an estate attorney in your jurisdiction prior to signing it. If they're reviewing what you've already written it shouldn't cost a whole lot and you'll have more confidence that it won't be contested for some weird technical drafting error when the time comes.
Though just a warning, a lot of attorneys will charge more for reviewing your will than doing their own. They have already put time into figuring out what boilerplate and contingencies they need in their own document for that state, and can delegate most of the "fill in the blank" stuff to their paralegals once they interview you. If they have to read YOUR document, they actually have to see if it covers everything their's does from scratch. And as you say, there can be state specific things. Georgia, for example, requires that the witness to the will show up in court to testify that they witnessed it UNLESS there is a specific statement waiving that in the will. Good luck tracking someone down 20 years after they witnessed your will. . .
Post by: Spork on April 11, 2017, 03:18:56 PM
I would humbly suggest running your will past an estate attorney in your jurisdiction prior to signing it. If they're reviewing what you've already written it shouldn't cost a whole lot and you'll have more confidence that it won't be contested for some weird technical drafting error when the time comes.
Though just a warning, a lot of attorneys will charge more for reviewing your will than doing their own. They have already put time into figuring out what boilerplate and contingencies they need in their own document for that state, and can delegate most of the "fill in the blank" stuff to their paralegals once they interview you. If they have to read YOUR document, they actually have to see if it covers everything their's does from scratch. And as you say, there can be state specific things. Georgia, for example, requires that the witness to the will show up in court to testify that they witnessed it UNLESS there is a specific statement waiving that in the will. Good luck tracking someone down 20 years after they witnessed your will. . .
Not exactly this, but we had to do something very similar with my FIL. In his case, we had to track down one of the 3 witnesses and get a signed/notarized statement from them. This is better than appearing in court, but tracking down someone in another state from 40 years ago... still sucks. And it was all due to wording in the will.
Post by: Sydneystache on April 11, 2017, 10:24:39 PM
https://www.domain.com.au/news/beach-house-blues-why-inheriting-property-can-cause-strife-among-families-20170411-gvilkx/
Post by: BlueHouse on April 12, 2017, 09:10:50 AM
I wrote a will today. Well, a draft. I'm going to sit on it for a while and check I haven't missed anything out. But I just wanted to say how much this thread had helped! It's a simple will, but I've put in what happens if we have children, if any of them are under eighteen, if any of them have died and have a surviving spouse or children (including children adopted under the age of sixteen!)... And I've kept it simple: sell everything and split the money. If anyone wants to buy anything, it's at full market value and counts as part of their share. If more than one person is interested in something, they have six months to come to an agreement about who it is or it gets sold by a third party and the money divided.Your distribution scheme sounds like mine did. Then someone pointed out that forced sale under my estate rather than letting property go to an heir could cost a lot in stepped-up cost basis.
My attorney pointed out a few things that made things much simpler for me:
1. I'm young and healthy. I'm likely to write many more wills before I die. So stop trying to account for every contingency, and just get on with it. (don't try to figure out who gets what IF I have children or if A, B, and D, but not C predecease me.)
2. I trust the person(s) I've named as executor. Let them figure out whether to sell my personal property when the time comes.
This advice made me stop worrying and let me just get on with things. I'm covered. My heirs are covered. Is it perfect? No, but it's good enough and it's done.
Post by: iris lily on April 12, 2017, 10:16:45 AM
I wrote a will today. Well, a draft. I'm going to sit on it for a while and check I haven't missed anything out. But I just wanted to say how much this thread had helped! It's a simple will, but I've put in what happens if we have children, if any of them are under eighteen, if any of them have died and have a surviving spouse or children (including children adopted under the age of sixteen!)... And I've kept it simple: sell everything and split the money. If anyone wants to buy anything, it's at full market value and counts as part of their share. If more than one person is interested in something, they have six months to come to an agreement about who it is or it gets sold by a third party and the money divided.I agree, having somethIng in place is much better than having nothing.
We are still slagging though the mechanics of "populating our trust" and it taught me to c solid aye accounts. We have too many fooking financial instruments. Ugh.
Your distribution scheme sounds like mine did. Then someone pointed out that forced sale under my estate rather than letting property go to an heir could cost a lot in stepped-up cost basis.
My attorney pointed out a few things that made things much simpler for me:
1. I'm young and healthy. I'm likely to write many more wills before I die. So stop trying to account for every contingency, and just get on with it. (don't try to figure out who gets what IF I have children or if A, B, and D, but not C predecease me.)
2. I trust the person(s) I've named as executor. Let them figure out whether to sell my personal property when the time comes.
This advice made me stop worrying and let me just get on with things. I'm covered. My heirs are covered. Is it perfect? No, but it's good enough and it's done.
Post by: SweetLife on May 18, 2017, 02:29:55 AM
Anyways ... now it is the drama with monies left in our joint account where the farmers $10,000/year rent went - one brother has decided it needs to stay there until sometime in August ... argh ... I just want this all done. Here comes capital gains :(
Sorry about the rant ... just pissy about this whole thing and sad.
Post by: Spork on May 18, 2017, 08:11:38 AM
Latest in our inheritance drama ... 5 children inherited 20% each of a 200 acre farm .. some children (not this one) wanted to sell the farm ... finally strong-armed this one into selling WHILE I AM OUT OF THE FREAKING COUNTRY ... AND put the closing date 2 days after I come back so I have to go on the day I get back to Canada to pick up the rocks I want as well as anything else that I have fond memories of (they said there is only "junk" left there ...) They have no good memories of the place obviously.
Anyways ... now it is the drama with monies left in our joint account where the farmers $10,000/year rent went - one brother has decided it needs to stay there until sometime in August ... argh ... I just want this all done. Here comes capital gains :(
Sorry about the rant ... just pissy about this whole thing and sad.
Strongarming you into selling really sucks... sorry. But there may be logistical reasons to keep cash around. My dad died a year and a half ago and there is still a reasonable amount of cash sitting in an estate-owned account. Expenses can drag out for a long time.
Post by: talltexan on May 18, 2017, 08:12:33 AM
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
Post by: TomTX on May 18, 2017, 06:16:57 PM
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
I assumed cool looking pieces of granite or marble or whatever.
Post by: Spork on May 18, 2017, 06:23:44 PM
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
I assumed cool looking pieces of granite or marble or whatever.
My wife is a rock hound. I assumed very rock-looking rocks. But rock-looking rocks that had emotional significance. "The big rock by the barn" or "the slightly sparkly rock by the front door of the house I grew up in."
Post by: talltexan on May 19, 2017, 07:23:03 AM
Post by: protostache on May 19, 2017, 07:48:47 PM
Protostache: I guess "free" goes a long, long way for some people. I've seen some people get unreasonably giddy about "free". Someone ought to remind BIL point blank that this sale is of FIL's things to fund the FIL's care and not to serve as a windfall for someone else. BIL may have zero social awareness beyond his own greed.
You could host the cousins in the future so that your kids have a relationship with their cousins. Try to minimize time with the rest of the flawed family.
BIL doesn't care. My wife has repeatedly pointed out that the money goes to FIL's care, but his retort (which makes a sick kind of sense) is that Medicaid is going to kick in at some point anyway so any money we raise this way doesn't matter and nobody else really wants much of anything so he should just get to take it all.
A sick little addendum: turns out BIL also asked the neighbor about taking back the very nice snowblower FIL gifted to him. Neighbor came around yesterday when BIL wasn't there and told us all about it, just to make sure it was still his! We wouldn't have ever known if the neighbor hadn't said anything.
Update
My wife and I and our 10 month old daughter went over to FIL's house for the last time today to supervise the auctioneer's picking up everything worth selling. Last night BIL started texting my wife about the paintings that were still there, and how they were going to get split, etc. Other BIL, SIL, and my wife all either picked out what they wanted or decided not to take anything, and BIL had plenty of opportunity to pick through them when he was loading up his two vans full of junk weeks ago, along with the at least two further occasions when he was in the house by himself.
This morning when we got there my wife generously took pictures of a few of the paintings so he could pick, but then he basically said "all of them". He wanted two for their house and one each for his three daughters that he could give them later in life "from Grandma" (they've already gotten things from Grandma after she passed. also they're very young and won't have any sentimental attachment). Well, the auction loaders got to working and suddenly all of the paintings were on the truck, except for two that my wife had hurriedly guessed at from his not very well expressed preference list.
My wife has preemptively instituted no-contact with BIL to avoid the inevitable fallout. It's not like he can't just go to the auction and buy the stupid things, they just want to get them for free. These aren't even particularly valuable paintings. They're just common Kincaid "paintings" (prints with hand-painted highlights). They're just being greedy.
Family, right? Ugh.
Post by: G-dog on May 19, 2017, 08:15:47 PM
Not sure if that makes you feel better, or different. But at least you know there is no way to make him happy.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 19, 2017, 11:02:11 PM
Post by: protostache on May 20, 2017, 07:49:33 AM
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 20, 2017, 08:00:13 AM
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
You can frame art cheaply by measuring the print (Kincades will be a standard size, never a danger about that) and going to a hobby shop such as Michael's. They have pre-made frames and matting to fit just about any standard picture size. I wouldn't spring for custom framing for anything but an original or a very nice piece of textile art that requires UV protection.
Post by: paddedhat on May 20, 2017, 08:42:21 AM
You can frame art cheaply by measuring the print (Kincades will be a standard size, never a danger about that) and going to a hobby shop such as Michael's. They have pre-made frames and matting to fit just about any standard picture size. I wouldn't spring for custom framing for anything but an original or a very nice piece of textile art that requires UV protection.
The funny part of dealing with that place is that you can indeed get really nice, ready to use standard frame/glass/mat combinations really cheap. Asking them to do custom work however, can be shocking. I needed to do a 17"x 23" antique blueprint. I picked a nice looking cheap frame that was actually a faux wood finish on fiberboard. I had a coupon with a huge discount at 65% off. By the time the clerk got done adding, she quoted $330+ for a custom frame job. This was AFTER the discounts. So they were actually pricing the work at over a grand. I laughed and asked if she was serious? I then bought a very similar frame/glass/mat from their stock supply for $15. I spent another $15 on a mat cutter from Amazon, and ended up with a very nice piece of art for $30, or less than 3% of their bogus quote (pre-discount)
Post by: SwordGuy on May 20, 2017, 09:06:53 AM
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.
They really are that insipid.
Post by: Dicey on May 20, 2017, 09:41:03 AM
Oh, I will never understand the Collectibles mentality. I truly believe that's part of why I've never found living a frugal lifestyle to be particularly difficult.
Post by: Villanelle on May 21, 2017, 12:22:19 AM
I had never done woodworking of any kind before, and with about 15 minutes of instruction (and access to a wood working shop, which sadly I no longer have), I was able to make frames, cut glass, and mount everything and it looks just as good as whatever the kid at Michael's who probably had not more more training than my 15 minutes could do.
Post by: financialfreedomsloth on May 21, 2017, 06:40:11 AM
I friend with even basic woodworking tools could pretty easily make a decent frame for you, so you'd only need someone to cut a piece of glass, and then whatever mat you might want (which you can DIY with a cheap mat cutter). Depending on your tastes, the frame could likely be made with molding purchased from home depot, or if you wanted something fancier you could buy from a frame shop or online.Or get a standard size frame that is bigger than the non-standard size painting/photo you want framed. Buy a nice black or white (depending on the art) sheet of paper and us that as a background on which you put the painting/photo. Voila, your art is being displayed in a nice manner with the use of a cheap standard frame.
I had never done woodworking of any kind before, and with about 15 minutes of instruction (and access to a wood working shop, which sadly I no longer have), I was able to make frames, cut glass, and mount everything and it looks just as good as whatever the kid at Michael's who probably had not more more training than my 15 minutes could do.
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on May 22, 2017, 01:23:38 AM
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
I had a bit to catch up on in this thread but this is very familiar!
A lady came up to me at my grandfather-in-law's funeral and started talking about a certain picture from the GIL's house.
"I know he would want me to have it," she said.
Pffft, nope.
And who lays claim to items when the deceased's spouse is still alive and living in the family home? The estate won't be divided until we lose GMIL, but she's still going strong at 92.
Post by: UKMustache on May 22, 2017, 05:54:35 AM
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
I had a bit to catch up on in this thread but this is very familiar!
A lady came up to me at my grandfather-in-law's funeral and started talking about a certain picture from the GIL's house.
"I know he would want me to have it," she said.
Pffft, nope.
And who lays claim to items when the deceased's spouse is still alive and living in the family home? The estate won't be divided until we lose GMIL, but she's still going strong at 92.
Yup, people really are that awful.
When my grandmother in law died, a neighbor approached my wife at the funeral and made some of the rudest comments imaginable.
First she addressed my wife by the wrong name, she wasn't even close. I won't put the name on here but it was a similar mistake to calling someone Christine instead of Samantha.
This in my eyes was proof she had never even spoken to my wife's grandmother, all she ever talked about was her wonderful granddaughter!
Second she asked what we would do with all the stuff, is there anyone else to inherit?
Well, erm. We haven't even thought about this yet, thanks for your concern.
Third (and the point where my wife cut the conversation off) was whether she could buy the house at a preferential rate because she wouldn't need to involve an agent.
This is the most tactless thing I've ever heard, people told me about it afterwards and I was furious. To give context, this bereavement left my wife with no close family while still in her twenties.
It's unfortunate I wasn't present, I'd have ejected her from the funeral on her ass.
Post by: SweetLife on May 26, 2017, 03:51:43 AM
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
They are very cool looking ones actually ... the reason they are valuable to me is that my Mom use to love looking for "special looking" rocks and it is a memory I have from when I was very young and something we did together lol... So ... not valuable to anyone but me... there is also the foundation of a lovely barn that has some cool rocks in it that would look lovely in our garden. Sigh ... I know i'm weird lol... but that's part of my charm lol...
Here's my Mom at 65yrs old with a "prize" she found in the back bush ...
Post by: SweetLife on May 26, 2017, 03:57:00 AM
Sweetlife, your situation sounds like a mess. Hang in there!
Of course, when you said "rocks I want", I just assumed you have some extremely valuable jewelry somewhere on that farm.
I assumed cool looking pieces of granite or marble or whatever.
My wife is a rock hound. I assumed very rock-looking rocks. But rock-looking rocks that had emotional significance. "The big rock by the barn" or "the slightly sparkly rock by the front door of the house I grew up in."
You got the idea Spork!!! I tried to post a picture but it didn't work :(
Post by: SweetLife on May 26, 2017, 03:59:17 AM
I loved my Mom very much... at her funeral our cousin came up to me and asked for a specific painting that my Mom had stored in the attic. AT THE FUNERAL...
I can't even remember my response. In the days after the funeral I told my brother what she's said. My brother said she did the same thing to my MOM at her Mother's (my Grandma's) funeral.
I don't care who is in that picture ... she isn't getting it.
Petty... yes I am.
I had a bit to catch up on in this thread but this is very familiar!
A lady came up to me at my grandfather-in-law's funeral and started talking about a certain picture from the GIL's house.
"I know he would want me to have it," she said.
Pffft, nope.
And who lays claim to items when the deceased's spouse is still alive and living in the family home? The estate won't be divided until we lose GMIL, but she's still going strong at 92.
Ha ha .... glad I am not the only one!!! :)
Post by: SweetLife on May 26, 2017, 04:02:01 AM
It's unfortunate I wasn't present, I'd have ejected her from the funeral on her ass.[/i]
Ooooooo ..... I thought of this .... ;)
Post by: SweetLife on May 26, 2017, 04:10:19 AM
thank you all for the responses ...
Just a clarification ... the estate has been closed for several years now ... this property was transferred to the 5 of us. So it is basically just a farm sale ... so really the only outstanding financial issues should be taxes and insurance on the property (I think?) Everything else should come out of the purchase price - real estate fees/lawyer fees, capital gains ... or maybe capital gains come off at tax time??
Anyways the money in that farm account should be divided within a week of the closing date ... which is 2 days after I get back from overseas... but enough time for me to gather the "jewels" before it is not longer part mine.
Post by: aurora5 on June 08, 2017, 06:07:54 PM
Moral of the story, be very aware of your state's inheritance laws and check your beneficiaries often. Maybe check your beneficiaries as often as you check your smoke detector batteries? Both are very important.
Post by: markbike528CBX on June 08, 2017, 08:46:28 PM
Post by: aurora5 on June 09, 2017, 05:59:20 AM
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6/section20-11
This Virginia law was new information for me.
It would be important to know for anyone living in Virginia who thought that an ex-spouses life insurance policy would help them with family expenses after death.
Post by: former player on June 09, 2017, 06:09:45 AM
The Virginia law is clear that ex-spouses may not inherit anything.It's pretty common that divorce ends the legal relationship so it also ends any property or legal interests that are contingent on that legal relationship.
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6/section20-11
This Virginia law was new information for me.
It would be important to know for anyone living in Virginia who thought that an ex-spouses life insurance policy would help them with family expenses after death.
I don't think there would be anything which would prevent an ex spouse from reinstating those rights after the divorce by making a new will or making a new nomination under an insurance policy stating the person X, who just happens to be their ex, is the beneficiary.
Post by: AlanStache on June 09, 2017, 08:12:42 AM
The Virginia law is clear that ex-spouses may not inherit anything.It's pretty common that divorce ends the legal relationship so it also ends any property or legal interests that are contingent on that legal relationship.
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6/section20-11
This Virginia law was new information for me.
It would be important to know for anyone living in Virginia who thought that an ex-spouses life insurance policy would help them with family expenses after death.
I don't think there would be anything which would prevent an ex spouse from reinstating those rights after the divorce by making a new will or making a new nomination under an insurance policy stating the person X, who just happens to be their ex, is the beneficiary.
So legally speaking you have to 'cycle the power' after a divorce to reset the device to its past state?
Post by: MgoSam on June 09, 2017, 11:53:39 AM
The Virginia law is clear that ex-spouses may not inherit anything.It's pretty common that divorce ends the legal relationship so it also ends any property or legal interests that are contingent on that legal relationship.
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6/section20-11
This Virginia law was new information for me.
It would be important to know for anyone living in Virginia who thought that an ex-spouses life insurance policy would help them with family expenses after death.
I don't think there would be anything which would prevent an ex spouse from reinstating those rights after the divorce by making a new will or making a new nomination under an insurance policy stating the person X, who just happens to be their ex, is the beneficiary.
On a side note, depending on your state's laws your spouse and/or children may be able to claim a share of your estate regardless of what your will says, like even if you disinherit your spouse she/he could challenge it and would likely win.
Post by: Daleth on June 09, 2017, 02:09:27 PM
Turns out the only reason the whole family is coming is so they could bring two cars to haul away more stuff. Stuff that should be sold at auction for FIL's benefit. BIL also lied to my wife about my sister in law telling him it was ok. SIL is just as surprised and appalled as my wife.
Make a list of everything they took and its approximate value. Then if your FIL lives long enough that he needs to apply for Medicaid, you can give that list to Medicaid and let them go after your BIL... ha.
Post by: Dicey on June 12, 2017, 12:51:55 PM
http://nypost.com/2017/06/11/fallen-911-firefighters-son-battling-with-aunts-over-inheritance/
Post by: TaraB on June 12, 2017, 02:37:02 PM
My parents divorced when I was a kid. Allegedly, there is a trust from my father's mother to which I am entitled a lot of money. But my mom is quite convinced that my father and his crazy sister spent all of it. At some point in the last 10 years, I decided it wasn't worth it to ever count this as a potential windfall or ever bother to try to go after it. I haven't spoken to my father in....17? 18? 19? years, so I am choosing to write this off as "not worth my time and effort and legal fees".
----------
On my mother's side, my great-grandfather was a shrewd businessman, and my grandfather also made a lot of smart decisions. My grandfather passed away in 2006 and my mom took over. My grandmother is still going and will be 90 this summer. There are a lot of complex pieces to this part of the family, and I've only ever gotten my mom's story. But my mom and her sister (D) do NOT get along because of money. My mom and her brother (C) also don't get along, mostly because of what C did to his now ex-wife.
D has one child (my cousin), C has 6, and I have a brother. So the family business is set up so I have a share with my brother, D's kid has a full share, and C's kids all have 1/6th of a share. (Mom, C and D each have a share. I don't know the %'s but you get the idea).
My grandparents generously offered to pay for me to go to college (same school as my grandfather). This set an interesting precedent of them having to pay for all subsequent grandkids going to college (4 or 5 in addition to me- I don't keep close tabs on my cousins admittedly).
There's potentially a LOT of money involved in this family if my grandmother ever passes away*. She's beat cancer multiple times. She's a tough lady, always looking to the next party. But unfortunately I believe C and some of his 6 kids strong-armed her into changing provisions of the life insurance so that it would benefit them (and go against my grandfather's wishes).
My entire family technically owns the family vacation house with the aforementioned split (the family business owns it). Recently my mom has mentioned liquidating that house once grandma passes, since grandma spends summers there but other than a weekend here or there, nobody else really uses it. This will prove to be the most difficult part, since the house is not particularly valuable but the LAND!! OH BOY! The location is pretty great. Of course D and C don't want to sell, but I don't want to co-own a house with them (and all my cousins) without grandma as neutral (ish) peacekeeper. (Thankfully no decisions have to be made anytime soon, but the more I read this thread, the more I'm thinking of relinquishing my thoughts of being "entitled to my share").
Family relations are so acrimonious already, and as I said, grandma is still alive. Luckily more than half of the estate is in easily transferable stocks, but what happens with that house will be rough.
Grandma also has tons of CRAP. I am thankful that I don't want her crap. I don't need her stuff to remember her, although when I visited her in April she wanted me to start thinking about the things of hers I might want.
And one last bit from this side of the family: my brother has recently been making...questionable decisions. My mom threatened to disinherit him, but instead she decided she's going to do what my grandmother is likely doing- OUTLIVE HIM!! MWAHAHAHA!
*No seriously. Not sure if it's just being stubborn, but mom and I are convinced she's never gonna die.
Post by: Capsu78 on June 15, 2017, 09:40:15 AM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-you-might-want-to-disinherit-your-kids-2017-06-14
I just come to this thread for the disfunction :-)
Post by: talltexan on June 16, 2017, 08:53:05 AM
Unfortunately, people tend to feel strangely about houses. I hear a lot of people who call in (to Dave Ramsey, for example) wanting to save the family home/farm and keep it in the family.
Post by: paddedhat on June 16, 2017, 09:41:30 AM
I love that: hire a third party, hand all the children a check.
Unfortunately, people tend to feel strangely about houses. I hear a lot of people who call in (to Dave Ramsey, for example) wanting to save the family home/farm and keep it in the family.
This can be an interesting dumpster fire to watch. I know a couple in their early seventies, that live in voluntary poverty, barely squeaking by, simply because they refuse to give up the family farm. They live in an old, worn out RV, spending winters in a very low cost location in the south, and summers close to home, volunteering in a location where they get a free campsite, and utilities paid. They have a son who occupies the farmhouse, and covers expenses on the house, but doesn't come close to paying market rental rates for the place. The son has no interest in farming, the other kids feel the same, and have zero interest in the place. The old guy splits the costs,losses and theoretical profit with another local farmer who actually works the ground. One recent year, the old guy lost thousands after a bad crop.
This could all end tomorrow and the couple could be living in a nice, paid off, home, with plenty of money to live their lives out, but doing so would involve selling sacred ground. The second the old guy dies, his wife will dump it. If they both spent the next ten-twenty years suffering in voluntary poverty, and pass, the kids will have it on the market before the grass sprouts on mom and dad's cemetery plots.
Post by: TomTX on June 16, 2017, 04:34:22 PM
I love that: hire a third party, hand all the children a check.
Unfortunately, people tend to feel strangely about houses. I hear a lot of people who call in (to Dave Ramsey, for example) wanting to save the family home/farm and keep it in the family.
This can be an interesting dumpster fire to watch. I know a couple in their early seventies, that live in voluntary poverty, barely squeaking by, simply because they refuse to give up the family farm. They live in an old, worn out RV, spending winters in a very low cost location in the south, and summers close to home, volunteering in a location where they get a free campsite, and utilities paid. They have a son who occupies the farmhouse, and covers expenses on the house, but doesn't come close to paying market rental rates for the place. The son has no interest in farming, the other kids feel the same, and have zero interest in the place. The old guy splits the costs,losses and theoretical profit with another local farmer who actually works the ground. One recent year, the old guy lost thousands after a bad crop.
This could all end tomorrow and the couple could be living in a nice, paid off, home, with plenty of money to live their lives out, but doing so would involve selling sacred ground. The second the old guy dies, his wife will dump it. If they both spent the next ten-twenty years suffering in voluntary poverty, and pass, the kids will have it on the market before the grass sprouts on mom and dad's cemetery plots.
Good for them. They should sell. It sounds like the whole arrangement is terrible for everyone except the son living there.
Post by: LeRainDrop on June 16, 2017, 06:34:41 PM
I love that: hire a third party, hand all the children a check.
Unfortunately, people tend to feel strangely about houses. I hear a lot of people who call in (to Dave Ramsey, for example) wanting to save the family home/farm and keep it in the family.
This can be an interesting dumpster fire to watch. I know a couple in their early seventies, that live in voluntary poverty, barely squeaking by, simply because they refuse to give up the family farm. They live in an old, worn out RV, spending winters in a very low cost location in the south, and summers close to home, volunteering in a location where they get a free campsite, and utilities paid. They have a son who occupies the farmhouse, and covers expenses on the house, but doesn't come close to paying market rental rates for the place. The son has no interest in farming, the other kids feel the same, and have zero interest in the place. The old guy splits the costs,losses and theoretical profit with another local farmer who actually works the ground. One recent year, the old guy lost thousands after a bad crop.
This could all end tomorrow and the couple could be living in a nice, paid off, home, with plenty of money to live their lives out, but doing so would involve selling sacred ground. The second the old guy dies, his wife will dump it. If they both spent the next ten-twenty years suffering in voluntary poverty, and pass, the kids will have it on the market before the grass sprouts on mom and dad's cemetery plots.
Good for them. They should sell. It sounds like the whole arrangement is terrible for everyone except the son living there.
Oh man, paddedhat, it's very sad that the dad won't just get rid of it now and instead makes himself and his wife suffer.
Post by: chrisgermany on June 16, 2017, 11:59:46 PM
Farmers do not sell. It is in their DNA.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 17, 2017, 06:25:45 AM
My uncle, who has been managing the farm remotely (the land is rented out to another family that actually does the farm work), explained that good farmland only comes on the market once a century, so if you want to buy it, you buy it when it's available. (Or wait another 3 generations.)
Post by: zolotiyeruki on June 17, 2017, 07:33:05 AM
My grandparents were farmers. I suspect they were good ones as they (a) made it thru the depression with the farm still in their hands and (b) were always on the lookout for more farmland (which implies a surplus of cash). My parents and my uncle invested in additional farmland with my grandparents way back when.I wonder if the same is not true of ranchers...
My uncle, who has been managing the farm remotely (the land is rented out to another family that actually does the farm work), explained that good farmland only comes on the market once a century, so if you want to buy it, you buy it when it's available. (Or wait another 3 generations.)
Post by: G-dog on June 17, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
My grandparents were farmers. I suspect they were good ones as they (a) made it thru the depression with the farm still in their hands and (b) were always on the lookout for more farmland (which implies a surplus of cash). My parents and my uncle invested in additional farmland with my grandparents way back when.I wonder if the same is not true of ranchers...
My uncle, who has been managing the farm remotely (the land is rented out to another family that actually does the farm work), explained that good farmland only comes on the market once a century, so if you want to buy it, you buy it when it's available. (Or wait another 3 generations.)
I would guess that the same is true - land is the needed resource, limited, and rarely becomes available. But I am just guessing.
Post by: Rural on June 17, 2017, 06:37:46 PM
Post by: Kitsune on June 17, 2017, 07:02:06 PM
Honestly? We'd all, collectively, have to be utterly screwed to sell any of that land. Like. Work 2 jobs, never retire, work the land vs sell to a developer? No contest. None of us would sell.
There's something about land - either you get it or you don't. *shrugs* I read that story and I think, man, that poor old man, it must be heartbreaking seeing his kids not care.
Post by: geekette on June 17, 2017, 08:27:36 PM
Not all land is worth holding, sadly.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on June 17, 2017, 10:05:08 PM
Post by: Rural on June 18, 2017, 06:01:16 AM
I live in NE Illinois, at the edge of the suburbs, so lots of farmland still around. And lots of large tracts for sale. Maybe it's only in certain areas that land is rarely sold?
Unfortunately, urban sprawl too often leads to tax increases to the point that farms and other land are lost. Sometimes the authorities realize we all have to eat and that open space/ woodlands are good for humans and environment, and there the agricultural tax rates are manageable. Some places greed takes over. In many cases in the past, tax rates were frozen for the current owner but not for heirs, so once sprawl happened, all the farms went up on the block as a generation died out and the children couldn't pay the tax. I think (hope) this is less common than it was in the 80s.
But the people selling may not have a choice. Plus sometimes the next generation doesn't want it, as in the OP, but that's less common. Also, sometimes sprawl means heirs can sell for many tens of millions and buy twice the acreage of good land somewhere else with money to spare - I've seen that happen once. It's hard to put a price on the house your great-grandfather raised, but eventually sprawl makes it nearly impossible to do things like get or make agricultural deliveries in what has become a congested suburb.
Sorry. The closest city to here exhibits a lot of these symptoms, and I have to look at what's happening to the people who've been there for generations when we're forced to go there. Fortunately for us, there's still a good 70 mile buffer between us and the exurbs.
Post by: iris lily on June 18, 2017, 06:40:36 AM
It's all in a trust, and when his father dies, it will be sold and the money divided among DH's siblings. It is a smallish family farm, as farms around there go, but it is still worth a couple of $ million.
Post by: paddedhat on June 18, 2017, 07:49:07 AM
I live in NE Illinois, at the edge of the suburbs, so lots of farmland still around. And lots of large tracts for sale. Maybe it's only in certain areas that land is rarely sold?
Interestingly, the farm I discussed in in IL. I also met a retired doctor who speculates on the Chicagoland urban sprawl market. He buys and holds farms that are in prime crop country, but 3-4 hours drive away from the sprawl edge. He rents to, and partners with, nearby farmers to keep the farms active, then markets them to farmers that are looking to stay in the game, but want out of the Chicagoland mess. They sell to developers for big dollars, then relocate to equal or better cropland, for a fraction of the price, and the doc. makes a sweet ROI.
Post by: Capsu78 on June 19, 2017, 09:56:38 AM
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=221324
Post by: Pooperman on June 29, 2017, 08:05:33 AM
Anyone want some land in central NC? It was owned by my DH's great aunt and uncle (one child, who died with no heirs a year ago February). There are a couple dozen distant relatives who now "own" it, and I'm sure they'd all like to find a buyer. Pine trees and not much else!
Not all land is worth holding, sadly.
So you're saying they have timberland? That's still worth about 3k/acre.
Post by: TartanTallulah on June 29, 2017, 12:57:35 PM
We've had nothing more than minor inheritance f*ckwittery in my family. Nobody's ever left enough to justify a drama, I've got into my fifties without ever inheriting anything from anyone, and my parents like the moral high ground better than they like money so if there's ever been any dispute about money or heirlooms they've said, "You can take the lot and we hope it brings you joy," and walked away.
Post by: abner on July 01, 2017, 08:45:07 PM
Not as entertaining as other stories but I do have one.
My only sibling (sister) passed away app 5 years ago. She never married. Then my dad passed app 3 years ago, then lastly my mom passed app 1-1/2 year ago. Made the very little inheritance very easy. The story is that my dad had a terminal illness for the last 3 years of his life. So in the end he was wanting to give me, friends, long distance relatives whatever they wanted. ( wasn't much of any monetary value). His gun collection however was very eclectic if not very valuable. Me (only son) had grown up and to this day am not really a "gun" guy. I think they are neat but raising 4 small kids I just didn't want them in the house. My dad took this as "my son just doesn't want the guns". Quite the opposite! Some are 100+ years old and goodness the stories behind them. I just didn't know where to store them until kids are grown. One day as I was visiting and running errands for them he informed me a friend was coming to get one or two. I had to put the brakes on that! When I told him I wanted them it made his day as I have 3 sons that he wanted me to one day give to them.
Just a lack of communication.
A side note I have to tell.
I remember as a kid him winning a Remington 1100 shotgun in a raffle in 1973. I bet that gun hadn't been fired more than 50 shells thru it. After he passed I was cleaning out his belongings and actually found the winning ticket that he presented to claim the prize!
I have it with the gun in a case. Hopefully this will be passed on for generations.
Post by: fredbear on July 03, 2017, 05:58:25 AM
...
A side note I have to tell.
I remember as a kid him winning a Remington 1100 shotgun in a raffle in 1973. I bet that gun hadn't been fired more than 50 shells thru it. After he passed I was cleaning out his belongings and actually found the winning ticket that he presented to claim the prize!
I have it with the gun in a case. Hopefully this will be passed on for generations.
I write stories about either the people I got the gun from, or notable hunts it was on, and put them under the foam in the dedicated gun case for that rifle. I learned this from a friend who brokered me the sale of an Anschutz that had been a favorite of CL, who burst upon the competition scene in our state, won in many disciplines, and died suddenly and young in a construction accident. His tale goes with his rifle.
Post by: MrMoogle on July 05, 2017, 12:09:59 PM
My uncle inherited my grandfather's guns when he passed, but my uncle is anti-gun, and refused to even pick them up. My dad and uncle worked out a deal where I would sell them and keep 10% commission. One was my grandmother's father's shotgun, that had been used regularly. I have a black and white photo of him with it and his dog. One might have been my grandfather's father's gun, also used regularly, but I'm not sure if it truly has family history. One has WWII history, and a possible family connection, but again I don't have the details. I used my commission to get these, as they were fairly well used, they wouldn't have sold for nearly as much as the others....
A side note I have to tell.
I remember as a kid him winning a Remington 1100 shotgun in a raffle in 1973. I bet that gun hadn't been fired more than 50 shells thru it. After he passed I was cleaning out his belongings and actually found the winning ticket that he presented to claim the prize!
I have it with the gun in a case. Hopefully this will be passed on for generations.
I write stories about either the people I got the gun from, or notable hunts it was on, and put them under the foam in the dedicated gun case for that rifle. I learned this from a friend who brokered me the sale of an Anschutz that had been a favorite of CL, who burst upon the competition scene in our state, won in many disciplines, and died suddenly and young in a construction accident. His tale goes with his rifle.
My dad was pretty anti-gun for most of his life, so I wasn't allowed near them. I wish I had been able to learn about those last two specifically.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 25, 2017, 02:13:05 PM
Grandma of coworker dies. Coworker's uncle is one of the co-executors. Coworker stands to inherit 25% of the proceeds from grandma's house. Two years later, uncle sends a bill to the inheritors for $30k, claiming the work he put into the house increased the home's value from $150k to $230k (home sold for $210k). Said work was performed without consultation with or permission from the inheritors. As it turns out, uncle actually owes the estate $15k (borrowed when he was divorced) and owes someone else in the family $25k.
Coworker was smart, called an estate attorney. Attorney told him to ignore the bill.
Post by: Goldielocks on October 25, 2017, 05:39:17 PM
This thread deserves a bump, and I have one that I heard at work:Yeah, executors can charge for their services, even family, but it is up to a limit, and needs to be "reasonable" to get the max allowed. For example:
Grandma of coworker dies. Coworker's uncle is one of the co-executors. Coworker stands to inherit 25% of the proceeds from grandma's house. Two years later, uncle sends a bill to the inheritors for $30k, claiming the work he put into the house increased the home's value from $150k to $230k (home sold for $210k). Said work was performed without consultation with or permission from the inheritors. As it turns out, uncle actually owes the estate $15k (borrowed when he was divorced) and owes someone else in the family $25k.
Coworker was smart, called an estate attorney. Attorney told him to ignore the bill.
In British Columbia, executors of an estate are entitled to a maximum compensation of 5% of the gross aggregate value of the estate under the Trustee Act, RSBC 1996, c. 464 for their care, pains, trouble and time spent.
So, if the total estate minus debts and loans is worth $300k, then the max to ALL executors combined would be $15k, and the other executor would need to waive their portion in order for uncle to claim all $15k of it. The executor does not need permission (except from fellow executor and maybe the court) to do what is necessary to prepare the estate for sale (within reason), but that doesn't mean that they can get compensated more than the legal maximum for their work, even if the work was carpentry repairs, unless agreed to.
Post by: Just Joe on October 26, 2017, 09:24:46 AM
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.
Post by: Just Joe on October 26, 2017, 09:30:24 AM
The funny part of dealing with that place is that you can indeed get really nice, ready to use standard frame/glass/mat combinations really cheap. Asking them to do custom work however, can be shocking. I needed to do a 17"x 23" antique blueprint. I picked a nice looking cheap frame that was actually a faux wood finish on fiberboard. I had a coupon with a huge discount at 65% off. By the time the clerk got done adding, she quoted $330+ for a custom frame job. This was AFTER the discounts. So they were actually pricing the work at over a grand. I laughed and asked if she was serious? I then bought a very similar frame/glass/mat from their stock supply for $15. I spent another $15 on a mat cutter from Amazon, and ended up with a very nice piece of art for $30, or less than 3% of their bogus quote (pre-discount)
I bought a piece of matting to use as a desk protector for ~$6 a sheet at Hobby Lobby.
I asked the clerk if she could use her mat cutter to reduce the width and length slightly to match my desk top dimensions. She said the cost to cut that mat would be above $20.
That is about 2 minutes worth of work.
I nicely told her that when I buy plywood at the hardware store they will make a couple of cuts for me on their panel saw for free and then I walked away.
Stingy company!
Took the mat home, did 5 mins worth of work with a pencil and scissors for free.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 26, 2017, 10:21:26 AM
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.
Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.
The kind of art that stands a good probability of appreciating will be either an original work or a numbered, signed limited-edition print. The materials used in an original aren't important: it could be a pencil sketch on a napkin and it may still have value depending on who made it. But prints should be on high quality stretched canvas as opposed to paper. The print should be numbered, signed, and from a limited edition. Un-numbered prints do not have resale value except as decoration, and frequently the frame will have a higher value than the print. So if you buy an un-numbered Kincade print, what you have is wall decoration. I'm not saying to never buy wall decoration, just know that wall decoration is what you're buying.
The artists whose work tends to go up in value are the ones who take their work seriously. They submit bids for public art installations, they enter juried art exhibitions, and they make the first page of Reddit. They also have some mechanism to see to it that their art is seen by large numbers of people. So they have a system to mass-produce and distribute at least some of their art. Whether this is a Web site or a gallery distributor that sells on consignment doesn't matter as much as the fact they generate sales and publicity. They mostly don't make money off their originals; they make it off the copies they sell as wall decoration, playing cards, and everything else. In the process, they put their work in front of thousands of different and unrelated eyes.
To maintain resale value, the provenance should be perfect: you need to be able to prove the work is what you say it is and not a reproduction. So you need some record of the transaction, the price you paid, and where you bought the art. I prefer to deal directly with the artist or with the artist's authorized dealer or distributor. You have to hold onto the receipt or some kind of record of the transaction, and you have to keep track of who the artist is or was.
Buying art for investment is a lot like buying penny stocks. Most will go nowhere or even down, but you may luck out and get something by an artist who later goes on to become famous and sought-after. It's also possible to bid on work by established artists at auction, however that's pretty much pure speculation and of course you have to worry about provenance. The prices will already be high, and that's a barrier to entry for most.
For art that is cooperative (a lot of textile based art such as petit point is), you don't need the record of sale because the designers and distributors already publish a picture of the kids they sell, and the artist either sells kit or pattern based copies or licenses his or her work to a company that generates a limited edition pattern. To sell cooperative art, you can do very well if the finished work has no mistakes, has been properly cared for, and of course you need to find the right buyer. Forget eBay and Etsy; a reputable antique dealer would be a better choice. It helps if the needlework was done by someone prominent, but it's equally important that it's done well. Either way it's a multi-generational commitment. Lace and needlework seldom have significant value until they're at least a hundred years old and the design is discontinued. To get them to that age, you need to keep them out of the sunlight, care for them properly, and not treat them like disposable garbage.
If you miss even one step of the above process, you might be supporting an artist and providing him or her with income, and getting something nice to decorate your home or office with, but it's not an investment.
Post by: Chesleygirl on October 26, 2017, 05:38:10 PM
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 26, 2017, 06:31:02 PM
I've seen a lot of people get jealous when someone they know receives an inheritance. Does that count as drama?if their envy leads them to do something stupid or exhibit bad manners, then sure!
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on October 26, 2017, 07:22:40 PM
My colleague and her husband are very well off. They each work a day or two a week for fun but they're financially independent, very comfortable, live in a $6 million house, travel non-stop.
The husband decided to give his $80,000 to his older, out-of-work, never married sister who has been struggling a bit to make ends meet.
My colleague complained bitterly about him "throwing money away", saying if he didn't want it he should have given it to their adult daughters.
I've posted about their entitled daughters in other threads - they want for nothing. (One daughter is 25 and working full-time, parents bought her a car and give her a "stipend" of $250 a week.)
My colleague saw this as a slight against her family, instead of a generous act from her husband.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 26, 2017, 07:48:24 PM
My colleague's husband's parents died and left about $80,000 to each of their three children.
My colleague and her husband are very well off. They each work a day or two a week for fun but they're financially independent, very comfortable, live in a $6 million house, travel non-stop.
The husband decided to give his $80,000 to his older, out-of-work, never married sister who has been struggling a bit to make ends meet.
My colleague complained bitterly about him "throwing money away", saying if he didn't want it he should have given it to their adult daughters.
I've posted about their entitled daughters in other threads - they want for nothing. (One daughter is 25 and working full-time, parents bought her a car and give her a "stipend" of $250 a week.)
My colleague saw this as a slight against her family, instead of a generous act from her husband.
If the older sister manages the family money well it will probably come to the daughters in time along with whatever else she owns.
Post by: talltexan on October 27, 2017, 11:25:58 AM
I've posted about their entitled daughters in other threads - they want for nothing. (One daughter is 25 and working full-time, parents bought her a car and give her a "stipend" of $250 a week.)
I'll have to search for your other threads. By itself, this EOC doesn't seem extreme for a family that could be worth $10-$30 million.
Post by: MoustacheKnittah on October 27, 2017, 01:27:16 PM
Yeah, well, that was 17 years ago. She's 97. Still living. AND, she's outlived both my mother and an aunt. That uncle? Not doing too great, and I think she might outlive him too.
Oh this is just delicious
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on October 27, 2017, 03:27:31 PM
I've posted about their entitled daughters in other threads - they want for nothing. (One daughter is 25 and working full-time, parents bought her a car and give her a "stipend" of $250 a week.)
I'll have to search for your other threads. By itself, this EOC doesn't seem extreme for a family that could be worth $10-$30 million.
But that's the thing, it's such a small amount in light of their probable net worth that it's downright petty for my colleague to be nitpicking over it.
Post by: Chesleygirl on October 30, 2017, 05:00:26 PM
I've seen a lot of people get jealous when someone they know receives an inheritance. Does that count as drama?if their envy leads them to do something stupid or exhibit bad manners, then sure!
In these cases, envy leads them to make tacky comments that aren't appropriate. I get being jealous because we all suffer from envy, from time to time. But I'm typically good at hiding my envy; these people aren't. I also get that life isn't fair and people inheriting money, didn't work for that money (in some cases, there might be cases where the inheriting parties did contribute financially). But I'm not going to begrudge someone their inheritance. They get what they get. It's their money.
Post by: merula on October 31, 2017, 08:36:21 AM
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
Post by: Sibley on October 31, 2017, 11:59:02 AM
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
Feel bad for #3 there. Clearly, they're not particularly happy.
Post by: Goldielocks on October 31, 2017, 12:47:28 PM
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
State dependent, if you die intestate, then often there is a cap where the first $x goes to the surviving spouse, and the remainder is split between the kids... If Grandma did not have a lot of assets left in the estate (e.g., a home was jointly owned and other accounts were designated beneficiary to grandpa or also joint), there may actually be no money for kids 1,2,3 from her death. Inheritance upon Grandpa's death would depend on whether kids 1 and 2 were recognized (adopted) by him before he became mentally reduced, (or in a will).
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 31, 2017, 01:52:08 PM
It goes to his wife if he leaves a will and specifies that it does. Or if everything is jointly owned in writing (cars, real estate, bank accounts, etc.) or lists her as beneficiary.
But in at least some U.S. states, if a person dies intestate, children from former spouses/partners are legally entitled to part of the estate.
(Obviously not the case in your story - just pointing this out for clarification. Not sure if it's common knowledge.)
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
State dependent, if you die intestate, then often there is a cap where the first $x goes to the surviving spouse, and the remainder is split between the kids... If Grandma did not have a lot of assets left in the estate (e.g., a home was jointly owned and other accounts were designated beneficiary to grandpa or also joint), there may actually be no money for kids 1,2,3 from her death. Inheritance upon Grandpa's death would depend on whether kids 1 and 2 were recognized (adopted) by him before he became mentally reduced, (or in a will).
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
Post by: merula on October 31, 2017, 01:57:07 PM
This is the case with my family right now. Grandma had two kids from her first marriage and one from her second. She died intestate a few years ago. Grandpa has dementia. (The children of all three consider him Grandpa, as he's the only one they've known.) Child #3 has a major persecution complex and thinks that since he's his dad's only child, everything goes to him. He's wrong; legally children #1 and #2 should have inherited something directly when their mother died, but they're doing fine financially and don't want to fight over the money. #3 insists on interpreting this as "they don't care about me or my dad". It's a crazy mess.
Also, #3 got mad at grandchildren for going into the (now abandoned) house to try to retrieve photos and mementos before everything was destroyed through neglect.
State dependent, if you die intestate, then often there is a cap where the first $x goes to the surviving spouse, and the remainder is split between the kids... If Grandma did not have a lot of assets left in the estate (e.g., a home was jointly owned and other accounts were designated beneficiary to grandpa or also joint), there may actually be no money for kids 1,2,3 from her death. Inheritance upon Grandpa's death would depend on whether kids 1 and 2 were recognized (adopted) by him before he became mentally reduced, (or in a will).
That is the case in this state, and Grandpa doesn't have a will either. #1 and #2 were not adopted by Grandpa. There were enough assets that they should have gotten some payout, but they didn't press anything because they don't need the money (and Grandma's death was not expected, and very hard on everyone emotionally). In this state, the "payout after the death of one parent" only applies if your parent was at the time of death married to someone who is not your parent, so #3 would not have gotten anything at Grandma's death.
Grandpa is now in a facility and #3 has signed over all assets to the facility to pay for his care. It's somewhat interesting that, had #1 and #2 pressed for their share, they could have then gifted it to #3. As it is, it's unlikely that #3 will see any inheritance at all. (Except, of course, for those items that his nieces and nephews salvaged from the house over his objections.)
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
This is also true. On a completely different side of the family is a great-grandma who was married twice (once divorced, once widowed), and for the last ~10 years of her life her "special friend" was her sister's widower. He had a heart attack at her house at 3am one time. The best part was how she would rail against the immorality of the younger generations for living together before marriage.
But there's also the grandpa who has been with his second wife for more than 30 years; they both had grown children when they married and they've deliberately kept completely separate finances and detailed wills so that neither will disinherit their children.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 31, 2017, 02:38:36 PM
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
This is also true. On a completely different side of the family is a great-grandma who was married twice (once divorced, once widowed), and for the last ~10 years of her life her "special friend" was her sister's widower. He had a heart attack at her house at 3am one time. The best part was how she would rail against the immorality of the younger generations for living together before marriage.
But there's also the grandpa who has been with his second wife for more than 30 years; they both had grown children when they married and they've deliberately kept completely separate finances and detailed wills so that neither will disinherit their children.
The moral difference, for my grandma and perhaps also your great-grandma, was this: she and her special friend were physically incapable of having children together and had presumably done their duty by their own children a long time ago. Indeed, by foregoing marriage she was doing a favor to her kids and heirs. An unmarried young couple living together, however, was doing something radically different. They were creating a risk to everyone in the young woman's family, which was a Bad Thing To Be Avoided.
With no such thing as reliable birth control, two young adults living together was a pregnancy waiting to happen. Should a child be born, he or she would have no right to any of the father's assets, having been born outside marriage. Indeed, since there was no such thing as a reliable paternity test he could always deny the baby was his. All the debt related to medical care or child care accrued to the mother of the child, not the father. The same went for responsibility. Instead of continuing her education, running her own business, or earning an income the young woman would be saddled with the responsibility of caring for the baby. Her other responsibilities would generally devolve onto other people in her family, consuming their time and resources to pay for necessities both for the baby and for what could have been a productive adult. After seeing a few young lives ruined because an older sister just had to crank out a baby, the community got pretty resentful pretty fast. ("Sorry, Joe, we had to spend your college money on Mary's baby"... "Sorry, Jane, you can't have a part-time job, or take an after-school enrichment class, you've got to babysit Mary's kid"... "Leave that schoolbook alone, can't you hear the baby's crying?")
My take on it is that a lot of the censure for specific behaviors came less from any social, moral, or religious categorical imperative than from the risks associated with the behaviors. The risks in this case came from biology, technology, and the ways the laws were written. As those changed, the risks were greatly reduced to the point where a teen pregnancy (for example) isn't a danger to everyone in sight. Accordingly, many families adapted until the early single pregnancies became the norm, and marriage is what became rare.
Post by: talltexan on November 01, 2017, 07:16:38 AM
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
This is also true. On a completely different side of the family is a great-grandma who was married twice (once divorced, once widowed), and for the last ~10 years of her life her "special friend" was her sister's widower. He had a heart attack at her house at 3am one time. The best part was how she would rail against the immorality of the younger generations for living together before marriage.
But there's also the grandpa who has been with his second wife for more than 30 years; they both had grown children when they married and they've deliberately kept completely separate finances and detailed wills so that neither will disinherit their children.
The moral difference, for my grandma and perhaps also your great-grandma, was this: she and her special friend were physically incapable of having children together and had presumably done their duty by their own children a long time ago. Indeed, by foregoing marriage she was doing a favor to her kids and heirs. An unmarried young couple living together, however, was doing something radically different. They were creating a risk to everyone in the young woman's family, which was a Bad Thing To Be Avoided.
With no such thing as reliable birth control, two young adults living together was a pregnancy waiting to happen. Should a child be born, he or she would have no right to any of the father's assets, having been born outside marriage. Indeed, since there was no such thing as a reliable paternity test he could always deny the baby was his. All the debt related to medical care or child care accrued to the mother of the child, not the father. The same went for responsibility. Instead of continuing her education, running her own business, or earning an income the young woman would be saddled with the responsibility of caring for the baby. Her other responsibilities would generally devolve onto other people in her family, consuming their time and resources to pay for necessities both for the baby and for what could have been a productive adult. After seeing a few young lives ruined because an older sister just had to crank out a baby, the community got pretty resentful pretty fast. ("Sorry, Joe, we had to spend your college money on Mary's baby"... "Sorry, Jane, you can't have a part-time job, or take an after-school enrichment class, you've got to babysit Mary's kid"... "Leave that schoolbook alone, can't you hear the baby's crying?")
My take on it is that a lot of the censure for specific behaviors came less from any social, moral, or religious categorical imperative than from the risks associated with the behaviors. The risks in this case came from biology, technology, and the ways the laws were written. As those changed, the risks were greatly reduced to the point where a teen pregnancy (for example) isn't a danger to everyone in sight. Accordingly, many families adapted until the early single pregnancies became the norm, and marriage is what became rare.
TGS,
your thoughtful post leaves out one more consequence of the teen pregnancy: reduced value on the marriage market of the unwed mother. If your goal is to capture the thinking of 1940's society (when this grandmother would have been indoctrinated into sexual morality), I think that's important.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 01, 2017, 09:02:35 AM
Depending on the timing and location, remarrying can indeed disinherit your first set of children unless you take intentional steps to make sure the surviving spouse doesn't take everything. Family customs often adapt to the local laws. For example, remarriage was historically rare in my family. My grandparents' generation never remarried after the death of a husband or wife. But it was customary for elderly people to have a boyfriend or girlfriend after the traditional mourning period was over. Nobody said a damn thing negative about my widowed grandmother's special friend, for example, although obviously marriage was out of the question.
This is also true. On a completely different side of the family is a great-grandma who was married twice (once divorced, once widowed), and for the last ~10 years of her life her "special friend" was her sister's widower. He had a heart attack at her house at 3am one time. The best part was how she would rail against the immorality of the younger generations for living together before marriage.
But there's also the grandpa who has been with his second wife for more than 30 years; they both had grown children when they married and they've deliberately kept completely separate finances and detailed wills so that neither will disinherit their children.
The moral difference, for my grandma and perhaps also your great-grandma, was this: she and her special friend were physically incapable of having children together and had presumably done their duty by their own children a long time ago. Indeed, by foregoing marriage she was doing a favor to her kids and heirs. An unmarried young couple living together, however, was doing something radically different. They were creating a risk to everyone in the young woman's family, which was a Bad Thing To Be Avoided.
With no such thing as reliable birth control, two young adults living together was a pregnancy waiting to happen. Should a child be born, he or she would have no right to any of the father's assets, having been born outside marriage. Indeed, since there was no such thing as a reliable paternity test he could always deny the baby was his. All the debt related to medical care or child care accrued to the mother of the child, not the father. The same went for responsibility. Instead of continuing her education, running her own business, or earning an income the young woman would be saddled with the responsibility of caring for the baby. Her other responsibilities would generally devolve onto other people in her family, consuming their time and resources to pay for necessities both for the baby and for what could have been a productive adult. After seeing a few young lives ruined because an older sister just had to crank out a baby, the community got pretty resentful pretty fast. ("Sorry, Joe, we had to spend your college money on Mary's baby"... "Sorry, Jane, you can't have a part-time job, or take an after-school enrichment class, you've got to babysit Mary's kid"... "Leave that schoolbook alone, can't you hear the baby's crying?")
My take on it is that a lot of the censure for specific behaviors came less from any social, moral, or religious categorical imperative than from the risks associated with the behaviors. The risks in this case came from biology, technology, and the ways the laws were written. As those changed, the risks were greatly reduced to the point where a teen pregnancy (for example) isn't a danger to everyone in sight. Accordingly, many families adapted until the early single pregnancies became the norm, and marriage is what became rare.
TGS,
your thoughtful post leaves out one more consequence of the teen pregnancy: reduced value on the marriage market of the unwed mother. If your goal is to capture the thinking of 1940's society (when this grandmother would have been indoctrinated into sexual morality), I think that's important.
The reduced marriage-market value of people with children generally only affected the ones who produced the children, so I acknowledge that it existed but don't believe it was a contributing factor in the censure, unless the grandparent somehow bought into the whole categorical-imperative notion.
People usually only react strongly to things that personally affect them, unless they conflate the problem into a categorical imperative so that they believe "if X happens, it's right and appropriate to fly off the rocker because X is MORALLY BAD". Once they do that, the context and circumstances that made X potentially dangerous to them or to other people in their tribe can change but the butt-hurt oversensitivity endures. It appears to me that it's happened a lot where other people's romantic and reproductive choices are concerned: people tend to grossly overreact to things that do not actually affect them.
Post by: formerlydivorcedmom on November 01, 2017, 02:02:36 PM
When my grandmother died 8 years later, they managed to divide the estate between the 5 of them; mom sent my sister and I each a check for $1k as "our share", which was a nice surprise. The better news is that the siblings still get along!
The other side of the family is messed up. My grandmother recently died. Her husband and 2 of her 4 sons (including my dad) predeceased her, and youngest son disowned her. She wrote a will leaving 50% to oldest son and 50% split between me and my sister (other deceased son had no heirs). Half her money was in cash, half in cds. A year before she died, she told us that oldest son had asked her to sign paperwork to reinvest the cds, and she found out after the fact that the paperwork was to move them into his name. At this point, she had had 3rd stroke and was essentially blind. She was heartbroken and cried and cried. We told her it was fine; we didn't need money to know she loved us, and if he stopped paying for the nursing home we'd beat him up for her. She told us at least we'd get the cash (about $25k each).
The day after the funeral uncle gave my sister a copy of the will, leaving everything to him. We figured he had her sign that at the same time he moved the cds into his name. Will states that anyone contesting it "only receives $1". We joked we ought to contest it just to get something! Uncle says he'll leave everything to us when he dies; we figure IF he has a will, he'll leave anything he has left to his mostly-estranged grandsons, and, if no will, it will go to his mostly-estranged son. And if he makes it to heaven our grandmother will kick his butt. Before then...well, we're probably the ones that get to pick his nursing home!
Grandmother did give away her belongings years ago; sister and I got all of her jewelry and a few pieces of furniture. It's enough to remember her by.
Sister and I made a pact not to be assholes when our mom dies. Mom wants to leave everything 50-50. I said no; sister and her son have always lived with mom (sis pays utilities, helps keep up the house, and plans to take care of mom when needed; she's somewhat of a spendthrift, but she's responsible), and I am not kicking sister out of her home. Sister should get house, and we can evenly split any other assets. Mom agreed. I will nag mom next year to make sure her will has been updated. Otherwise, I'm the executor, so I bet I can make it work.
Post by: talltexan on November 02, 2017, 07:02:55 AM
Being a jerk is bad. Being a jerk for--in estate terms--a small amount of money seems inexcusable.
Post by: formerlydivorcedmom on November 02, 2017, 07:36:35 AM
We did put uncle (a functioning alcoholic) on notice that his behavior over the next few years determines whether we stick him in a run-down nursing home where the only nurses are big hairy men, or whether we put him somewhere decent and smuggle him the occasional Crown Royal. Right now, he's got a one-way ticket to the former.
I'm grateful for my mom - she's way better with money and taught me well.
Post by: tyrannostache on November 02, 2017, 03:03:11 PM
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.
Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.
Ah yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 02, 2017, 03:12:49 PM
IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.
I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.
Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.
Ah yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.
Very wise of you. In fairness, if it wasn't for the hordes of people who do exactly as you describe, it wouldn't be possible for artists to sell enough work to feed themselves in significant enough numbers for one of them to beat the odds and become famous enough for their originals or limited-edition prints to become worth significantly more than what you paid for it.
Post by: Dave1442397 on November 03, 2017, 06:00:40 AM
In a similar story, a friend of a friend bought a painting for $20 at a silent auction because she liked the frame and planned to reuse it. The painting sat leaning against a wall behind a door for months before she got back to it. When she cut through the paper backing, she found a letter inside. It turned out to be from the curator of a Spanish museum, asking to be notified if the painting was ever for sale. I forget who the artist was, but it ended up selling at auction for $180,000.
Post by: merula on November 03, 2017, 11:12:29 AM
I have acquaintances who believe that their paintings are a valuable part of their kids' inheritance too. They are Thomas Kincaide prints. So not only nearly worthless, but also ugly.
If you like Thomas Kincaide prints, more power to you. Decorate your house however you want. My parents love them. I don't want their judgment when my home decor isn't to their taste, so I'm not going to do that to them. even if Thomas Kincaide is objectively bad.
Post by: saguaro on November 03, 2017, 01:00:57 PM
Ah yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.
Years ago, in-laws went on an artwork buying spree and bought various paintings and sculptures. They bragged that some of these pieces cost 10K or more but are a "great investment" and will be worth "a lot of money". Who really knows, but having been in the local gallery scene, DH really doubts it as he found markups to be totally insane and this was around the time his folks bought this stuff. These items were supposed to fund the grandkids' college but that never materialized since
one grandkid did not go and the other funded it via other means.
But, they insist, these are still worth money!!! Now we will inherit them eventually and that will fund our retirement! We just continue to fund our retirement as per usual but SIL has totally bought into this idea that they are worth something but then again, the she thinks everything is worth money, down to the $10 Hallmark ornaments she gives at Christmas.
Post by: Chesleygirl on November 03, 2017, 01:12:12 PM
Ah yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.
Years ago, in-laws went on an artwork buying spree and bought various paintings and sculptures. They bragged that some of these pieces cost 10K or more but are a "great investment" and will be worth "a lot of money". Who really knows, but having been in the local gallery scene, DH really doubts it as he found markups to be totally insane and this was around the time his folks bought this stuff. These items were supposed to fund the grandkids' college but that never materialized since
one grandkid did not go and the other funded it via other means.
But, they insist, these are still worth money!!! Now we will inherit them eventually and that will fund our retirement! We just continue to fund our retirement as per usual but SIL has totally bought into this idea that they are worth something but then again, the she thinks everything is worth money, down to the $10 Hallmark ornaments she gives at Christmas.
I don't know much about art, but I'd say those are only worth money, if you can find a real buyer for them. Who will pay what they are worth. And that can be the tricky part.
All kinds of "stuff" in general is going way down in value. I don't see the younger generation collecting lots of stuff in their homes. Like little figurines, trinkets, and ornaments. Remember how curio cabinets used to be popular? They look really outdated now in modern homes.
The trend seems to be toward minimalism.
Post by: saguaro on November 03, 2017, 01:48:12 PM
Years ago, in-laws went on an artwork buying spree and bought various paintings and sculptures. They bragged that some of these pieces cost 10K or more but are a "great investment" and will be worth "a lot of money". Who really knows, but having been in the local gallery scene, DH really doubts it as he found markups to be totally insane and this was around the time his folks bought this stuff. These items were supposed to fund the grandkids' college but that never materialized since
one grandkid did not go and the other funded it via other means.
But, they insist, these are still worth money!!! Now we will inherit them eventually and that will fund our retirement! We just continue to fund our retirement as per usual but SIL has totally bought into this idea that they are worth something but then again, the she thinks everything is worth money, down to the $10 Hallmark ornaments she gives at Christmas.
I don't know much about art, but I'd say those are only worth money, if you can find a real buyer for them. Who will pay what they are worth. And that can be the tricky part.
All kinds of "stuff" in general is going way down in value. I don't see the younger generation collecting lots of stuff in their homes. Like little figurines, trinkets, and ornaments. Remember how curio cabinets used to be popular? They look really outdated now in modern homes.
The trend seems to be toward minimalism.
That is the indeed the challenge, finding a real buyer with the money for these pieces of art. And listing with a seller who has a client base who may be interested, which of course will cost money, a seller will not help you sell for free. SIL thinks she is going to acquire great riches but the reality will probably prove to be quite different. DH is ready to tell her once the time comes that it's all hers and good luck. After downsizing his own stuff, he's not interested in acquiring any of his parents' things regardless of value.
Already I am finding a lot of items that were worth some money years ago isn't anymore. My sibs and I are working to clear out my late parents' home and there's a lot of antiques, depression glass , china, etc that was worth something back when it was bought but the market dropped out on those things years ago.
Makes me glad that we didn't buy a lot of this stuff myself though people thought we were weird or stingy at the time.
Post by: Chesleygirl on November 03, 2017, 04:49:23 PM
That is the indeed the challenge, finding a real buyer with the money for these pieces of art. And listing with a seller who has a client base who may be interested, which of course will cost money, a seller will not help you sell for free. SIL thinks she is going to acquire great riches but the reality will probably prove to be quite different. DH is ready to tell her once the time comes that it's all hers and good luck. After downsizing his own stuff, he's not interested in acquiring any of his parents' things regardless of value.
Already I am finding a lot of items that were worth some money years ago isn't anymore. My sibs and I are working to clear out my late parents' home and there's a lot of antiques, depression glass , china, etc that was worth something back when it was bought but the market dropped out on those things years ago.
I sold my mom's depression glass, china, some crystal about three years ago. And some of her figurine collection. But it took a long time to find the right buyer and multiple listings across Facebook and Craig's list. So it wasn't easy to sell that stuff! I also took a look at ebay listings and china, porcelain, crystal just aren't selling. The listings stay up forever with no bids. My mom had believed these things were so valuable that she actually hid them in her home.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on November 05, 2017, 01:45:33 AM
I sold my mom's depression glass, china, some crystal about three years ago. And some of her figurine collection. But it took a long time to find the right buyer and multiple listings across Facebook and Craig's list. So it wasn't easy to sell that stuff! I also took a look at ebay listings and china, porcelain, crystal just aren't selling. The listings stay up forever with no bids. My mom had believed these things were so valuable that she actually hid them in her home.
That is really sad, so she got so caught up in the financial value of them that she couldn't enjoy the artistic value.
Post by: Dicey on November 06, 2017, 10:52:35 AM
FTFYVery wise of you. In fairness, if it wasn't for the hordes of people who do exactly as you describe, it wouldn't be possible for artists to sell enough work to feed themselves in significant enough numbers for one of them to beat the odds and become famous enough for their originals or limited-edition prints to become worth significantly more than whatAh yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.yousomeone else other than you paid for it.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 06, 2017, 01:49:37 PM
Hmm, no, I am not going to steal the art. :) There have been some epic heists over the years; that wasn't me.FTFYVery wise of you. In fairness, if it wasn't for the hordes of people who do exactly as you describe, it wouldn't be possible for artists to sell enough work to feed themselves in significant enough numbers for one of them to beat the odds and become famous enough for their originals or limited-edition prints to become worth significantly more than whatAh yes, "investment" art. My ILs used to travel a lot, and they loved to buy art when they traveled. That's great--their prerogative, and I think they enjoy the things that they have bought. Unfortunately, they also love to brag about how much all of this stuff is going to be worth for my kids. Stuff like spectacularly expensive rugs which their dog has wrecked, ceramics of dubious origin, and some oil paintings that are "guaranteed" to go up in value. FIL likes to point out how one of the paintings is going to be my kid's college fund. Said painting sits inches above the buffet where they pile wine, beer, and food during family get-togethers. We smile and nod and continue investing in the kid's 529.Buying art as an investment requires a different approach. You need to buy only art that stands a chance of going up in value, you have to make sure that you'll be able to sell it again which requires that you keep proof of the art's provenance, and you need to ensure the art stays in the same condition it was in when you bought it. Miss even one of these steps, and you've bought the use of a decoration that has aesthetic value but nothing more.I've heard of people buying prints as wall art convinced that these will also function as small investments. After 20 or so years though some of these prints have sun damage. Its just ink on heavy paper after all.That's basically the situation here. MIL bought them as "investments" but she could only afford the mass produced ones. They're worth about 10% of what she paid, if that. She was trying to do right by her kids and grandkids but basically just destroyed her pension lump sum payout between the paintings and the silver "investment" coins. BIL seems to have inherited that mentality.IMO, I think that getting kincaid paintings would have been enough justice on BIL's head.+1 I haaaaate them. My IL's have a house full and keep buying them as "investments."
I really don't like them either. We took one as a remembrance of MIL. It's actually a nice looking lighthouse instead of a cottage and my dad liked lighthouses but it's not hanging yet because the frame is a tacky "gold" thing and we haven't decided if we're going to spring to get it reframed or not.yousomeone else other than you paid for it.
The only other free ways to get art are to receive it as a gift or to inherit it. The art I acquire those ways is seldom to my taste. Just because something's expensive doesn't mean I'll enjoy looking at it. For example, my entire family has a hard-on for Realism but I don't. So I've got several pieces in my collection that are probably objectively valuable but fugly to my eyes. Some of them I can't even justify displaying because they make me want to hurl. Are they genuine heirlooms that are increasing in value? Some of them, yes. Am I going to sell that shit once the person who gave it to me kicks off? Hell, yeah.
I find that the art I care enough to make or buy gives me far more satisfaction. Even a low satisfaction-to-dollar rate beats zero satisfaction and something taking up space in a closet or on my wall.
Unless a person's hair is on fire and they're in debt, art could sometimes be one of those things that can fit in a Mustachian lifestyle as an occasional indulgence or investment, provided it's acquired cheaply but honestly. The dollar figure may be low, but it will never be zero. The thing about art is that it takes time and resources to make. Materials aren't free and time is the one thing they don't make any more of. I don't mind paying the artist, or that artist's designated representative, fair value for the work.
Post by: Dicey on November 06, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on November 07, 2017, 12:18:54 AM
I knew it was risky to quote that whole thread, so I'm not going to compound my error. My meaning was completely different from your take, Grim. I was referring to the people cited who buy "art" expecting it to appreciate wildly and tell their children and grandchildren it's going to be their inheritance. I'm not talking about stealing art. Whoa, that's not where I was going at all.
Good cover Dicey. Now no-one will suspect that you and Grim are master criminal art thieves. ;-)
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 07, 2017, 08:02:10 AM
I knew it was risky to quote that whole thread, so I'm not going to compound my error. My meaning was completely different from your take, Grim. I was referring to the people cited who buy "art" expecting it to appreciate wildly and tell their children and grandchildren it's going to be their inheritance. I'm not talking about stealing art. Whoa, that's not where I was going at all.
Of course not! I deliberately went off on what I hoped would be a hilarious tangent. I should have used my "just kidding" font. Sorry for the misconception. And, yes, expecting mass produced art, plates, and figurines to appreciate is terrible but people are conned into doing it all the time because of the advertising.
Post by: Dicey on November 07, 2017, 04:06:22 PM
As to those alleged art heists, I have no idea what Pw/F is talking about! 《wink, wink》
Post by: Wilson Hall on March 13, 2018, 09:15:54 AM
Post by: Goldielocks on March 14, 2018, 01:08:26 AM
I found out that an elderly relative apologized to her son in her last week of life, for being physically and emotionally abusive to him when he was small (under 12). Shocked him, by it, actually. It was completely ignored and pretended to be "normal" until the last week of her life.
Post by: chouchouu on March 14, 2018, 11:37:41 AM
I later find out everyone is flying over for a memorial service(aunt was mustachian and didn't believe in fancy funerals-she donated her body to science), all these people who couldn't be bothered to visit her when she was dying. I barely know anyone apart from my aunt from that side of the family due to my parents divorce so decide not to go. I do give my half brother a speech to read on my behalf and here is where things get kind of gross. My aunt had in her possession an original draft of Australia's constitution. This draft also has hand written notes and annotations in it. I visited her before I moved overseas and she told me it was to be donated to the state library. While researching my speech I find an article from the library regarding a much smaller donation from my aunt, nothing about the constitution. I call them up and they say they haven't received it and I should make a formal enquiry. My sister had told me it was donated at the time she went into the nursing home. I receive correspondence from the library that they hadn't yet received it but had visited my aunt about donations while she was still deciding and they have copies but not the originals. My half brother was supposed to have sorted this out, there's a possibility it was accidentally thrown out but that is unlikely since it was well known about aunt's wishes and what documents she had. As I mentioned earlier I hardly know that side of the family but when I first visited my half brother he showed me around his Victorian mansion pointing out all the valuable heirlooms that belonged to my family including a pair of chippendale chairs. His wife basically does nothing beside fall asleep, social climb and live off her multimillion inheritance. I don't think she has ever had a job. Their son dropped out of his prep school and at one stage "earned a living" selling off his maternal grandfather's belongings. Now he works for my half brother being a generally incompetent feature at his company. I suspect the constitution was kept by my half brother so his wife could add another item to her collection to boast about. My brother had told me she had a huge fight with her sister when her mother passed away regarding those possessions.
The whole thing is so depressing more so because my aunt was actually an incredibly kind and wonderful woman. She was born in 1925 and had research published by the royal society of chemistry when she was only 22/23. My father's family were very wealthy but she was the only one who took that privilige and contributed something back to society. My father on the other hand laments that he spent all his inheritance divorcing my mother and even took my sister to show her the approx 40 million dollar waterfront land where he grew up. It really drives home that generally leaving your kids a large fortune makes them entitled and lazy. He still thinks I care about my inheritance and has tried to manipulate me with it, even after I cut him off he would send me letters about it and was furious I ignored them. Apparently my half sister also cut him off and told him she would donate her inheritance to the cat shelter.
My sister also asked me to leave something out of my share of the estate to the second cousin.Second cousin receives nothing in the will and my sister thinks it would be kind to leave her something since apparently she visited her often. I don't know what to think about that, perhaps my perspective is clouded because I'm upset my aunt was left by herself to die without family. They had no idea I was coming so it would have only been nursing home staff. On the other hand if she did visit my aunt often and cared for her it would be a nice gesture. As it is I'm more inclined to give something to my aunt's favourite nurse who would have looked after her daily and cared for her. I'm still waiting to be given a copy of the will so I can bring up the constitution. I suspect nothing will come of it but at least I will have said something. It's really quite depressing, my aunt deserved so much better than this.
My husband's family is the complete opposite. He flew back to Europe before each grandparent died and the family all stayed with them to comfort them as they passed. None of his grandparents had money, they were all there because they love and respect each other. Hopefully my kids take after their paternal side, they have a great relationship with that side of the family so I hope they pick up their values.
Post by: BabyShark on March 14, 2018, 01:03:23 PM
I love this thread.
I've got some impending potential drama brewing.
Bit of background: my dad stopped speaking to his brother and sister probably 15 and 10 years ago respectively. They both live in the same state as their dad, but my immediate family all lived in a different state. Of the three, my dad was the one who took care of grandpa, making sure he was covered, paying for his house and all that even when my aunt moved in with grandpa rent free during her separation and eventual divorce. Grandpa didn't like the idea of my dad just giving him money so he signed promissory notes indicating that the money dad gave him would be paid back by grandpa's estate. The notes were clear and they were even mentioned in grandpa's will. Dad was supposed to be the executor of grandpa'a estate.
Fast forward to December 2015 and my dad passes away after a decently lengthy cancer battle that eventually went to his brain, making him bed ridden and not all with it. Grandpa is still living. My mom has decided she's going to enforce the promissory notes against grandpa's eventual estate, not because she'll need the money, but to prevent aunt and uncle, who suddenly reappeared to play the roles of grieving siblings at my dad's service, from getting the money. Mom thinks they don't know about the notes, I'm not too sure. Grandpa claims about six months before dad died, dad told him he was ripping up the notes and not to worry about them.
Not a week after my dad's funeral, we learn that uncle has taken grandpa to get his will redrafted. Not looking forward to the near certain drama over this. Even without the notes, the estate won't be worth much. I've been trying to convince my mom it's not worth fighting with my aunt and uncle but I've gotten nowhere.
Wow, I read this with interest expecting the aunt and uncle to be trouble, but I did not expect that twist from Grandpa!
Yea, we're not sure when this would have happened because those six months would have been when dad was at his least coherent and was only really able to have conversations for a few minutes at a time. He never mentioned this to my mom which is what makes it suspicious because when he was with it, they talked a lot about future plans since it was clear he was deteriorating pretty rapidly.
Uncle and dad also owned a building in the city in which my parents live, even though they didn't speak, dad would still send him his portion of the rental income every month or so. Again, less than a week after dad's death, uncle starts hounding mom about selling the building because uncle wants his money from it. Mom eventually bought uncle out, so that headache has ended fortunately. It's just going to be a nightmare.
And I'm sure if one of my cousins or even my aunt/uncle was telling this story, it'd be all about how my mom is an evil in-law. Really, it's just a crappy situation all around because my dad was supposed to be here to mediate with his family and now my mom is left doing it and she never really got along with her in-laws in the first place.
And here we are with more drama on this one! Grandpa passed a few weeks ago. Uncle had taken him to redraft the will. About a month before he passes, Grandpa and Uncle have a huge knock down, drag out, fight and Grandpa stops speaking to Uncle, has Aunt and Aunt's Husband (who have been taking care of him) to rewrite the will and take out Uncle. Uncle is now apparently contesting EVERYTHING and thinks that everybody (me, my sisters, my cousins who are aunt's daughters) will side with him. He's delusional. Uncle and Grandpa weren't speaking at the time Grandpa died, but Uncle spoke at his funeral like he was a loving son and they were incredibly close. It was worse than he was at my father's funeral and I'm disgusted with him.
Going to be an interesting fight for sure.
Post by: Dicey on March 15, 2018, 08:15:19 AM
As to being there at the exact moment of death, I have been there for several friends. When my parents were dying, I visited as often as I could, but was not able to be there at the very end for either of them. When my dad was going, all of my other sibs were there. They knew I wasn't coming, because I had been there recently, but he was hanging on, so they called and put him on the phone. I told him I knew I was his favorite (long standing joke) and that I loved him and that it was okay to go be with mom, we would all be fine. He was gone within hours.
Why wasn't I there? My MIL has Alzheimer's and lives with us. My parents lived seven+ hours away. It sucked, but MIL's needs had to take precedence. My mom used to say life is for the living. She was right. She also said, "Celebrate the good stuff in life." Smart woman.
Chouchouu, there are two sides to every story. Being there for someone's very last breath is less important than being there all through their life. Try not to judge the people who were not there at the exact moment of her passing so harshly.
Post by: okonumiyaki on March 15, 2018, 08:55:00 AM
Post by: saguaro on March 15, 2018, 12:26:31 PM
When my mom passed two years before, my sisters were there but I was not. My mom had just been admitted to hospice care that day and it was expected she still had some time, so based on this, I made plans to come down the next morning and stay for however long as necessary. I had seen her a couple of days before. She died a few hours later, according to my sisters things declined very quickly and unexpectedly. Again it was just how it went.
I recently learned that my sister has been very angry that I was not there at the time of our mother's death. There's no explaining to her that one cannot anticipate exactly how things are going to go. It's not in our control. But there's nothing any of us can do about it now. I wasn't as enmeshed with my parents as my sisters were (long story) but it was not like I was never there. And I certainly got more involved during my parents' final illnesses. Both parents knew I was there and were fine with what I could do for them.
Back to inheritance drama, there has not been any but my folks divided things equally. My sister (yep, the angry one) is executor of my parents' estate and things thus far things have surprisingly gone OK with her. If one sister wants something, she brings it up and we all discuss. One sister and myself agreed to let another sister have my parents' car. Still the house to sell though and things could get interesting when it comes to doing that. Not from a fairness perspective, but from the perspective of cleanout and prepping the house for sale.
Now when my in-laws pass, DH fully expects major drama.
Post by: ducky19 on March 16, 2018, 09:48:40 AM
Post by: chouchouu on March 16, 2018, 07:05:33 PM
Post by: Dicey on March 16, 2018, 08:16:33 PM
I'm upset because my father knew she was dying, told my sister so, and still left. I wasn't sure about the second cousin, so it's nice to have a different perspective on that. It just came across to me that they didn't seem to think it necessary to have a family member there to comfort her in her last moments, knowing that it was imminent. I don't think it's necessary to have the whole family there but if someone is all alone I think an effort should be made. I actually wouldn't have travelled across the country if there was someone else to be there with her. I just felt she shouldn't be alone at the end and it was heartless for people to leave her alone knowing she would soon pass.In one of the deaths that I attended, my dying friend's daughter was there too. We sat vigil at her dad's bedside in the hospital. There was a cot, and she had stretched out to get some rest. When his breathing changed and I sensed the end was near, I woke her up. She got up, put on her shoes and left the room. When she returned, he was gone. I know there were a lot of hard feelings between them, and maybe she just couldn't face the actual moment of his death. I'll never know. Later, a nurse took me aside. She'd noticed the daughter leave the room and told me that sometimes people just can't handle the final moments. In the end, she has to live with her decision. It is not for me to judge.
One more thing, from my admittedly small sample, is that often a person's spirit seems to be "gone" before they actually stop breathing. I'm not sure how much impact being there for someone's final breath has on them.
Post by: Cookie78 on March 16, 2018, 10:20:13 PM
I'm upset because my father knew she was dying, told my sister so, and still left. I wasn't sure about the second cousin, so it's nice to have a different perspective on that. It just came across to me that they didn't seem to think it necessary to have a family member there to comfort her in her last moments, knowing that it was imminent. I don't think it's necessary to have the whole family there but if someone is all alone I think an effort should be made. I actually wouldn't have travelled across the country if there was someone else to be there with her. I just felt she shouldn't be alone at the end and it was heartless for people to leave her alone knowing she would soon pass.In one of the deaths that I attended, my dying friend's daughter was there too. We sat vigil at her dad's bedside in the hospital. There was a cot, and she had stretched out to get some rest. When his breathing changed and I sensed the end was near, I woke her up. She got up, put on her shoes and left the room. When she returned, he was gone. I know there were a lot of hard feelings between them, and maybe she just couldn't face the actual moment of his death. I'll never know. Later, a nurse took me aside. She'd noticed the daughter leave the room and told me that sometimes people just can't handle the final moments. In the end, she has to live with her decision. It is not for me to judge.
One more thing, from my admittedly small sample, is that often a person's spirit seems to be "gone" before they actually stop breathing. I'm not sure how much impact being there for someone's final breath has on them.
Just another related story...
When my grandmother passed away her 5 children were all in and out of the hospital with her the previous couple weeks, as well as myself and multiple cousins. It was important to one of my aunts that she not be alone at any moment. She hung on a lot longer than anyone expected and finally passed away in the only 10 min period that she was alone when one aunt went outside for a cigarette before my mom arrived to relieve her early one morning. Some like to think that she was hanging on so long just because her kids were there and only when she was alone could she relax and go.
Personally I couldn't be there again after I spent an afternoon earlier in the week and said goodbye, and luckily for me my mom understood and there was zero pressure for me to be there.
Post by: Plugging Along on March 17, 2018, 08:52:57 AM
About being there at the moment of death, often it can be a judgement call on part of the family/friends based on the information at hand. My father passed away a few months ago. He was in hospice and due to distance from home I stayed the night in his room. My sisters went home to my one sister's house which was about 10 minutes away. Nursing staff assessed that he could probably make it through the night but probably not the next day, meaning the end was close but not imminent. He passed very early in the morning and I just happened to come back into the room from getting coffee just a couple of minutes before he died. My sisters made it to the hospice 10 minutes later. It was just how it went.
When my mom passed two years before, my sisters were there but I was not. My mom had just been admitted to hospice care that day and it was expected she still had some time, so based on this, I made plans to come down the next morning and stay for however long as necessary. I had seen her a couple of days before. She died a few hours later, according to my sisters things declined very quickly and unexpectedly. Again it was just how it went.
I recently learned that my sister has been very angry that I was not there at the time of our mother's death. There's no explaining to her that one cannot anticipate exactly how things are going to go. It's not in our control. But there's nothing any of us can do about it now. I wasn't as enmeshed with my parents as my sisters were (long story) but it was not like I was never there. And I certainly got more involved during my parents' final illnesses. Both parents knew I was there and were fine with what I could do for them.
I do believe sometimes people may not want someone there at the last breath. When my grandmother (dad’s mom) had a stroke, my mother quit her job and took care of her. For 7 years, my mother, dad, or my siblings would visit her every day. There was less than 10 days in those seven years where someone wasn’t there bringing her and visiting (she hated the food at the nursing home).
There were many times where something happened and the staff thought it was the last days, and we would stay almost the clock, and she would pull through. On her actually last days, we someone was there the hpwhole time, she had pneumonia and her lungs ere filling up, it was for sure. We hadn’t left the hopistal, and someone had to go home to tak car off the kids. Due to logistics, this was the one of the few times someone wasn’t right there. The next shift was literally turning around to go to the hospital, and we got a call that she had passed away.
We all were there to support it other and went back together as a group. We felt awful we couldn’t be there for just those few minutes. I remember the nurses t was like my grandmother didn’t want us there in her final minutes and waited until we were all gone. As others said, it’s what you do leadon up to those moments.
Currently, we are in another situation where my mom has had a stroke. We have taken care of her every day and is now in a home. Prior to this when she was stable, we had had intentional trip plannd. We had just put deposits on the trip when but not travel insurance yet, when she had another fall. Her condition is now considered a preexisting condition and trip interruption insurance and cancellation is more than $10,000. We have spoken as a family with my siblings and parents on what to do. We have agreed that it is not worth to get the insurance and if something should happen on our trips with my parents, the siblings who are here will take care of everything, and the travelling siblings will not be notified until their return. We all agreed that we are doing everything right now, and need to go our trips without guilt and cannot hold that part of our lives. It was a really important discussion to have but I feel good about to.
Post by: LaineyAZ on March 18, 2018, 09:29:35 AM
Count me as another one who would rather not have relatives and friends in the room when I pass. The thought of people grasping at my hands, weeping or moaning, and staring at my face counting my breaths is disturbing and honestly a little ghoulish, to me. I'd prefer to go peacefully in bed in a room by myself. I don't want my loved ones' last image of me as me dying.
There must be plenty of others who feel the same, because I've heard many versions of that same scenario of the person dying as soon as there is no one in their room, for however brief a time.
Post by: geekette on March 18, 2018, 11:02:19 AM
His breathing slowed, then he went pale as his heart stopped. No drama.
Post by: Jenny Wren on March 19, 2018, 01:58:19 AM
FIL passed away after a short bout with cancer last year. There was six months warning, no surprise, he always expected to go relatively young because this cancer runs in his family. He remarried 9 years before, and although she was much younger and is nothing but an alcoholic party girl well past her prime, she made him happy and DW and SIL accepted her. DW is also adopted, this will come into play later.
FIL was wealthy once upon a time -- he retired early at 45 (planned out because he expected to die young) and then spent the next 22 years traveling or living in the family cabin playing golf. He also made sure his ex (DW and SIL's mom) was taken care of after the divorce. It's very likely there was little left and both DW and SIL felt any cash left should go to Step Mom since she was the spouse and he was intestate. Oddly, there was no will which is very unlike FIL, a finance junkie, but c'est la vie.
The problem is the cabin. Grandpa built the cabin many moons ago on a bit a land. A few moons later a golf course was put in. Gramps owned five lots with the cabin on one, and they went up quite a bit in value once the area turned into a gold resort in the mountains. This was all left to FIL, with the intention of it staying in the family. FIL and step mom were living there full time, and neither sibling wanted her booted out. With no will, the state's law bequeathed the property to all three more or less equally (I can't remember the percentages off the top of my head). No biggie, both siblings said let step mom live there until she dies, then we get to keep the family cabin in the family.
Step mom hired a lawyer to get full ownership. The first attempt was to disown DW as an heir since she is adopted. Didn't work, all that paperwork from 35 years ago was in order. Then drunken phone calls to SIL began, all of them boiling down to her (step mom's) love for FIL was something SIL could never understand because she was incapable of loving. Attempts to try and tell her that there was no interest in kicking her out, and everyone was willing to set it up so she could legally remain there and ownership converted to the siblings after her death, fell on deaf ears.
SIL is convinced, as is DW to a lesser extent, that step mom wants to sell the property and keep the money. It is worth over a million dollars. I think property taxes may be the issue, and she wants to mortgage it or sell off one or two of the empty lots to cover taxes for the next few years. Unfortunately, she would drink most of the money from a sale, but they could set something up with the money from a lot sale to keep that from happening. SIL would never sell the lot with the house on it, but DW isn't emotionally invested in it and would be willing to sell it all if SIL agreed and if the money was divided as it should be by law. DW isn't even really interested in the money, but wants to make sure SIL and nephews are taken care of because she recently escaped a nasty, nasty marriage. Step mom has been sending a steady barrage of legal notices as she tries different things to get them to sign over their stakes in the property.
The latest is that there is a court hearing, in a state we are nowhere near, next month because step mom is trying to get a judge to give her the whole thing. DW has washed her hands of it. She doesn't want to spend on a lawyer when she simply doesn't care enough about the property. DW told SIL that she won't sign anything over to step mom, just to show the siblings were united a front, but that's the extent of it. If SIL wins, DW has already pretty much decided to sign her share over to SIL so the house stays in the family but there is no divided ownership. I'm the spouse so it doesn't really concern me. I just hate drama and will be glad when the mailman quits knocking on our door with certified letters. This is also pretty much where DW is at. DW and SIL's mother is also in a terminal stage of cancer, so dealing with a washed up barfly's shenanigans isn't really what they need in their mental space right now.
Weird thing -- in the legal paperwork step mom turned into the court saying why the property should go to her, the first bullet point is to assure the judge that although she knew FIL before he was divorced, she never had an affair with him. Oddly, both SIL and DW still have the very long letter from their father that he sent each of them when he announced the divorce, where he admitted to a very long affair (years) with his soon to be new wife and asked their forgiveness. Not sure what the judge will think of her lying about something that neither sibling would have even thought to bring up if she hadn't first. (DW did forward a copy of her letter to SIL's lawyer.)
My life is simple. When dad died, it all went to my mom. My mom has two small life insurance policies for the same amount, one for sis, one for me. Sis and I have discussed the rest (a 50/50 split, according to my mom's will.) I don't want any of mom's junk, so when she goes sis can have her pick, then the grandkids can have a go at it, then we'll let an estate company and real estate agent handle the rest. If sis throws a stink (doubtful), she can have it all.
Post by: Playing with Fire UK on March 19, 2018, 04:53:29 AM
Post by: Dicey on March 19, 2018, 11:46:36 AM
I'd strongly suggest talking to the staff about what you want to know. When my grandmother passed, I was there but none of her children were. The staff member who was around told us repeatedly (after the event) that she knew that grandmother was going to die that day. If we'd have known then more people would have been there. Hearing that someone knew something and kept quiet made a difficult day more difficult.Please give the staffer a break. They do this all day, every day. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
When my friend referenced above was dying, the nurses were very kind. They told me step-by-step what to expect. My friend had fallen, developed sepsis, and had a terminal illness. It was not "if", it was "when". Thing is, nothing that long, sleepless night happened the way they said it would. Just before dawn, I knew it was happening, because I could feel it, but I was still hesitant to wake his daughter, because it wasn't happening the way the expert said it would.
People who do this work, and most especially the ones who make housecalls to give baths to invalids, are angels on earth.
Post by: Capsu78 on March 20, 2018, 04:35:30 PM
I'd strongly suggest talking to the staff about what you want to know. When my grandmother passed, I was there but none of her children were. The staff member who was around told us repeatedly (after the event) that she knew that grandmother was going to die that day. If we'd have known then more people would have been there. Hearing that someone knew something and kept quiet made a difficult day more difficult.Please give the staffer a break. They do this all day, every day. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
When my friend referenced above was dying, the nurses were very kind. They told me step-by-step what to expect. My friend had fallen, developed sepsis, and had a terminal illness. It was not "if", it was "when". Thing is, nothing that long, sleepless night happened the way they said it would. Just before dawn, I knew it was happening, because I could feel it, but I was still hesitant to wake his daughter, because it wasn't happening the way the expert said it would.
People who do this work, and most especially the ones who make housecalls to give baths to invalids, are angels on earth.
Agreed...ours, for 3 parents between my DW and myself, would be embarrassed to be called Angels however. They would argue that Angels get much better pay! I agree to them doing Gods work though and I told them so.
Post by: chouchouu on March 21, 2018, 12:16:56 AM
Thank you for your story, Plugging along.
Count me as another one who would rather not have relatives and friends in the room when I pass. The thought of people grasping at my hands, weeping or moaning, and staring at my face counting my breaths is disturbing and honestly a little ghoulish, to me. I'd prefer to go peacefully in bed in a room by myself. I don't want my loved ones' last image of me as me dying.
There must be plenty of others who feel the same, because I've heard many versions of that same scenario of the person dying as soon as there is no one in their room, for however brief a time.
Thank you for your perspective. I have to admit I was crying for a bit seeing my aunt in that condition was pretty awful but I quickly pulled myself together and just tried to make her as comfortable as possible and told her stories about the kids. I honestly didn't recognise her when I came in and remember her as she was in my childhood. It never occurred to me that some people would prefer to be alone in death, I hope my aunt wasn't of that feeling but I believe not. As a different perspective DH grandfather seeyed to hang on until his family was all present, said his goodbyes and then passed peacefully. I guess it all depends on family dynamics and personal relationships but I guess the best thing is to make sure your family are on the same page.
Post by: Dicey on March 21, 2018, 06:55:38 AM
Well, there's a small group of Angels in Anaheim, CA that do get paid rather well...I'd strongly suggest talking to the staff about what you want to know. When my grandmother passed, I was there but none of her children were. The staff member who was around told us repeatedly (after the event) that she knew that grandmother was going to die that day. If we'd have known then more people would have been there. Hearing that someone knew something and kept quiet made a difficult day more difficult.Please give the staffer a break. They do this all day, every day. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
When my friend referenced above was dying, the nurses were very kind. They told me step-by-step what to expect. My friend had fallen, developed sepsis, and had a terminal illness. It was not "if", it was "when". Thing is, nothing that long, sleepless night happened the way they said it would. Just before dawn, I knew it was happening, because I could feel it, but I was still hesitant to wake his daughter, because it wasn't happening the way the expert said it would.
People who do this work, and most especially the ones who make housecalls to give baths to invalids, are angels on earth.
Agreed...ours, for 3 parents between my DW and myself, would be embarrassed to be called Angels however. They would argue that Angels get much better pay! I agree to them doing Gods work though and I told them so.
Post by: Capsu78 on March 22, 2018, 01:49:42 PM
Post by: Lemonhead on April 04, 2018, 02:41:53 PM
Family member dies in unusual, public accident. More money involved because life insurance doubled and car insurance was involved too. She was single and had no will. Oldest unemployed 30ish son was living with mom, but she supposedly was going to kick him out the same month she dies. His luck changed with her death. He took at least one loan at an exorbitant rate on the inheritance he hadn't received yet where they put a lien on the probate money. He continued to live in the house and when the dust settled he owned the house with no mortgage, 2 cars and had maybe 100k. He didn't spend lavishly, but golfed quite a bit and had season tickets to pro hockey. Still no job and met up with female from high school or something. She moved in and proceeded to help him spend the rest of what he had. Turned out she had a drug habit and had spent some time in prison for robbery. With the $$ running low he got a job 20 miles away as a dishwasher in fancy restaurant. She stuck around till the $$ ran out and tried to get him arrested on domestic violence charges because she thought he would be in jail for awhile and she could squat in the house while he was. After she was gone he started with bath salts (this was around 2011) that caused hallucinations. Chopped up the house quite a bit with an axe. House value was maybe 125k when he acquired it. Sold the house for 35k about 18 mos in and most of his mother's furniture was put out at the curb as trash. 1 car was sold for the money and he bought a much older one that didn't last long. Not sure what happened to car #2. His brother bought him another car, but it was repo'd after he took title loans on it. Fast forward to now almost 9 years later - he is almost 40. Now he lives very simply in a former motel, working in a pizza shop where he can walk to work. He owns a dog, a TV and sometimes has a working cell phone.
I have read that since inherited or lottery money wasn't earned, those that receive it don't value it the same way as if they had earned it. Sure seems to fit in this case.
There was a younger brother too and in the end he fared even worse. He got his money when he turned 18. You can guess how that ended.
Post by: avalanchecity on April 13, 2018, 02:08:59 PM
both eleanor and susie married. then great-great uncle max passed away, leaving great-great aunt sarah with control of all of the family money. eleanor and her husband had several children, but sarah always spoiled eleanor's oldest son, "martin" -- who would eventually grow up and become my dad. she was always buying him gifts, making excuses for him, letting him do whatever he wanted. he could have turned out really horribly, but luckily he didn't -- although his siblings still resent that preferential treatment, even though by now they're all in their 50s and 60s. my parents moved across the country for a job before i was born, but everyone else remained by sarah.
flash forward a few decades, and aunt sarah isn't as young as she once was. she starts needing almost constant care, which my grandma eleanor provides. eleanor isn't given any kind of payment for this, even though it's essentially a full-time job, but she doesn't complain. sarah and max took her and her sister in when they really needed it, so this is a way she can repay that. there are no direct family heirs at this point other than eleanor and susie, so everyone expects the money to be divided amongst the two of them - with eleanor maybe getting a larger portion since she provided so much support at the end. however, sarah is getting more and more paranoid - she's certain eleanor is only taking care of her for the money, even though eleanor would never dream of mentioning it or even expecting it. she still lets eleanor provide full-time care for her, because it saves her the job of having to pay for a nurse.
after a few years, susan dies. i'm sure no one reading this will be surprised to find out that the will ended up shocking everyone. both susie and eleanor were written out completely. sarah's house and furniture was to be sold off, all the money and investments were to be given to a very, very distant cousin currently living in south korea, whom she'd never met. the only other person remembered was my dad, who was given an antique bedroom set meant for me. however, my parents didn't have a lot of money at the time and couldn't pay to have it shipped across the country, and my dad was indignant that his mom had been forgotten after so many years of care. so he sold it to his mom for barely anything, which let her hold on to something she remembered from her own childhood with susan, and gave her something to remember susan behind.
Post by: Villanelle on April 14, 2018, 12:19:00 AM
I took care of my grandmother at the end of her life. He need for care coincided with my moving to her city due to my fiancee's (at the time) work. At first, she just needed grocery store runs, help with more difficult housework, etc. Just kind of an extra hand. By the end, she was almost entirely bedridden and I did things like clean up messes when she couldn't make it to the bathroom, etc. I couldn't even leave the house without finding someone to sit with her. I was happy to do it, but it was intense, and I certainly wouldn't have been able to get another job.
Anyway, at first she offered me a small sum for the help. (IIRC, it was $500/mo.) I wasn't doing it for the money, so that was fine. And it continued to be fine even as the task got bigger. Had her children been required to pay someone, it would have cost thousands (if not $10000+) to hire help. But again, I was happy to do it and I never really thought about the money. Grandma's death, sadly, spanned several months during which she was quite miserable and that made her unhappy and quite difficult. This made that task of caring for her challenging and at times unpleasant. But it was always easy to see the cause of her unpleasantness, so I had nothing but love and compassion for her.
When she passed away, her three children (my dad and his brother and sister) gave me a small lump sum from the inheritance as a thank you and as an acknowledgement of what I had done for her. It was unexpected and a lovely gesture. I don't recall how much it was--not life changing sums, but not just a small token either.
I share this story in part because sometimes, people act reasonably, generously, and sensibly in light of an inheritance, too.
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 14, 2018, 12:41:40 AM
Villanelle - your story somewhat restores my faith in humanity.
Post by: avalanchecity on April 16, 2018, 08:21:58 AM
avalanche - what a sad story.
it isn't as sad as it could be. it hurt my grandma, but she and her husband were frugal all of their lives, so it's not like they needed the money. my grandpa passed away about ten years ago, and my grandma is always jetting off to explore a new country and visit people. she's doing retirement right, in my opinion. my great aunt susie could have used the money more, but my grandma slips her money to keep her afloat, i think, and she's pretty frugal as well.
it hurt my grandma to be suspected of being after her aunt's money. but looking at my dad's family, i think it was for the best that they didn't end up having to expect a significant inheritance from my grandma. all of my aunts and uncles are doing fine financially, but, perhaps due to the way my great-great aunt sarah messed with their dynamics by favoring my dad so much, they're all really jealous and petty with each other, and i think few of them would handle dealing with an inheritance well. most of them are the kind of people who get upset by a percieved slight and then won't talk to the person they're mad at for three years - not an exaggeration. it's frustrating, but honestly makes me happy my family is the family that moved away from the relatives, because we barely have to deal with that.
Post by: Maenad on April 16, 2018, 03:02:35 PM
Very strange that she would intentionally (or seemingly so) snub someone who she raised and who took care of her.
You'd think that, but dementia does awful things to one's brain sometimes. My gramma was quite paranoid for a while.
Post by: nouveauRiche on April 21, 2018, 03:20:35 PM
Over 20 years ago, my great aunt was an elderly widow, living alone. My dad would go see her about twice a week (mow the lawn, bring groceries, visit). She was his favorite aunt and he was probably her favorite nephew.
She didn't have any kids of her own but had many siblings, some with kids. She had no will. At one point, she broke her hip & went into the hospital. She wanted to have a lawyer come and draw up a will and leave everthing to my dad but she passed away before she could do that.
My dad wound up being executer. One of his cousins, started calling our house after she died to find out when she was going to get her money (which, I think was about $10k). This cousin was someone who had cut off her whole family, including her own sister. I had never met her. I told my mom just to hang up on her but my mom was too nice.
At the time, I wished that my great-aunt had had a chance to write her will (just to stick it to the jerk cousin) but in retrospect, it's probably much better that she didn't. I'm sure the cousin and maybe some other members of the family would have thought it was a case of undue influence.
Actually, the best would have been if she had written a will & left everything to some non-profit. Oh well.
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
Post by: marty998 on April 21, 2018, 03:35:44 PM
not a lot of inheritance drama in my family, but there is a bit. great-great aunt "sarah" married into a well-off family at a young age. she and her husband, great-great uncle "max," weren't able to have kids of their own, so they took in their two nieces, "susie" and "eleanor," whose parents were less-than-stable. great-great aunt sarah was a really critical person, and really tight-fisted with money.
both eleanor and susie married. then great-great uncle max passed away, leaving great-great aunt sarah with control of all of the family money. eleanor and her husband had several children, but sarah always spoiled eleanor's oldest son, "martin" -- who would eventually grow up and become my dad. she was always buying him gifts, making excuses for him, letting him do whatever he wanted. he could have turned out really horribly, but luckily he didn't -- although his siblings still resent that preferential treatment, even though by now they're all in their 50s and 60s. my parents moved across the country for a job before i was born, but everyone else remained by sarah.
flash forward a few decades, and aunt sarah isn't as young as she once was. she starts needing almost constant care, which my grandma eleanor provides. eleanor isn't given any kind of payment for this, even though it's essentially a full-time job, but she doesn't complain. sarah and max took her and her sister in when they really needed it, so this is a way she can repay that. there are no direct family heirs at this point other than eleanor and susie, so everyone expects the money to be divided amongst the two of them - with eleanor maybe getting a larger portion since she provided so much support at the end. however, sarah is getting more and more paranoid - she's certain eleanor is only taking care of her for the money, even though eleanor would never dream of mentioning it or even expecting it. she still lets eleanor provide full-time care for her, because it saves her the job of having to pay for a nurse.
after a few years, susan dies. i'm sure no one reading this will be surprised to find out that the will ended up shocking everyone. both susie and eleanor were written out completely. sarah's house and furniture was to be sold off, all the money and investments were to be given to a very, very distant cousin currently living in south korea, whom she'd never met. the only other person remembered was my dad, who was given an antique bedroom set meant for me. however, my parents didn't have a lot of money at the time and couldn't pay to have it shipped across the country, and my dad was indignant that his mom had been forgotten after so many years of care. so he sold it to his mom for barely anything, which let her hold on to something she remembered from her own childhood with susan, and gave her something to remember susan behind.
Are there ways of challenging a will in cases like this? You can get court injunctions down here under certain circumstances.
Post by: nouveauRiche on April 21, 2018, 04:29:49 PM
When there's no will, there's nothing to contest. Everything gets divided according to state law.
Post by: talltexan on April 23, 2018, 07:08:25 AM
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
When it's just money, indeed this seems horrific.
Often estates include irreplaceable mementi of times the deceased spent with other people. Souvenirs, or hand-written journals. Determining how to dispose of these seems to me like it would be even more difficult.
Post by: NoraLenderbee on April 23, 2018, 03:11:38 PM
mementi
*mementos (or mementoes).
Post by: nouveauRiche on April 23, 2018, 08:51:00 PM
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
When it's just money, indeed this seems horrific.
Often estates include irreplaceable mementi of times the deceased spent with other people. Souvenirs, or hand-written journals. Determining how to dispose of these seems to me like it would be even more difficult.
In this case, she was calling about money. She never asked about any personal items. Everything was sold or thrown away & the house was sold.
Forgot to add, the rude woman who was calling did not come to the funeral. Her sister did.
Post by: merula on April 24, 2018, 06:52:24 AM
mementi
*mementos (or mementoes).
Latin-origin word. Latin plural is actually the same as the singular (momento), but modern Italian is mementi. Not standard English, but technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Post by: FIPurpose on April 24, 2018, 08:48:11 AM
mementi
*mementos (or mementoes).
Latin-origin word. Latin plural is actually the same as the singular (momento), but modern Italian is mementi. Not standard English, but technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Err not quite.
Memento is a Latin verb of the Future Imperative form. So it is telling some one "Hey, remember this at some point in the future!" The plural of which is Mementote which is just telling many people to remember something. It was transformed into a noun in English sometime around the 1600's. Since using it as a noun already destroys any Latin pluralization rules, it is only correct to stick to English ones.
Post by: Maenad on April 24, 2018, 09:11:22 AM
... technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I love you. :-D
Post by: merula on April 24, 2018, 10:20:01 AM
Err not quite.
Memento is a Latin verb of the Future Imperative form. So it is telling some one "Hey, remember this at some point in the future!" The plural of which is Mementote which is just telling many people to remember something. It was transformed into a noun in English sometime around the 1600's. Since using it as a noun already destroys any Latin pluralization rules, it is only correct to stick to English ones.
Well, if we're going down this path, *technically* Latin as a spoken vernacular was a thousand years dead by the time this was adopted into English, so unless you're suggesting that English adopted the word from Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin, the word *technically* came to English via Italian*, and so one could argue that the Italian plural is correct. This would be supported by the fact, as you noted, that the Latin word is a verb while the English and Italian is a noun.
*Depending on whether you think the word "Italian" has any meaning pre-19th century. Feel free to replace with your preferred city-state as needed, I'm staying out of that one.
Post by: CheapskateWife on April 24, 2018, 10:57:39 AM
Post by: FIPurpose on April 24, 2018, 11:09:37 AM
Err not quite.
Memento is a Latin verb of the Future Imperative form. So it is telling some one "Hey, remember this at some point in the future!" The plural of which is Mementote which is just telling many people to remember something. It was transformed into a noun in English sometime around the 1600's. Since using it as a noun already destroys any Latin pluralization rules, it is only correct to stick to English ones.
Well, if we're going down this path, *technically* Latin as a spoken vernacular was a thousand years dead by the time this was adopted into English, so unless you're suggesting that English adopted the word from Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin, the word *technically* came to English via Italian*, and so one could argue that the Italian plural is correct. This would be supported by the fact, as you noted, that the Latin word is a verb while the English and Italian is a noun.
*Depending on whether you think the word "Italian" has any meaning pre-19th century. Feel free to replace with your preferred city-state as needed, I'm staying out of that one.
That last part made me lol. Honestly, I truly enjoy etymology discussions, but I realize this is getting into some foaminess for this thread.
I tried to make a good go at it. No etymologies list the Italian as being the root of our English word. I found that the first English person to use the word "memento" was John Lyly in 1580. He was Oxford educated (so a knowledge of both Ancient Greek and Latin were a requirement), and he was likely a member of the Anglican church. While the Church of England does not have a Latin mass, they did have some publications in Latin, and I think had a few liturgies still in Latin. For what I tried to research, he had no connection with Italy or Italian, and most etymologies of the word seem to back that up. This was a late borrowing from Latin, and probably had wider recognition outside of the Church because it is such a common liturgical word, so lay people were using it all the time.
Post by: FIPurpose on April 24, 2018, 11:10:03 AM
Take it to the grammer police thread! Back to inheritance drama please! :-)
I'm sorry. I'm done. Moving on.
Post by: fredbear on April 24, 2018, 05:27:52 PM
...
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
Well, you may want to prep yourself if you are ever to be a trustee or an executor. I got emails wanting me to anticipate the trust so as to back a once-in-a-lifetime deal wherein strangers would fund their future life, and if I didn't hurry up and do it their subsequent eternal poverty and misery were my fault; emails that they were obstructed and just could not get through the grief process until they got all the trust held for them and their pain and sorrow were all on me for now; emails about the roof (leaking, in the desert) and the wiring (sparking); emails about how long and hurtful the process was. I got no emails saying, "I realize that not forwarding you the bills for a year exposed the trust to collections and lawsuits," though I did get emails saying, "But you should still pay me for the time I spent sitting on them." And none saying, "Fire the attorney before I write him again asking him to analyze the latest of my dingbat life plans, and all the other trust recipients will need to be paying (again) $350 per hour for his fabulously detailed responses to me." That, I had to figure out on my own.
You may think you have achieved the pinnacle (the nadir, might be more accurate) of calcined cynicism, but you are pollyanna compared to an estate attorney or a CPA to large families. Before the process I had thought it took a special talent to raise more than 2 productive, affable children into agreeable adulthood. Now I think it's a miracle.
Post by: nouveauRiche on April 24, 2018, 08:43:24 PM
...
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
Well, you may want to prep yourself if you are ever to be a trustee or an executor. I got emails wanting me to anticipate the trust so as to back a once-in-a-lifetime deal wherein strangers would fund their future life, and if I didn't hurry up and do it their subsequent eternal poverty and misery were my fault; emails that they were obstructed and just could not get through the grief process until they got all the trust held for them and their pain and sorrow were all on me for now; emails about the roof (leaking, in the desert) and the wiring (sparking); emails about how long and hurtful the process was. I got no emails saying, "I realize that not forwarding you the bills for a year exposed the trust to collections and lawsuits," though I did get emails saying, "But you should still pay me for the time I spent sitting on them." And none saying, "Fire the attorney before I write him again asking him to analyze the latest of my dingbat life plans, and all the other trust recipients will need to be paying (again) $350 per hour for his fabulously detailed responses to me." That, I had to figure out on my own.
You may think you have achieved the pinnacle (the nadir, might be more accurate) of calcined cynicism, but you are pollyanna compared to an estate attorney or a CPA to large families. Before the process I had thought it took a special talent to raise more than 2 productive, affable children into agreeable adulthood. Now I think it's a miracle.
Wow. People are jerks.
Post by: Maenad on April 25, 2018, 06:17:41 AM
I doubt I'll be zombifying this thread in 20 years to give an update (she's in her 60s and is in good health), but I'm sure it will be... interesting if she doesn't change her mind before then.
Post by: iris lily on April 25, 2018, 07:59:00 AM
...
I can't imagine phoning someone who was going through an estate so that I could see when I was going to get my share.
Well, you may want to prep yourself if you are ever to be a trustee or an executor. I got emails wanting me to anticipate the trust so as to back a once-in-a-lifetime deal wherein strangers would fund their future life, and if I didn't hurry up and do it their subsequent eternal poverty and misery were my fault; emails that they were obstructed and just could not get through the grief process until they got all the trust held for them and their pain and sorrow were all on me for now; emails about the roof (leaking, in the desert) and the wiring (sparking); emails about how long and hurtful the process was. I got no emails saying, "I realize that not forwarding you the bills for a year exposed the trust to collections and lawsuits," though I did get emails saying, "But you should still pay me for the time I spent sitting on them." And none saying, "Fire the attorney before I write him again asking him to analyze the latest of my dingbat life plans, and all the other trust recipients will need to be paying (again) $350 per hour for his fabulously detailed responses to me." That, I had to figure out on my own.
You may think you have achieved the pinnacle (the nadir, might be more accurate) of calcined cynicism, but you are pollyanna compared to an estate attorney or a CPA to large families. Before the process I had thought it took a special talent to raise more than 2 productive, affable children into agreeable adulthood. Now I think it's a miracle.
You, sir, are a prince.
Post by: talltexan on April 25, 2018, 09:13:51 AM
Post by: Goldielocks on April 25, 2018, 10:33:15 PM
Background -- DH and his Aunt (and aunt's kids) are the only surviving relatives of Grandpa. DH was 30 when grandpa died. For the last 10 years, since DH turned 20, Grandpa lived in a different city and DH would call a couple of times and go visit once a year. In the last 2 years, I found out that DH was leaving phone messages, but no returned calls... DH knew he had trouble with that thing, so did not worry that grandpa did not call back.
Here is the part that gets me. When Grandpa died, Aunt did not call DH to let him know. I mean, she only had one... ONE person to contact, and could not be bothered?! We found out about it later. (No funeral), and I was frankly surprised that she put in the obit in the paper (named DH too, but just did not call).
Why on earth wouldn't someone call (a single) family member(s) to inform them of a death?
Note...There might have been money, but chances are it was all put into joint accounts with Aunt before he died, and that's fine.
Post by: talltexan on April 26, 2018, 07:17:13 AM
Post by: MrMoogle on April 26, 2018, 08:04:12 AM
Here is the part that gets me. When Grandpa died, Aunt did not call DH to let him know. I mean, she only had one... ONE person to contact, and could not be bothered?! We found out about it later. (No funeral), and I was frankly surprised that she put in the obit in the paper (named DH too, but just did not call).
Yeah, this does not compute to me. My grandpa recently died, and both he and grandma came from big families, but a lot of my mom's generation had moved away, at least somewhat.
He passed at 1pm. I found out at 5pm, since I'm not easily reachable, I had a voicemail from 3pm from my mom. We drove up the next day, it's 6-7 hours, so we got there at 3pm or so. By that time, my grandma had a full fridge of homemade food that family, neighbors, church members, friends, had made and brought over. While I was there, every hour or two, the doorbell would ring with more food. The obit didn't go out until 5 days after he passed, but everyone knew.
It was great, my grandma ALWAYS cooks from scratch, so it took a huge load off her. My mom has 6 siblings, plus grandkids, who all pretty much were there for at least a week, all eating, and there was still plenty of food when I left. I think we went to a pizza place one day.
At the funeral, again, everyone brought food for after the burial. The hall was packed, and there was so much leftover food.
I don't know how, but everyone knew. It's not like they used twitter or facebook or something like that. It was all phone calls and texts, and it spread like wildfire.
Post by: BlueHouse on April 27, 2018, 01:09:18 PM
Here is the part that gets me. When Grandpa died, Aunt did not call DH to let him know. I mean, she only had one... ONE person to contact, and could not be bothered?! We found out about it later. (No funeral), and I was frankly surprised that she put in the obit in the paper (named DH too, but just did not call).
Not sure about your situation, but sometimes it can be hard to actually say the words that someone is gone. I know when I had a loved one die (unexpectedly), I knew I had a responsibility to let people know, but I had a really really hard time phoning people who were almost strangers to me but were close to my loved one . If there wasn't a funeral already scheduled, I probably wouldn't have done it for the people I wasn't close with.
Post by: AMandM on April 27, 2018, 04:15:40 PM
Not sure about your situation, but sometimes it can be hard to actually say the words that someone is gone. I know when I had a loved one die (unexpectedly), I knew I had a responsibility to let people know, but I had a really really hard time phoning people who were almost strangers to me but were close to my loved one . If there wasn't a funeral already scheduled, I probably wouldn't have done it for the people I wasn't close with.
Miss Manners says that this is a task to delegate to the first person who says, "I'm so sorry. Please let me know if I can help you in any way."
I'm sorry for your loss.
Post by: fredbear on April 27, 2018, 06:55:57 PM
...Pretty much of a bastard, actually, with occasional attempts to rise to normal human decency. And unfortunately, a good deal more of a bastard after the process than before. I think the real lesson here is that helicopter parents need the skull at the banquet, the sword depending by a horsehair from the ceiling. They desperately need to know they will die. And the money will run out. And when they do and it does, the children, now 45 or 50 or 55 years old, will be wholly incompetent at all normal life tasks. The father died, and left a substantial trust. The mother died, and left a much smaller part of a shared trust. The father's trust was gone when the mother's part that I helped administer came available. It's gone now too. No one told those parents, or maybe no one they would listen to told them, that the better part of love is manifest in helping your kids become independent. On the fundamental level these learned money is obtained by whining and guilt ploys and once obtained, dissipates quickly and mysteriously and is replaced with more. Now they must find a replacement supplier. But with the parents gone, there is no one left alive who will care about these people and provide for them on the level they were led to expect. Their behavior was bad, but their loss was greater than normal; the death of your last parent, no matter how old and sturdy and normal you are, brings a queasy realization that the last bulwark has melted away. If you have well-tried confidence in your own ability, the loss is the ordinary grief humanity is loaded with. In a case like this, the parents had urged and fostered an abnormal bond, as well as economic dependency, so their offspring's grief and their (right) fear about how they were left were very great.
You, sir, are a prince.
They were acting as they had been cultivated to act. I could understand that, but it could not influence my administration, and, though I hope it didn't show, it irritated me.
Post by: AMandM on April 29, 2018, 09:31:26 PM
If you have well-tried confidence in your own ability, the loss is the ordinary grief humanity is loaded with. In a case like this, the parents had urged and fostered an abnormal bond, as well as economic dependency, so their offspring's grief and their (right) fear about how they were left were very great.
They were acting as they had been cultivated to act.
I think this might be the saddest thing I have read in this whole thread.
But salutary. So thanks, I guess?
Post by: talltexan on April 30, 2018, 06:54:56 AM
But my MIL was quick to point out that being the only child to bear the burden was also difficult in different ways (and that was WITH an incredibly supportive spouse). So my guess is 2-3 siblings is the best. But there are a healthy number of stories here that have problems there, so maybe I'll retreat to "entitled people just suck".
Post by: partgypsy on April 30, 2018, 07:37:02 AM
fixed wording
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 30, 2018, 10:17:05 AM
...Pretty much of a bastard, actually, with occasional attempts to rise to normal human decency.
You, sir, are a prince.
As a slightly lazy version of evil incarnate, I think I want to drink with you.
Post by: mm1970 on April 30, 2018, 10:17:49 AM
My parents are divorced but both still alive. four kids, 2 which are independent, 2 which are not. Nothing to inherit on my Dad's side. My Mom for the moment has some assets to hopefully keep her afloat until she dies. No wills, no life insurance, etc. She let me know that on her bank accounts, she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient? That's about the extent of her financial planning. However, my mother has made my oldest, wholly dependent on her (codependent relationship). He lives with her and she financially supports him since 1996. I really don't know what he will do when she dies. I guess live on whatever he inherits, and then become homeless? He is an alcoholic and master manipulator, and I would prefer not to live in the same town as him. Sister is not quite as bad, but she has a spotty work history and often quits without lining up anything, so is always on the edge. She's just happy because she found out when she went to the bank with Mom to help her fill out the paperwork, she had an old work IRA at the bank she didn't know about. So she cashed it immediately.This is sad. My neighbor was telling me about her family this weekend. 3 siblings, and the oldest is very bad with money. Such that their family (husband, wife, 2 kids) have lost 4 homes to foreclosure (including a beach condo). For some reason the eldest thinks that she deserves everything from each of her (divorced) parents. They just lost house #4 and will be moving in with mom. 2 teenaged boys too? That's going to go well. Mom doesn't have a will either. I guess the silver lining is that the other two siblings live far far away.
Post by: MrMoogle on April 30, 2018, 10:22:31 AM
She let me know that on her bank accounts, she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
Beneficiaries at financial institutions usually override wills anyway. Of course if the will says one thing and the beneficiary list says another, you can sue each other until neither of you has anything. I actually don't have a will, just beneficiaries listed.
Post by: BlueHouse on April 30, 2018, 02:04:36 PM
Miss Manners says that this is a task to delegate to the first person who says, "I'm so sorry. Please let me know if I can help you in any way."
I'm sorry for your loss.
I wish I had done this. Thank you!
Post by: markbike528CBX on April 30, 2018, 06:19:34 PM
Miss Manners says that this is a task to delegate to the first person who says, "I'm so sorry. Please let me know if I can help you in any way."
I'm sorry for your loss.
I wish I had done this. Thank you!
Great idea, now all I need is a list from Mom of whom to inform. We've lost contact with large parts of her family.
Post by: LadyMuMu on May 01, 2018, 07:01:19 AM
I know some of you have relatives who are resistant to writing any sort of will or medical directive. (I have one of those myself). I'm finding starting the conversation about who you want to be informed a gentle way to open the door again on this topic.
Post by: Hula Hoop on May 01, 2018, 07:32:04 AM
My MIL and I (both only children) were talking about some of these end-of-life matters over the weekend, as we're approaching the fifth anniversary of many milestones associated with her mother's death. It seems like when you have four or more children, there's pretty-much guaranteed to be a drama-loving/moocher/problem child in the group.
But my MIL was quick to point out that being the only child to bear the burden was also difficult in different ways (and that was WITH an incredibly supportive spouse). So my guess is 2-3 siblings is the best. But there are a healthy number of stories here that have problems there, so maybe I'll retreat to "entitled people just suck".
That's why I'm incredibly grateful for my husband's family. When his father passed away a couple of years ago there was literally no drama between him and his other three sibllings. The house was sold and they money divided into fourths. It probably helped that there wasn't a lot of money there but no fighting and no moochers.
Post by: fredbear on May 01, 2018, 06:33:26 PM
As a slightly lazy version of evil incarnate, I think I want to drink with you.
I'd enjoy getting together. But I don't drink.
- It seemed to me witless to pour a chemical depressant onto a depressing situation.
- It was making me stupid at night while my children were young. I decided that I could be stuporous (2 beers before a heavy meal) just as much as I wanted, once they were 18. You don't get do-overs for those years.
- It seemed like social chickenshittery. Just as an experiment, ask a group of friends, "When was the last time you had a first time that was alcohol-free?"
Raw carrots and tapwater some time? I get down to NM from time to time hunting.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 01, 2018, 09:08:47 PM
As a slightly lazy version of evil incarnate, I think I want to drink with you.
I'd enjoy getting together. But I don't drink.
- It seemed to me witless to pour a chemical depressant onto a depressing situation.
- It was making me stupid at night while my children were young. I decided that I could be stuporous (2 beers before a heavy meal) just as much as I wanted, once they were 18. You don't get do-overs for those years.
- It seemed like social chickenshittery. Just as an experiment, ask a group of friends, "When was the last time you had a first time that was alcohol-free?"
Raw carrots and tapwater some time? I get down to NM from time to time hunting.
A drink doesn't have to involve alcohol. I like to take fresh mint from my garden, pour boiling water over it, and make a nice caffeine free mint iced tea.
Post by: elliha on May 02, 2018, 03:51:39 AM
In the end the other siblings more or less backed down or only stepped in and fought for the things they really wanted and just let the two greedy ones fight over the rest. My mom got a desk and some small things from grandpa, that was all she got due to the fighting. My oldest two uncles got grandpa's musical instruments which even the greedy ones knew he had said he wanted them to have and they surprisingly didn't fight over. The youngest got the before mentioned plates and a couple other small things and the oldest aunt got a pair of framed pictures that everyone knew grandma had left to her after some vigorous fighting with one of the greedy ones. All other furniture and things from a small apartment and a small house went to the two greedy ones. If grandpa had had money I think the family would have broken into pieces so that is the only consolation, they did make up after about 6 months and all of them ended up talking to each other and not hold on to all those feelings. But I still to this day think my two aunts were unbelievably greedy.
Post by: sol on May 02, 2018, 09:51:47 AM
she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
In my family, the conflicts weren't over easy things like dividing up bank accounts.
One example: Before my grandmother died, she moved into an assisted living facility and one of my cousins (and her family) moved into grandma's house (not free, but at very a very subsidized rent). When grandma died, the will specified that the house be sold and the proceeds divided between her children, but the cousin's family tried to argue that cousin should get to keep renting the house, because grandma had been letting her live there, and they were going to be homeless without it. Are you prepared to kick out a family with small children just so you can cash out of a property in accordance with the will? Parts of my family still aren't speaking to each other after this debacle.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
These sorts of complications are hard to foresee when you write a will, because neither of them were issues until the end-stages of life.
Post by: Just Joe on May 02, 2018, 02:31:05 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on May 02, 2018, 03:26:13 PM
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
Then again, they had the burden of sharing a residence with the grandma. Some grandmas would be a blessing to live with, others would be a never-ending hell. I have to say that, given some of the hateful folks I've known over the years, the other family members might actually OWE their rich sibling for the extra hassle. :(
Post by: Adventures With Poopsie on May 03, 2018, 08:33:35 PM
I remember when I was about 18 I visited my grandmother's house for the first time in a long time. I commented on a beautiful silver tea set she had, just told her it was really nice. Her response was "I will make sure you get that when I pass away." I remember being quite surprised by this, as it was just a throwaway comment. Don't get me wrong, I would love to receive it, but I also felt bad that she might have thought I was fishing for stuff.
We don't really talk much these days, so I'm sure I'm not getting the tea set. She has four children, one of whom is my mother. She doesn't talk to two of her children and she and my mother, while they talk, have had their differences. My mother thinks she will leave everything to the youngest daughter (my mother's half sister) and has told her half sister that she will challenge the estate on principal. Interesting times will ensue!
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 03, 2018, 10:30:45 PM
I have really just enjoyed this thread and it has given me a lot to think about.
I remember when I was about 18 I visited my grandmother's house for the first time in a long time. I commented on a beautiful silver tea set she had, just told her it was really nice. Her response was "I will make sure you get that when I pass away." I remember being quite surprised by this, as it was just a throwaway comment. Don't get me wrong, I would love to receive it, but I also felt bad that she might have thought I was fishing for stuff.
We don't really talk much these days, so I'm sure I'm not getting the tea set. She has four children, one of whom is my mother. She doesn't talk to two of her children and she and my mother, while they talk, have had their differences. My mother thinks she will leave everything to the youngest daughter (my mother's half sister) and has told her half sister that she will challenge the estate on principal. Interesting times will ensue!
If you're an adult, you do have the right to open a conversation with your grandmother without going through your mother. Whether your mom is on the outs with your grandma isn't relevant to you. Call the old lady and find out how she's doing. Unless she's been a jerk to you, there's no reason for you not to reach out and maybe even lend a hand around the house if you're available. This by the way has nothing to do with the tea set. It's what adult grandchildren do when they want a relationship with the elder generation.
When we're children, our social circle is limited to the people our parents are in touch with: we aren't usually capable of traveling long distances by ourselves independently, although children are expected to write to their relatives and speak to them on the phone. They are generally coached to do this by their parents. These same parents take the lead when it's time to shop for birthday or holiday gifts, or when it's time to acknowledge someone's wedding or funeral. The children are supposed to absorb this lesson. When they become adults, they take over the responsibility of holding up their end of the relationships they wish to maintain.
Post by: Adventures With Poopsie on May 06, 2018, 06:05:50 PM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 06, 2018, 06:28:03 PM
Oh no, she has definitely been horrible to me. I've made the choice as an adult not to have a relationship with her. I didn't invite her to my wedding recently, which I know upset my mother, but she understood. Sometimes I feel a bit guilty about it, but she is not a nice person and if she wasn't related to me, I would never tolerate such behaviour. Sure, we can make allowances for family and she has been made many, but I am pretty much done now.
Then ignore the old bat. She's probably forgotten about the china or used it for skeet practice.
Post by: iris lily on May 11, 2018, 07:33:23 AM
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
Then again, they had the burden of sharing a residence with the grandma. Some grandmas would be a blessing to live with, others would be a never-ending hell. I have to say that, given some of the hateful folks I've known over the years, the other family members might actually OWE their rich sibling for the extra hassle. :(
Haha, agreed!
But a neutral way to look at this situation is that grandma’s assets were hers, to do with as she pleased to make her own life rich. If that meant a nice MIL suite for herself in her declining years, how great for her! Residual fallout of her assets shoildnt be the focus.
Post by: iris lily on May 11, 2018, 07:43:10 AM
My MIL and I (both only children) were talking about some of these end-of-life matters over the weekend, as we're approaching the fifth anniversary of many milestones associated with her mother's death. It seems like when you have four or more children, there's pretty-much guaranteed to be a drama-loving/moocher/problem child in the group.
But my MIL was quick to point out that being the only child to bear the burden was also difficult in different ways (and that was WITH an incredibly supportive spouse). So my guess is 2-3 siblings is the best. But there are a healthy number of stories here that have problems there, so maybe I'll retreat to "entitled people just suck".
With my family of two siblings there were no problems in administering our mother’s assets.
I honestly think there will be minimal problems in administering DH’s father’s estate when he dies. DH is a family of 5 siblings and the estate is a couple of million. All siblings are healthy (non-druggy, no -mentally ill) adults who work or are retired from careers.
But who knows, I may be overly optimistic. But the group did negotiate the family trust when their mother died, with no problems. Their eldest sister takes care of their father’s financial life, with no squabbles or requests for handouts. So all preliminary actions signal good behavior down the road.
But I will let you all know how this works put.
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 11, 2018, 07:50:39 AM
MIL owns a mobile home in Boulder CO...in a lovely park. Mobile home is 30 years old and holds little value. BIL lives in southern CA but struggles mightily due to felony history/bad choices/evil ex wife/child support obligation he chose not to pay/back taxes...anyway.
Two years ago, MIL asked us to be joint owners on her home in lieu of BIL so the IRS/State of CA won't seize it when she dies to pay his debts. Fine, we agree. Now come to find out she is running up loads of debt, never intending to pay it off. Living outside her means and whatnot. When she passes (she's turning 95 this summer) we inherit the "house" and are executors of her estate. She was hoping that by transferring the house to us, we could sell it and give the cash left over to BIL secret-like so the people he owes wont find it. We now realize her scheme and intend to transfer the house back into the estate upon her demise so as to pay off her debts. Whatever is left goes to BIL.
Now come to find out that BIL expects us to continue to own the house after she passes, and then he plans to move into it, paying the spot rent to the Mobile home park and maintaining the house. Problem is the park doesn't allow subleases, so we'll be on the lease, and if he stops paying rent, we are on the hook for evicting BIL from the house before we can sell it. It was going to be a PITA to deal with originally but if MIL allows BIL to move in prior to her demise we have a whole different set of problems.
Post by: talltexan on May 11, 2018, 08:05:04 AM
I feel like people who lend money to 95-year-olds deserve the inevitable discharges that appear to be coming to 'em.
But I also understand the desire to avoid years of legal wrangling/lookback claims and use the home to try to do what's morally right.
It's clear you're not getting this house long-term anyway. MIL and BIL are out-of-control, so the sooner the house is transferred to BIL, the better it's going to be for everyone. What a mess!
Post by: AlanStache on May 11, 2018, 08:11:00 AM
Trouble is a'brewing....
MIL owns a mobile home in Boulder CO...in a lovely park. Mobile home is 30 years old and holds little value. BIL lives in southern CA but struggles mightily due to felony history/bad choices/evil ex wife/child support obligation he chose not to pay/back taxes...anyway.
Two years ago, MIL asked us to be joint owners on her home in lieu of BIL so the IRS/State of CA won't seize it when she dies to pay his debts. Fine, we agree. Now come to find out she is running up loads of debt, never intending to pay it off. Living outside her means and whatnot. When she passes (she's turning 95 this summer) we inherit the "house" and are executors of her estate. She was hoping that by transferring the house to us, we could sell it and give the cash left over to BIL secret-like so the people he owes wont find it. We now realize her scheme and intend to transfer the house back into the estate upon her demise so as to pay off her debts. Whatever is left goes to BIL.
Now come to find out that BIL expects us to continue to own the house after she passes, and then he plans to move into it, paying the spot rent to the Mobile home park and maintaining the house. Problem is the park doesn't allow subleases, so we'll be on the lease, and if he stops paying rent, we are on the hook for evicting BIL from the house before we can sell it. It was going to be a PITA to deal with originally but if MIL allows BIL to move in prior to her demise we have a whole different set of problems.
Donate it to NPR, I understand they will tow 'vehicles' away "running or not".
Post by: LaineyAZ on May 11, 2018, 08:23:47 AM
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the house/mobile home is not worth anything, then what's the harm in letting BIL live there? Or am I confusing things and the "house" is different than the "mobile home"?
In the long run if BIL has a roof over his head, even if it's a 30 yr old mobile home, then at least he won't come knocking on your door to live with you.
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 11, 2018, 09:10:28 AM
Cheapskate Wife,The house is worth about $20K...if we sold it would cover most of her debts, and that feels like the right thing to do.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the house/mobile home is not worth anything, then what's the harm in letting BIL live there? Or am I confusing things and the "house" is different than the "mobile home"?
In the long run if BIL has a roof over his head, even if it's a 30 yr old mobile home, then at least he won't come knocking on your door to live with you.
The problem is we can't transfer the ownership of the house to BIL because he won't accept it. He's convinced it will be seized by the state of CA because he owes back child support. Really more likely is that it would be a lien so they get their money first when HE sells it. The problem is that the DMV in Colorado will only transfer ownership of the "home" to a willing participant. He is not willing. He is however, willing to put us at risk to live there.
I think DH is just going to have to make it clear to his Bro that we aren't willing to participate in his plan, and put him on notice that we'll sell the house as soon as it is ours in total. It might make some bad blood, but we really have to protect ourselves.
We can't abandon it, because DH's name is on the freaking title now. GRRRRRR.....
Post by: marion10 on May 11, 2018, 09:12:25 AM
Post by: LadyMuMu on May 11, 2018, 09:37:11 AM
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 11, 2018, 09:45:54 AM
CheapskateWife, this isn't what you asked about but heads up that if your husband is placed on the ownership papers rather than given the house via a will after MIL's death, he may have a tax liability not covered by MIL's "estate" when he sells it at YOUR tax rate or, if it is so old as to be unusable, mobile home removal and disposal fees. You may have already investigated this, but I thought you might want a heads up.
This is excellent, and why we will be transferring ownership back to the estate when she dies. He's the executor, so he can be on both sides of that transfer, and it keeps us from being taxed on the sale, and also makes sure that her asset covers her debt.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 11, 2018, 10:55:41 AM
Trouble is a'brewing....
MIL owns a mobile home in Boulder CO...in a lovely park. Mobile home is 30 years old and holds little value. BIL lives in southern CA but struggles mightily due to felony history/bad choices/evil ex wife/child support obligation he chose not to pay/back taxes...anyway.
Two years ago, MIL asked us to be joint owners on her home in lieu of BIL so the IRS/State of CA won't seize it when she dies to pay his debts. Fine, we agree. Now come to find out she is running up loads of debt, never intending to pay it off. Living outside her means and whatnot. When she passes (she's turning 95 this summer) we inherit the "house" and are executors of her estate. She was hoping that by transferring the house to us, we could sell it and give the cash left over to BIL secret-like so the people he owes wont find it. We now realize her scheme and intend to transfer the house back into the estate upon her demise so as to pay off her debts. Whatever is left goes to BIL.
Now come to find out that BIL expects us to continue to own the house after she passes, and then he plans to move into it, paying the spot rent to the Mobile home park and maintaining the house. Problem is the park doesn't allow subleases, so we'll be on the lease, and if he stops paying rent, we are on the hook for evicting BIL from the house before we can sell it. It was going to be a PITA to deal with originally but if MIL allows BIL to move in prior to her demise we have a whole different set of problems.
I would just offer to give your share of the "home" to BIL today. That would solve this mightily, and should please him.. (ETA I see you have already broached it. Keep trying, explain that they don't seize a primary residence).
Of course, people are not rational, so MIL/BIL finding out that you otherwise intend to put the home back to the estate may be a nasty surprise.
Post by: PathtoFIRE on May 11, 2018, 11:34:24 AM
Post by: Nicholas Carter on May 11, 2018, 12:23:51 PM
Cheapskate Wife,The secret sauce is that MIL owns the house, but rents the property the house sits on. So if BIL moves into the house, CW will be on the hook for the lease of the lot, and BIL sounds unlikely to pay rent in full, not piss off the landlord, etc.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the house/mobile home is not worth anything, then what's the harm in letting BIL live there? Or am I confusing things and the "house" is different than the "mobile home"?
In the long run if BIL has a roof over his head, even if it's a 30 yr old mobile home, then at least he won't come knocking on your door to live with you.
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 11, 2018, 12:30:58 PM
I would just offer to give your share of the "home" to BIL today. That would solve this mightily, and should please him.. (ETA I see you have already broached it. Keep trying, explain that they don't seize a primary residence).We are keeping this little gem to ourselves...I understand MIL's intent is to help BIL out as much as possible, but on the backs of creditors is not the way to do that. I've attempted to reason with her but she won't have it. Or maybe we do tell her and she finds an executor who will do her bidding...oh this is a tempting option
Of course, people are not rational, so MIL/BIL finding out that you otherwise intend to put the home back to the estate may be a nasty surprise.
CSW, can your DH just file a quit claim regarding your MIL's property, removing you all from this issue without needing any agreement from MIL or BIL?I had never considered this...will start investigating.
The secret sauce is that MIL owns the house, but rents the property the house sits on. So if BIL moves into the house, CW will be on the hook for the lease of the lot, and BIL sounds unlikely to pay rent in full, not piss off the landlord, etc.This is exactly the case...also if we don't sell it and pay off creditors, then there is a whole lot of hassle we've got to deal with as executors.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 11, 2018, 02:21:15 PM
Could you give her a reason why receiving it as a joint owner upon her death causes you extra $$'s and you just want your name off the title / revert back to her?
Maybe talk about the future taxes, and that it is best if she has it solely in her name.?
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 11, 2018, 02:28:23 PM
Re-reading everything, including your wish not to tell MIL that you plan to sell to pay taxes....Actually we are really putting it back in the estate to pay her debts...there-in lies the rub. She feels that the banks are evil and they deserve to lose money to her debt; she intends to stiff her creditors and has crafted her asset ownership and will to effect that end; also to maximize the amount of money we are able to pass to the BIL (secret like because in the will, DH is the sole beneficiary)
Could you give her a reason why receiving it as a joint owner upon her death causes you extra $$'s and you just want your name off the title / revert back to her?
Maybe talk about the future taxes, and that it is best if she has it solely in her name.?
There is just no reasoning with her on things like this.
Post by: marty998 on May 12, 2018, 04:45:48 AM
Re-reading everything, including your wish not to tell MIL that you plan to sell to pay taxes....Actually we are really putting it back in the estate to pay her debts...there-in lies the rub. She feels that the banks are evil and they deserve to lose money to her debt; she intends to stiff her creditors and has crafted her asset ownership and will to effect that end; also to maximize the amount of money we are able to pass to the BIL (secret like because in the will, DH is the sole beneficiary)
Could you give her a reason why receiving it as a joint owner upon her death causes you extra $$'s and you just want your name off the title / revert back to her?
Maybe talk about the future taxes, and that it is best if she has it solely in her name.?
There is just no reasoning with her on things like this.
95 year olds tend to have 95 years of accumulated thinking that isn't going to be swayed easily.
Post by: BNgarden on May 12, 2018, 09:54:25 AM
Why not just come clean on your intentions [edited]?
IDK but it seems there are relatively easier ways to get out of the middle.
ETA: Sorry for possible foam...edited for brevity
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 12, 2018, 04:54:24 PM
I must be missing something. [edited]...you don't want to tell MIL your plans, but you've told BIL. Will BIL not talk to MIL about this? And, is not telling MIL just to maintain the option to pay off creditors or is it somehow a 'kindness' or other reason?No worries....its a super complicated situation. We have not told either BIL or MIL yet what we intend to do...but after discussing much this weekend, we intend to bow out of executorship and ask her to find someone else to inherit the house. We want out, free and clear.
Why not just come clean on your intentions [edited]?
IDK but it seems there are relatively easier ways to get out of the middle.
ETA: Sorry for possible foam...edited for brevity
Post by: MoseyingAlong on May 12, 2018, 05:23:15 PM
There is just no reasoning with her on things like this.
[/quote]
95 year olds tend to have 95 years of accumulated thinking that isn't going to be swayed easily.
[/quote]
Marty, what a great way to think about it and express it.
This may help me be a little more patient with some people I know.
Post by: SwordGuy on May 12, 2018, 08:10:04 PM
I must be missing something. [edited]...you don't want to tell MIL your plans, but you've told BIL. Will BIL not talk to MIL about this? And, is not telling MIL just to maintain the option to pay off creditors or is it somehow a 'kindness' or other reason?No worries....its a super complicated situation. We have not told either BIL or MIL yet what we intend to do...but after discussing much this weekend, we intend to bow out of executorship and ask her to find someone else to inherit the house. We want out, free and clear.
Why not just come clean on your intentions [edited]?
IDK but it seems there are relatively easier ways to get out of the middle.
ETA: Sorry for possible foam...edited for brevity
It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
Post by: AMandM on May 13, 2018, 11:22:00 AM
It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
This.
My father named my husband as executor. Then we found out that since we live in a different country from Dad, having my husband as executor makes the estate count as a foreign estate and be subject to higher tax. So we asked my sister (who lives near my father, speaks the language better than DH does, is familiar with the legal system there, etc.) if she would mind being the executor. She agreed, and Dad agreed to change his will, but he's a procrastinator and 83 years old, so DH may well end up having to refuse.
Post by: calimom on May 13, 2018, 07:22:34 PM
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 14, 2018, 07:51:01 AM
It would be tempting to sell the proceeds from the mobile home after the eventual death of MIL and pass the proceeds along to BIL's ex-wife to make up for some of the back child support her kids' deadbeat dad has owed all these years. Of course I'm painting with a broad brush of assumption (what is the ex-wife like? are the kids still minors?) And of course it would not end well with the BIL but sounds like no scenario will be satisfactory with him.That is an interesting idea...the state of CA pays support to the intended recipients whether they receive it or not, and then charge appropriately exorbitant fees to the non-payer for being a burden to the Tax Payers...maybe we'll send the proceed to the state child support office in his name.
Post by: fredbear on May 14, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
...the state of CA pays support to the intended recipients whether they receive it or not, and then charge appropriately exorbitant fees to the non-payer for being a burden to the Tax Payers...maybe we'll send the proceed to the state child support office in his name.
I got to watch this play out with my half-brother, who declined or was self-proclaimed unable to pay his child support. His father paid it for him, until his father died. Then, nothing. His ex complained to CA. I don't know as they actually paid his share to her, probably did, but do know that they terminated his licenses, to drive and to practice his "profession." Their computer's memory is flawless (as is his ex's). Now it is years later and he remains unable to drive or do his "work." A good example of a threat that turns counterproductive when once it is converted from threat to action; without those licenses AChe is functionally unemployable, so there is no way he will ever be able to pay CA back. The "child" is probably 35 or so. On the other hand, to do him strict justice, losing those licenses was not the blow to him that it might be to most people, as he never was very employable, and even when he was, felt degraded by mere labor, as his true calling was to be a spiritual leader to the rest of us.
So if you send it in in his name and they actually credit his account, and if it is enough to clear amount, penalty, and interest, you might get BIL mobile and employable. It .. could happen, and it would be a familial thing to do. On the other hand, for reasons I have mentioned elsewhere in the comments, I would never do any business with California nor advise anyone else to do so. It is a grave error to let them know you exist, but worse if they start to believe you might have money you consider your own; they will know it belongs to the Franchise Tax Board and needs to be extracted from you.
Post by: saguaro on May 14, 2018, 11:03:48 AM
It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
I was ready to say "no" to my parents' timeshare which my parents bequeathed to me and my sisters. They set that up when they bought the timeshare 25 years ago but by the time my folks passed that thing was a financial albatross. Luckily we were able to get the timeshare company to buy it back but it was touch and go with them for a while as they (the timeshare company) really didn't like doing it.
Post by: saguaro on May 14, 2018, 11:53:21 AM
It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
I was ready to say "no" to my parents' timeshare which my parents bequeathed to me and my sisters. They set that up when they bought the timeshare 25 years ago but by the time my folks passed that thing was a financial albatross. Luckily we were able to get the timeshare company to buy it back but it was touch and go with them for a while as they (the timeshare company) really didn't like doing it.
ETA: A few years after my folks bought their timeshare, my sister and BIL bought one as well. Not a good deal, they somehow managed to get rid of it after a few years, but before those things became largely unsellable.
I really don't understand timeshares. You can often get equal cost hotels by doing a little research for each trip, and it doesn't require locking into a certain brand. In fact, we try to stay at timeshares for cash. At worst, they've tried to pitch us or get us to attend a sales meeting, but 2 or 3 rejections and they stop.
When my in-laws die, we will absolutely reject the timeshare that they own. Thank goodness my folks never got roped into that kinda nonsense.
My folks decided on the timeshare instead of buying a vacation cabin in the same area. They reasoned that the timeshare would be cheaper, they didn't have to deal with maintenance/taxes/utilities plus the risk of vandalism/squatters while the cabin was unoccupied, especially during the hunting season. Plus they had some friends who were in the same timeshare program who pitched it. I understood the reasons they had, but still was skeptical about them taking on that kind of arrangement. But it was their money.
I later found out that their lawyer, who did their estate planning and taxes, advised against it, saying it was a bad deal, but they went ahead anyway. And they named me and my sisters as beneficiaries assuming we would want the place as something to vacation to. I signed a quitclaim taking me off as beneficiary just before my Dad passed (my Mom was already gone) but it was just a couple of weeks before Dad died, so wasn't sure it got recorded in time. So was relieved when the timeshare company agreed to a buy back. I was prepared to do whatever it was necessary not to take on that thing.
ETA: A few years after my folks got their timeshare, my sister and BIL bought one was well. Total waste of money, they got out of it after only a couple of years but before those things became as unsellable as they seem to be now.
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 14, 2018, 11:56:42 AM
Wait, so are you saying that we could just not do anything? Shred the will and pretend it doesn't exist? She passes and we have the memorial, file a quit claim deed on the trailer and gift it to the mobile home park and then not do anything about her bills, creditors, or anything? Let them keep sending bills to her address, but no one answers them? No filing of final taxes. Nothing? I'm kindof liking this idea :-)It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
This.
My father named my husband as executor. Then we found out that since we live in a different country from Dad, having my husband as executor makes the estate count as a foreign estate and be subject to higher tax. So we asked my sister (who lives near my father, speaks the language better than DH does, is familiar with the legal system there, etc.) if she would mind being the executor. She agreed, and Dad agreed to change his will, but he's a procrastinator and 83 years old, so DH may well end up having to refuse.
Post by: marion10 on May 14, 2018, 04:47:43 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on May 14, 2018, 04:54:28 PM
Wait, so are you saying that we could just not do anything? Shred the will and pretend it doesn't exist? She passes and we have the memorial, file a quit claim deed on the trailer and gift it to the mobile home park and then not do anything about her bills, creditors, or anything? Let them keep sending bills to her address, but no one answers them? No filing of final taxes. Nothing? I'm kindof liking this idea :-)It's important to recognize two things here. Doesn't matter what's in the will, no one can make you be an executor of an estate and no one can make you accept their bequeathed property. Say no now, but recognize that if she doesn't listen, you can say no later, too.
This.
My father named my husband as executor. Then we found out that since we live in a different country from Dad, having my husband as executor makes the estate count as a foreign estate and be subject to higher tax. So we asked my sister (who lives near my father, speaks the language better than DH does, is familiar with the legal system there, etc.) if she would mind being the executor. She agreed, and Dad agreed to change his will, but he's a procrastinator and 83 years old, so DH may well end up having to refuse.
No, if the person specified in the will won't do it, and doesn't assign someone else to do it, the government will assign someone to be executor.
You only have to be executor if you want to be. It will all get sorted out one way or another. Your choice is whether that includes you as executor or not.
Same as if they give you the trailer in the will. You just refuse to accept it. Then the executor has to deal with it because it's not your problem.
Post by: NoraLenderbee on May 14, 2018, 05:20:39 PM
I would consult an attorney- I would not destroy a will- but you do not have to accept being the executor. You can decline and I assume the state will appoint someone. As others have pointed out , you do not have to accept a bequest. People die intestate all the time.
Yep, you can refuse to be the executor. However, you'll probably have to go through a court procedure to have them appoint a replacement executor. It would be worth discussing with a lawyer before she dies. You might also want to see if DH can file a quit claim before she dies. It would be better to get his name off the title before he "inherits" it.
Good luck. This stuff can be complicated and leave permanent bad feelings--over what's basically trash.
Post by: bugbaby on May 14, 2018, 06:03:01 PM
I actually just got some glorious news. I'm off the hook and no longer executor for an out-of-country estate.Just scrolling the thread. Grimsqueaker, I have the same messed up family dynamic and I left that country 20yrs ago, returned 3yrs ago and left again never ever to step back in that viper nest. Yeah, tonly gets worse ...
My parents, who are not at all Mustachian anymore because they started making serious money later in life, wanted me to be the executor for their estate and to-- get this-- manage my estranged fuckup sibling's trust and dole out such money as he needs to continue enabling his cranially-rectally-inverted ways while still saddling me with the responsiblity of making sure the moron doesn't drink himself to death or throw a booze-filled tantrum and drive into someone who matters. After decades of enabling the little dipshit they wanted to drag me onto the codependent merry-go-round in their place. This is despite the fact I took off nearly twenty years ago and left the freaking country to avoid the stupid family drama.
Luckily, they found an estate lawyer who bitchslapped some sense into them. They aren't going to make my idiot sibling executor (said sibling went bankrupt without having actual bad life experiences, just bad financial decision making). We will be paying someone else to just liquidate everything in sight.
I am So. Fucking. Relieved.
Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
Post by: NorCal on May 14, 2018, 09:36:19 PM
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Post by: okits on May 14, 2018, 09:44:03 PM
Is it too late for FIL and Ann to marry now, for the SS survivor benefits? (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what's-the-sorriest-situation-that-you-have-known-of-someone-who-can't-retire/)
Post by: Threshkin on May 14, 2018, 10:02:15 PM
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.
...snip...
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Here in Colorado they would likely already be considered married since they were living together and presumably sharing finances. Common Law state FTW (or loss depending on your perspective)
Post by: Dicey on May 14, 2018, 10:23:47 PM
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.Try to convince them to get married asap! Because they've been together so long, SSA will consider them wed by virtue of common law. If they own property together, that may make it even easier. It may sound morbid to push this, but it could save his bacon big time. We know/knew a couple who did this. Pictures of them together over the years made their case.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Post by: expatartist on May 15, 2018, 12:16:43 AM
* One sister (the executor) has repeatedly accused the other of attempted patricide
* Right after the diagnosis, the other sister accused a brother of squandering his finances on prostitutes and shopping sprees to win our dad's sympathy and a larger share of the estate (he already had a slightly larger share of the estate, it didn't increase at all)
The remaining brother and I try to give some perspective and watch from the sidelines. It's a fucking family tragedy in the making.
Post by: AMandM on May 15, 2018, 11:19:23 AM
* Right after the diagnosis, the other sister accused a brother of squandering his finances on prostitutes and shopping sprees to win our dad's sympathy and a larger share of the estate
I'm having a hard time imagining how this works. "Aww, poor Dicky, his apartment is full of brand-new things and piles of used condoms. I better increase his inheritance so he'll feel better"?
I'm sorry for the loss of your father, and for the tragedy in the making.
Post by: ixtap on May 15, 2018, 11:25:58 AM
* Right after the diagnosis, the other sister accused a brother of squandering his finances on prostitutes and shopping sprees to win our dad's sympathy and a larger share of the estate
I'm having a hard time imagining how this works. "Aww, poor Dicky, his apartment is full of brand-new things and piles of used condoms. I better increase his inheritance so he'll feel better"?
I'm sorry for the loss of your father, and for the tragedy in the making.
I thought the prostitutes we're to cheer Dad up...
Post by: NorCal on May 15, 2018, 08:56:26 PM
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.Try to convince them to get married asap! Because they've been together so long, SSA will consider them wed by virtue of common law. If they own property together, that may make it even easier. It may sound morbid to push this, but it could save his bacon big time. We know/knew a couple who did this. Pictures of them together over the years made their case.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Unfortunately, California is not a state that recognizes common law marriages. I think it's already too late, as she is confined to her bed, and can barely speak. Everything being done on her behalf is under a power-of-attorney (that FIL can't actually find).
Post by: expatartist on May 15, 2018, 09:15:26 PM
* Right after the diagnosis, the other sister accused a brother of squandering his finances on prostitutes and shopping sprees to win our dad's sympathy and a larger share of the estate
I'm having a hard time imagining how this works. "Aww, poor Dicky, his apartment is full of brand-new things and piles of used condoms. I better increase his inheritance so he'll feel better"?
I'm sorry for the loss of your father, and for the tragedy in the making.
Right?! Twisted sister kind of logic.
I thought the prostitutes we're to cheer Dad up...
;)
All this is making me very very happy I live 7000 miles away.
Post by: Dicey on May 15, 2018, 11:57:26 PM
IDK, but this case did happen in CA, within the last 10 years. They married on his deathbed and she was able to collect his Social Security.Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.Try to convince them to get married asap! Because they've been together so long, SSA will consider them wed by virtue of common law. If they own property together, that may make it even easier. It may sound morbid to push this, but it could save his bacon big time. We know/knew a couple who did this. Pictures of them together over the years made their case.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Unfortunately, California is not a state that recognizes common law marriages. I think it's already too late, as she is confined to her bed, and can barely speak. Everything being done on her behalf is under a power-of-attorney (that FIL can't actually find).
Post by: MarciaB on May 16, 2018, 03:37:55 PM
Well, this isn't exactly inheritance, but this seemed like the thread to put it in.
My father-in-law's live in girlfriend of 20+ years "Ann" has late stage cancer. She's not doing well. The doctor gives her several weeks.
My FIL is self employed and has zero saved for retirement at 70. He plans to work until the day he dies. He's always worked hard enough to pay the bills, and has always taken plenty of time off during his working years.
When "Ann" got sick, they lost half of their income and had to go to Cobra. They were negative cash-flow and couldn't pay the mortgage. We gave them some money to get them through with no expectations of repayment, and are happy to be in a position to support them.
It's clear FIL will have to sell the house very soon after she passes. I don't think his self-employment income will support his spending, and I don't think there's a reasonable path to getting there.
The frustrating part is they NEVER GOT MARRIED. After living together for nearly two decades, he just didn't want to do it. Now he doesn't qualify for Social Security survivors benefits. While I'm sure it wouldn't be huge, it could have been the difference between cash-flow positive and cash-flow negative for the rest of his life. I totally get that marriage is a very personal thing, but so is living on the edge forever.
Did Ann make substantially more than he did? Because as far as I understand survivor's benefits (I'm a widow myself, but not yet drawing SS benefits) a person can qualify for several different benefits (your own SS, survivor SS) but can only take one at a time. Meaning, he would want to take whichever was higher (his own, or hers). He couldn't take both. He can start with one and then make a switch, but he can't double-dip.
So if he and Ann made about the same amount, or if she earned less in her lifetime, then her benefits aren't of benefit to him (because his are more to begin with).
Post by: sol on May 16, 2018, 08:02:45 PM
The complication is that SS benefits are not linear, such that you usually have to earn far more than twice as much to get double the benefit. This means it usually only makes sense to take the survivor benefit if the survivor had little or no earned income of their own. Usually your own benefit will be larger.
Post by: NorCal on May 16, 2018, 08:35:04 PM
Under normal circumstances survivor SS is half of the regular SS and you have the choice to take that or your own benefit but not both.
The complication is that SS benefits are not linear, such that you usually have to earn far more than twice as much to get double the benefit. This means it usually only makes sense to take the survivor benefit if the survivor had little or no earned income of their own. Usually your own benefit will be larger.
Good to know. I don't pretend to be an SS expert, as I'm young enough that it doesn't matter for me personally yet. I guess my concerns might be irrational. Maybe (I hope) FIL knows the math and has determined it doesn't matter.
Sometimes he does things that are financially savvy (he pays a lot of attention to what he can write off as a business expense, and does a ton of DIY projects), but I also know he carries a balance on his credit cards and has no savings.
Mostly, I'm worried about the guy. They were life partners, and a couple that lived paycheck-to-paycheck on dual incomes. He's going to be both personally and financially devastated, and there's not a lot we can do to help.
Post by: Physicsteacher on May 16, 2018, 09:42:43 PM
Under normal circumstances survivor SS is half of the regular SS and you have the choice to take that or your own benefit but not both.
That's actually the case for spousal benefits while the spouse is alive. For a widow or widower, the max benefit is the higher of the deceased's benefit or the surviving spouse's benefit based on his or her own earnings record.
Post by: MarciaB on May 16, 2018, 09:56:37 PM
Under normal circumstances survivor SS is half of the regular SS and you have the choice to take that or your own benefit but not both.
The complication is that SS benefits are not linear, such that you usually have to earn far more than twice as much to get double the benefit. This means it usually only makes sense to take the survivor benefit if the survivor had little or no earned income of their own. Usually your own benefit will be larger.
Um, no. Survivor benefits, unlike spousal benefits, are 100% of the deceased's benefit going to the widow(er) as long as that benefit is higher than the survivor's own. And, as you say, you can only take one of the two (yours or theirs, whichever is higher).
But - the lesson here is that the person in question needs to get himself to a SS office and have a talk with an agent about his particular situation. Get the actual facts about his actual situation. And then make some decisions (get married? stay the course? etc.)
Post by: JGS1980 on August 27, 2018, 10:14:52 AM
Post by: Samuel on August 27, 2018, 11:24:45 AM
On the other hand, to do him strict justice, losing those licenses was not the blow to him that it might be to most people, as he never was very employable, and even when he was, felt degraded by mere labor, as his true calling was to be a spiritual leader to the rest of us.
:)
Couldn't let that gem go by unappreciated.
Post by: cloudsail on August 31, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
So I have a situation, I wouldn't exactly call it drama, maybe I just need to vent.
My MIL passed away earlier this year. She fought lung cancer for a year, so before she died she was very explicit about how she wanted things distributed. They have three kids, my husband is the youngest. She willed an apartment in Taipei to their daughter, who currently lives there. It's worth approximately $800,000. She willed their primary residence in Vancouver BC to the oldest son. It was purchased for approximately $1.6M. She wanted my BIL to give us $800,000 CDN as half the value of the house.
Now my husband has this extreme aversion to taking money from his relatives. It really just makes him feel bad. At first he said he didn't want any of it, and that his brother had a right to the house since he was going to be living in it with their dad and taking care of him. But obviously my MIL was not going to agree to not leaving her youngest anything. She was very insistent on everything being equal. So we said okay.
My BIL is an upstanding guy and even before my MIL passed has been asking us to setup a Canadian dollar account so he can wire the money to us. But my husband has been trying to avoid it. He basically just changes the subject whenever his brother brings it up. I talked about going to the nearest HSBC and setting up an account but he never seems to want to do it. There was also talk about buying property on Vancouver Island, at which point he actually expressed the wish for his brother to retain ownership of any properties purchased. So essentially he just doesn't want the money.
We are very stable financially and well on our way to FI in about six years, but $800,000 CDN is a lot of money. Even just sitting in a savings account at 1% interest that's $8000 a year. Knowing my BIL he would try very hard to get the money to us, but it kind of galls me that that kind of money meanwhile is just sitting there. Also I'm not sure how hard he would try if my husband just doesn't want to cooperate. My fear is that eventually the issue might just die.
Anyway, that's the inheritance drama in my life right now, and yes, I'm aware that it lies entirely with my husband.
Does anyone remember my inheritance drama from two years ago? I thought I'd post an update, two years down the road.
The situation has changed quite a bit. Not too long after I made my post, my BIL was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer. His original plan for paying us the $800,000 was to give us $300,000 in cash and take out a HELOC on the house for the rest (the house is probably worth around $2M CDN now). As I mentioned, he was very eager to get this settled.
Things changed with his cancer diagnoses. He no longer wanted to take out a large loan, not knowing how long he had left to live. He has two young children. His wife is trained as a nurse but doesn't currently work. His immediate concern became looking after his family, which is totally expected and understandable.
After a lot of reasoning, I convinced my husband to take the $300,000 that BIL had set aside in cash for us. And that is all I expect to receive. BIL has responded very well to cancer treatment and is in remission. He still talks about owing us half a million dollars sometimes, but we have no intention of taking the money from him, and I don't think he seriously wants to go into debt for that much anymore either. We also haven't touched the $300,000 and I don't include it into our financial calculations. That money is set aside in case my husband's family needs financial help in the future, specifically his dad, who has at least a couple million in his bank account but never invests and isn't great about refusing financial sponging from his extended family.
All in all, it's a very good thing we discovered FIRE and have set ourselves up financially such that we can basically ignore the impact that $800,000 CDN might have on our lives.
Post by: talltexan on August 31, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
My dad had bypass surgery in March (he lives in TX), and--while there was some drama with my mom--it was a relief to have financial freedom in solving those problems. The focus could be entirely on designing a lifestyle that suited my dad health-wise, with the resources available to create that and compensate my wife and me for the money we spent on travel.
Post by: Rosielicious on August 31, 2018, 02:49:10 PM
Some of it makes me pretty glad I only have a small family.
Post by: rjfan on September 01, 2018, 12:31:49 PM
My grandfathers brother, my great uncle then, with hes two daughters wanted that inheritance. They lied and lied and lied about all other relatives so that my great aunt would not have contact with anybody.
Problem was that aunt lived to 94. Meanwhile uncle died, and his daughters were in their 60s. They were so pissed off about my aunts longevity that they kept her body in freezer in morgue for half year.
Since nobody was allowed to have contact with aunt she died alone. That's the sad part. I visited her a lot, when I was little boy and she was pretty cool. She had a great library in her home.
Another part of my relatives had falling out over house that was inherited from my mothers side, everybody wanted piece of that house. Now that they are in 70-s and old they wanted to make up with everybody. Guess they want to face death with clean conscience.
Forgiving them seems to be right thing to do but damn... just want to yell at them for being so dumb and choosing money over relatives.
Post by: Zamboni on September 01, 2018, 03:21:48 PM
1)@TheGrimSqueaker, thank you for starting your blog! I will read it shortly as I know it will crack me up.
2) You probably have forgotten about all of this, since it was on like page 2 or 3 of this thread, but my Grandma "Grace" was quite a handful of folly, evil, and spite. Well, unfortunately it seems like my Mom, whom we now call Granny, is slowly turning into Granny Grace.
Granny Grace has just informed me that I am "executrix" of her will. She made sure I know that the proper term is executrix. Uh huh.
Granny Grace is a bit of a hoarder, although she did move a few years ago which dramatically helped the situation . . . at the time of the move, she got overwhelmed and agreed to have most of her crap hauled away and sold by a couple of her neighbors. Praise baby Jesus! She has shown me the secret places in her new house where she stashes her remaining secret loot. This thread has taught me I can refuse both duty and property when the time comes . . . thank you all for that!
Her latest shenanigans:
Granny Grace bought a vintage 80's Chevy Camaro "for" one of my nephews for the low low price of $8K. Her idea was that he would buy it from her, but he was a teenager trying to finish high school at the time: no money. Certainly no $8K.
So, of course, she has never let him have it because he had to pay for it first. Right before the purchase, she asked what I thought and I told her not to buy the car. She has 12 grandkids . . . is she going to buy them all cars? Obviously not. She also asked my brother (nephew's Dad) and he told her not to buy it . . . besides the obvious reasons, he had already purchased his son a used Prius, which was right nice of him.
Seems that all adults who are not Granny Grace think a teen-aged boy driving a Chevy Camaro is a bad idea (in an area with long, harsh snowy winters, no less).
She never registered or insured this glorious muscle car, and so it has been under its fancy car sheet parked in her carport for a couple of years. Nephew is now thousands of miles away in the military. I told her that the battery is likely dead at this point and the tires are probably getting destroyed because the car never moves. She retorted that she could sell it for more than she bought it for. Whatever.
Honestly, I hope she is right about the car resale value. She has always been poor and it was $8K that she will eventually need for food. She only even had $8K on hand because she had just downsized her home.
The real gem, though, came on my last visit. During this visit, Granny Grace said that she is leaving my brother her house but that she has thought up a way to "even things out."
According to her, we should not tell anyone when she dies. She let me know that, unbeknownst to me, she still has the joint savings account that she opened for me when I was like 5 years old (it is in another state . . . not the state that she lives in now and not the state that I live in now). Seriously my signature on that thing is from when I could barely write my name, and last time I saw that account before I left for college the balance was right around a hundred dollars. She pitched the idea that I not tell anyone she died, that way, get this: I can continue depositing her social security check into that account for years after. She pitched it like this criminal idea was some kind of gift to me that I should be grateful to receive.
That's right: good old-fashioned social security fraud of the worst kind. What the literal fuck?!
Yes, I informed her that this was both immoral and illegal and I would do no such thing, which seemed to disappoint her. I didn't even let her get to her ideas about what to do with her body (it seemed like she had thought it through and was eager to explain the whole caper, but I cut her off.) Then I made her feel better by ensuring her that she was going to live many more years, so it's not something she should even be thinking about right now.
On the bright side, I'm confident that my brother will also have nothing to do with her ridiculous ideas. We are going to be the anti-inheritance drama wonder twins.
So now I am concerned about something else: my own will has Granny Grace listed as managing the trust for my kids if I die before they are adults. I'm going to have to get the bank to do it, apparently, as she is now confirmed as both incompetent and dishonest. Sigh. I won't go into the reasons why I don't want my brother or other relatives to handle it . . . the bank it is!
Post by: marty998 on September 01, 2018, 04:37:43 PM
According to her, we should not tell anyone when she dies. She let me know that, unbeknownst to me, she still has the joint savings account that she opened for me when I was like 5 years old (it is in another state . . . not that state that she lives in now and not the state that I live in now). Seriously my signature on that thing is from when I could barely write my name, and last time I saw that account before I left for college the balance was right around a hundred dollars. She pitched the idea that I not tell anyone she died, that way, get this: I can continue depositing her social security check into that account for years after. She pitched it like this criminal idea was some kind of gift to me that I should be grateful to receive.
That's right: good old-fashioned social security fraud of the worst kind. What the literal fuck?!
Everyone thinks old people are sweet and nice. They can be the worst kind of crooks given the opportunity :)
No one ever suspects little ol' granny who bakes cupcakes and donates to church.
Post by: Hula Hoop on September 02, 2018, 03:46:46 AM
Post by: Zamboni on September 02, 2018, 08:33:23 AM
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see. Most of her schemes involve him doing something for her that he doesn't want to do for reasons ranging from he just doesn't have time to it would be illegal. All of them involve her benefiting directly through either money or having to do less labor. He has good boundaries and declines her ideas firmly and repeatedly.
His opinion is that she's just always been dishonest. She is one of those hypocritical "lecture everyone else about how important honesty is" kind of dishonest people. Kids tend to revere their parents regardless of how they really are, so I always tried to give her the benefit of the doubt growing up, and then there were all the honesty lectures. He has spent a lot more time with her as an adult (I escaped to another state as soon as I could) . . . and he has observed and reflected on her behavior a lot more than I have.
It seems to me like what lies behind her insane plan to defraud the government is that she wants to feel like she is giving us some inheritance when in reality she has nothing of value to leave us. We don't care that she has no money to leave. She seems to want something to use as leverage now so she is grasping at straws. She seems to want to stir up drama between her kids over distribution of her imaginary vast estate. Her own parents, who were truly awful people in many ways, did the same thing to her and her sisters, only they somewhat bought into it. We are just not buying into her bullshit.
Inheritance drama is always tedious. Inheritance drama stirred up by a person who is still alive and has nothing of value to leave heirs is totally ridiculous.
Post by: Candace on September 02, 2018, 09:12:08 AM
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.I'm so sorry you have to deal with this. You and your brother are to be commended for the way you're both handling it. It must be difficult for both of you. Congratulations on breaking the cycle of crazy-ass bullshit.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see. Most of her schemes involve him doing something for her that he doesn't want to do for reasons ranging from he just doesn't have time to it would be illegal. All of them involve her benefiting directly through either money or having to do less labor. He has good boundaries and declines her ideas firmly and repeatedly.
His opinion is that she's just always been dishonest. She is one of those hypocritical "lecture everyone else about how important honesty is" kind of dishonest people. Kids tend to revere their parents regardless of how they really are, so I always tried to give her the benefit of the doubt growing up, and then there were all the honesty lectures. He has spent a lot more time with her as an adult (I escaped to another state as soon as I could) . . . and he has observed and reflected on her behavior a lot more than I have.
It seems to me like what lies behind her insane plan to defraud the government is that she wants to feel like she is giving us some inheritance when in reality she has nothing of value to leave us. We don't care that she has no money to leave. She seems to want something to use as leverage now so she is grasping at straws. She seems to want to stir up drama between her kids over distribution of her imaginary vast estate. Her own parents, who were truly awful people in many ways, did the same thing to her and her sisters, only they somewhat bought into it. We are just not buying into her bullshit.
Inheritance drama is always tedious. Inheritance drama stirred up by a person who is still alive and has nothing of value to leave heirs is totally ridiculous.
Post by: former player on September 02, 2018, 10:20:12 AM
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.I'm so sorry you have to deal with this. You and your brother are to be commended for the way you're both handling it. It must be difficult for both of you. Congratulations on breaking the cycle of crazy-ass bullshit.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see. Most of her schemes involve him doing something for her that he doesn't want to do for reasons ranging from he just doesn't have time to it would be illegal. All of them involve her benefiting directly through either money or having to do less labor. He has good boundaries and declines her ideas firmly and repeatedly.
His opinion is that she's just always been dishonest. She is one of those hypocritical "lecture everyone else about how important honesty is" kind of dishonest people. Kids tend to revere their parents regardless of how they really are, so I always tried to give her the benefit of the doubt growing up, and then there were all the honesty lectures. He has spent a lot more time with her as an adult (I escaped to another state as soon as I could) . . . and he has observed and reflected on her behavior a lot more than I have.
It seems to me like what lies behind her insane plan to defraud the government is that she wants to feel like she is giving us some inheritance when in reality she has nothing of value to leave us. We don't care that she has no money to leave. She seems to want something to use as leverage now so she is grasping at straws. She seems to want to stir up drama between her kids over distribution of her imaginary vast estate. Her own parents, who were truly awful people in many ways, did the same thing to her and her sisters, only they somewhat bought into it. We are just not buying into her bullshit.
Inheritance drama is always tedious. Inheritance drama stirred up by a person who is still alive and has nothing of value to leave heirs is totally ridiculous.
I agree with Candace, and I'm particularly impressed that you and your brother are on the same page over this - "divide and rule" is so often used against siblings in this sort of situation.
Post by: BTDretire on September 02, 2018, 05:19:33 PM
she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
In my family, the conflicts weren't over easy things like dividing up bank accounts.
One example: Before my grandmother died, she moved into an assisted living facility and one of my cousins (and her family) moved into grandma's house (not free, but at very a very subsidized rent). When grandma died, the will specified that the house be sold and the proceeds divided between her children, but the cousin's family tried to argue that cousin should get to keep renting the house, because grandma had been letting her live there, and they were going to be homeless without it. Are you prepared to kick out a family with small children just so you can cash out of a property in accordance with the will? Parts of my family still aren't speaking to each other after this debacle.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
These sorts of complications are hard to foresee when you write a will, because neither of them were issues until the end-stages of life.
I bolded the above because I'm in a slightly similar situation. Mom was not doing well, my sister moved in with her and took care of her for maybe a year. Got on the checking account to help pay the bills. When mom died, she left the house to both of us.
I let her stay in the house rent free because she did take care of mom.
It's now going on 7 years, and I'm kinda stuck, she has a low paying job, no assets and probably couldn't qualify for a mortgage. If I forced a sale, she would probably be back to living in a van with her girlfriend.
When I talk to her, there is always some comment to let me know just how tight money is, even though I have never brought up the idea of her paying me anything.
Post by: AMandM on September 03, 2018, 10:23:00 AM
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see.
My grandmother had highly idiosyncratic ideas of how the world works, or should work, and based her behavior on that rather than on the actual world. E.g., she decided that her pension should not be taxable, so she didn't declare it on her tax return. After she died we had to submit several years of amended tax returns.
Post by: Dicey on September 03, 2018, 10:53:58 AM
Post by: bugbaby on September 03, 2018, 03:14:34 PM
The best thing for everyone is to either sign it over to her her or evict her. Pick one or the other. You are both responsible for the current situation.she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
In my family, the conflicts weren't over easy things like dividing up bank accounts.
One example: Before my grandmother died, she moved into an assisted living facility and one of my cousins (and her family) moved into grandma's house (not free, but at very a very subsidized rent). When grandma died, the will specified that the house be sold and the proceeds divided between her children, but the cousin's family tried to argue that cousin should get to keep renting the house, because grandma had been letting her live there, and they were going to be homeless without it. Are you prepared to kick out a family with small children just so you can cash out of a property in accordance with the will? Parts of my family still aren't speaking to each other after this debacle.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
These sorts of complications are hard to foresee when you write a will, because neither of them were issues until the end-stages of life.
I bolded the above because I'm in a slightly similar situation. Mom was not doing well, my sister moved in with her and took care of her for maybe a year. Got on the checking account to help pay the bills. When mom died, she left the house to both of us.
I let her stay in the house rent free because she did take care of mom.
It's now going on 7 years, and I'm kinda stuck, she has a low paying job, no assets and probably couldn't qualify for a mortgage. If I forced a sale, she would probably be back to living in a van with her girlfriend.
When I talk to her, there is always some comment to let me know just how tight money is, even though I have never brought up the idea of her paying me anything.
I sold my sister a house to pay me interest free as she could not afford a mortgage. After a few years she began to get resentful about it. I just gifted her the damn thing and removed myself from that potentially toxic dynamic.
Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
Post by: Mesmoiselle on September 03, 2018, 07:13:56 PM
Post by: Just Joe on September 04, 2018, 08:06:33 AM
she filled out a form that specifies it is to be split 4 ways when she dies (1/4 to each kid). Hopefully that is sufficient?
In my family, the conflicts weren't over easy things like dividing up bank accounts.
One example: Before my grandmother died, she moved into an assisted living facility and one of my cousins (and her family) moved into grandma's house (not free, but at very a very subsidized rent). When grandma died, the will specified that the house be sold and the proceeds divided between her children, but the cousin's family tried to argue that cousin should get to keep renting the house, because grandma had been letting her live there, and they were going to be homeless without it. Are you prepared to kick out a family with small children just so you can cash out of a property in accordance with the will? Parts of my family still aren't speaking to each other after this debacle.
Another example: My other grandma spent the last few years of her life living with the wealthiest one of her four children, in their big fancy house. Her assets helped pay for building an integrated MIL suite, and then supporting the household for all of those years. When she moved into a nursing home, her assets had to be depleted to zero to qualify for medicare and she died penniless. The one daughter she had lived with was left with approximately a half million dollars in improved real estate value as part of her primary residence, that grandma had paid for, but which was technically not one of grandma's assets. The other three kids got nothing of value, other than picture and keepsakes. None of the other siblings were prepared to cry foul, so the one daughter who was already rich was the only one who got anything of value from grandma's assets and everyone sort of swallowed hard and moved on.
These sorts of complications are hard to foresee when you write a will, because neither of them were issues until the end-stages of life.
I bolded the above because I'm in a slightly similar situation. Mom was not doing well, my sister moved in with her and took care of her for maybe a year. Got on the checking account to help pay the bills. When mom died, she left the house to both of us.
I let her stay in the house rent free because she did take care of mom.
It's now going on 7 years, and I'm kinda stuck, she has a low paying job, no assets and probably couldn't qualify for a mortgage. If I forced a sale, she would probably be back to living in a van with her girlfriend.
When I talk to her, there is always some comment to let me know just how tight money is, even though I have never brought up the idea of her paying me anything.
Could you force a sale and help her find something she can afford or that offers a potential rental option (duplex or basement apartment)? That way she gets something that she can afford to take care of and you get your part. Any house will require maintenance. I could imagine her struggling to have the roofing replaced or the HVAC replaced.
Post by: Dragonswan on September 04, 2018, 11:33:19 AM
So now I am concerned about something else: my own will has Granny Grace listed as managing the trust for my kids if I die before they are adults. I'm going to have to get the bank to do it, apparently, as she is now confirmed as both incompetent and dishonest. Sigh. I won't go into the reasons why I don't want my brother or other relatives to handle it . . . the bank it is!
Oh come on now, tell us the reasons. You know we live vicariously.
Post by: saguaro on September 04, 2018, 11:40:56 AM
Yeah, I was pretty taken aback by her suggestion.I'm so sorry you have to deal with this. You and your brother are to be commended for the way you're both handling it. It must be difficult for both of you. Congratulations on breaking the cycle of crazy-ass bullshit.
I talked to my brother about it, and he was not surprised although he hadn't heard about this particular nonsense yet. She has always had a series of nutty ideas, and it seems she floats crazy schemes by him quite regularly. It is not new behavior and not dementia as far as we can see. Most of her schemes involve him doing something for her that he doesn't want to do for reasons ranging from he just doesn't have time to it would be illegal. All of them involve her benefiting directly through either money or having to do less labor. He has good boundaries and declines her ideas firmly and repeatedly.
His opinion is that she's just always been dishonest. She is one of those hypocritical "lecture everyone else about how important honesty is" kind of dishonest people. Kids tend to revere their parents regardless of how they really are, so I always tried to give her the benefit of the doubt growing up, and then there were all the honesty lectures. He has spent a lot more time with her as an adult (I escaped to another state as soon as I could) . . . and he has observed and reflected on her behavior a lot more than I have.
It seems to me like what lies behind her insane plan to defraud the government is that she wants to feel like she is giving us some inheritance when in reality she has nothing of value to leave us. We don't care that she has no money to leave. She seems to want something to use as leverage now so she is grasping at straws. She seems to want to stir up drama between her kids over distribution of her imaginary vast estate. Her own parents, who were truly awful people in many ways, did the same thing to her and her sisters, only they somewhat bought into it. We are just not buying into her bullshit.
Inheritance drama is always tedious. Inheritance drama stirred up by a person who is still alive and has nothing of value to leave heirs is totally ridiculous.
I agree with Candace, and I'm particularly impressed that you and your brother are on the same page over this - "divide and rule" is so often used against siblings in this sort of situation.
To the bolded DH is currently dealing with this from his still living parents. He has one sister and his parents have always played their two children against each other (the classic Golden Child / scapegoat dynamic) but right now there's drama (again) with SIL and her children, where they are mad at her so now DH is being told how he will inherit all that they planned to give her. They have supposedly valuable artwork from their artwork buying spree in the 90s, that they are convinced is worth of lot of money and if he wants it, he can take it and in their exact words "get it away from your sister".
DH is not falling for it, he's all too used to his parents' drama and knows that it can change in a heartbeat, and things will flip back to SIL being their Golden Child again. And she will get the artwork again which she can have as far as he's concerned. He doesn't want to be a part of their drama and frankly they have all shown not to be all that honest either.
Post by: marion10 on September 07, 2018, 12:32:48 PM
Post by: Fuzzy Buttons on September 07, 2018, 12:49:36 PM
My husband was specifically left an organ grinders' bench in his mother's will. We have no idea what this is- he doesn't remember any bench in his house that was called an organ grinders' bench. There were no benches in the house. Total mystery what this thing was.
That's hilarious. I'm now tempted to update my will to specifically leave one imaginary item to my sister with no explanation.
Post by: Goldielocks on September 07, 2018, 01:45:44 PM
My husband was specifically left an organ grinders' bench in his mother's will. We have no idea what this is- he doesn't remember any bench in his house that was called an organ grinders' bench. There were no benches in the house. Total mystery what this thing was.
Lol... well,, an organ grinder was a crank (hand operated) organ, a bit like a very large music box... so if there were no musical instruments, and it just named a bench, it may have looked more like a small table, or even a baby pram with wheels / cart.
Post by: Zamboni on September 09, 2018, 06:01:13 PM
So now I am concerned about something else: my own will has Granny Grace listed as managing the trust for my kids if I die before they are adults. I'm going to have to get the bank to do it, apparently, as she is now confirmed as both incompetent and dishonest. Sigh. I won't go into the reasons why I don't want my brother or other relatives to handle it . . . the bank it is!
Oh come on now, tell us the reasons. You know we live vicariously.
The issue is mostly the sheer sum of money, but combines with the needs and judgement of my relatives. If I kick off on my way to the pitch tonight, or any time in the next decade, then each of my children will inherit about $1MM between assets and insurance. That is a decent chunk of money.
The other parent of my spawn has been out of work for nearly a year and is devolving into serious financial trouble. Any money would be used selfishly on what I consider a ridiculous lifestyle while rationalizing that it is really being spent for the kids. I am certain of this. So, other parent is out, as are grandparents on that side, who would just funnel all of the money to other parent to fritter without hesitation.
My Mom, aka Granny Grace, is the current trust holder (trustee?) but it turns out she is completely dishonest, as noted above, and possibly losing her marbles, so she is out. I just have to get someone at the bank to help me set up the new trust (I did go by my credit union the other day, but the guy who does that was out of the office. Sigh.)
One of my brothers and his wife run a charity of sorts. I am concerned that they will see this sum of money and think it could be much better spent on those who benefit from their charity. They are probably right . . . but it is my wish to leave it to my heirs. I also think they will find it unfair that my children have access to so much money while their own children will be scrabbling to get started on their own. Also, as far as I know, they have nothing saved for retirement. If they had just a couple of children, then I would probably split the sum between my own children and my nieces and nephews and not worry about it. But, I have 10 nieces and nephews (and counting), so that divides the money too thinly imho and it is not going to work for me.
My Dad is broke and will work until he dies. His wife has several adult children who are not in good financial positions (she has declared bankruptcy herself, some of her children have bankruptcies or felony convictions in their pasts). Again, I am concerned that the money would be misspent either on their retirement or on her adult children.
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
Post by: fredbear on September 10, 2018, 02:13:54 AM
...
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
Post by: marion10 on September 10, 2018, 07:02:46 AM
My husband was specifically left an organ grinders' bench in his mother's will. We have no idea what this is- he doesn't remember any bench in his house that was called an organ grinders' bench. There were no benches in the house. Total mystery what this thing was.
Lol... well,, an organ grinder was a crank (hand operated) organ, a bit like a very large music box... so if there were no musical instruments, and it just named a bench, it may have looked more like a small table, or even a baby pram with wheels / cart.
It’s a joke in our house now. The estate was very small- especially after my MIL spent many years in a nursing home, so it’s not like his brothers got a huge amount and he got nothing.
On trusts/ executors- I am leery for the reason described above- I was beneficiary of a medium size trust from my grandfather ( along with my siblings) and my father helped himself to the proceeds- probably saying to himself that he would pay us back- and skipped town. It happens. Fortunately we were adults ( trust was in place until youngest child was 25- she was 19)
Post by: former player on September 10, 2018, 07:39:02 AM
Post by: merula on September 10, 2018, 09:35:15 AM
Post by: sol on September 10, 2018, 09:52:56 AM
Any money would be used selfishly on what I consider a ridiculous lifestyle while rationalizing that it is really being spent for the kids.
We have accepted this situation. If we both die, our estate goes into trust for our kids, but the trustee is the same person who would be raising the kids and I'm sure she would spend down every penny of it before they turned 18, and they would get nothing at that point. She would justify it by saying she needs a bigger house and a new van for the extra kids, and she wouldn't be able to buy anything for our kids without spending just as much (of our money) on her kids. The whole family would live faaaar beyond their means for a few years, then revert to financial chaos when our money runs out.
But isn't that the best outcome anyway? I think I'd rather get my kids launched at age 18 with a secure childhood full of wasteful spending behind them, than have them go hungry until then and then suddenly get a giant inheritance which they would promptly mismanage.
Post by: Finallyunderstand on September 10, 2018, 10:13:13 AM
...
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
@fredbear are you a writer or enjoy writing? Maybe a wordsmith in hiding? For some reason I thoroughly enjoyed your post simply due to the words used.
Post by: iris lily on September 10, 2018, 10:50:42 AM
Sir, your way with words is very enjoyable....
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
Post by: partgypsy on September 10, 2018, 11:01:31 AM
The only other inheritance stories I know, are disagreements between my Mom and other uncle about furniture from great grandfather, and on my ex's side, between his Mom and aunt, who got grandfather's antique bottle collection. So some complaints from the losing party but not enough hard feelings for any fallings out.
Post by: markbike528CBX on September 10, 2018, 11:46:47 AM
Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
Post by: Dragonswan on September 10, 2018, 12:05:44 PM
So now I am concerned about something else: my own will has Granny Grace listed as managing the trust for my kids if I die before they are adults. I'm going to have to get the bank to do it, apparently, as she is now confirmed as both incompetent and dishonest. Sigh. I won't go into the reasons why I don't want my brother or other relatives to handle it . . . the bank it is!
Oh come on now, tell us the reasons. You know we live vicariously.
The issue is mostly the sheer sum of money, but combines with the needs and judgement of my relatives. If I kick off on my way to the pitch tonight, or any time in the next decade, then each of my children will inherit about $1MM between assets and insurance. That is a decent chunk of money.
The other parent of my spawn has been out of work for nearly a year and is devolving into serious financial trouble. Any money would be used selfishly on what I consider a ridiculous lifestyle while rationalizing that it is really being spent for the kids. I am certain of this. So, other parent is out, as are grandparents on that side, who would just funnel all of the money to other parent to fritter without hesitation.
My Mom, aka Granny Grace, is the current trust holder (trustee?) but it turns out she is completely dishonest, as noted above, and possibly losing her marbles, so she is out. I just have to get someone at the bank to help me set up the new trust (I did go by my credit union the other day, but the guy who does that was out of the office. Sigh.)
One of my brothers and his wife run a charity of sorts. I am concerned that they will see this sum of money and think it could be much better spent on those who benefit from their charity. They are probably right . . . but it is my wish to leave it to my heirs. I also think they will find it unfair that my children have access to so much money while their own children will be scrabbling to get started on their own. Also, as far as I know, they have nothing saved for retirement. If they had just a couple of children, then I would probably split the sum between my own children and my nieces and nephews and not worry about it. But, I have 10 nieces and nephews (and counting), so that divides the money too thinly imho and it is not going to work for me.
My Dad is broke and will work until he dies. His wife has several adult children who are not in good financial positions (she has declared bankruptcy herself, some of her children have bankruptcies or felony convictions in their pasts). Again, I am concerned that the money would be misspent either on their retirement or on her adult children.
There are more candidates, but you get the idea . . . I just don't think I have anyone in my family to handle it properly. I'd rather pay the bank 1% a year and know the majority of the money is actually going for my own children's health, education, and maintenance.
Thank you for that. And if it matters, given the details letting the bank be the trustee makes total sense.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 10, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
I too am looking for third-party oversight of trust money for my daughter. She will inherit half my pension, which will make her instantly FI if she keeps her expenses low, but she generally doesn't because she is influenced by her lowlife entourage.
Post by: iris lily on September 10, 2018, 12:30:24 PM
I am surprised you are giving her enough to hang herself.Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
I too am looking for third-party oversight of trust money for my daughter. She will inherit half my pension, which will make her instantly FI if she keeps her expenses low, but she generally doesn't because she is influenced by her lowlife entourage.
Post by: fredbear on September 11, 2018, 02:18:05 AM
Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?I don't know what they charged. By the time he shifted the trusteeship to them, I think my half-brother would have regarded about any fee as warranted, even cheap. As to their technique, I used something similar on my kids. "Daddy, X did this and you never...." "What?" Very distinctly: "Daddy, X did this and you never...." "What's that?" Exasperated: "Daddy, X did this and you..." "Could you speak up?" Other child, resignedly: "Daddy can't hear whining and tattling." So MLPF&S, in a mid-Victorian way: "We are in receipt of your letter and call of the 19th, for which thanks. Per the terms of the trust, the next disbursement will be made December 31st. Sincerely,..." Lather rinse repeat, though I would suppose from time to time even the most affably droning MLPF&S personage would have been tempted to close the letter by writing "With hearty conviction and deep sincerity." It was pure Skinnerianism and the brothers were as bright as any cheery young pigeons. Enough experiences pecking at the corporate button and receiving no money pellets whatever, and they got the idea.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
Post by: fredbear on September 11, 2018, 02:49:17 AM
...I ran into a similar situation advising an ex-girlfriend about how to provide for her child. My suggestion to her - similar to you based only on what you wrote - was a term life insurance policy which contained enough to pay off the god-parent's house immediately, pay tuition and living for private school, day care, and college for the god-parent's kids as well as her child, a stipend for living expenses, etc, the policy to be continued by her until her kid graduated or failed out. Term life is cheap, amazingly cheap, even for a policy like this that would have run to a payout well over a million. It has to be explained to the god-parent what the idea is behind the payout, and maybe they'll listen and act as you hope and maybe they won't. If you know they just can't do as you direct, it would be possible to set up a trust to receive the proceeds, and direct the (third-party) trustee in how to dispose of it, ie, directly payoff the godparent's house, reimburse payments for the other expenses, send the monthly stipend, etc. This would leave your regular estate untouched.
We have accepted this situation. If we both die, our estate goes into trust for our kids, but the trustee is the same person who would be raising the kids and I'm sure she would spend down every penny of it before they turned 18, and they would get nothing at that point.
In the matter of kids reaching 18 and blowing it all, I think kids should have a couple years experience in discharging debt monthly, and investing monthly, by that age. I'm also a fan of phasing trust disbursements, so they start getting it at 18 but don't get it all until 35 or 40 or your death. At that point they've had some experience, made some dumb-shit mistakes, and are either going to have sense or not.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 11, 2018, 08:57:08 AM
I am surprised you are giving her enough to hang herself.Pray tell what did MLPF&S charge for this service?
+1
My half-brother was trustee of his father's trust, which covered him and 2 older brothers. They spent the endless hours of leisure the trust offered them wheedling for more money, complaining that there wasn't as much money as there should have been (he had had to pay estate taxes, something wholly incomprehensible to them), begging, and ovulating weird potential future lives for him to fund. He discovered that Messrs Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith would accept the trusteeship and devolved it on them. MLPF&S took all the flak, doled out the money quarterly with flinty fairness, and quickly trained the older brothers to shut up, as no noise no matter how mewling or plangent would soften their iron corporate heart. Go for it. The bank should have someone calm, grayish, experienced, and polite, able when necessary to present when necessary a heart of whole and entire stone to the most grasping relatives.
And trained the brothers, but how?
I'D charge per bleat/whine out of their allotment.
I'm not a fan of 3d party oversight of money, but this seems like a good deal.
I too am looking for third-party oversight of trust money for my daughter. She will inherit half my pension, which will make her instantly FI if she keeps her expenses low, but she generally doesn't because she is influenced by her lowlife entourage.
She's still learning budgeting and financial responsibility (and is actually making some progress) and it should be another 20 years or so before I kick off and the pension half becomes available.
Hopefully she will have some basic skills by that point.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 11, 2018, 08:06:05 PM
She's still learning budgeting and financial responsibility (and is actually making some progress) and it should be another 20 years or so before I kick off and the pension half becomes available.
Hopefully she will have some basic skills by that point.
GS, you are the most sensible level-headed person on here!!!! You know you could be hit (fatally) by a bus tomorrow.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 11, 2018, 10:15:35 PM
She's still learning budgeting and financial responsibility (and is actually making some progress) and it should be another 20 years or so before I kick off and the pension half becomes available.
Hopefully she will have some basic skills by that point.
GS, you are the most sensible level-headed person on here!!!! You know you could be hit (fatally) by a bus tomorrow.
Of course. In which case, the value of my pension will be zero.
Edited to add: if I kick off today, the only way anyone besides me would get a cent out of the pension would be if I were married. I'm not. I don't get to declare a contingent survivor until I actually retire.
What I'd really like to do is leave every cent, house and all, to my loyal Venomous Spaz Beast, who deserves to live out her life in comfort in the only home she knows. Trouble is, she needs a human to feed her, walk her, and fit in playtime around whatever other life they have. If I can find a reliable human, I'll leave them a paid-off house and an allowance, on the condition that the VSB lives there, sees the vet regularly, and lives out the rest of her natural life in comfort. If the VSB dies, the allowance stops but the caregiver gains title to the house.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 12, 2018, 02:54:48 PM
She's still learning budgeting and financial responsibility (and is actually making some progress) and it should be another 20 years or so before I kick off and the pension half becomes available.
Hopefully she will have some basic skills by that point.
GS, you are the most sensible level-headed person on here!!!! You know you could be hit (fatally) by a bus tomorrow.
Of course. In which case, the value of my pension will be zero.
Edited to add: if I kick off today, the only way anyone besides me would get a cent out of the pension would be if I were married. I'm not. I don't get to declare a contingent survivor until I actually retire.
What I'd really like to do is leave every cent, house and all, to my loyal Venomous Spaz Beast, who deserves to live out her life in comfort in the only home she knows. Trouble is, she needs a human to feed her, walk her, and fit in playtime around whatever other life they have. If I can find a reliable human, I'll leave them a paid-off house and an allowance, on the condition that the VSB lives there, sees the vet regularly, and lives out the rest of her natural life in comfort. If the VSB dies, the allowance stops but the caregiver gains title to the house.
Aha, I should have known you had the pension situation covered.
I understand fully re VSB - in my will Missy went to DD. If for any reason DD wouldn't/couldn't take her, I had already cleared with a good friend who is wonderful with dogs that Missy would go to her, and a chunk of money would go with Missy. Missy would have been fine with either situation, so that was definitely one thing I didn't have to worry about.
I would volunteer to take over VSB 's care if necessary, but I can just see the interview with the American border and immigration people - "you have no job, you are retired, and you are moving here to look after the dog of someone you only knew online?" That would go over soooo well. ;-)
Bank or trust company for asset management and someone you trust to look after VSB?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 12, 2018, 04:01:31 PM
Bank or trust company for asset management and someone you trust to look after VSB?
Something like that.
My mom wants to be the one to take her in, but I've got three major worries. The first is my sibling's cats, who are each more than twice the VSB's size, who have sharp claws and a territorial streak, and who are more than capable of killing the VSB if they teamed up. The cats are pretty much permanent residents of my parents' house because my folks have made a lifetime commitment to enabling said alcoholic sibling who lives with them and who has an ongoing history of harming small animals. (That's major worry #2). Major worry #3 is that VSB type creatures live 15-20 years and my parents aren't in the greatest health. I'm worried what provision *they* would make for the little squeakdog. My guess is that it will be fuck-all based on their current will, which they are in the process of drawing up. It makes no provision for my own kids (one daughter by adoption, one niece acquired informally because she's an orphan related to my daughter; I hope to finalize that adoption as soon as she's at an age where it won't screw her on the FAFSA). The will states that if I predecease them or die within 90 days of the last parent, everything that would have been my inheritance from them will go to my sibling. (This, by definition, would include anything inherited from me including the VSB.)
And, yes, the disinheritance of my children *is* my parents' intention. They don't like my adopted daughter because she's gone through a bit of a violent bratty phase. Yet even at her worst the stunts she's pulled are small potatoes in comparison to what my sibling does and continues to do. They like my niece, who has never shown them or me the slightest disrespect. However, they have a rule about treating kids equally. That means that whenever one kid does something bad they're justified in punishing both. My daughter's been a bit of a brat, ergo both she and my niece are on the shit list despite the fact that my niece is considerate, kind, and a person who genuinely gives a fuck about what happens to me and to them (and who is capable of managing a lump sum windfall-- she may just have VSB guardian potential). I think the other reason my parents don't want to formally recognize my children is because my sibling doesn't have any, and recognizing my kids would mean that my sibling and I aren't being treated equally. I'm within an inch of telling my folks to just simplify matters and leave everything directly to my sibling, and I'll find other ways to set up the VSB and my human heirs. I've never really liked the idea of relying on family money to begin with, and as much as I enjoy my parents' company they've really gone down the rabbit hole with this codependency hobby of theirs.
My thinking is that if my parents are willing to cut out their only grandkids the second I'm not in the picture, which I think is an asshole move no matter how they rationalize it, they definitely can't be relied on to take care of my precious VSB.
Ooh! I think this means my family might have inheritance drama in the future.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 12, 2018, 06:20:57 PM
Bank or trust company for asset management and someone you trust to look after VSB?
Something like that.
My daughter's been a bit of a brat, ergo both she and my niece are on the shit list despite the fact that my niece is considerate, kind, and a person who genuinely gives a fuck about what happens to me and to them (and who is capable of managing a lump sum windfall-- she may just have VSB guardian potential).
Isn't it amazing how clear things become when they are written out? You have found VSB's potential guardian. No-one else qualifies, she does.
The rest of the nonsense - yikes.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 12, 2018, 11:20:45 PM
Well, my niece has a gigantic and spastic puppy at the moment. Until that doggo mellows out enough to play nicely with the VSB it may not be a go. I'm definitely keeping my eye on the situation. Long-term, the potential is there.Bank or trust company for asset management and someone you trust to look after VSB?
Something like that.
My daughter's been a bit of a brat, ergo both she and my niece are on the shit list despite the fact that my niece is considerate, kind, and a person who genuinely gives a fuck about what happens to me and to them (and who is capable of managing a lump sum windfall-- she may just have VSB guardian potential).
Isn't it amazing how clear things become when they are written out? You have found VSB's potential guardian. No-one else qualifies, she does.
Quote
The rest of the nonsense - yikes.Normal codependent crap in a family with addiction and untreated mental illness, I'm afraid. I'd have succumbed myself if I hadn't buggered off to Yankistan. Oddly, they weren't at all messed up when we were little. They got that way somehow.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 13, 2018, 06:30:20 AM
Well, my niece has a gigantic and spastic puppy at the moment. Until that doggo mellows out enough to play nicely with the VSB it may not be a go. I'm definitely keeping my eye on the situation. Long-term, the potential is there.Quote
Well, absent the unexpected bus, this is long term planning, right? And wills made for the near future can always be adjusted as the situation changes. I find often that it's the big galumphy dogs are the ones that are best with small dogs. I love the thought she has a gigantic spastic puppy.
Post by: talltexan on September 13, 2018, 06:49:35 AM
I was thinking it was Very Serious Boyfriend.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 13, 2018, 07:33:26 AM
Edward Jones' fee was 3 times more.
I don't have a "good story" to share, yet. Hopefully never will. ;)
Post by: Ever_Anon on September 13, 2018, 07:41:06 AM
In the years since I've acquired both a cat and a wife, the latter of whom makes me far less concerned about the former. But we probably should make some provisions in case we both get hit by the same bus.
Post by: merula on September 13, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
Future custody battle participants:
-Our parents, who have eventually taken every dog they've ever had to a shelter
-BIL's mom and stepdad, who have two overweight and poorly-behaved beasts of their own. They don't believe in walking their SHELTIES because they don't think they need the exercise.
-BIL's dad, who doesn't particularly like dogs, but would fight for the sake of fighting
So you can see how my family of three dog lovers who believe in walking dogs might be the preference.
Post by: partgypsy on September 13, 2018, 10:30:56 AM
I've insisted that my sister and BIL write down their intention for me to take their VSB, because I can see a custody battle in that situation.
Future custody battle participants:
-Our parents, who have eventually taken every dog they've ever had to a shelter
-BIL's mom and stepdad, who have two overweight and poorly-behaved beasts of their own. They don't believe in walking their SHELTIES because they don't think they need the exercise.
-BIL's dad, who doesn't particularly like dogs, but would fight for the sake of fighting
So you can see how my family of three dog lovers who believe in walking dogs might be the preference.
I still remember dogsitting a friend's dog (who was obese) and asking what their walk schedule was, they said that (overweight dog) "doesn't like walks". I thought that strange because i've never met a dog who didn't like walks. Sure enough on her daily walks, she was super happy, and got some exercise to boot. But it was apparent they never gave her walks : (
Post by: iris lily on September 13, 2018, 11:47:28 AM
I've insisted that my sister and BIL write down their intention for me to take their VSB, because I can see a custody battle in that situation.
Future custody battle participants:
-Our parents, who have eventually taken every dog they've ever had to a shelter
-BIL's mom and stepdad, who have two overweight and poorly-behaved beasts of their own. They don't believe in walking their SHELTIES because they don't think they need the exercise.
-BIL's dad, who doesn't particularly like dogs, but would fight for the sake of fighting
So you can see how my family of three dog lovers who believe in walking dogs might be the preference.
I still remember dogsitting a friend's dog (who was obese) and asking what their walk schedule was, they said that (overweight dog) "doesn't like walks". I thought that strange because i've never met a dog who didn't like walks. Sure enough on her daily walks, she was super happy, and got some exercise to boot. But it was apparent they never gave her walks : (
You couldnt blast one of my bulldogs from her house. She practically laid on the ground, claws gripping the front door, when we had to take her some place, haha.
We always knew that if she disappeared it woild be because someone stole her, she would NEVeR just wander away.
She also had the most amazing muscle tone of all of our bulldogs, and we have had 30 of them (we foster, and we adopt senior dogs.) she slept 22 hours a day, never exercised, and could Probably pull a MACK truck from a rolling start if we could ever interest her in that activity.
Ut yeah, most of our bulldogs like a bit of walkies but we dont take them. She was the exception, Noooooooooo! To leaving home.
Post by: Zamboni on September 15, 2018, 09:44:32 AM
@TheGrimSqueaker: great, now I am worrying about what to do with the Shephound if I kick off. At least I have better options for her than I have for managing my money, but I should make a designation to prevent her from just ending up in the county shelter where I found her in the first place. Anyway, thank you for making me think about this as well. Not going to make any arrangements for the fish (how are they even still alive after all of these years?) Hope you can figure out a good action plan for VSB.
Post by: Sibley on September 17, 2018, 01:45:35 PM
Post by: sol on September 20, 2018, 09:54:51 AM
She has a much-older half-sister who has never been financially stable due to addiction and mental health issues. She and her long-term boyfriend are both on the mortgage for her house, but the boyfriend finally walked away from the crazy and left her with a mortgage payment far in excess of what she can afford. There is a family crisis unfolding!
She asked her siblings and parents for money, but everyone involved seems to recognize that a bailout is only a temporary solution. Any money she receives will only forestall the inevitable foreclosure, because what she really needs to do is either sell the house and move somewhere cheaper, or find a new roommate or three. The problem is that she's a little too crazy for roommates to work out, based on past experiences, so everyone is trying to find a solution that doesn't involve her being homeless again.
The current plan is for her parents, who are stable because they live modestly but are not at all rich, to BUY HER HOUSE for her, and then lease it back to her on a rent-to-own basis. When they die, whatever unpaid balance remains is supposed to come out of her share of the inheritance, assuming there is any left. If there's an interest rate on that loan, I have no idea what it might be.
My wife is the executor of their will, and this sounds like a nightmare scenario to me. Her parents aren't exactly the most organized people, and I'm pretty sure their idea of tracking the payments is going to involve a yellow notepad with handwritten notes on it, if they remembered that month. Without a good record of the payments, she'll have no idea how to divide the estate. If there's not enough left over to clear the balance, are we going to have to sell the house again and boot her out? Because in that seemingly likely scenario, she's just going to be homeless then instead of now, which I guess is still the preferred solution?
Maybe all of the siblings are fine with foregoing their inheritance in order to support their addict half-sister that none of them really talk to or interact with in any way? The rest of the family is pretty normal, and not in danger of homelessness with or without an inheritance, but most of them are not so well off that few tens of thousands of dollars would be an easy thing for them to let go.
And I'm not even sure how this proposed plan would work out, logistically. Can the parents legally buy their daughter's home without an open competitive bid process, in which they might lose the house or bankrupt themselves to acquire it? What happens when the daughter fails to make payments, if anything? If the payments are based on below-market interest rate, they'll be depleting the inheritance for every kid, in order to support just one kid, and I'm pretty sure that is not their intention.
The whole situation is F'ed up. I consider myself lucky that my household doesn't struggle with debilitating health issues, addictions, or emotional problems. The whole MMM philosophy is great for well-adjusted people who can hold down a steady job and stay functional, but lots of people aren't so lucky. It's those marginal cases where the idea seems to break down. Some people are just destined to be poor, it seems, no matter how easy the FIRE math looks to the rest of us.
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 20, 2018, 10:17:07 AM
And I'm not even sure how this proposed plan would work out, logistically. Can the parents legally buy their daughter's home without an open competitive bid process, in which they might lose the house or bankrupt themselves to acquire it? What happens when the daughter fails to make payments, if anything? If the payments are based on below-market interest rate, they'll be depleting the inheritance for every kid, in order to support just one kid, and I'm pretty sure that is not their intention.
Unless you live in a weird market, house sales don't have to have competitive bid processes. They never have to be "on the market" to be eligible for sale. They don't have to sell at market rate even.
And while I get family drama, I think it is a mistake to think of parent's money as your inheritance until they are dead. They can spend it anyway they choose while they are alive, including supporting a black sheep member of the family. Heck her parents could decide the siblings are all solvent and all the money goes to addict-sister.
Sounds like a bit of a nightmare.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 20, 2018, 10:38:09 AM
There's no "right choice" when you're dealing with people that are wrong in the head. They just seem to cause pain and stress for the whole family, especially their parents.
I'm living with it on both sides of my family, have a sibling & a sibling-inlaw that have caused a lot of worry & stress for our parents, the other siblings, and grandchildren. Money just seems to complicate things because there isn't a fair way to give or withhold it.
It's really hard not blaming people with mental issues or addictions, but we don't blame people with cancer or who are victims of other things.
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 20, 2018, 10:51:47 AM
Unless you live in a weird market, house sales don't have to have competitive bid processes. They never have to be "on the market" to be eligible for sale. They don't have to sell at market rate even.
I don't know the answer to this, but there's got to be some tax/gift/inheritance issues if there is a transfer of the property at non-market rates. But hey, selling real estate at really inflated values to launder money is a thing that apparently many people and presidents get away with in this country, so maybe not! I know some mortgages are assumable, in which case that may not qualify as a sale and a taxable event.
Post by: talltexan on September 20, 2018, 11:26:31 AM
Figuring out a fair rent to charge the daughter is more difficult.
Deciding how to balance that help for that daughter against the rest of an estate decades from now is the hardest, but it's also a problem so far away that I cannot say it should be a worry right now.
Post by: talltexan on September 20, 2018, 11:27:04 AM
Post by: Sugaree on September 20, 2018, 01:23:53 PM
In the end, at least three different 20-something "caregivers" showed up at the funeral with a copy of the will that showed they got everything. His lawyer managed to come up with a copy that left almost everything to BIL. MIL got a few token dollars. DH got the gun that his GF used to shoot himself (hence the need for the above hazmat team).
Of course, BIL/SIL sold the house and the car and blew through that money in a few years. They've now asked for, and received, "advances" on their inheritance from MIL/FIL to move to Europe for a couple of years. Had a handful of kids that they couldn't afford. It's probably going to be pretty ugly when MIL/FIL go. MIL will either spend everything and leave nothing for anyone or will leave more to BIL under the guise of "he needs it more" (read: he is the goldenchild that continues to make bad decisions). FIL is afraid that BIL will sell the family farmland ASAP, and he's probably not wrong. So, he'll try to put impossible demands on us and make DH the executor of the estate. In either case, we'll end up having to go through 3 or 4 storage units of "antiques" or just let the units go.
Post by: markbike528CBX on September 20, 2018, 01:36:01 PM
Massive snip.........
In either case, we'll end up having to go through 3 or 4 storage units of "antiques" or just let the units go.
mmmm... is there some way that the storage people could take possession faster than: failng to pay the bill and having to wait some period of time before auction or other disposal?
Post by: sol on September 20, 2018, 03:17:03 PM
What if the parents own the house, and the rent from the daughter goes to the other children?
It's a complicated situation. The idea is for the daughter to "rent to own" so that she can continue to live in the house that currently owns, but cannot afford, without sending that money out of the family. Sending it to the other children directly would a) probably breed resentment on the part of the daughter, having to pay her siblings to live in her own house when her siblings didn't do a damn thing for her, and b) probably cause the other siblings to re-evaluate their financial expectations about their parents passing on, because it would effectively be kind of like getting your inheritance early. They would get "rent" now but then nothing upon their passing, and the unstable daughter would get a free house out of the deal.
I think it is a mistake to think of parent's money as your inheritance until they are dead.
I'm in favor of any remaining inheritances skipping at least one generation. Preferably, I would like to use my parent's unused money to pay for my grandchildren's college education. I don't want any money from my parents for myself, in part because I expect to be old and long-since retired by the time it might come my way, but I see value in using family wealth to help the next generation have a head start.
So if there's one person in the family who desperately needs financial support, even if that person is 55 years old and kind of a fuck-up, maybe that's kind of the same thing? The older generation gets to allocate their money wherever they think it will do the most good, and if they think it better to enable a drug-addicted adult (to keep her off the streets) rather than send a bright young kid to college (because that kid is going to college either way) then who am I to argue?
Post by: talltexan on September 21, 2018, 08:10:37 AM
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25. Less tax exposure. Back when families were bigger, it would have also meant dividing it into smaller pots, which is difficult for indivisible assets (like a house) and produces pots of money that are smaller, hence less life-changing. BUT, I'd argue that grandchildren are more likely to have significant choke points in their life (college, early child-raising expenses) where the money could make much more of a difference.
From the macro-perspective, I think it gets into all of these issues with estate tax, inherited wealth, and an aristocratic class that are best left to another thread.
Post by: sol on September 21, 2018, 09:24:26 AM
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
Yes, I agree that it would mean smaller pots of money if there are more grandkids than kids. That's part of the plan. Each grandkid would theoretically get two (smaller) grandparent inheritances earlier in life, though, instead of one (bigger) parental inheritance later in life.
Quote
From the macro-perspective, I think it gets into all of these issues with estate tax, inherited wealth, and an aristocratic class that are best left to another thread.
Conceptually I agree with you here, but my life is small. I'm talking about giving a bunch of 25 year olds $25k each to pay off college debt or buy their first house, not bequeathing them a trust fund that means they will never work a day in their lives. It's still a head start in life that perpetuates wealth inequality, but it's designed to lift people out of poverty and into the American middle class instead of building an impenetrable wall that separates the middle class from the wealthy elite.
Post by: Dicey on September 21, 2018, 10:12:49 AM
Could she get a roommate?
There is also the issue of maintaining the house. Who's going to pay for that?
The deal could be structured so that she continues to make mortgage payments until the loan is paid off. Atfer your parents eventually pass away, the payments would be distributed among the siblings, less her share, which she would presumably inherit.
Post by: financialfreedomsloth on September 21, 2018, 11:27:39 AM
It's a complicated situation. The idea is for the daughter to "rent to own" so that she can continue to live in the house that currently owns, but cannot afford, without sending that money out of the family. Sending it to the other children directly would a) probably breed resentment on the part of the daughter, having to pay her siblings to live in her own house when her siblings didn't do a damn thing for her, and b) probably cause the other siblings to re-evaluate their financial expectations about their parents passing on, because it would effectively be kind of like getting your inheritance early. They would get "rent" now but then nothing upon their passing, and the unstable daughter would get a free house out of the deal.it's not complicated at all; the parents are going to subsidize one daughter so she can maintain a lifestyle she can not afford. The parents hope this will be corrected with the inheritance when they die. This will not happen. When it is time for the inheritance there will be a lot of drama and the end result of all of it will be that the one daughter will have gotten a bigger share of the inheritance then the other siblings. The family will probably splinter because of this with siblings no longer speaking to each other.
It is their money and the parents can do with it whatever they want. But these will be the ultimate consequences if they chose this particular path. If they are fine with that, great. If not, they might better look for another solution.
Post by: AMandM on September 21, 2018, 12:33:27 PM
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.
Post by: mm1970 on September 21, 2018, 01:02:45 PM
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.
Hmm...I need to think about his a bit. Way above early in this thread, I mentioned my grandfather's widow. His will left $ to his children, but not until she died. And she was still kicking. She died at 98. I think 18 years after my grandfather died. In any event, as my mother and aunt pre-deceased her, their inheritance went to their children.
I suppose it matters how much $ we are talking about, also. I think I ended up with ... $15k? Can't remember. About that.
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 21, 2018, 01:30:55 PM
Yeah for whatever reason people are weird about housing, and it somehow doesn't count as a subsidy to which you're supposed to assign a dollar value.It's a complicated situation. The idea is for the daughter to "rent to own" so that she can continue to live in the house that currently owns, but cannot afford, without sending that money out of the family. Sending it to the other children directly would a) probably breed resentment on the part of the daughter, having to pay her siblings to live in her own house when her siblings didn't do a damn thing for her, and b) probably cause the other siblings to re-evaluate their financial expectations about their parents passing on, because it would effectively be kind of like getting your inheritance early. They would get "rent" now but then nothing upon their passing, and the unstable daughter would get a free house out of the deal.it's not complicated at all; the parents are going to subsidize one daughter so she can maintain a lifestyle she can not afford. The parents hope this will be corrected with the inheritance when they die. This will not happen. When it is time for the inheritance there will be a lot of drama and the end result of all of it will be that the one daughter will have gotten a bigger share of the inheritance then the other siblings. The family will probably splinter because of this with siblings no longer speaking to each other.
It is their money and the parents can do with it whatever they want. But these will be the ultimate consequences if they chose this particular path. If they are fine with that, great. If not, they might better look for another solution.
Post by: shelivesthedream on September 21, 2018, 01:34:40 PM
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.
Consider, though, that we're talking about a whole train of generations. So gen1 passes on to gen3 rather than gen2. Then gen 3 to gen 5, etc. So it looks like there's half as much probating and so on. But gen2 passes on to gen 4 who passes on to gen6... Any individual pot of money gets passed on half as often but the pot is effectively halved because it's split over two generational sequences.
Post by: talltexan on September 21, 2018, 01:55:30 PM
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 21, 2018, 01:59:38 PM
From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.
Consider, though, that we're talking about a whole train of generations. So gen1 passes on to gen3 rather than gen2. Then gen 3 to gen 5, etc. So it looks like there's half as much probating and so on. But gen2 passes on to gen 4 who passes on to gen6... Any individual pot of money gets passed on half as often but the pot is effectively halved because it's split over two generational sequences.
I think one also assumes though that the "family money" is large, and odd number generations are getting that- many millions. Whereas the individual money is smaller, maybe only a few hundred thousand.
People should remember they have no entitlement to an inheritance. Anything you get is a bonus. The owners of said money can blow it away however they want while alive, and will it all to their dog if they feel like it when they die.
Post by: iris lily on September 21, 2018, 06:28:27 PM
This is right on the money.It's a complicated situation. The idea is for the daughter to "rent to own" so that she can continue to live in the house that currently owns, but cannot afford, without sending that money out of the family. Sending it to the other children directly would a) probably breed resentment on the part of the daughter, having to pay her siblings to live in her own house when her siblings didn't do a damn thing for her, and b) probably cause the other siblings to re-evaluate their financial expectations about their parents passing on, because it would effectively be kind of like getting your inheritance early. They would get "rent" now but then nothing upon their passing, and the unstable daughter would get a free house out of the deal.it's not complicated at all; the parents are going to subsidize one daughter so she can maintain a lifestyle she can not afford. The parents hope this will be corrected with the inheritance when they die. This will not happen. When it is time for the inheritance there will be a lot of drama and the end result of all of it will be that the one daughter will have gotten a bigger share of the inheritance then the other siblings. The family will probably splinter because of this with siblings no longer speaking to each other.
It is their money and the parents can do with it whatever they want. But these will be the ultimate consequences if they chose this particular path. If they are fine with that, great. If not, they might better look for another solution.
Post by: plainjane on September 22, 2018, 04:26:54 AM
If assets go to grandchildren, the time interval between testator's death and heir's death is roughly twice as long as if the assets go to the testator's children.From the micro-perspective, leaving your estate to grand children ensures that assets go through probate every 50-60 years instead of every 25.
The transfers would happen every time a generation dies, regardless of who the inheritance goes to.
This is similar to what our lawyer recommended. I was trying to decide whether to give our estate to siblings or in trust for nieces and nephews. Since all the siblings are fine economically that just means they'd be taxed at a higher rate. So it is better to do the next generation who have lower income and assets.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 22, 2018, 08:55:13 AM
I think individual circumstances, like total amounts involved and the ages of the various generations have an impact on how these decisions "should" be made.
My grandparents lived to be quite old (mid 90's), and left everything to their 2 sons who were in their mid to late 70's. It was the standard simple way to pass their assets, but really didn't benefit anyone that was young enough to enjoy, or even handle the finances, at that point. Sadly, interest rates were so low dad just cashed the check & piled it all in a safe...it would have tripled if he'd known about VTSAX.
There's definitely a valid argument about not leaving it to those who are too young, but also to those that are too old. I doubt many wills & trusts are adequately engineered to deal with the ages of the beneficiaries, because it's just too complicated to deal with for most people.
Post by: sherr on September 22, 2018, 11:59:20 AM
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
Really? The TCJA doubled the exemptions from $5.5MM per taxpayer ($11MM per couple) to $11MM ($22MM per couple). Is estate tax really something that anyone on this forum would ever have to worry about?
Post by: shelivesthedream on September 22, 2018, 02:21:49 PM
Post by: Dicey on September 22, 2018, 04:51:02 PM
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.When my grandfather died in the late eighties, he gave my family $50k - $14k to my parents and $6k to each of the six kids. The rest of his estate was divided evenly among his three elderly sisters. I thought this was fantastic. Each grandkid got a boost (I added it to my DP fund and finally pulled the trigger on my first house). More importantly, he gave his sisters financial security in their old age. What an amazing legacy!
I think individual circumstances, like total amounts involved and the ages of the various generations have an impact on how these decisions "should" be made.
My grandparents lived to be quite old (mid 90's), and left everything to their 2 sons who were in their mid to late 70's. It was the standard simple way to pass their assets, but really didn't benefit anyone that was young enough to enjoy, or even handle the finances, at that point. Sadly, interest rates were so low dad just cashed the check & piled it all in a safe...it would have tripled if he'd known about VTSAX.
There's definitely a valid argument about not leaving it to those who are too young, but also to those that are too old. I doubt many wills & trusts are adequately engineered to deal with the ages of the beneficiaries, because it's just too complicated to deal with for most people.
ADD: That would be $105k in inflation adjusted dollars. Still a nice gift.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 22, 2018, 05:21:24 PM
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
Really? The TCJA doubled the exemptions from $5.5MM per taxpayer ($11MM per couple) to $11MM ($22MM per couple). Is estate tax really something that anyone on this forum would ever have to worry about?
Farmers? They are usually land rich and cash poor.
Post by: SwordGuy on September 22, 2018, 08:29:54 PM
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
Really? The TCJA doubled the exemptions from $5.5MM per taxpayer ($11MM per couple) to $11MM ($22MM per couple). Is estate tax really something that anyone on this forum would ever have to worry about?
Farmers? They are usually land rich and cash poor.
Then don't include actively farmed land in the estate tax and include everyone else.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 22, 2018, 10:06:16 PM
I'm not a Trump fan, but it is nice that the estate tax threshold has been raised. No state estate tax here either.
Really? The TCJA doubled the exemptions from $5.5MM per taxpayer ($11MM per couple) to $11MM ($22MM per couple). Is estate tax really something that anyone on this forum would ever have to worry about?
Just because the majority of the members on this forum are trying to retire young doen't mean all of our parents and/or grandparents understood the concept. It seems that a lot of people who build businesses enjoy "being the boss" and enjoy watching the money flow in. Instead of saving 70% of their salaries and investing it in index funds they invested in their own companies. Their investments often beat the S&P 500 each and every year (but it wasn't passive). When you hear stories about successful companies you only hear about the ones that got big, but there are millions of companies that are very successful that never even wanted to grow beyond a handful of employees and a single location. The owner made plenty for himself and didn't want the headaches of going after more. I've met plenty of small business owners that told me that they were happier and made more money when they had fewer employees.
Think about high earners that continue(d) to work into their 60's or 70's. Look how long this bull market has run. $5M in VTSAX since 2009 would probably be $15-20M now.
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 23, 2018, 11:55:53 AM
Members of Congress know this, they either avoid the tax themselves or have friends who do. Nevertheless, it's used as a political signal by the right (we're with farmers!) and the left (down with the rich!) alike because it gets the non-decamillionaires riled up.
Post by: Goldielocks on September 23, 2018, 06:52:31 PM
You are deemed to dispose of property at Fair Market Value when you die, and your estate pays any taxes due before your heirs get the remainder. Your heirs then inherit at the current FMV, reducing their tax burden when they sell. If the property (e.g., a cottage) is transferred and not sold, then taxes are paid from the remainder of the estate.
Exceptions:
Rolling over registered retirement investments or joint property to your spouse.
Farm property to family (son/ grandchildren)
Fish Property to family (family fishing boat and licensing).
Income attribution rules apply to gifts made to spouse / minor children while you are living.
It is a very clean system that allows the government to get any capital gains taxes before too many decades pass, and allows the heirs a clean ownership of the asset, and especially avoids any arbitrary estate tax.
Loopholes are reduced, although incoporation and company trusts are still options for loopholes, they are also taxed eventually in other ways.
Post by: Catbert on September 27, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
I don't know what it's like overseas (and am not sure I understand it here!) but my parents are in their sixties and diligently over-saved before retiring. I believe they are planning to write something like a writ of disbursement so that when my grandmother dies, their portion of the inheritance passes straight to me and my brother. As I understand it, that means that for tax purposes it's as if my grandmother willed it straight to us. They don't need the money and we're in our twenties so even if it's all spent way down on end of life care, even a few thousand would make a difference to our lives while my parents wouldn't even notice it. Assuming the age situation is similar when my parents go, I would probably do the same.
You can do that here in the US also although I *think* the disclaimer doesn't get to pick who it goes to. It goes to whomever the original person designated as a backup. As a practical matter generally if the parents disclaimed their children would be the back up.
Post by: PhilB on September 30, 2018, 03:48:29 AM
My brother and SIL live nearby and do a huge amount for them - including doing up the old house to get it fit to sell / rent. I feel guilty that we aren't able to do anything much for them as we live 3 hours away and have young kids. We are also much better off than they are and are FIREing in less than 4 weeks. I said of course he should give the house to SIL as they totally deserve it. After the call ended my wife made me contact him again to make sure he knew that she was completely happy with it too. My only problem now is feeling guilty about the fact that I feel I can now use this as an excuse to stop feeling so guilty..,
Post by: Dicey on September 30, 2018, 08:40:16 AM
Post by: iris lily on September 30, 2018, 09:49:03 AM
Post by: okits on September 30, 2018, 06:55:59 PM
Good for you and your wife, recognizing the value of the caregiving done by your brother and SIL. And congratulations on your upcoming FIRE!
Post by: PhilB on October 02, 2018, 03:41:05 AM
PhilB is a prince amoung men!Aw shucks...
@okits -I do indeed intend to visit much more often post FIRE.
Post by: Sugaree on October 13, 2018, 02:18:07 PM
Post by: ditheca on October 15, 2018, 12:48:07 AM
We had a screaming blowout this morning about how even if it gets sent back here that she'll turn it over to my uncle.
Stealing from family doesn't make it legal.
Mother sold my Nintendo and all the games while I was away at college. Still bitter. Did not file a police report :)
Post by: talltexan on October 15, 2018, 07:14:25 AM
I wouldn't mind having some of that stuff! :-)
Post by: saguaro on October 15, 2018, 09:29:16 AM
I got one for you. When my grandmother died 15-ish years ago, the only thing I inherited was a ring. I'm not really a jewelry type of girl, especially yellow gold, but I've loved this one since I was a kid. When I divorced my first husband I gave it to my parents to put in their safe deposit box. Apparently, sometime last week my uncle called my mom and told her that ring belonged to his late second wife and my grandmother had it to keep the third wife from getting it. It's worth noting that he and the third wife didn't split up until after my grandparents were both gone. I suspect that he eants to give it to wife-to-be #4 as an engagement ring. Well, he said jump and my mom asked how high. She shipped it off without saying a word to me. I probably wouldn't have found out until I asked for it back except that she shipped it into the middle of a damn hurricane. It's now "lost" and she can't find the tracking number. We had a screaming blowout this morning about how even if it gets sent back here that she'll turn it over to my uncle. Fun times.
Wow, that really sucks that you trusted your parents to keep it for you and then your mom caves in to your uncle.
Might be cold comfort, but if the ring doesn't turn up then uncle is out of luck in getting his "engagement" ring. Seems sort of karmic considering the tale he spun to your mom. Like the universe decided, (almost literally since there was a hurricane) that if you weren't going to get the ring then no one would Still, it's the one thing you really wanted from your grandmother and it hurts not to get it, whatever it's fate - uncle or lost in shipping.
My younger sister is going through something like this. She entrusted middle sister, who is the executor of my parents' estate and the one mentioned above thread over delaying the house cleanout and sale, with two figurines that middle sister was going to send. Parents okayed her getting one of them prior to their deaths. Seems the figurines have suddenly "disappeared" probably somewhere in middle sister's home but younger sister can't get a straight answer on the sudden disappearance. Turns out there's been some issues / drama (long story and I am staying out of it) between the two sisters, that looks to be behind this. But younger sister really wants those two items, it's the only two things she wants, she doesn't care about anything else so she's pretty upset that they are unaccounted for.
Post by: talltexan on October 17, 2018, 11:37:43 AM
Post by: Sugaree on October 17, 2018, 12:23:13 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on October 17, 2018, 04:34:32 PM
I got one for you. When my grandmother died 15-ish years ago, the only thing I inherited was a ring. I'm not really a jewelry type of girl, especially yellow gold, but I've loved this one since I was a kid. When I divorced my first husband I gave it to my parents to put in their safe deposit box. Apparently, sometime last week my uncle called my mom and told her that ring belonged to his late second wife and my grandmother had it to keep the third wife from getting it. It's worth noting that he and the third wife didn't split up until after my grandparents were both gone. I suspect that he eants to give it to wife-to-be #4 as an engagement ring. Well, he said jump and my mom asked how high. She shipped it off without saying a word to me. I probably wouldn't have found out until I asked for it back except that she shipped it into the middle of a damn hurricane. It's now "lost" and she can't find the tracking number. We had a screaming blowout this morning about how even if it gets sent back here that she'll turn it over to my uncle. Fun times.
You think that's bad?
My dad went into the hospital. While he was there my mom took his cat to the vet and had it killed.
She did not enjoy the conversation when she told me what she had done.
Post by: rpr on October 17, 2018, 05:26:56 PM
You think that's bad?
My dad went into the hospital. While he was there my mom took his cat to the vet and had it killed.
She did not enjoy the conversation when she told me what she had done.
Just, wow !!! And so :(
Post by: Sugaree on October 17, 2018, 06:11:12 PM
Post by: saguaro on October 17, 2018, 09:28:44 PM
I realize you're leaving a lot out, but the inability to compromise or accept anything in place of those two very special figures is a sign of someone who's causing drama rather than seeking to preserve the family through it.
Summary on this was youngest sister asked for them and we all agreed she should have them. Middle sister promised to send them to her. A conflict developed between them that was not related to estate matters, it was in fact dealing with a personal situation that youngest sister was going through, which is all I can say about that. After this conflict developed, the figurines have disappeared and middle sister claims to not know where they are, which is doubtful given the timing. So a matter of being promised something and no follow through by the person who was going to send it. Youngest sister is hurt by this and rightfully so.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 17, 2018, 09:53:51 PM
That is absolutely scorched earth divorce worthy behavior. You don't mess with my animals.
Indeed. Last time something messed with my chickens, I turned into John Wick with tits. As in, I got out a jo staff and went medieval.
I can't imagine what I'd do to anyone who threatened my Venomous Spaz Beast. It wouldn't be pretty.
Post by: sherr on October 18, 2018, 06:46:38 AM
You think that's bad?
My dad went into the hospital. While he was there my mom took his cat to the vet and had it killed.
She did not enjoy the conversation when she told me what she had done.
Just, wow !!! And so :(
Yeah no kidding, that would be an instant "get out of my life forever, Mom" conversation if it happened to me. The amount of abject cruelty on display, both to the dad and the cat, cannot be excused no matter what the context of the situation was.
Post by: talltexan on October 18, 2018, 07:21:07 AM
Post by: TomTX on October 20, 2018, 11:31:17 AM
That is absolutely scorched earth divorce worthy behavior. You don't mess with my animals.
Indeed. Last time something messed with my chickens, I turned into John Wick with tits. As in, I got out a jo staff and went medieval.
I can't imagine what I'd do to anyone who threatened my Venomous Spaz Beast. It wouldn't be pretty.
I'd pay to see that movie.
Post by: ender on October 20, 2018, 02:46:39 PM
Just because the majority of the members on this forum are trying to retire young doen't mean all of our parents and/or grandparents understood the concept. It seems that a lot of people who build businesses enjoy "being the boss" and enjoy watching the money flow in. Instead of saving 70% of their salaries and investing it in index funds they invested in their own companies. Their investments often beat the S&P 500 each and every year (but it wasn't passive). When you hear stories about successful companies you only hear about the ones that got big, but there are millions of companies that are very successful that never even wanted to grow beyond a handful of employees and a single location. The owner made plenty for himself and didn't want the headaches of going after more. I've met plenty of small business owners that told me that they were happier and made more money when they had fewer employees.
Yup. We on this forum sometimes forget it's reasonably common for people to be really old and have huge sums of money (as compared with 40 and retired). I have extended family like this, all of them are in their 80s and all of them were wildly successful businessmen for nearly 50 years.
I can't imagine the drama that might happen in their families whenever they die. I can only imagine the possibilities for drama...
Post by: onlykelsey on October 22, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
Woman was anticipating bankruptcy proceedings due to a bad business deal. She became aware that MIL was planning to leave her a decent sum of money, and didn't want to lose potential inheritance (which wasn't enough to keep the business deal from imploding) to the bank, so MIL's will was rewritten to leave the money to the grown grandkids, instead, with the unwritten agreement that the money would be gifted to their mother after bankruptcy to help her get back on her feet (she did lose most of her assets, including her house). Indeed, MIL ended up passing in the midst of the bankruptcy, but the inheritance went safely to the grandkids instead of being hoovered up by the bank.
Two of the four kids reneged on the deal, and spent the money frivolously while their mother suffered financial and personal hardship. Mother subsequently has regained her footing, at least somewhat, and plans to make up the difference in her own will. Of course, that's without regard to inflation or lost opportunity cost over a period of decades (at least, I hope so), so the selfish kids come out ahead financially in either case.
I mean, I guess the kids are selfish, but I read the first paragraph assuming you were calling out the mother. What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 22, 2018, 02:41:38 PM
Woman was anticipating bankruptcy proceedings due to a bad business deal. She became aware that MIL was planning to leave her a decent sum of money, and didn't want to lose potential inheritance (which wasn't enough to keep the business deal from imploding) to the bank, so MIL's will was rewritten to leave the money to the grown grandkids, instead, with the unwritten agreement that the money would be gifted to their mother after bankruptcy to help her get back on her feet (she did lose most of her assets, including her house). Indeed, MIL ended up passing in the midst of the bankruptcy, but the inheritance went safely to the grandkids instead of being hoovered up by the bank.
Two of the four kids reneged on the deal, and spent the money frivolously while their mother suffered financial and personal hardship. Mother subsequently has regained her footing, at least somewhat, and plans to make up the difference in her own will. Of course, that's without regard to inflation or lost opportunity cost over a period of decades (at least, I hope so), so the selfish kids come out ahead financially in either case.
I mean, I guess the kids are selfish, but I read the first paragraph assuming you were calling out the mother. What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.
Any form of transferring assets to someone else to avoid a creditor is fraudulent. However, depending on location, the MIL could have put the inheritance out of reach of her daughter's creditors by using an irrevocable protection trust, a family trust, or several other means.
There's a fantastic book called "Beyond The Grave" that I'm using to ensure I provide for the VSB after my eventual demise. It's written by an estate lawyer who knows what he's talking about. Every single estate planning strategy has an up-side and a down-side.
Post by: Arbitrage on October 22, 2018, 04:55:32 PM
Post by: barbaz on October 23, 2018, 01:27:23 PM
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
Post by: Prairie Stash on October 23, 2018, 02:14:06 PM
Is the bar so low now that illegal activities are okay?What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
The point of throwing additional money is that she declared bankruptcy and had the means of making it right to the people that trusted her. Personally I think its fitting her kids kept the money, its learned behavior from bad parenting. Why would they give her money when she is unwilling to give money to people she owes?
Post by: sol on October 23, 2018, 03:00:03 PM
Why would they give her money when she is unwilling to give money to people she owes?
I thought that was the ironic point of the story. Like man who finally leaves his wife only to find out that his girlfriend is secretly married and won't leave her husband, or the drunk who starts a bar fight and then gets his ass beat. Let them reap what they sow.
Post by: former player on October 23, 2018, 03:13:00 PM
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 23, 2018, 04:00:56 PM
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.I'm having the same trouble squaring that circle as well. I have no issue with discussing the moral angle, but I fail to see how it's illegal. If I stated my intention to donate money to a charity, and then found out that they were about to enter bankruptcy, would it also be illegal to change my mind and not donate to them?
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on October 23, 2018, 07:50:48 PM
Post by: Villanelle on October 24, 2018, 01:58:48 AM
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
It's illegal because the will was changed entirely to avoid having that money available to creditors and yet the inheritance to the kids wasn't supposed to be real because they were supposed to funnel it back to mom. They were expected to hold the money while mom's bankruptcy was finalized, then give it back, basically hiding it from creditors and the bankruptcy courts. It would be like a man having a friend hide his collection of fancy watches or a woman hide expensive jewels during divorce proceedings, then getting them back when they were no longer subject to community property divisions. The point is to mislead and hide assets, and thus it is fraudulent.
Changing the will to leave money to the kids instead of the mom isn't illegal. Doing to for the purposes of hiding the money from courts and creditors, and with the expectation that it be returned when the danger of having it seized was over, almost certainly is illegal. The money was still supposed to go to mom, just in a way that hid it from creditors.
Post by: talltexan on October 24, 2018, 07:49:32 AM
If it were the Federal Gov't, and the assets were being hidden so that mother could qualify for medicaid, you can bet they'd bring some serious fury on her.
Post by: onlykelsey on October 24, 2018, 08:19:56 AM
Yeah, it sounds like constructive fraud to me, even if she did straight Chapter 7 bankruptcy.What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
It's illegal because the will was changed entirely to avoid having that money available to creditors and yet the inheritance to the kids wasn't supposed to be real because they were supposed to funnel it back to mom. They were expected to hold the money while mom's bankruptcy was finalized, then give it back, basically hiding it from creditors and the bankruptcy courts. It would be like a man having a friend hide his collection of fancy watches or a woman hide expensive jewels during divorce proceedings, then getting them back when they were no longer subject to community property divisions. The point is to mislead and hide assets, and thus it is fraudulent.
Changing the will to leave money to the kids instead of the mom isn't illegal. Doing to for the purposes of hiding the money from courts and creditors, and with the expectation that it be returned when the danger of having it seized was over, almost certainly is illegal. The money was still supposed to go to mom, just in a way that hid it from creditors.
Post by: Sugaree on October 24, 2018, 08:26:42 AM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 24, 2018, 11:29:59 AM
If she were hiding her own assets then I could see how that was fraud. Since the money was never legally hers, I don't see how this is fraud. I know of a situation right now where a guy is being charged criminally with causing the death of someone during the commission of another crime. The family is likely to sue him civilly as well. He has no money of his own, but comes from a well-off family. His family's wills have now been changed to pass any share of his parents' estates to his kids rather than to him, essentially making him judgement proof. I don't see how this is any different.
The mom isn't the one committing the fraud single-handedly. It's a joint decision between the grandma, the mom, and the participating kids.
In the case of the guy with criminal charges, they aren't making *him* judgement-proof, because the courts can award pretty much anything they choose. However the *family money* is being protected from at least some of the consequences of his stupid behavior... yet the parents had better cover their rumps well if they plan to leave him less or nothing, because it's fairly common for heirs who are passed over to lawyer up and sue the other heirs after the fact.
Post by: former player on October 24, 2018, 11:57:35 AM
What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
It's illegal because the will was changed entirely to avoid having that money available to creditors and yet the inheritance to the kids wasn't supposed to be real because they were supposed to funnel it back to mom. They were expected to hold the money while mom's bankruptcy was finalized, then give it back, basically hiding it from creditors and the bankruptcy courts. It would be like a man having a friend hide his collection of fancy watches or a woman hide expensive jewels during divorce proceedings, then getting them back when they were no longer subject to community property divisions. The point is to mislead and hide assets, and thus it is fraudulent.
Changing the will to leave money to the kids instead of the mom isn't illegal. Doing to for the purposes of hiding the money from courts and creditors, and with the expectation that it be returned when the danger of having it seized was over, almost certainly is illegal. The money was still supposed to go to mom, just in a way that hid it from creditors.
Right. But a person administering a bankruptcy only has the right to assets of the bankrupt, and the mother's money was never an asset of the bankrupt at any point. So how was there any right at any time for the person administering the bankrupt to stop the mother from doing whatever she wanted to? If there had been a formal trust in the will for the benefit of the bankrupt then as soon as the mother died there would have been an asset to go into the bankruptcy. But if it was only an informal set of wishes that the grandchildren should pass the money back to the mother not amounting to anything which was a legal trust, surely not. And given that two of the grandchildren ignored the wishes and took the money, it does seem that it was just a wish, not a legally enforceable trust that the bankruptcy administrator could have got their hands on.
Post by: onlykelsey on October 24, 2018, 12:04:51 PM
I think you're right that it isn't actual fraud under 541(a) because of the definition of "property" to include rights to inheritance within 180 days after filing and the mom didn't die here. It still seems like there'd be a constructive fraud case here. To get federal benefits they would definitely be looking at this.What she and the MIL did was fraudulent... and while I'm glad bankruptcy exists for people who genuinely need it, I don't applaud what the mother and MIL did here. I bet the courts don't, either.Illegal, sure, but what is the point of throwing additional family money into the pit? The lenders calculated the defaulting risks and adjusted the interest accordingly, so unless the women advertised the inheritance as some sort of security, no one was betrayed here.
How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
It's illegal because the will was changed entirely to avoid having that money available to creditors and yet the inheritance to the kids wasn't supposed to be real because they were supposed to funnel it back to mom. They were expected to hold the money while mom's bankruptcy was finalized, then give it back, basically hiding it from creditors and the bankruptcy courts. It would be like a man having a friend hide his collection of fancy watches or a woman hide expensive jewels during divorce proceedings, then getting them back when they were no longer subject to community property divisions. The point is to mislead and hide assets, and thus it is fraudulent.
Changing the will to leave money to the kids instead of the mom isn't illegal. Doing to for the purposes of hiding the money from courts and creditors, and with the expectation that it be returned when the danger of having it seized was over, almost certainly is illegal. The money was still supposed to go to mom, just in a way that hid it from creditors.
Right. But a person administering a bankruptcy only has the right to assets of the bankrupt, and the mother's money was never an asset of the bankrupt at any point. So how was there any right at any time for the person administering the bankrupt to stop the mother from doing whatever she wanted to? If there had been a formal trust in the will for the benefit of the bankrupt then as soon as the mother died there would have been an asset to go into the bankruptcy. But if it was only an informal set of wishes that the grandchildren should pass the money back to the mother not amounting to anything which was a legal trust, surely not. And given that two of the grandchildren ignored the wishes and took the money, it does seem that it was just a wish, not a legally enforceable trust that the bankruptcy administrator could have got their hands on.
Regardless, it's sort of schadenfreude, but I feel like the mom sort of got what she deserved when kids refused to participate in her ploy, even if it was ultimately for their own gain.
Post by: Prairie Stash on October 24, 2018, 05:16:03 PM
Conspiracy is generally illegal. Any time you ned to keep something secret in order to get an advantage over a third party, you probably are breaking the law. Do you think this lady is the smartest woman ever and invented a new way to hide assets? Everything was legal up to the point where there was an agreement that the money was to be returned to the mom. As soon as that agreement was made, it was a conspiracy and gets dodgy.How is it illegal? My reading of the story is that the woman's mother changed her will of her own accord so as not to leave any money to her. Anyone can change their will at any time. There is no "right to inherit" until someone dies - there is no prospective right to an inheritance which can be enforced in court, for instance to stop someone changing their will. Is their? So if the woman never had a right to her mother's money, how could her debtors have any right to it? And if the debtors had no rights, there can be no fraud.I'm having the same trouble squaring that circle as well. I have no issue with discussing the moral angle, but I fail to see how it's illegal. If I stated my intention to donate money to a charity, and then found out that they were about to enter bankruptcy, would it also be illegal to change my mind and not donate to them?
If the woman had the money and gave it away, sure. Or if her mother had already died and the woman refused the inheritance she was due under the will, also legally not on, under bankruptcy laws. But someone's parent choosing to change their will before they died? I don't see the legal problem.
Laws are simple, if you think you're being clever, theres a law somewhere that will come out and smack you. There is a golden rule that underlies most laws; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The USA has a lot of laws that you don't need to be aware of; you just need to treat people honestly.
Flip the scenario around; what if you were the creditor and found out about all these agreements that were designed to screw you? Would you take it lying down or want your money? I would feel screwed and be angry if someone tried this on me.
Maybe I'm wrong and there isn't a law, thats what Civil court is for. That's a catch all for dodgy acts, you can be perfectly legal and still lose.
Post by: sol on October 24, 2018, 06:46:56 PM
The USA has a lot of laws that you don't need to be aware of; you just need to treat people honestly.
You will make a TERRIBLE rich person.
The whole point of being rich is to find ways to shield your money. Rich people use a million different schemes of questionable legality, knowing it is dishonest to do so. Look at Donald Trump's businesses, for example; that guy has always been shady as shit and yet he is, just barely, on the right side of the law. Defrauding your creditors doesn't even rise the level of a violation, in that world, it's almost assumed.
Rich people own assets through corporations, and then own other corporations to pay themselves through their original corporations. They hire their children and distribute income to tax-advantaged accounts. They take out loans of other people's money and then declare the interest as losses against their personal income even though the payments are made with other people's money. All of their travel is tax deductible. All of their properties are owned through intermediary trusts designed to shield them from litigation. This is what being rich means, it means finding just-barely-legal ways to constantly get more and more rich. Do unto others? They only do unto themselves, screw everyone else.
Careful estate planning to avoid losing assets to a bankruptcy court is just normal business for rich families. Their accountant would be negligent NOT to advise them to change the will to shield these assets. If I was their accountant, I would probably go a step farther and suggest swapping business asset ownership to concentrate as many failing books as possible in the possession of the one person who is going through bankruptcy. Might as well offload your losers and salvage the winners that would otherwise be used to pay her creditors, right? The Trumps certainly do it, and if it's good enough for the pussy grabber in chief, isn't it good enough for us little guys? Romney did it. The Bushes and Clintons both did it. I expect the Obamas will do it in the future, now that they are finally getting rich.
It's all warm and fuzzy to have ideals, but capitalism thrives on natural selection. People who learn to most effectively bend the rules are the ones who get the richest. People who follow all the rules never thrive quite as well, and are eventually left behind.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on October 24, 2018, 09:14:39 PM
My granddad used to say "It's a lot easier to make money than it is to keep it.".
Post by: Villanelle on October 25, 2018, 12:49:20 AM
If she were hiding her own assets then I could see how that was fraud. Since the money was never legally hers, I don't see how this is fraud. I know of a situation right now where a guy is being charged criminally with causing the death of someone during the commission of another crime. The family is likely to sue him civilly as well. He has no money of his own, but comes from a well-off family. His family's wills have now been changed to pass any share of his parents' estates to his kids rather than to him, essentially making him judgement proof. I don't see how this is any different.
And if the true intention is for the kids to have and keep the money, then yes, there is no fraud. But that's where your example and that situation are different. In the original situation, the money never was truly for the kids. It was for the mom, but the kids were supposed to hold it until the danger was over, then give it back to the mom.
To go back to my example, it's not illegal for my bet friend to gift me all of her jewels. It is probably illegal for him to give them to me to stash in my jewelry draw and say they are mine, until her divorce is settled (and her husband can't take 50% of them) and then give them back to her.
Post by: former player on October 25, 2018, 02:28:42 AM
If she were hiding her own assets then I could see how that was fraud. Since the money was never legally hers, I don't see how this is fraud. I know of a situation right now where a guy is being charged criminally with causing the death of someone during the commission of another crime. The family is likely to sue him civilly as well. He has no money of his own, but comes from a well-off family. His family's wills have now been changed to pass any share of his parents' estates to his kids rather than to him, essentially making him judgement proof. I don't see how this is any different.
And if the true intention is for the kids to have and keep the money, then yes, there is no fraud. But that's where your example and that situation are different. In the original situation, the money never was truly for the kids. It was for the mom, but the kids were supposed to hold it until the danger was over, then give it back to the mom.
To go back to my example, it's not illegal for my bet friend to gift me all of her jewels. It is probably illegal for him to give them to me to stash in my jewelry draw and say they are mine, until her divorce is settled (and her husband can't take 50% of them) and then give them back to her.
The difference in your example is that the jewels belonged to the bankrupt friend and were never legally given to you, so yes, clearly still assets in the bankruptcy and fraudulent behaviour on both your parts.
In the example case, the mother never had any legal right to the assets - if she had, the two kids couldn't have kept and spent the money. If the mother had a legal interest in the assets and the children had a legal obligation to hand them over after the bankruptcy, again fraud. It's the mother's lack of any legal interest under the grandmother's will that makes the difference - the bankruptcy administrator can't collect on family feelings and presumed "good" family behaviour.
I am, for once and probably once only, with the spendypants grandkids on this one - except that I would have preferred them to invest the money in index funds or property, obviously.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on October 25, 2018, 06:20:38 AM
Our "collective hourly fees" have likely surpassed the value of granny's estate. <grin>
Post by: talltexan on October 25, 2018, 08:07:43 AM
My 71-yo mother just informed me that her uncle has modified his will specifically to exclude three biological children and make her a beneficiary. She characterized it as a $90,000 estate, which really won't move the needle for my own parents wrt retirement planning. But there are ample stories on this thread of people behaving ridiculously over smaller sums of money than that.
Post by: Prairie Stash on October 25, 2018, 09:15:30 AM
Thank you, its a nice compliment to be a terrible rich person in todays world. (it really is a nice thing to say).The USA has a lot of laws that you don't need to be aware of; you just need to treat people honestly.
You will make a TERRIBLE rich person.
I will also not worry about jail time, lawsuits or being reviled by half the world. I don't aspire to be the pussy grabber in chief of the USA, history will not remember me but at least it won't remember a moniker so repulsive. Heck, I even wonder how much richer Trump would be if people trusted him and he was honest? There's a lot of indicators that he would have been even more sucessful if he was a better person, if he was a nice guy I bet he'd get a second term and his kids would be president too. I thik his biggest impediment to the repeat is himself, usually its the policies, which no one seems to even notice in the twitter verse.
I somewhat disagree though, lots of rich people are also nice. The problem is that we don't discuss the good guys, only the bad ones. How did Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Bernard Arnault and Mark Zuckerberg (pulled from wiki) cheat their way to the 2018 top 5 list of Forbes richest? Its probably harder being honest, but it doesn't mean its impossible to do it. Are my examples flawed? Most likely, but I don't keep a list of nice rich people handy. I'll toss Sol on my list of nice rich people though, I'm quite certain I could hand him my wallet full of cash and he would return it a week later, untouched.
Its your country though, all we can do is encourage each other to be what we desire. If the legal courts don't work I encourage the public court to come down on these people. Condoning poor behaviour as an acceptable action because its legal is lending your support to the behaviour. Once society accepts its okay to conspire as long as you come out ahead and we devolve to discussing if its legal, we can all enjoy the race to the bottom.
I still think its conspiracy to commit fraud though. The actions of two children appear to be an attempt to circumvent bankruptcy rules. The court would have to decide if it was premeditated actions (including mother and grandmother) or a gift to get her back on her feet. If there was an agreement in place the difficulty is in proving that she had an "interest" in the money, that there was an agreement. Before a bankruptcy can be discharged all interests must be disclosed, otherwise it can be reopened. Is it worth the effort? Not very likely. There is a rule about suing people, never sue poor people, even if the bank wins she wouldn't have any assets to settle with so its just an academic question. You can 100% win a court case and still lose on the collections. I'm faced with that prospect right now, I'm owed a very small sum by a broke person, even if I win I won't see any money.
Post by: 87tweetybirds on October 30, 2018, 06:55:53 AM
My great-grandfather(GGpa) was a farmer, he owned approximately 160 acres. My grandfather(his son Gpa A) and great uncle (Uncle S) both worked with him for a while, but both had families, and GGpa didn't pay them anything to work with him. Gpa A made barely enough money on the side trapping (this is 1950s, 60s) during the winter to get by, but uncle S and his wife were unhappy with this arrangement (no blaming them there) and much to GGpa's disappointment decided to move 3 hours away and buy their own farm. Gpa A stayed, and as GGPa got older took over the actual running of the farm, and care of GGpa. When GGpa died he left the farm to Gpa A. Gpa A found it to be unjust and offered part of the farm to Uncle S. Unlce S, apparently a pretty good guy, declined saying Gpa A was the one who was farming it, and to split it would make it very difficult for Gpa A to farm it.
Year later, after all but 20 acres was locked into an LLC that was the official farm owned by Gpa A, and his 2 sons, Uncle S died. Land in this area had become quite valuable, and one of Uncle S's son's asked Gpa A for the land he had offered Uncle S years ago. Gpa A told him he couldn't give him what he'd offered uncle S, but if he'd like to build a home on part of the 20 acres (set up to be the inheritance of Gpa A's 5 children) he'd give him 2 acres. Cousin accepted and instead of building on the land like he had led Gpa A to believe promptly sold the land to a gentleman who had been lusting after the property for a while.
Gpa A was very disappointed, property developer was disappointed as he for some reason thought that having 2 acres would give him inroads to owing the rest of the property, and because he didn't want to just build a home on it, the land still sits there, growing weeds while the adjacent acres are farmed.
However, I think in-part because of this story when Gma A died(6 years after Gpa A) there wasn't fighting over possessions, in fact 6 years after Gma A's death the estate is still in process of being divided (no one really wants to sell it to developers, one sibling has a spend thrift spouse with Alzheimers and is hoping to keep the inheritance out of his hands, the other had health issues and assistance would have been withdrawn had they had the $, etc). Fairly recently one of the siblings passed away, and his part of the inheritance will be divided as his will dictates. He had a share in the LLC, and the other 2 partners a few months before had agreed to buy him out in installments, and that agreement still holds with his heirs. And the belongings in the house were divided among the siblings, grandchildren and great grandchildren little at a time. I wasn't able to be there when she passed or come back for the funeral and wasn't able to make it back for a little over 6 months afterwards. My mother (her daughter in law) was still g on trying to get all the children and grandchildren to take what they wanted from the house, to be able to clean it out and prepare it for rental.
Post by: Freedomin5 on November 08, 2018, 03:30:53 AM
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
Post by: Dicey on November 08, 2018, 07:01:14 AM
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.Totally worth it, IMO. Yay for family harmony.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on November 08, 2018, 07:06:39 AM
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
But they could buy $8000 worth of lottery tickets and win the Megga Million! :)
Post by: radram on November 08, 2018, 07:12:01 AM
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.Totally worth it, IMO. Yay for family harmony.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
Great story, but please reconsider. Instead, choose a non-profit your grandpa would have respected and transfer it to them.
Think of it this way. How many hours did your grandpa work to get that money? Isn't it worth a few more hours to turn that hard work into something your grandfather would have found to be worth his time?
Buy some playground equipment and install it in a nearby park. Every time you walk by, you will have great memories of your grandfather. Just 1 idea.
Post by: Goldielocks on November 08, 2018, 10:26:00 AM
It appears that the government contacted her when her cousin died without a will. They assigned a government person to clear the estate / debts, final tax return and pay funeral expenses. They want her to locate the heirs / relatives to help with dispersal of the estate.
The problem is that there is one younger brother, who moved to the US from Canada around the age of 22 when their dad died in 1977. The mom also passed in 2003. The brother had not been heard from by any other family since he moved to the USA.
Given a not-too common name for someone we estimated as age 65, I think I found him. AND, I found evidence that the mom was one of 21 brothers and sisters. OMG. There are likely over 50 first cousins out there... just on the maternal side, plus more on the paternal side (I could only find evidence of the father, who I think was born in another country, but nothing on the father's family).
The estate has about $30k in it, she thinks, maybe more.
My friend is trying to get ahold of the person I found, although any listed numbers are now old and out of service. She has no intention of doing anything more than trying to find the brother to let him know his sister died and how to claim any funds. I suggested the next step was to send a letter to each of the last 3 known addresses, and be done with it. (It may not be him after all).
If she can't find the brother, she will just let the remaining $30k+ go to the government.
Post by: partgypsy on November 08, 2018, 02:08:27 PM
Post by: charis on November 08, 2018, 02:55:22 PM
Ooh, I have one. I was contacted by an acquaintance that heard I was good at finding people (through Ancestry website, and on line searches).
It appears that the government contacted her when her cousin died without a will. They assigned a government person to clear the estate / debts, final tax return and pay funeral expenses. They want her to locate the heirs / relatives to help with dispersal of the estate.
The problem is that there is one younger brother, who moved to the US from Canada around the age of 22 when their dad died in 1977. The mom also passed in 2003. The brother had not been heard from by any other family since he moved to the USA.
Given a not-too common name for someone we estimated as age 65, I think I found him. AND, I found evidence that the mom was one of 21 brothers and sisters. OMG. There are likely over 50 first cousins out there... just on the maternal side, plus more on the paternal side (I could only find evidence of the father, who I think was born in another country, but nothing on the father's family).
The estate has about $30k in it, she thinks, maybe more.
My friend is trying to get ahold of the person I found, although any listed numbers are now old and out of service. She has no intention of doing anything more than trying to find the brother to let him know his sister died and how to claim any funds. I suggested the next step was to send a letter to each of the last 3 known addresses, and be done with it. (It may not be him after all).
If she can't find the brother, she will just let the remaining $30k+ go to the government.
Can she do that? If the brother cannot be found, why is she entitled to decline the money on behalf other heirs?
Post by: Goldielocks on November 08, 2018, 03:23:54 PM
Cousins don't need to be tracked down, although if they come forward they could legitimately inherit...in the absence of any others with a larger claim... oh, and she is not the executrix, rather a cousin that was asked by the government-appointed executor to help track down relatives..
Post by: Freedomin5 on November 09, 2018, 01:50:57 AM
This one is so anti-dramatic it’s kind of funny.Totally worth it, IMO. Yay for family harmony.
Grandpa passed away recently without a will or named beneficiaries. Grandma died several years ago. Both sons (my dad and uncle) passed away a few years ago. So that leaves the grandkids to claim the inheritance. The problem is that all the grandkids are financially quite stable and no one wants to submit the loads of paperwork required to claim approx. $8000. In fact, by the time expenses are deducted there may not be that much money left. An email just went around to the grandkids, and each and every grand kid wasn’t like, “No thanks, but if you want to do the work, you deserve the money. I’m giving up my claim to the money.”
So the government is probably going to end up getting an $8000 donation to their coffers.
Great story, but please reconsider. Instead, choose a non-profit your grandpa would have respected and transfer it to them.
Think of it this way. How many hours did your grandpa work to get that money? Isn't it worth a few more hours to turn that hard work into something your grandfather would have found to be worth his time?
Buy some playground equipment and install it in a nearby park. Every time you walk by, you will have great memories of your grandfather. Just 1 idea.
Several thousand in other bank accounts that were accessible have already been donated. These were two remaining accounts. To do the work to access the money would likely cost over $10K -- this money is located in two small accounts on the other side of the world, and the paperwork would span four countries and involve lawyers and consulates and 15-hour flights. It's a lot more than a "few more hours" of work.
Post by: Not Sure on December 09, 2018, 09:17:14 AM
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
Post by: RetiredAt63 on December 09, 2018, 09:57:11 AM
I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
My sister was really upset when I shared a few family recipes outside the family. My Mom had never said anything about them being "family-only". So family-only recipes appear to be a "thing".
Post by: former player on December 09, 2018, 10:02:29 AM
Definitely a "thing". It took me two decades to get a recipe out of one of my aunts - I still have her hand-written copy. I later found that the recipe was almost identical to one in a recipe book from 200 years earlier that was rediscovered long after I remember my aunt using the recipe.I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
My sister was really upset when I shared a few family recipes outside the family. My Mom had never said anything about them being "family-only". So family-only recipes appear to be a "thing".
Post by: Dicey on December 09, 2018, 10:20:29 AM
Post by: sol on December 09, 2018, 12:32:11 PM
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
I can't. This seems like a net loss for society, like refusing to share your discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine. If you have something amazing and it costs you nothing to make the world a better place, why would you bury it?
These days, the internet has successfully killed this sort of behaviour, and good riddance. The secret recipe for coke and KFC's 11 herbs and spices can be found online. America's test kitchen publishes the results of twenty different empanada recipes and documents why the differences change the food. Investors research your company's supply chain. It's much harder to keep secrets these days.
Post by: Zikoris on December 09, 2018, 01:24:09 PM
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
I can't. This seems like a net loss for society, like refusing to share your discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine. If you have something amazing and it costs you nothing to make the world a better place, why would you bury it?
These days, the internet has successfully killed this sort of behaviour, and good riddance. The secret recipe for coke and KFC's 11 herbs and spices can be found online. America's test kitchen publishes the results of twenty different empanada recipes and documents why the differences change the food. Investors research your company's supply chain. It's much harder to keep secrets these days.
Totally. People ask me for recipes all the time. Especially my pumpkin pie and peanut butter cookie recipes. I'm like, "Take it! Go make ALL the delicious food!" Spread the gospel!"
Post by: RetiredAt63 on December 09, 2018, 03:15:52 PM
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
I can't. This seems like a net loss for society, like refusing to share your discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine. If you have something amazing and it costs you nothing to make the world a better place, why would you bury it?
These days, the internet has successfully killed this sort of behaviour, and good riddance. The secret recipe for coke and KFC's 11 herbs and spices can be found online. America's test kitchen publishes the results of twenty different empanada recipes and documents why the differences change the food. Investors research your company's supply chain. It's much harder to keep secrets these days.
Totally. People ask me for recipes all the time. Especially my pumpkin pie and peanut butter cookie recipes. I'm like, "Take it! Go make ALL the delicious food!" Spread the gospel!"
And if your whole circle has the recipe, then anyone can make it and bring it to a gathering - you are not suddenly making a triple batch because you are the only one who can make it!
Post by: Just Joe on December 09, 2018, 03:34:08 PM
If you had a prize-winning recipe in the family in that environment, I could maybe see why you would want to hang on to it.
I can't. This seems like a net loss for society, like refusing to share your discovery of penicillin or the polio vaccine. If you have something amazing and it costs you nothing to make the world a better place, why would you bury it?
These days, the internet has successfully killed this sort of behaviour, and good riddance. The secret recipe for coke and KFC's 11 herbs and spices can be found online. America's test kitchen publishes the results of twenty different empanada recipes and documents why the differences change the food. Investors research your company's supply chain. It's much harder to keep secrets these days.
That was something that really made me exciting about FOSS (free and open source software). Here were people sharing and working together to give the world some nice tools at no cost. It has leveled the tables so that the people lacking the money to buy fancy software still have free software to use and share. Do good things with it please...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
What would be the point of hoarding recipes in a family? Attention? At least share with relatives and friends. Hopefully those who inherit the recipes would share more feely.
Post by: sol on December 09, 2018, 04:56:00 PM
What would be the point of hoarding recipes in a family? Attention? At least share with relatives and friends. Hopefully those who inherit the recipes would share more feely.
As a (now retired) scientist, the whole idea of putting in thousands of hours to develop some great new thing and then NOT TELLING ANYONE HOW TO DO IT seems entirely contrary to the spirit in which such efforts are undertaken. Scientists want recognition for their work, but that recognition comes in the form of other people imitating and reproducing it. This is how society moves forward. This is how civilization was built. If your'e hoarding knowledge for yourself, you're literally evil. In the sense that you're holding the rest of us back from achieving our rightful destiny.
I should not drink and cook and post all at the same time, but today has been a good day. To all of you hoarding recipes from your neighbors, considers it a holiday good turn to spread the love.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on December 09, 2018, 05:31:18 PM
Scientific, technical & medical discoveries are normally protected by patents that ensure the developers, inventors, and investors are well compensated.
Aunt Bea loved to cook and her recipes made her feel special. If you're special you can develope your own special recipes, and if you aren't special just go buy a jar of pickles.
Post by: Sugaree on December 09, 2018, 06:31:09 PM
Quote
What would be the point of hoarding recipes in a family? Attention? At least share with relatives and friends. Hopefully those who inherit the recipes would share more feely.
Nearby high school has a locally-famous hot dog sauce that they sell at school events. Think what would happen if a Coney-dog and a meatless chili-dog had a lovechild. It's awesome. The only way you're supposed to be able to get the recipe is to put in enough hours working the concession stand at various games. And (almost) everyone who knows the recipe is super protective of it because if everyone knew how to make them then they likely wouldn't have people stop by football games in Friday night just to pick some up for dinner. I've often seen them cooked as fundraisers for various causes. I can kind of see how people would think that keeping that recipe secret is kind of guarding an asset for them.
Post by: Dicey on December 09, 2018, 10:23:49 PM
Post by: RetiredAt63 on December 10, 2018, 07:28:29 AM
Dunno, in high school I dated a guy whose family had a killer BBQ sauce recipe and everyone was supposedly sworn to secrecy of the highest order. Problem is, they were kinda messy. Every time they made up a batch, they left all the ingredients out on the counter. Duh.
It's not just the ingredients, they are just the starting point. It's quantities and how they are processed. Does the pastry recipe say that the water has to be super cold? My mom put the water for my grandmother's pastry recipe in the freezer when she started her prep. Cold water from the tap when the house is on a well is a lot colder than tap water when the house is on municipal water.
There was a time when a lot of recipes were a pinch of this and a palmfull of that and a cup of water (which cup did she use, coffee cup, tea cup?) and a chunk of butter the size of a hen's egg (how big an egg?). So you basically needed to be in the kitchen with the cook to really know the recipe.
Post by: iris lily on December 10, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Definitely a "thing". It took me two decades to get a recipe out of one of my aunts - I still have her hand-written copy. I later found that the recipe was almost identical to one in a recipe book from 200 years earlier that was rediscovered long after I remember my aunt using the recipe.I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
My sister was really upset when I shared a few family recipes outside the family. My Mom had never said anything about them being "family-only". So family-only recipes appear to be a "thing".
Exactly. Secret recipes aren’t really secret. And they arent protected by copyright, either, if someone thinks thay can be.
Post by: coldestcat on December 10, 2018, 09:53:04 AM
This is in contrast to my FIL who at the same age has no will even though when his wife, MIL, passed, it was very messy and ended up costing money, and his mother still doesnt have a will or prepared document in her 90s, with a house in SF.
Post by: saguaro on December 10, 2018, 10:26:35 AM
What would be the point of hoarding recipes in a family? Attention? At least share with relatives and friends. Hopefully those who inherit the recipes would share more feely.
This reminds me of the Great Recipe Brouhaha that arose in my family several years ago. A relative (lets call her Sue) compiled a cookbook of family recipes to give to her daughters when they got married. Sue offered to send copies of this cookbook to myself and several other relatives which she did. One day a very securely wrapped package containing the cookbook arrived. I was happy and wrote to Sue thanking her, she included her own that she made at family gatherings over the years that we raved over. She gave that information freely.
A few days later, another relative who also received the cookbook contacted me. Apparently she and one other relative were upset that Sue's cookbook contained recipes from other members of the family that they felt was not supposed to be shared between the entire family. They were secret! Sue was taking credit for the recipes! Now Sue didn't take any "credit" it was just a compilation of family recipes, which besides her own, included other family recipes from other relatives including my mom and grandmother, great grandmother, etc. No big deal to me but it was darn silly to see all the hoopla over recipes and being shared among family at that. Good grief.
As far as my own recipes, if someone asks, I give it to them. Even my peppermint fudge recipe that I make during the holidays and is more curiously strong than Altoids. I don't understand recipe "secrets". If someone wants to make it, fine. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Post by: Finallyunderstand on December 10, 2018, 10:40:44 AM
The recipe itself is literally on the back of almost every bag of Nestle semi-sweet chocolate chip bags at any grocery store but her secret was adding one bag of instant vanilla pudding to the mix. Not actual pudding, just the powder. For some reason it makes them amazing. Who knows if this is a secret from our family or well known but everyone should try it. Also you take the cookies out about 1 minute too early for the perfect consistency after they cool. My wife says its the best chocolate chip cookie she ever had/has.
Secret is out now! Go forth and make cookies.
Post by: Dicey on December 10, 2018, 10:52:06 AM
My mom always made the best chocolate chip cookies when I was younger. She had a "secret" that wasn't a big secret but I still use it today.Lol, I have all the ingredients in the pantry, including the pudding mix. Fun! Thank you, @Finallyunderstand!
The recipe itself is literally on the back of almost every bag of Nestle semi-sweet chocolate chip bags at any grocery store but her secret was adding one bag of instant vanilla pudding to the mix. Not actual pudding, just the powder. For some reason it makes them amazing. Who knows if this is a secret from our family or well known but everyone should try it. Also you take the cookies out about 1 minute too early for the perfect consistency after they cool. My wife says its the best chocolate chip cookie she ever had/has.
Secret is out now! Go forth and make cookies.
Post by: Dicey on December 10, 2018, 11:00:09 AM
@RetiredAt63, I totally agree with you, especially for baked goods. But this was barbeque sauce, with about five ingredients. Not hard to figure out. For example, there was one lemon left out on the counter, but only one half was squeezed out thoroughly, the other was untouched. In the case of a simple sauce, a little deductive reasoning went a long way.Dunno, in high school I dated a guy whose family had a killer BBQ sauce recipe and everyone was supposedly sworn to secrecy of the highest order. Problem is, they were kinda messy. Every time they made up a batch, they left all the ingredients out on the counter. Duh.
It's not just the ingredients, they are just the starting point. It's quantities and how they are processed. Does the pastry recipe say that the water has to be super cold? My mom put the water for my grandmother's pastry recipe in the freezer when she started her prep. Cold water from the tap when the house is on a well is a lot colder than tap water when the house is on municipal water.
There was a time when a lot of recipes were a pinch of this and a palmfull of that and a cup of water (which cup did she use, coffee cup, tea cup?) and a chunk of butter the size of a hen's egg (how big an egg?). So you basically needed to be in the kitchen with the cook to really know the recipe.
BTW, I watched a random YouTube video recently, part of a series where the grandson films grandma making her famous recipes. She was making a pie from scratch, and definitely stressed that the water must be ice cold. She also made it look easy, without using fancy equipment. Used a ton of sugar, though. Blech. Otherwise, surprisingly entertaining to watch.
Post by: Goldielocks on December 10, 2018, 11:28:13 AM
I can confirm that using room temperature fats and a bit too much room temperature (or warmish?) water is NOT the way to go.
The good thing is that it was for a quiche so did not really matter, as long as it releases from the pan.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on December 10, 2018, 11:36:20 AM
Barbecue sauce would be an easy one to at lest partly figure out. Some recipes are more forgiving than others.
Post by: saguaro on December 10, 2018, 11:42:51 AM
Pie crust is a fun topic for this thread ;-). I haven't made it since I went gluten free, but my grandmother's recipe was fail-proof - as long as you did it right.
Barbecue sauce would be an easy one to at lest partly figure out. Some recipes are more forgiving than others.
My paternal grandmother made awesome pie crust. But you had to do it right and using cold water was critical.
Years ago, we were at a restaurant in Arizona that served up an awesome prickly pear barbeque sauce. Asked for the recipe for which our waiter asked the chef, came back to our table and simply rattled off the 5 ingredients that I scribbled on a napkin. That was all I needed. I had to figure out the ratio of ketchup to soy sauce, but based on a basic barbeque recipe, I figured I came pretty close.
Post by: tralfamadorian on December 10, 2018, 01:41:08 PM
My mom always made the best chocolate chip cookies when I was younger. She had a "secret" that wasn't a big secret but I still use it today.
The recipe itself is literally on the back of almost every bag of Nestle semi-sweet chocolate chip bags at any grocery store but her secret was adding one bag of instant vanilla pudding to the mix. Not actual pudding, just the powder. For some reason it makes them amazing. Who knows if this is a secret from our family or well known but everyone should try it. Also you take the cookies out about 1 minute too early for the perfect consistency after they cool. My wife says its the best chocolate chip cookie she ever had/has.
Secret is out now! Go forth and make cookies.
I was taught to do the same pudding mix trick with cake box mixes. Add one instant pudding packet and an extra egg.
For pie crust, cold is definitely the way to go. Water with ice cubes (but no ice in the dough), flour stored in the fridge and blade/food processor bowl in the fridge for a bit to chill.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on December 10, 2018, 06:45:03 PM
For pie crust, cold is definitely the way to go. Water with ice cubes (but no ice in the dough), flour stored in the fridge and blade/food processor bowl in the fridge for a bit to chill.
Same with whipped cream, bowl and beaters need to be in the fridge long enough to be really cold before you start.
Post by: Capsu78 on December 11, 2018, 01:36:25 PM
He said he had never been in any restaurant closer than 20 miles from his place as it is considered bad form to check out the other places...bad blood would be created if the other owner recognized him.
He would drive to Messina if his wife wanted to go out for a change.
Post by: prudent_one on December 12, 2018, 07:58:36 PM
I thought it appropriate to add some levity to this thread.
Mom inherited a sugar cookie recipe with instructions that it was to STAY IN THE FAMILY. This became problematic when a dear friend and fellow cook, Julia, requested the recipe. Mom told the story and refused to share the recipe.
Turnabout is fair play and Julia had a recipe for mustard that was the envy of everyone. Julia succumbed to cancer and never did get around to sharing that mustard recipe with Mom.
I suspect that some feelings were genuinely hurt by this which is too bad because it is otherwise a great story!
PS. Julia was a professional cook and may not have been at liberty to share the mustard recipe anyway. RIP, Julia!
Similar scenario, different ending... My wife's aunt made an amazing apple pie with some kind of special crust. I loved it and I asked my wife if she'd get the recipe. So she asked her aunt... who said she did not give out the recipe. I had never heard of such a thing but my wife said she wasn't that surprised. We never mentioned it again.
Twenty years later, which was about 8 years since we had last seen her aunt, my wife gets a letter in the mail and it was her aunt's recipe. How in the world her aunt remembered my wife asking for the recipe that one time and why she decided to share it two decades later, we have no idea.
Post by: Dicey on December 13, 2018, 08:59:54 AM
Post by: Maenad on December 13, 2018, 11:08:24 AM
I'm not saying I agree with it. But in a traditional environment where "a woman's place was in the home" and one of the few public avenues for recognition of (and possible financial reward for) her creativity and ingenuity was through local cooking contests, I can see why some women would want to keep their recipes close to the vest, and encourage their children to do the same.
Plus, if you couldn't work and needed a man to provide for you, good cooking was a way to make you especially desirable on the marriage market.
So glad we're beyond that. I fervently agree that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and love exchanging good recipes! I'd heard of the trick of using pudding mix in boxed cakes, I'm going to try it with my own chocolate chip cookies (I use Alton Brown's Chewy recipe, we'll see how it works!).
Post by: Just Joe on December 13, 2018, 11:40:13 AM
To me this is a thinker who spent the time and made the effort to get good at something.
Post by: SwordGuy on December 13, 2018, 02:06:40 PM
Cooking is a good skill but any skills for complicated topics would impress me as a dating male. She's good with computers? Or - she's good at gardening? Sewing? Carpentry? Big into bicycling or hiking?
To me this is a thinker who spent the time and made the effort to get good at something.
That is so true for me, too.
Competence is a really under-rated sexual attractiveness trait. At least by most people. I, on the other hand, find a woman becomes really unattractive to me very quickly if she's not competent at daily living and really good at one or more things.
Post by: Just Joe on December 14, 2018, 02:31:40 PM
Cooking is a good skill but any skills for complicated topics would impress me as a dating male. She's good with computers? Or - she's good at gardening? Sewing? Carpentry? Big into bicycling or hiking?
To me this is a thinker who spent the time and made the effort to get good at something.
That is so true for me, too.
Competence is a really under-rated sexual attractiveness trait. At least by most people. I, on the other hand, find a woman becomes really unattractive to me very quickly if she's not competent at daily living and really good at one or more things.
"Well at least she's pretty" still ain't good enough. ;)
Decades ago when i was single: What? She didn't understand something and read a book to figure it out? Ooooh - wonder if she's dating anyone... ;)
Post by: SwordGuy on December 27, 2018, 08:07:53 AM
I have a story about inheritance and Certain Precious China:Wow.
Your mom's actions would have completely ruined any sentimental value that China had for me.
At that point, I would only pay money for it if it was going to turn a profit when I resold it. It would be valueless for me otherwise. I wouldn't want to eat off it it.
Post by: TomTX on December 27, 2018, 08:40:49 AM
I have a story about inheritance and Certain Precious China:Wow.
Your mom's actions would have completely ruined any sentimental value that China had for me.
At that point, I would only pay money for it if it was going to turn a profit when I resold it. It would be valueless for me otherwise. I wouldn't want to eat off it it.
++
Post by: Just Joe on December 27, 2018, 05:20:03 PM
Post by: Cool Friend on December 31, 2018, 10:35:18 AM
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Post by: SwordGuy on December 31, 2018, 11:48:37 AM
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Be sure and update us when they (inevitably?) let people know how hard things are and that they don't have the money for 'X' necessity.
Post by: marty998 on December 31, 2018, 02:43:09 PM
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Be sure and update us when they (inevitably?) let people know how hard things are and that they don't have the money for 'X' necessity.
The only way I can reconcile this in my head is that they are simply playing a different game to us. A game where the goal is "living life" by spending every dollar available, and having anything leftover is failure.
Post by: NoVa on December 31, 2018, 06:53:42 PM
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Be sure and update us when they (inevitably?) let people know how hard things are and that they don't have the money for 'X' necessity.
The only way I can reconcile this in my head is that they are simply playing a different game to us. A game where the goal is "living life" by spending every dollar available, and having anything leftover is failure.
Wasn't this the plot of a movie, "Brewster's Millions"? Had to spend some enormous sum in 30 days?
Post by: jengod on December 31, 2018, 07:19:34 PM
I thought of so many ways to spend that money, even as a teenager it was clear to me how it could be spent without incurring the penalties or breaking rules. Kind of a fun movie anyway.
FWIW, it was a novel first!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster%27s_Millions
Don't have an inheritance drama right now EXCEPT that I was thrilled to find out that a near in-law finally (may?) have created an estate plan. He is a spendthrift and a hoarder with at least three mortgages, two pets and he often falls asleep while driving. I had the worst feeling that if he died intestate that the estate cleanup would fall to me somehow, but I seem to be off the hook. If he dies suddenly, I think the pets are the only thing I might have to handle. Whoo!
Post by: Dixie_Amazon on January 01, 2019, 08:16:25 AM
Post by: zolotiyeruki on January 01, 2019, 08:48:35 PM
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.Heh, I say let 'em have the RV. From what I've heard, they're a lot like a timeshare--expensive to maintain and depreciate like a luxury sports car.
Post by: Cool Friend on January 02, 2019, 06:47:46 AM
I don't know if it qualifies as a drama, but a couple I'm very good friends with got an inheritance from a relative who passed away recently. I don't know how much it was, but when they brought it up and mentioned that they weren't sure how to use it, I offered to show them how to open a retirement account or invest in index funds. That didn't sound very fun to them, so they ended up using it to go on 2-week European vacation, and have been on a buying binge ever since they got back with what I assume is the leftover cash. They're big advocates of retail therapy, you see--just a month or two ago (before they received the inheritance) they were upset because they overspent and had to borrow money from one of their parents. They also hate their jobs.
I wish I could have helped but I know if i pressed the issue beyond just offering to help them invest it they would be very offended (understandably). The vacation looked like a lot of fun, but still... seems like a squandered windfall, however much the inheritance was.
Be sure and update us when they (inevitably?) let people know how hard things are and that they don't have the money for 'X' necessity.
The only way I can reconcile this in my head is that they are simply playing a different game to us. A game where the goal is "living life" by spending every dollar available, and having anything leftover is failure.
I think they're on the same hedonic treadmill as a lot of people, hoping that spending the money now will improve their lives and make them happier. They do make some good financial decisions, such as when they got married and spent as little as they could on the wedding. I just wish I could have helped them set up a little nest egg, but I think if I had pressed the issue it would have alienated them.
Post by: saguaro on January 02, 2019, 03:15:14 PM
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.Heh, I say let 'em have the RV. From what I've heard, they're a lot like a timeshare--expensive to maintain and depreciate like a luxury sports car.
I agree on letting them have the RV for the same reasons. Sister will no doubt see it was a great thing but in reality it will probably be more work and expense than anticipated for whoever gets it.
My in-laws have a bunch of artwork and sculptures that are presumed to be worth a lot from their spendthrifts days at the local galleries. Maybe they are worth a lot but I sort of doubt it. Sister in law is expecting to get these items and DH is more than happy to let her as he's been in the gallery scene for a year or so and saw the incredible markups. We are not sure the items will fetch anywhere near what they cost.
Post by: Villanelle on January 03, 2019, 03:15:30 AM
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
Really ask yourself if it's worth the effort and strife to do this. What would happen if you took the stuff you wanted and looked after the truly valuable items (let's say anything over $1000) and let her pillage the rest? You would likely end up a couple thousand dollars less well-off. You will have inherited a couple thousand dollars less. (And that's if she makes off with $4000 worth of stuff, which is quite a lot when we are talking only low value items--used furnishing and keepsakes.) But you will save yourself the headache and the heartache. And the time. Why? So she doesn't get to "win" by maybe a couple thousand dollars? Yes, it's messed up that [if] she would do that. But digging in your heels over a relatively small amount of money seems awfully stubborn, and likely to cause you much unnecessary anguish. It seems to me like it would be much better to draw a healthy boundary that is somewhere a bit away from "exactly 50/50, even for knick knacks and used furniture". Protect that boundary, and let her indulge her ugliness and greed up to that line.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on January 03, 2019, 07:09:17 AM
Post by: Villanelle on January 03, 2019, 07:35:14 AM
That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.
Of course you should plant your flag advantageously. But there are different types of advantages. Not spending days fighting with my sister over a fairly inconsequential amount of money would be far more advantageous to me than having a few extra dollars. So she walks away with a few more trinkets (that I don't specifically want) than I do. So what? This seems to me like an argument a child would have, since you bring up children. They don't really want or need the toy, but they are going to freak out and throw a tantrum about how unfair it is if someone else gets it.
It's not about appeasement. It's about not getting into arguments and causing myself stress and time over things that don't actually matter to me. If I don't want the old china cabinet worth about $200 and my sibling takes it and sells it, so what? I'm going to get worked up and put myself through the fight for $100? Nope. Not worth it to me.
And frankly, someone who is going to nitpick about a sibling perhaps getting a china cabinet and some figurines more than they did would be a candidate for an "inheritance drama" post themselves, IMO. Because that is stuff that doesn't matter, but they are throwing a tantrum about it and keeping an exact score of who gets what.
Post by: Dicey on January 03, 2019, 07:59:03 AM
This came up because we just sent everyone $1k two days before Christmas. She called him yesterday to ask for more money. FWIW, most of the estate has been disbursed. He was warning me to expect a call from her, because we're co-executors. Yeah, that's a call I won't be taking.
Post by: Just Joe on January 03, 2019, 10:02:13 AM
Post by: zolotiyeruki on January 03, 2019, 12:57:45 PM
You're right, but that's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that no matter where you divide the inheritance, the sister may throw a tantrum. So you might as well draw the line somewhat to the sister's disadvantage, knowing in advance that she'll kick and scream about being treated unfairly. Then you can gracefully cede some ground to make her happy, without giving up any of your half.That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.Of course you should plant your flag advantageously. But there are different types of advantages. Not spending days fighting with my sister over a fairly inconsequential amount of money would be far more advantageous to me than having a few extra dollars. So she walks away with a few more trinkets (that I don't specifically want) than I do. So what? This seems to me like an argument a child would have, since you bring up children. They don't really want or need the toy, but they are going to freak out and throw a tantrum about how unfair it is if someone else gets it.
It's not about appeasement. It's about not getting into arguments and causing myself stress and time over things that don't actually matter to me. If I don't want the old china cabinet worth about $200 and my sibling takes it and sells it, so what? I'm going to get worked up and put myself through the fight for $100? Nope. Not worth it to me.
And yeah, a lot of these stories sound like little kids who care less about having something than they do about having something at someone else's expense.
Post by: marty998 on January 03, 2019, 01:55:47 PM
You're right, but that's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that no matter where you divide the inheritance, the sister may throw a tantrum. So you might as well draw the line somewhat to the sister's disadvantage, knowing in advance that she'll kick and scream about being treated unfairly. Then you can gracefully cede some ground to make her happy, without giving up any of your half.That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.Of course you should plant your flag advantageously. But there are different types of advantages. Not spending days fighting with my sister over a fairly inconsequential amount of money would be far more advantageous to me than having a few extra dollars. So she walks away with a few more trinkets (that I don't specifically want) than I do. So what? This seems to me like an argument a child would have, since you bring up children. They don't really want or need the toy, but they are going to freak out and throw a tantrum about how unfair it is if someone else gets it.
It's not about appeasement. It's about not getting into arguments and causing myself stress and time over things that don't actually matter to me. If I don't want the old china cabinet worth about $200 and my sibling takes it and sells it, so what? I'm going to get worked up and put myself through the fight for $100? Nope. Not worth it to me.
And yeah, a lot of these stories sound like little kids who care less about having something than they do about having something at someone else's expense.
True, but how about the Sister learns to be an adult and not behave inappropriately?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 03, 2019, 03:20:11 PM
You're right, but that's not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is that no matter where you divide the inheritance, the sister may throw a tantrum. So you might as well draw the line somewhat to the sister's disadvantage, knowing in advance that she'll kick and scream about being treated unfairly. Then you can gracefully cede some ground to make her happy, without giving up any of your half.That sounds an awful lot like appeasement. I've never dealt with adults in that situation, but when I watch it in my kids, there is no avoiding the whining or tantrum. Wherever the boundary is drawn, that's where the battle will be fought, so you may as well plant your flag in a more advantageous position.Of course you should plant your flag advantageously. But there are different types of advantages. Not spending days fighting with my sister over a fairly inconsequential amount of money would be far more advantageous to me than having a few extra dollars. So she walks away with a few more trinkets (that I don't specifically want) than I do. So what? This seems to me like an argument a child would have, since you bring up children. They don't really want or need the toy, but they are going to freak out and throw a tantrum about how unfair it is if someone else gets it.
It's not about appeasement. It's about not getting into arguments and causing myself stress and time over things that don't actually matter to me. If I don't want the old china cabinet worth about $200 and my sibling takes it and sells it, so what? I'm going to get worked up and put myself through the fight for $100? Nope. Not worth it to me.
And yeah, a lot of these stories sound like little kids who care less about having something than they do about having something at someone else's expense.
True, but how about the Sister learns to be an adult and not behave inappropriately?
If at any point you learn the secret to make other people change their behavior and develop a better character, you'll be granted a Nobel prize of some kind. Failing that, each of us has to settle for controlling the things we *can* control, which has mostly to do with our own behavior and choices.
We'd all like to make assholes less asshole-is but we just don't have the power.
Post by: Dicey on January 04, 2019, 08:19:00 AM
Sorry, been away from the thread.This is exactly what happened with my sister and the car. My plan was to do exactly what you outlined, but alas, I have a co-executor. You see, my mom had instructed us to put our names on anything we wanted in the house, meaning futniture, tchotchkes, etc. My sister shimmied under the car, wrote her name on the chassis, and told everyone what she did. Ha Ha, you're funny, sez one and all, it's part of the estate. Nothing that anyone else chose had much more than sentimental value.
Oh, yah, she can have it all- take the motorhome and all the cars. And I will deduct it all from her side of the balance sheet and take the equal portion in cash for my side. Fortunately the parents have a paid-for lake home and any imbalance will be taken from that and it should cover it completely.
My point was that sister will expect to just grab all the stuff and then also have half the house and half the cash. Not. Gonna. Happen. She can grab all the material possessions she wants but it is coming out her half. I will give her a "deal" on the value of each of those bits of rolling stock since I won't have to go through the hassle of liquidating them but they will certainly not be freely given from the estate just cuz she wants it that way.
Simple as that. She can be the same grubby little creep she has always been but I control the ledger and final balance sheet. It will be stressful but she is not going to change.
On the low-dollar items, I suppose I could come up with a blanket estimate for the small bits rather than itemized. When my former in-laws died we did have an actual garage sale. SIL showed up expecting to walk away with a fistful of cash. Nope. The money went into the estate for distribution to all of the siblings as named in the will which wasn't settled for another 5 months. People just don't get it--they think it is a big grab-athon and they can just walk off with things.
The best thing that could happen is that my parents live a long, long time and spend their last dollar on the day of their death. Use all of their money to have excellent health support and services and then keel over as they tip the daily maid with their last sawbuck. Fingers crossed.
When the remaining parent died, she harassed the shit out of the other co-executor until he gave her the car. Then all my siblings "voted" to let her keep it, and divide the proceeds without regard to the value of the car. Yup, this is the sister who "took care" of my parents for more than a few years while she was voluntarily unemployed. During which she was on the parental life support system, and worked them like a pro. Later, still unemployed but not doing the caretaking, she embezzled at least $11,000 by using their CC at a casino ATM. Fuck you, asshole.
MNP, be glad there is no co-executor. My parents thought it would ease the burden. It did not. My father was an invalid for the last year of his life. My brother, and his angel on earth of a wife, took excellent care of him in their home. Since my brother had been handling Dad's affairs, it was logical for him to continue to do so, at least initially. My shark sister took advantage of his genuine grief. Eventually, I had to step in and be the "bad guy". Have I already said, "fuck you, asshole"?
In my earlier comment, I mentioned there was much redacted. Even this tale is just a snippet of the shit she has pulled. A forensic accountant would have had a field day, but the estate was not large, and I value my relationships with the rest of my family.
Post by: saguaro on January 04, 2019, 11:18:05 AM
The best thing that could happen is that my parents live a long, long time and spend their last dollar on the day of their death. Use all of their money to have excellent health support and services and then keel over as they tip the daily maid with their last sawbuck. Fingers crossed.
The above is exactly what I have said about my in-laws. And it could happen as they recently sold their second home because they could no longer afford to keep it.
My SIL is a lot like your sister, MNP, she has gotten insane amounts of financial support from her parents, has "worked them like a pro" to get whatever she wants for herself or her kids. Even though she has a husband who has mostly made a good income over the years. It has continued well into MIL/FIL's retirement. It would be different if there was long term unemployment, health issues, disability or some other misfortune but none of these issues have happened.
Post by: JGS1980 on January 04, 2019, 11:42:11 AM
They all need a big 'ole dose of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
JGS
Post by: iluvzbeach on January 04, 2019, 06:19:57 PM
Post by: JGS1980 on January 04, 2019, 07:04:39 PM
Ditto what JGS said!
A little dose of Mustachian behavioral therapy wouldn’t hurt either
Post by: talltexan on January 09, 2019, 07:00:01 AM
Post by: Dicey on January 09, 2019, 07:04:52 AM
I've had several facebook friends share a clip from a Dr. Phil show in which the 15-year-old daughter is asking her mom for a $2,500/month allowance, and a "G-wagon", which I guess is a car, but it's a lot nicer than a Mercedes C-Class.Does this fit here because the kid is working so hard on spending it now that there won't be an inhertiance?
Post by: zolotiyeruki on January 09, 2019, 07:50:25 AM
I've had several facebook friends share a clip from a Dr. Phil show in which the 15-year-old daughter is asking her mom for a $2,500/month allowance, and a "G-wagon", which I guess is a car, but it's a lot nicer than a Mercedes C-Class.Gee, I wish I had a $2,500/mo allowance to spend on whatever I want. TBH, though, since I have a full-time job and a wife and kids, I probably wouldn't have time to spend that much anyway, since I'd want to spend it on Stuff for Projects.
Post by: Meowmalade on January 14, 2019, 09:15:56 PM
Post by: marty998 on January 14, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
Recently found out that my grandpa had a life insurance policy (not sure why he still had one, as he was in his late 90's). The beneficiaries were only my dad and my uncle, and excluded my aunt. I felt so horrible for her since she'd already been treated like a second-class citizen for being a woman her whole life, and I'm sure that it hurt her deeply to find this out after her father's death. It wasn't much money, but of course it's not about the money.
I hope your dad and uncle shared the proceeds after the fact?
Post by: Meowmalade on January 15, 2019, 12:12:49 AM
Recently found out that my grandpa had a life insurance policy (not sure why he still had one, as he was in his late 90's). The beneficiaries were only my dad and my uncle, and excluded my aunt. I felt so horrible for her since she'd already been treated like a second-class citizen for being a woman her whole life, and I'm sure that it hurt her deeply to find this out after her father's death. It wasn't much money, but of course it's not about the money.
I hope your dad and uncle shared the proceeds after the fact?
My dad is dead, so as the executor of my grandpa's estate my uncle is giving my dad's share to me and my sister, which is the only reason I know about this. When I heard about my aunt not being included, I said we should split it but my uncle said best not to bring it up and it's so little money (in the hundreds of dollars) that it won't make a difference to her. I'm just horrified at what a shitty thing my grandpa did.
Post by: DadJokes on January 15, 2019, 09:18:15 AM
I knew I would get something out of reading Pride and Prejudice. I guess my high school English teacher was right.
Post by: Just Joe on January 15, 2019, 10:14:34 AM
Recently found out that my grandpa had a life insurance policy (not sure why he still had one, as he was in his late 90's). The beneficiaries were only my dad and my uncle, and excluded my aunt. I felt so horrible for her since she'd already been treated like a second-class citizen for being a woman her whole life, and I'm sure that it hurt her deeply to find this out after her father's death. It wasn't much money, but of course it's not about the money.
I hope your dad and uncle shared the proceeds after the fact?
My dad is dead, so as the executor of my grandpa's estate my uncle is giving my dad's share to me and my sister, which is the only reason I know about this. When I heard about my aunt not being included, I said we should split it but my uncle said best not to bring it up and it's so little money (in the hundreds of dollars) that it won't make a difference to her. I'm just horrified at what a shitty thing my grandpa did.
I'd pass it along to the Aunt just like if the grandfather meant it to go to her even if it came out of my pocket.
Amazing how we humans can treat each other based on factors we can't change such as race or gender. Racism and patriarchy can't fade away fast enough for me.
Post by: Hula Hoop on January 15, 2019, 11:50:19 AM
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day. When daughters married, they would leave their family and join their husband's family.
I knew I would get something out of reading Pride and Prejudice. I guess my high school English teacher was right.
I doubt this grandpa was around when Pride and Prejudice was written. My mother in law and her sister were cut out of their parents will so that just her two brothers inherited the farm where they grew up. Neither she nor her sister ever spoke to their brothers again. And this all happened in the 1950s. So it definitely wasn't the norm even back then.
Post by: Meowmalade on January 15, 2019, 12:53:44 PM
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
I'd pass it along to the Aunt just like if the grandfather meant it to go to her even if it came out of my pocket.
It's complicated since we aren't even in the same country...
Post by: SwordGuy on January 15, 2019, 01:41:15 PM
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
Was she younger than the two males? Perhaps he just forgot to update the policy? (One can hope.)
Post by: Meowmalade on January 15, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
Was she younger than the two males? Perhaps he just forgot to update the policy? (One can hope.)
This aunt is the oldest... and actually, my other aunt who would have been alive when the beneficiaries were updated was left out as well! :(
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 15, 2019, 04:29:28 PM
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
Was she younger than the two males? Perhaps he just forgot to update the policy? (One can hope.)
This aunt is the oldest... and actually, my other aunt who would have been alive when the beneficiaries were updated was left out as well! :(
Insurance is routinely used as a tool to equalize an inheritance. I'm not saying that it happened in this specific case. But there are some families in which some of the adult kids receive substantially more financial support from their parents during their lifetime. I'm talking about a vehicle, education, big weddings, support post-divorce, or other things parents sometimes provide for one child but not for another. If any of that happened, even decades before, the insurance policy could have been an equalization plan.
Post by: mm1970 on January 16, 2019, 10:51:09 AM
It's a crappy way to treat a daughter in this day and age, but society was different in his day.
We're also from a different culture but my grandpa has been in North America for quite some time and everything else in the will was divided fairly to all children (living and deceased, as there were more siblings). I have no idea why this stupid tiny life insurance policy was the one place where he legally singled her out. My aunt did SO MUCH for my grandpa, too.
Was she younger than the two males? Perhaps he just forgot to update the policy? (One can hope.)
This aunt is the oldest... and actually, my other aunt who would have been alive when the beneficiaries were updated was left out as well! :(
I still think it's not as uncommon as people think in the US - especially for people of that age. My grandparents had 7 children. You'll find my "story" way up in the thread. His will/trust was divided into two. Your daughters got married and became part of the man's family. So his trust had about a half a million in one and about $200,000 in the other. The two boys split the half mil and the 3 girls and surviving daughter in law split the $200,000. (Third son got part of the business while grandpa was still alive.)
Maybe it's a rural thing, maybe a Catholic thing? Dunno.
Post by: haflander on January 16, 2019, 11:19:39 AM
My mother was with her mom when talking to the pastor about my grandfather and the eulogy at the service. Pastor is asking ?s, trying to get details about this guy he never knew that he's about to eulogize. Paraphrasing:
Pastor: "well, you'd say he was a family man, right? family was always most important?"
Grandma: "no. work always came before family."
Makes me sick. This is the absolute last thing I would want my wife to say at my funeral. I had a pretty positive feeling toward my grandfather 5 years ago (even 1, during the inheritance drama). I guess I still do in some ways. But the above statement changed a lot of things in my mind.
/rant
Post by: BTDretire on January 16, 2019, 06:27:42 PM
Nobody suffered because Aunt Bea's special bread & butter pickle recipe was buried with her.
Aunt Bea's pickles were terrible, it's just that Andy and Barney couldn't bring themselves to tell her! :-)
Post by: Secretly Saving on January 22, 2019, 04:20:41 PM
Post by: talltexan on January 23, 2019, 06:57:49 AM
Why wouldn't you do that? Taxes?
Post by: SwordGuy on January 23, 2019, 07:39:20 AM
Suppose you are one of two boys, and there's a sister who's been largely left out of the estate. If you take your half of the estate, and you give half of that ish to your sister, you still have 25% of the estate (a fair share would be 33%, so you have better than 3/4 of what a fair share would be), and you've demonstrated to your adult sister that you believe in fairness and equality. Seems like the kind of investment that could save the family.
Why wouldn't you do that? Taxes?
I would do that.
My wife would do that for her brothers but not her sister. (Not because of gender, but because of prior actions.)
I don't believe most people would do that. They'll find whatever reason that would possibly justify keeping all the money for themselves and swallow it whole.
Post by: Hula Hoop on January 23, 2019, 09:26:30 AM
I'm seeing this division based on gender right now in my spouse's family. Two boys will split an inheritance and their sister will be left out. Truth is, she probably doesn't need the money, but neither do the boys, so for it to be divided by gender is both depressing and maddening and creating a rift between them all. Not worth it!
This is truly depressing. I can't believe that this is happening in 2019.
Post by: wbranch on January 23, 2019, 12:07:14 PM
I do know of a couple situations where the farms were sold and split up equally and the kids farming got their equal chunk of cash. They were pissed in all cases that they lost "their" farm. In those cases I think it made sense to split up since there had been poor planning and nothing in place to keep the farm going. The kids farming did not have experience managing the farm. Just did what they were told for years without really learning anything about farming.
My brother purchased the family farm from my parents at a substantial discount and I would be PO'd if he sold and pocketed cash without splitting it with siblings. But at some point he will have earned it, not sure how long. Maybe another 5-10 years?
My wife's family farms in an area that has some of the highest farmland values in the country. They have said my wife's share of inheritance will be much lower than her brothers since she is not involved with the farm. It would be split equally if we moved to the area and were involved with the farm. Maybe crazy not to be more involved when were are talking mid to high 7 figures. But I guess the trade-off seems worthwhile to us. I do see some issues with this situation since my BIL and his wife do not plan to have kids and want to be retired in 20 years and move away from the area. There is a good chance my in-laws will still be alive another 20 years, so who knows what will happen. There are other potential issues here that will likely cause some drama and I know my wife will want me to be involved, so not a lot to look forward to. At least we are putting ourselves in a position with our personal finances where it will not matter.
My wife's grandpa died a few years ago in his 90s and split everything equally between 5 kids. 2 sons had their own farms and individual net worths already around $10M. One son had passed away and his son and daughter received 1/2 of his 1/5. The only one that complained about things being unfair was the dumbass grandson wondering if grandpa really only wanted him to get $2.5M. He was also asking about inheritance right after the funeral. Him and his wife had huge financial issues, filed bankruptcy a few years before and many other poor decisions. So I imagine they have done a pretty good job pissing a lot of it away, but most of it was land with good cash rents so it is probably better for them to just get the checks in the mail instead of sell and have a pile of cash. Most of the family does not talk to him any more so I have not heard any updates lately.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 23, 2019, 01:35:26 PM
When my grandparents died, the original family farm was split equally 3 ways. The additional farm land was split equally between the two children who had paid for it.
There was no drama because they are all good people with good heads on their shoulders.
My parents passed on and I inherited their 1/3 and 1/2 portions of the two farms. Two corporations were set up to hold ownership of the land, so technically I inherited the equivalent proportions of those corporations.
My uncle and aunt are still alive and retain their shares.
I expect they'll pass on their shares to their children. Each have 3 children. I don't know any details because, frankly, it's none of my business. Out of my six cousins, 4 won't rock the boat and cause problems for anyone else. The other two, well, there's no telling. Hopefully we'll be able to buy them out if they do. I think the crop sharing arrangement we have in place is a better deal than the lump sum land price would be.
Post by: dramathrowaway on February 06, 2019, 09:52:23 PM
Here's my story (so far:)
Grandparents set up a custodial UTMA account for me when I was young, naming my mother the custodian. Custodial UTMA accounts are a unique kind of gift: the money is the beneficiary's property from the moment it's deposited in the account, and outside of a few exceptions, the money is turned over the the beneficiary at age 21. My grandfather originally intended for it to pay for my college expenses. (This was actually a poor decision, due to financial aid requirements.)
I found out about the account around age 16 or so, and started depositing my own money in it, as my mother was investing it (on my behalf) into CDs and mutual funds. I didn't have to put the money, there -- I could've kept it under my mattress as cash, or even spent it. But I wanted to save it, and was enamored by the idea of compound interest, and how my small art commissions would add up, over the years.
Here's where it turns shitty. My parents refused to use the money for my college, insisting they pay for my college expenses, themselves. Wanting the freedom to choose my own major (I wanted to be an electrical engineer, and my parents outright laughed at me, and insisted that women don't make good engineers. For the record, I had the grades for it, and was an honors student.) I even asked if I could only use the portion of the funds I'd deposited, myself, but they said no. After that, I tried applying for loans, scholarships, and financial assistance, wanting to pay my own way so there wouldn't be any strings attached. I got some scholarships, but not enough to cover all of my tuition. The custodial account (given that it is counted as my property, no matter that I'm unable to withdraw from it,) made me ineligible for financial aid, and the parents found & tore up the loan docs, harassing & belittling me for even trying. They were insistent, and I eventually capitulated. Looking back, I should've kept trying, but I was too afraid of what they might escalate to, next.
I've since speculated this was due to a possible tax break they'd get, giving me this gift (the tuition.) They considered the custodial money "theirs," and were looking for a way to save more money. I didn't mind cutting them a break, except for the part where they were blocking me from my dream career. Simultaneously, they complained to my grandparents that my college was incredibly expensive, and that I was too incompetent to get myself any scholarships (this was a lie,) which encouraged my grandparents to gift "me" more money -- my mother took the cash gift, and I assume it offset most of my college expenses. This is something of a habit for them, and my grandparents regularly gift them cash. It should be noted that my parents are quite wealthy (they outright own multiple rental properties, invest most of their income, and have little spending (they live off of a portion of the interest/rent), & have no debt.) They didn't need to dig into their savings to pay for my college.
Once I turned 21, my mother was supposed to sign the account over, ending custodianship. She refused, lying and claiming the account never existed. (I eventually spoke to the bank and confirmed the account existed.) I became suspicious, but decided to let it go, & accept the money I'd invested as lost, as they had paid for my college (no matter the overt sexist undertones.) I needed to focus on internships (and save my own money, this time in my own account.) As this went on, my mother strongly insisted on doing all my taxes, refusing to let me see my own tax documents. Again, I felt suspicious. She said she was doing me a favor, that taxes were "too difficult" for me at that age, etc. I was deeply skeptical of that claim, but was (again) bullied into silence when I started to investigate.
This year, I turned 26, and am living across the country from them. It seems unreasonable to have my mother do my taxes for me, due to unrelated quarrels (she dislikes that I have a girlfriend, and has claimed to have written me out of the will for being gay. She also said she plans to withhold my tax documents from me, and from the IRS, in order to get them to give me a 10% "penalty." I made sure to re-route all my mail to my new address, so this seems like an empty threat. I've also never expected to inherit most of their wealth, given that I knew how my mother would react to any girlfriends. I still don't know why she is demanding to do my taxes, though I'm beginning to suspect there are more accounts in my name I don't know about...)
A little before the girlfriend-blowout, I learned that the money hasn't been reinvested since 2011, and has been just sitting in the account, losing value. She's illegally refusing to sign it over, and the brokerage firm can't reinvest it with her as custodian (at least, as far as I understand it,) because she isn't legally (or otherwise) my guardian. The bank is in an awkward spot -- their official policy is that the custodian needs to sign over the account, but legally the custodian is required to do so when the beneficiary turns 21, unless the custodian can prove the beneficiary is mentally incompetent, or otherwise unfit. (That typically means: documented drug problems/alcoholism, problems with the law, mental illness or disability requiring adult guardianship. I have no such issues.) I asked her again about the account (this time with information from the bank,) and she told me it is actually a trust, and that I'm "never seeing a penny," and that she "can do whatever" she wants, with it.This was, again, before she even learned about the girlfriend. I called the bank, again, and they confirmed that the account is a custodial UTMA, not a trust, and that my mother was legally obligated to sign away custodianship when I turned 21.
Everyone I've told this story to has strongly advised me to get a lawyer, and I hesitated for months, hoping some reasonable solution could be reached. (For example, giving me a portion of the funds to invest in index funds, so that I could demonstrate that I'm a responsible investor, but every possible compromise was rejected.) The bank said that if I can get a court order, they'll happily turn it over. I also checked to make sure my mother hasn't drained the account, but it seems she hasn't. (A little after that, my mother discovered the girlfriend, and we had our largely-unrelated fight.)
I think I'd understand her reluctance if I'd been demonstrated to be bad with money, but you're talking to the person who has saved every penny since starting high school, who made an effort to learn about investing (my parents refused to teach me, and I worried I'd make poor, uninformed decisions about money if I didn't know anything about saving.) I've no arrests, no drug/alcohol problems, interned for two years while earning my Master's degree, do DIY projects, run my own side-business, and took to mustachian living early on. I don't have a car, bike everywhere, don't have a cable subscription, etc.
She refused to sign it over, even before learning I wasn't straight, so it can't only be that. Before, she said the money would be put aside for when I wanted to buy a house, but when I mentioned getting out of the renter's trap, and buying a house (combining my then-savings with the money in the custodial account,) she said I was far too young to be a homeowner (I was 25,) and that I'm... (she changed her argument with every conversation: ...too young, too lazy, need a husband before thinking about home-ownership, need to live with them because she's lonely, wouldn't mow my own grass because I'm afraid of dirt (I have my own garden, for chrissake,) ...and need to solve those issues first, before even thinking about home ownership. They were against me moving out, too, which ended up having to be done somewhat secretly, to avoid continued harassment.) It was exasperating. I could neither invest it, nor use it for what my mother claimed to want me to use it on. She couldn't invest it, either. It was just sitting there, and either investing it or buying a house would speed up FI by years.
I've tried talking to intermediaries that would sway her, (again, before she discovered the girlfriend.) My grandfather wants me to have the money, but my mother told him the money was all spent on my college, and that I'm trying to extort them. I don't think he really believes her, but she's the one managing his finances, now, so he isn't in much of a position to fight back. My father believes anything my mother tells him, (in this case, that I've "never worked a day" in my life, and that I'm "completely refusing to work." She once convinced my dad that I was running away to join a cult, of all things. Another time, she attempted to convince my dad that 16-year-old me was incapable of bathing myself. (What? I'm neither mentally nor physically impaired.) She also regularly accused my father of various ills, and attempted to convince a younger me that he was abusing her. (He wasn't.))
In the end, what decided my response was the need for an unexpected surgery & a coinciding unexpected period of unemployment, after she confronted me about the girlfriend. It wiped out most of my savings, and my (former-second, now-primary) stream of income is slowly growing, but not fast enough to cover expenses. That's largely why I'm back on this site -- a means of finding non-obvious ways to reduce spending.
So, I've gotten a lawyer. I dislike doing it, and it feels scummy. Growing up, I was taught I owed everything to them, and I mean EVERYTHING. My art talent/skill wasn't my own, neither were my grades, study habits, etc. They even said my friends only liked me due to my parents' large house! Looking back, this is abusive behavior. (And for the sake of brevity, I'm leaving out descriptions of the years of physical abuse, including chemical burns, and other assorted, but mostly unrelated, abuse.) They weren't parents trying to prepare their child for the world -- they wanted me under their control, and dependent on them (or another male authority figure.) Their primary goal when I attended college was for me to find a husband, for chrissake. I know this is going to wreck whatever remains of my relationship to my mother, and likely the rest of my biological family, too. But given the girlfriend-arguments and already strained relationship, I'm not sure that's much of a loss.
I could let the money go, but I've now been unemployed* for near 6 months, and my savings are drying up. It's getting spooky, and the medical problems aren't going away, either. At this pace, I'll either end up homeless** in four months, or will be couch surfing on friends' couches until I run out of social capital.
It's a shitty situation, all around. I wish I had a better idea.
And I suppose I'm writing this all down, here, because I still feel like an entitled, lazy, and spoiled child for suing them, and it's mostly my fault I'm in this position, in the first place. I decided I was secure enough to have a girlfriend. I could've played it safe, just let her go, not dated her, and I wouldn't be in this position. I could've also prioritized financial safety more than I did (and lived with my parents,) over moving out & getting away from them. I thought the amount of runway I'd given myself was enough, and I was wrong. I made the mess, and I should accept my consequences with grace, and stop complaining.
Expressing this viewpoint to my chosen family/friends has not gone over well, and as the situation worsens, my options are narrowing to homelessness, asking for more leniency or even help from my friends, or getting the court order. I'd rather be homeless than burden my friends, and I'd rather get the court order than be homeless.
I retained the lawyer this past week, and anytime I think about it, I still feel like I'm a bad person. It's hard to believe the people in my life who think I've been wronged, in part because they're so obviously on my side. But you, dear internet strangers, don't know me from Adam.
* unemployment: in my current profession (a specialized branch of data science), every job I've applied to wants either a PhD, or 5-8 years of industry experience. I've applied to everything even remotely related in the area, even if they require a PhD, but I only got two callbacks in six months. I'm taking up small projects, and am attempting to learn more in my field, in the hopes that demonstrating skill will be enough. I've also had professionals review my resume. I'm not making obvious errors: no tacky/sleazy social media posts, no disciplinary action, left on good terms with previous supervisors/professors, etc. The advice of those in my field has been to get a PhD. Without a full scholarship, though, that seems infeasible. (Also, some portion of financial aid depends on need, and I don't qualify.)
I've additionally tried minimum wage places, but they balk at the lack of service experience, and the Master's degree. I've been even going online looking for tutoring gigs, (I have previous experience as a tutor and TA,) but so far, no luck.
Lately, in addition to applying to as many jobs as I can, I've been pouring energy into my side business (illustration,) and am hoping more commissions will start coming in, but that's moving slowly. I'm not giving up by any means, though. There are likely options I just haven't thought of or tried, yet.
** homelessness: the rest of the family is about-as or more uncomfortable with LGBT folk, as my parents. I can't stay with them, or with my parents. (Pretending to go back in the closet would be met with disbelief and scorn -- I've already shamed the family, and that "shame" cannot be undone.) My roommates are letting me pay reduced rent until I get a job, in exchange for labor, but they'll eventually run out of patience, I expect. I don't believe I can get cheaper rent in my area, as it stands. My current expenses can be boiled down to rent (includes utilities,) groceries, and my (cheap google-fi) phone plan, and (rare) interactions with public transit.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 06, 2019, 10:21:39 PM
I'll be very blunt. Instruct your lawyer to show no mercy. Your mother deserves whatever the law tosses at her, including jail.
You have no reason to be nice. Your own mother is stealing from you. If you end up getting her put into jail for it, feel good about yourself.
I see no reason to deal with her ever again once you get your money. If your dad participated or condoned the abuse, ditto for him.
It's not your fault that your mother is scum.
And you sound pretty amazing. Yeah, you.
Post by: Goldielocks on February 06, 2019, 10:35:02 PM
Actually, if you are good with illustration, look for a branch of engineering and design that requires hand drawing or modelling as part of your work. I did plant layout and design and others I know did product desgin / mechanical design. We needed lots of sketches to describe ideas. Also lots of communication design work involved in putting together and writing large proposals to win projects, like winning the electrical control system for a new city transit system. Heck, look into architecture, although the jobs may not be quite a plenitful at first.
Post by: Dicey on February 06, 2019, 10:40:00 PM
You are not a bad person.
You are not a bad person.
With a mother like that, it's a fucking miracle that you're a responsible, functioning, caring human being. She does not respect you now, so you literally have nothing to lose.
Nosy questions you don't have to answer: Is there anything weird in your birth story? Do you have siblings? Does she treat them the same way?
I hope you researched the shit out of that lawyer. You deserve everything they're going to get for you. BTW, contact the IRS and get copies of your tax returns asap. You dont need a lawyer to do that and I suspect there's some seriously incriminating evidence just waiting to be uncovered.
Finally, say nothing to your mother or any other family member. Not one word.
Post by: chrisgermany on February 06, 2019, 10:42:04 PM
And try to get copies of your tax documents from the IRS,maybe through your lawyer. This information belongs to you, it will make your case complete.
And it might put enough pressure on your parents to avoid court.
Post by: dramathrowaway on February 06, 2019, 11:50:54 PM
Nosy questions you don't have to answer: Is there anything weird in your birth story? Do you have siblings? Does she treat them the same way?
I hope you researched the shit out of that lawyer. You deserve everything they're going to get for you. BTW, contact the IRS and get copies of your tax returns asap. You dont need a lawyer to do that and I suspect there's some seriously incriminating evidence just waiting to be uncovered.
I'm an only child. I did used to wonder if I was really related to them, in part because they refused to give me my birth certificate/ssn (even to this day!) I did order myself new copies from the state about a year ago, though, and there were no irregularities. There could be something I'm missing, however my parents and I do bear a passing resemblance, even if we're nothing alike in temperament.
I did my own careful research on the relevant laws before I started calling lawyers, then used the local Bar Association's referral service, and then compared several lawyers (seeing if their responses to my questions were similar, etc) before finally deciding on my lawyer. I also relied on the advice of friends who knew/have experience with lawyers. The one I picked is no-nonsense, and a bit sharky. I figure if I'm doing this, I'd better win.
I didn't know I could get that information directly from the IRS, and now feel a bit foolish! It seems obvious in retrospect that they would send that to me. I was previously trying to get this information through the accountant that previously did my parents' (and my) taxes! He informed my parents, resulting in the aforementioned bullying. I will call first thing, tomorrow morning.
@SwordGuy I will probably never feel entirely good about this, but life will become much less stressful, once this is sorted. It's a matter of parts of me strongly agreeing with you, and other parts more sympathetic to them, disagreeing. I used to excuse far more of their behavior, telling myself that they grew up in abusive homes, themselves, and how they never learned any better. But. I mean. So did I. The longer I spend away from them, the more I see all the opportunities they had to change their behavior, and become better people. They chose to emulate their own abusers, even while acknowledging how painful their own experiences were, which leaves me intensely disappointed in them, as people. Overall, most of me thinks it'll be far healthier to have them out of my life, and I can only hope that I'm making the right decision, now.
This case looks like it's unlikely to end in prison, unless there are some previously-unknown IRS shenanigans.
@Goldielocks I have been considering all of these things, and will be regrouping and making FIRE/long-term career decisions, once I get over this hurdle. I will have to find people to ask who know more about the intersection between illustration and engineering.
@chrisgermany I'll see if I can get them on my own, first. I don't want to rack up a big bill, if it turns out there are no irregularities. Some of my mother's controlling behavior is simply the need for control, full stop. If I find anything strange in them, though, I'll send it straight to the lawyer.
Post by: UnleashHell on February 07, 2019, 04:05:46 AM
if it goes legal them its possible you could claim for money you lost due to lost funding for schools, refusal to invest and turn over the money. etc.etc.
your relationship may break over this. get everything out of the way now in one go.
if your mother has been abusive re money then have you though she might be doing the same to your grandparents? you might want to wrest control of that back too.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 07, 2019, 06:25:54 AM
@Axecleaver, any suggestions here?
Post by: marion10 on February 07, 2019, 06:31:01 AM
Post by: PrairieBeardstache on February 07, 2019, 06:43:12 AM
Oh boy, a thread for me to vent on...
Here's my story (so far:)
...
It's not your fault and your mom is a selfish prick. Full stop.
Also, there are some of us that need to distance ourselves from our parents. It's not an easy decision. Most people won't understand or support you. There's more than enough evidence and papers to indicate that doing so is a healthy activity. Don't look back. March forward. Find what you need and go after it.
I wish you the best.
Post by: AMandM on February 07, 2019, 07:00:00 AM
Quote
And I suppose I'm writing this all down, here, because I still feel like an entitled, lazy, and spoiled child for suing them, and it's mostly my fault I'm in this position, in the first place.
Oh, my dear, my heart breaks for the years of abuse that have you still feeling this way.
It is not entitled to want what was given to you, and to want to use it for its intended purpose. Seeking justice is not entitlement.
It is not lazy to work to support yourself and to do so in the face of active interference obstacles. Doing something other than what your mother wants is not laziness.
It is not spoiled to be in a financial predicament due to medical issues, it is not spoiled to take steps to escape abuse, it is not spoiled to have recourse to professionals to help you to do so.
It is not your fault that your mother lied, cheated, abused, and manipulated you. It is to your credit that you can see the lies, cheating, abuse, and manipulation, and that you are actively resisting and fighting against them. Hang in there.
Along with a lawyer for the money, can you consult a therapist? In my area at least, there are free or sliding-scale clinics associated with universities or community centers or churches.
Good luck! We're all rooting for you!
P.S.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506t.pdf for free transcripts of your tax returns (contains the line-by-line info)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506.pdf for actual copies, $50 each
Post by: radram on February 07, 2019, 08:03:56 AM
P.S.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506t.pdf for free transcripts of your tax returns (contains the line-by-line info)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506.pdf for actual copies, $50 each
You can go here and either:
1. Set up an account and see your information TODAY.
2. Request that the documents me mailed to you in about 2 weeks.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/get-transcript
I was unable to set up an account, so I just had them mail it to me. Very simple, very easy, very complete. Note that the information looks very different than the tax forms, but all the numbers are there if you look.
Please do this today, and send it directly to your lawyer when you get it. I am guessing your lawyer will give some sort of notification to your parents that they are not to file on your behalf anymore.
Have you been signing your returns? I would no longer sign them without having your lawyer look at them.
Please keep us posted.
Post by: Just Joe on February 07, 2019, 11:59:25 AM
Post by: shelivesthedream on February 08, 2019, 06:48:09 AM
Post by: Dicey on February 08, 2019, 07:42:35 AM
While you're doing research, get a DNA test kit, just because it's a fun distraction, if nothing else. I wouldn't be surprised if your conception was somehow the crux of the issue. Was it a shotgun wedding? Was there manipulation by your father or her parents? Did you innocently interrupt some plans she had for her future? She very possibly behaves this way toward you because of deficiencies she feels in herself, but she'll never admit it. Don't waste your precious life energy on her, she's unlikely to ever change. Spend your spoons making your life the one you truly deserve. She simply can not and will not do that for you.
In my own life, I know my momma loved me (cue Paul Simon), but our relationship was the source of much heartache on both sides. In retrospect, she may have been jealous of me. I was more extroverted and willing to think for myself and make my own decisions. (Headstrong? Independent? Yes.) As I grew and made [good] choices that reflected who I was, her seething multiplied. Perhaps she resented my freedom. I always thought I'd feel guilty when she was gone. I am continually amazed to discover that what I feel is deep, abiding, abundant relief.
Post by: mm1970 on February 08, 2019, 01:17:55 PM
@dramathrowaway ,+1 on this and what everyone else says.
I'll be very blunt. Instruct your lawyer to show no mercy. Your mother deserves whatever the law tosses at her, including jail.
You have no reason to be nice. Your own mother is stealing from you. If you end up getting her put into jail for it, feel good about yourself.
I see no reason to deal with her ever again once you get your money. If your dad participated or condoned the abuse, ditto for him.
It's not your fault that your mother is scum.
And you sound pretty amazing. Yeah, you.
My heart breaks for you. Can't be an engineer? I'm 20+ years older than you and an engineer. Still with the anti-gay stuff in this day and age? My aunt (who is 60) is gay and I know SHE went through that at your age, but now? It's terrible.
Post by: jengod on February 08, 2019, 07:44:48 PM
My husband shared this article with me the other day and now I share it with you. He was estranged from his parents for at least 10 years and he doesn't regret it. We do try to keep them connected to their grandkids, but it's still better for his mental health to separate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/i-cut-off-all-contact-with-my-mother-it-made-my-life-much-better/2019/01/18/cc454e9e-1529-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.074a2b7d96cb
Don't hesitate to sue your mother. She's clearly abusive across many dimensions, including financially. Get your money back and then just cut her out of your life. When you can afford therapy, please get it and take the years (decades?) necessary to put your experiences in proper context.
I think you're doing a great job with your life and cutting out this hostile energy will make it even better.
Here's an article on female narcissists (who may present a bit differently than male narcissists). See if anything matches:
https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2018/01/the-female-narcissist-is-just-as-dangerous-heres-why/
GOOD LUCK!
Post by: FIPurpose on February 09, 2019, 08:38:13 AM
Oh boy, a thread for me to vent on...
Here's my story (so far:)
...
Everyone I've told this story to has strongly advised me to get a lawyer, and I hesitated for months, hoping some reasonable solution could be reached. (For example, giving me a portion of the funds to invest in index funds, so that I could demonstrate that I'm a responsible investor, but every possible compromise was rejected.) The bank said that if I can get a court order, they'll happily turn it over. I also checked to make sure my mother hasn't drained the account, but it seems she hasn't. (A little after that, my mother discovered the girlfriend, and we had our largely-unrelated fight.)
...
So, I've gotten a lawyer. I dislike doing it, and it feels scummy. Growing up, I was taught I owed everything to them, and I mean EVERYTHING. My art talent/skill wasn't my own, neither were my grades, study habits, etc. They even said my friends only liked me due to my parents' large house! Looking back, this is abusive behavior. (And for the sake of brevity, I'm leaving out descriptions of the years of physical abuse, including chemical burns, and other assorted, but mostly unrelated, abuse.) They weren't parents trying to prepare their child for the world -- they wanted me under their control, and dependent on them (or another male authority figure.) Their primary goal when I attended college was for me to find a husband, for chrissake. I know this is going to wreck whatever remains of my relationship to my mother, and likely the rest of my biological family, too. But given the girlfriend-arguments and already strained relationship, I'm not sure that's much of a loss.
...
@lexde
I bolded a particular phrase that stuck out to me. Lawyers can be scummy. There is somewhat of a common trope that lawyers are scoundrels leaching off the public. But I don't think that's how you're using this phrase.
This came off to me as exactly as your mother would want you to feel. This is the abuse speaking to you; this is the abuse lying to you. There is absolutely nothing scummy or dislikable about taking someone who has stolen from you to court. This is your mother trying to get into your head. These feelings you have about the lawyer I believe are actually coming from your upbringing.
This isn't your fault, and you're not weak for needing the government to bring justice for you. Use the help the lawyer will give you. Let the lawyer bring absolutely everything he can against your parents.
Post by: dramathrowaway on February 09, 2019, 06:50:15 PM
Going low to no contact will also likely be a relief. Also, the information for the IRS saved me a few clicks. Thanks. :)
I've made another (non-throwaway) account, that I'll use to discuss my adventures in mustachianism. (--> @JSalazar)
@Dicey I have enough information to infer most of the story. If you're curious: my parents were strongly influenced by my grandparents, who were self-made millionaires (quite mustachian, but outside of their business, nutsos.) The grandparents withheld affection, were physically abusive, etc., but my mother put up with it due to the significant financial aid my grandparents provided. To my grandparents, motherhood was expected. Unfortunately, motherhood turned out to be far more work than my mother was willing to do. Before I was born, she enjoyed a social life full of glittering parties & fancy dinners. I wasn't a healthy baby, when I was born. I don't believe I ever needed long-term hospitalization, but it was enough to effectively kill her social life. (I was the sort of baby with sensitivity to sound/light/certain textures/foods, etc.) This enraged her. She expected me to do everything perfectly the first time, to never be ill, to never need different food, etc. As I grew up, I was a frequent interruption in her routine, and she needs her routines like most people need water (severe OCD.) Eventually I learned better, but then she started seeking me out, demanding I act in the role of a therapist any time her own parents decided to belittle her parenting skills (or lack thereof.) It's funny, because I learned to treat my own issues through research/attempts to treat my mother. What made it worse was that my grandparents seemed to unconditionally love me, praising me as though I could do no wrong. My mother, on the other hand, could never do anything right. If you're familiar with NPD, it's a slight twist on the golden child / scapegoat dynamic. Once I began to see the dynamic for what it was, I started feeling uncomfortable around my grandparents, especially as I learned more about how they abused their daughter. I'm committed to breaking that chain.
I also suspect she thought she could relive her younger (best) years through me. She dressed me up as she had dressed, when she was younger. I was made to adopt her chosen hairstyle, hair color, the kinds of clothes she liked, friends she would've had, etc. This sort of thing is cute when done to babies (sort of?) but disturbing when done to a 16-25 year old. For example, I read much more than she did, which resulted in punishment. Basically, she wanted MomVer2.0. The abuse was mostly an extension of trying to fit me into this mold, even if it required using hair dye I was *very* allergic to, for example. I could be doubled over in front of her, and she'd just shrug and call it the "price of beauty." The whole situation is both hilarious and sad.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on February 09, 2019, 09:58:12 PM
I have found the ability to see humor in unpleasant situations to be a great asset. It has allowed me to maintain a positive additude instead of allowing myself to get pulled down by negative feelings.
You will get through this fine. I can tell by the way you describe your mother that you understand what makes people tick, which means you can examine and analyze your own emotions, feelings, and motives. You can move beyond the influence that you mother had on you. Eventually, you may find that things come full circle and you have the upper hand, and are able to show her the grace and love that she wasn't capable of showing you. (I recently had that pleasure, something which I'll always treasure.)
Don't worry. Be stong. Find love & joy. Everything will be okay, actually it will be much better than okay.
Post by: lexde on February 11, 2019, 11:32:22 AM
Hi hello! I don't think the "scummy" was in reference to the lawyer, but was more in reference to having to go over her parents' heads to the law, when parents have typically been the end-all-be-all authority figure for her.Oh boy, a thread for me to vent on...
Here's my story (so far:)
...
Everyone I've told this story to has strongly advised me to get a lawyer, and I hesitated for months, hoping some reasonable solution could be reached. (For example, giving me a portion of the funds to invest in index funds, so that I could demonstrate that I'm a responsible investor, but every possible compromise was rejected.) The bank said that if I can get a court order, they'll happily turn it over. I also checked to make sure my mother hasn't drained the account, but it seems she hasn't. (A little after that, my mother discovered the girlfriend, and we had our largely-unrelated fight.)
...
So, I've gotten a lawyer. I dislike doing it, and it feels scummy. Growing up, I was taught I owed everything to them, and I mean EVERYTHING. My art talent/skill wasn't my own, neither were my grades, study habits, etc. They even said my friends only liked me due to my parents' large house! Looking back, this is abusive behavior. (And for the sake of brevity, I'm leaving out descriptions of the years of physical abuse, including chemical burns, and other assorted, but mostly unrelated, abuse.) They weren't parents trying to prepare their child for the world -- they wanted me under their control, and dependent on them (or another male authority figure.) Their primary goal when I attended college was for me to find a husband, for chrissake. I know this is going to wreck whatever remains of my relationship to my mother, and likely the rest of my biological family, too. But given the girlfriend-arguments and already strained relationship, I'm not sure that's much of a loss.
...
@lexde
I bolded a particular phrase that stuck out to me. Lawyers can be scummy. There is somewhat of a common trope that lawyers are scoundrels leaching off the public. But I don't think that's how you're using this phrase.
This came off to me as exactly as your mother would want you to feel. This is the abuse speaking to you; this is the abuse lying to you. There is absolutely nothing scummy or dislikable about taking someone who has stolen from you to court. This is your mother trying to get into your head. These feelings you have about the lawyer I believe are actually coming from your upbringing.
This isn't your fault, and you're not weak for needing the government to bring justice for you. Use the help the lawyer will give you. Let the lawyer bring absolutely everything he can against your parents.
@dramathrowaway -- don't think of this as "suing your parents." Think of the action more as "following procedure to gain access to assets that are yours." Do you have any access to the account? Can you see the balance?
I don't know what state your assets are in so I can't tell you what the particular laws are regarding your situation. Blahblah this isn't legal advice I'm not your lawyer etc.
With the limited information that I have available, I'd contact the financial representative and ask once more that the account be transferred as you are now over the age of majority, do not have a custodian or guardian appointed to you, and by law the assets are exclusively yours. If they refuse or give you the runaround, remain adamant: I am over the age of transfer, I am a legal adult, I do not have a custodian or guardian appointed to me, by law the assets are exclusively mine. Still nothing? Request to be put in touch with the legal department. Remind them politely that if they do not release the funds to you, that they will be looking at legal proceedings not just for the amount of funds in the account but for associated legal fees and court expenses. If they are not disputing that you are the beneficiary, this should be a non-issue. Ask them to transfer the funds into an account that is exclusively yours. It's absurd that they are circumventing (what I am assuming to be) the law here by refusing to give you access to your own funds.
If that doesn't work, then just call the service department and ask what they need in order to liquidate the account. Sometimes a simple workaround like this, with no pretense or contention, is the way to go, and a rep will tell you what you need (which shouldn't include the custodian letter). If they require the letter, tell them that you are over the custodial age and ask if an affidavit signed by you and notarized would be sufficient. Affidavits are easy, just ask what info they need and make sure it's included. You can probably google something like, "Affidavit of Identity" for examples.
Post by: lexde on February 11, 2019, 11:44:05 AM
My grandfather was a multimillionaire, his kids (my father + uncle) were set to inherit everything except his (lavish) home when he passed. His second wife forged a new will and left us with nothing. Also we are pretty sure she "induced" his passing. That was about $25M to each son that evaporated.
A few years later...
My great-uncle (grandfather's brother) was also a multimillionaire. Everything was supposed to go in equal parts to my father & my uncle on his passing since he was a jerk and didn't have a family of his own. The timing on this one was bad. Great-uncle went into hospice, and a few months later my dad died. While my dad was on life support, my uncle told great-uncle that my dad had already died (knowing full well he had not, and we still had some hope at that point...) and told him to write my dad out of the will, leaving $25,000 total to my brother and I rather than half of the estate (valued at around $10M). My mom spent the $25K on a lawyer trying to show undue influence, but because he was in hospice for so long before, no one could attest that he was NOT clear at the time he made the change. So that was $5M directly to me that went up in smoke. My cousins (uncle's kids) were absolutely rotten to me for a long time and sucked up to him thinking they would get something out of it, but they haven't (and won't) see a penny of it. He'd rather burn his dollars on his funeral pyre than see them go to anyone else. What a sad, truly evil person he is.
TLDR: My family is full of vultures, money makes evil people more-evil, none of this was surprising, I should have been a multi-millionaire at 18, and I'm doing just fine paying my own way.
Post by: AMandM on February 11, 2019, 12:49:17 PM
Post by: Pooperman on February 11, 2019, 01:23:55 PM
Thanks for all the best wishes and advice. Reading your replies and feeling your empathy, I have a better sense of how skewed my own view has become. I've heard of NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) and the relevant subreddits, though I've largely avoided them, due to how similar their experiences are to my own. It can sometimes be hard to read. I strongly suspect my mother has some form of this, which was left to fester, as she never sought out any means of bettering herself. As for therapy, I'm working through CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and DBT (Dialectical behavior therapy, to learn healthy coping mechanisms,) on my own. When I have more in the way of funding, I'll likely pursue formal therapy. In the meantime, I'm fortunate enough to have a couple people in my life who are familiar enough with the kinds of problems someone like me typically develops. I have it on good authority that I'm likely to beat this in 3-5 years, so I'm fairly optimistic.
Going low to no contact will also likely be a relief. Also, the information for the IRS saved me a few clicks. Thanks. :)
I've made another (non-throwaway) account, that I'll use to discuss my adventures in mustachianism. (--> @JSalazar)
@Dicey I have enough information to infer most of the story. If you're curious: my parents were strongly influenced by my grandparents, who were self-made millionaires (quite mustachian, but outside of their business, nutsos.) The grandparents withheld affection, were physically abusive, etc., but my mother put up with it due to the significant financial aid my grandparents provided. To my grandparents, motherhood was expected. Unfortunately, motherhood turned out to be far more work than my mother was willing to do. Before I was born, she enjoyed a social life full of glittering parties & fancy dinners. I wasn't a healthy baby, when I was born. I don't believe I ever needed long-term hospitalization, but it was enough to effectively kill her social life. (I was the sort of baby with sensitivity to sound/light/certain textures/foods, etc.) This enraged her. She expected me to do everything perfectly the first time, to never be ill, to never need different food, etc. As I grew up, I was a frequent interruption in her routine, and she needs her routines like most people need water (severe OCD.) Eventually I learned better, but then she started seeking me out, demanding I act in the role of a therapist any time her own parents decided to belittle her parenting skills (or lack thereof.) It's funny, because I learned to treat my own issues through research/attempts to treat my mother. What made it worse was that my grandparents seemed to unconditionally love me, praising me as though I could do no wrong. My mother, on the other hand, could never do anything right. If you're familiar with NPD, it's a slight twist on the golden child / scapegoat dynamic. Once I began to see the dynamic for what it was, I started feeling uncomfortable around my grandparents, especially as I learned more about how they abused their daughter. I'm committed to breaking that chain.
I also suspect she thought she could relive her younger (best) years through me. She dressed me up as she had dressed, when she was younger. I was made to adopt her chosen hairstyle, hair color, the kinds of clothes she liked, friends she would've had, etc. This sort of thing is cute when done to babies (sort of?) but disturbing when done to a 16-25 year old. For example, I read much more than she did, which resulted in punishment. Basically, she wanted MomVer2.0. The abuse was mostly an extension of trying to fit me into this mold, even if it required using hair dye I was *very* allergic to, for example. I could be doubled over in front of her, and she'd just shrug and call it the "price of beauty." The whole situation is both hilarious and sad.
Something else to check: your credit. Someone who would steal from you like this may also have stolen from you another way.
Post by: TexasRunner on February 11, 2019, 02:22:50 PM
Something else to check: your credit. Someone who would steal from you like this may also have stolen from you another way.
Very much this, and you can run your credit report online for free.
(This is the ACTUAL free one, government sponsored: https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ (https://www.annualcreditreport.com/). FYI there are a ton of "Buy your credit report sites" that are really just trying to offer credit monitoring...)
Post by: Just Joe on February 28, 2019, 10:16:03 AM
In short a relative I haven't seen in a very long time has popped up asking for DOB and address to add me to their will and possibly transfer unspecified property to me if I want it. This relative is from a messy part of the family that often feuded over money. Now this relative is one of the few left and has whatever is left of that money. There seems to be a genuine wish to gift me property in my town that i would then be free to sell or keep if I wanted.
Relative tells me I'm their favorite. Might even be true b/c I did happily spent time with them when I was younger and I've never said a mean word to them though they were part of the inheritance drama after my grandparents passed.
My parent was also part of the drama although myself and my other parent gently removed my parent from the drama to preserve their emotional stability. It left emotional scars.
In short my grandparents had a will which divided up things more or less equally but a now dead relative raided some of the accounts and walked away. Various papers went missing, some cash went missing, relative went mum, etc. As my parents didn't need the money, my attitude was that they should just retreat and make peace with it. We all cut ties and continued our lives.
That's my attitude now. If this relative were to get weird - or cause problems with their sibling/my parent - I'd rather just walk away from whatever the gift might be.
Its a different kind of FU money that DW and I have - the ability to avoid inheritance conflicts b/c we have our own comfortable life.
I'm worried both about some sort of identity theft risk and worried about the potential family drama time bomb this might create.
So should I be worried about giving over my DOB and address? Any risks that anyone can identify?
Post by: jinga nation on February 28, 2019, 11:16:10 AM
I've written a couple long winded narratives here about this and then deleted them. I don't know what to make of recent events.
In short a relative I haven't seen in a very long time has popped up asking for DOB and address to add me to their will and possibly transfer unspecified property to me if I want it. This relative is from a messy part of the family that often feuded over money. Now this relative is one of the few left and has whatever is left of that money. There seems to be a genuine wish to gift me property in my town that i would then be free to sell or keep if I wanted.
Relative tells me I'm their favorite. Might even be true b/c I did happily spent time with them when I was younger and I've never said a mean word to them though they were part of the inheritance drama after my grandparents passed.
My parent was also part of the drama although myself and my other parent gently removed my parent from the drama to preserve their emotional stability. It left emotional scars.
In short my grandparents had a will which divided up things more or less equally but a now dead relative raided some of the accounts and walked away. Various papers went missing, some cash went missing, relative went mum, etc. As my parents didn't need the money, my attitude was that they should just retreat and make peace with it. We all cut ties and continued our lives.
That's my attitude now. If this relative were to get weird - or cause problems with their sibling/my parent - I'd rather just walk away from whatever the gift might be.
Its a different kind of FU money that DW and I have - the ability to avoid inheritance conflicts b/c we have our own comfortable life.
I'm worried both about some sort of identity theft risk and worried about the potential family drama time bomb this might create.
So should I be worried about giving over my DOB and address? Any risks that anyone can identify?
Red flags all over this. you don't need the DOB and address for a will, at least not where I live. Identity theft happening 99.9% guaranteed if you give the info. That relative might be going around with the same story to other relatives too... you don't phish one person at a time.
To mess with them, give them a fake DOB like 6/9/69 and a UPS store address. That might cause follow-on issues, your call.
Post by: six-car-habit on February 28, 2019, 11:26:48 AM
Bring them to the property in question, have a snack on the lawn, tree clearing, rooftop, sidewalk, whichever. Ask what they would want done with the property and why you seem to them to be the best caretaker for it. I suppose they would like it kept in the family, at least a little longer ?
Its a relative , they can figure out your address, and your birthday date can be found in some old calendar of their own, or Grandmas calendar/ datebook from when JustJoe was a cute 3 yr old , and Aunt/ Uncle went to your b-day party.. They can reason out the year of birth. I wouldn't stress on identity theft too much.
Post by: partgypsy on February 28, 2019, 12:03:14 PM
In my family there was favoritism of the boys. Some examples the boys got allowances. When we asked for an allowance our Dad said, what do you need an allowance for? If you need something I can buy it. We had chores we had to do, but did not get paid for them (one of them was making all the beds, including our brothers' beds). However if our brothers did the exact same chore (shoveling snow, mowing lawn) they would be paid.
On my mom's side, my mother was the first born, but then about 5, 7 years later her 2 little brothers came along. She was very bright (read every book in her branch library) and told that they would make sure she would go to college. When it came time to go to college my grandparents said of course she's not going to college, they were saving any money they had so her brothers could go, and she should just move back after high school and get a job to help support the family and her brothers. Maybe that's what would have happened. But my great grandmother said that was nonsense she was the smartest of the bunch, and paid the college costs. And while my Mom did inherit some significant assets from the great grandfather, I don't think she got anything of note when either of her parents passed away.
On my Dad's side, my grandmother was widowed young. Even though she was considered middle class, her husband both due to business losses occuring when he was sick, and from pride, made sure to pay all his debts before he died, leaving the family with nothing (not even a house). Raised two sons with great grandmother's help (who was also widowed young). She immigrated to the US, brought both of her sons over eventually and gave them all the money she had saved from working at a sweat shop for 5-10 years. Luckily the brothers were successful so she lived with us or our aunt and uncle the rest of her life. She still was so frugal that if she got a bar of soap as a gift, wouldn't use it, but display it on her dresser.
Anyways whenever there is a crisis our mother often wants us two girls to drop everything to help "the family". This has happened to my sister multiple times since she lives closer. I understand my mother was raised to feel that females have less value, or only value in regards to how they could help the family, but no, not going to keep that going. She has a number of jewelry pieces that were willed down to us from our great grandmother. She agrees they are ours, but also will not give them to us, because "she might need to sell for financial reasons". Financial reasons including making sure my deadbeat older brother, who lives off her, has cable, xbox, and cigarettes. I'm thinking the likelihood that my sister and I will inherit anything of value from either parent is slim to none.
Post by: Just Joe on February 28, 2019, 12:17:07 PM
I would say visit the relative [uncle / aunt ?] and take them out for lunch. They may have a different perspective on the previous drama you haven't heard, or may have had their own issues with deceased grabby relative - that they want to talk to someone about, but doesn't want to approach your parent seeking for a sympathetic ear.
Bring them to the property in question, have a snack on the lawn, tree clearing, rooftop, sidewalk, whichever. Ask what they would want done with the property and why you seem to them to be the best caretaker for it. I suppose they would like it kept in the family, at least a little longer ?
Its a relative , they can figure out your address, and your birthday date can be found in some old calendar of their own, or Grandmas calendar/ datebook from when JustJoe was a cute 3 yr old , and Aunt/ Uncle went to your b-day party.. They can reason out the year of birth. I wouldn't stress on identity theft too much.
Don't know exactly where the relative lives. I know +/- 100 miles of where they live but only because of what they told me. Jinga: I agree on the DOB and address. I was able to find this relative's info this morn doing a basic background check. If I can find their's, they can find mine.
I think what I'll do is invite them to lunch the next time they are in my state, they do alot of miles a year apparently. Talk a little, as suggested. They did say they were using a local lawyer whose name I did not recognize. Maybe I'll get more info and talk to the lawyer. See if this is all real. Perhaps explore what financial liabilities I might be facing.
Post by: AMandM on February 28, 2019, 03:00:51 PM
Post by: ysette9 on February 28, 2019, 03:44:22 PM
Please do keep us posted. We are rooting for you. I wish there was something concrete I could do to help.
Post by: bluebelle on March 02, 2019, 10:13:19 AM
Post by: Just Joe on March 02, 2019, 10:51:45 AM
Post by: Threshkin on March 03, 2019, 11:07:33 PM
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
Why keep it a secret? Don't you want them to know they a getting a equal share? Or are you trying to keep the will a secret? That might be harder.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 04, 2019, 06:30:50 AM
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
Why keep it a secret? Don't you want them to know they a getting a equal share? Or are you trying to keep the will a secret? That might be harder.
I think the part they want to keep secret is that the parents didn't treat the kids equally. They want all siblings to be treated equally and think the parents intended it that way.
Post by: Alfred J Quack on March 04, 2019, 07:09:14 AM
As for my own "drama". My grandfather from the UK wasn't well a few years back. The last time I visited my father and uncles were openly discussing how the monies were going to be divided a after his passing. They knew his will and were not afraid about talking about it, though it was a businesslike conversation.
Fast forward a year, and he had passed away. The funeral was very well cared for, they had a speaker from the humanist society and it was all very familyal.
A month or 2 later I get a mail from my dad, the executor wanted my address so he could write me a cheque for the inheritance. I answered that I couldn't cash a check with my bank and that he'd have to wire it to my account (most banks in the Netherlands don't cash cheques anymore).
2 weeks later I have 2 cheques in the mail, one for me and one for my son. So I get pissed, mail my dad that I can't do anything with it and that he should take it out on the executor. He does, in a 5 week back and forth they work out the details and he sends it to my account.
As I understand it, my dad, uncles and aunt were going totally nuts over the executor. He'd send e-mails asking for partial information, then send a second and maybe e third after you respond that he needs more info. All the while charging 300 pounds an hour.
Also, part of the will was that the great-grandkids received a small sum at their 16th birthday. The executor would have to "check" every year whether one had reached this age and if so take action. They basically told him that they would pay out those cheques immediatly because their inheritance was dependent on the amount that would have been left over.
I mind it more that my kids never got to see their great-grandfather though... Especially my oldest son, he was already born but we just couldn't make the time for it. If anything, my drama is the remorse I feel about that...
Post by: Just Joe on March 04, 2019, 07:44:29 AM
In the bank and under the mattress doesn't really let it grow to keep up with inflation. Other methods might be too restrictive. I just don't know much about these things.
I was promised a gift of some amount but don't really expect to receive anything ever. Maybe it will go perfectly, no drama.
I can also imagine this being the focal point of a family dispute later if I was gifted something but no one else was. If it all goes sour I'd just rather give the money back rather than be in the middle of something. I have a low tolerance for all that sort of stuff. DW and I are doing just fine by ourselves.
Post by: talltexan on March 04, 2019, 08:14:23 AM
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
Why keep it a secret? Don't you want them to know they a getting a equal share? Or are you trying to keep the will a secret? That might be harder.
It's two separate decisions:
1. DH decides that he will transfer whatever is necessary to make the estate end up 33-33-33.
2. DH asks his parents to explain why they're choosing the %'s they are.
Post by: sherr on March 04, 2019, 08:24:34 AM
Here's an odd question: if someone were to me gift a check - say $10K - and there is the potential for family drama, where would be the best place for me to put the money so I could either return the money or divide it at a later date?
In the bank and under the mattress doesn't really let it grow to keep up with inflation. Other methods might be too restrictive. I just don't know much about these things.
If you want something completely safe then the best you can do is probably look for online-only high-interest savings accounts. Or a CD, as long as it merely charges something like "last three months of interest" or similar as the early-withdrawal penalty. You probably won't quite keep up with inflation with either of those at the moment, but it's better than the 0.1% or whatever that regular savings accounts are paying these days.
Post by: sherr on March 04, 2019, 08:28:21 AM
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but let me caution you against intentionally ignoring the will. An executor's job is to faithfully carry out the instructions in the will, not to change it to make it better. I don't know Canadian law (or USA law either for that matter) but it would not surprise me if you could be found personally liable if you ignore the will.
Post by: ysette9 on March 04, 2019, 09:14:01 AM
Post by: former player on March 04, 2019, 09:18:11 AM
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but let me caution you against intentionally ignoring the will. An executor's job is to faithfully carry out the instructions in the will, not to change it to make it better. I don't know Canadian law (or USA law either for that matter) but it would not surprise me if you could be found personally liable if you ignore the will.
Possibly, but 1) the only person who loses is OP, 2) who would have an interest in taking the case just to prove a point of principle? and 3) it is always open to someone to refuse to take all or part of an inheritance - which is effectively what OP is doing, with the result that the sisters' 25% shares become larger because more is in their side of the overall pot.
Personally, I'd say to the sisters "these wills are obviously 30 years out of date, I don't know what our parents were thinking but I have no doubt that the fair thing to do is for us to share everything equally and that's what I'm going to do." I think that's better than trying to hide. But OP knows their family best.
Post by: sherr on March 04, 2019, 10:07:34 AM
I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but let me caution you against intentionally ignoring the will. An executor's job is to faithfully carry out the instructions in the will, not to change it to make it better. I don't know Canadian law (or USA law either for that matter) but it would not surprise me if you could be found personally liable if you ignore the will.
Possibly, but 1) the only person who loses is OP, 2) who would have an interest in taking the case just to prove a point of principle? and 3) it is always open to someone to refuse to take all or part of an inheritance - which is effectively what OP is doing, with the result that the sisters' 25% shares become larger because more is in their side of the overall pot.
Personally, I'd say to the sisters "these wills are obviously 30 years out of date, I don't know what our parents were thinking but I have no doubt that the fair thing to do is for us to share everything equally and that's what I'm going to do." I think that's better than trying to hide. But OP knows their family best.
I was missing the fact that OP was both the executor and the party that would be missing out by splitting evenly. Thanks, objection withdrawn.
Post by: bluebelle on March 18, 2019, 11:21:12 AM
thanks to all that clarified what I was saying.....DH will execute the will as written, he will just quietly try and gift money to his sisters so that each of them gets 33 1/3 %, our assumption is that his sisters won't question each of them getting a 1/3, and thus we can keep them from knowing the misogynistic nature of the original will. They don't need to know that their parents valued them less because they were female. (speaking as a woman I am offended, I can't say whether they'd be or not or not, since they grew up in the culture - but why risk offending them). If they push to see the will, or make any kind of fuss, DH may choose to execute the will as written - his family, his choice. I can only tell him how I would feel if it were me......I will encourage him to pay himself as an executor, since we'll probably be living 3 hours away by the time his father passes, and that's alot of extra travel/gas.I'm hoping we can keep it from being 'drama' but I think there will be some hurt feelings......backstory, my in-laws wrote their will 30 years ago (before I was on the scene) and DH was in his early 20s (and not great with money).....fast forward 30 years, my MIL passed a few months ago after a lengthy illness. Helping his dad with paperwork, DH is given a copy of his mother's will, he is named executor, he had no idea. We're assuming his father's will is the same. When my FIL passes, it will divide the assests as 50% to DH and 25% to each of his sisters. The only rationale we can come up with is that it's because he has a penis. One of the sisters is older than him, both sisters have been dedicated to the parents, both are sensible with money. It can only be a cultural decision to favour the male born child. DH and I have already decided that it will be a 33.3% split amongst the siblings, and we will keep his sisters from even knowing if we can. I know when the time comes it will be me making the decsions and paperwork and DH will just sign as executor. His family has been in Canada for over 50 years, how can they still think it's okay to short change daughters? It boggles my mind. My parents wanted things to be so fair that they made my brother and I join executors, they knew I'm better with money but didn't want to potentially offend my older brother. And we're both so honest, we would never rip off the other.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but let me caution you against intentionally ignoring the will. An executor's job is to faithfully carry out the instructions in the will, not to change it to make it better. I don't know Canadian law (or USA law either for that matter) but it would not surprise me if you could be found personally liable if you ignore the will.
Possibly, but 1) the only person who loses is OP, 2) who would have an interest in taking the case just to prove a point of principle? and 3) it is always open to someone to refuse to take all or part of an inheritance - which is effectively what OP is doing, with the result that the sisters' 25% shares become larger because more is in their side of the overall pot.
Personally, I'd say to the sisters "these wills are obviously 30 years out of date, I don't know what our parents were thinking but I have no doubt that the fair thing to do is for us to share everything equally and that's what I'm going to do." I think that's better than trying to hide. But OP knows their family best.
I was missing the fact that OP was both the executor and the party that would be missing out by splitting evenly. Thanks, objection withdrawn.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on March 18, 2019, 02:29:14 PM
Post by: ysette9 on March 18, 2019, 03:41:01 PM
Does anyone know what is a reasonable fee for an executor?The list of fiduciary executors that the laquer we are working with sent us all change 1% of the estate.
At first that seemed like a lot but then I realized that it would only be for a year to finalize our estate. I also decided it was a good use of money so our family member named as guardian for our littles cohoe focus on their well-being and not on paperwork.
Post by: Wilson Hall on May 13, 2019, 11:27:37 AM
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Post by: Hula Hoop on May 13, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
Post by: Captain FIRE on May 13, 2019, 11:38:51 AM
Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
I'm gobsmacked because I don't see what grounds they even have to sue.
Post by: partgypsy on May 13, 2019, 11:43:39 AM
Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Actually they do NOT have the legal right. Hopefully an attorney will explain this to them to avoid this nonsense. They were adult children. There is no evidence her children were adopted by her late husband. IF there was no will (and there was a will) it would go to his wife, then biological children. Stepchildren have no natural rights to inheritance. Sometimes I hate people.
Post by: Wilson Hall on May 13, 2019, 12:56:01 PM
Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Actually they do NOT have the legal right. Hopefully an attorney will explain this to them to avoid this nonsense. They were adult children. There is no evidence her children were adopted by her late husband. IF there was no will (and there was a will) it would go to his wife, then biological children. Stepchildren have no natural rights to inheritance. Sometimes I hate people.
Yeah, I don't get it. They're apparently claiming there's a state law that allows this. During the past couple of years, several of the adult children used their mom's funds and/or their own (don't know which) to pay for in-home care for her; perhaps they presume they're entitled to some of his money because he benefited indirectly from an aide administering her meds and doing some housekeeping? If that's their rationale, they should've held onto the money she gifted them when she remarried, which might have been as much as high five to low six figures apiece: it was a damn big house. They could have stopped to consider how much more time and money they might be spending on her care if she hadn't had a new husband to provide a home and companionship for many years.
This is the pits for his kids, all of whom are working or middle class, at or near retirement themselves, and could put to good use whatever their dad left them. Instead, I'm sure the lawyers' fees are going to be eating up a chunk of whatever money there is.
I have no financial stake in this. It just makes me sad to see what greed can do to people, even (especially?) those who are upper-middle class or rich.
Post by: partgypsy on May 13, 2019, 01:16:32 PM
Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Actually they do NOT have the legal right. Hopefully an attorney will explain this to them to avoid this nonsense. They were adult children. There is no evidence her children were adopted by her late husband. IF there was no will (and there was a will) it would go to his wife, then biological children. Stepchildren have no natural rights to inheritance. Sometimes I hate people.
Yeah, I don't get it. They're apparently claiming there's a state law that allows this. During the past couple of years, several of the adult children used their mom's funds and/or their own (don't know which) to pay for in-home care for her; perhaps they presume they're entitled to some of his money because he benefited indirectly from an aide administering her meds and doing some housekeeping? If that's their rationale, they should've held onto the money she gifted them when she remarried, which might have been as much as high five to low six figures apiece: it was a damn big house. They could have stopped to consider how much more time and money they might be spending on her care if she hadn't had a new husband to provide a home and companionship for many years.
This is the pits for his kids, all of whom are working or middle class, at or near retirement themselves, and could put to good use whatever their dad left them. Instead, I'm sure the lawyers' fees are going to be eating up a chunk of whatever money there is.
I have no financial stake in this. It just makes me sad to see what greed can do to people, even (especially?) those who are upper-middle class or rich.
I just want the lawyer they hired to give them advice to give them the "you get nothing" speech in Willy Wonka. If not that, the presiding judge.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 14, 2019, 11:56:30 AM
Totally correct that non-dependent step children have zero inheritance rights. DH was adopted by his stepdad, (first dad died when he was 2) so ended up out of the will of his grandfather whom he had a life-long close relationship with.... No one realized that "all my grandchildren" would exclude a grandson that was adopted by someone else.
Post by: mm1970 on May 14, 2019, 02:02:55 PM
Gosh this is worse than my story that started up on page 1 or 2!Bumping this thread.
Elderly relative, widowed a decade-plus ago, marries elderly widow he met in grief counseling. Both are well-off financially, though her more so than him. After the wedding, she moves into his home, sells her big fancy house and distributes the sale proceeds to her grown children. The couple set up their money in a his/hers/theirs arrangement, complete with wills and possibly trusts. He dies, leaving his cash and ultimately the house (which his wife will continue to reside in until her death, per their arrangement) to his grown children. Now her kids are suing for a portion of his estate, claiming they're entitled to a share of it because the couple was married for ten years. While they may have the legal right, some of us are gobsmacked because they had already taken a decent amount of money from their mother years ago and were already quite wealthy. Now they want more.
Actually they do NOT have the legal right. Hopefully an attorney will explain this to them to avoid this nonsense. They were adult children. There is no evidence her children were adopted by her late husband. IF there was no will (and there was a will) it would go to his wife, then biological children. Stepchildren have no natural rights to inheritance. Sometimes I hate people.
Yeah, I don't get it. They're apparently claiming there's a state law that allows this. During the past couple of years, several of the adult children used their mom's funds and/or their own (don't know which) to pay for in-home care for her; perhaps they presume they're entitled to some of his money because he benefited indirectly from an aide administering her meds and doing some housekeeping? If that's their rationale, they should've held onto the money she gifted them when she remarried, which might have been as much as high five to low six figures apiece: it was a damn big house. They could have stopped to consider how much more time and money they might be spending on her care if she hadn't had a new husband to provide a home and companionship for many years.
This is the pits for his kids, all of whom are working or middle class, at or near retirement themselves, and could put to good use whatever their dad left them. Instead, I'm sure the lawyers' fees are going to be eating up a chunk of whatever money there is.
I have no financial stake in this. It just makes me sad to see what greed can do to people, even (especially?) those who are upper-middle class or rich.
Post by: SwordGuy on May 25, 2019, 06:19:28 PM
These stories are just sad...
I received a small inheritance recently (and unexpectedly). But alas for you all: it was the utter opposite of dramatic. The executor did everything 110% by the book and the inheritors all tripped over themselves making sure everyone else was OK with everything that was done. And everything worked out as it was supposed to. It reminded me how fortunate I am.
@Finances_With_Purpose ,
Yeah you , your living relatives, and those who raised them right!
Post by: TVRodriguez on June 10, 2019, 04:24:28 PM
Maybe there is more to the story, like they paid for a lot of renovations to make it wheelchair accessible, for mom and had an agreement to be repaid, and now just want it back.
Totally correct that non-dependent step children have zero inheritance rights. DH was adopted by his stepdad, (first dad died when he was 2) so ended up out of the will of his grandfather whom he had a life-long close relationship with.... No one realized that "all my grandchildren" would exclude a grandson that was adopted by someone else.
That's a shame. Most of the estate plans I draft include a clause allowing someone in your husband's situation to inherit from his original grandparents.
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on June 10, 2019, 07:43:07 PM
My mother only told me last night that two of my cousins hit up my aunt (their mother) to "dip into" my grandmother's estate (which was funding her aged care) for them.
Thank god my aunt had the balls to tell them where to go.
Post by: Gail2000 on June 11, 2019, 01:36:19 AM
Before my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my aunt had power of attorney.
My mother only told me last night that two of my cousins hit up my aunt (their mother) to "dip into" my grandmother's estate (which was funding her aged care) for them.
Thank god my aunt had the balls to tell them where to go.
Thank goodness for stories like this to restore faith in humanity.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 11, 2019, 08:33:16 AM
Before my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my aunt had power of attorney.
My mother only told me last night that two of my cousins hit up my aunt (their mother) to "dip into" my grandmother's estate (which was funding her aged care) for them.
Thank god my aunt had the balls to tell them where to go.
Thank goodness for stories like this to restore faith in one out of three members of humanity.
Fixed that for you...
Post by: Dicey on June 11, 2019, 02:26:33 PM
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.You are a total badass! Sorry it came to this, but hooray for you for standing your ground.
The very entitled, only boy in the group, insisted that it wasn't fair he would inherit less than my sister and I would. He held up the distribution, threatened to sue and was generally an expensive pain in the process.
Eventually I lost it during a whole family (both sides) meeting with the lawyers my grandparents had very sensibly assigned as executors. I very loudly (ok, I was shouting) said that our parents and grandparents were all dead. If my sister was dead too I'd get 50%. My sister is well worth 25% to me.
The three cousins had lost a fourth sibling. If that cousin was still alive they'd all be receiving 12.5% each. Would they give 4.1% of the total to have that cousin back? If the boy cousin wants 25% so badly, which of his living sisters was he willing to bump off to get the 8.4% difference?
There was a long awkward silence.
The lawyers contacted everyone a few days later to let us know the challenge to the will had been rescinded. I've remained friendly with the two girl cousins, but it was years before the boy cousin spoke to me again.
Post by: Dragonswan on June 12, 2019, 09:23:36 AM
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.That is one outstanding way to say STFU. Well done.
The very entitled, only boy in the group, insisted that it wasn't fair he would inherit less than my sister and I would. He held up the distribution, threatened to sue and was generally an expensive pain in the process.
Eventually I lost it during a whole family (both sides) meeting with the lawyers my grandparents had very sensibly assigned as executors. I very loudly (ok, I was shouting) said that our parents and grandparents were all dead. If my sister was dead too I'd get 50%. My sister is well worth 25% to me.
The three cousins had lost a fourth sibling. If that cousin was still alive they'd all be receiving 12.5% each. Would they give 4.1% of the total to have that cousin back? If the boy cousin wants 25% so badly, which of his living sisters was he willing to bump off to get the 8.4% difference?
There was a long awkward silence.
The lawyers contacted everyone a few days later to let us know the challenge to the will had been rescinded. I've remained friendly with the two girl cousins, but it was years before the boy cousin spoke to me again.
Post by: K-ice on June 12, 2019, 11:37:11 AM
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
....
I do wonder about the fairness of these next generation distributions. But if the Grandparents were really worried about it they would split it 20% to each Grandchild. Didn't all the cousins know how things would be split before the grandparents passed?
Post by: sherr on June 12, 2019, 11:54:13 AM
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
I do wonder about the fairness of these next generation distributions. But if the Grandparents were really worried about it they would split it 20% to each Grandchild. Didn't all the cousins know how things would be split before the grandparents passed?
It's exactly the same as it would have been in the normal course of things if the parents had still been alive. Normally Grandparent's inheritance would have been split equally among the parents (50% each), and then when parents died their inheritance would be equally split amongst their children (50/2% each to the two siblings, 50/3% each to the three siblings).
Post by: SwordGuy on June 12, 2019, 11:54:54 AM
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
....
I do wonder about the fairness of these next generation distributions. But if the Grandparents were really worried about it they would split it 20% to each Grandchild. Didn't all the cousins know how things would be split before the grandparents passed?
First of all, @SheWhoWalksAtLunch , that was awesome! Well done!
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
But if we wanted to talk fair, they gave each of their kids the same amount of money. That's fair.
If their kids wanted to have a different number of kids, that's the kid's business, not the grandparents.
The grandkids have advantages and disadvantages from having more or fewer siblings. This particular distribution falls into the disadvantage category for those with more siblings. Having more siblings to help you out when things go wrong in life is an advantage. Perhaps you could view the larger amount to those with fewer siblings as compensation for that... :)
Post by: talltexan on June 12, 2019, 11:55:27 AM
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
Post by: BabyShark on June 12, 2019, 12:05:06 PM
Either way, @SheWhoWalksAtLunch, you're my hero for that.
Post by: merula on June 12, 2019, 12:20:38 PM
Per stipes was therefore the only way to distribute with impacting the original "one third to each child" principle.
2 and 3 each got 1/3. 1A, 1B and 1C each got 1/12. 1Di and 1Dii each got 1/24.
Me? I'm 1Bi. I got nothing, but I have my mom, which neither she, her siblings nor niece/nephew can say.
Post by: K-ice on June 12, 2019, 01:34:04 PM
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
Ooohh. I get to google some Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture
"Primogeniture (English: /praɪməˈdʒɛnɪtʃər/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate."
Primogeniture is your preference? Really? I can see making the oldest child the executor (if they were responsible) but giving them everything? The way you said "put them in charge" is OK with me but it is hard to trust anyone would split things fairly.
Per capita sounds like a good idea to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
I don't consider myself any more or less deserving than any of my cousins.
My one grandparent clearly listed and named their grandchildren who then all received the same generous gift. In that list even non-blood descendants were named to make things clear.
However, a gift is a bit different than a % of the remaining estate.
Has anyone ever seen gifts of a certain amount upto a certain percentage? I have heard of cases where the gifts were so generous that there was almost nothing left for the heirs.
Post by: DadJokes on June 12, 2019, 01:54:52 PM
First of all, @SheWhoWalksAtLunch , that was awesome! Well done!
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
But if we wanted to talk fair, they gave each of their kids the same amount of money. That's fair.
If their kids wanted to have a different number of kids, that's the kid's business, not the grandparents.
The grandkids have advantages and disadvantages from having more or fewer siblings. This particular distribution falls into the disadvantage category for those with more siblings. Having more siblings to help you out when things go wrong in life is an advantage. Perhaps you could view the larger amount to those with fewer siblings as compensation for that... :)
Agreed. Receiving even 1% is usually more than those receiving the inheritance have earned. It's entirely the prerogative of those bequeathing the inheritance to decide what to do with their money. If they chose to give 99% to one grandchild and make the others split the last 1%, they certainly have the right to do so. And I'm sure if they saw that grandson behaving that way, they might have written him out altogether.
Post by: geekette on June 12, 2019, 02:07:50 PM
DH's grandmother's sister and her husband left their estate in some sort of trust to their one child, who had suffered brain damage at birth. I think this was back in the 70's. Their son, despite his disability, had a great life in their small town, but when he died in his 80's in 2016, the remaining estate was divvied in two, then that portion was divvied equally between each parent's many siblings (all of whom were long gone by then), then further divided amongst their progeny and so on. DH ended up with a little over 1% (he didn't expect any).
Post by: talltexan on June 12, 2019, 02:44:21 PM
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
Ooohh. I get to google some Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture
"Primogeniture (English: /praɪməˈdʒɛnɪtʃər/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate."
Primogeniture is your preference? Really? I can see making the oldest child the executor (if they were responsible) but giving them everything? The way you said "put them in charge" is OK with me but it is hard to trust anyone would split things fairly.
Per capita sounds like a good idea to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
I don't consider myself any more or less deserving than any of my cousins.
My one grandparent clearly listed and named their grandchildren who then all received the same generous gift. In that list even non-blood descendants were named to make things clear.
However, a gift is a bit different than a % of the remaining estate.
Has anyone ever seen gifts of a certain amount upto a certain percentage? I have heard of cases where the gifts were so generous that there was almost nothing left for the heirs.
Disclaimer: I cannot imagine actually doing Primogeniture: the other night, my two kids helped me pick up the play room, and I paid my daughter--who did it with energy and vigor--$1, while my son--who did it with reluctance--received $.50. The latter thought it was so unfair.
Post by: Sibley on June 12, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
Um, I did... I have a trust for my cat if I died. The cat would be quite well taken care of.
Post by: Gail2000 on June 12, 2019, 07:07:51 PM
Before my grandmother died a couple of years ago, my aunt had power of attorney.
My mother only told me last night that two of my cousins hit up my aunt (their mother) to "dip into" my grandmother's estate (which was funding her aged care) for them.
Thank god my aunt had the balls to tell them where to go.
Thank goodness for stories like this to restore faith in one out of three members of humanity.
Fixed that for you...
You’re right when you’re right. I’m not sure what came over me to produce that optimism. It won’t likely happen again.
Post by: Gail2000 on June 12, 2019, 07:11:41 PM
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
Um, I did... I have a trust for my cat if I died. The cat would be quite well taken care of.
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty reliving considering they , relieved balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Post by: ender on June 12, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
You’re right when you’re right. I’m not sure what came over me to produce that optimism. It won’t likely happen again.
Guess it depends on how low your expectations are on most folks ;-)
Maybe 1/3 is better than your feeling of society overall ;-)
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on June 12, 2019, 09:56:25 PM
Second, "Fair"? Fair doesn't apply. It's was the grandparent's money, no one but them had any claim to it. If they wanted to set up a trust for their cats that would have been their right to do so.
Um, I did... I have a trust for my cat if I died. The cat would be quite well taken care of.
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty reliving considering they , relieved balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 12, 2019, 11:42:32 PM
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
Ooohh. I get to google some Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture
"Primogeniture (English: /praɪməˈdʒɛnɪtʃər/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate."
Primogeniture is your preference? Really? I can see making the oldest child the executor (if they were responsible) but giving them everything? The way you said "put them in charge" is OK with me but it is hard to trust anyone would split things fairly.
Per capita sounds like a good idea to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
I don't consider myself any more or less deserving than any of my cousins.
My one grandparent clearly listed and named their grandchildren who then all received the same generous gift. In that list even non-blood descendants were named to make things clear.
However, a gift is a bit different than a % of the remaining estate.
Has anyone ever seen gifts of a certain amount upto a certain percentage? I have heard of cases where the gifts were so generous that there was almost nothing left for the heirs.
Yup. My grandmother's will say £X each to me and my brother and then the rest divided equally between my childless uncle and my mother. If she dies today we will get about 0.25% each. If she needs long term care, that could end up being the whole estate! My mother tried to dissuade her from naming a fixed sum and go for a percentage instead but she wouldn't.
Post by: K-ice on June 13, 2019, 12:07:36 AM
Disclaimer: I cannot imagine actually doing Primogeniture: the other night, my two kids helped me pick up the play room, and I paid my daughter--who did it with energy and vigor--$1, while my son--who did it with reluctance--received $.50. The latter thought it was so unfair.
Fair enough ;)
Post by: Sugaree on June 13, 2019, 04:20:55 AM
Many years ago, my grandparents passed away and as their two children had pre-deceased them, the estate was to be divided up among the five grandchildren per stirpes (equal amounts to each of their children then divided equally between that child's children). I have one sister so we were to receive 25% each. The other three grandchildren (all descended from my parent's only sibling) were to receive 16.6% each.
....
I do wonder about the fairness of these next generation distributions. But if the Grandparents were really worried about it they would split it 20% to each Grandchild. Didn't all the cousins know how things would be split before the grandparents passed?
I suppose that argument could be made since the grandparents outlived their children. Maybe. In a case where at least one child is still alive, I do feel like it should be split equally between the children, regardless of the number of children they have. What happens if one child decides not to have children? Are they just cut out?
Post by: talltexan on June 13, 2019, 07:43:24 AM
- Don't surprise people: while you're still alive, tell that no-good, deadbeat son why you're leaving his share to the humane society
- Have periodic (he does annual, I doubt most of us have complex businesses we're leaving behind) readings of the will with the family
- If you get remarried late in life, it's completely reasonable to use pre-nup's, etc., to work out financial arrangements for step-children
- Approach the wealth we accumulate as something we are looking after to preserve it for the future, a duty to wise management rather than as something you're entitled to drain
- Finally, if you are an heir, be thinking how to use what you receive to unite the family, not divide it
Post by: merula on June 13, 2019, 07:56:40 AM
Disclaimer: I cannot imagine actually doing Primogeniture: the other night, my two kids helped me pick up the play room, and I paid my daughter--who did it with energy and vigor--$1, while my son--who did it with reluctance--received $.50. The latter thought it was so unfair.
Fair enough ;)
Primogeniture doesn't necessarily mean sons over daughters. Male-preference primogeniture does, but you can retain primogeniture without the male preference. See most continental European monarchies for reference.
Post by: BeanCounter on June 13, 2019, 10:26:06 AM
I am an only child my, father died when I was 17. His parents were both still living. His parents and his four siblings (and my father when he was living) all ran a large corporate farm. A million or so in crop revenue and a couple million in land and equipment. It's a corporate farm so there is stock etc.
When my father's first parent (my grandfather) died I was called to come see the attorney to sign the paperwork. I was very surprised to find out that after my father died they cut me out of the will completely. And if you know anything about wills you will know that to cut someone out you have to write a paragraph that specifically states what that person WILL NOT get. which was everything. The reason stated was that my uncles persuaded my grandparents to change this because "none of the other grandchildren were getting anything". Nevermind that my cousins will through their parents inherit their portion of the estate. So at some point they will get something, and I got nothing despite the fact that my father was a full contributor to the success of the business when he was alive.
Anyway, I didn't contest anything I let it go. I know my Uncles are just trying to protect their own business interests and I forgive them for that. I'd rather have the family than the money. And I assumed that this was a one off case.
BUT fast forward 20 years, my mother dies last year. She was preceded in death by her mother who had a trust that gives my still living grandfather living rights to the money. My mother was a named beneficiary on the trust and then it's per stirpes. So it goes to me. My mother was getting a 1/3 distribution from the trust every year. 1/3 to her, 1/3 to her brother and 1/3 to her dad (my grandfather). I thought that I would start getting a 1/3 distribution after my mother passed. NOPE. My grandfather didn't like that my cousin wasn't getting any money. So he changed the distribution to be split in fourths- me, my cousin, my uncle, and my grandfather. Because it's my grandmother's trust I will still get half of the principle when he passes (split between my uncle and I), he cannot change that. But he can change his trust. Which if your talking about what's "fair", it really isn't fair because if we split his estate in thirds, and my uncle and cousin each get a third then my cousin will actually have 2/3 by lineage.
All this story to say that when parents out live their children the distribution often gets really complicated and what makes sense mathematically may not make sense emotionally.
Post by: K-ice on June 13, 2019, 10:39:54 AM
Primogeniture is not fair monetarily but I understand it is sometimes the best, and only, way to keep family businesses and farms whole.
It may even be the best way to keep a cottage or vacation home in the family.
I know a daughter that was completely left out of the family business and therefore any inheritance. It included a multi million property fortune that neither could have paid the other sibling 1/2 for. Yet it would have been nice for her to still be a silent partner and receive a small dividend every year or be guaranteed something if some of the property was sold.
I really like this tip:
- Finally, if you are an heir, be thinking how to use what you receive to unite the family, not divide it
Post by: BeanCounter on June 13, 2019, 11:22:06 AM
Bean C I am sorry that has happened to you.Thanks. Writing someone out of a will, even if it makes business sense, is ugly. It definitely hurt. I felt like a bastard child. I think that this did push my desire to become FI. A sort of fuck you. I'm rich without you anyway.
Primogeniture is not fair monetarily but I understand it is sometimes the best, and only, way to keep family businesses and farms whole.
It may even be the best way to keep a cottage or vacation home in the family.
I know a daughter that was completely left out of the family business and therefore any inheritance. It included a multi million property fortune that neither could have paid the other sibling 1/2 for. Yet it would have been nice for her to still be a silent partner and receive a small dividend every year or be guaranteed something if some of the property was sold.
I really like this tip:
- Finally, if you are an heir, be thinking how to use what you receive to unite the family, not divide it
I will say this-
I am very happy with my choice to put family over money. I enjoy seeing my family for holiday's and vacations more than I would ever enjoy another annual distribution.
My Uncles did do one thing nice for me. They bought a bunch of different vacation properties throughout the country and they give me and my children the right to use them whenever I want. So that's something.
Post by: talltexan on June 13, 2019, 12:20:31 PM
It just doesn't seem possible to read the sum of what you've written here and think that your uncles are anything approaching decent human beings.
Post by: marion10 on June 13, 2019, 12:36:59 PM
Post by: BeanCounter on June 13, 2019, 12:55:27 PM
BeanCounter-Here is the way I choose to see it- My Uncles got bad legal advice by a lazy attorney. I believe that they wanted to protect the farm which is their only livelihood. I was in college when the will was changed and I think they were afraid that if I received 1/5 I might, in my own need, ask for my portion and they would have to sell property to buy me out.
It just doesn't seem possible to read the sum of what you've written here and think that your uncles are anything approaching decent human beings.
Could they have constructed a will that would have given me 1/5 of revenue or something for life and rights to the property if the farm corp were to ever be dissolved? Yes. A good attorney would have figured that out. Or at least that's how I choose to look at it. I can also see where my Uncles being the ones that run the place wouldn't want to cut their own income for me.
None of it is fair really.
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
I'm quite sure that I could have contested the will, especially since it was signed after my grandfather had a stroke. I'm sure I could have argued that he was not able to make a decision like that at that time. But I would have been left with lots of money and no family. Is that worth it?
In the end I have plenty of money, and my uncles will have to live with the knowledge that they left their brother's (the war hero who died from agent orange) only child out to figure it out on her own. Maybe there is a possibility they will rethink their choices and leave something to my kids? Probably not.
Am I still angry and bitter? Only when I let myself think about it. ;)
Post by: Villanelle on June 13, 2019, 01:07:02 PM
This all does make me think that maybe the will should state a higher than standard % to her for doing her executor duties!
I'm also grateful that my parents have been very up front with us about who gets what (50/50 split among siblings), where every thing is located, and other details of the estate, down to a few specific sentimental items I want and things of that nature. I think my sister will be entirely reasonable, and it helps that while anything we will receive will be a wonderful boon, neither of us are desperate for it or counting on it.
Post by: ysette9 on June 13, 2019, 01:09:47 PM
Post by: Captain FIRE on June 13, 2019, 01:11:30 PM
In the end I have plenty of money, and my uncles will have to live with the knowledge that they left their brother's (the war hero who died from agent orange) only child out to figure it out on her own. Maybe there is a possibility they will rethink their choices and leave something to my kids? Probably not.
Am I still angry and bitter? Only when I let myself think about it. ;)
Have you ever asked them to do so?
Not in a confrontational way, but in a polite, one time request of "you can make this right if you choose". I mean, we're told you need to ask for raises at jobs or the company has limited incentive to do much for you. Same thing here. If you keep silent they 1) likely managed to forget about it, and 2) figure you don't care at all. You obviously can communicate it very softly - understanding why they did it, such the desire to keep the farm going and not be split up, recognizing that your father wasn't contributing any longer to working of it - but also gently noting that as it stands, you have lost both your father at an early age and any emotional/supportive benefits he might have provided, and any family legacy he might have otherwise received if he had lived longer.
(If it were me, I'd put it in writing and copy my cousins so that they know too. Who knows, if the uncles don't fix it maybe the cousins will. But I get that even asking the uncles may be more aggressive already than it sounds like you're willing to do and rock the boat.)
Post by: mm1970 on June 13, 2019, 02:09:03 PM
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.I don't think it's weird really.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
By the time my grandfather's estate/ trust was settled (when his second wife died), it was really wonky. She was 98. I was 46. By then:
- two of his 4 daughters had died. So their 1/4 (each) got split among their children. They each had 3 children. So, those 6 grandchildren got 1/12 a piece.
- one his daughters was alive, she got her 1/4
- the fourth was actually a DIL. His will left her 1/8, and left the other 1/8 to her children. She had 6 children. But one of them died. So each of her children, instead of getting 1/24, got 1/20.
Nothing wrong with wonky. He wanted to leave 1/4 to each of his daughters and the family of his son, who died relatively young.
Post by: honeybbq on June 13, 2019, 02:13:59 PM
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
Why would you disinherit your own minor children??
Post by: Psychstache on June 13, 2019, 02:33:53 PM
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
Why would you disinherit your own minor children??
Given that the person committed suicide, I would imagine they had some distorted, irrational thinking going on.
Post by: ABC123 on June 13, 2019, 02:36:49 PM
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
Wait, is that legal? A parent with a minor child can legally give her entire estate away, no legal requirement to financially care for her child? Seems like there should be something that requires at least part of the estate to be put in some sort of account or trust to be used for the care of the child.
Post by: Goldielocks on June 13, 2019, 02:50:21 PM
Post by: BeanCounter on June 13, 2019, 02:58:06 PM
Grandparents may not have known how many children their kids would have. Per Stirpes is a nice contingency, but it produces really weird outcomes if--say--one side has a single child, and the other side has seven.I don't think it's weird really.
As for me, I prefer primogeniture. Make damn sure your oldest can manage things, then put them in charge.
By the time my grandfather's estate/ trust was settled (when his second wife died), it was really wonky. She was 98. I was 46. By then:
- two of his 4 daughters had died. So their 1/4 (each) got split among their children. They each had 3 children. So, those 6 grandchildren got 1/12 a piece.
- one his daughters was alive, she got her 1/4
- the fourth was actually a DIL. His will left her 1/8, and left the other 1/8 to her children. She had 6 children. But one of them died. So each of her children, instead of getting 1/24, got 1/20.
Nothing wrong with wonky. He wanted to leave 1/4 to each of his daughters and the family of his son, who died relatively young.
I think my situation is a great example of how it becomes wonky.
Trying not to over share too much here. Because my mother died young, it is likely that if my grandfather doesn't change anything I will (at a fairly young age) inherit a couple million. My uncle would get the same. My only cousin (my uncle's child) will get nothing until his father passes. So my life changes, my cousin's doesn't.
On my dad's side, with the farm that's just a lot more complicated. But again I think they had a hard time with the notion that they would have been paying me an income on money they made and their kids would have gotten nothing. And they didn't want to buy me out. So the simplest thing, however painful was to cut me out.
Post by: BeanCounter on June 13, 2019, 03:03:26 PM
Before my mother died, she did. She told them she didn't think it was right, and it was a dishonor to their brother.In the end I have plenty of money, and my uncles will have to live with the knowledge that they left their brother's (the war hero who died from agent orange) only child out to figure it out on her own. Maybe there is a possibility they will rethink their choices and leave something to my kids? Probably not.
Am I still angry and bitter? Only when I let myself think about it. ;)
Have you ever asked them to do so?
Not in a confrontational way, but in a polite, one time request of "you can make this right if you choose". I mean, we're told you need to ask for raises at jobs or the company has limited incentive to do much for you. Same thing here. If you keep silent they 1) likely managed to forget about it, and 2) figure you don't care at all. You obviously can communicate it very softly - understanding why they did it, such the desire to keep the farm going and not be split up, recognizing that your father wasn't contributing any longer to working of it - but also gently noting that as it stands, you have lost both your father at an early age and any emotional/supportive benefits he might have provided, and any family legacy he might have otherwise received if he had lived longer.
(If it were me, I'd put it in writing and copy my cousins so that they know too. Who knows, if the uncles don't fix it maybe the cousins will. But I get that even asking the uncles may be more aggressive already than it sounds like you're willing to do and rock the boat.)
I'm sure they weren't too worried about it because they know that my mother's family was well to do.
I would only ask for something to change if I though my children had an interest in farming. Or if myself or my kids needed a place to live, I would ask to have the right to live in one of the homes on the property.
I don't see the point in asking for anything I don't need.
Is it fair? Probably not. Life isn't fair, but it's still beautiful.
Post by: Goldielocks on June 13, 2019, 03:21:33 PM
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
Post by: cloudsail on June 13, 2019, 04:19:23 PM
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
Oh yes. I wrote earlier in this thread about our inheritance story when DH's mother passed away. Before she died she stated that she wanted DH's older brother to have the house and give us half its original purchase price (the house has since appreciated). It is a substantial amount. For various reasons, we only got less than half of that money. Everyone is on great terms, I just try to forget the original wishes of my mother in law, and the fact that DH's brother is now living in a very HCOL city without a mortgage.
Post by: marion10 on June 13, 2019, 06:12:46 PM
Post by: Dicey on June 13, 2019, 06:18:29 PM
For the awful suicide story- yes it was illegal to disinherit the minor child (I assume this was a do it yourself will)- the will was left with the body. There obviously was some disordered thinking going on.
[/quote
Oh, so sad for that family. The repercussions of her actions will never end for them. Good for the ex for stepping up for the kids.
Post by: Gail2000 on June 13, 2019, 07:00:25 PM
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
That evokes nature vs nurture debate in my mind.
Post by: sherr on June 13, 2019, 09:01:41 PM
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
That evokes nature vs nurture debate in my mind.
I think it was just a pun. I'm sure the executor had the dog peacefully euthanized at a vet.
I'm generally all about being a faithful executor and following the deceased's wishes to the letter, but this is where I personally would draw the line. I would consider this an immoral request, refuse, and fight it legally tooth and nail if anyone objected. Dogs obviously are not close to humans in the sanctity of life, but intentionally killing a loving, loyal companion for no reason other than postmortem jealousy? That's just evil.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on June 13, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
That evokes nature vs nurture debate in my mind.
I think it was just a pun. I'm sure the executor had the dog peacefully euthanized at a vet.
I'm generally all about being a faithful executor and following the deceased's wishes to the letter, but this is where I personally would draw the line. I would consider this an immoral request, refuse, and fight it legally tooth and nail if anyone objected. Dogs obviously are not close to humans in the sanctity of life, but intentionally killing a loving, loyal companion for no reason other than postmortem jealousy? That's just evil.
Agreed, and to explicitly require it in her will was over the top. I blame the brain cancer that killed the bitch. I didn't find out about what happened until well after the fact because I was living in another country.
Post by: Sugaree on June 14, 2019, 04:31:49 AM
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
I get it. I suspect that my in-laws' estate will have the potential to get ugly. As the outsider, it's my job to look out for my son's interests and that carries a lot of those <<feelings>>.
Post by: Hula Hoop on June 14, 2019, 04:45:03 AM
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
Yes, I had this for a while before my parent finally made a will, due to a step parent issue. Now we have certainty and we know exactly what each of us (me, step parent and sibling) are in line to inherit so things are way smoother than they were and there are fewer <feelings>. There was a lot of tension before and that's all gone because my parent plans to divide things in a way that we all think is fair.
Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 14, 2019, 04:58:53 AM
Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
So much this.
My Dad's will was worded so that it was clear the inheritance was to my sister and me, and not in any way to our husbands.
Post by: Hula Hoop on June 14, 2019, 06:07:29 AM
Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
So much this.
My Dad's will was worded so that it was clear the inheritance was to my sister and me, and not in any way to our husbands.
Isn't that standard in wills? Obviously, within a marriage people share finances but an inheritance goes to one person not both members of a married couple normally.
I think it's a mistake to see someone has "rich" and not in need of money becuase their spouse earns a lot of money in this day and age. If someone gets divorced, the law in most jurisdictions certainly does not see it this way.
Post by: BeanCounter on June 14, 2019, 06:17:16 AM
But my understanding is that if you co-mingle the funds in any way it could become marital property.Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
So much this.
My Dad's will was worded so that it was clear the inheritance was to my sister and me, and not in any way to our husbands.
I have some accounts that I keep totally separate from my spouse because if something were to happen to me I want it to go into trust for the benefit of only my children so that my DH could feel free to remarry without giving his new spouse and children access to my family’s money.
So complicated. It gives new meaning to the phrase “mo money mo problems”
Post by: talltexan on June 14, 2019, 06:31:02 AM
Better then my fella’s grandmother who wanted to be buried with hers. After her passing the family came together and decided this was one wish they would not respect. This is pretty relieving considering they released balloons, sang a Celine dion song at the funeral and kept ashes in a locket.
Well, if the cat was alive, I understand that completely. I knew one woman who left orders that her loyal dog be euthanized after she passed away because she didn't trust anyone to give the dog a good home. Her executor had the dog... executed.
That evokes nature vs nurture debate in my mind.
I think it was just a pun. I'm sure the executor had the dog peacefully euthanized at a vet.
I'm generally all about being a faithful executor and following the deceased's wishes to the letter, but this is where I personally would draw the line. I would consider this an immoral request, refuse, and fight it legally tooth and nail if anyone objected. Dogs obviously are not close to humans in the sanctity of life, but intentionally killing a loving, loyal companion for no reason other than postmortem jealousy? That's just evil.
Agreed, and to explicitly require it in her will was over the top. I blame the brain cancer that killed the bitch. I didn't find out about what happened until well after the fact because I was living in another country.
hehe nice pun!
Post by: Villanelle on June 14, 2019, 09:51:34 AM
Are you able to talk to your parents about this? Maybe they could leave the money directly to you and to the grandchildren in lieu of your sister? Would your sister be OK with this? Also, your sister's husband may be a well compensated executive but, what does she earn? Unfortunately, if something were to happen in her marriage she might have financial troubles. Leaving the money directly to her to do what she wants with it seems wise as you just never know and it's important to have your own money not just that of a spouse.
So much this.
My Dad's will was worded so that it was clear the inheritance was to my sister and me, and not in any way to our husbands.
My parents adore my husband. (My sibling and I joke that he's actually the favorite child.) Still, my dad has taken me aside to let me know that their preference would be that I am careful with my future inheritance so that it remains mine, no matter what. (There was also some conversation about... difficult BIL, which I think was intended to imply that they'd hope that if I predecease DH, the remaining inheritance money would maybe go to my sister, at least in part, if there was a lot left, rather than DH's brother.)
The reality is that it will be spent as joint money by me and DH, but I will open a separate account in my name only where it is kept. How the drawdown works (what is spent from that account vs. joint accounts) is something I've get to figure out, and I likely won't put a tremendous amount of thought into it. The intent to keep it separate and not spend all of it before we spend all of our "regular" money will be maintained. It's probably not something about which I'd have thought unless dad mentioned it, so I'm glad he did.
Post by: Just Joe on June 17, 2019, 09:26:51 AM
Bean- you are way nicer than I would be. I have a friend whose sister had two children by artificial insemination- she had a long time partner but she had sole custody and was their only legal parent. When her children were 19 and 12, she and the partner broke up. She rewrote her will leaving her substantial estate to the Humane society and disinheriting both children. She then committed suicide. My friend was able to get the part of the will disinherting the youngest over turned. She then reached a settlement with the Humane society for the 19 year old where they got a sum but the 19 year old got a good chunk. She threatened them with bad publicity taking money from an orphan. Those poor kids.
Gosh I don't understand people's minds...
Post by: Just Joe on June 17, 2019, 09:47:57 AM
May parents are approaching 80 and have quite a substantial retirement portfolio. One that would be hard to spend down even if they pay for high quality long term care.
They may choose to bypass my sister and I and give all their money to the grandkids, plus a could of charities. I could very, very, very much use that money (but not desparate because I could also just un-FIRE). I feel weird about my feelings on it.. Not my money and all of that, but also, Dad himself inherited the equivalent of $120k at age 40... which he admits was a huge help to him at that time. I truly think the reason may be that my sister's husband is very well compensated exec and they obviously don't need money, and my parents wanted to always be fair and equal with us, and they don't want to give sis more money that she doesn't need.
On the one hand, i am delighted to have an excellent personal relationship with them. On the other hand, I have a lump of <<feelings>> about the money side which I just look away from.
Does that happen to anyone else? That not-entirely complementary <<feelings>> about inheritance arise despite everything being great otherwise?
Yes. My parents inherited enough money to buy a nice house (a yardstick value)- which they did not need. So they invested it. And spent a little of it on themselves for fun. I listened to one of my parents having a frank discussion with relatives about how my parents really didn't need that money at their age but how they really needed it earlier in life.
Meanwhile I sat there listening and in an early part of my life with wife and kids and daycare and a (modest) mortgage and received nothing. I wasn't desperate for the money b/c DW and I are independent sorts but at the time we were very much living paycheck to paycheck and finishing college at our own expense. This was very much pre-MMM (couple decades ago). The mental disconnect was what caught my attention. My sibling was also early in their marriage and starting a family. Don't know if they received any money from our parents b/c while our parents talk about fairness, it doesn't always work that way in reality. I have long played second fiddle to sibling. For example parents paid for sibling's deluxe university experience while I had to pay for my own.
In theory sibling and I'll see that money after my parents are gone but DW and I are already comfortable now (decades later) and have good incomes of our own at this point and my parents will likely live until my 60s. Maybe we'll be able to help our own children who will then be in their late-30s.
The other elephant in the room is to taking care to not breed dependency and expectation in the younger generation. In my mind there is big importance in being self-reliant without an inheritance. I've watched families struggle like a King's Court over future inheritances. Politics, favors, will revisions, etc. The older generation holding it over the younger generation while the younger generation stepped all over their siblings to get first in line. Very unhappy messes.
Post by: Hunny156 on June 17, 2019, 10:32:26 AM
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/case-studyyou-need-to-plan-for-getting-old-(-what-can-happen-when-you-don't!)/
Post by: ysette9 on June 17, 2019, 10:56:15 AM
Didn't want to thread-jack, and this is a long, drawn out story, so if you are interested, check out the Case Study I just posted:Wow, what an unbelievable headache. I can’t imagine how tough that has been on you. Do you and your sister speak at all? What will she do now that the cash cow has dried up?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/case-studyyou-need-to-plan-for-getting-old-(-what-can-happen-when-you-don't!)/
Post by: Hunny156 on June 17, 2019, 11:00:31 AM
Didn't want to thread-jack, and this is a long, drawn out story, so if you are interested, check out the Case Study I just posted:Wow, what an unbelievable headache. I can’t imagine how tough that has been on you. Do you and your sister speak at all? What will she do now that the cash cow has dried up?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/case-studyyou-need-to-plan-for-getting-old-(-what-can-happen-when-you-don't!)/
I'm slowly starting to feel the weight coming off my shoulders, and it feels GLORIOUS! We haven't spoken in over 6 years, when she hijacked the accounts. She better not ever darken my doorway, there are some things I cannot forgive, and even if I could, I have to be crazy to think that she would change, and I don't like snakes slithering around my home or my real family.
She'll get something decent even after everything is paid, but it won't last long. After that, who knows what she will do. Maybe it will be time for a sugar daddy/momma. Leaches will do what they need to survive!
Post by: Dicey on June 17, 2019, 01:06:34 PM
I commented on your other thread. I just wanted to add that I had a sister who wasn't as extreme as yours, but there were similarities. She was such a leech when my parents were alive (unwillingness to work masquerading as caregiving) that their estate was significantly reduced. She also received the lion's share of the physical assets because my sibs outnumbered me. Basically, she took the new-ish car before the assets were divided equally, against the will's instructions. Now that most of the inheritance has been distributed, she has blown through all of her oversized share. She is back to pestering other relatives for loans that she's never going to pay back. Then she doesn't (as we predicted and sternly warned against) and the relatives bug us that she isn't paying back their loans. Sucks.Didn't want to thread-jack, and this is a long, drawn out story, so if you are interested, check out the Case Study I just posted:Wow, what an unbelievable headache. I can’t imagine how tough that has been on you. Do you and your sister speak at all? What will she do now that the cash cow has dried up?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/case-studyyou-need-to-plan-for-getting-old-(-what-can-happen-when-you-don't!)/
I'm slowly starting to feel the weight coming off my shoulders, and it feels GLORIOUS! We haven't spoken in over 6 years, when she hijacked the accounts. She better not ever darken my doorway, there are some things I cannot forgive, and even if I could, I have to be crazy to think that she would change, and I don't like snakes slithering around my home or my real family.
She'll get something decent even after everything is paid, but it won't last long. After that, who knows what she will do. Maybe it will be time for a sugar daddy/momma. Leaches will do what they need to survive!
Post by: A Fella from Stella on June 20, 2019, 12:27:29 PM
Now, all our lives we'd been told there's a small inheritance coming - $2,000. In my teens, my brother began demanding his $2,000, because it's his, after all. My guess is that he needed cash, and started thinking 'where can I get it?' It wasn't altogether unreasonable, until he acted like a fool and was screaming for his money.
Leading up to grandma's passing, she lost her eyesight, and then a leg. However, leading up to that, my brother (who wanted his money!!!!) complained that she was blowing all of grandpa's money.
After 30+ years of having no income, and 5 in a very good nursing home, grandma passed, and the estate was to be settled.
Her 3 sons got everyone over 18 together and said the following:
"The estate is a house and about $280,000. All grandchildren are getting $5,000, the sons will get $70,000, and the sale of the house will be split 3 ways between the sons."
END OF DISCUSSION
But wait! There's a bonus for my brother! When grandma - who was spending all the money - died, it was kind of around his birthday. As such, he planned a big birthday outing. When the check came at the fancy-pants restaurant, I jokingly went for my wallet and pulled out a TJ Maxx coupon, and he was so disappointed that I would be so cheap. At this, I realized that he expected us to pay for his birthday outing (he was over 30) that he had planned.
And we did! So maybe I'm the asshole here.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on June 20, 2019, 12:54:55 PM
First, I'll say upfront I have not been shortchanged in any way. Grandma gave me her car in 2004. It lasted 6 years, and was a tremendous blessing. I recently tried to buy her 15-yo car, but it went to a cousin in need.
Knowing that grandma will pass soon, I asked my mother if I could buy the wedding band set from the estate when the time came. I petitioned early because another relative has been disgustingly vocal about wanting things like jewelry from her, and not-so-secretly got diamond pendants and a watch, which she always "joked" that grandma was just keeping for her.
A LITTLE HISTORY: This relative's sense of entitlement is understandable. She is the only one of her siblings to have college paid for, some even with a 529 meant for a [now grown] baby. Approaching graduation, she thought aloud about what she might really do now that she was graduating with a degree she didn't want to use. Another time, she lamented that her parents weren't more rich, because she was hoping for a big graduation gift (they took her to Europe).
THE WEDDING BAND SET: I never got a straight answer, but I can't have it. Grandma does not wear it, and the ring holder on her dresser is empty. Despite there being 10 females in the next 3 generations, this one little lady got all the family jewels.
I have since gotten my grandparents' original wedding photos, for which I'll make copies and frame for everyone.
Saw grandma last night. She's doing well at 95, especially since moving in with my mom.
Post by: Dave1442397 on June 21, 2019, 07:42:19 AM
She gave me a couple of gold necklaces, one with a 24k stamp, and one with an 18k stamp. My wife doesn't wear yellow gold, so we took them to a local jeweler who buys gold (with MIL's approval). It took them a couple of minutes to come back with an estimate of $0.00. The necklaces were both fake.
I think my FIL bought them while they were on a cruise in the '80s, somewhere in the Middle East. At least they got their money's worth in one respect, as she wore them for many years thinking they were real. We won't say anything to MIL about it, of course. No point telling her now :)
I wonder how much of the remaining jewelry is fake, and how annoyed my crazy SIL will be when she finds out she inherited costume jewelry.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on June 21, 2019, 12:45:53 PM
If you can believe it, BIL left this valuable document at my home, so when I needed a laugh, I read it over. Spotting a typo, I called my MIL and let her know that it might not be enforceable with the misspelling, so she should re-write it. She seemed disappointed, since she was only doing it because the little kids were getting too much attention the night before, but I told her it was a good thing, because there's so much more she can add. And so, she did it again, and sent it to her oldest son. I've heard she's not dead yet, so my BIL doesn't have to make sure his adults brothers are doing alright, but one day the torch will be passed to him.
Post by: Zamboni on June 22, 2019, 03:29:22 AM
My Dad is in his 70's. My Dad's uncle, who never married and had no children, passed away decades ago and has unclaimed property listed with the state where he lived. I know that at least some of the unclaimed property is stocks. My Dad's grandfather on the same side (so my great grandfather and the father of the deceased uncle) also has unclaimed property listed. Finally, his deceased Aunt (also who never had children) has unclaimed property listed . . . for this particular one at least I know he is listed as an heir. All of this property is being held by the same state.
When this was first discovered by the family, it was suggested to another Uncle (the only living brother of the dead Aunt and Uncle) that he claim it. He never claimed it and the unclaimed property is still listed with the state in online records. At this point the money has been held by the state for a very long time (30-50+ years.) Suffice it to say that my extended family is very inept. I doubt that anyone has ever tried to claim any of these funds.
My Dad doesn't have any retirement money. If he has a claim to these estates, then I would like to help him acquire it because he really needs it even if it is only $50. Neither my Dad nor I still live in the state where all of this unclaimed property is being held, so it's slightly a pain, but at least it's driving distance for me.
Has anyone ever been through anything like this? I'm going to call the state comptroller's office next week to see what they say. I don't think there's a fortune here, but at the same time it seems a shame to have funds rotting in state coffers for decades when there is a living relative who has a legitimate claim.
Please offer any advice that you can think of if you've ever been though something like this.
Post by: TomTX on June 22, 2019, 06:23:03 AM
Post by: Zamboni on June 22, 2019, 01:03:27 PM
I have found the online forms. It seems like it might be a ton of paperwork, and they also won't disclose online what or how much property it is . . . so I have no clue if this will be worth the trouble.
Post by: Goldielocks on June 22, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
Situation --
Woman dies, her parents have pre-deceased her and her brother is estranged for the past 30years (and moved to another country after completing the first part of his residency). She does have 17 cousins, some of who know each other but most live across 5 different states and only meet up (some) every 10 years or so.
My friend (a cousin) was contacted by the government rep (hired to execute the will) after they had been trying to locate the brother for a year or two, to let him know sister had died. All they could find was one or two cousins. My friend was the first cousin to try to help, as she had met the sister and brother previously (that family in particular was living away from the rest of the family and rarely met up). She was asked to try to find the brother. She turned to me. All she knew was the school he went to for undergrad degree (her home university), and what he intended to study after and that he may have moved usa but she did not know where. She had a last name and a probable first name, but he tended to use a nickname at times. We assumed that he would be between 77 and 79 yeras old based on when he entered university.
I did some on-line sleuthing and came up with three possible candidates, partly because his first legal name is not too common. She tried to reach out to the last known addresses and could not get an answer. The next year she was travelling in the area and just went and knocked on the door of the most likely one. This person has been retired for quite a while.
Found!
Anyway -- the story highlights that an online submission will start the process of getting a rep for the estate to look into how many people may be formed as part of the estate, and that can take a while if you have a large estranged family. Paperwork submission helps to jumpstart the process as you may be able to give a lot of family name details. Everyone must be identified or eliminated, or a time limit expires after a lot of due dilligence before a payout can happen.
Post by: TomTX on June 22, 2019, 03:47:52 PM
Maryland.If you have proof of the relationship (maybe birth certificates and driver's license) and a death certificate for the deceased, you should be able to get through the process. Haven't done MD myself, and only reclaimed my own property in Texas.
I have found the online forms. It seems like it might be a ton of paperwork, and they also won't disclose online what or how much property it is . . . so I have no clue if this will be worth the trouble.
Post by: Villanelle on June 22, 2019, 06:06:52 PM
My mother-in-law is 90 and starting to give away some of her possessions. She was very involved in social activities, with lots of fancy gowns and jewelry for various events.
She gave me a couple of gold necklaces, one with a 24k stamp, and one with an 18k stamp. My wife doesn't wear yellow gold, so we took them to a local jeweler who buys gold (with MIL's approval). It took them a couple of minutes to come back with an estimate of $0.00. The necklaces were both fake.
I think my FIL bought them while they were on a cruise in the '80s, somewhere in the Middle East. At least they got their money's worth in one respect, as she wore them for many years thinking they were real. We won't say anything to MIL about it, of course. No point telling her now :)
I wonder how much of the remaining jewelry is fake, and how annoyed my crazy SIL will be when she finds out she inherited costume jewelry.
If SIL had the gall to complain within earshot of me, I'd be awfully tempted to express my sympathies and tell her how unfortunate that was as the stuff we got was worth quite a bit. (I wouldn't if only because she might actually try to use that comment as some sort of proof of unfairness, perhaps even pursing it legally, but I'd be tempted!)
Post by: Zamboni on June 22, 2019, 06:28:58 PM
Post by: Dave1442397 on June 23, 2019, 07:10:45 AM
Oh dear. Always best to assume that jewelry is fake . . . then you might be pleasantly surprised!
That was my attitude when I took it to the jeweler. I figured if it was real, we'd have some spending money for our upcoming vacation, and if not, the vacation money is already budgeted, so no loss.
Post by: Zamboni on June 23, 2019, 07:01:50 PM
Post by: Alfred J Quack on June 24, 2019, 06:34:33 AM
I had a similar thing happen with some "family silver." It was all silver-plated, which is not worth much. It's pretty, though.
We had the opposite though, and the appraiser worked on a fee based on the appraised value which probably inflated the price too... So in the future, we're going to limit the maximum price or find another appraiser.
Post by: Just Joe on June 24, 2019, 12:36:17 PM
But wait! There's a bonus for my brother! When grandma - who was spending all the money - died, it was kind of around his birthday. As such, he planned a big birthday outing. When the check came at the fancy-pants restaurant, I jokingly went for my wallet and pulled out a TJ Maxx coupon, and he was so disappointed that I would be so cheap. At this, I realized that he expected us to pay for his birthday outing (he was over 30) that he had planned.
And we did! So maybe I'm the asshole here.
I don't think I could spend much time with that sibling. $2K ain't much in the big picture of things for an adult. He ought to be making his own money by that age, not waiting for a hand out.
I'd invite him around for hamburgers on the grill and maybe some beers but not going out to eat without agreements about who was paying what ahead of time.
People can be a mess!
Post by: BabyShark on June 24, 2019, 01:56:53 PM
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/06/pet-bequests-estate-dispute-advice.html (https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/06/pet-bequests-estate-dispute-advice.html)
Post by: talltexan on June 24, 2019, 02:37:21 PM
Post by: charis on June 24, 2019, 02:57:53 PM
I kind of agree that the "question-behind-the-question" is why the household with kids gets 65% while the household without kids should get only 35%. The daughter should have found a more articulate way of expressing this disparity than by asking for the dog (whom the testatrix is likely to outlive) get a share equal to human children.
Well, the grandfather is entitled to see his granddaughters as individual people, not just members of a household, and the money is earmarked for college. So unless there's a plausible possibility that the other daughter was planning to put her dog through college, this is ridiculous.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 24, 2019, 03:34:25 PM
I kind of agree that the "question-behind-the-question" is why the household with kids gets 65% while the household without kids should get only 35%. The daughter should have found a more articulate way of expressing this disparity than by asking for the dog (whom the testatrix is likely to outlive) get a share equal to human children.
You've missed the point.
None of the children or grandchildren has the slightest right to any of the money. Period.
If the grandmother wants to give that money to a trust that will take care of her favorite rutabaga plant she's free to do so.
The correct response to someone giving you money in their will is, "Thank you, and I hope I don't see a penny of it for a wonderfully long time."
It is not, "I am entitled to more, more, more!"
Post by: A Fella from Stella on June 25, 2019, 04:49:24 AM
But wait! There's a bonus for my brother! When grandma - who was spending all the money - died, it was kind of around his birthday. As such, he planned a big birthday outing. When the check came at the fancy-pants restaurant, I jokingly went for my wallet and pulled out a TJ Maxx coupon, and he was so disappointed that I would be so cheap. At this, I realized that he expected us to pay for his birthday outing (he was over 30) that he had planned.
And we did! So maybe I'm the asshole here.
I don't think I could spend much time with that sibling. $2K ain't much in the big picture of things for an adult. He ought to be making his own money by that age, not waiting for a hand out.
I'd invite him around for hamburgers on the grill and maybe some beers but not going out to eat without agreements about who was paying what ahead of time.
People can be a mess!
What's crazy is that even at 20 in college he made something like $20k a year. I know because my dad said "you made $20,000 last year, and have nothing to show for it." He consistently pulled in decent income, but at 28 was living at our parents' house with nothing saved. Even when mom and dad downsized, he came with them.
I do not talk to him, but you'll be glad to know he's a very productive member of society nowadays, with a family and career. I think he just saw the inheritance as something that was coming to him, and it was for free.
Post by: Jadzia37000 on June 27, 2019, 11:48:37 AM
Stepdad didn't take it well. He actually called me (the judgmental one, ha ha) on the phone and said, and I quote, "IT SHOULD BE MY MONEY. IF I WANT TO SPEND IT ALL ON HOOKERS AND BLOW, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT."
Me: "Uh, you literally could have called any of the other 7 billion people on the planet and received a more sympathetic hearing than you're getting from me, bub.
Also, he's now harassing my aunt (the trustee! lucky lucky her!) because he wants 200K of the principal to pay off his back taxes in a house he and my mom destroyed through animal hoarding and is 500 miles from where he now resides.
And that's why I moved to another continent.
Post by: ysette9 on June 27, 2019, 12:15:51 PM
I have a drama that I can laugh at now but not so much at the time. In 2014, my grandmother and mother died within 2 weeks of each other. Shortly before she died, my grandmother had a come-to-Jesus with herself about the irresponsibility of her son, my stepfather. She split her substantial estate into two parts: 50% directly to her daughter, who is very responsible and spent 10 years taking care of Grandma and Grandpa's financial affairs etc. long story. 50% in a spendthrift trust to my stepfather--he only gets the income, the principal is split between his kids (including the stepkids, which was nice of her--these folks really are my family, my mom and stepfather were together starting from when I was about 4) when the time comes. The irresponsibility relates to his lifetime of drug and alcohol abuse that made my childhood and a substantial part of my adulthood hell.Wow.
Stepdad didn't take it well. He actually called me (the judgmental one, ha ha) on the phone and said, and I quote, "IT SHOULD BE MY MONEY. IF I WANT TO SPEND IT ALL ON HOOKERS AND BLOW, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT."
Me: "Uh, you literally could have called any of the other 7 billion people on the planet and received a more sympathetic hearing than you're getting from me, bub.
Also, he's now harassing my aunt (the trustee! lucky lucky her!) because he wants 200K of the principal to pay off his back taxes in a house he and my mom destroyed through animal hoarding and is 500 miles from where he now resides.
And that's why I moved to another continent.
Good for your grandmother for setting up that kind of trust at the last minute! That is a good way to handle irresponsible people without cutting them out completely.
Post by: partgypsy on June 27, 2019, 12:35:03 PM
Post by: ysette9 on June 27, 2019, 12:42:44 PM
I feel bad for the trustee but he should be happy he gets anything at all. I think there should be a clause if he contests any part of the arrangement, he gets NOTHING. That's what I would do in that situation.We just signed trust paperwork last week and there is language like that in there. It was pretty incredible actually. Not only do you get nothing if you contest but it is as though you pre-deceased us with no issue, meaning that the offspring of the person contesting get nothing either.
Post by: talltexan on June 27, 2019, 01:22:02 PM
Post by: Captain FIRE on June 27, 2019, 01:54:38 PM
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
Post by: Dancin'Dog on June 27, 2019, 05:02:04 PM
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
Post by: Psychstache on June 28, 2019, 07:46:43 AM
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
Probably an urban legend, but a friend once told me a story about a relative who wanted to disinherit a couple of kids due to their greedy, irresponsible financial ways, but still leave things to others. To not make it look like they were being left out unintentionally, the will stated "To [list of people being disinherited], I leave for each of you $1, so that you may someday learn it's value."
Sick burn from beyond the grave.[/list]
Post by: Captain FIRE on June 28, 2019, 07:54:16 AM
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
Probably an urban legend, but a friend once told me a story about a relative who wanted to disinherit a couple of kids due to their greedy, irresponsible financial ways, but still leave things to others. To not make it look like they were being left out unintentionally, the will stated "To [list of people being disinherited], I leave for each of you $1, so that you may someday learn it's value."
Sick burn from beyond the grave.[/list]
People definitely do that, whether it's an urban legend for your family specifically or not. That said, T&E professor advised we recommend against that course of action as well. $1 is essentially 0, so there's nothing to induce a relative not to litigate. And with such inflammatory message, they are possibly more likely to litigate.
Post by: BeanCounter on June 28, 2019, 08:48:46 AM
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Post by: TVRodriguez on June 28, 2019, 09:14:17 AM
I'm not an attorney, but I do not understand how a clause withdrawing any distribution that is triggered by contesting the will is conscionable.
It's called an "in terrorem" clause, b/c it's supposed to put fear into the potential beneficiaries (really, in terror--in fear) to stop them from contesting the will with the threat of losing whatever amount they would have gotten under the will (or trust). It's not legal in all jurisdictions.
Post by: haflander on June 28, 2019, 09:18:12 AM
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.
As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)
Post by: Dicey on June 28, 2019, 10:01:51 AM
Oh, and her lion's share of my parent's estate? Presumably gone. She recently hit up a wealthy relative for $1500. Against firmly worded advice, the relative made the "loan". Black sheep subsequently received about twice that when a small payout was received from the estate. She did not repay the relative's loan. Now the relative is complaining plaintively to the very people who strongly advised her against making the loan. What? La la la, I can't hear you.
Post by: honeybbq on June 28, 2019, 10:04:26 AM
Really? Think about it this way - the one contesting the will is seeking to thwart the writer's intentions (when they are deceased and can't even object themselves). How is that conscionable? So you write it in to head off litigation that 1) opposes your wishes and 2) makes it more painful/expensive for all of your heirs.
In fact, my T&E prof suggested that you never cut someone entirely out of a will, because then they have no incentive to not litigate. Instead he suggested you try to persuade your clients to give that person a small amount instead (less than they might otherwise get if you divided things per stripes or however else) that they would lose if they litigated. (And write a letter on the side explaining why you've done things as you have.)
That was the same advice my father received from his estate attorney about handling the share for a disappointing son.
This was a very painful and difficult decision for my dad. He'd always wanted to tweat his boys evenly, but in the last few years it became obvious that my brother would likely get himself in trouble with too much money. Towards the end dad was so hurt & frustrated that he didn't want to leave him anything.
There are all kinds of screwed up people, and just as many reasons for uneven shares.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
In our situation, there's a person who would kill themselves with drugs if they suddenly had access to that amount of money. That's not what a parent wants for their children even beyond the grave.
Post by: DeniseNJ on June 28, 2019, 10:04:50 AM
Disagree. The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke. This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever. I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons. I might just refer them to this site in my will!I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.
As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)
Post by: Dicey on June 28, 2019, 10:06:51 AM
Much as I love it here, I hope this place is dead and gone long before you are!Disagree. The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke. This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever. I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons. I might just refer them to this site in my will!I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.
As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)
Post by: BeanCounter on June 28, 2019, 10:47:09 AM
Exactly. Why not give it equally and if you have one kid that you think might spend it all on hookers or blow, then put it in a trust so they can only spend the income and the principle can remain for generations.Disagree. The reason I wouldn't give money to my kid who will spend it all on magic beans is not bc I care about the money; it's bc I care about my kid who I fear might blow it all and end up broke. This is not my situation but if I was worried about one kid whether he's physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychiatrically disabled or a jerk or just irresponsible or gullible or immature or naive, then I can see setting up a trust or something that let's him have a bit at a time or whatever. I persoanlly would leave it all equal with istructions as to what I think they should do with it but will also spend my time before I die trying to teach them the MMM lessons. I might just refer them to this site in my will!I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
Um...because the $ will be better spent by a reasonable and responsible person instead of wasted? If I end up old and with $, you can be damn sure I wouldn't give it to the person I know will waste it. That $ can do so much more for the frugal and investing person, the ones who took after their old man. I'd rather my frugal kid buy a rental or pay for the grandkids' school vs the wasteful kid spending it all on hookers and blow.
As others have said above, whatever an old person wants to do with their hard-earned $ is their choice. No one deserves anything. I also like the idea of cutting someone out if they contest the will. You don't deserve it in the first place, it's not your $...so if you contest, you get what you actually deserve, which is zero :)
I just don't get why anyone would want to hurt their child after they die by cutting them out. Not only that but it will put a huge strain on that kid and their siblings. So in trying to save your legacy from being wasted away, you just leave behind a wake of resentment and hurt. Sad.
Post by: saguaro on June 28, 2019, 11:13:11 AM
Funny, I was single until late in life. All along, I had named my siblings as equal benefactors. When my parents died, they pulled some shit. One in particular. Surprisingly, the others backed her. Sucks for them. After a lot of careful thought, they will receive very significantly reduced gifts. And the black sheep? Sucks more for her. The amount she stole from our parents while they were alive and shystered after they were gone just might be about the same (or less) than what she would have received from my estate.
Oh, and her lion's share of my parent's estate? Presumably gone. She recently hit up a wealthy relative for $1500. Against firmly worded advice, the relative made the "loan". Black sheep subsequently received about twice that when a small payout was received from the estate. She did not repay the relative's loan. Now the relative is complaining plaintively to the very people who strongly advised her against making the loan. What? La la la, I can't hear you.
In a similar vein, I have both of my sisters as contingent beneficiaries on a couple of bank accounts in the event I survive DH. We have no kids. The split is equal. I am considering modifying one sister's share in light of the shit she has pulled since our parents died including concerns that she is stealing money. She has delayed, stalled and obfuscated to the point that both other sister and I think it's to gain a greater share for herself. So once I get an accounting when the estate is closed out, that difference might just be deducted from her share.
Post by: FIRE@50 on June 28, 2019, 11:52:03 AM
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Post by: ysette9 on June 28, 2019, 11:55:06 AM
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Post by: Dicey on June 28, 2019, 01:25:37 PM
Damn, ysette! I'm having a rough morning dealing with our flip partner's BS, and this literally made me LOL. Thanks for lightening my mood. I needed that!I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Post by: Kitsune on June 28, 2019, 01:45:34 PM
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
On the other hand, sometimes outsourcing to a qualified person gets the best result. Fortunately, in this case, the skills of amateurs do equal those of professionals, so it is possible to get excellent results with a relatively frugal attitude, and minor investment in basic equiment and hardware.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 28, 2019, 01:48:50 PM
Hard to be sure about that.I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Post by: ysette9 on June 28, 2019, 02:44:01 PM
Especially with what is available for free online nowadays, there is no excuse for not learning to do some things for yourself. And like they say, often times a home cooked meal is better than what you can get in a restaurant.I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
On the other hand, sometimes outsourcing to a qualified person gets the best result. Fortunately, in this case, the skills of amateurs do equal those of professionals, so it is possible to get excellent results with a relatively frugal attitude, and minor investment in basic equiment and hardware.
Post by: ysette9 on June 28, 2019, 02:44:19 PM
Damn, ysette! I'm having a rough morning dealing with our flip partner's BS, and this literally made me LOL. Thanks for lightening my mood. I needed that!I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.This is a site about DIY and self sufficiency. You shouldn’t need to hire a prostitute when you have a functioning hand.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
I hope your day looks up
Post by: Dancin'Dog on June 28, 2019, 09:57:36 PM
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Child molesters, wife beaters, and rapists are in a different category though.
How do those types fit into anyone's inheritance planning? Where's the "fair & equal" when demented actions are concerned? Things like that tend to make a mess of the "fair & equal" equation.
Blow & hookers aren't the worst things your heirs can get into.
Post by: Alfred J Quack on June 29, 2019, 02:12:49 AM
Exactly. Why not give it equally and if you have one kid that you think might spend it all on hookers or blow, then put it in a trust so they can only spend the income and the principle can remain for generations.
I just don't get why anyone would want to hurt their child after they die by cutting them out. Not only that but it will put a huge strain on that kid and their siblings. So in trying to save your legacy from being wasted away, you just leave behind a wake of resentment and hurt. Sad.
Disclaimer: I come from a country where it is impossible for direct descendants to be completely disinherited.
There are always reasons to change the distribution of an inheritance. Some emotional, some financial and some practical. In our case, our mother has limited the inheritance of my brother to the legal minimum and me and my sister have been designated to handle the estate. Our youngest brother has caused this by his own actions and though I don't agree per se. When the time comes I do think I should be the responsible one because my sister is a good person but not necessarily good with money (they keep their mortgage at max for the tax return on paid interest)...
In my own family's case, our youngest son (3) has Down's syndrome. Giving him his full share is problematic because he likely isn't capable to manage it himself as well as tax being a problem. He's exempt from inheritance tax up to a certain amount but wealth is taxed afterwards so his wealth will likely decline as he ages without being used...
So, looking at the tax situation there is an option to create a sort of trust where we appoint a financial guardian and stipulate that the money can only be used to improve quality of life. This way, the inheritance isn't classified as wealth and can't be used to pay for things that would otherwise would have been paid for by the state. The intention is that his inheritance is likely to last longer and used for his benefit.
However, the question remains who to set up as the guardian. Our oldest son may do so but this is largely dependent on how his financial prowes develops (he's 6 so can't say yet). So, I'm trying to work out who to appoint as guardian should we pass prematurely (i'm not fond of professional services but i'm also not fond of appointing one of my siblings due to their own money-mismanagement). This gives me some headaches at times....
Post by: former player on June 29, 2019, 03:44:36 AM
I'm really happy to be an only child with just one child myself. Also, there is no money to be inherited.
Last, why so much animosity for hookers and blow on this site?
Child molesters, wife beaters, and rapists are in a different category though.
How do those types fit into anyone's inheritance planning? Where's the "fair & equal" when demented actions are concerned? Things like that tend to make a mess of the "fair & equal" equation.
Blow & hookers aren't the worst things your heirs can get into.
A significant proportion of prostitutes have been victims of sexual assault as children, and cocaine leaves a trail of death of misery behind its production and trafficking. The harm is not as obvious but it is still there. No-one I thought was buying sex or illegal drugs would get a penny of my money to do it with.
Post by: Imma on June 29, 2019, 08:22:29 AM
Of course in many cases siblings handle the affairs of their disabled siblings very well, but there's also the sad example I've seen in my extended family. A man with Down's syndrome was left a significant sum of money by his parents (his fair share of the value of a farm that was sold). His siblings took care of his affairs and while they loved him, he lived a good life and was happy, they never spent anything on things they considered 'unnecessary' because they knew their brother's estate would eventually pass to their kids. They loved their own kids more than they loved their brother. The sad thing is that even if they had spoiled their brother quite a bit there'd still be a fortune left.
Post by: UnleashHell on June 30, 2019, 05:07:51 AM
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Post by: SwordGuy on June 30, 2019, 08:34:01 AM
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
Post by: AMandM on June 30, 2019, 02:17:07 PM
Post by: BeanCounter on June 30, 2019, 07:04:44 PM
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
Post by: UnleashHell on July 01, 2019, 06:46:40 AM
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents". She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 01, 2019, 07:45:23 AM
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents". She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.
Yeah, holy moly on the assumptions. Sometimes there's a reason someone stopped speaking to someone else, sometimes it's irrational. Sometimes it's the person who was cut off, sometimes it's the one who did the cutting out and sometimes it's both. There's no 99.9% repeating here for why.
I just learned yesterday that my aunt died 4 days prior from cancer. Had no idea she had cancer, because my uncle stopped speaking to my dad 17 years ago around my grandfather's funeral. He's never really said why, though when pressed early on, he did go off on a tirade apparently about not liking my mom's Christmas letters recounting the year's activities. Such an egregious offense! My grandmother likes to pretend that things are fine between them, so she has no idea why he stopped (and my dad is reluctant to put his nephew in the middle by asking him about it). Uncle lives near grandma and we don't, so we're trying to figure out how to ensure we'll actually be notified when grandma passes so we can make it for the funeral, other than calling every day and panicking upon no response which seems overkill. (Parents are going to talk to her neighbor and delicately to nephew. If anyone else has suggestions, please share.)
Post by: BabyShark on July 01, 2019, 07:47:24 AM
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents". She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.
Yeah, holy moly on the assumptions. Sometimes there's a reason someone stopped speaking to someone else, sometimes it's irrational. Sometimes it's the person who was cut off, sometimes it's the one who did the cutting out and sometimes it's both. There's no 99.9% repeating here for why.
I just learned yesterday that my aunt died 4 days prior from cancer. Had no idea she had cancer, because my uncle stopped speaking to my dad 17 years ago around my grandfather's funeral. He's never really said why, though when pressed early on, he did go off on a tirade apparently about not liking my mom's Christmas letters recounting the year's activities. Such an egregious offense! My grandmother likes to pretend that things are fine between them, so she has no idea why he stopped (and my dad is reluctant to put his nephew in the middle by asking him about it). Uncle lives near grandma and we don't, so we're trying to figure out how to ensure we'll actually be notified when grandma passes so we can make it for the funeral, other than calling every day and panicking upon no response which seems overkill. (Parents are going to talk to her neighbor and delicately to nephew. If anyone else has suggestions, please share.)
What about you reaching out to your cousin to keep connected? Keeps him from having to feel like he's in the middle of his parents and yours.
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 01, 2019, 08:01:00 AM
What about you reaching out to your cousin to keep connected? Keeps him from having to feel like he's in the middle of his parents and yours.
Yeah I plan to reach out to him and should really do a better job staying in contact. That said, we're not close - he's older than me so we never bonded growing up and we did not ever live near each other. I was a bit closer to his younger brother, who passed away about 10 years ago. My dad's kept in much better contact with my cousin over the years than I have. (My dad tries to see my cousin every time he visits my grandma or is in his area, it's just that he tries really hard not to bring up his brother to make my cousin feel caught in the middle.)
And, it's very clear my uncle isn't speaking to my dad, but the rest of the family is implicated as well. (He's my godfather, but did not attend my wedding (or my brother's).)
Post by: Sibley on July 01, 2019, 08:23:58 AM
There's a website that has a lot of information about estranged parents, and is often recommended to people who are the victims in these types of situations. It's quite interesting.
http://www.issendai.com/index.htm
Out of the fog is also helpful for some people in or around toxic people.
https://outofthefog.website/
It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves. These bystanders can inadvertently cause a lot of problems, and can in turn be cut off by Sally in order to protect herself.
It can also explain why you'll see very interesting internet threads - as we've got going here. UnLeashHell appears to have experience with this type of dysfunction, or something similar, and responded based on that experience. Other posters have pushed back because of the broad and seemingly black and white generalization.
Bottom line - families come in every variety, good and bad. If you're dealing with one of the bad ones, maybe some of this info will. If you're not, a bit of compassion for those who are or may be isn't a bad thing.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 01, 2019, 08:30:25 AM
And that would be the 0.000000000000000000000001% case.
I've never understood this thinking. Just split it between your kids evenly and if one ends up "wasting" it all then that's on them. What do you care, you're dead! But disowning your own child in a will is just mean and spiteful for a parent to do.
what if your kids have disowned you, won't talk to you or let their kids talk to you?
what do you do when you find out that you are a great grandparent but from your own siblings instead of your kids?
Well, I would argue that 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time one should look in the mirror and
reflect on what set of egregious actions one did to motivate one's kids to act that way. Then give the kids the money and apologize in the will for whatever one did to them.
The remaining 0.000000000000000000000001% of the time one should give the grand kids their inheritance with a lawyer as an executor, to be paid out when they are 25, because it's not the grand kids fault their parents are jackasses.
That's my take on it.
thanks for the sweeping generalizations. in this case its my sister who stopped talking to me 20 years ago. my only regret is that it wasn't sooner. my parents lasted another ten years before she cut them off as well. The egregious final action that my parents did - went on holiday at christmas to FLorida to see their other grandchilden and didn't buy xmas presents for the grandkids in England. who were well past 18 an didn't ever send thanks for presents they'd received or ever visit. Literally the first words from my sisters mount upon their return - "where are the presents". She's a disgrace who deserves everything she gets. which will be nothing.
Post by: DadJokes on July 01, 2019, 08:48:14 AM
It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.
@SwordGuy do you have children?
Post by: BeanCounter on July 01, 2019, 08:58:47 AM
Re the no contact situations - From the outside, you've really got no way to tell for sure what the issue is. It is quite interesting however that there's a group of situations that basically come down to someone is toxic/abusive/manipulative/generally nasty, so when the people around them eventually get tired of the abuse and cut them off, they say they have no idea why. Mental illness or personality disorders can be at play as well.+1
There's a website that has a lot of information about estranged parents, and is often recommended to people who are the victims in these types of situations. It's quite interesting.
http://www.issendai.com/index.htm
Out of the fog is also helpful for some people in or around toxic people.
https://outofthefog.website/
It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves. These bystanders can inadvertently cause a lot of problems, and can in turn be cut off by Sally in order to protect herself.
It can also explain why you'll see very interesting internet threads - as we've got going here. UnLeashHell appears to have experience with this type of dysfunction, or something similar, and responded based on that experience. Other posters have pushed back because of the broad and seemingly black and white generalization.
Bottom line - families come in every variety, good and bad. If you're dealing with one of the bad ones, maybe some of this info will. If you're not, a bit of compassion for those who are or may be isn't a bad thing.
We are no contact with my mother in law. She is diagnosed boarder line PD, bi-polar and a touch of narcissism. If you know people like that, they just take, take, take. When their own children go against their requests they shame, belittle, demean. It's a no win.
So I have a very real view of what this kind of dysfunction looks like. But I still feel that cutting someone out of a will is wrong. If one of my children had these types of problems and we were in a dysfunctional relationship, yes I would go no contact but I would not cut them out of the will. When I am dead I want to do everything I can to make those that are still living have some sense of love and acceptance. It's only money, and I won't need it after I'm gone. And cutting out one child will just ensure that there will never be a good relationship between them and their sibs.
I would just explain to my other children that I appreciate all the "extra" they have given us, and to do what they need to do to care and protect themselves from their sibling. And I would tell them that even though they probably deserve more, we feel that inheritance is a birth right and we are splitting evenly no matter what. If I thought one child couldn't be trusted with money I would put it in the trust and just give them the annual income.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 01, 2019, 09:00:40 AM
People don't act rationally. You can raise two children the exact same way in the exact same household under the exact same circumstances, and they will most likely grow up to be very different people. When a child goes down the wrong path, parents are going to "look in the mirror" and blame themselves, even if they did their jobs as parents correctly.
It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.
@SwordGuy do you have children?
I agree with everything you just said.
My point in the earlier post was that it is very rare for children to outright refuse to deal with their parents unless the parents have really acted up. Lots of mooches. Lots of dysfunctional family dynamics. Lots of not going the extra mile to visit parents who are a nuisance. But for a child to completely sever parental ties? I don't think that's very common indeed when there's no good reason. I've heard of many cases where children have done so because their parents are thieves, or addicts, or violent, or vicious, or controlling. All perfectly good reasons. Plenty of cases where the kid doesn't take any action to maintain contact but accepts parental contact. But refusing to have contact with one's parents for no good reason? That's a very drastic step with no rational benefit. So, sure, crazy people might do it, but crazy people often need to mooch because they can't get other things in their life working either.
I'm not saying it happens. I'm not disputing anyone's assertion that it happened in their family. I'm just saying I think it's extremely rare.
And yes, I have children. I have a wife with siblings. 3 in her family are great, 1 is a selfish, self-entitled ass -- who mooches off her parents. I have lots of friends with siblings. I watch and observe. I listen and I read about other's stories.
So, I'll readily admit that's all my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Sorry if the percentages to the ludicrous number of digits I listed didn't give that away. :)
Post by: Villanelle on July 01, 2019, 10:17:23 AM
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on July 01, 2019, 10:39:50 AM
People don't act rationally. You can raise two children the exact same way in the exact same household under the exact same circumstances, and they will most likely grow up to be very different people. When a child goes down the wrong path, parents are going to "look in the mirror" and blame themselves, even if they did their jobs as parents correctly.
It is perfectly understandable to not leave equal shares to children if you believe that leaving money to someone will do them more harm than good.
@SwordGuy do you have children?
I agree with everything you just said.
My point in the earlier post was that it is very rare for children to outright refuse to deal with their parents unless the parents have really acted up. Lots of mooches. Lots of dysfunctional family dynamics. Lots of not going the extra mile to visit parents who are a nuisance. But for a child to completely sever parental ties? I don't think that's very common indeed when there's no good reason. I've heard of many cases where children have done so because their parents are thieves, or addicts, or violent, or vicious, or controlling. All perfectly good reasons. Plenty of cases where the kid doesn't take any action to maintain contact but accepts parental contact. But refusing to have contact with one's parents for no good reason? That's a very drastic step with no rational benefit. So, sure, crazy people might do it, but crazy people often need to mooch because they can't get other things in their life working either.
I'm not saying it happens. I'm not disputing anyone's assertion that it happened in their family. I'm just saying I think it's extremely rare.
And yes, I have children. I have a wife with siblings. 3 in her family are great, 1 is a selfish, self-entitled ass -- who mooches off her parents. I have lots of friends with siblings. I watch and observe. I listen and I read about other's stories.
So, I'll readily admit that's all my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Sorry if the percentages to the ludicrous number of digits I listed didn't give that away. :)
The cutting-off behavior is extremely common in families where there's addiction or abuse. In those families, people who behave badly are always entitled to the relationship and/or resources they want from the people they mistreat, no matter what. If you want to participate in family activities, you're required to (a) tolerate abuse, (b) not talk about it, and (c) help protect the person who's continuing to dish it out. Only the problem person's experience matters, and the rest of the family is so used to tiptoeing around the most dramatic and destructive individual that if someone on the receiving end of bad behavior dares to speak up or to protect himself/herself, that person is punished by being excluded from the family.
The other very common behavior is for the person who wants to live an abuse-free life to be the one to build some distance into the relationship. If the rest of the family tries to pressure the escapee to kowtow and to submit to more abuse, it's generally because every single person applying the pressure is in full flying monkey mode. Many of them like to feel like they are accomplishing something extremely good by reeling the escaped punching bag back in so that the toxic or abusive person can have another go. Others are tired of wiping the butt of whoever is screwing up, and realize that if they can bulldoze over the escapee's boundaries they can substitute the human escapee to be used as human toilet paper.
A third very common behavior is for someone to go into a snit and cut off friends or family members as a manipulation tool: "if you don't do this for me, or if you don't give me that, then you'll never see me again." My daughter was always cutting off friends or relatives to punish them for asserting their own boundaries. When she did it to me at age 18, I happily gave her all of her belongings and helped her move out, but her resolve to have nothing to do with me evaporated once she wanted money. There are lots of people who behave this way: when they well runs dry and they can't take anything more from you, or if you need something from them or are politely holding them accountable for their behavior, they find a reason to end contact until there's something else they want.
From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
Post by: TVRodriguez on July 01, 2019, 10:56:12 AM
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
Not in my state under a Will or Trust. Beneficiaries have the right to receive a copy of the testamentary document and, if it's a Will being probated, they have the right to receive an Inventory of the estate. If it's a trust, they have the right to an accounting, which will show all distributions and disbursements.
There are other ways to achieve this privacy you mention using non-probate or non-trust assets. Make beneficiary designations on IRAs, bank accounts, life insurance, etc. Separate beneficiaries on separate accounts usually don't have access to information on other accounts where they are not beneficiaries.
Post by: kanga1622 on July 01, 2019, 11:01:34 AM
A lot of these stories seem to center on people who were mean or greedy or stupid before any inheritance, and the legacy was just a bigger field for them to play on. Has anyone seen a family where everyone got along well, and you wouldn't expect drama, but things changed when an inheritance was involved?
My dad's family was a bit that way. He had one brother that was a bit greedy but he took it to the extreme after his parents passed. And then another brother's wife started to stir things up. It fragmented the siblings a bit but they were able to get over it and move on.
My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on July 01, 2019, 11:10:57 AM
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.I don't know about the legal side of things, but secrecy is going to be hard to enforce, especially when A and B are individuals who likely have some connection to each other. I suppose you could say "person A gets $25k and the remainder goes to Charity X," with instructions not to reveal what that remainder is, but I don't know that there's a way to make sure the executor doesn't reveal the amount, or to make sure Person A can't somehow get the info from the charity.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.That's fantastic that your family was able to handle it all so maturely. I hope the same happens in my family when the time comes.
Post by: Dicey on July 01, 2019, 11:21:24 AM
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.
Gosh, I never realized this little tale might qualify as an inheritance drama story. Maybe to someone else, but not to me.
**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.
Post by: TVRodriguez on July 01, 2019, 12:07:51 PM
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.
Gosh, I never realized this little tale might qualify as an inheritance drama story. Maybe to someone else, but not to me.
**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.
Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).
But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.
Post by: okits on July 01, 2019, 12:09:21 PM
It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves.
From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
I have appreciated your (almost certainly hard-earned) insight, @Sibley and @TheGrimSqueaker .
I’m estranged from my sibling and have been estranged from my parents in the past (we have a guarded relationship now). My parents see the estrangement of their children as a failure that reflects badly on them, and so really want to throw a bandaid on it (for appearances’ sake and to check that off their list).
About a year ago they approached me under the guise of “discussing their end-of-life arrangements”, but it was really an attempt to try to bribe me (with an eventual inheritance) into putting a bandaid onto that estrangement. When I told them my children and I neither needed nor expected any inheritance they were furious. (In hindsight I should have outright requested that nothing be left to us. I guess I will should they ever bring this up again.) This episode pushed me to accept that in spite of all the excuses I make for them, my parents really do exhibit manipulative and controlling behaviour towards me (I already grasped that they treated me much more like a possession or an employee than like a person). I was also really sad to realize they thought that I could be bought. (I initiated those estrangements when I was young and alone and had not much safety margin to support myself. If I wasn’t going to be manipulated in exchange for money then, why would I be now when I am older and have saved my own money and have my own family?)
Even just recounting that little episode feels gross. 🤮
Post by: DaMa on July 01, 2019, 06:46:16 PM
The cutting-off behavior is extremely common in families where there's addiction or abuse. In those families, people who behave badly are always entitled to the relationship and/or resources they want from the people they mistreat, no matter what. If you want to participate in family activities, you're required to (a) tolerate abuse, (b) not talk about it, and (c) help protect the person who's continuing to dish it out. Only the problem person's experience matters, and the rest of the family is so used to tiptoeing around the most dramatic and destructive individual that if someone on the receiving end of bad behavior dares to speak up or to protect himself/herself, that person is punished by being excluded from the family.
The other very common behavior is for the person who wants to live an abuse-free life to be the one to build some distance into the relationship. If the rest of the family tries to pressure the escapee to kowtow and to submit to more abuse, it's generally because every single person applying the pressure is in full flying monkey mode. Many of them like to feel like they are accomplishing something extremely good by reeling the escaped punching bag back in so that the toxic or abusive person can have another go. Others are tired of wiping the butt of whoever is screwing up, and realize that if they can bulldoze over the escapee's boundaries they can substitute the human escapee to be used as human toilet paper.
A third very common behavior is for someone to go into a snit and cut off friends or family members as a manipulation tool: "if you don't do this for me, or if you don't give me that, then you'll never see me again." My daughter was always cutting off friends or relatives to punish them for asserting their own boundaries. When she did it to me at age 18, I happily gave her all of her belongings and helped her move out, but her resolve to have nothing to do with me evaporated once she wanted money. There are lots of people who behave this way: when they well runs dry and they can't take anything more from you, or if you need something from them or are politely holding them accountable for their behavior, they find a reason to end contact until there's something else they want.
From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
You clearly know your stuff. That is exactly my experience. (1) My father is an alcoholic. (2) Having finally decided to let the distance increase, my mother is working overtime to defend and minimize my concerns. (3) My father cut off all contact with his parents and brother when I was 12, separating me from family members that I loved. (4) Father has no friends except some people he has known for less than two years. Every friend he had that I knew eventually did or said something that pissed him off to the point of cutting them out.
My only brother has also distanced himself. Addiction takes a terrible toll on families.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 01, 2019, 07:37:54 PM
The only item in dispute that I'm aware of is how often children cut off contact from their parents when the parents have done NOTHING wrong. (And I'm not counting flouncing off and then conveniently (and quickly) forgetting the cut off contact, I'm only counting a permanent cut of all ties.) I maintain that's extremely rare.
Post by: fredbear on July 01, 2019, 09:18:26 PM
...
The only item in dispute that I'm aware of is how often children cut off contact from their parents when the parents have done NOTHING wrong. (And I'm not counting flouncing off and then conveniently (and quickly) forgetting the cut off contact, I'm only counting a permanent cut of all ties.) I maintain that's extremely rare.
You may be right about causeless cutoff. Cutting off for cause, though; I thought it also rare until I was a kind of ombudsman/enforcer at a large subsidized housing project - tax credits for high-income investors. Many residents - over half? I think probably, but I'll stick with "many" - had no contact with their offspring, hadn't for years, and as you got to know them, you understood, and cast your silent but sincere vote with the offspring. As parents they had taken tiny humans who depended on them and were programmed to look up to them and love them, and through many years of unremitting vile behavior, made those who "ought" to have loved them curdle irretrievably. I had to talk to a number of the families of our residents, ascertaining if they could or would provide any support, and the answer was "no" in every case but one. It varied from "Shee-it. That mothafucka yo problem now," to "I believe I have discharged any duty I may once have had toward her. Except on the event of her death, please do not contact me about her ever again, Mr. Fredbear." But other than sometimes coming by to pick up their stuff when we'd evicted and piled it on the curb, the response I got condensed to, "We his family will not constitute a safety net for him; as a representative of the taxpayers, you get to."
Post by: Dicey on July 02, 2019, 01:21:36 AM
Uh, inventory? What inventory?Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.Yes. I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me. Our mutual friend (and current flip partner, if anyone's following that adventure) was absolutely dying to know the value of his "gift", but I never told. After five years of payments, there wasn't much balance left, but I appreciated the clean slate. No way will I ever share the details with her. I think she expected more from his estate and imagines I sucked away some huge amount of cash. Nope.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.
Gosh, I never realized this little tale might qualify as an inheritance drama story. Maybe to someone else, but not to me.
**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.
Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).
But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.
Post by: UnleashHell on July 02, 2019, 06:11:03 AM
It's also important to note that people who have generally loving, non-abusive families and social circles frequently are unable (at least without a lot of thought) to understand that Sally didn't cut off her mother for no reason, and maybe Sally's mother is actually really abusive, even if they've never seen the behavior themselves.From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
I have appreciated your (almost certainly hard-earned) insight, @Sibley and @TheGrimSqueaker .
I’m estranged from my sibling and have been estranged from my parents in the past (we have a guarded relationship now). My parents see the estrangement of their children as a failure that reflects badly on them, and so really want to throw a bandaid on it (for appearances’ sake and to check that off their list).
About a year ago they approached me under the guise of “discussing their end-of-life arrangements”, but it was really an attempt to try to bribe me (with an eventual inheritance) into putting a bandaid onto that estrangement. When I told them my children and I neither needed nor expected any inheritance they were furious. (In hindsight I should have outright requested that nothing be left to us. I guess I will should they ever bring this up again.) This episode pushed me to accept that in spite of all the excuses I make for them, my parents really do exhibit manipulative and controlling behaviour towards me (I already grasped that they treated me much more like a possession or an employee than like a person). I was also really sad to realize they thought that I could be bought. (I initiated those estrangements when I was young and alone and had not much safety margin to support myself. If I wasn’t going to be manipulated in exchange for money then, why would I be now when I am older and have saved my own money and have my own family?)
Even just recounting that little episode feels gross. 🤮
Further to the estrangement of my sister. over many years she discounted any help from myself or my parents and very rarely visited or even initiated phone calls. She got very close to my Grandmother who was exceptional at manipulating people with the threat of "the will". Grandmother would make demands and threaten to cut people out of the will if such demands weren't met. Both my parents and myself refused to yield to such demands and we became "bad people" because we wouldn't bend to her will. We got cut out of the will. This is the will of a woman who had 2 husbands die on her and both of them were well insured. It would be an expensive mistake to be cut out of the will.
Turns out that my sister (and the 2 aunts on that side) did everything they could to remain in the will - to the point of excluding us from family gatherings because we'd upset grandma (IE we didn't drive a couple of hours at the drop of a hat to do anything for her). When she finally died we were indeed cut out of the will. However she'd mislead everyone all along. Most of the money was gone. there was only a few thousand left of all the insurance and house sales. And a 20 year old car plus some tools.
Our reaction was basically to shrug - we didn't compromise our principles to chase money from a crazy old lady. The rest of the family - especially my sister - was infuriated - it'd all been for nothing. That turned her even more bitter and lead to cutting all of us off eventually. Of the 3 sisters on that side one is my mother, the other 2 have a total of 3 kids and no grandchildren. My sister is still lining up to end up as the only living recipient of all of that property.
My parents don't care or need it- they are just fine financially. And I'm about 2 years from quitting work so I'm ok.
My sister - still waiting and seething as far as I know. Don't care. Things were said and done that can't be reversed. I was near where she lived a couple of weeks ago - luckily I didn't bump into her or her husband (who I don't have an issue with).
Its the nieces I feel sorry for - they have been denied a grandmother and an uncle and a side of the family that I believe would have been good to know - but I can't do anything about that - yet.
Post by: AMandM on July 02, 2019, 07:24:11 AM
My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.
I had a friend who loaned me money, at his suggestion, when I was buying a house. He liked to make small loans to friends because he enjoyed having a steady stream of checks rolling in each month*. I'd been making payments as scheduled when he died**, about five years later. In his will, it just said he forgave any money he had loaned to me.
[...]
**My friend was considerably older, so his death was not unexpected. I worked every day, then spent the night on his tiny sofa every night for the last ten days of his life in case he needed anything during the night. Got up, went home, showered, went to work. I was on my way to his house after work when I got the call from our mutual friend that he had just died. I went straight there to say my goodbyes. Very surreal to spend time with the body of a loved one immediately after they've passed. Oh, I still miss him so! RIP, Waynn, with two N's and no E.
Dicey and kanga, it is so heartening to read these stories in the midst of all the other miserable ones. Thank you both! Everyone else, I send you my sympathy!
I am glad that my family is like kanga's. My grandmother's estate was settled with no animosity, even though she died intestate. My mother left everything to my father. My father says his will leaves everything to me and my sisters in equal shares and I anticipate no problems.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on July 02, 2019, 07:57:32 AM
I suspect your wise and generous friend also recognized that you were wise with your limited money, and therefore a lower risk of defaulting.Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.*My friend wasn't stupid. The only condition of the loan was that I buy cheap term life insurance for 3x the loan amount, naming him as the beneficiary, until it was paid off. I gladly paid it until he passed away. Smart man. BTW, he knew how hard I was working to earn the money for the DP. He came to me with the offer; I was not seeking loans from anyone. I worked on commission, and he was my movie/theater buddy. About the third time I said no to a movie because I was working, he hatched this scheme. I knew he did it for others, some of whom had gone belly up and stiffed him. There was zero chance of that happening with me, so I said yes.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?
Post by: Sibley on July 02, 2019, 08:26:53 AM
Just to shorten this discussion, everyone so far is in agreement that reasonable people cut off contact with family members who are awful in some manner. This is not in dispute and needs no defending.
The only item in dispute that I'm aware of is how often children cut off contact from their parents when the parents have done NOTHING wrong. (And I'm not counting flouncing off and then conveniently (and quickly) forgetting the cut off contact, I'm only counting a permanent cut of all ties.) I maintain that's extremely rare.
Mental illness, personality disorders, and general shittyi-ness goes both ways. There absolutely are instances where the adult child has cut off parents who are generally healthy/normal. The problem is that it's really hard to figure out without knowing a lot of background, which is which.
Even the asking other people as Grimm suggests can fail (though it absolutely helps). There are people who are SO GOOD at codeswitching that they can be horrible monsters and yet even close friends and family are horrified to learn about it.
Just because an individual is an abuser to one person doesn't mean they are to all, and it doesn't mean that they're always an abuser. People are complicated. I regularly reassure victims of this kind of abuse that the good doesn't cancel out the bad, the bad doesn't cancel out the good, and it's ok to have those mixed emotions.
Post by: TVRodriguez on July 02, 2019, 11:25:35 AM
Uh, inventory? What inventory?
Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).
But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.
Here, the Inventory of the decedent's assets is a pleading that must be filed with the probate court. It's literally a list of items owned by the decedent in his own name, whether bank accounts, investment accounts, real estate, cash, tangible personal property, etc., that don't have either a joint owner with right of survivorship or a beneficiary (pay-on-death or transfer-on-death beneficiary).
Post by: Villanelle on July 02, 2019, 04:55:03 PM
Probably a question for a lawyer, but I'm trying to sort something out before I bring it up with DH and then, if we decide to go that direction, a lawyer.I don't know about the legal side of things, but secrecy is going to be hard to enforce, especially when A and B are individuals who likely have some connection to each other. I suppose you could say "person A gets $25k and the remainder goes to Charity X," with instructions not to reveal what that remainder is, but I don't know that there's a way to make sure the executor doesn't reveal the amount, or to make sure Person A can't somehow get the info from the charity.
Is there a way to set up a will so that people who inherit don't know what others are getting? (Assuming those people are not the executor.). IOW, could we leave $25,000 to person A, and not give him access to the information that person B got $50,000? Or not give him access to the fact that the entire state was $1m and 75% was left to charity?My siblings and I were VERY well organized and knew it was to be an even split. We were very congenial during all the meetings, lawyer visits, and text/email traffic on decisions. We have zero arguments about anything related to that process and know that our relationship is more important than any amount of money. We met the day after our dad's funeral to discuss our feelings. I said quite plainly that the only thing that mattered to me with the process is that we kept our relationship together. Everyone else agreed right away and that was forefront in our minds as we discussed anything.That's fantastic that your family was able to handle it all so maturely. I hope the same happens in my family when the time comes.
This would be a case where person A probably wouldn't want person B to know how much A received either. Imagine you leave $50k to one cousin-A (for example) and $25k to another cousin-B, perhaps in part because cousin B is greedy, hasn't had a meaningful relationship with you, etc. You'd prefer to avoid the drama that you suspect would come with B finding out he's been "cheated". And A wouldn't want B to know either, lest B give A a hard time. It would also make B more likely to challenge the will.
And if A and B are from different nuclear families, A would have little relationship with B.
So A would have no reason to spill the beans to B, and everyone, including B, would be happier not knowing s/he got less. But it sounds like that's not possible.
Post by: Dicey on July 02, 2019, 06:34:16 PM
Hmmm, does having a trust avoid probate? Could that have been why there was no inventory done?Uh, inventory? What inventory?
Where I practice, that loan/note would be an asset of the estate and would get listed on the Inventory, which is to be provided to every beneficiary under the Will (and any other interested party of the estate, including known creditors).
But that's a sweet story and a nice friendship you had.
Here, the Inventory of the decedent's assets is a pleading that must be filed with the probate court. It's literally a list of items owned by the decedent in his own name, whether bank accounts, investment accounts, real estate, cash, tangible personal property, etc., that don't have either a joint owner with right of survivorship or a beneficiary (pay-on-death or transfer-on-death beneficiary).
Post by: iris lily on July 02, 2019, 08:42:30 PM
Niece is a nice young lady with a responsible job and many interests. She has gone on to get a advanced degree, she got married, she maintains a close relationship with her brother and her brother’s child. She has a good relationship with her husband’s family.
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Her mother is a nice enough but she is the most annoying of DH’s siblings, according to him.I would say they were a little strict in raising niece and her brother, but also the kids had activities and pets as well as chores on the farm.
There is no substance abuse of any kind in either generation. I think our niece’s father is probably more to blame in this estrangement than her mother, but it’s hard to know.
Post by: Imma on July 03, 2019, 01:50:51 AM
I grew up in a family where domestic violence was just a normal part of daily life and severed ties after a particularly bad incident when I was 23. I've cut him out off my will in a way that cannot be contested. I hope he has removed me from his will too, any money I would get is going to a domestic violence charity. I would like to get some personal possensions back but I think he will make sure I'll never get them.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on July 03, 2019, 03:35:04 AM
..........................any money I would get is going to a domestic violence charity.............
So sorry for what you went through. It had to take a lot of strength to walk away.
If you are left something in the will and still feel it would best be in a charity, for no/low cost you can make sure the news picks up that that's where your inheritance went. Of course, there's also always FB, or whatever is being used then.
This will be a means of protecting your reputation since they obviously don't care to protect you from near or far.
Hope moving on has been positive.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 03, 2019, 05:50:07 AM
You never know what goes on behind closed doors. My dad tells everyone he has no idea why I've cut him off. In my hometown everyone is angry at me because I'm such an uncaring daughter.
I grew up in a family where domestic violence was just a normal part of daily life and severed ties after a particularly bad incident when I was 23. I've cut him out off my will in a way that cannot be contested. I hope he has removed me from his will too, any money I would get is going to a domestic violence charity.
Good for you. We're all proud of you and what you've accomplished despite that treatment.
In the USA, every state has a sex offender registry. People can get a list of known, convicted sex offenders living near them. There are 322 registered offenders within 5 miles of where I live. That's not unusual for an urban area by the way. MANY of those 322 are there for molesting children. Probably family members since those would be the easiest victims for most people.
Keep in mind, that 322 number is the ones we caught and already imprisoned. It doesn't include the ones we haven't let out and it most certainly doesn't include the ones that were never turned in by their family or those who knew the children well enough to spot the signs. It's the tippy-tip-top of the iceberg.
And that's not counting the ones who were violent instead of molesters. God knows how many of them there are but I bet it's way more than sexual predators.
As Imma said, you don't know what goes on behind closed doors.
That's why I maintain that children aren't likely to permanently cut off contact for no good reason.
Am I accusing any specific person who has had a child cut them off of being a sexual predator or violent person or just a mean, controlling, cruel person?
No, I'm not. So, whomever you are, don't bother with indignant responses justifying yourself. Really, save yourself the trouble. No matter what you say we won't know whether you're a bullshitter or just an unlucky parent with a hateful kid.
What I am saying is that the odds favor one explanation by multiple orders of magnitude and those odds are in favor of the child's actions.
Post by: AMandM on July 03, 2019, 06:17:32 AM
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Could it be that it had to be all or nothing? Maybe the mother couldn't/wouldn't let the daughter be independent, so she had to sever all ties? Just speculating.
Post by: jinga nation on July 03, 2019, 08:32:38 AM
Hmmm, does having a trust avoid probate?It does, in my state.
Source: got my trust done last month.
Post by: BeanCounter on July 03, 2019, 08:51:27 AM
Post by: jinga nation on July 03, 2019, 09:01:45 AM
If your careful and smart, you can avoid probate altogether without a trust. Just do all the paperwork and it's possible. You would still need a will, "just in case". But nobody would ever see it unless they contested one of the beneficiaries (for TOD, POD, etc)
Taking chances in this day and age in this litigious society are not my thing. An amount trivial to me may mean a lot for someone else.
We had the trust and wills paperwork drawn up for "free" using the legal plan offered by employer, costs a couple of bucks per month. Had 2 1-hour meetings, a couple of emails with questions. Worth it. We had documented all our assets upfront and made it easy for the lawyer (and ourselves now that we're switching to making the trust secondary beneficiary).
Post by: iris lily on July 03, 2019, 09:18:39 AM
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Could it be that it had to be all or nothing? Maybe the mother couldn't/wouldn't let the daughter be independent, so she had to sever all ties? Just speculating.
I have thought about that, and it’s possible, but I do think of something more than that.
Post by: TVRodriguez on July 03, 2019, 09:48:03 AM
Hmmm, does having a trust avoid probate?It does, in my state.
Source: got my trust done last month.
Having a trust may avoid probate if you are careful to retitle your assets in the name of the trust (or rather, in the name of the trustee, as trustee of the trust). Having a trust by itself will not avoid probate if you do not get around to retitling assets.
Having a trust may not avoid disclosure of financial information to beneficiaries if your jurisdiction's trust code requires disclosure of the trust document and an accounting.
If your careful and smart, you can avoid probate altogether without a trust. Just do all the paperwork and it's possible. You would still need a will, "just in case". But nobody would ever see it unless they contested one of the beneficiaries (for TOD, POD, etc)
Yes, you may be able to avoid probate without a trust. POD, TOD, named beneficiaries on policies and accounts may eliminate any probate. IF your beneficiaries predecease you, however, your estate lands right back in probate, and without a will, the laws of your state will decide who gets what. Ask me how I know. Never mind, I'll tell you--I've handled estates where the decedent tried to avoid probate using POD accounts, and the benes died before the decedents did, and the decedents didn't get a chance or never bothered to list new POD benes.
Post by: TVRodriguez on July 03, 2019, 09:52:36 AM
Talk to a local lawyer who practices in the areas of estate planning and probate to find out what best practices are where you live and if you move, talk to a lawyer in your new location to find out if you need to change anything.
Post by: artemidorus on July 03, 2019, 10:17:57 AM
Several years before, BF's sister had brought home a man, who happens to be the same race as GF. Grandma lost it, flipped out in front of the entire family. To this man's face, declared that they were an "inferior race" and that the sister was out of her will for as long as she was dating him. (Grandma's net worth is somewhere in the range of $30M - $50M, enough that she can boss around her grandchildren and expect it to get her somewhere, because even spread across the family, everyone can be a millionaire when she passes. This threat is apparently employed liberally.)
Sister marries this man, relationship with grandma is destroyed, and they don't invite grandma to the wedding. Sister is effectively excommunicated from the family, not because they're racist, but because they want to stay in grandma's good graces and are too afraid to be seen as taking sister's side.
BF now is stuck learning from this lesson. He is cool as a cucumber about being removed from the will, but faces the difficult task of still going through the process of grandma finding out he is dating/will marry someone of that race. He plans to sit grandma down, say he's marrying GF no matter what, and money won't influence that decision. He wants to see if there's a middle ground where he doesn't have to go the rest of his life without speaking to his grandmother. I expect she'll just throw a temper tantrum because her threat of "out of the will" can't influence yet another grandchild, and whatever middle ground he's envisioning will never present itself.
Based on the stories I'm glancing over in this thread (trying to catch up), maybe he and his sister will glad to be out of the will. Might just save them a lot of added drama when the time comes.
Post by: DadJokes on July 03, 2019, 10:34:28 AM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on July 03, 2019, 10:47:49 AM
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Could it be that it had to be all or nothing? Maybe the mother couldn't/wouldn't let the daughter be independent, so she had to sever all ties? Just speculating.
I have thought about that, and it’s possible, but I do think of something more than that.
Estrangement is what happens when at least one half of the estranged pair believes that the maximum safe level of contact is zero. Whether the belief has a basis in fact-- whether the person who insists on and then enforces zero contact-- depends a lot on how both sides of the estranged pair handle boundaries.
A lot of families don't do boundaries well, and kids who grow up in those families generally end up thinking that their only available options for relationships are "close and unhealthy" or "zero". In reality there's plenty of spots in between that can sometimes be viable. There are plenty of families that allow one or more people to bulldoze over children's boundaries without ever crossing the line into the kind of abuse that gets legal authorities involved.
Post by: partgypsy on July 03, 2019, 11:11:46 AM
Post by: PDXTabs on July 03, 2019, 11:41:54 AM
That stuff happened in my family back in the 60s and 70s, just with less money on the line. In a serendipitous turn of events the least racist people lived the longest and through a chain of inheritance a real amount of that money did eventually end up in the mixed race family that was originally disowned.
Post by: partgypsy on July 03, 2019, 07:28:05 PM
My Dad died very suddenly 30 years ago. My older sister and her husband lived nearby and drove Mom around to the mortuary and cemetery to make the arrangements while I stayed home to field the phone. (I was 20 and in college.)Ugh.
When they returned home, sister and BIL caught me alone and asked, "Does Mom have any money?"
I knew my parents frugal ways as well as I knew their spendthrift ways so I answered evasively, "I don't know. Why?"
"Well, you know, Mom's so upset that we've paid for everything today but we don't know if Mom has any money to pay us back."
"I don't know. You'll have to ask her."
Once they left, I told Mom about the exchange. She silently got up and brought back her checkbook, where she--as always--had meticulously recorded every expense that she had paid that day.
I have no idea what they thought they might get or why.
They moved out of state several years later and didn't bother to visit Mom for 16 years. When she finally did visit, my sister took the opportunity to ask my Mom who was going to get the house. Mom told her that she was leaving it to me since I was the only one who had been there for her. Sister stormed out of the house and didn't return, not even for Mom's funeral last year.
Mom left her and my brother $25K each. She told me many times, "They don't deserve anything, but if I don't give them something they'll never leave you alone."
Right after the cashier's check cleared, BIL posted a picture of his shiny new pickup on his Facebook page.
She knew them very well indeed.
Post by: Kitsune on July 04, 2019, 09:08:42 AM
... they were too broke to get divorced.
I have heard that from significantly younger people (thinking of one specific friend who said that 8 years ago - they're still together, he's still an inconsiderate ass, she's still miserable...). And that's one of the main reasons I want to always have a decent cushion and options.
For the record: I love my husband, we have a great relationship, I have every intention of being with him forever and plan for that, and I believe he feels the same way, based on both words and actions. BUT if that ceases to be the case and we can't fix it... Well. In short: staying with/sleeping with someone you don't like because you can't afford to leave is likely less profitable than an hourly rate. Don't be in that situation. Options. OPTIONS.
Post by: iris lily on July 04, 2019, 09:36:26 AM
Reading Grimsqeaker’s list of who is likely to blame in estrangements, it doesn't help me figure out what happened in DH’s family. His niece stopped speaking to her parents ten years ago, about the time she graduated from college.
[...]
Before she went to college she was really tied to her mothers apron strings, So this pulling apart is doubly odd.
Could it be that it had to be all or nothing? Maybe the mother couldn't/wouldn't let the daughter be independent, so she had to sever all ties? Just speculating.
I have thought about that, and it’s possible, but I do think of something more than that.
Estrangement is what happens when at least one half of the estranged pair believes that the maximum safe level of contact is zero. Whether the belief has a basis in fact-- whether the person who insists on and then enforces zero contact-- depends a lot on how both sides of the estranged pair handle boundaries.
A lot of families don't do boundaries well, and kids who grow up in those families generally end up thinking that their only available options for relationships are "close and unhealthy" or "zero". In reality there's plenty of spots in between that can sometimes be viable. There are plenty of families that allow one or more people to bulldoze over children's boundaries without ever crossing the line into the kind of abuse that gets legal authorities involved.
I think you are probably on the right track about my niece’s situation.
Her parents are strong personalities. Probably they did not respect her boundaries. Probably she thought at the time when she was only 21 years old that her only option was to pull out of that relationship entirely.
Probably now 10 years later in her early 30s she can negotiate boundaries better, but after 10 years of not speaking to her parents it is now habit. And there’s probably some embarrassment and unsureness on her part as to how to step back into relationship p-lite with them. Her mom is not against speaking to her and her mom opens the door occasionally with a card to her.
It is funny that DH just spent a few days with his family and he finds his sister, the mother of said niece, self centered and annoying. I have asked him “have you ever spoken about your annoyance with your niece, I’ll bet she would be somewhat gratified to know that!” But he has not.
We do have a relationship with niece probably more so than DH’s other siblings.
Post by: Imma on July 06, 2019, 06:53:13 AM
My sister used to work at a (nice) retirement home. And there were some people who were estranged from their kids. Sometimes she said you could tell why from their personalities why (they were a pill to everyone), other times, you couldn't. But what she said was far more common was kids who weren't estranged but just didn't have time for the parent(s) anymore. They would get a call on their birthday, maybe come by once a year around christmas, but other than that their kids didn't visit. Some of the kids lived nearby (within an hour). Of course doesn't know everything but according to my sister some of these people were really sweet, and she thought it was so sad they seemed forgotten by their children. If anything I think my sister got a little over-involved while she was dining room manager there, because she loved to schedule and plan various events and activities during the holidays and hang out with them and let them talk and reminisce.
Maybe those people were never close to their kids, even when they were still young? I can imagine you're not suddenly going to have a close relationship with someone just because they're now old.
My mother and siblings are not bad people but we're not super close. I will always visit my mother and probably a bit more than now if she was old and lonely in a care home somewhere, but I can't imagine I would suddenly start visiting her 3 times a week just because she was old now.
I regret not being close to anyone in my family but I guess that's the way it's going to stay. I'm actively estranged from my father, but I'm in touch with all my siblings and my mother. I visit my mother once every two months, she visits me once a year (she moved away to start a new life after the kids left home). We call every 2 weeks oe so and she'll tell me everything about her life and doesn't remember about mine. I see my siblings a few times a year when I happen to be in their town. We get together at Christmas because we want to have a relationship with each other, but we just sit around the table having awkward silences. I know many of my friends have similar relationships with their family, I imagine many of those people in that care home have families like this too.
There's one sibling I'm more close to than anyone in my family but we're still not extremely close. We talk more about personal things but we sometimes still don't speak in months. It is what it is and happy families like on TV are rare.
Post by: ender on July 06, 2019, 07:08:43 AM
The cutting-off behavior is extremely common in families where there's addiction or abuse. In those families, people who behave badly are always entitled to the relationship and/or resources they want from the people they mistreat, no matter what. If you want to participate in family activities, you're required to (a) tolerate abuse, (b) not talk about it, and (c) help protect the person who's continuing to dish it out. Only the problem person's experience matters, and the rest of the family is so used to tiptoeing around the most dramatic and destructive individual that if someone on the receiving end of bad behavior dares to speak up or to protect himself/herself, that person is punished by being excluded from the family.
The other very common behavior is for the person who wants to live an abuse-free life to be the one to build some distance into the relationship. If the rest of the family tries to pressure the escapee to kowtow and to submit to more abuse, it's generally because every single person applying the pressure is in full flying monkey mode. Many of them like to feel like they are accomplishing something extremely good by reeling the escaped punching bag back in so that the toxic or abusive person can have another go. Others are tired of wiping the butt of whoever is screwing up, and realize that if they can bulldoze over the escapee's boundaries they can substitute the human escapee to be used as human toilet paper.
A third very common behavior is for someone to go into a snit and cut off friends or family members as a manipulation tool: "if you don't do this for me, or if you don't give me that, then you'll never see me again." My daughter was always cutting off friends or relatives to punish them for asserting their own boundaries. When she did it to me at age 18, I happily gave her all of her belongings and helped her move out, but her resolve to have nothing to do with me evaporated once she wanted money. There are lots of people who behave this way: when they well runs dry and they can't take anything more from you, or if you need something from them or are politely holding them accountable for their behavior, they find a reason to end contact until there's something else they want.
From the outside looking in, it can be extremely hard to tell whether the person ending the contact is the abusive or manipulative person. My general rule is to look at the person doing the cutting off. Do they have *any* old friends, family members, or community members with whom they are consistently in contact? If the answer is no, that person is likely to be the problem. Likewise, are they basically functioning or are they dependent on others? If they're dependent on others and are not consistently self-supporting, the isolated person has probably burned through a lot of other supporters and do-gooders before they got to you. There are bound to be mutual friends and acquaintances; asking around to see whether a person whose opinion and character you trust has been burned by that individual is often a good way to tell whether you should invite the exiled individual into your life.
Adding to this, one thing most people do is assume everyone else in the world is roughly similar to them in pretty much all regards socially. If you are "normal" you assume that some people are nicer than average and some people are a bit quirky/difficult, but the idea that someone/family could be to toxic enough to justify fully cutting out from the family is normally not immediately believable. There are many reasons why it may be "worth it" to cut someone from your life. But those reasons will be very difficult for people in "normal" social situations to understand.
Post by: LilyFleur on July 06, 2019, 03:17:32 PM
Post by: AlanStache on July 07, 2019, 09:01:55 AM
Growing up and into adulthood I have had significant problems with my aunt B, she can be quite nice and is materially generous and outgoing with many long term friends. My mom did not see issues I had with B, I tried verbalizing them and had assumed it was all obvious but talking with my mom now she did not see it (mom feels really bad about it all). My other aunt J did thankfully see the stuff with B.
Before about a year ago when all this came to a head and I formally cut B out of my life, an outsider looking into the situation might not have understood the history of why I would not choose to visit B. The outsider might have concluded I was just being lazy or uninterested in maintaining family connections. People are complex imperfect beings and they often misinterpret communications.
Post by: merula on July 08, 2019, 07:45:50 AM
I met this friend (call her Anna) in college. Nice enough person, ended up dating my then-bf's roommate, so we all spent a lot of time together. She was one of those people who loved to be "quirky", and she had a tendency for the dramatic, but not to any extreme extent.
Anna would always complain about her parents, and say that XYZ thing that they did was all because of being "overbearing" older, adoptive parents. But the stuff she would say was stuff like, "they called me to check in, like they do EVERY weekend". Stuff my parents, who were neither older nor adoptive, did all the time. Or, like "I was home for Christmas and they wanted me to wake up to go out for breakfast with them!". Yeah, admittedly annoying when you're used to a college sleep schedule, but not unexpected.
We've drifted apart since college, but we're still FB friends, and Anne occasionally posts stuff like "FYI, I'm not in touch with my parents, so if they contact you asking if I'm OK, don't tell them anything." While it's true that you can never know what goes on in another family, given her flair for the dramatic, if there was something else going on like abuse, I have no doubt at all she would've shared it with me.
I don't think Anne herself has any severe personality issues; I think she's just convinced herself that her parents are bad parents and proceeds accordingly.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on July 08, 2019, 10:32:31 AM
Late to the party, but here's one point of anecdata about a child who cut off her parents for no real reason:
I met this friend (call her Anna) in college. Nice enough person, ended up dating my then-bf's roommate, so we all spent a lot of time together. She was one of those people who loved to be "quirky", and she had a tendency for the dramatic, but not to any extreme extent.
Anna would always complain about her parents, and say that XYZ thing that they did was all because of being "overbearing" older, adoptive parents. But the stuff she would say was stuff like, "they called me to check in, like they do EVERY weekend". Stuff my parents, who were neither older nor adoptive, did all the time. Or, like "I was home for Christmas and they wanted me to wake up to go out for breakfast with them!". Yeah, admittedly annoying when you're used to a college sleep schedule, but not unexpected.
We've drifted apart since college, but we're still FB friends, and Anne occasionally posts stuff like "FYI, I'm not in touch with my parents, so if they contact you asking if I'm OK, don't tell them anything." While it's true that you can never know what goes on in another family, given her flair for the dramatic, if there was something else going on like abuse, I have no doubt at all she would've shared it with me.
I don't think Anne herself has any severe personality issues; I think she's just convinced herself that her parents are bad parents and proceeds accordingly.
Geez, talk about wanting attention. Hey 740 FB friends, I don't talk to my parents, so if they reach out to you, tell them nothing.
Post by: BeanCounter on July 08, 2019, 10:46:23 AM
Late to the party, but here's one point of anecdata about a child who cut off her parents for no real reason:
I met this friend (call her Anna) in college. Nice enough person, ended up dating my then-bf's roommate, so we all spent a lot of time together. She was one of those people who loved to be "quirky", and she had a tendency for the dramatic, but not to any extreme extent.
Anna would always complain about her parents, and say that XYZ thing that they did was all because of being "overbearing" older, adoptive parents. But the stuff she would say was stuff like, "they called me to check in, like they do EVERY weekend". Stuff my parents, who were neither older nor adoptive, did all the time. Or, like "I was home for Christmas and they wanted me to wake up to go out for breakfast with them!". Yeah, admittedly annoying when you're used to a college sleep schedule, but not unexpected.
We've drifted apart since college, but we're still FB friends, and Anne occasionally posts stuff like "FYI, I'm not in touch with my parents, so if they contact you asking if I'm OK, don't tell them anything." While it's true that you can never know what goes on in another family, given her flair for the dramatic, if there was something else going on like abuse, I have no doubt at all she would've shared it with me.
I don't think Anne herself has any severe personality issues; I think she's just convinced herself that her parents are bad parents and proceeds accordingly.
Geez, talk about wanting attention. Hey 740 FB friends, I don't talk to my parents, so if they reach out to you, tell them nothing.
Yeah. In my non clinical opinion, it actually screams personality disorder.
I've always wondered what causes people to air all their dirty laundry on FB. Weird.
Post by: merula on July 08, 2019, 12:09:08 PM
Geez, talk about wanting attention. Hey 740 FB friends, I don't talk to my parents, so if they reach out to you, tell them nothing.
Yeah. In my non clinical opinion, it actually screams personality disorder.
I've always wondered what causes people to air all their dirty laundry on FB. Weird.
You know, it's probably a bigger comment on the state of the world that what seems to me to be normal social media behavior also seems like a personality disorder.
It's only happened a handful of times; her posts outside of that are generally pretty benign. (Event photos, relationship appreciation, food, etc.)
Post by: Sibley on July 08, 2019, 12:12:06 PM
Geez, talk about wanting attention. Hey 740 FB friends, I don't talk to my parents, so if they reach out to you, tell them nothing.
Yeah. In my non clinical opinion, it actually screams personality disorder.
I've always wondered what causes people to air all their dirty laundry on FB. Weird.
You know, it's probably a bigger comment on the state of the world that what seems to me to be normal social media behavior also seems like a personality disorder.
It's only happened a handful of times; her posts outside of that are generally pretty benign. (Event photos, relationship appreciation, food, etc.)
Her actions of complaining about what seems to be normal, loving parenting is what seems off to me. Then her cutting them off, regardless of how open she is about it on FB - I'd guess there's something going on with her. Given she's adopted, she could have issues around that.
Post by: mm1970 on July 08, 2019, 02:59:12 PM
re identifying the mean person:Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Growing up and into adulthood I have had significant problems with my aunt B, she can be quite nice and is materially generous and outgoing with many long term friends. My mom did not see issues I had with B, I tried verbalizing them and had assumed it was all obvious but talking with my mom now she did not see it (mom feels really bad about it all). My other aunt J did thankfully see the stuff with B.
Before about a year ago when all this came to a head and I formally cut B out of my life, an outsider looking into the situation might not have understood the history of why I would not choose to visit B. The outsider might have concluded I was just being lazy or uninterested in maintaining family connections. People are complex imperfect beings and they often misinterpret communications.
Well, they had a lot of mutual friends, and she took the high road when it ended, and refused to bad mouth him for all the things he'd done. So he tells all the friends that she's breaking up for no good reason. Thus, she's the bad guy. (Nevermind that "I don't want to be with him anymore" is a FINE reason.
Post by: Dollar Slice on July 08, 2019, 04:09:54 PM
Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Well, they had a lot of mutual friends, and she took the high road when it ended, and refused to bad mouth him for all the things he'd done. So he tells all the friends that she's breaking up for no good reason. Thus, she's the bad guy. (Nevermind that "I don't want to be with him anymore" is a FINE reason.
Wow, a close friend of mine went through almost this exact scenario! Fewer years, but very similar with helping raise his kids in part-time custody from a previous marriage, him being kind of a jerk to her, etc. I think he was one of those men who think showering a woman with money and gifts and luxury gets you out of having to be a decent person.
Difference being, they worked at the same company and he had been there longer and all their co-workers kept telling her she should give him another chance or go to couples counseling after she broke up with him. He got really creepy/weird about it. She ended up quitting her job to get away from it all.
Post by: Dicey on July 09, 2019, 12:06:52 AM
I hope She found a better job and a better dude.Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Well, they had a lot of mutual friends, and she took the high road when it ended, and refused to bad mouth him for all the things he'd done. So he tells all the friends that she's breaking up for no good reason. Thus, she's the bad guy. (Nevermind that "I don't want to be with him anymore" is a FINE reason.
Wow, a close friend of mine went through almost this exact scenario! Fewer years, but very similar with helping raise his kids in part-time custody from a previous marriage, him being kind of a jerk to her, etc. I think he was one of those men who think showering a woman with money and gifts and luxury gets you out of having to be a decent person.
Difference being, they worked at the same company and he had been there longer and all their co-workers kept telling her she should give him another chance or go to couples counseling after she broke up with him. He got really creepy/weird about it. She ended up quitting her job to get away from it all.
Random musing: the first thing I wonder about in these estranged-for-no-obvious reason cases is abuse, typically, but not exclusively, sexual.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 09, 2019, 08:19:45 AM
Random musing: the first thing I wonder about in these estranged-for-no-obvious reason cases is abuse, typically, but not exclusively, sexual.
Not necessarily. I took the high road when I left Ex, just told people we had grown apart and had different goals. Which was true. But underneath, it wasn't any one big thing, just a lot of little things that added up to "get out". The book "Too good to leave, too bad to stay" was a real eye-opener for me.
BTW, he didn't want anyone (well mainly his friends) to know I had left him, and when people asked where I was he told them a major lie. Which was an interesting character reveal.
Post by: Dicey on July 09, 2019, 10:03:11 AM
I'm not disagreeing, just clarifying. Earlier, the discussion was more on children who ghost their parents. I wasn't thinking about partner splits. Sorry your ex did such a jerky thing, but I suppose it might have been a small comfort, underscoring that you made the best decision for yourself.Random musing: the first thing I wonder about in these estranged-for-no-obvious reason cases is abuse, typically, but not exclusively, sexual.
Not necessarily. I took the high road when I left Ex, just told people we had grown apart and had different goals. Which was true. But underneath, it wasn't any one big thing, just a lot of little things that added up to "get out". The book "Too good to leave, too bad to stay" was a real eye-opener for me.
BTW, he didn't want anyone (well mainly his friends) to know I had left him, and when people asked where I was he told them a major lie. Which was an interesting character reveal.
Post by: mm1970 on July 09, 2019, 10:44:06 AM
Yeah, they had a LOT of mutual friends, and it got really awkward. All the friends telling her to give him another chance and all, when they weren't privy to the details.Sometimes, people just want out and want to take the high road. I have a good friend who was in a very long term relationship with a man who was divorced and had two kids. They lived together for awhile, they were probably together for a decade? She got used to being a family, having the boys on weekends with him, etc. So, he was kind of self-centered, childish guy. In the end, things didn't work out because he was kind of a jerk and she got sick of it. Also, comments like "well, you want to have kids, and I don't want any more. So if you leave me and have a kid, then we'll just end up back together. But I don't want to raise someone else's kid." (Which was all sorts of crazy.)
Well, they had a lot of mutual friends, and she took the high road when it ended, and refused to bad mouth him for all the things he'd done. So he tells all the friends that she's breaking up for no good reason. Thus, she's the bad guy. (Nevermind that "I don't want to be with him anymore" is a FINE reason.
Wow, a close friend of mine went through almost this exact scenario! Fewer years, but very similar with helping raise his kids in part-time custody from a previous marriage, him being kind of a jerk to her, etc. I think he was one of those men who think showering a woman with money and gifts and luxury gets you out of having to be a decent person.
Difference being, they worked at the same company and he had been there longer and all their co-workers kept telling her she should give him another chance or go to couples counseling after she broke up with him. He got really creepy/weird about it. She ended up quitting her job to get away from it all.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 09, 2019, 03:19:13 PM
I'm not disagreeing, just clarifying. Earlier, the discussion was more on children who ghost their parents. I wasn't thinking about partner splits. Sorry your ex did such a jerky thing, but I suppose it might have been a small comfort, underscoring that you made the best decision for yourself.Random musing: the first thing I wonder about in these estranged-for-no-obvious reason cases is abuse, typically, but not exclusively, sexual.
Not necessarily. I took the high road when I left Ex, just told people we had grown apart and had different goals. Which was true. But underneath, it wasn't any one big thing, just a lot of little things that added up to "get out". The book "Too good to leave, too bad to stay" was a real eye-opener for me.
BTW, he didn't want anyone (well mainly his friends) to know I had left him, and when people asked where I was he told them a major lie. Which was an interesting character reveal.
We had sort of drifted away from parent/child. But it is amazing how much mental abuse can be hidden in a relationship (parent/child/couples) until a person gets away from the situation and things become clearer. I can certainly see how a child could assume that things in his/her family were normal until they got out into the world more and saw how other families work.
Reading Captain Awkward has been a real education for me.
Post by: Sibley on July 09, 2019, 07:25:02 PM
We had sort of drifted away from parent/child. But it is amazing how much mental abuse can be hidden in a relationship (parent/child/couples) until a person gets away from the situation and things become clearer. I can certainly see how a child could assume that things in his/her family were normal until they got out into the world more and saw how other families work.
Reading Captain Awkward has been a real education for me.
Go to reddit, search for JustNoTalk. Raised by narcissists is another one. (I used to recommend JustNoMIL and the related subs, but there's some issues with the mod team there and am not comfortable sending anyone there anymore.)
Post by: Freedomin5 on July 15, 2019, 07:09:48 AM
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Post by: DadJokes on July 15, 2019, 07:14:11 AM
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Post by: Sugaree on July 15, 2019, 07:20:32 AM
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Is there any particular reason that you have to support the sibling? I've made it perfectly clear to DH that I will not be supporting his brother. His parents still say that they will split everything equally, but I have my doubts that will ever happen. They've handed over money to BIL in large chunks more than once (the latest request was for $40k and they tried to sell a house that was supposed to be DH's to do so) and have been paying his rent for at least 5 years now. I suspect that there won't be much left to split and even if there was, it will go to BIL because "he needs it more." I get that the situation is different because BIL doesn't have a severe MI, but at some point you have to save yourself before you save others.
Post by: Freedomin5 on July 15, 2019, 07:38:22 AM
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Why yes, we did suggest that. Trusts are apparently “too good to be true” and you can’t trust that the person who administers the trust won’t steal all your money.
We also suggested purchasing an annuity with sibling as the beneficiary. But no, that is too good to be true! What company would keep paying until the beneficiary dies?! Apparently, annuities are scams.
Post by: DadJokes on July 15, 2019, 07:44:29 AM
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm....
DH is the most successful of his siblings (He did marry a Mustachian after all:P). We are well on our way to FIRE, have a stable marriage, stable careers, intact family. His other two siblings live in housing owned by their parents. One has a mental illness and hasn’t worked in the past...15 years or so? Single parent. History of substance abuse.
DH recently found out that he is probably going to get very little or nothing from his parents because “he doesn’t need the money”. They will probably leave it all to the sibling with a severe mental illness. As a lump sum. To do with as they want.
When we first got married, DH told me his parents would split their assets equally. I told him not to count on it. They were going to think that he married into money and wouldn’t need their money anymore. My family is not really rich; we are finance people though and my parents have been quite wise with their money so we are comfortable.
DH and I aren’t surprised by this turn of events, as DH and I had already planned on investing his portion to support his sibling if it had been split three ways. Now we are rethinking our strategy as we will likely need to support the sibling after they blow through all the money. We will just have to build the cost of covering their basic living expenses into our FIRE budget. And be prepared that a portion of our time in FIRE will be helping them navigate the different government systems and programs.
We’re not upset or anything. It’s just interesting to read of smart people deciding NOT to leave everything to the child with mental illness who is unable of taking responsibility for managing their own life....and contrasting it to our current experience.
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Why yes, we did suggest that. Trusts are apparently “too good to be true” and you can’t trust that the person who administers the trust won’t steal all your money.
We also suggested purchasing an annuity with sibling as the beneficiary. But no, that is too good to be true! What company would keep paying until the beneficiary dies?! Apparently, annuities are scams.
Well, annuities are scams in that the fees are generally ridiculous. However, it can be useful if the beneficiary is not capable of handling the money. Would the parents trust y'all to administer the trust?
I'm guessing not, based on their decisions so far. It's terrible when those we love won't listen to sound advice.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 15, 2019, 07:49:13 AM
We made it very clear ages ago that our priority #1 was to make sure our daughter would be well provided for. He's a good son and brother and that makes perfect sense to him.
It's really only been the last 5 years that we realized that there is a good chance there will be enough for her and a very sizeable portion left over for him. We're in the process of setting up our wills. She'll get a set dollar amount or 50%, whichever is greater. He'll get the rest. If our portfolio grew nicely and medical bills didn't eat it up, that will be a lot of money. If not, he might get nothing. Her portion will go into a trust. She won't own the trust, she'll own a life interest in the income it provides. When she dies the money will revert to our son or his descendants.
I think the reason for the unequal distribution is very different than just taking care of people because they are too damn lazy to do so for themselves, or too damn spoiled to live within their means.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense to reinforce failure instead of success. But, then again, doing that for many years is how you get overaged children in the first place, I guess.
Post by: Freedomin5 on July 15, 2019, 07:49:56 AM
Is there any particular reason that you have to support the sibling? I've made it perfectly clear to DH that I will not be supporting his brother. His parents still say that they will split everything equally, but I have my doubts that will ever happen. They've handed over money to BIL in large chunks more than once (the latest request was for $40k and they tried to sell a house that was supposed to be DH's to do so) and have been paying his rent for at least 5 years now. I suspect that there won't be much left to split and even if there was, it will go to BIL because "he needs it more." I get that the situation is different because BIL doesn't have a severe MI, but at some point you have to save yourself before you save others.
Because we’ve already saved ourselves. We have our own oxygen masks on. And we can’t just let the sibling end up homeless on the street with the kid (nephew)...and we can’t live with ourselves if they ended up in public housing in some unsafe area of town while we are comfortably ensconced in our luxury condo/townhouse while spending the summers at our cottage. Sibling is the type who will completely be taken advantage of by unsavory characters. It’s not their fault they grew up in an abusive home and have a family history of mental illness and drew the short end of the stick in terms of developing a mental illness and have parents whose financial abilities are questionable at best.
Obviously, we will not be buying them a penthouse suite overlooking the lake, but we will do our best to ensure that they are fed, clothed, and housed (in a Separate residence from us - that’s not really frugal, but it does set boundaries and allow me to maintain my sanity).
Post by: Freedomin5 on July 15, 2019, 07:58:22 AM
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm.
(Snip)
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Why yes, we did suggest that. Trusts are apparently “too good to be true” and you can’t trust that the person who administers the trust won’t steal all your money.
We also suggested purchasing an annuity with sibling as the beneficiary. But no, that is too good to be true! What company would keep paying until the beneficiary dies?! Apparently, annuities are scams.
Well, annuities are scams in that the fees are generally ridiculous. However, it can be useful if the beneficiary is not capable of handling the money. Would the parents trust y'all to administer the trust?
I'm guessing not, based on their decisions so far. It's terrible when those we love won't listen to sound advice.
In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
ETA: I wouldn’t want the job to administer the trust even if it was offered to me. Me stand between sibling and THEIR money! Having me control how much of their money they can access each month? That’s a disaster waiting to happen. It’s one thing if it’s My money that I’m using to clothe and house them. It’s another thing when I’m “not allowing them to access what is rightfully theirs”.
Post by: Sugaree on July 15, 2019, 08:07:22 AM
Is there any particular reason that you have to support the sibling? I've made it perfectly clear to DH that I will not be supporting his brother. His parents still say that they will split everything equally, but I have my doubts that will ever happen. They've handed over money to BIL in large chunks more than once (the latest request was for $40k and they tried to sell a house that was supposed to be DH's to do so) and have been paying his rent for at least 5 years now. I suspect that there won't be much left to split and even if there was, it will go to BIL because "he needs it more." I get that the situation is different because BIL doesn't have a severe MI, but at some point you have to save yourself before you save others.
Because we’ve already saved ourselves. We have our own oxygen masks on. And we can’t just let the sibling end up homeless on the street with the kid (nephew)...and we can’t live with ourselves if they ended up in public housing in some unsafe area of town while we are comfortably ensconced in our luxury condo/townhouse while spending the summers at our cottage. Sibling is the type who will completely be taken advantage of by unsavory characters. It’s not their fault they grew up in an abusive home and have a family history of mental illness and drew the short end of the stick in terms of developing a mental illness and have parents whose financial abilities are questionable at best.
Obviously, we will not be buying them a penthouse suite overlooking the lake, but we will do our best to ensure that they are fed, clothed, and housed (in a Separate residence from us - that’s not really frugal, but it does set boundaries and allow me to maintain my sanity).
Gotcha. My experience with MI has been with people who choose not to treat for various reasons. I am also not in a place where I ever see us providing the support that BIL has been getting while also not putting our own stability in jeopardy.
Post by: DadJokes on July 15, 2019, 08:09:02 AM
Not really a drama...yet, but it does make one want to facepalm.
(Snip)
Maybe he can convince the parents to set up a special needs trust for the sibling instead. The sibling still gets the benefit of the money, but can't just blow through it all.
Why yes, we did suggest that. Trusts are apparently “too good to be true” and you can’t trust that the person who administers the trust won’t steal all your money.
We also suggested purchasing an annuity with sibling as the beneficiary. But no, that is too good to be true! What company would keep paying until the beneficiary dies?! Apparently, annuities are scams.
Well, annuities are scams in that the fees are generally ridiculous. However, it can be useful if the beneficiary is not capable of handling the money. Would the parents trust y'all to administer the trust?
I'm guessing not, based on their decisions so far. It's terrible when those we love won't listen to sound advice.
In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
ETA: I wouldn’t want the job to administer the trust even if it was offered to me. Me stand between sibling and THEIR money! Having me control how much of their money they can access each month? That’s a disaster waiting to happen. It’s one thing if it’s My money that I’m using to clothe and house them. It’s another thing when I’m “not allowing them to access what is rightfully theirs”.
Jeez...I would stay as far from that situation as possible.
I actually have a better relationship with my in-laws than I do with my own parents. I hate that it's a sour relationship for you.
Post by: Freedomin5 on July 15, 2019, 08:24:09 AM
In my culture, the daughter traditionally leaves her family and joins the husband’s family after marriage. My mom likes to say that instead of losing a daughter, she gained a son instead.
Post by: pudding on July 15, 2019, 09:34:46 AM
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
Post by: SwordGuy on July 15, 2019, 09:58:32 AM
My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
Post by: Dicey on July 15, 2019, 10:07:31 AM
It depends on what was written in her will. If it was just her verbal expectation, it won't be enforceable. If she gifted it before she died without written instructions, same deal.My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
There is a strong likelihood that someone who would do that hasn't held on to the money, alas. Personally, I'd be sure to let him know that I was aware of what he'd done, and I'm equally sure it wouldn't change anything. Now, if there were plural commas involved and there was anything substantial left, that would be another consideration.
Post by: pudding on July 15, 2019, 10:46:40 AM
My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
It was about 27 years ago.
Yeah he's nuts! I've got used to it over the years. And can trust him about as far as I can throw him, I think he's got some mental problems so I just learned to live with it.
He's done all kinds of wacky things over the years, it's like having a kind of abusive parent.... it's not sexual abuse, or particularly physical... it's more like he'd steal your inheritance, steal your girlfriend or wife, steal your child's affections by sh2t disturbing and gossiping behind your back. Make your achievements look small and insignificant, and be quietly happy when you fail.
Post by: Alfred J Quack on July 15, 2019, 01:32:01 PM
To be fair, my grandfather passed a few years ago and bequethed both me and my children. The will stated that it was to be released to them at their 16th birthday but my father and his siblings opted to pay out the sum so that the inheritance could be wrapped up.
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
This meant I received my son's money on his behalf (my other son wasn't even born yet) with the understanding that I would release it at his 16th birthday. Although I have every intention to do so, if something were top happen to me beforehand it is likely that this will not be executed as my grandfather had wished. (there will be far lager sums for their inheritance though).
Post by: Just Joe on July 16, 2019, 07:44:49 AM
In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
Isn't it interesting how much difference a CAR/SUV/pickup makes to some people. You drive a gas sipper and everyone makes one set of assumptions. You buy or borrow a nicer vehicle and now everything is different... Throw in certain brands - even used - and people assume you've either won the lottery or up to your nose in debt. People can be so weird.
Post by: DadJokes on July 16, 2019, 07:55:36 AM
In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
Isn't it interesting how much difference a CAR/SUV/pickup makes to some people. You drive a gas sipper and everyone makes one set of assumptions. You buy or borrow a nicer vehicle and now everything is different... Throw in certain brands - even used - and people assume you've either won the lottery or up to your nose in debt. People can be so weird.
I once was present during a conversation in which a person talked about removing all of the brand logos from his vehicle because of some stigma attached to that brand. He seemed to think that removing all of the logos also made the car worth more.
I'm pretty sure the brand was Kia.
Post by: Just Joe on July 16, 2019, 08:33:36 AM
Yeah, Kia was the cheapest of cheap at one time (Kia Sephia, Kia Spectra). These days they are okay in my book b/c I know Hyundai is involved in their design and manufacture.
All cars sold in the USA are pretty good in 2019. Aren't we lucky?
Post by: Not There Yet on July 16, 2019, 09:52:35 AM
Post by: Dicey on July 16, 2019, 09:59:48 AM
It's the cumulative effect of being bombarded with advertising.In their minds, DH and I will make off with all their money. DH’s mom told him over 10 years ago that I was with him just so I could take all his money and then divorce him...because I’m a visible minority and not from the same culture as DH, so obviously I’m poor. She stopped saying that when I drove up in my parents’ Acura to visit once, because my own dinky Toyota was in the shop. But his parents still worry that I will steal all the money, because I’m not “family” so I can’t be trusted. And DH can’t be trusted because he listens to me.
Isn't it interesting how much difference a CAR/SUV/pickup makes to some people. You drive a gas sipper and everyone makes one set of assumptions. You buy or borrow a nicer vehicle and now everything is different... Throw in certain brands - even used - and people assume you've either won the lottery or up to your nose in debt. People can be so weird.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on July 16, 2019, 10:38:29 AM
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
Post by: Dave1442397 on July 16, 2019, 11:15:35 AM
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
Me too. I love the Hyundai G90, and it's been depreciating like a rock.
Post by: Villanelle on July 16, 2019, 11:19:01 AM
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
Yes. In the very early 90s, my sister turned 16 and my parents bought her a car. It was an early Hyundai and it seems like almost a plastic toy.
We recently bought a new to us car--a 2016 Tucson. That this is the same make as the little toy my sister drove around is almost impossible to believe!
Post by: pachnik on July 16, 2019, 01:28:27 PM
My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
Post by: Candace on July 16, 2019, 01:35:37 PM
Post by: Just Joe on July 16, 2019, 01:43:32 PM
I've rented newer Hyundais. Yes, they too are on my "approved list". I've never seen the Hyundai G90 before. Nice looking sedan!
Post by: Alfred J Quack on July 16, 2019, 01:45:21 PM
Hyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on July 16, 2019, 04:05:50 PM
At first I was like "hey, that math doesn't add up." But then the mustachian side of my brain kicked in and realized you bought it used :PHyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
Post by: Dicey on July 16, 2019, 04:21:43 PM
Lol, me too!At first I was like "hey, that math doesn't add up." But then the mustachian side of my brain kicked in and realized you bought it used :PHyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
Post by: Dicey on July 16, 2019, 04:22:45 PM
Why is that, do you think?My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
Me too. I love the Hyundai G90, and it's been depreciating like a rock.
Post by: Finallyunderstand on July 17, 2019, 11:05:00 AM
Lol, me too!At first I was like "hey, that math doesn't add up." But then the mustachian side of my brain kicked in and realized you bought it used :PHyundai i30 owner since 2015 here, 7 years old now. Great car for its pricetag and no major faults so far other than the ebrake sticking because it was parked too long for too often ;)My BF is an engineer for Hyundai/Kia. They take quality seriously.The fact that I, as a lifelong Toyota/Honda driver, would seriously consider a Hyundai for my next car, speaks volumes about the progress they've made in terms of quality.
+1 - I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Hyundai either.
same
Post by: A Fella from Stella on July 18, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
Other sibling freaks out about how brother and sister are getting early inheritance, and that he wants it calculated into the final numbers when mom dies.
He was telling this to his living mother - that he was counting her money so she didn't cheat him more than she already had.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on July 29, 2019, 08:53:18 AM
This came up because I was talking about the rocking chair I was sitting in, and how much I've always liked it - it's about 45 years old.
What I didn't say back to mom is "not only is she unsentimental, but also extremely blessed by having both sets of wedding bands, and other diamond jewelry." I know this because a daughter of mine is of age to marry, and I wanted to see if I could buy or have a set. Through a very long lunch, I found out that it was not available, but also not to be discussed.
Post by: bluebelle on July 29, 2019, 02:43:28 PM
Not drama, but something new on my end. Was at my mother's and she was saying how my brother and I are so sentimental, but that my sister is not. She said it like 'isn't that funny?' because we're boys.that's sad that your mother thinks men can't be sentimental. I think my brother is more sentimental about things than I am. He got all of Dad's tools and jewelry, I'm to get mom's rings, but if really wanted them, I'd give them to him.....I'm very sentimental about memories, but not so much about the things the memories are attached to. I have more of my mother's "stuff" than I want, but only because it was important to her to give it too me. If my brother expressed an interest, I think I'd gladly give things to him. Just like I think he'd give me some of the stuff that was dad's within reason (he wears dad's ring daily, I'd never ask for that)
This came up because I was talking about the rocking chair I was sitting in, and how much I've always liked it - it's about 45 years old.
What I didn't say back to mom is "not only is she unsentimental, but also extremely blessed by having both sets of wedding bands, and other diamond jewelry." I know this because a daughter of mine is of age to marry, and I wanted to see if I could buy or have a set. Through a very long lunch, I found out that it was not available, but also not to be discussed.
But I know I'm fortunate that we won't have drama. The stories I hear on this thread sadden me about the greed of some folk's relatives.
Post by: K-ice on July 30, 2019, 02:00:50 AM
Interesting case. 4 sisters get a more equitable distribution of their parents will. Apparently BC is unusual to even allow " ... judges wide leeway to make drastic changes to a will to make sure there's a "just and equitable" distribution to someone's surviving spouse and children."
Post by: TVRodriguez on July 30, 2019, 10:17:42 AM
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victory-for-b-c-sisters-whose-parents-willed-them-tiny-share-of-9m-estate-1.5218792
Interesting case. 4 sisters get a more equitable distribution of their parents will. Apparently BC is unusual to even allow " ... judges wide leeway to make drastic changes to a will to make sure there's a "just and equitable" distribution to someone's surviving spouse and children."
Hmm, not sure how I feel about that. I'm a strong believer in the testator's right to decide how much to leave to whom. For the state to step in...I don't know. What if the parents had left it all to charity? They could have done that. Don't get me wrong--I don't like how the parents handled anything (including child-raising as well as estate planning), but no one forced the daughters to stick around for that abuse once they were adults. I don't like the precedent it sets.
Post by: partgypsy on July 30, 2019, 03:00:15 PM
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victory-for-b-c-sisters-whose-parents-willed-them-tiny-share-of-9m-estate-1.5218792
Interesting case. 4 sisters get a more equitable distribution of their parents will. Apparently BC is unusual to even allow " ... judges wide leeway to make drastic changes to a will to make sure there's a "just and equitable" distribution to someone's surviving spouse and children."
I think that is very interesting. Not to the same degree but I had a similar upbringing. Sometimes "tradition" is messed up. If it bothers you that the inheritance was changed by a judge, reframe it as the judge rectifying years and decades of unpaid or underpaid family labor on the part of the daughters.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on July 30, 2019, 06:02:08 PM
We have a mentally handicapped daughter (Down syndrome) who can't provide for herself thru no fault of her own. We also have a son who is perfectly capable of taking care of himself and his family.
We made it very clear ages ago that our priority #1 was to make sure our daughter would be well provided for. He's a good son and brother and that makes perfect sense to him.
It's really only been the last 5 years that we realized that there is a good chance there will be enough for her and a very sizeable portion left over for him. We're in the process of setting up our wills. She'll get a set dollar amount or 50%, whichever is greater. He'll get the rest. If our portfolio grew nicely and medical bills didn't eat it up, that will be a lot of money. If not, he might get nothing. Her portion will go into a trust. She won't own the trust, she'll own a life interest in the income it provides. When she dies the money will revert to our son or his descendants.
I think the reason for the unequal distribution is very different than just taking care of people because they are too damn lazy to do so for themselves, or too damn spoiled to live within their means.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense to reinforce failure instead of success. But, then again, doing that for many years is how you get overaged children in the first place, I guess.
This is basically our situation, my son is married to someone who inherited a lot of money but we've split our estate equally, half to him, half to her trust. They may not stay married forever so I don't want to write him out. However, my wonderful, exceptional granddaughter gets nothing from us because she's got more in her college fund than I have in the bank. Any remaining funds in my daughter's trust go to our nieces. It won't be much but it may give them a bit of a cushion.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on July 30, 2019, 06:44:11 PM
My fathers mother who I never really knew much met a man later in life and got married in her 70's.
He had no relatives and had money, he died before her.
When she died me and my sister went to her funeral and my sister became friendly with a cousin there that we hadn't known up until then. The cousin was my fathers sisters daughter.
Shortly after that funeral I moved to a new country.
About 3 years later my sister told me that she had stayed in touch with this cousin and the cousin had said to her how generous it was of our grandmother to 'give us money before she died'?
My sister asked what money was that as she had not received any.
The cousin replied that grandmother had given money to her adult children and also given money to them to be passed onto their adult children.. her grandchildren (that be me;)
But my father thinking that we wouldn't know about this as we didn't know that side of the family 'kept' the money for himself.
Thereby cheating both his children and his own mothers wish on her deathbed.
Such a lovely man my father is!
That's theft and fraud. Have him cough up the money or go to jail. Then have nothing else to do with him because if he'll steal from you like that, you don't need him in your life.
It was about 27 years ago.
Yeah he's nuts! I've got used to it over the years. And can trust him about as far as I can throw him, I think he's got some mental problems so I just learned to live with it.
He's done all kinds of wacky things over the years, it's like having a kind of abusive parent.... it's not sexual abuse, or particularly physical... it's more like he'd steal your inheritance, steal your girlfriend or wife, steal your child's affections by sh2t disturbing and gossiping behind your back. Make your achievements look small and insignificant, and be quietly happy when you fail.
Oh Pudding, I feel your pain. No relationship with my dad at all. My oma (grandma) died 30 years ago and after she died my dad sent me a check for $500. He was pretty insulted when I didn't send him a thank you note. However, I know that he took all of my oma's money when she sold her house and that she scrimped and saved from her social security to give each of her granddaughter $1000 in a CD. Somehow he got his hands on the money (probably with her power of attorney because he wasn't on any of the CDs) and cashed them out. I think the only reason he gave us half is because my mom (his exwife who took care of Oma's money) knew about the CDs and would have pitched a fit if we'd gotten nothing.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on August 01, 2019, 12:57:15 PM
Not drama, but something new on my end. Was at my mother's and she was saying how my brother and I are so sentimental, but that my sister is not. She said it like 'isn't that funny?' because we're boys.that's sad that your mother thinks men can't be sentimental. I think my brother is more sentimental about things than I am. He got all of Dad's tools and jewelry, I'm to get mom's rings, but if really wanted them, I'd give them to him.....I'm very sentimental about memories, but not so much about the things the memories are attached to. I have more of my mother's "stuff" than I want, but only because it was important to her to give it too me. If my brother expressed an interest, I think I'd gladly give things to him. Just like I think he'd give me some of the stuff that was dad's within reason (he wears dad's ring daily, I'd never ask for that)
This came up because I was talking about the rocking chair I was sitting in, and how much I've always liked it - it's about 45 years old.
What I didn't say back to mom is "not only is she unsentimental, but also extremely blessed by having both sets of wedding bands, and other diamond jewelry." I know this because a daughter of mine is of age to marry, and I wanted to see if I could buy or have a set. Through a very long lunch, I found out that it was not available, but also not to be discussed.
But I know I'm fortunate that we won't have drama. The stories I hear on this thread sadden me about the greed of some folk's relatives.
Honestly, it's probably her way of convincing herself it's all fair in its own way. My sister had 7 years of college paid for while my brother had 4 (he went for 7). She's had childcare from mom since her kids were born. For the year mom watched my kids, I paid her because she was a widow, and could have been earning money otherwise.
Sometimes I wonder if my mom hates me, but I don't think that's the case. She just favors my sister because she's the only girl, and my sister is shameless about getting things, like wedding band sets and other jewelry. If cash was up for grabs, she'd be cool with that, too, but I don't foresee her trying to get a tea kettle or the Christmas decorations from our childhood.
Post by: talltexan on August 02, 2019, 09:34:02 AM
Based on what I'm reading here, I really ought to just shut up. $30-$60 of difference is not worth complaining.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on August 02, 2019, 11:20:27 AM
I was chewing my wife's ear yesterday about chipping in to pay for some expenses for our kids, when we don't know whether her brother is paying for the same for his kids (my MiL is taking them all to the same activities).
Based on what I'm reading here, I really ought to just shut up. $30-$60 of difference is not worth complaining.
It's all relative. I mean, just because you have clean water at home (a luxury), but are such a baller you filter it, doesn't mean you can't take issue with how slow the Brita is working.
Post by: Just Joe on August 02, 2019, 01:27:45 PM
Sometimes I wonder if my mom hates me, but I don't think that's the case. She just favors my sister because she's the only girl, and my sister is shameless about getting things, like wedding band sets and other jewelry. If cash was up for grabs, she'd be cool with that, too, but I don't foresee her trying to get a tea kettle or the Christmas decorations from our childhood.
That happens. Apparently not uncommon according to stories here. I came from a situation with similarities too. Hang in there...
Post by: A Fella from Stella on August 14, 2019, 11:46:20 AM
I'm so happy that this is happening because both women are recent widows and could make wonderful use of the money while taking care of grandma.
COMING DRAMA: She will die, or so I've heard, and when she does there will be a little bit more money, I hope, for her daughters, but in the group is a ne'er do well cousin who smokes a lot of drugs and doesn't have much of a life. When her father died, she asked if sh could "have dad's social security." I imagine she anticipates granny, who retired at 55, must have some cash, but she doesn't. It was already distributed.
Post by: dandarc on August 15, 2019, 09:53:41 AM
My grandmother is now 90 and she sold her home. Since she doesn't need the money it was arranged through her CPA to just split the dough between her 2 daughters, who she lives with.Sounds like Granny made a smart move there.
I'm so happy that this is happening because both women are recent widows and could make wonderful use of the money while taking care of grandma.
COMING DRAMA: She will die, or so I've heard, and when she does there will be a little bit more money, I hope, for her daughters, but in the group is a ne'er do well cousin who smokes a lot of drugs and doesn't have much of a life. When her father died, she asked if sh could "have dad's social security." I imagine she anticipates granny, who retired at 55, must have some cash, but she doesn't. It was already distributed.
Post by: bluebelle on August 15, 2019, 10:02:20 AM
so your grandmother lives with your mother and your aunt? Did I get the family order correct? Won't your cousin just pester her mother (your aunt), and potentially decide to move-in once granny is gone (cuz, hey, there will be a room available)? I see the potential for alot of drama
COMING DRAMA: She will die, or so I've heard, and when she does there will be a little bit more money, I hope, for her daughters, but in the group is a ne'er do well cousin who smokes a lot of drugs and doesn't have much of a life. When her father died, she asked if sh could "have dad's social security." I imagine she anticipates granny, who retired at 55, must have some cash, but she doesn't. It was already distributed.
Post by: Imma on August 15, 2019, 02:28:18 PM
He sold a house and bought a new place, he's comfortable but hardly wealthy. They don't live together and the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too so there's no reason to believe she's interested in the money. The future inheritance is a paid off average family home and the guy isn't particularly nice or goodlooking or anything, let's just say that he's the wrong person if you're after a meal ticket, but I feel sorry for him that his own mother doesn't trust his judgement, so much that she's writing him out of her will because of someone she's never even met.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on August 15, 2019, 02:36:31 PM
so your grandmother lives with your mother and your aunt? Did I get the family order correct? Won't your cousin just pester her mother (your aunt), and potentially decide to move-in once granny is gone (cuz, hey, there will be a room available)? I see the potential for alot of drama
COMING DRAMA: She will die, or so I've heard, and when she does there will be a little bit more money, I hope, for her daughters, but in the group is a ne'er do well cousin who smokes a lot of drugs and doesn't have much of a life. When her father died, she asked if sh could "have dad's social security." I imagine she anticipates granny, who retired at 55, must have some cash, but she doesn't. It was already distributed.
Grandma lives half the year with my mom and half the year with my aunt, and since this began 15 months ago has really enjoyed it.
Cousin lives with my aunt right now. Sometimes she has her own place, and other times she does something dumb like move back to her mom's while also getting a Great Dane. On the bright side, the Great Dane loves my grandmother.
Post by: A Fella from Stella on August 15, 2019, 02:40:20 PM
...........the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
Post by: bluebelle on August 15, 2019, 02:59:53 PM
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
Post by: Chris Pascale on August 15, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
"looks like a gold digger"? Geez, that's terrible.
Your MIL must have been so insecure. Glad you get along.
Post by: Alfred J Quack on August 16, 2019, 03:28:51 AM
To be fair, gold digging is hard work with lots of risk. /jkHah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
"looks like a gold digger"? Geez, that's terrible.
Your MIL must have been so insecure. Glad you get along.
But it is nice to read that it all came right in the end.
Post by: talltexan on August 16, 2019, 06:59:07 AM
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch................the mother change[d] her will in favour of his sibling so no money ever ends up in the claws of that harlot.....
....................the woman apparantly has a job and owns her own home too..........
Classic harlot behavior; buying a home and establishing a career to trick everyone. Then, when they least expect it, she robs her not-rich, five-on-a-ten-point-scale boyfriend by loving him forever and having him chip in for half the stuff.
Happens every day.
could this possibly mean she thought you were too beautiful to be married to her son?
Post by: Just Joe on August 16, 2019, 08:33:45 AM
Hah....21 years ago, when I first started dating my husband, when his mother met me, she told him I looked like a gold digger.....to this day, I don't know where this gold is that she was worried about.....he came into the marriage with his half of the house down payment and nothing else and I've always made a little more than double his salary.....BUT he was smart enough to let me manage the money....which is the reason he gets to retire next year, which is much better than his plan of 'work until I die'.....she came to love me.....I had a freezer and got him packing his lunch.....
Parents can be so fun. My parents have long ago decided DW is like her messy siblings and I'm like my own messy relative. Sibling believes whatever my parents help them believe.
Meanwhile DW and I have had a two decade+ marriage that has been anything but messy. Everything is good. And that's why there are miles of highway between us and them.
Screw people who can't look at the world objectively and factually.
Post by: talltexan on August 16, 2019, 01:17:35 PM
Whenever our families are all together, she insists that my family is late for everything.
It took me a couple of visits to realize that this is because HER husband is late for everything.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 16, 2019, 02:53:58 PM
I see this with my sister-in-law.
Whenever our families are all together, she insists that my family is late for everything.
It took me a couple of visits to realize that this is because HER husband is late for everything.
Put on a good Gary Cooper drawl, "Well, color me simple, sis, we were here before the scheduled time, and it's YOUR husband who is late." Smile. Pause. "As always. So why would you claim that WE are late?"
I decided some years ago that I was just plain done with putting up with passive aggressive bullshit. I have very little tolerance for it. So I just serve them up a hearty verbal bowl of go fuck yourself soup and present it with a flourish. Very few try that shit a fourth time.
I said fourth time because I usually give the first two times a pass, in case they were having a bad day or something. After that, they're fair game.
(Unless I'm convinced based on prior observation or accounts of how the person acts that they're being shitty on purpose. Then I don't wait for a second time.)
Post by: BFive55 on August 16, 2019, 05:56:01 PM
She is also trying to give us a good inheritance and doesn't want to even really draw down any of the money she has saved in her retirement accounts. That's very nice of her but I told her she needs to also take care of herself (she should be fine with her government pension and Social Security as she has no mortgage and doesn't spend lavishly). But it's really great of her to plan for us that way. It sort of takes some stress off of us because if it works out we could each have a sizable enough inheritance to purchase a home... but my family is also fairly long-lived and I would expect her to live at least another 25 years, if not more.
My dad said we're getting a trusts but he has not been as straight forward as my mom on what his plans in his will are. He says he's going to spend all his money (which is fine, it's his money) but he's also smart enough to not blow through his money so there would be some left over when he dies. Plus his house is probably worth more than the money he has saved, and the house alone would be a big inheritance.
We've already decided that none of us want either house, so it'd be sold, and the money split. None of us care about furniture or anything so that can go or stay. The only thing that's of value are family pictures and family movies and some antique items my mom has. My dad's side of the family is not sentimental and they have like no heirlooms or anything worth passing down.
I don't know if there will be some drama when my grandfather passes. I have no idea what his net worth is but he's making more money now than when he was working. Whether that's due to his military pension, SS, and his investments or just his pensions, I don't know. All the grand kids are slated to receive $5,000 but from what I have gathered there's a lot more than that, just an unknown mount. His kids (dad, uncles, aunts) will obviously get a lot more. I might get his car, which he barely drives and is fairly new, so I'm hoping that doesn't cause any drama... which might mean the dollar amount I get is less.
Reading these stories though I'm happy that my siblings and I have decided to just split everything and sell all the assets like houses and cars.
Post by: markbike528CBX on August 16, 2019, 11:22:33 PM
Childless Uncle-great investor, not spender, stealth wealth extreme.
Several Siblings ( some dead)
~20 siblings kids (cousins to each other) DW among them. DW is descended from dead Sibling.
Current expectations are "$1M each at the cousin level"
While my estimation, based on conversations with Childless Uncle is at least $5-10M, I very much doubt that things will go smoothly on his passing, no matter what the amount.
DW doubts that there is a will in place. Eeek!
Well at least we are chubby, maybe Fat-FIRE, so we are not directly affected, but we might have to be involved in the drama.
DW and I only like drama at the remove of TV or movies.
Predictions?
Watch this space for updates.
Post by: Zamboni on August 17, 2019, 09:25:38 AM
That's what my recently deceased friend did: he had a few million invested, and he did indeed have a will that specified it all went to his university . . . he had told the university in advance through their "planned giving" program associate, so they were not going to get snowed by his nieces and nephews. I can confirm that the university did indeed get the money, which was put into various endowments that he had specified in advance. As a result, they named an endowed scholarship, two rooms in buildings, and a tennis court after him, and his photo is now up on the wall there in a couple of places.
Post by: Zhiantara on August 17, 2019, 06:24:23 PM
What money? The woman has been on a pension for over 30 years...
For her part, Nan is refusing to sell her house and move into aged care because it will eat into the inheritance. If she sold her house today, after fees and related expenses, she would clear, maybe, $300k, although I think it would be closer to $200k. All four of her children are on disability (lifestyle-related degenerative disease, spinal cord injury, severe Crohn's disease, carpal tunnel). It seems like a lump sum of $50-70k would only create headaches with Centrelink.
I tell Nan that no one (except Dad's aforementioned sister) wants her money, and we would prefer that she use it to make sure that she is well taken care of, but that just makes her upset. Because she wants to leave an inheritance.
Post by: Chris Pascale on August 18, 2019, 07:40:51 AM
Dad's sister told my Mum that ..........she is only the daughter-in-law and and is obviously after Nan's money...
.................All four of her children are on disability.........
Your aunt has plenty of time on her hands, and nothing to do, it seems, so lets herself come up with ideas like this. Very sad, because it kills any kind of closeness there could have been.
Post by: Jakejake on August 18, 2019, 09:09:16 AM
Uh, no. How about we don't get your freaking cats designated as a charity so you can pocket dad's residual paychecks to feed your own pets? Especially since mom's still alive, ffs.
Post by: Zamboni on August 18, 2019, 02:21:38 PM
Post by: DadJokes on August 19, 2019, 06:57:54 AM
Future Drama:
Childless Uncle-great investor, not spender, stealth wealth extreme.
Several Siblings ( some dead)
~20 siblings kids (cousins to each other) DW among them. DW is descended from dead Sibling.
Current expectations are "$1M each at the cousin level"
While my estimation, based on conversations with Childless Uncle is at least $5-10M, I very much doubt that things will go smoothly on his passing, no matter what the amount.
DW doubts that there is a will in place. Eeek!
Well at least we are chubby, maybe Fat-FIRE, so we are not directly affected, but we might have to be involved in the drama.
DW and I only like drama at the remove of TV or movies.
Predictions?
Watch this space for updates.
Because you don't need the money, y'all may be in a good position to talk with this uncle about his will. You can just outline your concerns about not wanting a huge family drama and recommend that he go to an attorney and have a good, detailed will drawn up. As long as it comes from a position of love and concern, most people will be receptive to advice.
Post by: Dicey on August 19, 2019, 09:14:40 AM
Haven't been here for a bit, but my dad passed away last year. He had a book about to be published and my sister contacted the publisher. There was a conversation between her and the publisher about donating the royalties to a charity instead of just getting checks. That's fine. But then my sister, a cat hoarder, approached me to bounce this idea off me: "What if I get my cats designated as a nonprofit and then we can use the book proceeds to pay for their food?"This article might help her figure out how to do it on her own. Follow it to the end (the article, not the thread). I promise it's relevant.
Uh, no. How about we don't get your freaking cats designated as a charity so you can pocket dad's residual paychecks to feed your own pets? Especially since mom's still alive, ffs.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/japanese-woman-retires-at-34-after-living-on-$2-a-day-for-16-years/msg2441886/#msg2441886
A couple of years ago, we actually sifted through thousands of charitable asks for an elderly friend who was inundated. So many times, I wanted to scream at people, "What's wrong with working to achieve your dream instead of mooching off of others?!?!"
Post by: A Fella from Stella on August 19, 2019, 10:17:14 AM
Haven't been here for a bit, but my dad passed away last year. He had a book about to be published and my sister contacted the publisher. There was a conversation between her and the publisher about donating the royalties to a charity instead of just getting checks. That's fine. But then my sister, a cat hoarder, approached me to bounce this idea off me: "What if I get my cats designated as a nonprofit and then we can use the book proceeds to pay for their food?"
Uh, no. How about we don't get your freaking cats designated as a charity so you can pocket dad's residual paychecks to feed your own pets? Especially since mom's still alive, ffs.
Hilarious. First, you sister takes it upon herself to have her mother's income from her husband diverted away from her, and then thinks, 'okay, now to openly do something really dumb.''
Edited to Add: Sorry for your loss.
Post by: markbike528CBX on August 19, 2019, 10:24:22 AM
Future Drama:
Childless Uncle-great investor, not spender, stealth wealth extreme.
Several Siblings ( some dead)
~20 siblings kids (cousins to each other) DW among them. DW is descended from dead Sibling.
Current expectations are "$1M each at the cousin level"
While my estimation, based on conversations with Childless Uncle is at least $5-10M, I very much doubt that things will go smoothly on his passing, no matter what the amount.
DW doubts that there is a will in place. Eeek!
Well at least we are chubby, maybe Fat-FIRE, so we are not directly affected, but we might have to be involved in the drama.
DW and I only like drama at the remove of TV or movies.
Predictions?
Watch this space for updates.
Because you don't need the money, y'all may be in a good position to talk with this uncle about his will. You can just outline your concerns about not wanting a huge family drama and recommend that he go to an attorney and have a good, detailed will drawn up. As long as it comes from a position of love and concern, most people will be receptive to advice.
While this is true, we're not that close.
In the 11 years I've been hooked up with (now) DW, I've had no more than 11 minutes of conversation with Childless Uncle. My hope is that DW sibling, who has taken care of Childless Uncle more than anyone, would get a big share.
Post by: TVRodriguez on August 19, 2019, 01:15:02 PM
I guess it's not really drama but it's like watching a train heading for a wreck.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 19, 2019, 01:35:13 PM
A friend's dad died earlier this year. I didn't handle the estate so I don't know exactly what assets he had, but I had some idea. He didn't have a huge estate, but it was enough to allow each of his three kids to walk away with somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. But my friend, a grown woman with two children, is not good with money. In fact, during her marriage and after her divorce, her dad regularly gave her money or just paid her bills. Now my friend was completely devastated by her dad's death, but she is saying things to mutual friends like, "well, at least now I don't have to work." WTF? She didn't inherit enough to be FI. Not the way she spends money. I just got some photos of her (multiple) international summer travels with her kids.
I guess it's not really drama but it's like watching a train heading for a wreck.
Real friends don't let their friends do something that stupid without giving them a heart-to-heart talk first.
Your friend will probably do the stupid thing anyway, but (a) at least you tried and (b) they'll be less likely to hit you up for sympathy or money when the train wreck happens. Either way, it's a win.
Post by: Jakejake on August 19, 2019, 02:53:35 PM
This article might help her figure out how to do it on her own. Follow it to the end (the article, not the thread). I promise it's relevant.I'm sure my sister would love to have a cat cafe, but I've given up on talking to her about money. Even as she was going through a bankruptcy, I couldn't convince her to just do something as simple as pack a lunch for work. "But I neeeeed to leave to go to a restaurant every day, if I eat at my desk people will keep stopping by asking me to do work related stuff and I really need the break!"
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/japanese-woman-retires-at-34-after-living-on-$2-a-day-for-16-years/msg2441886/#msg2441886
A couple of years ago, we actually sifted through thousands of charitable asks for an elderly friend who was inundated. So many times, I wanted to scream at people, "What's wrong with working to achieve your dream instead of mooching off of others?!?!"
Post by: Zamboni on August 19, 2019, 03:37:46 PM
But I doubt it would matter what you say to her, because people can rationalize anything. I mean, she is rationalizing stealing money from your Mom to feed her hoarded cats, and she wants to to sign off on her nefarious plan so she can later say "but I asked Jake, and he thought it was a good idea!" It just doesn't get any worse than that, so she is hopeless and you have my sympathy.
Post by: TVRodriguez on August 20, 2019, 10:07:09 AM
A friend's dad died earlier this year. I didn't handle the estate so I don't know exactly what assets he had, but I had some idea. He didn't have a huge estate, but it was enough to allow each of his three kids to walk away with somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. But my friend, a grown woman with two children, is not good with money. In fact, during her marriage and after her divorce, her dad regularly gave her money or just paid her bills. Now my friend was completely devastated by her dad's death, but she is saying things to mutual friends like, "well, at least now I don't have to work." WTF? She didn't inherit enough to be FI. Not the way she spends money. I just got some photos of her (multiple) international summer travels with her kids.
I guess it's not really drama but it's like watching a train heading for a wreck.
Real friends don't let their friends do something that stupid without giving them a heart-to-heart talk first.
Your friend will probably do the stupid thing anyway, but (a) at least you tried and (b) they'll be less likely to hit you up for sympathy or money when the train wreck happens. Either way, it's a win.
We used to be closer, but we've drifted apart a bit. I used to try to show her how to do things cheaper, like baking your own bread, for example, which she took a shine to. Then the next time I saw her she was doing some special diet that cost $$$ per week. I can still be friendly with her but it's tough to witness sometimes.
Post by: frugalecon on August 20, 2019, 10:34:32 AM
Future Drama:
Childless Uncle-great investor, not spender, stealth wealth extreme.
Several Siblings ( some dead)
~20 siblings kids (cousins to each other) DW among them. DW is descended from dead Sibling.
Current expectations are "$1M each at the cousin level"
While my estimation, based on conversations with Childless Uncle is at least $5-10M, I very much doubt that things will go smoothly on his passing, no matter what the amount.
DW doubts that there is a will in place. Eeek!
Well at least we are chubby, maybe Fat-FIRE, so we are not directly affected, but we might have to be involved in the drama.
DW and I only like drama at the remove of TV or movies.
Predictions?
Watch this space for updates.
I have a miserly childless uncle who could definitely have seven figures of wealth, even though he looks like a pauper. I have heard that he laughs about my cousins who butter him up, since he thinks they are doing it to inherit his money. All of which he plans to leave to a charitable organization that he believes in. I have no desire or need to inherit from him or anyone else, so I will just watch from afar.
Post by: marion10 on August 20, 2019, 10:43:13 AM
Post by: Just Joe on August 20, 2019, 06:52:17 PM
I see this with my sister-in-law.
Whenever our families are all together, she insists that my family is late for everything.
It took me a couple of visits to realize that this is because HER husband is late for everything.
Put on a good Gary Cooper drawl, "Well, color me simple, sis, we were here before the scheduled time, and it's YOUR husband who is late." Smile. Pause. "As always. So why would you claim that WE are late?"
I decided some years ago that I was just plain done with putting up with passive aggressive bullshit. I have very little tolerance for it. So I just serve them up a hearty verbal bowl of go fuck yourself soup and present it with a flourish. Very few try that shit a fourth time.
I said fourth time because I usually give the first two times a pass, in case they were having a bad day or something. After that, they're fair game.
(Unless I'm convinced based on prior observation or accounts of how the person acts that they're being shitty on purpose. Then I don't wait for a second time.)
Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Post by: saguaro on August 21, 2019, 09:55:07 AM
Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Yep, can totally relate to this with DH's family. DH hears how he and his sister aren't close, SIL has never been in our home and has refused all invitations from us, but yet DH is the one not making the effort. We were the ones driving the distance to the family events. DH's parents and SIL live a few miles from each other, events were usually at SIL's or MIL/FIL home because that was "convenient" for SIL, it was up to us to make the drive every time. Eventually SIL/MIL/FIL dumped the responsibility for family events on our niece, who incidentally lives closer to us, but we aren't invited because we are the ones who "don't make the effort" in the convoluted family narrative.
Post by: Dicey on August 21, 2019, 10:11:23 AM
When I was single, I was the one who made the trips. When I was working, I used my plentiful windshield time to initiate the phone calls. Now that I'm married and busy...crickets. unless, of course, I pick up the phone or they need a place to stay on the way to or from somewhere else.Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Yep, can totally relate to this with DH's family. DH hears how he and his sister aren't close, SIL has never been in our home and has refused all invitations from us, but yet DH is the one not making the effort. We were the ones driving the distance to the family events. DH's parents and SIL live a few miles from each other, events were usually at SIL's or MIL/FIL home because that was "convenient" for SIL, it was up to us to make the drive every time. Eventually SIL/MIL/FIL dumped the responsibility for family events on our niece, who incidentally lives closer to us, but we aren't invited because we are the ones who "don't make the effort" in the convoluted family narrative.
Post by: mm1970 on August 21, 2019, 12:19:10 PM
oh boyA friend's dad died earlier this year. I didn't handle the estate so I don't know exactly what assets he had, but I had some idea. He didn't have a huge estate, but it was enough to allow each of his three kids to walk away with somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. But my friend, a grown woman with two children, is not good with money. In fact, during her marriage and after her divorce, her dad regularly gave her money or just paid her bills. Now my friend was completely devastated by her dad's death, but she is saying things to mutual friends like, "well, at least now I don't have to work." WTF? She didn't inherit enough to be FI. Not the way she spends money. I just got some photos of her (multiple) international summer travels with her kids.
I guess it's not really drama but it's like watching a train heading for a wreck.
Real friends don't let their friends do something that stupid without giving them a heart-to-heart talk first.
Your friend will probably do the stupid thing anyway, but (a) at least you tried and (b) they'll be less likely to hit you up for sympathy or money when the train wreck happens. Either way, it's a win.
We used to be closer, but we've drifted apart a bit. I used to try to show her how to do things cheaper, like baking your own bread, for example, which she took a shine to. Then the next time I saw her she was doing some special diet that cost $$$ per week. I can still be friendly with her but it's tough to witness sometimes.
You can expect the friendship to continue to get more distant. Some people don't want to be helped in any useful way.
Sad story: shortly after the DH and I started dating, a good (older) friend of the DH married his girlfriend (hereafter wife #4), in his words, so she would be allowed into the recovery room after an upcoming medical procedure. Procedure was unsuccessful and friend was given weeks to live. We helped the friend, wife #4 and wife #4's teenage kid from a previous marriage downsize into the friend's mother's basement. We helped wife #4 and friend's mother with in-home patient care. We were there for the friend's passing and attended the deeply uncomfortable funeral attended by all four wives. We were also there when wife #4 realized she was going to get nothing - Wife #1 got the military pension (married during military service), wife #2 got the social security (married longest), wife #3 got the bank accounts (will not changed after wife #4's very recent - as in weeks old - marriage to friend). There was nothing left other than the belongings we'd helped them move into the basement.
DH and I spent the next year trying to help wife #4 get back on her feet, but she wasn't interested in going back to work or making any changes to her spending (formerly financed by friend). Eventually we helped pack up wife #4's belongings when friend's mother kicked wife #4 out of the basement (for demanding in advance what she expected to get when friend's exceptionally elderly mother died). The last thing wife #4 said to us as she pulled away in the rental truck we loaded full with everything we'd carried back up out of the basement (she left the kid with the kid's dad) was "I'm going to move in with my mother and brother. They will take care of me." We reached out several times after that to check on wife #4, but when she realized we weren't going to provide any more support (we were't going to fly down just to provide free labor and we weren't sending money) she ghosted us.
DH and I still hear from wives #1 & #3 occasionally.
Post by: Imma on August 22, 2019, 04:25:04 AM
When I was single, I was the one who made the trips. When I was working, I used my plentiful windshield time to initiate the phone calls. Now that I'm married and busy...crickets. unless, of course, I pick up the phone or they need a place to stay on the way to or from somewhere else.Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Yep, can totally relate to this with DH's family. DH hears how he and his sister aren't close, SIL has never been in our home and has refused all invitations from us, but yet DH is the one not making the effort. We were the ones driving the distance to the family events. DH's parents and SIL live a few miles from each other, events were usually at SIL's or MIL/FIL home because that was "convenient" for SIL, it was up to us to make the drive every time. Eventually SIL/MIL/FIL dumped the responsibility for family events on our niece, who incidentally lives closer to us, but we aren't invited because we are the ones who "don't make the effort" in the convoluted family narrative.
It's so often like that. We recently got back in touch with a relative with a serious illness - not because they were looking back at their life and regretting being out of touch but because they needed practical support. Now they are recovering we don't hear from them anymore.
My own mother always has it in her head that I'm assertive and independent and don't need help, which is mostly true but I once needed a little practical help l, a one-off thing (I was hospitalized unexpectedly and was gone for a few weeks and food was rotting everywhere in my house and I could barely stand up) and she totally freaked out, I should get my shit together and act like a grownup. My sibling lives around the corner from her and she cleans their apartment every week even when they don't ask "because you don't understand how hard it is to ask for help". Well, I guess I should be happy that my family doesn't think I'm incapable of stuff.
Post by: Just Joe on August 22, 2019, 06:43:16 PM
When I was single, I was the one who made the trips. When I was working, I used my plentiful windshield time to initiate the phone calls. Now that I'm married and busy...crickets. unless, of course, I pick up the phone or they need a place to stay on the way to or from somewhere else.Ahhh, good family fun. We get guilted that we aren't making enough sibling relationship effort and we're late to events. Never mind we're always the ones driving long distances and nobody makes the efforts to visit the family like we do. Road only goes one way too so visits to our house are rare. Like once or twice every twenty years for my sibling.
Yep, can totally relate to this with DH's family. DH hears how he and his sister aren't close, SIL has never been in our home and has refused all invitations from us, but yet DH is the one not making the effort. We were the ones driving the distance to the family events. DH's parents and SIL live a few miles from each other, events were usually at SIL's or MIL/FIL home because that was "convenient" for SIL, it was up to us to make the drive every time. Eventually SIL/MIL/FIL dumped the responsibility for family events on our niece, who incidentally lives closer to us, but we aren't invited because we are the ones who "don't make the effort" in the convoluted family narrative.
Oh yes - family comes to town, or passes through and can't bother to say hi. DW had an out of town relative come into the SAME workplace building and they didn't make the effort to say hello. Like five minutes of chit-chat. 50 ft detour. Good gosh!
All hey, how are you in person - its been so long - when we make the trip to their town. We genuinely enjoy spending time with our families whether it is a quickie visit, a meal or an overnight (usually at one of our parents' homes).
Wow - the stories y'all are telling here are real head shakers. If nothing else I guess it is good to know that people are a challenge all over. On the other hand it's sad to know that people are a challenge all over.
Post by: Cb1234567 on August 28, 2019, 02:44:53 PM
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete. Dad died suddenly in 2015 at the age of 70, conveniently while I was on a business trip and while my sister (only sibling) still was ensconced in his house - thanks dad!!! Mom and dad were divorced for many years, and thankfully had moved past the spitting venom phase into over a decade of being friends and sometime companions, but with separate lives otherwise (go parents!! :).
For a bit of background, I should tell you that I live out of state and have a normal, boring life of employment, hobbies, DH, etc. At the time, my sister, affectionately known by my best, childhood friend, as "cray-cray", as in crazy, lived with a boyfriend near my dad's house, never held a job if even worked at all. She had recently been kicked out of my grandma's house, after residing there for 2 years, rent free. It was being sold, and her many possessions ended up in dad's basement, among his own, many more, possessions. [Her exploits at grandma's include such activities as burning candles in all the curtained windows to save on electricity, hanging colorful thongs on the clothesline for all to see, and mowing the lawn only occasionally. And not leaving until she was basically booted out the door by mom and aunt.]
OK, back to dad. I was the Personal Representative (executor). After he died, the immediate family were in his house, trying to find the will with his final instructions. He had a folder labeled "Wills", but it was all the old ones with his edits in red. Sister tells me this (suspiciously) detailed story about how he "tested" her to make sure she knew where all his important papers were, including the will. Hmm. So, there was this bright pink/orange folder that was on the kitchen counter at one point, but now it was gone, and sister said she didn't know what I was talking about. I asked sister about the safety deposit box - she's a signatory on it - and she told me she'd already checked and it was quote "basically empty" (red flag - if it was empty, wouldn't you say so? and if there was something in it, then what?...Dad's wedding ring was never found...who knows??).
I throw up my hands in irritation (so DH tells me, I don't remember because I was freaking out) and say that we're not going to be able to do anything without the Will. DH, mom and I go back to grandma's where we're staying (vacant house, air mattresses...it's about to go on the market for sale). Next, sister shows up at grandma's on that dark and rainy night (truly) and says 'here, I found this', while shoving a fat bright colored folder through the door, and then she leaves. Lo' and behold. Dad's will, all his instructions, forms/info he'd carefully prepared so I'd know what to do (love to dad!!!). The will says everything split 50/50 between my sister and I, executor gets the final say if there's a dispute. Easy-peasy right??? um, no.
OK, to create the estate, I had to go to the county police to get the police report for when he was found deceased in his home to show as proof of death (the Death Certificate was going to take weeks due to an autopsy). Anyway, unpleasant topic, I know. So, I go to the county station, and they think I'm nobody. As in when my sister gave her statement to the police, she neglected to share other next of kin, like his OTHER daughter = ME. DH was there - I've blacked this out I think - and apparently I went into orbit on the poor clerk so they would get a supervisor. Left with certificate and trot over to Register of Wills, which were the best people ever. Amazing.
This could go on for a book, here are some highlights:
- Sister's behavior was so bizarre that I started taking detailed notes of all actions/conversations and took photos of rooms, etc., due to the advice of an attorney friend-of-a-friend (a saint, as far as I'm concerned).
- I asked my sister if she wanted dad's cherry bedroom set, and she declined. I told her I was going to offer it to our mom, since they bought it together way back when. Sister said, that was fine, if mom paid the fair market value for it...and that she knew said value, because she had found the receipts from when they bought it. [i am without words on this one.]
- I swear sister started marking her territory in that house: bras and dirty undies were left strewn about, she'd show up whenever and without notice... mind you I stayed there w/ or w/o DH to do the house clean out, and I'm sure DH has no interest in her undergarments. She took a spiral notebook that was the very last thing dad took his usual stock ticker notes and comments in...and used it to write a list of the bad things I was doing that she'd ask her lawyer about, such as can I force her out of the house. To me, that little yellow notebook should've been sacred - classic D-A-D with goofy humor, a few of his thoughts during the last few days of his life. No respect.
- Dad's house because a huge point of argument. Sister had about 2 months of time to herself in the house, because I had to go home to my JOB. She had no job. The instructions from me were to go through things and get her stuff moved out. There was too much of her stuff to even get to dad's stuff, and dad was a hoarder in the basement and sections of the house. She decides to go to Indiana, in snow season, to traipse between visiting dad's former work friends (he was retired for years).
- Sister tells DH that she should get the house because we already are "well off". Sister says this while DH is shoveling out the driveway, and she rants idly. Oh, you mean because we WORK?!? Seriously. Nope, not happening unless she gets a job (she'd lose the house - too expensive to own, has a mortgage, too many repairs and mom/dad wouldn't want it to get foreclosed on in 2-3 years because she couldn't get her act together). She doesn't get a job (or get her stuff out).
- Many recommended to change locks to protect the estate...I didn't do it, because it seemed dumb at the time...until a threatening incident late one night with a pizza cutter. Rather than fulfill my fantasy of tackling her (I'm the older sister, and we always think we can take out a younger sister ;-) I told her to leave or the police would be called. After repeating myself a bunch of times, the phone was in my hand. She left. Bottom line, locks changed, and now she's got access only between something like 9-5 and weekends, all with advance notice. She lets me know she's coming and doesn't show or is late. 3rd time this happens, I actually wasn't there, because I left to go to the bank or something, so she had to wait. For hours. I seriously think this is the very first time that boundaries and consequences were imposed on her, with no wheedling out of it. It wasn't pretty.
-Funny thing, the neighbor (also a saint in my book) met my DH and let us borrow his small tractor to drag some old mowers/scrap out of the back yard. Neighbor met me for about 5 seconds, and then I went back to clearing out the house. Apparently he says, 'so that's the other sister." The scrap metal guy took a huge trailer's worth out of there and made a killing, I'm sure - he and he partner made over $1000 on it. A bargain, in my mind - get it off the property!! Sister finally has movers come to get what she wants out of the house - I encourage her to take anything she might want...just to get it out of there.
- The bitter end: dad's house. a) It's cleaned out and set straight to look good for a listing. Sister's stuff is gone. Inside fixed up a bit (paint and cleaning both by me, free of charge of course - it's my dad's home). List at about $500K. Sells and will close within a month - victory! That badboy cost thousands a month to keep, not to mention the perpetual headaches of plumbing leaks and pieces of inner tube/clamp repairs, leaking toilet, dead bat in the basement (ewe), mowing. Sister flips out. It's real now, like with a date on it.
b) Sister hires lawyer to send me a letter to delay the closing. The closing!!!! It's threatening, but no real legal action or authority. Says I've not fulfilled my fiduciary responsibility in that the listing was not accurate (example: she felt a 2 car garage was really a 4 car garage... um, maybe if you have SmartCars??), and I had wasted money re-graveling the driveway as an improvement. [Repairs are OK for the estate to preserve the value; improvements are not.] The driveway was re-graveled because it was impassable after the mud/ruts froze from the ambulance and emergency vehicles who came when my dad was found in his home (deceased). Anyway, I call back the lawyer-saint from earlier and he says, 'enh, just do the final clean out and closing; ignore her'. Friday, cleanout begins and sister spends the day moping about the house - that's fine, she's free to mope, I get it, it sucks.
c) The climax of the cleanout happened on Saturday. DH and I are about half-dead. We've been working on this non-stop, and we leave Sunday afternoon to go back to work Monday - this HAS to be done. So, Saturday, a group of guys shows up to load up supposed "antiques" (more crap - estate nets <$500 for a truckload, but at least it's gone) for auction. DH has the gift of gab, and shows these guys the brilliance of us renting a UHaul and them coming back to load up moldy paper and collapsing bookshelves to burn at the family farm (I kid you not, this is the country :) . I happily write them a check, with receipt of course for the estate. UHaul rapidly fills with boxes of moldy books from the basement, furniture... Flat-pack saves space, so one guy has the neighbor's tractor and is about to flatten (i.e.crush) a stack of bookshelves with the tractor forks. Sister (classically late) shows up at that moment and sees the activity. Guy looks askance at DH, who gives the signal to drop the forks. Guy drops forks. Shelves are now flat and ready to load in the truck. Sister peels out in a spew of fresh gravel. We don't see her the rest of the weekend, which was a blessing.
Everything was about "the value" of dad's stuff. I'm pretty sure the 4, identical silver or black single bulb walmart lamps dad had were of negligible value. Let me tell you people - most of our stuff has NO VALUE. It costs time and money to get rid of it!!!! Numerous special request trash pickups, getting rid of dozens of old tires, the scrap guy, trips to goodwill (they don't even want dad's things - moldy spots from when he decided not to run the A/C for a summer), trips to the dump...and a very overfilled dumpster. In hindsight, I guess if I never worked, had received constant support from my dad in various ways, and then the source of support dies, I might suddenly become extremely interested in squeezing every penny out of his stuff, too.
--> Fast forward to years later. The estate was closed - sister had received nearly $500K. Guess she was digging through the paperwork I'd sent her for the estate, and she decided to question my accounting and tax reporting. Nice. Sure, let's call the IRS and get the estate audited for God-knows-what. Dad is dead. I really just didn't want to deal with her anymore, ever. Because I felt sister was just doofus enough to bother the IRS with this, decided to try a diversionary tactic. I tell her to leave it alone, and if she wants to worry about something, she should worry about what mom changed in HER will. [sister hadn't spoken to mom for at least 2 years.]
hahahahaha - Sister miraculously resumed contact with mom. Now she is ensconced in mom's house for probably 12 months out of the last 18, off and on, supposedly looking for work. She's had work now for 6 weeks now. Mom's will is safely in the safety deposit box, which my name is on. It's 50/50 with a few tweaks to try to ensure my sister isn't homeless in her old age. Sad. Get a good lawyer to do your will. I told my mom, that, if she has ANY love for me, please do not die while sister is in her house. Mom laughed. ;-)
Post by: Zoot on August 28, 2019, 03:14:32 PM
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete.
This simply has to be THE MOST EPIC FIRST POST ever on the MMM forum. :)
Thank you for not deleting a single word of this amazing story!
Post by: SwordGuy on August 28, 2019, 03:20:30 PM
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete.
This simply has to be THE MOST EPIC FIRST POST ever on the MMM forum. :)
Thank you for not deleting a single word of this amazing story!
Bless your heart, no one should have to put up with relatives like that.
If you really want your mom to do you a favor, have her hire an executor. It will cost a couple percent and I'm thinking it would be well worth it. (Well, maybe from your point of view, but from the point of the person being paid to deal with your sister, it might not be!!) (If you're in NC I'll be glad to recommend someone.)
Post by: bluebelle on August 28, 2019, 03:32:56 PM
Wow, an active thread that goes on for 3 years... I'm only on page 12. Leave it to MMM to start this!I'm sorry for your lose....and the horror you had to go through with your sister.....
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete. Dad died suddenly in 2015 at the age of 70, conveniently while I was on a business trip and while my sister (only sibling) still was ensconced in his house - thanks dad!!! Mom and dad were divorced for many years, and thankfully had moved past the spitting venom phase into over a decade of being friends and sometime companions, but with separate lives otherwise (go parents!! :).
.......
hahahahaha - Sister miraculously resumed contact with mom. Now she is ensconced in mom's house for probably 12 months out of the last 18, off and on, supposedly looking for work. She's had work now for 6 weeks now. Mom's will is safely in the safety deposit box, which my name is on. It's 50/50 with a few tweaks to try to ensure my sister isn't homeless in her old age. Sad. Get a good lawyer to do your will. I told my mom, that, if she has ANY love for me, please do not die while sister is in her house. Mom laughed. ;-)
Post by: Cb1234567 on August 28, 2019, 07:57:10 PM
I have a story to share about my dad's estate. It's too long, but I don't know what to delete.
This simply has to be THE MOST EPIC FIRST POST ever on the MMM forum. :)
Thank you for not deleting a single word of this amazing story!
Bless your heart, no one should have to put up with relatives like that.
If you really want your mom to do you a favor, have her hire an executor. It will cost a couple percent and I'm thinking it would be well worth it. (Well, maybe from your point of view, but from the point of the person being paid to deal with your sister, it might not be!!) (If you're in NC I'll be glad to recommend someone.)
WOW. Just WOW. I am tearing up a bit over here. Thank you so much for validating me/DH (he was right there in it, of course) this hellish experience - especially since you never quite know how things come across in text, online, with strangers.
We don't even have the excuse of sister being on drugs or an alcoholic, this is 100% pure her. This fiasco changed *everything* about how DH and I handle our affairs (I'm early 40s now).
Great advice for mom, and I am telling her of this idea! In the meantime, I'm her executor, BUT she lives in Tennessee. TN requires a lawyer to handle the accounting (if I understand her correctly). I already told her I am just going to hire everything out, from soup-to-nuts. Sister can take what she wants from the house, I'll take a few things and offer to my aunt (mom's sister) and mom's friends, and that's it. My mom even gave me a detailed letter of instruction for what to sell and how, where to donate an antique banjo etc etc. Mom sends me updates from time to time - this is CLASSIC mom, she is a planner :). She had a top lawyer who handles estates for "name" (i.e. wealthy, old-money) families in TN, so I think the bases were covered as well she could without creating a trust.
All I can say is: i wish my mom a long and healthy life. And especially that she lives long enough for my sister to RUN OUT OF DAD'S MONEY - haha. She's got to be close by now, if she's gotten a job (cross the road truck driver, in case you're wondering). You all are great. I'm on page 18 of this thread now and still reading.
Post by: RWTL on August 29, 2019, 04:02:12 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on August 29, 2019, 07:56:21 AM
After reading this last story, it has motivated me to setup a trust for my kids :)
We set up things so one grandchild, who might or might not settle down, would have a hired trustee instead of a family member to deal with. If things go bad there's no reason to cause family who have their act together to deal with family who don't.
Post by: Cb1234567 on September 06, 2019, 12:22:20 PM
After reading this last story, it has motivated me to setup a trust for my kids :)
We set up things so one grandchild, who might or might not settle down, would have a hired trustee instead of a family member to deal with. If things go bad there's no reason to cause family who have their act together to deal with family who don't.
Above, both are gifts to your children IMHO. If I remember correctly, my mom’s attorney said to her...so, you want to control the money from beyond the grave... and laughed. (She would not do a trust.) My husband thinks I should just bow out now and tell my mom I don’t want to be her executor. I already tried this once, and she flipped out because then who would do it?!?! I felt awful, so it stands now. :) Again, hopefully she’s with us for many more years - indeed, she seems to have gotten a second wind lately, which is awesome.
On the other side of the family, my in-laws have a different drama coming (DH and I feel so, at least). Mom and dad are divorced, and it is not amicable. Supposedly during the divorce, hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets disappeared - home equity and cash. Fast forward to now...dad denies any existence of such a thing. Mom had account statements up to a point, and then it all “vanished”. Is this any of our business? No, of course not. Except that mom has zero savings and will be left on (his) social security when he dies, since her share of his various pensions will die with him.
So, where is the drama, you ask? If we’re lucky, maybe there will be none. Do you feel lucky? We do not. Dad traveled extensively for his long and lucrative career. Much of that time is in question, since it was later found that the work-related travel had ended weeks prior to his return sometimes. DH is half convinced that there is a second family out there somewhere, based on events from when he was a kid.
Dad updated his will and tells his 3 sons that they’ll all share equally. The oldest will be the executor, and each will receive 1/3. I guess the step-daughter is left out or mostly so. He also says nebulously that there should be “enough to take care of mom”. On the surface that’s very kind, since it’s giving them the thumbs up for spending it on their mother. Under the surface, is... is this the “missing money”? Should it really all be hers? Should she sue the estate if it’s offshore accounts or highly doubtful that it was post-divorce earnings... I doubt she would, but *I* probably would in her shoes! There also was a defaulted loan to her family....should she put that in as a creditor to be paid before assets are released to the beneficiaries? Dad also is very into his own extended family, so we’ll be surprised if he didn’t leave something to his brother and younger neice(s).
The other foreshadowing I can share with you is: dad’s sister passed away not too long ago. She was the nicest, coolest lady. Apparently she told her daughter (DH’s cousin, if your trying to follow along) that I might need emotional support/a friendly ear when the dad dies. The lady said that their family has no secrets (husband already had died young), But for this man, there are “skeletons” [in the closet]. The skeletons will come out when he dies. Fantastic.
The good thing I’ll say is that the dad's executor does know where the will is and where accounts are, at least in some general sense. He lives out of state, and I don’t envy him for the burden/responsibility. I am thankful that MY DH isn’t going to have to do it...especially since all the local family has a history of raiding homes of the recently deceased to take whatever they want. Sigh. It’s all just stuff anyway, right?? It’s funny, when somebody near to you dies, you’d think we could just be sad and miss them. Instead, it becomes a dramafest.
Cheers.
Post by: snowball on September 22, 2019, 12:03:14 PM
Now let me just say up front that he was a narcissistic asshole, and I didn't want a penny from his estate. I would have either donated it or set it aside for my baby niece, who will never know him and for whom it wouldn't have been...tainted...money. Turns out I didn't get anything, and I'm relieved by that; I'd rather have no further part in this. (I don't think the way he distributed his estate to others is particularly fair or kind, but it is officially Not My Problem and I'm not going to worry about it. Fortunately I'm not the executor.)
He wasn't physically abusive, but my reaction to hearing about his death was an overwhelming "well, good riddance." I'm not sad, just a little wistful for what might have been, if he'd chosen to be a better person.
I keep remembering this quote from one of my favourite writers, Lois McMaster Bujold..."When I go down into the ground at last, as God is my judge, I pray my best-beloved may have better to say of me than 'He didn't hit me.'"
I hope that for myself, too.
...
This is all more sad than drama-ridden, but who knows, drama could be forthcoming? He won't have left a huge estate by Mustachian standards, but I suppose there is no amount too small to fight over, hah. (I think a handful of people are getting $10-30K each.)
Post by: marion10 on September 23, 2019, 07:32:08 AM
Post by: partgypsy on September 23, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
My father died recently and I just got a letter from the lawyer with a copy of his will.
Now let me just say up front that he was a narcissistic asshole, and I didn't want a penny from his estate. I would have either donated it or set it aside for my baby niece, who will never know him and for whom it wouldn't have been...tainted...money. Turns out I didn't get anything, and I'm relieved by that; I'd rather have no further part in this. (I don't think the way he distributed his estate to others is particularly fair or kind, but it is officially Not My Problem and I'm not going to worry about it. Fortunately I'm not the executor.)
He wasn't physically abusive, but my reaction to hearing about his death was an overwhelming "well, good riddance." I'm not sad, just a little wistful for what might have been, if he'd chosen to be a better person.
I keep remembering this quote from one of my favourite writers, Lois McMaster Bujold..."When I go down into the ground at last, as God is my judge, I pray my best-beloved may have better to say of me than 'He didn't hit me.'"
I hope that for myself, too.
...
This is all more sad than drama-ridden, but who knows, drama could be forthcoming? He won't have left a huge estate by Mustachian standards, but I suppose there is no amount too small to fight over, hah. (I think a handful of people are getting $10-30K each.)
Even if you didn't want the money man that is harsh not giving any money to your own child.
No inheritance stories that affect me personally, (well I did inherit an afghan from my grandmother when she died; she had crocheted a closet full of beautiful blankets. And after she died my Dad let each grandkid pick one out).
But from my extended family on my Mom's side there is a doozy. My grandfather died, and my grandmother was living in the family home alone, and it ended up my no-good uncle moved in. He was a - colorful- character, his nickname was crazy uncle (name). He was in the merchant marines, traveled extensively, got in a disproportionate amount of brawls, bar fights and unlikely situations, was a big drinker (alcoholic). After he moved in my grandmother and him became more and more reclusive, apparently just staying inside drinking and smoking. One time I visited after my grandfather died. Grandpa was someone with a big laugh, appetite, sense of humor and welcoming to everyone. After he died she never seemed the same. When we came by, initially she only opened the door a crack and stared at me. For a moment I thought she wouldn't let me in! After letting us in she was still in her night clothes. While the house and furnishings looked the same as 10, 20 years ago, all the lights were off or dimmed. There was practically no food in the house, while before she would cook huge farmhouse style meals.
A number of years later she ended up in the hospital/nursing home, and was diagnosed with throat cancer from a biopsy. Unfortunately the biopsy made it so she couldn't drink normally so she needed a feeding tube. My uncle went there and terrorized the nurses saying he had power of attorney and had them remove the feeding tube. My uncle and my mother visited, found out what happened, the medical staff said they couldn't do anything. Uncle and mother were in the process of having a lawyer overturn this, when she died about a week after the event, basically from being withheld food/water. As you can imagine it was tremendously distressing to my mom, who was not sure of her mother's actual wishes as she couldn't speak at the time.
When the will was read, it gave everything to the uncle (though there were 3 children), with the only stipulation being that he would pay for the burial/funeral. Even that he refused saying he was just going to cremate her and throw the ashes in the Chicago River (she was Catholic and wanted to be buried in the churchyard in the town where the rest of her family was buried). So my mother and uncle took over the funeral planning. My mother, sister and brother traveled up to Wisconsin for the funeral, and they said it was a good, healing time, talking with her sisters that were still alive, who shared many childhood and other stories of her. But- Uncle crashed the funeral. He showed up uninvited, drunk, making inappropriate remarks. Unfortunately most of the people were elderly folk who were too intimidated to confront him, but my brother steered him a couple times out of venues, usually to a local bar to get him out of the way.
My mother wanted only a few things from the house, including a portrait of my grandmother that my grandfather painted, some photos, and grandmother's costume jewelry. Uncle had similar small requests. He agreed, but then one Monday called them both bragging, ha! I went and had an estate sale yesterday and it's all gone! My mother did end up salvaging some photos as well as the boxes of costume jewelry that he had rummaged through and then thrown into a big pile, breaking
most of it. We never did find out what happened to the portrait of grandmother.
He cleared about 90K, cashed it out and moved up to wisconsin, living in or near an Indian reservation, drinking and gambling the money away. More crazy stories... He ended up going through the money and was living for free in another elderly relative's house, until he was finally kicked out. Lived with the other uncle for awhile, till he burned that bridge as well. Job to job (security guard, etc). I think at this point due to ill health is now on disability. My mother still gets long letters from him, basically asking for help we begged her PLEASE do not give him any money and so far I think she has held the line.
Post by: snowball on September 23, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
Even if you didn't want the money man that is harsh not giving any money to your own child.
I guess so, but in the tale of my relationship with him, that's a pretty minor blip. I went no-contact with him a long time ago, so it didn't surprise me. It bothers me more that he didn't leave anything to my three full siblings. Most of the estate went to his children by his first wife, and nothing to his second family (my side). No doubt he was trying to make some kind of self-righteous statement with that, but...my full siblings were more in touch with him and more supportive than the half siblings were (I don't think my half siblings had spoken to him in years). But it's easier to be randomly offended by the people who are actually around.
He left a very small percentage to his girlfriend, who may be the only person in the world who genuinely grieves his death. She's probably the one who should have gotten most of it. My brother said she cried when he told her the news, and all I could think was, at least someone is sad.
A number of years later she ended up in the hospital/nursing home, and was diagnosed with throat cancer from a biopsy. Unfortunately the biopsy made it so she couldn't drink normally so she needed a feeding tube. My uncle went there and terrorized the nurses saying he had power of attorney and had them remove the feeding tube. My uncle and my mother visited, found out what happened, the medical staff said they couldn't do anything. Uncle and mother were in the process of having a lawyer overturn this, when she died about a week after the event, basically from being withheld food/water. As you can imagine it was tremendously distressing to my mom, who was not sure of her mother's actual wishes as she couldn't speak at the time.
When the will was read, it gave everything to the uncle (though there were 3 children), with the only stipulation being that he would pay for the burial/funeral. Even that he refused saying he was just going to cremate her and throw the ashes in the Chicago River (she was Catholic and wanted to be buried in the churchyard in the town where the rest of her family was buried). So my mother and uncle took over the funeral planning. My mother, sister and brother traveled up to Wisconsin for the funeral, and they said it was a good, healing time, talking with her sisters that were still alive, who shared many childhood and other stories of her. But- Uncle crashed the funeral. He showed up uninvited, drunk, making inappropriate remarks. Unfortunately most of the people were elderly folk who were too intimidated to confront him, but my brother steered him a couple times out of venues, usually to a local bar to get him out of the way.
My mother wanted only a few things from the house, including a portrait of my grandmother that my grandfather painted, some photos, and grandmother's costume jewelry. Uncle had similar small requests. He agreed, but then one Monday called them both bragging, ha! I went and had an estate sale yesterday and it's all gone! My mother did end up salvaging some photos as well as the boxes of costume jewelry that he had rummaged through and then thrown into a big pile, breaking
most of it. We never did find out what happened to the portrait of grandmother.
He cleared about 90K, cashed it out and moved up to wisconsin, living in or near an Indian reservation, drinking and gambling the money away. More crazy stories... He ended up going through the money and was living for free in another elderly relative's house, until he was finally kicked out. Lived with the other uncle for awhile, till he burned that bridge as well. Job to job (security guard, etc). I think at this point due to ill health is now on disability. My mother still gets long letters from him, basically asking for help we begged her PLEASE do not give him any money and so far I think she has held the line.
That man is appalling. I hope your mother does hold the line and won't let him back into her life...I can't imagine what it must have been like for her to see her brother do that to her mom.
You can't choose your blood relatives (sigh), but I'm a firm believer in choosing who gets to be your family.
Post by: talltexan on September 23, 2019, 02:19:23 PM
For those of you who are planning on keeping part of your ample mustachian-built estates away from toxic relatives.
Post by: SwordGuy on October 01, 2019, 10:40:01 PM
After reading this last story, it has motivated me to setup a trust for my kids :)
We set up things so one grandchild, who might or might not settle down, would have a hired trustee instead of a family member to deal with. If things go bad there's no reason to cause family who have their act together to deal with family who don't.
Above, both are gifts to your children IMHO. If I remember correctly, my mom’s attorney said to her...so, you want to control the money from beyond the grave... and laughed. (She would not do a trust.) My husband thinks I should just bow out now and tell my mom I don’t want to be her executor. I already tried this once, and she flipped out because then who would do it?!?! I felt awful, so it stands now. :) Again, hopefully she’s with us for many more years - indeed, she seems to have gotten a second wind lately, which is awesome.
On the other side of the family, my in-laws have a different drama coming (DH and I feel so, at least). Mom and dad are divorced, and it is not amicable. Supposedly during the divorce, hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets disappeared - home equity and cash. Fast forward to now...dad denies any existence of such a thing. Mom had account statements up to a point, and then it all “vanished”. Is this any of our business? No, of course not. Except that mom has zero savings and will be left on (his) social security when he dies, since her share of his various pensions will die with him.
So, where is the drama, you ask? If we’re lucky, maybe there will be none. Do you feel lucky? We do not. Dad traveled extensively for his long and lucrative career. Much of that time is in question, since it was later found that the work-related travel had ended weeks prior to his return sometimes. DH is half convinced that there is a second family out there somewhere, based on events from when he was a kid.
Dad updated his will and tells his 3 sons that they’ll all share equally. The oldest will be the executor, and each will receive 1/3. I guess the step-daughter is left out or mostly so. He also says nebulously that there should be “enough to take care of mom”. On the surface that’s very kind, since it’s giving them the thumbs up for spending it on their mother. Under the surface, is... is this the “missing money”? Should it really all be hers? Should she sue the estate if it’s offshore accounts or highly doubtful that it was post-divorce earnings... I doubt she would, but *I* probably would in her shoes! There also was a defaulted loan to her family....should she put that in as a creditor to be paid before assets are released to the beneficiaries? Dad also is very into his own extended family, so we’ll be surprised if he didn’t leave something to his brother and younger neice(s).
The other foreshadowing I can share with you is: dad’s sister passed away not too long ago. She was the nicest, coolest lady. Apparently she told her daughter (DH’s cousin, if your trying to follow along) that I might need emotional support/a friendly ear when the dad dies. The lady said that their family has no secrets (husband already had died young), But for this man, there are “skeletons” [in the closet]. The skeletons will come out when he dies. Fantastic.
The good thing I’ll say is that the dad's executor does know where the will is and where accounts are, at least in some general sense. He lives out of state, and I don’t envy him for the burden/responsibility. I am thankful that MY DH isn’t going to have to do it...especially since all the local family has a history of raiding homes of the recently deceased to take whatever they want. Sigh. It’s all just stuff anyway, right?? It’s funny, when somebody near to you dies, you’d think we could just be sad and miss them. Instead, it becomes a dramafest.
Cheers.
You know, this reminds me of a guideline I use that really eliminates drama from my life. It helps me avoid being put exactly where you are: holding damaging but uncertain information about personal relationships.
I don't care for gossip, especially when it damages relationships that I have (without knowing the reality of what's going on). I refuse to be a part of it, either. Gossip is something I am going to be out in front of, stopping, rather than sitting to wait on it to corrode various relationships.
So, to rid myself of gossip entirely, I engage in a simple practice: I give the person who told me the gossip (in this case, about the "skeletons") 24 hours to tell the person the gossip is about, and make amends. Because after that, I'm going to do so.
(In your situation, I'd talk to your father and to the person who shared that tidbit with you...but probably go to the aunt/whoever shared it with that person before your father, then to your father soon after.)
It's gossip, it's not OK, it hurts people, and so the people gossiping need to go make it right ASAP. If other people won't stop it, I will.
(In this case, I would do the same as to the person who told it to that person, i.e., the person who got the gossip going, since you know who it is supposed to be.)
Then, after 24 hours, I make good on my word. I go have a conversation with whoever I said I would about whatever I was told. And that usually gets to the bottom of things. It certainly clears things up, and prevents others from corroding relationships.
(I don't think my mother took me seriously the first time, but since then, it hasn't been a problem anymore.)
I'd go have a visit with the person talking about the skeletons and same routine. You'll either remedy some relationships or learn all about the skeletons now...or both.
You'll definitely accomplish one thing: nobody will be telling you things that lead you to fret/worry about, or that you would feel guilty about bringing up. That will be over.
It's one good path to a drama-free life. Or at least gossip-free. Life is too short for that nonsense.
@Finances_With_Purpose, you are my hero!
I've found that when I start to seriously question the gossip-monger for factual proof or sources, the "100% certainty" the story was originally presented with suddenly shrinks to maybe 5% tops.
Post by: Just Joe on October 03, 2019, 08:54:14 AM
Post by: trashtalk on October 13, 2019, 10:28:21 PM
Parents disinherit their children for supposedly betraying them.
The relationship between parents and those children ebbs and flows over the years. The children have kids of their own. Parents eventually creates an estate plan that leaves their money to their grandchildren (kids of the disinherited) in a trust. The grandkids would all get equal portions.
However, upon learning this, disinherited kid #1 complains that it's "not fair" because other siblings have numerically more children and thus the rightful "share" of disinherited #1 is being reduced.
The complaining resulted in a further revision of the estate plan to restore the original position of the complainer.
The greed is fairly grotesque and the whole situation is a shabby sad ugly parody of what a family should be like and feel like.
Post by: frugledoc on October 14, 2019, 01:35:50 AM
This is relatively mild for this thread and I'm leaving out decades of spicier Shakespearean-level family drama but here goes:
Parents disinherit their children for supposedly betraying them.
The relationship between parents and those children ebbs and flows over the years. The children have kids of their own. Parents eventually creates an estate plan that leaves their money to their grandchildren (kids of the disinherited) in a trust. The grandkids would all get equal portions.
However, upon learning this, disinherited kid #1 complains that it's "not fair" because other siblings have numerically more children and thus the rightful "share" of disinherited #1 is being reduced.
The complaining resulted in a further revision of the estate plan to restore the original position of the complainer.
The greed is fairly grotesque and the whole situation is a shabby sad ugly parody of what a family should be like and feel like.
“Normal” people see mustachians as tight fisted and mean with money. My experience is that mustachians are extremely generous and don’t care much about money (like in the situation above) but “normal” people are obsessed with it.
Post by: marty998 on October 14, 2019, 02:40:42 AM
A number of years later she ended up in the hospital/nursing home, and was diagnosed with throat cancer from a biopsy. Unfortunately the biopsy made it so she couldn't drink normally so she needed a feeding tube. My uncle went there and terrorized the nurses saying he had power of attorney and had them remove the feeding tube. My uncle and my mother visited, found out what happened, the medical staff said they couldn't do anything. Uncle and mother were in the process of having a lawyer overturn this, when she died about a week after the event, basically from being withheld food/water. As you can imagine it was tremendously distressing to my mom, who was not sure of her mother's actual wishes as she couldn't speak at the time.
Sounds like a murder case to me. Very sorry for your family's loss.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 14, 2019, 11:37:50 AM
This is relatively mild for this thread and I'm leaving out decades of spicier Shakespearean-level family drama
You tease.
Post by: Rubic on October 14, 2019, 12:43:18 PM
However, upon learning this, disinherited kid #1 complains that it's "not fair" because other siblings have numerically more children and thus the rightful "share" of disinherited #1 is being reduced.
No drama here, but my approach has been to split the inheritance 50/50 between my siblings and their children. That way, each sibling has a equal share of half my estate, and each of my nieces/nephews receives equal shares of the remaining half.
Otherwise it would have felt weird -- like I was penalizing family members for their having more children.
I was fortunate in having a long-time family friend, an ex-IRS attorney, draft the particulars of my will. I've also been open about it with everyone, so there should be no surprises.
Post by: Imma on October 14, 2019, 02:41:42 PM
However, upon learning this, disinherited kid #1 complains that it's "not fair" because other siblings have numerically more children and thus the rightful "share" of disinherited #1 is being reduced.
No drama here, but my approach has been to split the inheritance 50/50 between my siblings and their children. That way, each sibling has a equal share of half my estate, and each of my nieces/nephews receives equal shares of the remaining half.
Otherwise it would have felt weird -- like I was penalizing family members for their having more children.
I was fortunate in having a long-time family friend, an ex-IRS attorney, draft the particulars of my will. I've also been open about it with everyone, so there should be no surprises.
We don't have kids or nieces/nephews so we've decided that 50% of our assets will be split equally among my siblings and the other half goes to his. We don't have an equal amount of siblings so mine will get less.
We've done the opposite and haven't discussed our wills with anyone and I'm not planning to - I don't want people to start nagging about their inheritance while I'm not even dying. We are actually thinking of changing the will and leaving money to close friends instead of to siblings we speak once a year and if we had discussed the contents of our will earlier this would be quite awkward.
Post by: Dave1442397 on October 16, 2019, 08:28:06 AM
MIL has recently decided that she wants to leave her main condo (worth $100k) to my daughter, so that 'she can enjoy weekends at the beach". She also asked me not to tell anyone else about this, and then promptly told everyone else herself :)
Being financially clueless, she doesn't get that leaving a condo with monthly fees and taxes of around $1200 to a teenager (or us) will not result in a vacation home for said teen. If it happens, the condo will be sold and used as a college fund.
We don't care either way. Sure, it would be nice to have extra college money, but it would definitely cause bad feelings with some family members. We hope she just lives long enough to spend it all.
Post by: iris lily on October 16, 2019, 08:28:49 AM
Even though both attorneys we have consulted about Wells suggest we talk about it with our errors, I will not do that because it sets up expectations that likely will not occur.
Post by: Dicey on October 18, 2019, 12:40:41 PM
I am not being open at all about my will Because it is highly likely I will change my mind. Right now our will is set up to divide our state among our siblings and various organizations. I expect we will spend a lot of the money and they’ll be less of it to give out As we get older. As that happens I’m gonna cut my siblings out and give to a couple organizations that do the work I like.I think there are some auto fill gremlins afoot in the above post...
Even though both attorneys we have consulted about Wells suggest we talk about it with our errors, I will not do that because it sets up expectations that likely will not occur.
Just chiming in to say be sure to use percentages, so the proportions stay the same, even if your nest egg shrinks. That way, everyone you want to remember still gets something.
Post by: iris lily on October 18, 2019, 05:39:11 PM
I am not being open at all about my will Because it is highly likely I will change my mind. Right now our will is set up to divide our state among our siblings and various organizations. I expect we will spend a lot of the money and they’ll be less of it to give out As we get older. As that happens I’m gonna cut my siblings out and give to a couple organizations that do the work I like.I think there are some auto fill gremlins afoot in the above post...
Even though both attorneys we have consulted about Wells suggest we talk about it with our errors, I will not do that because it sets up expectations that likely will not occur.
Just chiming in to say be sure to use percentages, so the proportions stay the same, even if your nest egg shrinks. That way, everyone you want to remember still gets something.
yes, dictation software is fairly unintelligent! Haha
I will continue to use percentages as my assets dwindle as my current will does mainly because I would want to give enough to make a difference to the organizations.With our siblings, they wont need little pots of money, it would be play money for them.
I will use percentages but will give tofewer people and organizations.
Post by: TVRodriguez on October 19, 2019, 10:12:48 AM
I am not being open at all about my will Because it is highly likely I will change my mind. ....
Even though both attorneys we have consulted about [Wills] suggest we talk about it with our [heirs], I will not do that because it sets up expectations that likely will not occur.
I usually do recommend transparency to my own estate planning clients. In your case, you are not wrong to keep things under wraps because you are not fully "set" in your plans. I agree that it would be worse to be open about a plan and then NOT disclose any changes to the plan. I've been involved in estate and trust litigation based on that very situation. ("Daddy promised me the family property out in the country and his old Will said I'd get it, and I don't care that his final estate plan that was made with sound mind clearly says different, so I'm going to sue you and I'd rather the attorneys get more than you do over this multi-year litigation because I am sure that Daddy loved me more, so there!")
Post by: Rubic on October 22, 2019, 03:00:41 PM
I usually do recommend transparency to my own estate planning clients.
+1
If someone's paying you for your advice, they ought to at least consider it. (No refection on iris lily, who has reasons to avoid disclosure.)
My brother and I -- two out of the 4 siblings -- will share executor duties for our parents, and everyone is aware that the inheritance will be distributed equally.
Post by: Imma on October 23, 2019, 12:47:11 AM
I agree that openness is important and people have been open to us about their wills which I really appreciate, but I don't want to give anyone any expectations that may not come true.
Post by: TVRodriguez on October 23, 2019, 08:52:55 AM
The difficult issue is that many people will never fully be 'set' in their estate plans. I can imagine that if you have children and none of them is an addict or something you want to leave everything to them equally but as a childless person, I expect to keep changing my will every 5-10 years for the rest of my life, since friends and relatives may change or pass away.
I agree that openness is important and people have been open to us about their wills which I really appreciate, but I don't want to give anyone any expectations that may not come true.
Transparency does not mean telling someone exactly what they are getting and then requiring yourself never to change your plan. Transparency can mean telling a loved one, "We are thinking of leaving you something if we have any sort of estate when we die, but we don't know how much it will be, if anything. And we might leave more to charity instead of people, since charitable giving is really important to us, and we know that you and our other loved ones are capable of supporting yourselves. But we want you to know that you are one of the people who we care about enough to consider naming as a beneficiary. Just don't count on it!"
Post by: SwordGuy on October 23, 2019, 11:07:37 AM
He knows that a large portion of the estate is to be set up in a special needs trust with a life interest for our mentally handicapped daughter (his sister). They understand that. When our daughter passes away the trust would revert to him.
We have a few bequests after that and the rest will go to him.
We let him know never to count on receiving anything for his retirement plans because stuff happens. He'll likely get a substantial amount but there's never a guarantee. One or two bad injuries or lingering illnesses and that money could get sucked away for medical care.
Post by: saguaro on October 23, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
We let him know never to count on receiving anything for his retirement plans because stuff happens. He'll likely get a substantial amount but there's never a guarantee. One or two bad injuries or lingering illnesses and that money could get sucked away for medical care.
Yep, there is never a guarantee. Unfortunately MIL and FIL, who inherited considerable estates from both of their parents, liked to talk about what DH, SIL and grandkids, will get for their "inheritance". Fortunately, DH, knowing his folks will spend every dime they get, did not depend on this but SIL and granddaughter apparently have counted on getting what is a dwindling estate. The house in FL that was going to go to SIL? They had to sell it. Their current house that was going to DH? Probably will move out of it fairly soon. Both FIL and MIL are pushing 90, and their days of independence are ending fast. They are now considering going into assisted living after FIL sustained a couple of falls, and MIL just needs more help as time goes on. From what we hear, SIL is panicking because she didn't expect her parents to live this long, and her DH is still working at nearly age 69 to make up for spending down his retirement account earlier.
Post by: AMandM on October 24, 2019, 12:13:14 PM
From what we hear, SIL is panicking because she didn't expect her parents to live this long, and her DH is still working at nearly age 69 to make up for spending down his retirement account earlier.
I am so grateful that I can be happy my father is living a long time.
Post by: Just Joe on October 24, 2019, 03:43:00 PM
We let him know never to count on receiving anything for his retirement plans because stuff happens. He'll likely get a substantial amount but there's never a guarantee. One or two bad injuries or lingering illnesses and that money could get sucked away for medical care.
Good on you. I have a parent who told me never to worry about retirement b/c inheritance. Terrible advice. They may or may not have enough money to see them through this life. That last chapter can be very expensive.
Don't know if my parent was testing their powers and influence over me that day or they were just blind to the true costs of old age.
I was quite naive at the time and thought to myself - "OH GOODY!" - and fortunately the reality of the situation dawned on me weeks later and I continued to save-save-save. I'm a slow learner... ;)
Post by: saguaro on October 24, 2019, 03:46:59 PM
From what we hear, SIL is panicking because she didn't expect her parents to live this long, and her DH is still working at nearly age 69 to make up for spending down his retirement account earlier.
I am so grateful that I can be happy my father is living a long time.
My Dad passed at 90 and my Mom a couple of years before but my attitude was that if they could live a good life as long as possible then great. Their money was there to attend to their needs and if we had to run through it to take care of them, then that is what we had to do. While they did leave a house and some money, I see it as a bonus and I never, no pun intended, banked on it. Now getting sister to finally pull the trigger on selling their house is a whole other issue......
Post by: jpompo on November 01, 2019, 01:54:35 PM
My wife found a ring that my mom inherited from her grandmother in a drawer and said to my aunt, is this your grandmother's ring? At that point my aunt took it and pocketed it, when questioned she said it was for safe keeping, an insured ring that has been in the same spot for over a decade. This is not the hope diamond, it's probably worth $15k. The plot thickens when we find out that one of my mom's last wishes was for that ring to be used in a brooch for cancer survivors. We tell my aunt this and ask for the ring back and she flatly says, "no." I continue to ask for it back and she starts playing the victim, not understanding my "obsession." My father continues to feel immense guilt by not being able to satisfy one of my mom's final wishes.
She wore the ring to my mom's funeral, I didn't say a word to her that day and never will again. Things man, they make people weird.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 01, 2019, 01:58:50 PM
My mom died just over a year ago, and while there was no inheritance since my father is still living there was nevertheless plenty of drama. My mother had advanced stage cancer so it was no surprise that she was in her final days, my aunt, her sister, was at my parents house helping to take care of a few things in preparation for the funeral and to spend the last days with her sister. Well, little did any of us realize that those last days would also involve taking jewelry from my mother.I would report the theft. People with cancer need all the help they can get, and $15k is a lot of help for someone.
My wife found a ring that my mom inherited from her grandmother in a drawer and said to my aunt, is this your grandmother's ring? At that point my aunt took it and pocketed it, when questioned she said it was for safe keeping, an insured ring that has been in the same spot for over a decade. This is not the hope diamond, it's probably worth $15k. The plot thickens when we find out that one of my mom's last wishes was for that ring to be used in a brooch for cancer survivors. We tell my aunt this and ask for the ring back and she flatly says, "no." I continue to ask for it back and she starts playing the victim, not understanding my "obsession." My father continues to feel immense guilt by not being able to satisfy one of my mom's final wishes.
She wore the ring to my mom's funeral, I didn't say a word to her that day and never will again. Things man, they make people weird.
You already aren't going to talk to her again, so burning that bridge isn't a downside. Any relative who would countenance stealing from family without repercussions is a relative that's good to get out of your life.
Maybe I'm just being a hardass, but people who would steal from family like that are shit and should be treated like shit.
Post by: talltexan on November 01, 2019, 02:16:26 PM
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Post by: Villanelle on November 01, 2019, 02:31:03 PM
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Even if her wishes for cancer survivors weren't know, its still theft. Nothing was left to the aunt so unless the aunt believes the ring didn't rightfully belong to the mom in the first place, it is theft whether the mom wanted it to be used for cancer support, to be given to her own child, or to be buried with her so that all value was lost.
If the mom rightfully owned the ring, that's the only thing that mattered.
Since the relationship with the aunt is already fractured to the point of being broken, I'd likely play hardball and tell her that while I'm glad she's had time to enjoy the ring, it's time to return what she removed from your mother's things and if you don't have the ring by November 15th, you are going to report the theft to your insurance company and the police. Actually, first I'd send a very polite and somewhat meek email asking if she would please return your mother's ring that she took from the drawer. That would be in the hopes that she would admit in writing to having taken it. Then I'd make the threat.
Not because I would desperately want the ring back, but because stealing from a dead person is pretty fucked up.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 01, 2019, 02:33:38 PM
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Even if her wishes for cancer survivors weren't know, its still theft. Nothing was left to the aunt so unless the aunt believes the ring didn't rightfully belong to the mom in the first place, it is theft whether the mom wanted it to be used for cancer support, to be given to her own child, or to be buried with her so that all value was lost.
If the mom rightfully owned the ring, that's the only thing that mattered.
Since the relationship with the aunt is already fractured to the point of being broken, I'd likely play hardball and tell her that while I'm glad she's had time to enjoy the ring, it's time to return what she removed from your mother's things and if you don't have the ring by November 15th, you are going to report the theft to your insurance company and the police. Actually, first I'd send a very polite and somewhat meek email asking if she would please return your mother's ring that she took from the drawer. That would be in the hopes that she would admit in writing to having taken it. Then I'd make the threat.
Not because I would desperately want the ring back, but because stealing from a dead person is pretty fucked up.
I concur. Very good advice if you want the ring back.
Post by: jpompo on November 01, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Sure.
My great-grandmother had two rings, roughly equal in value. When she passed away they went to my grandmother. When she passed away they were to be split among my grandmothers two children, my mom and my aunt. My mom gave my aunt first choice since my mother wasn't really into jewelry. My grandmother died a decade ago, none of this had ever been contested. My dad and I both recognize it's theft, we spoke with our attorney about it, he said he would draft a demand letter threatening to go to the authorities. With it being a smaller amount we both decided that letting her live with guilt (and making sure to tell her kids she's a thief) was all we were willing to do.
After my mother received the news that her cancer had returned and spread to her lungs and brain she began to plan her own demise. Nothing was written down, but obviously that doesn't matter because it's theft. I hadn't thought about it for awhile but since she died on October 26th, it came to my mind again.
The positive thing that came out of it was my father tightened up his estate planning and it actually brought him and me closer.
Post by: Gremlin on November 01, 2019, 09:26:42 PM
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Even if her wishes for cancer survivors weren't know, its still theft. Nothing was left to the aunt so unless the aunt believes the ring didn't rightfully belong to the mom in the first place, it is theft whether the mom wanted it to be used for cancer support, to be given to her own child, or to be buried with her so that all value was lost.
If the mom rightfully owned the ring, that's the only thing that mattered.
Since the relationship with the aunt is already fractured to the point of being broken, I'd likely play hardball and tell her that while I'm glad she's had time to enjoy the ring, it's time to return what she removed from your mother's things and if you don't have the ring by November 15th, you are going to report the theft to your insurance company and the police. Actually, first I'd send a very polite and somewhat meek email asking if she would please return your mother's ring that she took from the drawer. That would be in the hopes that she would admit in writing to having taken it. Then I'd make the threat.
Not because I would desperately want the ring back, but because stealing from a dead person is pretty fucked up.
Re bolded: Whether the aunt believes it or not is irrelevant. It's likely she's using some internal justification that she's entitled to it. Theft is theft.
Post by: Imma on November 02, 2019, 05:09:48 AM
Regardless of the value, if she wanted a certain token to remember your mother, she should have asked, even if it had no value at all. Once she learned of your mother's last wishes with the ring, she could have offered a donation to charity in return for the ring - and you could still have said no. She had honest options to get the ring and she didn't even try. Stealing from her late sister's estate was her very first choice.
Post by: Dicey on November 02, 2019, 06:58:28 AM
I'm sorry about the loss of your mom...and your aunt.I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Sure.
My great-grandmother had two rings, roughly equal in value. When she passed away they went to my grandmother. When she passed away they were to be split among my grandmothers two children, my mom and my aunt. My mom gave my aunt first choice since my mother wasn't really into jewelry. My grandmother died a decade ago, none of this had ever been contested. My dad and I both recognize it's theft, we spoke with our attorney about it, he said he would draft a demand letter threatening to go to the authorities. With it being a smaller amount we both decided that letting her live with guilt (and making sure to tell her kids she's a thief) was all we were willing to do.
After my mother received the news that her cancer had returned and spread to her lungs and brain she began to plan her own demise. Nothing was written down, but obviously that doesn't matter because it's theft. I hadn't thought about it for awhile but since she died on October 26th, it came to my mind again.
The positive thing that came out of it was my father tightened up his estate planning and it actually brought him and me closer.
The bolded above is the biggest takeaway. Your aunt certainly did wrong, but in the process, you won. I'd pull a Frozen and "Let It Go". Telling your Dad how much you appreciate what's happened since the incident might help assuage his guilt.
While your mother's stated intentions were noble, they were also somewhat impractical. Her generous gift most likely would have minimal impact for another person fighting cancer (says someone who has). Who would have paid to turn the ring into a broach? Who would have been charged with managing the "gift" of the broach? What would have prevented the recipient from selling it to cover a tiny portion of their medical expenses? This does not excuse your aunt's actions, but according to your Mom's wishes, the ring was leaving your immediate family one way or another. Maybe an outright gift to a Breast Cancer Charity of your Dad's choice might be another option to ease his mind over this sad situation.
In my own family, something kind of similar happened with a sibling. I was co-executor and co-trustee, and knew what should have happened, but my "co-" and our other siblings pressed for a different, and incorrect, interpretation, which wrongly benefitted said sibling, who kept something of similar value. I caved to their intense pressure. Unbeknownst to them, my net worth is significantly higher than my parents, and my sibs were all named equal beneficiaries of my estate. I decided to "Let it go" as far as my parent's estate was concerned, but I also changed my will. In the end, forcing me to do the wrong thing will cost them far more than honoring my parent's wishes (and the law) would have. That sounds bitter, but it isn't really. They will still be remembered, but now, so will some additional charities. This allows me to "forget" their behavior at a really stressful time in all of our lives.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 02, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
Post by: Villanelle on November 02, 2019, 09:56:27 AM
I'd like to know more of the backstory about this ring.
How was it assigned by the grandmother to the deceased?
How did the deceased make her wishes about the brooch for cancer survivors known?
Even if her wishes for cancer survivors weren't know, its still theft. Nothing was left to the aunt so unless the aunt believes the ring didn't rightfully belong to the mom in the first place, it is theft whether the mom wanted it to be used for cancer support, to be given to her own child, or to be buried with her so that all value was lost.
If the mom rightfully owned the ring, that's the only thing that mattered.
Since the relationship with the aunt is already fractured to the point of being broken, I'd likely play hardball and tell her that while I'm glad she's had time to enjoy the ring, it's time to return what she removed from your mother's things and if you don't have the ring by November 15th, you are going to report the theft to your insurance company and the police. Actually, first I'd send a very polite and somewhat meek email asking if she would please return your mother's ring that she took from the drawer. That would be in the hopes that she would admit in writing to having taken it. Then I'd make the threat.
Not because I would desperately want the ring back, but because stealing from a dead person is pretty fucked up.
Re bolded: Whether the aunt believes it or not is irrelevant. It's likely she's using some internal justification that she's entitled to it. Theft is theft.
True. I was referring to the fact that if she believes that, then the aunt is free to pursue that legally. "Because I want it" isn't a legal strategy. "Because legally it was never hers to give, and rightfully belonged to me" is.
Post by: Chris Pascale on November 16, 2019, 09:20:03 PM
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-frugal-31-year-old-daughter-is-living-at-home-while-she-pays-off-her-student-loan-isnt-that-the-equivalent-of-a-2500-monthly-gift-2019-11-06?mod=the-moneyist
Sounds like someone is counting up this stuff way before mom and dad are dead.
Post by: ender on November 17, 2019, 08:02:11 AM
Family gave a $25k gift to a sibling, so now wants to consider the daughter living in their home at a rate of $2500/month "to make it fair."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-frugal-31-year-old-daughter-is-living-at-home-while-she-pays-off-her-student-loan-isnt-that-the-equivalent-of-a-2500-monthly-gift-2019-11-06?mod=the-moneyist
Sounds like someone is counting up this stuff way before mom and dad are dead.
Easy solution is for the parents to just charge rent then.
Post by: TomTX on November 17, 2019, 08:14:02 AM
Family gave a $25k gift to a sibling, so now wants to consider the daughter living in their home at a rate of $2500/month "to make it fair."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-frugal-31-year-old-daughter-is-living-at-home-while-she-pays-off-her-student-loan-isnt-that-the-equivalent-of-a-2500-monthly-gift-2019-11-06?mod=the-moneyist
Sounds like someone is counting up this stuff way before mom and dad are dead.
Easy solution is for the parents to just charge rent then.
$2500/month sounds more like market rate for an entire house, not a bedroom and common area access.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on November 21, 2019, 06:44:27 PM
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
Post by: Dicey on November 21, 2019, 07:05:03 PM
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.Wow!
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 21, 2019, 07:30:28 PM
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
Yeah, I would want to see the registered will. Just in case your ex brow-beat your SIL and family into cheating your son out of more.
And paying a lawyer to do it means you don't have to put up with their lies in person, if that's what happens. Nor, necessarily, do you need to put up with them in person even if they are telling the truth, either. :)
Post by: saguaro on November 22, 2019, 08:11:39 AM
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
Yeah, I would want to see the registered will. Just in case your ex brow-beat your SIL and family into cheating your son out of more.
And paying a lawyer to do it means you don't have to put up with their lies in person, if that's what happens. Nor, necessarily, do you need to put up with them in person even if they are telling the truth, either. :)
Chiming in because I am dealing with an estate situation where my youngest sister and I finally had to hire an attorney to represent our interests. The whole "grateful for whatever you get" attitude, yep, know all about that.
You want a copy of the will, it's crucial you see exactly what's in the legal document versus what your SIL is telling you. She is expecting you to take her word for it. Don't.
By having your attorney handle matters, in addition to not having to deal with them (and their lies) directly, it cuts through the BS by getting to the facts. A competent attorney will have no use for any excuses or family drama or any other nonsense.
The fact they freaked out when you mentioned contacting your attorney is very telling.
Post by: former player on November 22, 2019, 08:29:02 AM
Post by: Just Joe on November 22, 2019, 09:55:50 AM
Family gave a $25k gift to a sibling, so now wants to consider the daughter living in their home at a rate of $2500/month "to make it fair."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-frugal-31-year-old-daughter-is-living-at-home-while-she-pays-off-her-student-loan-isnt-that-the-equivalent-of-a-2500-monthly-gift-2019-11-06?mod=the-moneyist
Sounds like someone is counting up this stuff way before mom and dad are dead.
Easy solution is for the parents to just charge rent then.
$2500/month sounds more like market rate for an entire house, not a bedroom and common area access.
And a large, comfortable home with acreage in flyover country.
Post by: Zoot on November 22, 2019, 10:42:07 AM
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
Allow me to echo the others' statements that you are absolutely doing the right thing by involving your attorney. Please let us know how it goes--I'm very curious to know if your Spidey Senses are right about them trying to pull a fast one on you.
Post by: honeybbq on November 22, 2019, 10:48:13 AM
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
Allow me to echo the others' statements that you are absolutely doing the right thing by involving your attorney. Please let us know how it goes--I'm very curious to know if your Spidey Senses are right about them trying to pull a fast one on you.
I can't agree with the recommendations more. Consider it fiduciary responsibility to your son. Get the lawyer. Pay him or her to review ALL the estate/will documents.
Post by: AMandM on November 23, 2019, 03:38:11 PM
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
Allow me to echo the others' statements that you are absolutely doing the right thing by involving your attorney. Please let us know how it goes--I'm very curious to know if your Spidey Senses are right about them trying to pull a fast one on you.
While I agree with getting a lawyer to handle this, I'm curious as to why you are involved at all in an inheritance to your adult son.
Post by: K-ice on November 23, 2019, 11:00:48 PM
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
I find it a bit odd you have two kids but only one was named in the will? I’m just curious why?
Depending on the will I wouldn’t get too carried away with a full audit.
If you son was named with a gift of $50,000 be sure he gets the $50,000 and move on.
If he was to inherit a percentage than it might take a lot more work.
I’ve also heard, but I could be wrong & I’m sure it’s state dependent, but benificiaries named for just gifts & not percentage may not even have the right to see the will. In most cases the executors will share freely regardless, but it sounds like they are already being secretive.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on November 24, 2019, 03:47:17 PM
They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
Allow me to echo the others' statements that you are absolutely doing the right thing by involving your attorney. Please let us know how it goes--I'm very curious to know if your Spidey Senses are right about them trying to pull a fast one on you.
While I agree with getting a lawyer to handle this, I'm curious as to why you are involved at all in an inheritance to your adult son.
Just to clarify, both of my children were named but my daughter is disabled so I take care of all her affairs. I'm really fortunate, when I did my estate planning I set up a special needs trust for her so hopefully I can just do a trust to trust transfer. I work for 15 lawyers, and while they don't handle wills and trust currently, they've all giving me great advice. 15 years ago I would have taken whatever they were willing to give me but now I'm better educated and in a better financial position. My son's wife is extremely wealthy so while it's nice that his grandmother remembered him it's not going to change their standard of living. He's thinking a couple of nice vacations and maybe support some political candidates he backs.
I just never thought that I'd have anything to share here. Once you achieve FI it makes you feel a whole lot more powerful.
Post by: talltexan on November 25, 2019, 07:06:56 AM
My mother shared with me that her uncle (late '80's) claims to have made her the primary beneficiary, as he is estranged from his daughter.
Not enough money to really move the needle for anyone, but I'm hoping my mom doesn't roll over when the daughter inevitably challenges the will.
Post by: Goldielocks on November 27, 2019, 12:39:55 PM
But it happens.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 27, 2019, 01:01:58 PM
I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
Having gone thru one funeral with my crazy-ass sister-in-law, I could fully understand why my wife and her two brothers might not tell their other sister about their mom's death until after the funeral. Frankly, I could understand why they would let a lawyer's letter telling her how much we was inheriting be the first she heard of it -- particularly if (hopefully) the will disinherits her if she contests it.
Life's too short to volunteer to spend time with some people.
I wouldn't suggest they not tell their sister, and I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame them if they did it either.
Post by: Goldielocks on November 27, 2019, 02:12:07 PM
I get it.... you are describing waiting 2-3 weeks to send the news (by letter). But what about NEVER telling? Just Ghosting?I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
Having gone thru one funeral with my crazy-ass sister-in-law, I could fully understand why my wife and her two brothers might not tell their other sister about their mom's death until after the funeral. Frankly, I could understand why they would let a lawyer's letter telling her how much we was inheriting be the first she heard of it -- particularly if (hopefully) the will disinherits her if she contests it.
Life's too short to volunteer to spend time with some people.
I wouldn't suggest they not tell their sister, and I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame them if they did it either.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on November 27, 2019, 05:13:51 PM
I get it.... you are describing waiting 2-3 weeks to send the news (by letter). But what about NEVER telling? Just Ghosting?I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
Having gone thru one funeral with my crazy-ass sister-in-law, I could fully understand why my wife and her two brothers might not tell their other sister about their mom's death until after the funeral. Frankly, I could understand why they would let a lawyer's letter telling her how much we was inheriting be the first she heard of it -- particularly if (hopefully) the will disinherits her if she contests it.
Life's too short to volunteer to spend time with some people.
I wouldn't suggest they not tell their sister, and I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame them if they did it either.
My ex-husband wanted to have my son be a clone of him and he wasn't so ex-husband pretty much cut off all ties about 12 years ago. I don't understand not telling my son about his grandmother who he had a relationship with.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 27, 2019, 05:22:49 PM
Yeah, that's pretty tacky.I get it.... you are describing waiting 2-3 weeks to send the news (by letter). But what about NEVER telling? Just Ghosting?I really don't understand how someone can justify not telling close, direct descendents of a death. Especially if there are fewer than 5 people total..
But it happens.
Having gone thru one funeral with my crazy-ass sister-in-law, I could fully understand why my wife and her two brothers might not tell their other sister about their mom's death until after the funeral. Frankly, I could understand why they would let a lawyer's letter telling her how much we was inheriting be the first she heard of it -- particularly if (hopefully) the will disinherits her if she contests it.
Life's too short to volunteer to spend time with some people.
I wouldn't suggest they not tell their sister, and I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't blame them if they did it either.
My ex-husband wanted to have my son be a clone of him and he wasn't so ex-husband pretty much cut off all ties about 12 years ago. I don't understand not telling my son about his grandmother who he had a relationship with.
Post by: msWNM on November 30, 2019, 01:04:55 AM
All families have ups and downs but we truly experienced pure evil in one younger brother. An absolute Narcissistic sociopath. We had joked he was the Charlie Sheen personality, but it came out it a demonic cunning plot.The worse thing was he was working with the family attorney, who had drawn up the family trust. My Dad had planned and worked very diligently on this.Todd wanted to be Trustee.No one objected because all he had to do was what my father instructed. Wrong so wrong. MY father got very ill, after a visit, my daughter and I were served with restraining orders for elder abuse. I'm a pediatric HH specialty RN, I lost my state bonding and could no longer work. my daughter was right in the middle of planning her Wedding. The older brother who worked the business until it sold and then made a success out of the Industrial complex investment. Todd moved in took his position. Todd wasn't satisfied with his portion of the LLC, so he took money from the trust deposited into my account and sent out a letter saying I was no longer in the partnership.
the attorney supported all these actions. Six days after my fathers death, he was removed from dialysis, my brothers decision. My siblings and myself received a letter stating we and our children and children's children were to be considered dead. Disinherited. This new update occurred 129 days prior to my father's death.
My brother is evil. The attorney, was an eye opener, he lied from the restraining orders, to how much the Estate was worth, to things about our life, he was an outright crook. It feels good to vent because going through the legal process was frustrating. I was told the truth doesn't matter. People lie all the time. The Judicial system, political and financial system in our country all need to be overhauled and brought down to grassroots.
The Evil bro isn't happy. The rest of the family has formed their own family units with grandchildren.
The Dirty John attorney still practices ,hopefully, he has some regrets but I doubt it.
I'm doing Ok. Feels good to vent. It seems criminal two men could do so much damage and walk away with 50 million. My brother still complains about death taxes to my mom.
Post by: RWTL on November 30, 2019, 03:19:21 AM
I'm the oldest of seven children.We were Holiday celebrating loving family. My Father was hardworking all his life and as a family, we worked the family publishing business growing up.
All families have ups and downs but we truly experienced pure evil in one younger brother. An absolute Narcissistic sociopath. We had joked he was the Charlie Sheen personality, but it came out it a demonic cunning plot.The worse thing was he was working with the family attorney, who had drawn up the family trust. My Dad had planned and worked very diligently on this.Todd wanted to be Trustee.No one objected because all he had to do was what my father instructed. Wrong so wrong. MY father got very ill, after a visit, my daughter and I were served with restraining orders for elder abuse. I'm a pediatric HH specialty RN, I lost my state bonding and could no longer work. my daughter was right in the middle of planning her Wedding. The older brother who worked the business until it sold and then made a success out of the Industrial complex investment. Todd moved in took his position. Todd wasn't satisfied with his portion of the LLC, so he took money from the trust deposited into my account and sent out a letter saying I was no longer in the partnership.
the attorney supported all these actions. Six days after my fathers death, he was removed from dialysis, my brothers decision. My siblings and myself received a letter stating we and our children and children's children were to be considered dead. Disinherited. This new update occurred 129 days prior to my father's death.
My brother is evil. The attorney, was an eye opener, he lied from the restraining orders, to how much the Estate was worth, to things about our life, he was an outright crook. It feels good to vent because going through the legal process was frustrating. I was told the truth doesn't matter. People lie all the time. The Judicial system, political and financial system in our country all need to be overhauled and brought down to grassroots.
The Evil bro isn't happy. The rest of the family has formed their own family units with grandchildren.
The Dirty John attorney still practices ,hopefully, he has some regrets but I doubt it.
I'm doing Ok. Feels good to vent. It seems criminal two men could do so much damage and walk away with 50 million. My brother still complains about death taxes to my mom.
Do you have your own attorney? It's a bit hard to follow, but sounds devastating.
Post by: trashtalk on November 30, 2019, 07:04:28 AM
I'm the oldest of seven children.We were Holiday celebrating loving family. My Father was hardworking all his life and as a family, we worked the family publishing business growing up.
All families have ups and downs but we truly experienced pure evil in one younger brother. An absolute Narcissistic sociopath. We had joked he was the Charlie Sheen personality, but it came out it a demonic cunning plot.The worse thing was he was working with the family attorney, who had drawn up the family trust. My Dad had planned and worked very diligently on this.Todd wanted to be Trustee.No one objected because all he had to do was what my father instructed. Wrong so wrong. MY father got very ill, after a visit, my daughter and I were served with restraining orders for elder abuse. I'm a pediatric HH specialty RN, I lost my state bonding and could no longer work. my daughter was right in the middle of planning her Wedding. The older brother who worked the business until it sold and then made a success out of the Industrial complex investment. Todd moved in took his position. Todd wasn't satisfied with his portion of the LLC, so he took money from the trust deposited into my account and sent out a letter saying I was no longer in the partnership.
the attorney supported all these actions. Six days after my fathers death, he was removed from dialysis, my brothers decision. My siblings and myself received a letter stating we and our children and children's children were to be considered dead. Disinherited. This new update occurred 129 days prior to my father's death.
My brother is evil. The attorney, was an eye opener, he lied from the restraining orders, to how much the Estate was worth, to things about our life, he was an outright crook. It feels good to vent because going through the legal process was frustrating. I was told the truth doesn't matter. People lie all the time. The Judicial system, political and financial system in our country all need to be overhauled and brought down to grassroots.
The Evil bro isn't happy. The rest of the family has formed their own family units with grandchildren.
The Dirty John attorney still practices ,hopefully, he has some regrets but I doubt it.
I'm doing Ok. Feels good to vent. It seems criminal two men could do so much damage and walk away with 50 million. My brother still complains about death taxes to my mom.
I caught my breath as soon as I saw the word narcissist. I'm so sorry. I would recommend a therapist as much as an attorney. There are also some helpful books and websites.
I'm so so sorry.
Post by: Cb1234567 on January 19, 2020, 07:36:20 PM
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
Really ask yourself if it's worth the effort and strife to do this. What would happen if you took the stuff you wanted and looked after the truly valuable items (let's say anything over $1000) and let her pillage the rest? You would likely end up a couple thousand dollars less well-off. You will have inherited a couple thousand dollars less. (And that's if she makes off with $4000 worth of stuff, which is quite a lot when we are talking only low value items--used furnishing and keepsakes.) But you will save yourself the headache and the heartache. And the time. Why? So she doesn't get to "win" by maybe a couple thousand dollars? Yes, it's messed up that [if] she would do that. But digging in your heels over a relatively small amount of money seems awfully stubborn, and likely to cause you much unnecessary anguish. It seems to me like it would be much better to draw a healthy boundary that is somewhere a bit away from "exactly 50/50, even for knick knacks and used furniture". Protect that boundary, and let her indulge her ugliness and greed up to that line.
Do not underestimate the value of having looney toons people remove items that will otherwise need to be disposed of. At my dads house, I very sincerely encouraged my sister to take anything she might want -just in case... the more I could get her to take, the less I had to deal with.
Post by: Cb1234567 on January 19, 2020, 08:39:46 PM
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
That sounds awful. Hopefully the RVs will be long gone, and hopefully they actually put their assets into the trust and have kept it updated.
If they still have an RV, I bet there are some interesting ways to sabotage it...
Post by: Dave1442397 on January 21, 2020, 06:05:24 AM
I expect similar drama when my parents die. My sister will show up and expect to be running the show and will start to grab things. She is older and has always been a bossy bitch and is quite cray-cray. She is 2 years older than me but still likes to think of me as "little girl" (her actual remark to me when fighting) even though I am far more educated, have 30X her wealth, and have very well-scrubbed, educated young women for my daughters. Bonus, I am not a pathological liar like she is.
About 20 years ago my parents set up a living trust and told me that they have me on the trust. They said they do not have my sister on it but I have not seen the actual document. I did go down with them to sign for their safe deposit box so I can access it one day. The idea is that I can go down and begin to execute their wishes as a co-trustee and give my sister half, and they don't trust her to handle things. I will follow their wishes. I just hope they have informed her of how it is going to go but unfortunately I don't think they have dealt with that.
I will track what she takes and charge her for it out of her portion of the estate. I am sure she will want everything to be given to her kids for furnishings and keepsakes, but anything that is not just garage sale crap will be accounted for and taken from her half.
So sad to anticipate all that. I hope I can convince my parents to get rid of extra vehicles and the big motorhome before they die--those are the first items my sister will presume are going her way for her sons.
ugh, dread. I hope all of this is at least 15 years out.
That sounds awful. Hopefully the RVs will be long gone, and hopefully they actually put their assets into the trust and have kept it updated.
If they still have an RV, I bet there are some interesting ways to sabotage it...
From what I hear about RVs, sabotage is built in. It's the modern equivalent of inheriting a white elephant.
Post by: scottish on January 21, 2020, 07:51:33 PM
Post by: shelivesthedream on January 22, 2020, 02:12:07 AM
On the bright side, they put you in charge, rather than your sister.
Ugh, but now she has to be The Mean One Who Says No or just roll over and take it.
Post by: mtn on January 22, 2020, 09:17:54 AM
The original comment was about a year ago and since then I asked the folks if my sister knew she was not on the trust. They said she does not know. They said they are sure I would distribute her half equally to her when the time comes, they know I will do the right thing. They are not up for the drama of telling her now and frankly neither am I. I can be the meany later.
So again I will pray they live at least another 20 years and have sold off the big stuff by then. I am starting to think they might get rid of the massive RV well before they are gone because it is one of those Holiday Rambler jumbo jobbers that they will soon not be able to handle anyway with advancing age. Already I don't think they have taken it out in the last 3 years due to knee replacements so perhaps it will be gone within another 5 years and if not I will make the suggestion along the way.
I let them know that as far as "stuff" I expect my sister to come in and do the mad grab but that I would be reasonable and not make a huge deal about that and just account generally for it. Big stuff will be itemized out of her cash balance. They agreed that is a good approach. I agree as Cb noted above, having her kids swarm the place removing all the tchotkies and pure volume of things will be nicer than having to haul it out myself.
During that conversation I asked for a specific Pyrex bowl that I have known my whole life and so Mom has now given it to me. I let Dad know that out of the huge workshop of tools and power equipment, all I want is the hammer he built our house with back in 1972. He thought that was wonderful. I think our talk confirmed that they chose the right daughter to handle their legacy.
My unsolicited advice: If the Holiday Rambler is still around when they pass, just give it to your sister. The value of the RV will likely not make much of any impact on your net worth, and the headache won't be worth it. You'd be giving her a white elephant that she thinks she wants.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 22, 2020, 09:38:05 AM
The original comment was about a year ago and since then I asked the folks if my sister knew she was not on the trust. They said she does not know. They said they are sure I would distribute her half equally to her when the time comes, they know I will do the right thing. They are not up for the drama of telling her now and frankly neither am I. I can be the meany later.
So again I will pray they live at least another 20 years and have sold off the big stuff by then. I am starting to think they might get rid of the massive RV well before they are gone because it is one of those Holiday Rambler jumbo jobbers that they will soon not be able to handle anyway with advancing age. Already I don't think they have taken it out in the last 3 years due to knee replacements so perhaps it will be gone within another 5 years and if not I will make the suggestion along the way.
I let them know that as far as "stuff" I expect my sister to come in and do the mad grab but that I would be reasonable and not make a huge deal about that and just account generally for it. Big stuff will be itemized out of her cash balance. They agreed that is a good approach. I agree as Cb noted above, having her kids swarm the place removing all the tchotkies and pure volume of things will be nicer than having to haul it out myself.
During that conversation I asked for a specific Pyrex bowl that I have known my whole life and so Mom has now given it to me. I let Dad know that out of the huge workshop of tools and power equipment, all I want is the hammer he built our house with back in 1972. He thought that was wonderful. I think our talk confirmed that they chose the right daughter to handle their legacy.
My unsolicited advice: If the Holiday Rambler is still around when they pass, just give it to your sister. The value of the RV will likely not make much of any impact on your net worth, and the headache won't be worth it. You'd be giving her a white elephant that she thinks she wants.
That's very good advice.
So is never rewarding bad behavior.
It takes wisdom and situational knowledge to know which of these to pick from.
Post by: mtn on January 22, 2020, 09:45:45 AM
My inlaws have about 5-25 years left to live. Really no way of knowing, I would not be shocked if they both pass within 5 years and I would not be shocked if they both live another 25 years. My wife has one sibling. This sibling is 34-36 (I forget), has been unemployed for approximately 1/2 of their adult life, and delusional. Not to get political, but sibling is a Trump Supporter through and through who blames EVERYTHING on the democrats despite having been on unemployment more than anyone I know. Has lived alone away from parents for a total of roughly 3 years in two separate stints since graduating from college. Somehow despite parents paying for just about everything, sibling is in debt way past his eyeballs.
Sibling is an expert in everything, despite not knowing anything. Seriously, you could have written the book on Random Topic, and this sibling will start talking like he knows everything about it and knows exactly what the problems are with it. It is fun to start the topic of conversation on something you know you know a lot about, just to see where it goes. For example, I started it on Harry Potter one time. Sibling went on a rant about how JK Rowling fucked up her investments and ruined her reputation by not letting Disney take over the franchise and Universal Studios fucked up the rides and on and on spewing BS like you wouldn't believe. Most of it is nonsensical, the rest could make sense as a theory IF it was uttered as "I personally think that XYZ happened, and this is what the result is/will be. Obviously I don't know all of the details, but from what I can tell I'm making this conclusion". But instead sibling preaches it like gospel. Huh, you'd think if sibling was such an expert in everything she'd/he'd have started a business and be a millionaire. The most infuriating thing about it is that sibling would be the worlds best car salesperson, no joke - personable, you don't realize how full of shit they are until you've spent enough time with them, good looking, a good closer... but they're so image conscious that they think being a car salesperson is below them.
Anyways, after that letting off steam... my in-laws to my knowledge have no will. Likely will not be necessary as I anticipate that medical care will eat through their entire estate, whatever there is of it. But my FIL had mentioned that he was going to leave the house and the boat and the cars 50/50 to my wife and her sibling. I said "Do not do that, you don't want to leave anything but cash to wife and sibling." Hopefully he'll have listened. The other thing? My wife NEEDS to be the executor of the estate. Sibling-in-law would mess it up. Unintentionally (he legitimately is a good person, and generous), but still does not have the aptitude to do it. If my wife isn't, I'm sure that Sibling-in-law will end up with everything and blow it all and somehow blame it on my wife (despite being a good person, sibling is an idiot). Frankly, it should be me as I can balance a check book, but I'm not having that argument.
I anticipate that once one of them dies, the other will need to be in an assisted living facility. What that means for my sibling-in-law who hasn't paid rent in years, I don't know. But we're not going to bail sibling out. Can't do it. Not our circus, not our monkeys. Happy to help out. Happy to help someone stand up. Not going to let them live an extravagant lifestyle though.
Compare this to my parents... They've got everything set up, probably will live for another 10-35 years, have named me the executor for financial stuff and sibling 1 the executor for health-related stuff, with sibling 2 the first backup for both. Dad has showed me all of his accounts, all of moms accounts, and the steps to take when it is necessary. They've been consolidating accounts to where it will be as easy as possible, the only potential question is their vacation property which I've recommended they sell before they pass - that decision will be many years down the road though.
Post by: mtn on January 22, 2020, 09:49:59 AM
The original comment was about a year ago and since then I asked the folks if my sister knew she was not on the trust. They said she does not know. They said they are sure I would distribute her half equally to her when the time comes, they know I will do the right thing. They are not up for the drama of telling her now and frankly neither am I. I can be the meany later.
So again I will pray they live at least another 20 years and have sold off the big stuff by then. I am starting to think they might get rid of the massive RV well before they are gone because it is one of those Holiday Rambler jumbo jobbers that they will soon not be able to handle anyway with advancing age. Already I don't think they have taken it out in the last 3 years due to knee replacements so perhaps it will be gone within another 5 years and if not I will make the suggestion along the way.
I let them know that as far as "stuff" I expect my sister to come in and do the mad grab but that I would be reasonable and not make a huge deal about that and just account generally for it. Big stuff will be itemized out of her cash balance. They agreed that is a good approach. I agree as Cb noted above, having her kids swarm the place removing all the tchotkies and pure volume of things will be nicer than having to haul it out myself.
During that conversation I asked for a specific Pyrex bowl that I have known my whole life and so Mom has now given it to me. I let Dad know that out of the huge workshop of tools and power equipment, all I want is the hammer he built our house with back in 1972. He thought that was wonderful. I think our talk confirmed that they chose the right daughter to handle their legacy.
My unsolicited advice: If the Holiday Rambler is still around when they pass, just give it to your sister. The value of the RV will likely not make much of any impact on your net worth, and the headache won't be worth it. You'd be giving her a white elephant that she thinks she wants.
That's very good advice.
So is never rewarding bad behavior.
It takes wisdom and situational knowledge to know which of these to pick from.
I agree, but you have to ask yourself if rewarding this bad behavior would change anything. Most likely the only thing that it is changing is reducing Miss Nancy's inheritance by about $5k to $100k, most likely it would be reducing it about $35k, but also reducing a gigantic headache in the form of a rapidly depreciating asset (liability?) that she does NOT want anything to do with, but sister does. In the grand scheme, that $35k probably is not worth fighting over. Especially if she gets ahead of it and says "Hey Sis, you wanted the RV, right? I don't want anything to do with it, lets add that to your inheritance and we won't worry about it any further". Buys goodwill when going forward with the rest of the headaches.
Post by: markbike528CBX on January 22, 2020, 10:31:32 AM
The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.I would suggest a Plan to let the sister have it (at future current trade-in value). However, put up a token resistance so she thinks she's "gotten something over" on you. You can then be gracious.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Post by: Dicey on January 22, 2020, 11:24:57 AM
As is often the case in families of any size, there is a Black Sheep. In our case a sister, aka BSS. She has tortured our brother in this estate process, so all communication is now through me. She is canny and manipulative, so I keep contact to an absolute minimum.
I created a card with a picture of our parents, wrote a final note as Co-E/Co-T, enclosed the check, and addressed the envelopes. Brother suspected BSS had moved, so last Friday, I texted her to confirm her address. She replied that the address I have is wrong, but refused to provide a new one. She demanded to know why. I didn't bite, just said I needed it to send some estate stuff to everyone and was trying to get it in the mail that day. No answer. Another text. No answer. So, fuck her, I mailed out everyone else's check and left her unaddressed envelope on my desk. I figured when she heard about the check from someone else, she'd respond. Nope. I called my brother to see if he'd received his check. I explained what was going on with BSS and he offered to ask her again via text. She responded to him and he forwarded a new address. I sent her card + check out the next day. Ironic that the one who "needs" it the most, got hers last.
Last night, DH and I were chatting. He wondered if she had given her real address. I wondered why it mattered...
The last of the entrusted money was in a bank with no branches in my brother's state. Luckily, there is a branch in my city, so I offered to complete the task. In order to close the account and not worry about fees or interest generating if someone didn't cash it promptly (see bracketed comment above), the banker suggested issuing individual Cashier's Checks, which is what I did. I didn't give it another thought, as it was only $1k per person...
DH pointed out that it's a lot easier to forge a Cashier's Check, and that's exactly what I had mailed to an address that may or may not be where BSS actually lives. Oh, well.
It is finally done. What a fucking relief.
Post by: iris lily on January 22, 2020, 11:40:01 AM
The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
Post by: Dicey on January 22, 2020, 11:49:49 AM
+1. I love "boo fucking hoo" and am looking forward to appropriating it, with MNP's permission.The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
Post by: Villanelle on January 22, 2020, 11:53:21 AM
The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
I agree. It's not worth it for a $12 used pot set or even, IMO, a $100 box of tools. But for a $50,000? They way I'd likely handle that with a reasonable sibling is to research and if I thought I (the estate) could truly walk away with $50,000 in hand, I'd say that for $45,000 toward her share of the estate she could have it if she wanted it, to save the work of doing the sale. Or I'd get quotes, if it wasn't too much of a pain, for used RV dealers and then knock a bit off that. She could take it or leave it.
But she would have to get it transferred into her name quickly (say, 30 days max).
And it's probably what I'd do with an unreasonable sister as well. Saving myself the headache as the executor would be worth something. But not worth giving away a $50,000 asset.
Post by: bluebelle on January 22, 2020, 11:59:05 AM
I don't have a black sheep sibling, so I don't have hard feelings yet....and it's none of my business, but does she have any valid reason to be hurt? was the estate not divided evenly?The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on January 22, 2020, 12:31:39 PM
+1. I love "boo fucking hoo" and am looking forward to appropriating it, with MNP's permission.If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
For sure! Feels good to say, doesn't it.
Post by: saguaro on January 22, 2020, 01:04:57 PM
+1. I love "boo fucking hoo" and am looking forward to appropriating it, with MNP's permission.If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
For sure! Feels good to say, doesn't it.
I am expecting to say it when I close on my parents' home next week (I am a Special Trustee, appointed to the task of selling my parents' home) and send the proceeds statement to my sister who is The Executor Who Dragged Everything Out. She delegated sole and absolute discretion to me to sell the house, so while I have kept her in the loop regarding basic information regarding the sale (price, process, dates) I have not gone into the nitty gritty details at every turn. I expect to get a grilling over the financial details and how "we could have made more money" and how hurt she is that I didn't, in that ever repeating phrase she loves to use, "didn't do enough".
Post by: saguaro on January 22, 2020, 03:27:16 PM
She didn't do any cleaning up of the cars, boat, or house, nor held the garage sale to liquidate the small stuff, nor did she do the maintenance and yard care all summer to keep the house in show-ready shape, but she was very willing to sit on her ample ass and declare that her brother had settled for far too little for every item. Every item, every time, argued ad nauseam about what he should have done instead. Her best move was to act like she was going to withhold her signature from the title transfer items, playing a power move with passive aggressive glee. It was truly a horrible time.
Executor sister, who has worked on the estate and keeping up the house but is stalling every chance she gets, has constantly complained throughout the whole process about needing help from us only to get it and complain about the results, second guessing to the nth degree afterward. She delegated getting rid of my parents' timeshare to my youngest sister, who got it done only to complain about how long it took and what sister should have done instead. She delegated to me the task of getting rid of most of my parents' books to a bookseller, getting some money for them only to complain how disappointed she was in the amount of money we got and we should have done something else. She complained about the estate sale people that they didn't do enough to sell everything, how much we got, etc. It's been a constant refrain from her. It's like all the help we have given (and I won't go into the many times we have offered to do more, only for those offers to be either refused or ignored) and she negates the whole effort with her second guessing and complaining.
The only good thing here is that I am the designated seller for the house, with sole authority and discreation, so she doesn't get to sign anything. But I have to tread very carefully in getting information from her necessary for the sale and avoid the intensive questioning, arguments and second guessing everything.
Post by: Dicey on January 22, 2020, 03:42:02 PM
Take my brother's wise advice, people!
Post by: TVRodriguez on January 22, 2020, 03:59:27 PM
OMG, I was talking to my brother this morning. He does not follow this forum. He said, "Whatever you do, never, ever name more than one person to be your Executor or Trustee. Sure, have a successor, but never a Co-Anything." My parents named my sisters for Medical and my brother and me for Financial. My sisters are night and day. One's a spendthrift (aka BSS above) and the other has frugal chops. There was so much conflict! I could go on for pages, but I don't want to relive it.
Take my brother's wise advice, people!
Your brother is indeed wise.
I worked on a trust litigation once where there were five, count them, five co-trustees. Three of them were also beneficiaries. Any wonder why it ended up in litigation?
I have seen co-trustees work well together, but needing only one signature is definitely easier.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 22, 2020, 04:15:32 PM
Post by: iris lily on January 22, 2020, 04:22:00 PM
OMG, I was talking to my brother this morning. He does not follow this forum. He said, "Whatever you do, never, ever name more than one person to be your Executor or Trustee. Sure, have a successor, but never a Co-Anything." My parents named my sisters for Medical and my brother and me for Financial. My sisters are night and day. One's a spendthrift (aka BSS above) and the other has frugal chops. There was so much conflict! I could go on for pages, but I don't want to relive it.
Take my brother's wise advice, people!
We named two people as executors BUT they each can act independently. So, if one wants to sell our house for whatever money, he can do it! We did this because we didn’t want each to have to check with the other on small decisions.
All have common sense.
But that said, it is certainly possible that one of them drops out of the role of executor, and that would be fine too if there is too much friction.
Post by: iris lily on January 22, 2020, 04:53:11 PM
I don't have a black sheep sibling, so I don't have hard feelings yet....and it's none of my business, but does she have any valid reason to be hurt? was the estate not divided evenly?The RV is worth about 50K right now, it is the luxury bus version. If everything was set in motion now it would never be simply handed over to my sister like some dusty couch just to avoid expected drama.
She can have it but $50K is coming off her side, maybe I would allow for a little grace and say less than that since I would have avoided the hassle of disposing of it.
This is no drama at all and I don't understand why the default is to look the other way. Accounting for it makes total sense. If she gets her feelings hurt then boo fucking hoo.
This is not about what impact it has to my net worth, it is about dividing things roughly equally to abide by their wishes.
If the thing is still sitting there in 20 years I would probably see it differently but right now it is their 2nd largest physical asset after their home.
Yesterday DH received an email from his “black sheep” sister concerning her hurt feelings about distribution of their dad’s estate. I think I will tell him to respond to her “ boo fucking hoo.”
Haha.
If you don’t have a black sheep sibling, you probably ARE the black sheep sib. Haha!
But about DH’s sis: yes she has some room to complain However her biggest complaint is about items and money which were disbursed by her father before he died because THEY WERE HIS TO DISPOSE OF AS HE WISHED!
She thinks everything in the family trust is to be divided evenly among she and her siblings. Sure, now that their dad is dead that happens.
So complaining to her siblings is silly because they didn’t give away the stuff OR the money.
She could legitimately complain about some items Totaling under $1,000
, but that against a multi-million estate is petty.
Post by: frugalecon on January 22, 2020, 05:41:52 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on January 22, 2020, 06:31:02 PM
I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html (https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html)
I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on January 22, 2020, 10:06:15 PM
OMG, I was talking to my brother this morning. He does not follow this forum. He said, "Whatever you do, never, ever name more than one person to be your Executor or Trustee. Sure, have a successor, but never a Co-Anything." My parents named my sisters for Medical and my brother and me for Financial. My sisters are night and day. One's a spendthrift (aka BSS above) and the other has frugal chops. There was so much conflict! I could go on for pages, but I don't want to relive it.
Take my brother's wise advice, people!
Ditto on that!
Post by: Villanelle on January 23, 2020, 11:41:28 AM
My parents have informed my sister and me that she is their executor. When they told me that, I felt relieved for myself and a little bit of sympathy for her. It's a shit job; why would I want it? She gets an extra 1% of the estate, which in this case will not be inconsequential money (well into 5 figures), and I still feel like I will be getting the better deal.
Post by: Captain FIRE on January 23, 2020, 12:20:43 PM
Ultimately they decided to have her primary executor, with me secondary, me primary for health care proxy (I have some academic experience here), and my brother secondary, and something else I forget that my brother was primary on and my sister secondary.
Post by: AMandM on January 23, 2020, 12:37:45 PM
It amazes me that people care that much if they aren't an executor.
Me too. My father has named my husband as executor, and none of us daughters can figure out why. I'm the only married one. Is this a weird manifestation of sexism? (Uniikely given his general attitude to women) Is it a desire not to pick one child over the others?
Anyway, DH has already told him he'll refuse and ask that my sister--the one who lives in the same country as my father, has experience with the legal system there, and is fluent in the language--be appointed instead.
Post by: Villanelle on January 23, 2020, 01:05:59 PM
It amazes me that people care that much if they aren't an executor.
Me too. My father has named my husband as executor, and none of us daughters can figure out why. I'm the only married one. Is this a weird manifestation of sexism? (Uniikely given his general attitude to women) Is it a desire not to pick one child over the others?
Anyway, DH has already told him he'll refuse and ask that my sister--the one who lives in the same country as my father, has experience with the legal system there, and is fluent in the language--be appointed instead.
My sister (only sibling) and her husband have named my husband executor. I can tell you her thinking. The obvious choices were her only sibling (me) or her husband's only sibling. I think there was some tension about that, so they avoided it by picking neither. Now, in my mind picking my husband seems about the same as picking me in this scenario, if they are worried about the appearance of favoritism, but it worked for them to break the impasse. (It's entirely possible that my sister was to kind to say this, but also thinks I'm a flake and wouldn't do a good job. You will always be to your family who you were when you were 16, apparently!) They asked husband and me if it was okay, and we agreed.
So I wonder if it is something like that? Or perhaps they want not to have to burden you with it when you are dealing with a loss that will be less emotional for your husband?
But having someone who speaks the local language and lives in-country does seem to make the most sense!
Post by: 20957 on January 24, 2020, 09:04:50 AM
The sort-of funny thing is, some years later another relative died and left the two of them her house, and the exact same thing happened. My aunt, who at this point hasn't bought or sold a house on her own in 30 years, is sure the number a random guy offered her is totally fair and the best they can get, and my dad is totally wrong and mean to say no. Of course they sold it for considerably more a few months later after updating the kitchen and painting the walls. Eyeroll. It's just frustrating because the local market is so hot, and the idea that a seller should be desperate is so absurd, and anyone who pays the least bit of attention should know that.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on January 24, 2020, 09:20:39 AM
After they died it was a hot second before their neighbors were cruising around looking for an angle, for a deal, for some gimme. One guy was really pissed off that we would not allow him to park his car in the empty garage, you know, because no one was using it. He thought we were completely unreasonable and almost as if it was his right.
Post by: Chris Pascale on January 29, 2020, 07:27:35 PM
"The nicest guy" is such a dangerous dude when it comes to that stuff. My in-laws were often suckers for the handsome young man in the nice suit and got sucked into some crap. Especially if the guy had pictures of his kids to show. Everyone was their instant best friend and they would have fallen for that sort of thing you describe. They were nice people, too nice, and it made them a mark.
After they died it was a hot second before their neighbors were cruising around looking for an angle, for a deal, for some gimme. One guy was really pissed off that we would not allow him to park his car in the empty garage, you know, because no one was using it. He thought we were completely unreasonable and almost as if it was his right.
This is why you can trust me. I'd never do anything to betray your trust. In fact, here's some earnest money of $500 for your house. Just sign right here and I'll take care of all that other complicated legal stuff.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on January 30, 2020, 09:12:42 AM
Post by: Capsu78 on February 07, 2020, 12:07:43 PM
Subject needs to read this thread.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on February 07, 2020, 04:05:51 PM
So I've read the thread and have only very little to contribute until yesterday and then the shit hit the fan.
Over 30 years ago I got divorced from an abusive, violent jerk. We've co-existed (him telling his family what a bitch I was, me putting my head down and pulling myself out of debt and not getting child support). We had 2 children, one of whom was disabled but I married a stellar stand up guy and moved on. I dealt with the once in a while visits and the excuses but it was a small price to pay for peace of mind.
3 years ago my former MIL passed away. We only found out because I google him on a regular basis to see if he's dead and her obituary came up. We're not talking about someone with a small life, if you googled her name you'd know that she was well known and respected in her field. No one bothered to tell my son or myself and we actually don't live that far away.
Yesterday my former SIL contacted my son and let him know that there was an inheritance. Her excuse for not letting him know earlier was that she couldn't find him or my daughter. There are only 8 people on the planet (trust me on this) with that last name and when I google him my address and phone number is the second hit. They want to close out the estate and think that we should move quickly but freaked out when I said that I needed to contact the lawyer who handles my financial manners.
They think we should be grateful for whatever we get and while I don't think inheritance is guaranteed they can't figure out why I seem to be ambivalent about $50,000. There's something to be said for not needing someone else's money.
So my son has gotten his inheritance and former SIL and I have been talking about how to handle disabled daughter's money. It's in a trust that SIL controls but is more than willing to let me spend it on daughter. I guess she's having a difficult time with my ex. She's executor and my former MIL left the money in trust to be paid out in a few equal payments. My jerk of an exhusband has already gone through all but the last of those not inconsiderable payments and he's bugging her for the more but it's not due till summer. She's holding firm with him but will probably wash her hands of him when it's all done. I'm just glad that the ex wasn't executor because I'm sure we'd never see a dime.
Post by: TheFrenchCat on February 08, 2020, 07:58:33 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/my-son-says-ive-amounted-to-nothing-should-i-cut-him-from-my-will/ar-BBZKLyJ?ocid=spartandhp
Subject needs to read this thread.
My brother and dad are in a similar situation, and while I've never talked to my dad about his will, I hope he doesn't cut my brother out of it. I really don't want to be stuck between what my brother considers fair and what my dad wishes. I kind of hope my dad outlives most of his money so it won't be an issue.
Post by: DaMa on February 08, 2020, 08:40:55 AM
Grandpa died ten years later. After, Grandma had a small cottage built next to my uncle's house (dad's younger brother), where she lived for a couple of years. She developed Alzheimer's and was in a nursing home until she died a couple of years later. My uncle and his family handled 100% of the care.
More than 20 years have passed and my father still complains that he didn't get anything. He has no contact with his brother and says his brother stole from him. A coin collection is frequently mentioned.
I have no problem with people cutting ties with toxic family. I have almost no contact with my father. But, I certainly don't expect anything from him. The worst thing about this story, is that my uncle and my grandparents lived frugally on very little income, so anything valuable was probably sold before my grandmother died.
Post by: Chris Pascale on February 08, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
@Chris Pascale Oh, you look really good in that suit. Such a sharp young man, such cute kids. ;P
Ha, thanks!
Post by: Siebrie on February 10, 2020, 04:27:30 AM
Post by: russianswinga on February 10, 2020, 04:06:44 PM
We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.
Post by: TVRodriguez on February 11, 2020, 05:41:28 AM
US federal estate taxes apply to amounts over the exemption amount, which is currently about $11.5 million per person (set to decrease by half in 2026), and is indexed for inflation. That includes lifetime giving, bc the estate and gift tax is a unified tax on transfers. You also get an extra $15,000 per person annually (the annual exemption amount) that's not counted towards the $11 million.We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.
As an aside, an inheritance tax is imposed on beneficiaries and depends on who is receiving the bequest, and the federal government does not have an inheritance tax. The federal estate tax comes out of the estate and depends on the size of the estate and the decedent's lifetime and testamentary gifts and bequests.
Post by: talltexan on February 11, 2020, 07:20:02 AM
That seems very small compared to $11.2 million.
Post by: UncleX on February 11, 2020, 07:53:48 AM
I'm not a tax professional, but I'm Dutch and interested. In the Netherlands (in 2019) a child pays nothing over the first €20,616, 10% over the next €124,727 and 20% over the rest. I assume the parents do not own their house debt free, leaving €175,000 euro to be devided after it is sold. Both children inherit €87,500 and have to pay €7,431 each (assuming standard circumstances).We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/nl/erfbelasting/
Receiving a gift from parent while they're still alive is also taxed and is not necessarily more beneficial.
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/nl/schenken/content/hulpmiddel-schenkbelasting
Post by: TomTX on February 11, 2020, 08:01:18 AM
Suppose you are forty years old, and your parents are sixty-eight. Your 68-year old parents can afford to give you $15,000 tax free annually. They can expect to live about another twenty years (based on demographic tables), so that's $300,000 on average that can be given without counting against their estate tax limit.
That seems very small compared to $11.2 million.
Nope. The parents can EACH give $15k per year per person. That's $30k per year.
If you happen to be married, the parents can each give each spouse $15k per year, totaling $60k per year.
If you have a married sibling, the parents can distribute $120k per year tax-free.
If there are the usual 4 grandchildren, they can distribute $240k per year tax free.
Across 20 years, that's $4.8M.
Remember that long before that 20 years is up the $11.5M estate exemption is cut in half to $5.2M.
That makes the per-year transfers nearly as much as the estate exemption. If you account for the expected increases in the per-year cap, it will be higher than the estate exemption.
Post by: Imma on February 11, 2020, 08:02:09 AM
We are talking around €300,000 gross including the house, leaving about €175,000 net to be divided between both of us. A large part will be eaten up by Dutch inheritance taxes.
I did not realize inheritance taxes in the Netherlands kicked in at that low of an amount (USA is closer to $5 million I think?)
Would it not make more sense for them to liquidate the estate earlier? For example, sell the house, gift both sisters money, then rent?
If I were facing a choice of owning a house until my last day and risking my children losing 1/2 of its value to taxes, as opposed to gifting them while I am still living, I would dispose of the house.
In NL the exemptions are about €650.000 for a spouse and €20.000 for a child or grandchild, €50000 if you inherit from your child and €2000 for anyone else.
Then (as a child) you pay the low rate of inheritance tax over the first 125.000 (10%) and 20% over the remaining money.
So, €300000/2=€150.000 per sibling
20k is tax free
125k is taxed at 10% (€12500 in taxes)
5k is taxed at 20% €1000 in taxes)
Which means both of you would inherit €150k gross and €136500 after taxes.
There are also plenty of options to hand out money to the kids without paying taxes - a once a lifetime gift of €100.000 and a €5000 gift every year.
I honestly don't think those are insane amounts of tax to pay. Only once your inheritance starts exceeding €150.000 you start to pay serious taxes. While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.
Post by: UncleX on February 11, 2020, 09:17:40 AM
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
Post by: iris lily on February 11, 2020, 09:50:21 AM
Me, I am on Team Bad Sister. Stop the madness. Sell the damn thing.
Too bad I have no vote in the matter.
Post by: Imma on February 11, 2020, 09:56:08 AM
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
Thank Napoleon! He also made sure that all children inherited equally and that it's no longer possible to disinherit your children. All a political choice to break the power of the wealthiest in society.
It's hard to put an exact number to what a 'high' inheritance is, an amount that would be disruptive in society. In the US it makes sense that the tax free allowance is much higher because certain aspects of life are so extremely expensive (health care, education). In my part of the world people don't need such high cash buffers.
We've had the option of a tax free cash gift of €100.000 for children between 18 and 40 for a few years now. I think it's no coincidence that we are going through the worst housing bubble in our country's history at the same time. I'll be 30 this year and was lucky to be able to buy through a low-income project when I was 24. I was always a saver so we had some savings for closing costs. We earn twice as much now but we probably wouldn't be able to afford our current home if we bought now.
In my group of friends there's a very visible gap between those who were able to buy, with an extremely low interest rate and usually a cash gift from the parents, and thus are able to save/invest/start a family and those who are paying half their household income in rent and can't find a way to improve their situation. Nearly every home owner in our social circle has received the €100k gift, some two, from both sets of parents. The parents get the cash from their own inheritances or by downsizing. I don't begrudge anyone their inheritance or gift and I understand why families make those choices, but I strongly suspect the 100k gift has played a large part in fuelling the current housing boom and I feel very sorry for those of my friends on the losing end. I think this wealth gap is starting to become very disruptive.
Post by: iris lily on February 11, 2020, 10:07:56 AM
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I have heard the statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.
Other factors are
1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations
We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.
She is a good kid but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.
I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.
So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.
Post by: DadJokes on February 11, 2020, 10:13:26 AM
How does that work with business ownership that is inherited? To pay the tax, would the inheritor have to sell partial ownership of the company or potentially liquidate it entirely? There's probably a simple answer that isn't coming to mind.
Sorry, not trying to make this political. I'm just curious how to approach that counter-argument.
Post by: former player on February 11, 2020, 10:18:28 AM
Post by: shelivesthedream on February 11, 2020, 10:56:29 AM
I don't have a problem with inheritance tax per se, but I am slightly troubled by the way vast differences in property values in the UK affect inheritance tax. I know a lot of people have the "family home" and would like to pass it on. A house in Northumberland could be completely exempt from inheritance tax, whereas the same house in London could be taxed so heavily the heirs would have no choice but to sell it. But that's really a general beef with the UK property market, I suppose, not inheritance tax specifically.
Post by: K-ice on February 11, 2020, 11:59:20 AM
I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.
I too feel kind of bad for these families. We visited a castle in Ireland and it really wasn't that big. I think it was just lost to the family in the past 50-70 years or so. Kind of sad really...
We have no castle but neither of my parents or inlaws have ever sold their homes bought in the 70's. My SO's parents upgraded but kept their first home as a rental. My parents will likely need to downsize before they pass but I'm not sure. The Grandparents on both sides have lived in the same place as long as I have known. Two had to be sold when they died. Not my homes, not my choice at all, no real drama but I found it hard. Another grandparent is still living in a little stone house in Europe built by a great grandparent. It's not worth a lot but I hope it's kept in the family.
Post by: talltexan on February 11, 2020, 01:04:27 PM
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I have heard the statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.
Other factors are
1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations
We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.
She is a good kid but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.
I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.
So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.
are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?
Post by: TVRodriguez on February 11, 2020, 04:48:55 PM
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I have heard the statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that....
So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.
are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?
Ha! Seriously.
"Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" is a common expression in the wealth advisory world.
US federal estate taxes have existed in some form since the earliest days of our country's history. It came and went, often enacted in wartime to pay for the war. The current tax began in 1916.
One reason for the US estate tax is to capture the otherwise untaxed gain on securities, which receive a step up in basis at death.
Post by: alienbogey on February 11, 2020, 08:51:01 PM
Post by: Cb1234567 on February 11, 2020, 09:08:15 PM
I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html (https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html)
I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.
Never underestimate the ability, motivation and singular focus of a recalcitrant co-owner to Snafu a sale, even if court-ordered. We narrowly avoided the scenario of my mom’s will giving joint ownership of her home to my sister and I. I had to pull in the Big Guns (call my aunt and uncle) to escape.
I posted a nightmare story on this forum a while ago, from when my dad died. It was cathartic :). After my sister went nutso when I was doing his estate, my mom updated her will (to give sister an annuity and to house to be sold...neither here nor there..Mom was trying to keep sister from being homeless in her old age without doing a trust.).
[*flashback*] To refresh your memories, sister was a do-nothing, no job, in her 30s, college educated, no purpose. She half-lived in dad’s house, and copious amounts of her crap resided in dad’s already full basement. Dad died unexpectedly at 70 y.o. Incidentally, he recently had cancelled his life insurance policy - not sure if that jinxed him. (He would likely find this comment hysterical, just FYI.)
Ok, sorry. Focusing: Sister proceeds to take over the house, leaving her detritus of life everywhere (envision hot pink and black bras draped over the washing machine and on a kitchen chair, dirty undies and pjs left in the hallway in front of her bedroom, her groceries and snacks and papers and books strewn across all flat surfaces in the kitchen...), all whilst my DH and I are there for dad’s final arrangements and for me to set up the estate. DH describes it as “marking her territory”. Fortunately, dad left the choice of selling the house up to his executor (unfortunately me, though I’d rather do it than have my sister do it). At least in this case, I was able to change the locks and get her out. Eventually.
After loads of work and drama, the house went on the market with a wonderful pit bull of an agent...to be under contract within just a few weeks. This was when I learned that realtors call, shall we say, lower tier home inspectors when they want a deal to go through. That gentleman must’ve been confused; he certainly failed to look up at the patched pipes in the basement, which I know from reading his inspection report.
Ok, so we’re days from closing. I’ve signed off in advance, and DH and I were packing to drive the 12 hrs or so for “the final pack out” over a weekend. Then I receive a kindly letter from sister’s attorney, ranting and just shy of ordering me to delay the closing. Um, no? I still remember the attorney’s name, including how she spells it. And yes, in case you’re wondering, sister tried to bill her attorney fees to the estate. (hahahahaha, no.) Luckily, I’d already spoken to an attorney, so I called him. He read the letter and he advised to ignore it (all gratis, because some people are saints). Also luckily, my sister is not very sophisticated or strategic or cunning, else she could’ve sabotaged the sale in other ways - damaging the house, going to the courts, showing up to harass the buyer... She’d already dragged her feet removing her belongings, things of dad’s that she wanted, and a motorcycle. It was ridiculous. [end flashback]
Fast forward to now. Several years after the nightmare of dad’s estate, my mom goes back to update her will. She wanted to get rid of the annuity and do something else for my sister. Sister has stayed at mom’s house for many months at a time, no job until recently and not consistent work (DH feels she is running out of money). Mom says priceless comments such as, “oh, she’s so helpful” “[she] loaded the car for me, and I didn’t have to do a thing” “[she] picked this or that up at the store for me” and my favorite, “ Oh,everyone here just looooooves [sister]” —> this last referring to all of my mom’s friends and neighbors. I will spare you my responses, both the one I actually said and the many others kicking around in my head for the next several weeks. Lol
Mom is at the attorney. Her plan *going in* was to update her will to give sister the house and me an equivalence in money (mom has plenty), the rest split 50/50, with a few specific bequests (as before). No annuity, no trust fund. Sister obviously likes living there and has been adopted by mom’s friends and neighbors (right?!?). Then sister could sift through mom’s things at her leisure, and sell later if she wanted. Selfishly, this saves her executor (me) from having to clean and sell the house. Her plan *going out* was to will the house to both sister and I, and her other assets to be split 50/50 (that part isn’t important). What IS important is that she was planning to force me to put my name on something with sister. We’ve never gotten along. Dad’s estate was a horror solely because of her. Mom’s friends may love the new persona, but all the old family friends neighbors I know flat out say she’s crazy, among other things. One sweet old lady (family friend) uses the word hoochie mama -to my DH, not me. Does a leopard change its spots?
Mom tells me of this brilliant update late in the evening after seeing her attorney, and tells me they’re drawing it up for her to sign. I feel my blood pressure spike and my hands start shaking. I breathe slowly through my nose and ask a few questions. The attorney-who must’ve taken stupid pills that day - told my mom it’s not that hard to force a sale in her state (TN) - it’s just a piece of paper, and the courts generally approve it without a big fuss. He was concerned (or she became concerned) that there might not be enough money, or that the will order of property disposition was the house and then money later or goodness knows what. I don’t feel those concerns are justified, but let’s just say they are legit. So, the solution is to give the house to TWO people, one of whom demonstrably went categorically apeshit last time this happened.
Fantastic. I proceed to freak out, because apparently mom forgot that I nearly called the police on my sister during dad’s estate, not to mention how nearly impossible it was to get her planted butt out of that house. And now she’s going to have her executor put both names on the DEED?! Okay? What could go wrong? In TN, two people co-owning a house means each gets full use of the house. Sister could create a trailer park on the property, bring in illegal immigrants (mom’s pet peeve) - or worse - democrats (gasp !!), or simply take over the whole place with her own living, full the garage with junk (probably from dad’s), not pay the property taxes/insurance and not upkeep anything while still living there, wander around in her underwear when a realtor tries to show the house, or it might not even be here but some good boyfriend she comes up with...all I could think was [!!!!!!!].
I called my aunt and uncle That Night, this cannot happen is my thinking and mom was in lala land. All I can think is the attorney overwhelmed my mom, and she lost her way. My aunt and uncle (who knows what they thought) saved the day and somehow steered mom away from this horrendously misguided advise from the attorney. It was in their own best interests: my aunt is the backup executor. Now the will is back to requiring the house be sold - sister will have a month to decide if she wants it. I feel that is reasonably safe - sister won’t likely be able to decide anything that fast.
So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.
Post by: mtn on February 12, 2020, 08:08:32 AM
I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html (https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html)
I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.
So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.
Oh how I hope that that is not my in-laws plans. My FIL mentioned that it was, and I quickly told him about my parents experiences with my grandparents, and not to do that just leave cash if you leave anything. Hopefully he remembered that conversation.
FWIW, my parents experiences were not contested and all siblings did and still do get together wonderfully - but the estate that left real property took about 10 years to settle (other issues on top of the real estate, but that was one of the things drawing it out).
Post by: AMandM on February 12, 2020, 11:22:33 AM
So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.
Hurray! My father just sold his house!
His entire estate is to be divided equally among us. I actually believe that my sisters and I would have been able to sell the house and split the proceeds completely amicably, but what a PITA, especially since each of lives in a jurisdiction with a different legal system.
Post by: iris lily on February 12, 2020, 12:17:53 PM
While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!
I have heard the statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.
Other factors are
1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations
We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.
She is a good kid but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.
I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.
So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.
are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?
I think former player’s post, #1992 just a couple above yours, hits all the points of Bernie and Co.’s populist message, you know, the evil “hundreds millions/ billionaires” and maligning wealth that may not have been “honestly come by” and then dissing inheritors who ” didn’t earn it”.
I couldnt have written a better paragraph myself of I trying to express that overall sentiment.
Post by: Villanelle on February 12, 2020, 09:45:06 PM
I can only hope she continues to be the reasonable, sane person I think she is, and that neither of us are greedy to the point of nickel and dime-ing one another, when the time eventually comes.
My own estate is also just set up in terms of money or % shares, which I guess also leave the house somewhat ambiguous. I would hope that means the executor can sell on the terms she see fit, for the amount she deems appropriate. But I probably need to ask that of the lawyer. So thanks for the conversation.
Post by: Imma on February 13, 2020, 02:55:06 AM
It's easy to say that inheritance money should be taxed. After all, we always tax money every time it changes hands. So why should an inheritance be any different? However...
How does that work with business ownership that is inherited? To pay the tax, would the inheritor have to sell partial ownership of the company or potentially liquidate it entirely? There's probably a simple answer that isn't coming to mind.
Sorry, not trying to make this political. I'm just curious how to approach that counter-argument.
In my country - and I expect in most countries - there is a tax exemption in case you inherit a business and the heir plans to actually take over the business.
@iris lily In my country we never used to have as many grand country houses and estates as there used to be in the UK. Most of those were broken up in the 19th century and I don't believe this is a bad thing. It wasn't like in Downton Abbey. My ancestors used to rent a bit of land from a landowner until they were able to buy. As each village usually had one or two landowners, and everyone knew eachother, the people lived in virtual slavery - if you were kicked off your property for some reason (for example, becoming Protestant/Catholic while the landowner was Catholic/Protestant) you were basically forced to leave the area all your family lived in. When the landowners were starting to sell off, people like my ancestors were able to buy a small property and live the way they wanted to.
There are some tax exemptions to keep forests and other important areas of nature together. From a historical perspective, it's of course important to save the country homes themselves. As far as I know this is generally happening where I live - since the buildings are all monuments they can't be demolished and upkeep is subsidized. I know it's hard work to keep up a house like that, but I don't think people who own a country home should have to pay less taxes because they are burdened with that home. There are plenty of ways for those homes to provide an income (from opening it up to visitors to organizing historical events to turning it into a hotel or a wedding venue). I agree with @shelivesthedream that inheritance tax is making it more difficult for 'regular' people to inherit small homes that have become worth a fortune in recent years. I don't really know how to prevent that - it's happening in my country too. But as I said, tax-free gifting from parents to children is imho making this problem worse. The average home in my country now costs 8x the average income. Tax-free gifting of large sums of money certainly plays a part in this. Homes are scarce but the prices can only go up so much. At some point no one can afford homes anymore and prices will fall. Tax-free giving distorts this process of supply and demand.
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 13, 2020, 03:15:27 AM
There's really two main problems behind owning such a thing.
#1: It's wildly unprofitable. Assume a single family owns this for now, they're upper middle class, so they don't live in Bumfuck Burgundy, or Bumfuck Yorkshire. They live in Paris or London, where many more fucks are available for consumption. If you're "lucky" there may be enough demand from visitors to have tours that can raise some money. We're not talking 30 EUR per visitor hourly tour of Versailles here, more like 5 EUR per adult kids go free, every other Tuesday and Saturday. It will not come anywhere near covering the trips to and from the LAHB. You also need to maintain relationships with local craftsmen who will incessantly come to help fix whatever is broken this month. Then you'll get a frantic call from your tour guide because some kid ran headfirst into the iron cauldron during a tour and you have to deal with that (at least it's not America so you won't get sued, but it still needs to be dealt with).
#2: Heirs. There is this thing called "indivision". It's arcane and complicated but basically means everyone who owns the thing needs to agree on everything, or nothing gets done. The LAHB may have been the home of this cultured and great ancestor of yours, but guess what, 4 generations later it's now 50 heirs, out of which you're bound to find a bunch of morons without a pot to piss in. And they have a claim to the LAHB just as much as you. They will make it impossible to do anything, either because they don't want to, can't afford to, or just don't like you because 4 generations with countless family branches in the picture you're hardly related at all and there's always resentment lurking below the surface.
tl;dr big ass buildings great to visit, terrible to own. This is why many look like shit.
Post by: Imma on February 13, 2020, 04:47:34 AM
I do know one person who's family is the heir to a large corporation, started by their great grandfather. The family owns the majority of the shares, the shares are in a trust and the board of the trust makes the decision. The purpose of the trust is to keep the company intact and to provide the heirs with an income. Most heirs don't care much about the company and just collect their free money and that one weird uncle who always fights with everyone can't block important decisions.
Post by: jinga nation on February 13, 2020, 05:49:52 AM
So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.
Hurray! My father just sold his house!
His entire estate is to be divided equally among us. I actually believe that my sisters and I would have been able to sell the house and split the proceeds completely amicably, but what a PITA, especially since each of lives in a jurisdiction with a different legal system.
Smart man.
My dad is clearing his house (a 4 bed, 2 bath is too much for him), after my mum and grandma passed in the last 2 years. He will eventually sell his house and move in with either my sibling or me (we're all local). Sibling and I have told him that neither we nor our kids need his money; we'd rather he use it for travel and his retirement. Any monies left over when he passes will go to his only sister, a spinster overseas. If she passes before him, monies will go to several charities.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 13, 2020, 08:36:44 AM
The average home in my country now costs 8x the average income. Tax-free gifting of large sums of money certainly plays a part in this. Homes are scarce but the prices can only go up so much. At some point no one can afford homes anymore and prices will fall. Tax-free giving distorts this process of supply and demand.Can you elaborate on why there is such a housing shortage? I don't know off the top of my head what part of Europe you're from, but for that kind of money, I'd expect there to be all sorts of builders and developers building houses to meet the demand. What's stopping them?
Post by: Imma on February 13, 2020, 09:55:51 AM
Long version: due to the crash and very long recovery period, including housing market collapse and high unemployment between 2008 and 2013 most projects were cancelled due to lack of funding and new projects weren't developed. This causes major job losses in the trades, so people find different jobs and young people pursue other careers. I'm in NL where we don't have a lot of space so projects have to be carefully planned and that takes a lot of time/money, we can't just build a few suburbs on former farmland. Recent projects in my city include the redevelopment of the harbour and old factory sites (that are heavily polluted and cost €€€ to build on) and all new buildings are high rise. There's even a plan in development where a high rise building on 'legs' will be built over an old monumental low rise building (they didn't get a permit to demolish). So that stuff takes time and €€€.
Of course only short term demand was affected by the economic crisis, long term people are always going to need homes. We're seeing the first boom of completed projects now because after 2013 developers needed about 5 years to go through planning/permits/finance etc. Pricing has gone way up because there are fewer people in the trades now - again, the first generation of post-crisis tradespeople is arriving on the job market but that took some time. New projects are developed everywhere now, but the economy is slowing so I just hope we don't fall into the same trap again.
Because all of this it only pays off to develop expensive homes. Low and mid income housing is disappearing fast. Some cities require developers to include mid-price homes but this just pushes up the price of the other homes.
Post by: Dicey on February 13, 2020, 10:37:45 AM
Next, stricter rent control shrinks available housing in several ways. Nothing new gets built, because it doesn't pencil out. My FIL owned a cute 10-unit apartment building in Berkeley. It was all studios and one-bedrooms, so it was relatively affordable. As the Landlord fees and paperwork became more onerous, he simply stopped renting out units. Once their longest-term tenant died, he sold the building. You know the new landlord jacked up the rental to cover their higher costs. Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.
Then there are investors who buy and hold. Lots of them scooped up houses during the crash and are just sitting on them. Most of those properties have doubled or more in value since, so when they do sell, they're not affordable any more either. Thing is, these buyers believe their properties will continue to appreciate at this rate, so not many of them are selling.
Finally: NIMBY-ism plays a role. In my area, developers are building expensive "Stack & Pack" housing near transit, in part because the state is telling them to. People get their knickers in a twist about how greedy the City is and about how much "Things Have Changed". Then they complain that their kids can't afford to live in the town they grew up in, boo-fucking-hoo. Funny, as these buildings come on line*, so far, every one of them is an improvement over what was there before and they fill up fast.
*Lots of projects were approved but not built during the Great Recession, because they couldn't get financing. It was comparatively cheap and certainly easier to just renew their approvals until the economy recovered, so that's what they did. Now they're building and people are screaming that it's too much all at once. If they paid just a bit of attention to local civics (not politics), they wouldn't be so fucking clueless.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 13, 2020, 11:01:55 AM
Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.Wow, that sounds bad. I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market? I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position. I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment. Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.
With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?
Post by: dandarc on February 13, 2020, 11:05:54 AM
And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.Wow, that sounds bad. I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market? I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position. I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment. Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.
With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?
Post by: Dicey on February 13, 2020, 11:21:08 AM
Lol, the market could drop precipitously and she'd still be fine.And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.Wow, that sounds bad. I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market? I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position. I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment. Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.
With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?
Reasons:
1. She's emotionally attached to both houses.
2. Her mom was a semi-hoarder, the City house still has a lot in it.
3. She works in the City, so it's convenient to swing by there to/from work.
4. She has a life out in the suburbs that she's reluctant to leave.
5. The house in the City could really benefit from an update before selling, but DIY is not in her skill set.
6. She has plenty of moolah, she doesn't need the rental income or the profit from the sale of the house.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant: She is crazy frugal and could FIRE any time, but she wants the pension and healthcare benefits she has worked for.
Post by: Villanelle on February 13, 2020, 06:38:49 PM
My parents' eldrey neighbors sold their house to one of their two children. That child and her husband plan to live there someday. For now, the parents still live there and rent the house. The agreement is that they can stay as long as they want. I think they also agreed that when the dad passes away (which is almost certain given the health situations) if the child moves in with spouse, they get the master. IOW, they have really worked out the particulars.
It's apparently much more advantageous for all parties, financially. The kid has the tax benefits of a rental, and the parents' rent is far less than their ownership expenses were. (Thus making the overall expenses less, in total.)
And of course it removes the difficulty of both of their kids inheriting the house and having to agree on terms for getting rid of it or one of them buying it.
Overall, it seems like the best option *IF* all parties can be trusted and if very specific terms are hashed out in advance.
Post by: mtn on February 14, 2020, 08:34:40 AM
Regarding the conversation about not leaving a house to more than one person, I thought I'd throw this out there.
My parents' eldrey neighbors sold their house to one of their two children. That child and her husband plan to live there someday. For now, the parents still live there and rent the house. The agreement is that they can stay as long as they want. I think they also agreed that when the dad passes away (which is almost certain given the health situations) if the child moves in with spouse, they get the master. IOW, they have really worked out the particulars.
It's apparently much more advantageous for all parties, financially. The kid has the tax benefits of a rental, and the parents' rent is far less than their ownership expenses were. (Thus making the overall expenses less, in total.)
And of course it removes the difficulty of both of their kids inheriting the house and having to agree on terms for getting rid of it or one of them buying it.
Overall, it seems like the best option *IF* all parties can be trusted and if very specific terms are hashed out in advance.
This also assumes that there is a child who can afford the house, and that said child actually wants the house.
Post by: wellactually on February 14, 2020, 09:38:59 AM
Grandma gave Aunt3 a loan to do the remodel. They had it in writing and Aunt3 paid back on schedule. Grandma now pays small rent to Aunt3. Generally a really wonderful setup giving Grandma privacy but also the option for socialization and help quickly. Still, I don't like the bank of Grandma situation.
But the big house remained under my Grandma's ownership. For a couple years, Cousin1 and family "rented" it. Not sure how much rent was paid during that time, but if Grandma wanted to help her out after a long time of poverty and trying to support 5 kids on very little, that's entirely her decision. She's not naive to it. Then Cousin9 and her fiance "rented" it. I expect they paid some and to be fair, keeping up the property has to be done, so someone living there is helpful if they do the work. Both cousins did take care of the home and used that time to save up and buy homes of their own elsewhere. It's a
Aunt4 decided she and her husband wanted to buy the home from Grandma. They had their home on the market and at some point sold and moved into the home. While they were keeping track of rent owed, the actual transfer of ownership kept dragging on. Finally, my mom (Daughter2), finds out that they have executed a sale with my grandma financing the mortgage at a very very low rate. Aunt4 had already borrowed money in writing from Grandma for Cousin9's wedding and that wasn't paid back yet either.
Grandma is not rich. She could be doing much much better things with her money (like making a freaking market return) and may just want it for whatever she feels like doing. Even more so, she expressly wants her estate divided evenly to the 5 kids. So if she were to pass while this arrangement was in place, Aunt4 would be indebted to the estate and have to refinance quickly to pay back the estate before anything cold be settled. Not a great situation.
My mom was able to get them to both see that it was unnecessary and even risky to have this mortgage owner-financed. It was like 3 years ago, so market rates were great but looked like they might go up soon. Thankfully all saw reason and the mortgage was refinanced. Grandma got her money.
These are all nice people. There were only minor issues when Grandpa died, mostly because he was technically stepdad to oldest three kids. No money involved, just some thoughtless comments.
So so so glad that it appears the Bank of Grandma is closed now.
Post by: partgypsy on February 14, 2020, 02:18:56 PM
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?
Post by: dandarc on February 14, 2020, 02:40:07 PM
Is there anything else going on like a disability? Why are they living there?
The recipients can be whoever he wants them to be of course, but without more info, the children are who you'd think of first in this case.
Post by: BabyShark on February 14, 2020, 02:47:53 PM
Post by: Dancin'Dog on February 14, 2020, 06:58:01 PM
Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?
He should tell his mom that she needs to get life insurance, so they don't starve if she dies. And the sister needs to get life insurance, so they can hire somebody to feed the dog if she dies.
He should let them cover the insurance bill, and if it doesn't get paid it's their problem. He should also demand a policy larger than the value of the home, and his children named as beneficiaries of the excess.
Post by: lhamo on February 14, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Seriously, these people are NOT going to look out for his kids interests. It is on him to do that.
Post by: Goldielocks on February 15, 2020, 12:15:26 AM
Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?
If you have a valid and vested interest in someone staying alive, you are able to buy life insurance on them. They would still need to have any medical questions / checks completed, but the mother could absolutely get her own life insurance, on her son's life, as she is living in his home. Sister probably could, too.
As the kids are minors, the brother would pay for insurance himself, in his name, on his own life, with them named as beneficiaries.
Post by: Imma on February 15, 2020, 01:26:13 AM
Post by: partgypsy on February 15, 2020, 04:29:35 PM
Post by: marion10 on February 20, 2020, 07:06:21 AM
Post by: Sugaree on February 20, 2020, 07:28:05 AM
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
Post by: mm1970 on February 20, 2020, 02:03:32 PM
In addition to @Imma's excellent explanation, there are additional factors at play. The rise of airbnb takes property out of circulation. Ditto for the board-and-care industry. Sure, they're still providing housing for people who need it, but it ain't cheap.Excellent explanation and analysis. Bravo!
Next, stricter rent control shrinks available housing in several ways. Nothing new gets built, because it doesn't pencil out. My FIL owned a cute 10-unit apartment building in Berkeley. It was all studios and one-bedrooms, so it was relatively affordable. As the Landlord fees and paperwork became more onerous, he simply stopped renting out units. Once their longest-term tenant died, he sold the building. You know the new landlord jacked up the rental to cover their higher costs. Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.
Then there are investors who buy and hold. Lots of them scooped up houses during the crash and are just sitting on them. Most of those properties have doubled or more in value since, so when they do sell, they're not affordable any more either. Thing is, these buyers believe their properties will continue to appreciate at this rate, so not many of them are selling.
Finally: NIMBY-ism plays a role. In my area, developers are building expensive "Stack & Pack" housing near transit, in part because the state is telling them to. People get their knickers in a twist about how greedy the City is and about how much "Things Have Changed". Then they complain that their kids can't afford to live in the town they grew up in, boo-fucking-hoo. Funny, as these buildings come on line*, so far, every one of them is an improvement over what was there before and they fill up fast.
*Lots of projects were approved but not built during the Great Recession, because they couldn't get financing. It was comparatively cheap and certainly easier to just renew their approvals until the economy recovered, so that's what they did. Now they're building and people are screaming that it's too much all at once. If they paid just a bit of attention to local civics (not politics), they wouldn't be so fucking clueless.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 20, 2020, 03:02:43 PM
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.
I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.
Post by: scottish on February 20, 2020, 03:36:02 PM
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.
I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.
As they/we should be...
Quote
When you sponsor a relative to become a permanent resident of Canada, you must:
meet set income guidelines
agree in writing to give financial support to your relative and any other eligible relatives coming with them:
beginning on the date they become a permanent resident
for up to 20 years (depending on their age and how you’re related)
The person you sponsor must sign an agreement saying they will make the effort to support themselves. This includes sponsored dependent children 18 or older. Dependent children under 19 don’t have to sign this agreement.
Post by: Villanelle on February 20, 2020, 03:37:33 PM
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.
I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.
But that would be being on the hook for immigrants someone *else* sponsors, no? Uncle sponsors, dies, and then his sister would become responsible (or fears she would). Seems to me like that would be akin to inheriting someone else'd debts, debts which you didn't sign for or agree to.
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 21, 2020, 12:26:03 AM
We filed that form years ago, my wife is technically still on the hook for me.
Post by: partgypsy on February 22, 2020, 08:35:23 AM
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on February 22, 2020, 09:27:01 AM
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.
It seems like you need to start an "Are you an enabler?" thread. :(
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 22, 2020, 09:39:23 AM
Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.
It seems like you need to start an "Are you an enabler?" thread. :(
That won't meet her needs. What might work better is a thread about how not to become an enabler. It's not an open and shut thing like many people think. It is very difficult to deal with a terrorist who has a high value hostage.
Post by: SunnyDays on February 22, 2020, 04:08:59 PM
Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?
What good what it do your mother/sister to be able to pay his house off, even assuming his kids would allow that? If they are making next to no financial contribution to their living situation now, how would they afford property taxes, insurance, utilities, up-keep etc? Plus, if he died without a will, I believe that his children would end up getting the house, and unless they're prepared to pay for the housing costs and let the relatives live there for free, it will be sold anyway.
Your mom and sister need to be told that in the event of your brother's death, they will need to support themselves, so they had better have a plan in place for that. Surely one of them, if not both, have some kind of income? Pension, disability, actual jobs? And if your brother has no will (why not?) he is setting his whole family up for misery should he die before he downsizes.
In any event, you are not responsible for 2 adults. If I were you, I would make sure they knew now what I was prepared to contribute to their living situation (if anything). If they are simply sponging off your brother because he allows it, I would contribute precious little.
Post by: Villanelle on February 22, 2020, 06:31:12 PM
I would insist on 100% taking over their finances, and in exchange for that I would guarantee them a studio apartment to share. But if they weren't willing to accept my terms, then clearly that means they aren't that concerned, in which case I'd wish them luck. Clearly, they aren't that desperate for help if they aren't willing to accept it on the terms it is offered. Which is fine.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 22, 2020, 08:20:22 PM
You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves. And that includes them not being homeless.
I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 23, 2020, 06:10:14 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on February 23, 2020, 07:12:06 AM
The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"
More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."
Post by: Goldielocks on February 23, 2020, 10:06:54 AM
Absolutely correct. This includes things using the sponsor's income when applying for student loans.Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/
This.
My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America. My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids. I'm like that's not how that works.
That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.
I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.
But the mother is not the sponsor, the husband is. So if she does not sign anything, she is not responsible. The sponsor will need to show enough assets to qualify, and that is partly so that if he dies before a couple of years, they will be provided for.
Post by: mm1970 on February 24, 2020, 05:33:14 PM
Ah this makes me sad, remembering some of what you've been through there.You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves. And that includes them not being homeless.
I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.
Post by: Sibley on February 24, 2020, 07:11:11 PM
You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves. And that includes them not being homeless.
I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.
Life is the best teacher. You did your best. Now, she has to figure things out for herself.
Post by: auntie_betty on February 28, 2020, 02:47:22 AM
Or, more pithily:The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"
More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."
Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
Post by: ducky19 on February 28, 2020, 10:25:46 AM
Or, more pithily:The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"
More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."
Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
Ha! I always say, "not my rodeo, I'm just a clown".
Post by: NeverTooLate on February 28, 2020, 04:57:14 PM
So if my mom leaves the houses and enough cash then yes my sister could afford to buy out my and my sister's stake. But if it is only houses then essentially we would have to kick her out or just give up a huge chunk of our inheritance. I don't feel as if my mom owes us anything and if she spent everything I would be fine but honestly I wouldn't be cool without not getting a share while my sister gets a very substantial inheritance.
It took me awhile to figure out a career and I am doing okay but definitely not in a high paying field. Half my salary goes to retirement but I can't see any scenario where I could easily say no to money (and the other sister has always worked jobs that doesn't pay great so she definitely will need something for retirement) - because you never know when you need money for medical issues.
I keep asking my mom to figure out what she wants to have happen - and then make sure everyone knows - so there is no unpleasant surprises that ends up causing rifts. The whole thing is just incredibly frustrating because although I love my sister and she is a great person in a lot of ways I don't think she realizes how much money my mom could be earning in returns if she invested that house money.
Post by: Dave1442397 on February 28, 2020, 07:17:52 PM
But if it is only houses then essentially we would have to kick her out or just give up a huge chunk of our inheritance.
Or you could just sell the house, split the proceeds, and let your sister buy/rent a smaller place that she can actually afford to live in.
My neighbor went through something like this when her mother died. Her brother was living with their mother, and the mother's will said that the brother would be allowed to live in the house as long as he wanted. Three years later, my neighbor found out that her brother hadn't been paying property taxes (approx $700/mo), hadn't done any maintenance, and was about to lose electricity for non-payment of utility bills. Also, the township was going to auction off the tax lien.
She had to pay all the back taxes and utilities, get him out of the house, clear out all her mother's possessions, paint the whole interior, and put the house up for sale. She said it was the worst thing her mother could have done with the house, and they were lucky not to lose it. Her brother is in a one-bedroom apartment that he can afford, and everything turned out fine in the end, but only after a lot of stress and hassle that could have been avoided.
Post by: kina on March 01, 2020, 08:03:47 AM
That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).
It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2020, 08:45:17 AM
If you could move past the financial inequality, you might avoid a whole lot of stress by getting your mother to leave the house FreeloadingSis is in to her, as her share of the estate, and the remainder to be divided between you and other sister.
That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).
It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.
This was my first thought, too. It is what I would probably do.
Also consider that if she is letting the place go to hell, if you decide to get her out and then sell, you’ll be in the position of having to fix it up before putting it on the market. More stress and more money spent.
Post by: kina on March 01, 2020, 10:13:56 AM
exactly.If you could move past the financial inequality, you might avoid a whole lot of stress by getting your mother to leave the house FreeloadingSis is in to her, as her share of the estate, and the remainder to be divided between you and other sister.
That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).
It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.
This was my first thought, too. It is what I would probably do.
Also consider that if she is letting the place go to hell, if you decide to get her out and then sell, you’ll be in the position of having to fix it up before putting it on the market. More stress and more money spent.
Post by: Siebrie on March 06, 2020, 01:40:42 AM
My Father has a Half-Sister, who was at one time married to a Scientist. This Scientist was very charming and famous, and even in a government advisory body of high standing. The couple had 3 children together and was very well off. They got divorced, because the Scientist was sleeping around (well, not really around, he took the ladies home to the marital bed). The children always blamed the divorce on their Mother, and even though they lived with her, their relationship never recovered. There was a Stepfather who helped raise them, and loved them, but they rejected him, harshly. When the Father (eta: the Scientist) died, all 3 children inherited a lovely amount.
My Father's Sister has always leaned towards that half-side of the family, mainly because that's where the money is. To her, somehow, 'wealth' equals 'better'.
It now turns out (eta: 50 years later) that that wealth was gathered through bribes! Large corporations at the time paid the Scientist large sums to influence the government advisory body! I wonder how that inheritance feels now....
Post by: Dicey on March 06, 2020, 06:19:17 PM
This family inheritance story has just come to my attention:I'm confused. Who is the "Father" here? The Stepdad or the Scientist? Was this discovery about the Scientist made posthumously?
My Father has a Half-Sister, who was at one time married to a Scientist. This Scientist was very charming and famous, and even in a government advisory body of high standing. The couple had 3 children together and was very well off. They got divorced, because the Scientist was sleeping around (well, not really around, he took the ladies home to the marital bed). The children always blamed the divorce on their Mother, and even though they lived with her, their relationship never recovered. There was a Stepfather who helped raise them, and loved them, but they rejected him, harshly. When the Father died, all 3 children inherited a lovely amount.
My Father's Sister has always leaned towards that half-side of the family, mainly because that's where the money is. To her, somehow, 'wealth' equals 'better'.
It now turns out that that wealth was gathered through bribes! Large corporations at the time paid the Scientist large sums to influence the government advisory body! I wonder how that inheritance feels now....
Post by: Ze Stash on March 07, 2020, 06:51:34 PM
He is a lawyer and was approached by a neighbour how one would go about refusing an inheritance. Said neighbour has 2 sister. One of them was doing very well career-wise and financially (or so it seemed), but lost her job about 4 months ago when her company downsized. At the same time their mother required more care at home, as she fell seriously ill. The sister offered to move in with her to assist in taking care of her while figuring out her next career moves. The mother got gradually worse and in the final month was hospitalized and then died about 2 weeks ago. As the mother lived quite far away and it all happened quite fast, the neighbour and the 2nd sister only visited their mother when she was hospitalized, so did not actually witness their sister and mother living together.
When they saw their mothers house for the first time since sister 1 moved in, they realized why she hadn't asked them to come by sooner. It turned out that sister 1 had had a meltdown because of her jobloss and used their mothers credit cards / name to go on a shopping spree. The whole house was full of delivery boxes. Clothes, electronics, appliances, collectibles, anything that could be bought online. Most of the packages still unopened. And a new BMW in the driveway. All of it bought in the name of the mother. Luckily they were able to revoke the contracts on some of the big ticket items such as the car, but they weren't able to return most of the crap she had bought online as they couldn't prove that it was in fact not mom who had bought all this stuff. So now they're left with a bunch of stuff no one needs and huge credit card debt, all in a time which is already difficult enough.
Post by: Sibley on March 08, 2020, 12:17:41 PM
A Coworker told a story at lunch on Friday which made me think of this thread so here goes:
He is a lawyer and was approached by a neighbour how one would go about refusing an inheritance. Said neighbour has 2 sister. One of them was doing very well career-wise and financially (or so it seemed), but lost her job about 4 months ago when her company downsized. At the same time their mother required more care at home, as she fell seriously ill. The sister offered to move in with her to assist in taking care of her while figuring out her next career moves. The mother got gradually worse and in the final month was hospitalized and then died about 2 weeks ago. As the mother lived quite far away and it all happened quite fast, the neighbour and the 2nd sister only visited their mother when she was hospitalized, so did not actually witness their sister and mother living together.
When they saw their mothers house for the first time since sister 1 moved in, they realized why she hadn't asked them to come by sooner. It turned out that sister 1 had had a meltdown because of her jobloss and used their mothers credit cards / name to go on a shopping spree. The whole house was full of delivery boxes. Clothes, electronics, appliances, collectibles, anything that could be bought online. Most of the packages still unopened. And a new BMW in the driveway. All of it bought in the name of the mother. Luckily they were able to revoke the contracts on some of the big ticket items such as the car, but they weren't able to return most of the crap she had bought online as they couldn't prove that it was in fact not mom who had bought all this stuff. So now they're left with a bunch of stuff no one needs and huge credit card debt, all in a time which is already difficult enough.
For the stuff that was bought online, does it matter who bought it? Have invoice/email/paperwork, initiate return, mail back. Tons of annoyance factor, but in theory you've got the sister who went off the deep end right there, put her to work. Just make sure to supervise her. Guessing it wouldn't work for everything, but even if half of it could be returned, that would help.
Post by: Just Joe on March 09, 2020, 12:58:04 PM
Post by: merula on March 09, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 09, 2020, 03:23:15 PM
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
The estate owns the debt under most circumstances, but there are exceptions. Anyone else whose name is on the credit card is still on the hook. Same goes for debt where there's a co-signer, or for a lease where the parties are jointly and severally responsible for the rent payments.
In a community property state, the surviving spouse is often on the hook for debt run up during the marriage, even if the debt or credit card is in the deceased spouse's name.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 09, 2020, 03:36:20 PM
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
The estate owns the debt under most circumstances, but there are exceptions. Anyone else whose name is on the credit card is still on the hook. Same goes for debt where there's a co-signer, or for a lease where the parties are jointly and severally responsible for the rent payments.
In a community property state, the surviving spouse is often on the hook for debt run up during the marriage, even if the debt or credit card is in the deceased spouse's name.
My aunt remarried later in life. Apparently they didn't completely merge their finances.
When her new husband went into the hospital she called the various credit card companies that her husband had pre-existing accounts with. They refused to talk to her because she wasn't on the accounts and had nothing to do with it.
After her husband passed away, they wanted to talk to her about her repaying the cards.
"Hey, you remember when you said I had nothing to do with those cards? Well, I've got nothing to do with them." Basically she just told them to pound sand.
Post by: Sugaree on March 10, 2020, 04:18:20 AM
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
Post by: jinga nation on March 10, 2020, 06:02:56 AM
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
When I went to college, I wouldn't sign up for CC offers with a "free" catch with a $X application fee. Then there was Discover, offering zero freebies, but also $0 application fee. My uncle told me to sign up for Discover to start building my credit. Then there was an Amex Blue student card which I opened, similar T&Cs. I still have those two cards open, 22 years later, I don't use them, but they are my oldest and help keep credit score in the 800s.
Post by: Sugaree on March 10, 2020, 06:24:29 AM
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
When I went to college, I wouldn't sign up for CC offers with a "free" catch with a $X application fee. Then there was Discover, offering zero freebies, but also $0 application fee. My uncle told me to sign up for Discover to start building my credit. Then there was an Amex Blue student card which I opened, similar T&Cs. I still have those two cards open, 22 years later, I don't use them, but they are my oldest and help keep credit score in the 800s.
I don't recall any of these cards having an application fee, but then again I didn't listen to their spiel either. They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up. I'm not sure if they had some way of getting an immediate approval so that you could take your brand new card into the bookstore and buy books with it or not. I knew plenty of people who fell for it and racked up thousands in debt (and another who managed to put nearly 4 years of college tuition and books on CCs before filing bankruptcy three weeks after graduation).
Post by: DadJokes on March 10, 2020, 07:38:53 AM
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
When I went to college, I wouldn't sign up for CC offers with a "free" catch with a $X application fee. Then there was Discover, offering zero freebies, but also $0 application fee. My uncle told me to sign up for Discover to start building my credit. Then there was an Amex Blue student card which I opened, similar T&Cs. I still have those two cards open, 22 years later, I don't use them, but they are my oldest and help keep credit score in the 800s.
I opened two credit cards with no fees in college. I really wish I had kept them, but I drank the Dave Ramsey kool-aid five or so years ago and cancelled both of them.
Now my credit history is only a couple years old. However, I haven't had any issues with my 760 credit score.
Post by: Capsu78 on March 10, 2020, 10:21:40 AM
Yes, that was a big difference from college up until the early '80's... I can't recall seeing any CC companies during my days at good old State. My only CC was my fathers Exxon card so I could get home and hope dear old Dad had a little money for soney in his wallet! I hated being a poor college student, but as I drove off to the real world after graduation my father told me "...At least $0 gets posted in black ink on the ledger, everything below $0 is written in red."
Post by: iris lily on March 10, 2020, 10:40:17 AM
"They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up."
Yes, that was a big difference from college up until the early '80's... I can't recall seeing any CC companies during my days at good old State. My only CC was my fathers Exxon card so I could get home and hope dear old Dad had a little money for soney in his wallet! I hated being a poor college student, but as I drove off to the real world after graduation my father told me "...At least $0 gets posted in black ink on the ledger, everything below $0 is written in red."
I remember having a very hard time getting a general credit card in the mid 80s. I was a working person and I saved $500 a month which at the time was a lot of money. The only reason I wanted a credit card was because I wanted to build up my credit rating so that I could get a mortgage.
As it turns out I got a mortgage anyways so it didn’t really matter, and somewhere around that same time I did get my first general credit card. I had had a storeCredit card for JC Penney company for some years.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 10, 2020, 10:53:11 AM
"They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up."
Yes, that was a big difference from college up until the early '80's... I can't recall seeing any CC companies during my days at good old State. My only CC was my fathers Exxon card so I could get home and hope dear old Dad had a little money for soney in his wallet! I hated being a poor college student, but as I drove off to the real world after graduation my father told me "...At least $0 gets posted in black ink on the ledger, everything below $0 is written in red."
I remember having a very hard time getting a general credit card in the mid 80s. I was a working person and I saved $500 a month which at the time was a lot of money. The only reason I wanted a credit card was because I wanted to build up my credit rating so that I could get a mortgage.
As it turns out I got a mortgage anyways so it didn’t really matter, and somewhere around that same time I did get my first general credit card. I had had a storeCredit card for JC Penney company for some years.
We were dirt poor in the 80s. I had a gas credit card for awhile from when I was in college. Rarely used it because we only had one car and didn't drive much and couldn't take on debt, the finances were too shaky. It lapsed and we didn't renew it. Needed a credit card for business use though (we had our own company and had to travel overnight on occasion) but we couldn't get one. Our income was too low. A local bank let us set up a $300 credit card with a $300 deposit we couldn't access for a year. But that was enough to handle a few nights out of town on business, for which we knew we would be paid. That's what it took for us to establish credit again with an income that was about 1/3rd median family income.
Post by: saguaro on March 11, 2020, 08:26:16 AM
"They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up."
Yes, that was a big difference from college up until the early '80's... I can't recall seeing any CC companies during my days at good old State. My only CC was my fathers Exxon card so I could get home and hope dear old Dad had a little money for soney in his wallet! I hated being a poor college student, but as I drove off to the real world after graduation my father told me "...At least $0 gets posted in black ink on the ledger, everything below $0 is written in red."
I remember having a very hard time getting a general credit card in the mid 80s. I was a working person and I saved $500 a month which at the time was a lot of money. The only reason I wanted a credit card was because I wanted to build up my credit rating so that I could get a mortgage.
As it turns out I got a mortgage anyways so it didn’t really matter, and somewhere around that same time I did get my first general credit card. I had had a storeCredit card for JC Penney company for some years.
We were dirt poor in the 80s. I had a gas credit card for awhile from when I was in college. Rarely used it because we only had one car and didn't drive much and couldn't take on debt, the finances were too shaky. It lapsed and we didn't renew it. Needed a credit card for business use though (we had our own company and had to travel overnight on occasion) but we couldn't get one. Our income was too low. A local bank let us set up a $300 credit card with a $300 deposit we couldn't access for a year. But that was enough to handle a few nights out of town on business, for which we knew we would be paid. That's what it took for us to establish credit again with an income that was about 1/3rd median family income.
While in college I opened a charge account at a local department store. During the year after graduation and then working full time, I got a couple of charge cards but it would be 3 years before I finally got my first general credit card. I remember going on our honeymoon and we had to have the cash / travelers checks to pay for hotels, etc. for the entire trip because we didn't have credit cards, not to mention that ATM networks were smaller and more local.
Post by: talltexan on March 13, 2020, 06:48:39 AM
Post by: geekette on March 13, 2020, 08:04:21 AM
</foam>
Post by: saguaro on March 13, 2020, 10:01:55 AM
I was a sophomore in college and got traveler's cheques for a road trip to Dallas (about five hours north of where I was living at the time). My friends all told me I was weird. I don't think I've gotten any since then.
We used traveler's cheques for long trips until about mid-2000s. Even though we had credit cards we often used them as a way to get cash in absence of expanded ATM networks (remote areas) where we were traveling. The last time we got them the bank teller had to get instructions on how to issue them, and some cashiers didn't know how to handle them.
When our smaller regional bank was acquired by a larger one with locations pretty much nationwide, one upside was expanded ATM access w/o fees while traveling.
Post by: fredbear on March 13, 2020, 01:48:06 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on March 13, 2020, 01:54:15 PM
I have traveled with a letter of credit, which I presented at banks in the foreign country. They would issue the money, perform the currency conversion, and annotate the letter with a deduction and running tally of how much I had left. I don't know how they obtained their share from the escrow account represented by the letter. It felt stately and impressive, as if for those moments I was a tiny but suddenly mature nexus in a world-spanning spiderweb of financieros, rather than a barely-post-hippie clattering around eating a lot of cheap delicious fish and fruit.
Just like they did in the old days, as described in "The Count of Monte Cristo".
Post by: wbranch on March 13, 2020, 04:56:20 PM
My father and grandfather and my uncles always said that nothing's really free, there's always a catch.What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
They can go after the estate, but if there's no estate there's no recourse. However, that does not prevent shady debt collectors from calling next-of-kin and claiming they're responsible to pay the deceased's debts.
Watching my dad go through this with my grandparents' estate when I was 17 is probably the biggest factor in my not even applying for a credit card until I was well into my twenties. Not even for the free pizza/t-shirt/frisbee/whatever that was being offered for applications on my university campus.
Luckily, my dad knew what was up and told them to go after the (non-existent) estate.
When I went to college, I wouldn't sign up for CC offers with a "free" catch with a $X application fee. Then there was Discover, offering zero freebies, but also $0 application fee. My uncle told me to sign up for Discover to start building my credit. Then there was an Amex Blue student card which I opened, similar T&Cs. I still have those two cards open, 22 years later, I don't use them, but they are my oldest and help keep credit score in the 800s.
I don't recall any of these cards having an application fee, but then again I didn't listen to their spiel either. They would set booths up right outside the campus bookstore on move-in day and try to get people to sign up. I'm not sure if they had some way of getting an immediate approval so that you could take your brand new card into the bookstore and buy books with it or not. I knew plenty of people who fell for it and racked up thousands in debt (and another who managed to put nearly 4 years of college tuition and books on CCs before filing bankruptcy three weeks after graduation).
I applied for the same Citi credit card several times at those booths to get a free pizza. I was approved the first time but they would let me apply again and get a free pizza every time. Pretty sure I got 5-6 free pizzas freshman and sophomore year. Finances were tight in college and I did end up needing to float some tuition and other stuff on the credit card. Would have been tough without the credit card. Paid a little bit of interest, which ended up being a learning experience.
Post by: Rural on March 13, 2020, 08:12:54 PM
I have traveled with a letter of credit, which I presented at banks in the foreign country. They would issue the money, perform the currency conversion, and annotate the letter with a deduction and running tally of how much I had left. I don't know how they obtained their share from the escrow account represented by the letter. It felt stately and impressive, as if for those moments I was a tiny but suddenly mature nexus in a world-spanning spiderweb of financieros, rather than a barely-post-hippie clattering around eating a lot of cheap delicious fish and fruit.
I once bought a backhoe with a letter of credit, but that just doesn't have the same panache.
Post by: talltexan on March 17, 2020, 12:06:45 PM
I have traveled with a letter of credit, which I presented at banks in the foreign country. They would issue the money, perform the currency conversion, and annotate the letter with a deduction and running tally of how much I had left. I don't know how they obtained their share from the escrow account represented by the letter. It felt stately and impressive, as if for those moments I was a tiny but suddenly mature nexus in a world-spanning spiderweb of financieros, rather than a barely-post-hippie clattering around eating a lot of cheap delicious fish and fruit.
@fredbear , this just sounds so completely badass. I suppose it's what the wealthy did back when being wealthy meant you basically lived in a different world from everyone else.
Post by: fredbear on March 17, 2020, 01:46:26 PM
@fredbear , this just sounds so completely badass. I suppose it's what the wealthy did back when being wealthy meant you basically lived in a different world from everyone else.
So far as I know and believe, the letter-of-credit system I used as a hairy kid in Mexico eating fish just pulled from the sea was envisioned and set up by wealthy Jewish merchants and bankers in the Middle Ages. It's hard to imagine how you set up a system of trust when voyages by land and by sea took months, you might not ever meet your correspondent in a city where they spoke a language you would never hear, and your whole enterprise could vanish tracelessly in a shipwreck or a bandit attack months away from your place of business. Perhaps if you could import one of them down the corridors of time to now, they would be amazed that we trust hundreds of thousands of dollars to a click of a key.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 17, 2020, 03:06:04 PM
I'm trying to practice "see the bright side in everything" and gallows humor. Might as well be efficient.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on March 17, 2020, 04:32:55 PM
I guess this thread will have an uptick of Inheritance Drama stories starting in about 3 to 6 months.
I'm trying to practice "see the bright side in everything" and gallows humor. Might as well be efficient.
I've been thinking the same thing. There'll be a lot of greedy unemployed heirs & all kinds of resulting stories. ;)
Post by: jinga nation on March 18, 2020, 06:46:58 AM
I guess this thread will have an uptick of Inheritance Drama stories starting in about 3 to 6 months.
I'm trying to practice "see the bright side in everything" and gallows humor. Might as well be efficient.
I've been thinking the same thing. There'll be a lot of greedy unemployed heirs & all kinds of resulting stories. ;)
Ah, another gallows humor chap methinks, only to notice it's the OG SwordGuy.
<1% of these inheriters will FIRE, 75% of them will blow the monies in 12-18% per my very scientific-handwaving data.
I demand every MMMer here report with facts (and spicy fiction too). We likes it hot.
Post by: Dicey on March 18, 2020, 06:51:56 AM
I guess this thread will have an uptick of Inheritance Drama stories starting in about 3 to 6 months.And to think that I was hesitant to go there...thanks for opening the back door to the dark side of humor. We need all we can get these days, @SwordGuy!
I'm trying to practice "see the bright side in everything" and gallows humor. Might as well be efficient.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 18, 2020, 09:59:03 AM
Post by: talltexan on March 18, 2020, 12:02:11 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on March 18, 2020, 12:05:04 PM
I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
All the more reason to make FIRE plans from one's own efforts instead of waiting to inherit it.
Post by: Villanelle on March 18, 2020, 12:16:05 PM
I jokingly told him to take it out of my sister's half since I'm the favorite.
I'm so glad we can openly discuss these things. And that do it knowing that I'm not worried about my parents because their finances are fine, and they aren't worried about me because my finances are fine, and no one is worried about anyone being upset about anything regarding the finances or the inheritance.
Post by: Sugaree on March 18, 2020, 02:22:43 PM
I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
I'm pretty sure my BIL was planning on making a request for another installment of the advance on his inheritance during his last minute trip down here last week. He picked a bad week to do it.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 18, 2020, 02:24:11 PM
Post by: okits on March 18, 2020, 02:26:06 PM
I guess if it's my time to go, being buried in compliments isn't the worst option.
I have always admired your attitude, SwordGuy.
Post by: trashtalk on March 18, 2020, 10:12:51 PM
Do we have the same BIL? Is yours overleveraged after a real-estate buying spree and will need cash to cover mortgage payments if all his tenants are out of work for the duration?I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
I'm pretty sure my BIL was planning on making a request for another installment of the advance on his inheritance during his last minute trip down here last week. He picked a bad week to do it.
Post by: Sugaree on March 19, 2020, 06:05:25 AM
Do we have the same BIL? Is yours overleveraged after a real-estate buying spree and will need cash to cover mortgage payments if all his tenants are out of work for the duration?I actually wonder if a bunch of people aren't losing fortunes right now, meaning that the spike in deaths will include a bunch of families who thought grandpa was rich, but didn't realize he had it all in bank stocks and energy partnerships.
I'm pretty sure my BIL was planning on making a request for another installment of the advance on his inheritance during his last minute trip down here last week. He picked a bad week to do it.
Nah. Over educated, under employed, works at a fancy prep school where tuition costs more than he makes in a year. Will probably not be paid if this place shuts down the rest of the school year. But mommy and daddy have been paying his rent for years anyway.
Post by: ice813 on March 22, 2020, 06:20:22 PM
What happens to credit card debt when a person dies? I understand that a car, boat or house would be repo'd but what about $25K of consumer debt spent on TVs, clothes, and outings?
Credit card debt is unsecured debt and does not have to be repayed by the estate when the debtor passes. We ran into this when my grandfather passed last year. The customer service guy told us multiple times the estate did not have to pay the debt. We did anyways because Pops would roll over in his grave if we welched on a debt just because we legally could.
Post by: dandarc on March 22, 2020, 06:28:38 PM
I don't think that is true. The estate would be obligated to pay any creditors before other distributions are made.
Post by: Villanelle on March 22, 2020, 07:59:14 PM
But heirs are not responsible for the debt. If someone owes $40,000 and the estate is only worth $30,000, the companies eat that extra $10,000. They can't force someone to pay for debt taken out by someone else, unless that someone legally agreed to be responsible (co-signing, for example).
Post by: SwordGuy on March 22, 2020, 09:53:10 PM
The estate is absolutely liable for cerdit card debt, in the sense that the companies can come for what they are owed before any inheritance is paid out. If someone told you differently, they were misinformed.
But heirs are not responsible for the debt. If someone owes $40,000 and the estate is only worth $30,000, the companies eat that extra $10,000. They can't force someone to pay for debt taken out by someone else, unless that someone legally agreed to be responsible (co-signing, for example).
This is correct.
Post by: ice813 on March 23, 2020, 09:10:04 AM
Post by: Freedomin5 on April 01, 2020, 02:46:26 AM
I asked how they were able to afford the downpayment. Turns out they had been asked to be an executor of an estate of their recently deceased ex-MIL. Basically, relative divorced spouse a long time ago, but ex-spouse’s mother had kept relative on her will as the executor. Relative was expecting to get some money as payment for her role as the executor and also expecting to get some inheritance from the estate.
Okaaaay.
So she wanted to buy a place before prices went up even further in a hot real estate market.
Okaaaay.
Has she seen a penny of the money yet? No.
Does she know how much she will be getting? No.
Has the estate received the tax clearance certificate from the government yet, which usually takes years to get, and which is required before a prudent executor will disburse the inheritance to the heirs? No.
Okaaay.
So basically, she wants to buy a condo with an unknown amount of money that she does not have and that she does not know when or if she will even get.
My mind just cannot compute the logic in this one. Maybe she doesn’t have anything better to occupy her time?
Post by: Dicey on April 01, 2020, 02:53:28 AM
Post by: saguaro on April 01, 2020, 09:48:39 AM
^^Looks like it's popcorn time! This is gonna be good.^^
Indeed. In handling my parents' estate, let's just say a lot of "assumptions" that my sister made as executor didn't pan out and was a costly lesson.
Post by: Dicey on April 01, 2020, 11:07:42 AM
My sister was not the executor, but she was a pain in the ass during the process and blew through her share and then some. I bet she wishes she had it now. I called my brother, the co-exec, and asked him what he thought about me paying her rent this month. He asked if I had lost my mind, which brought me back to my senses. I sent a few checks to others in need instead.^^Looks like it's popcorn time! This is gonna be good.^^
Indeed. In handling my parents' estate, let's just say a lot of "assumptions" that my sister made as executor didn't pan out and was a costly lesson.
Post by: talltexan on April 01, 2020, 12:05:20 PM
Post by: Goldielocks on April 01, 2020, 02:26:18 PM
A friend's MIL passed away about 4 years ago, leaving behind her only son, who was 71 at the time.
She owned a condo, but had been moved to the hospital, then 2 months of LTC (government subsidized) before passing. She had bank accounts, at least one of which was joint with her son.
My friend and her husband have always kept most of their finances separate, and she was working full time her whole life and never really looked beyond her own finances, and even then rarely. A "set it and forget it' sort of person.
Well, her husband has onset of alzheimers and last year she discovered that he had not done their taxes for three years. He would start, need or forget something, and then was too embarassed to tell her or proceed. Okay then. She hired an accountant and paid the penalties and is now back to current.
One outstanding item is the MIL's condo that her husband inherited. They had been paying the HOA, taxes , utilties and other fees each month, and had their two grown daughters living there full time. Now that one daughter is gone to a job elsewhere, and one is moving in the next year, they want to have funds to maintain their own home and set aside long term care money for her husband.
The apartment's annual costs were too much to comfortably handle on their income, as my friend is retired now. They need a large sum of money in the next few years. The condo is in her husband's control and he has quickly declining health. I suggested that she get it ready and sell it, splitting proceeds with the kids if she wants, but that selling it before her husband passes would be a lot less stressful (and faster at a difficult time).
Guess what? It turns out that her husband never executed the MIL's will. That means that it needs to still go to probate, to assign an executor and allow transfer of title of the condo to him to inherit so they can sell it. But she needs to somehow find the information to submit for probate and only has MIL's SSN, and maybe a death certificate. She looked and looked and finally found a handwritten will that was properly witnessed, so the paralegal says it looks acceptable. MIL moved from Germany at retirement and only collected a foreign pension, so there is limited information on her, almost all her documents are in German, my friend does not speak German. She needs to find more identity type documents and try to locate accounts, etc.
She also needs to file a final tax return for MIL, because DH wasn't filing anyone's taxes.
I think this partly explains why DH just kept paying all the bills for the condo as they came in, did not want to discuss the condo, etc. -->he knew he needed to do a lot of legal and paperwork, but did not know how to get started, was embarassed and did not tell my friend. DH is also a bit of a hoarder and reluctant to go through anything to donate / pare down of MIL's.
Such a mess. Hopefully my friend can get assigned as executor in her husband's place, and the courts don't assign someone independent.. and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
Post by: scottish on April 01, 2020, 02:45:54 PM
This story-in progress is not so much a drama as a long slog...
A friend's MIL passed away about 4 years ago, leaving behind her only son, who was 71 at the time.
She owned a condo, but had been moved to the hospital, then 2 months of LTC (government subsidized) before passing. She had bank accounts, at least one of which was joint with her son.
My friend and her husband have always kept most of their finances separate, and she was working full time her whole life and never really looked beyond her own finances, and even then rarely. A "set it and forget it' sort of person.
Well, her husband has onset of alzheimers and last year she discovered that he had not done their taxes for three years. He would start, need or forget something, and then was too embarassed to tell her or proceed. Okay then. She hired an accountant and paid the penalties and is now back to current.
One outstanding item is the MIL's condo that her husband inherited. They had been paying the HOA, taxes , utilties and other fees each month, and had their two grown daughters living there full time. Now that one daughter is gone to a job elsewhere, and one is moving in the next year, they want to have funds to maintain their own home and set aside long term care money for her husband.
The apartment's annual costs were too much to comfortably handle on their income, as my friend is retired now. They need a large sum of money in the next few years. The condo is in her husband's control and he has quickly declining health. I suggested that she get it ready and sell it, splitting proceeds with the kids if she wants, but that selling it before her husband passes would be a lot less stressful (and faster at a difficult time).
Guess what? It turns out that her husband never executed the MIL's will. That means that it needs to still go to probate, to assign an executor and allow transfer of title of the condo to him to inherit so they can sell it. But she needs to somehow find the information to submit for probate and only has MIL's SSN, and maybe a death certificate. She looked and looked and finally found a handwritten will that was properly witnessed, so the paralegal says it looks acceptable. MIL moved from Germany at retirement and only collected a foreign pension, so there is limited information on her, almost all her documents are in German, my friend does not speak German. She needs to find more identity type documents and try to locate accounts, etc.
She also needs to file a final tax return for MIL, because DH wasn't filing anyone's taxes.
I think this partly explains why DH just kept paying all the bills for the condo as they came in, did not want to discuss the condo, etc. -->he knew he needed to do a lot of legal and paperwork, but did not know how to get started, was embarassed and did not tell my friend. DH is also a bit of a hoarder and reluctant to go through anything to donate / pare down of MIL's.
Such a mess. Hopefully my friend can get assigned as executor in her husband's place, and the courts don't assign someone independent.. and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
Oh boy. I'm executor of my parents' estates and I can't even get to the point where I'm on hold to talk to the broker, all I can get is a fast busy. I can't imagine trying settle an estate right now.
Post by: Dicey on April 01, 2020, 11:12:49 PM
It's waited this long, it can wait a little longer. She should prioritize getting her husband's POA, Advance Directive, etc. together first. Then she can tackle the estate. Whatever it's going to be has already happened, rushing now isn't likely to change much.
Post by: Goldielocks on April 02, 2020, 12:27:17 AM
@Goldielocks, were the daughters paying rent? Honestly, I wouldn't even try to resolve it before this pandemic ends.
It's waited this long, it can wait a little longer. She should prioritize getting her husband's POA, Advance Directive, etc. together first. Then she can tackle the estate. Whatever it's going to be has already happened, rushing now isn't likely to change much.
No, the daughters were not paying rent, only the internet bill and their own cell phones / transportation. I think it started with them moving in while they finished university and dad never changed the terms. They are good daughters, not freeloaders and will help the mom sort through all the things left behind at the condo and help get it ready for sale now.
You are correct about priorities. But she has now completed the POA and advance directive and the will, just needs one daughter to go and sign something about joint account / POA at the bank. (The large account POA was set up to require 2 signatures).
So this is the next step -- at least to get the probate request documents in, so she can sit and wait for the 4months to 1 year for it to be processed.
After that, she is continuing to sort out all the bank accounts / pensions / other accounts between her and her husband, She keeps finding ones that she missed, or finding that he forgot to apply for one of his pensions when he retired and he is now 75, etc. Alzheimers. It's a mess. At least in addition to extra paperwork and legal stuff, she keeps finding more accounts with money in them.
Post by: screwit on April 16, 2020, 05:32:55 AM
and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
I'm based in Germany and know a number of German -> English freelance translators. You could DM me and I could maybe connect them with someone.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 16, 2020, 08:18:37 AM
and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
I'm based in Germany and know a number of German -> English freelance translators. You could DM me and I could maybe connect them with someone.
Could a video chat or phone based option be realistic? As long as the person being read to can hear well or read lips, and the person on the other end can see the document, is it vital for the person doing the reading to be in the same room?
Post by: screwit on April 17, 2020, 12:26:36 AM
and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
I'm based in Germany and know a number of German -> English freelance translators. You could DM me and I could maybe connect them with someone.
Could a video chat or phone based option be realistic? As long as the person being read to can hear well or read lips, and the person on the other end can see the document, is it vital for the person doing the reading to be in the same room?
I think just sending the documents for translation would be the most straight forward way, also because the pronunciation differences between English and German can make it really difficult to understand if it's being phonetically read aloud. If it needs to be a certified translation I think they have to see the document but I don't think they have to be in the same room.
Post by: Goldielocks on April 17, 2020, 01:17:16 PM
I know a few german speaking people in my area, too. I think she wants to try this with her husband's (diminishing) help, and has a lot of privacy needs and feels to be worked through first.and that she finds some of the missing records, and finds someone who reads German to help her... during Covid.
I'm based in Germany and know a number of German -> English freelance translators. You could DM me and I could maybe connect them with someone.
Could a video chat or phone based option be realistic? As long as the person being read to can hear well or read lips, and the person on the other end can see the document, is it vital for the person doing the reading to be in the same room?
Post by: SwordGuy on April 20, 2020, 02:51:03 PM
If this epidemic is still too close to you emotionally, you probably shouldn't open the spoiler. It's very dark humor.
On the other hand, if your social maturity peaked at "10 year old boy child raised by wolves" level (like my darling wife thinks mine did) or gallows humor helps you cope (also guilty), then this just might make you laugh.
You have been warned.
PS -- If for some reason you feel obliged to copy this, get the darn spoiler tags right and use the preview button to verify you did it right before you post.
Spoiler: show
Post by: Dicey on April 21, 2020, 05:39:18 AM
Post by: saguaro on April 21, 2020, 01:14:36 PM
Lol. I'm a dark/gallows humor fan. I also have plenty of popcorn...and patience, though I suspect there won't be much need to draw on the latter...
Same here.
Spoiler: show
Post by: Capsu78 on July 13, 2020, 11:00:12 AM
Post by: talltexan on July 13, 2020, 11:10:56 AM
Post by: Sibley on July 15, 2020, 07:59:44 AM
I mentioned to my BiL that I wanted another hobby, was considering golf. He suggested waiting for the wave of estate sales that are coming so I can pick up some golf clubs, used and inexpensive.
Or the decluttering. Seriously, I keep hearing that thrift stores are overwhelmed.
Post by: Hunny156 on July 15, 2020, 01:40:30 PM
April was very bad in NYC, as everyone knows. Hubby lost a grandmother and a grandfather, on the opposite sides of the family, within 3 days of each other. Grandpa was 93, still living at home w/the assistance of home health; his aide got the virus and could not get a test, but by the time she had symptoms, Grandpa was affected, I can't imagine how many others. he tested positive and was doing well for 3 weeks, but ultimately took a turn for the worse and spent 2 days in the hospital, where he was given medicine to be comofrtable before the inevitable occurred. His son and wife were able to keep him company for a short while in the hospital, followed by quarantine, but they did not catch anything. He went straight to cremation, and with most of the family living in other states, well, not much we can do there.
Grandmother had turned 98 earlier the same week, lived in a Medicaid nursing home for many years. We recieved conflicting info, but understandable, given the craziness. As it turned out, she's a suspected covid case; 1 person on her floor tested positive, and we were just notified that she had passed on. She left behind 2 sons - my FIL and his brother. We all live out of state, and Grandmother had a plot, so a burial was set up. Thankfully, the uncle and aunt on the other side of the family were kind enough to "attend" the burial as the only family living locally, which was a drive by of the casket being lowered into the grave.
Hubby broke quarantine to go see his Dad when we got word; this turned out to be a good move, b/c FIL moves slowly and is not saavy, so hubby was able to make the arrangements and FedEx the required original deed to the plot to the funeral director, so they were able to claim the body before it was moved to the cornoner's office and potentially buried in a mass grave. Being a Medicaid patient, pre-planning the funeral was required, so that part was simple. FIL was also not financially saavy, and lives on his social security income plus a small investment account that his wife managed not to completely spend before she passed a few years ago. I'm watching the account drain at a rate of 13%/year, so we all know that's not good, but it is what it is. His brother is much younger and well off; homeowner, 2 kids that are a few years out of college and received full rides to good universities, a working wife, lots of travel up until the pandemic. He was downsized a few years ago, but opted to simply retire at that point, as he was able to collect SS early - no idea if he has or hasn't. He also has been mostly un-involved in his mother's care, or his parents aging, during most of his adult life, generally regarded as selfish by FIL and an older brother who passed years ago.
None of us even considered that since the arrangements were cut short due to covid, that there would be a credit balance with the funeral home; if we had considered it, we would have assumed property of the state as a very small reimbursement for the many years of care in the nursing home. But not the brother!! Funeral director calls FIL days after the burial, and he has an awkward question - does he have a brother? Long story short, brother called the funeral home, asking what the balance was on the account, and when he would be receiving his half! Just, wow. I have no doubt that the casket took up most of the funds; guesstimating from my own mother's service about a year ago, I'd be surprised if there was $2K in the account, to cover the wake and the funeral mass that couldn't take place.
The greed of people never ceases to amaze!
Post by: Hunny156 on July 15, 2020, 03:33:04 PM
So if I followed that story correctly, Grandma died alone during a pandemic and having done nothing to help with patient care or funeral planning, DH's Uncle contacted the funeral home to ask for a refund on his mother's prepaid funeral package?
Wow. Just wow.
Correct!
Post by: mm1970 on July 15, 2020, 04:32:08 PM
We started decluttering BEFORE COVID, and we have a pile...haven't donated.I mentioned to my BiL that I wanted another hobby, was considering golf. He suggested waiting for the wave of estate sales that are coming so I can pick up some golf clubs, used and inexpensive.
Or the decluttering. Seriously, I keep hearing that thrift stores are overwhelmed.
On the other hand, you cannot find weights anywhere. In a year or two, they'll be cheap.
Post by: Hula Hoop on July 16, 2020, 02:44:18 PM
So if I followed that story correctly, Grandma died alone during a pandemic and having done nothing to help with patient care or funeral planning, DH's Uncle contacted the funeral home to ask for a refund on his mother's prepaid funeral package?
Wow. Just wow.
Correct!
My God. People are awful.
Post by: Villanelle on July 17, 2020, 12:52:34 PM
Post by: scottish on July 17, 2020, 03:24:43 PM
Post by: Dicey on July 17, 2020, 04:00:23 PM
It would seem to me that the funeral home would have to release the funds to the executor/estate, not to individuals who claim some right to them based on familial relationships. No? If, for example, the brother was excluded from the will, he wouldn't be entitled to anything. So there is no way the funeral home can determine who gets a piece, which would mean the money goes to the estate.
That's how it works in Canada...Funny, I was my parent's co-executor and co-trustee. It never even occurred to us to ask if there was any money left over. Too late now, but I wonder if this really happens often?
Post by: scottish on July 17, 2020, 07:44:56 PM
Neither of my parents pre-paid their funeral expenses.
Post by: iris lily on July 17, 2020, 09:18:47 PM
DH’s father’s estate of $1+ Million still has not been settled after many months. Granted, some of that is related to coronavirus. But there is strife among the siblings that slows progress.
One sibling is resistant to many decisions, big and small, as everyone expected.
The siblings have decided to keep the family business and run it as a partnership.(!)
Because that makes so much sense, given existing relations. (!!)
What can possibly go wrong here? (!!!) / sarcasm
Post by: Imma on July 18, 2020, 02:42:01 AM
It would seem to me that the funeral home would have to release the funds to the executor/estate, not to individuals who claim some right to them based on familial relationships. No? If, for example, the brother was excluded from the will, he wouldn't be entitled to anything. So there is no way the funeral home can determine who gets a piece, which would mean the money goes to the estate.That's how it works in Canada...Funny, I was my parent's co-executor and co-trustee. It never even occurred to us to ask if there was any money left over. Too late now, but I wonder if this really happens often?
I'm surprised they don't pay the money back automatically. I worked for a big funeral insurance company about a decade ago and paying the leftover money back was my job. The insurance allowed a certain amount of money for every necessary item (like €200 for flowers, €120 for cards, €75 for thank you notes) and if people didn't choose to buy flowers for example, they'd get that money back. About 3 months after the funeral I'd make up the invoice and if they went under budget we refunded them automatically.
What shocked me when I started working there is how many elderly people don't get funerals at all. Those people would have had funeral insurance for decades, so I assume they had some wish for a funeral at some point in their lives, but many childless elderly people didn't get one. Instead their next of kin would have the body picked up from the nursing home, cremated without a service, and the ashes scattered by us. It happened to my grandma's friend, her nephews hadn't even informed her friends. The friend lived two hours away, when she no longer picked up the phone and letters weren't answered, my grandparents drove over and asked the neighbours if they knew if she had maybe moved to a nursing home. Instead they heard she was dead and her flat was cleared out the same week and sold soon after.
This has made me think about my own future. We're still young, but childless. And we don't have nieces and nephews on either side, only a few siblings that we're not very close to and who don't live in this area. After our parents have passed away we will probably appoint a friend (ideally a bit younger) as next of kin instead.
Post by: Zamboni on July 19, 2020, 06:41:11 AM
Sometimes you can just have key contacts in different groups you belong to with a request that these key folks spread the word about your passing (in modern times, this is often through an email list or listserv.)
Anyway, I had an estate planner suggest that I do that as part of their boilerplate package. It was an interesting mental exercise to figure out all of the different groups and people we would like to notify, if for no other reason than we don't want them to feel bad that they didn't even know when they find out about the death by accident months or years afterwards.
Post by: former player on July 19, 2020, 08:07:17 AM
It never gets easier on that end of things either.
Post by: LaineyAZ on July 19, 2020, 08:56:04 AM
My brother and I have now had to work through lists of telephone numbers and do the "I'm ringing with bad news, I'm afraid, [my relative] has died" 4 different times.
It never gets easier on that end of things either.
former player, as an etiquette note, I thank you for calling someone with this sad news vs. emailing or texting them.
Yes, I was the recipient of a text notifying me of a sudden death of someone in my extended circle. It was very jarring, and I felt it was kind of cold to deliver that news that way. However, I'm a Baby boomer and the person sending the message is a Millennial, so maybe it's a generational thing?
Post by: kina on July 19, 2020, 10:01:14 AM
Nope. I'm a boomer and my much older cousin announced her mother's (my aunt's) death via a mass email.My brother and I have now had to work through lists of telephone numbers and do the "I'm ringing with bad news, I'm afraid, [my relative] has died" 4 different times.
It never gets easier on that end of things either.
former player, as an etiquette note, I thank you for calling someone with this sad news vs. emailing or texting them.
Yes, I was the recipient of a text notifying me of a sudden death of someone in my extended circle. It was very jarring, and I felt it was kind of cold to deliver that news that way. However, I'm a Baby boomer and the person sending the message is a Millennial, so maybe it's a generational thing?
Post by: Dollar Slice on July 19, 2020, 10:19:36 AM
Yes, I was the recipient of a text notifying me of a sudden death of someone in my extended circle. It was very jarring, and I felt it was kind of cold to deliver that news that way. However, I'm a Baby boomer and the person sending the message is a Millennial, so maybe it's a generational thing?
I had spent hours waiting in line for a rock concert to see one of my fave bands, front row center, and halfway through the show a boomer friend of mine messaged me to say "hey did you hear that so-and-so died?" where the deceased was a much closer friend of mine than his. I pulled my phone out to check the time and saw the text. It really fucking sucked to hear about it that way and in that time and place :-( At the very least a phone call is more likely to be answered when a person is able to take a moment to process the news.
Post by: DadJokes on July 19, 2020, 10:32:19 AM
Post by: Imma on July 19, 2020, 12:06:40 PM
My brother and I have now had to work through lists of telephone numbers and do the "I'm ringing with bad news, I'm afraid, [my relative] has died" 4 different times.
It never gets easier on that end of things either.
former player, as an etiquette note, I thank you for calling someone with this sad news vs. emailing or texting them.
Yes, I was the recipient of a text notifying me of a sudden death of someone in my extended circle. It was very jarring, and I felt it was kind of cold to deliver that news that way. However, I'm a Baby boomer and the person sending the message is a Millennial, so maybe it's a generational thing?
I'm a milennial who has had to do the 'bad news call' a few months ago. My relative had Covid and so did several other family members, so only a few of us were able to call. One side of the family is pretty big and a cousin on that side informed everyone else (by phone) which we were thankful for. I had to call some very old friends. We informed one of the neighbours and they personally informed the others. The only people we didn't inform personally were acquintances/former colleages. They didn't know until they received the card.
Post by: partgypsy on July 19, 2020, 01:41:37 PM
At the same time the doctor said in 90% of cases there is nothing they could have done.
Anyways all we knew was that he had a plot. So the first night my sister and I get into an argument, where my sister wants to immediately cremate him, and the more I think about it and things he mentioned (how he didn't like open casket funerals, he would want a closed casket) the more I'm convinced he wanted to be buried. My sister starts flipping out that we need to buy a casket NOW. Otherwise it will be TOO LATE. Late that night I'm looking at a site, we are texting model numbers back and forth. I finally text her and my brother saying, is this one OK? I'm going to pull the trigger. I wait 10 minutes. Brother says sure. Sis texts me a couple unrelated freak outs, nothing about the casket but it's too late now and everything is messed up, etc so I'm assume she's OK with the casket choice. I order it and let them know. She then texts me that NO I SHOULDN'T buy a casket, burials are too expensive we can't afford it, cancel the casket! Anyways that became the pattern for the next week, lots of texts and emails between me and sister to finalize details, but then when actually making a decision, her then saying NO, and wanting to back out and start all over (and me ignoring her and just making a deicison because decisions needed to be made).
Anyways there may NOT be any money leftover from a simple burial. The plot was already purchased, and I provided the casket. There was a simple graveside service, but there was no funeral home use, no priest, flowers, service etc supplied by the funeral home yet it cost 14.5K just from the funeral home. Burials are Expensive. Anyways my brother and sister paid the bill and I paid for the casket. All or most should be reimbursed from the (very small) estate once it is settled. But it was a frustrating and stressful time trying to figure out what to do on a time pressure, without any instructions.
The other thing that was frustrating, is that whenever my brother tried to initiate a conversation about this topic, my Dad said "don't worry, it's all taken care of". But other than the plot, and some cash in an envelope that had my brother's name written on it) there was nothing taken care of. Nothing pre paid, no instructions, and not enough money in that envelope to cover the even simplified burial costs.
My mother after attending the burial was, "that was nice. I think I want to be buried too instead of being cremated." And us kids said sure, if you write down all the instructions, plan your funeral, AND have the money set aside for that we would be happy to do so. She hasn't brought it up since. I think we will do something very similar with Mom, except have her cremated to save costs.
Post by: LaineyAZ on July 19, 2020, 06:19:30 PM
You have my sincere condolences. It's bad enough that your father passed unexpectedly, but to have to deal with a recalcitrant sibling on top of that is too much.
I hope it is a wake-up call too for your mother that all funeral arrangements can be pre-planned, and that would have removed all of this extra stress for the siblings.
Post by: Dicey on July 19, 2020, 07:52:10 PM
Post by: Imma on July 20, 2020, 12:59:10 AM
I'n surprised about the huge cost for such a simple service with the plot already paid for. My country is certainly not LCOL but 14k would get you a Mass attended by 200 people and food for all of them afterwards.
Post by: partgypsy on July 20, 2020, 07:03:51 AM
Imma yes I was surprised at the cost. We did not do embalming, makeup, the most basic liner, etc etc, still very expensive. The most recent bill (not included in the 14.5K) was 1.5K for installing the grave marker (he was a veteran so the VBA provided one gratis).
Yes regarding burial we are relieved we made the right decision. he was raised Orthodox and cremation is just not done. And I think all the relatives were happy he was properly buried. For example we had a Orthodox priest speak at the burial; if he was cremated that would not have been possible. The one thing we could not give him due to COVID, is that he expressed more than once, he would like to have a memorial dinner in his honor for family. If the stars are aligned maybe next summer.
Post by: saguaro on July 20, 2020, 07:45:06 AM
Post by: Hunny156 on July 20, 2020, 10:57:12 AM
It would seem to me that the funeral home would have to release the funds to the executor/estate, not to individuals who claim some right to them based on familial relationships. No? If, for example, the brother was excluded from the will, he wouldn't be entitled to anything. So there is no way the funeral home can determine who gets a piece, which would mean the money goes to the estate.That's how it works in Canada...Funny, I was my parent's co-executor and co-trustee. It never even occurred to us to ask if there was any money left over. Too late now, but I wonder if this really happens often?
Valid point, but there was no will; both men had Power of Attorney over their mom; but that terminates at death, as I learned when my Mom passed. The funeral director had told me that there was a very small balance on my Mom's pre-need; but her will had been destroyed by my evil sibling, so there was no record of it; lawyer who created the will stated he didn't keep copies.
I never received any reimbursement check and just assumed the evil sibling had convinced the funeral director to send it all to her; after our legal battles over her theft of my mom's estate, I had no interest to even find out, but now I'm wondering if it was sent to the state as unclaimed funds. I had a bank account set up in my Mom's name w/me as POA, and when she passed, I contacted the bank to close the account. They said it had to go to probate. Account balance was $0.17 and no other assets, so I'm letting that go to unclaimed funds, of course!
With regards to the in-laws, we certainly aren't going to get involved, but maybe that is for the best - neither of them get anything, and the state might notice it and lay claim as compensation for nursing home care, which is where any excess funds SHOULD go.
Edited for typos and to add a little more info:
@partgypsy, I'm sorry for the loss of your father, especially during the Covid mess. It's quite difficult to move on without the closure that a wake/mass/burial provides. Like you, we are thinking a celebration of life get together at some point will be the best we can do.
I don't know where you live, and costs vary wildly, but both my Mom and Dad had almost identical funeral plans, and even though we could have bought a casket elsewhere for far less; I knew they would want to support the local funeral home as a small business, so I just agreed to pick what they offered, knowing full well it was a rip off. Although, after dealing w/my family and their drama, they may have earned every penny. Each funeral cost $16K, covering flowers, casket, 3 wake sessions, those little prayer cards and a sign in book, thank you notes, the mass donation, a flower car, hearse and two towncar/limosines to transport family, costs to remove the marker and update it, and a color photo. The crypt they chose housed two caskets and was already paid for; I don't even want to guess how expensive that was!
After going through the whole thing w/Dad, I decided that 1 wake session was enough, and limosines to transport warring family wasn't a good idea, which worked out fine, b/c the only family that bothered to show up was my sibling and I. 18 years had passed between the two services, but I think pre-need accounts for those costs through the interest. At this point, I'm just relieved it's all over, and that our future funeral planning would be for my father in law, as the only elder left. Hubby and his brother are both of the same mind, so that should consist of a low-cost cremation service and probably just an in-house memorial at my FIL's home, for his neighbor friends to attend.
Post by: iris lily on July 20, 2020, 11:54:53 AM
that is a very interesting observation about your sister and her possible inability to frame her life now that her problem people, those she can blame for her problems, are gone.
One piece of wisdom that really struck a chord with me is that people who have a problematic relationship with the dead have a harder time moving on from their death. I have since observed that many times.
Post by: partgypsy on July 20, 2020, 12:27:20 PM
Post by: mm1970 on July 20, 2020, 03:04:48 PM
I have no idea what his burial cost. He already had the plot. There was no service, just a burial. His estate paid for it (his estate was probably worth $70k and that was mostly the house).
Post by: Goldielocks on July 20, 2020, 05:19:59 PM
It happened to my grandma's friend, her nephews hadn't even informed her friends. The friend lived two hours away, when she no longer picked up the phone and letters weren't answered, my grandparents drove over and asked the neighbours if they knew if she had maybe moved to a nursing home. Instead they heard she was dead and her flat was cleared out the same week and sold soon after.
It happened to my DH, too. When his grandpa died, his (estranged) aunt did not tell any family (her one nephew, or the in-laws), let alone friends. We found out through a combination of no phone calls being answered / letters and a distant relative reading a courtesy obit posting on the online funeral home (that did the cremation). Grandpa was deteriorating for the last year, and we lived out of country that year, so we were never told of his illness or death. So sad. At least we knew (from him) that his wishes were to have no funeral, which is likely why there wasn't one.
Post by: Imma on July 21, 2020, 03:22:02 AM
It happened to my grandma's friend, her nephews hadn't even informed her friends. The friend lived two hours away, when she no longer picked up the phone and letters weren't answered, my grandparents drove over and asked the neighbours if they knew if she had maybe moved to a nursing home. Instead they heard she was dead and her flat was cleared out the same week and sold soon after.
It happened to my DH, too. When his grandpa died, his (estranged) aunt did not tell any family (her one nephew, or the in-laws), let alone friends. We found out through a combination of no phone calls being answered / letters and a distant relative reading a courtesy obit posting on the online funeral home (that did the cremation). Grandpa was deteriorating for the last year, and we lived out of country that year, so we were never told of his illness or death. So sad. At least we knew (from him) that his wishes were to have no funeral, which is likely why there wasn't one.
Who does that? :( I can't even Imagine what someone is thinking when they don't inform any of the deceased person's loved ones. Even if you are personally estranged from someone, you put that aside out of respect for the deceased. I'm estranged from our godmother but I'm 100% sure I would inform her if something happened to my siblings, because they are not estranged from her.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 21, 2020, 07:10:16 AM
I can't say I blame them. She's a piece of work.
Post by: Dicey on July 21, 2020, 07:30:10 AM
Post by: partgypsy on July 21, 2020, 09:24:33 AM
Post by: Hunny156 on July 21, 2020, 09:38:39 AM
My black sheep sister took mom's address book (see: control = power in her mind). We knew we were missing people, but did the best we could under the circumstances. It was worse when my dad died a year later, because he had moved out of state. Sigh.
Mine stole the sign in book after the wake ended. She also managed to convince the cemetery staff to put the casket in the crypt, which they typically do after everyone leaves. All I know is that after the final service in the mausoleum, I decided to wait outside for her and her friends to have their final moments w/the casket, and then I could go in and have my final moments with my hubby and friends. At one point, she came outside to get something from her vehicle, I thought nothing of it at the time. Best I can tell is she wanted to include something from her cult (which my Mom was not a part of) either in or on top of the casket. Once they left, we went inside, and were shocked that everything was already completed, and the casket was gone!
The final act of control was the photo. The marker has the names of the deceased on opposite ends, with a profile photo of each person. Or if the family wants one photo as a couple, then that is placed in the middle. Mom specifically indicated that she wanted to be buried in the dress that she wore to my wedding, and I provided the funeral director w/a profile photo from the wedding to use on the marker. When the marker was put in place, the photo used was of my Mom & Dad, w/my Mom standing behind my Dad. So there are two photos of my Dad on the marker, and my Mom isn't even the featured subject of her own grave marker! On some level, this was a passive aggressive move towards Mom, b/c my sister hated her. I could have paid the $500 to change it, but I figured she'd just change it back, and I honestly no longer care. I've closed the door on my crazy family, and moved on.
Post by: Dicey on July 21, 2020, 12:15:03 PM
Ugh. This reminds me of this gem that I'dMy black sheep sister took mom's address book (see: control = power in her mind). We knew we were missing people, but did the best we could under the circumstances. It was worse when my dad died a year later, because he had moved out of state. Sigh.
Mine stole the sign in book after the wake ended. She also managed to convince the cemetery staff to put the casket in the crypt, which they typically do after everyone leaves. All I know is that after the final service in the mausoleum, I decided to wait outside for her and her friends to have their final moments w/the casket, and then I could go in and have my final moments with my hubby and friends. At one point, she came outside to get something from her vehicle, I thought nothing of it at the time. Best I can tell is she wanted to include something from her cult (which my Mom was not a part of) either in or on top of the casket. Once they left, we went inside, and were shocked that everything was already completed, and the casket was gone!
The final act of control was the photo. The marker has the names of the deceased on opposite ends, with a profile photo of each person. Or if the family wants one photo as a couple, then that is placed in the middle. Mom specifically indicated that she wanted to be buried in the dress that she wore to my wedding, and I provided the funeral director w/a profile photo from the wedding to use on the marker. When the marker was put in place, the photo used was of my Mom & Dad, w/my Mom standing behind my Dad. So there are two photos of my Dad on the marker, and my Mom isn't even the featured subject of her own grave marker! On some level, this was a passive aggressive move towards Mom, b/c my sister hated her. I could have paid the $500 to change it, but I figured she'd just change it back, and I honestly no longer care. I've closed the door on my crazy family, and moved on.
Black sheep sister took a picture of my mom after she died. I believe she did it at the mortuary, prior to cremation. Then on some angry (in her mind) occasion, she forwarded the picture to the rest of us. I believe it may have happened on Mom's birthday or Mother's Day, for added effect. Bitch.
Post by: JGS1980 on July 21, 2020, 01:06:11 PM
Post by: Taran Wanderer on July 21, 2020, 01:26:26 PM
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 21, 2020, 03:14:13 PM
Post by: Hunny156 on July 21, 2020, 03:52:15 PM
Post by: Dicey on July 21, 2020, 05:38:45 PM
@Dicey , sorry for making that hidden memory come back to the surface. Some people just plain suck. :(Funny, in a way I appreciated the reminder. Black Sheep Sister has managed to worm her way back into everyone else's lives to some degree. I'm not having it, for a variety of reasons, some worse than the story I just shared. Thank you for helping me remember that I'm not the asshole.
Post by: lhamo on July 21, 2020, 06:41:26 PM
I personally HATE getting unanticipated phone calls -- an email I can decide when I open, when and how I deal with the contents.
Post by: LaineyAZ on July 21, 2020, 07:06:06 PM
And in my mind it's also different if it's someone who is elderly or who was chronically seriously ill and their demise was expected vs. a sudden, unexpected death of a younger or otherwise healthy person who was family or close friend. In the latter instance, a phone call would be less jarring and cold and is more compassionate and caring.
Post by: PDXTabs on July 21, 2020, 07:18:14 PM
Post by: Dollar Slice on July 21, 2020, 08:11:41 PM
OK, maybe I'm wierd but -- why does everybody expect someone who just lost someone close to them to suck it up and make a gazillion phone calls to all the friends and relatives to tell them?
I don't. This is something that other people can help with, like when they say "oh my god, I'm so sorry, please let me know if there's anything I can do" you say "actually, can I give you a list of people to notify, I'm completely wrecked and I just can't talk to people right now." When my friend's wife was killed in an accident he asked me if I would inform our friend group because he was in shock and couldn't deal with it. I was happy to be able to help him in some small way. (I did do a mass electronic message in that case since most of them had never met her, only him, since she was not involved in our hobby group, and it didn't seem like it would really upset anyone.)
And ditto the above comments - it depends how close you are and how expected the death is. If your child or spouse or close friend drops dead suddenly, you should not be notified in a two-sentence text randomly arriving on your phone while you're in traffic, or seeing an e-mail subject pop up on your iPhone when you're in a work meeting. On the phone someone can give you a little emotional cushioning - hey, I need to tell you something serious, are you in an OK place to talk, can you sit down, etc. If great-grandma passes away at age 91 after 2 months in the hospital, people have mostly already accepted it and no one is likely to break down or be in shock about it - in that case I think e-mails are fine.
For younger people who don't really 'do' phone calls/hate getting calls out of the blue (like most people under 45-50, I guess), a text saying "Could you please call me ASAP, it's urgent" is probably a sensitive way to handle it.
Post by: former player on July 21, 2020, 08:33:27 PM
Post by: Goldielocks on July 21, 2020, 10:49:51 PM
OK, maybe I'm wierd but -- why does everybody expect someone who just lost someone close to them to suck it up and make a gazillion phone calls to all the friends and relatives to tell them? There is no way I could have made it through a horrific process like that. My mom was ailing and everybody knew. No one seemed offended by the mass email I sent out when she finally passed. I was able to compose it over a couple of days and get input from my siblings. Many people responded with special memories of my mom -- some decided to cc: everybody on those messages so we all got to know her/her history a little better.Honestly, we would have been happy with ONE call to ONE person on our side of the family, or ONE mass email, or ONE text. Anything, at all.
I personally HATE getting unanticipated phone calls -- an email I can decide when I open, when and how I deal with the contents.
Even better would have been one text alerting us to the fact that she moved Grandpa into a care facility, he wasn't well, so that we could have planned to take our annual trip to see him sooner (he was moved to a city that we had other family in and visited more than once a year).
Post by: Imma on July 22, 2020, 01:58:22 AM
OK, maybe I'm wierd but -- why does everybody expect someone who just lost someone close to them to suck it up and make a gazillion phone calls to all the friends and relatives to tell them? There is no way I could have made it through a horrific process like that. My mom was ailing and everybody knew. No one seemed offended by the mass email I sent out when she finally passed. I was able to compose it over a couple of days and get input from my siblings. Many people responded with special memories of my mom -- some decided to cc: everybody on those messages so we all got to know her/her history a little better.
I personally HATE getting unanticipated phone calls -- an email I can decide when I open, when and how I deal with the contents.
You don't have to do it all by yourself, it's totally fine to let others help. When my relative passed a couple of months ago, one side of the family was called by a cousin we are close to. And I don't feel absolutely everyone has to be informed personally - old acquintances and former neighbours and people from the tennis club can wait for the card.
The reason why calling is important is because that way you're sure the message has arrived. You don't know if and when texts or emails arrive. My relative passed in the early hours of the morning and we made it our goal to inform the most important people before noon. We wanted to make sure that none of them heard it "through the grapevine" so that's why we had to act fast. For a close relative or friend, it would be awful to bump into someone in the grocery store and learn that way. We also felt that because people need to make arrangements to attend the funeral it's also important to notify them ASAP.
Post by: talltexan on July 22, 2020, 07:28:37 AM
Post by: lhamo on July 22, 2020, 07:35:35 AM
Anyway, here is a redacted version of what we sent (came from me but was signed by all siblings) -- I only got positive feedback about how we handled it, though I guess maybe that is because most people are ultra polite with grieving children. I lived overseas so long that I am used to getting bad news by email. Maybe I'm just odd.
Dear Family and Friends of [Mom],
With sadness we are writing to inform you that our mother, [name],
passed away late Sunday night, [date].
As many of you know, Mom's health had been declining over the past two
years due to congestive heart failure -- we learned in late 2015 that
the mitral valve she had replaced in 2002 had failed and Mom elected not
to undergo further surgery. She suffered a fall and a broken clavicle
in [timeframe], and made the decision to move into [X Assisted
Living] in North Seattle in [date]. These kinds of transitions
are always hard, but Mom weathered the move reasonably well and made
many good friends at [facility name] while adjusting to life in her new
environment. In mid-November she was hospitalized for several days
after a fall in her apartment, and upon discharge elected to return home
to [facility] with hospice support. She was well enough a few days
later to join the rest of the family for a lovely Thanksgiving dinner
downtown, which we all enjoyed immensely.
In the days following the holiday, we had been working closely with
[hospice name] to set up the support visits Mom needed,
and had been planning to send everyone an update once her caregiver
schedule was more stable and we knew when a good time for personal
visits would be. Unfortunately, Mom's health condition declined rapidly
late last week before we could extend that invitation. Thankfully,
with the help of hospice, the [facility] staff and some lovely
caregivers, we were able to ensure that Mom could remain at home in
relative comfort and peace until her passing.
Everyone who knows Mom knows she was strong in her Christian faith. We
are sad to have lost her, but she was ready to leave her ailing physical
body, and was confident her soul was bound for heaven. We are glad to
know she is now at peace.
The memorial service will be held at [details]. A lightly catered reception will
follow. Details can be found on [funeral home] website here:
[memorial info page]
For those traveling from outside the Seattle area, [funeral home] is part
of the “Dignity Memorial Network” which has a bereavement travel program
that can help make all the necessary travel arrangements:
Dignity Memorial Bereavement Travel Program
1-800-224-4177
Reference [####]
If you think you will be able to attend the memorial service, a note to
us at this email address would be appreciated so we can estimate
attendance for the catering arrangements.
In lieu of flowers, Mom requested that memorial gifts be directed to
[mom's preferred [religious] charities]. The family also greatly appreciated the services of
[hospice name] over the past weeks.
We are sending this out to Mom’s family and friends with recipient email
addresses visible, since we know there are many individuals she did not
have active emails for. If there are family members or friends of Mom
you are in touch with whose addresses do not appear, we would be most
grateful if you could pass this news on.
Many thanks for your past and ongoing prayers for Mom and our family.
We look forward to seeing many of you and to sharing our collective
memories of her soon."
Post by: Captain FIRE on July 22, 2020, 07:48:16 AM
But do you really not see why it might have been upsetting to me as a freshman in college, to get an email with the subject "Grandma died"? Keeping in mind that this was my first real instance with death too. (I had attended one funeral prior to this of someone I did not know.)
Post by: Capsu78 on July 22, 2020, 04:25:14 PM
Her parents retired to Placerville CA and hosted some of the most popular hummingbird feeders I have ever seen. I have our loved ones birthdays and death anniversaries loaded into my (unknown) shared calendar, so my wife was already aware of the day. This morning, a hummingbird showed up outside our kitchen window and was staring in at me while it fed on some spider web goodies. I told my wife it was her Mom checking in on us!
I have spoken to a number of people who have "bird" stories related to death of loved ones- mine involve robins who were at my Mom's grave the first time I saw it with the marker in...another friend of mine who spent the last hours with her Dad had a threesome of cardinals land on the tree outside her Dads bedroom just after he passed...it was during a snowfall too so she chooses to believe it was more than a coincidence!
OK, this was off topic by 90 degrees or more, but sometimes its nice to come up for air!
Post by: talltexan on July 24, 2020, 09:18:46 AM
Post by: sherr on July 24, 2020, 09:55:26 AM
Post by: Frankies Girl on July 24, 2020, 10:14:33 AM
Not quoting your post as instructed but wanted to ask: do you have a lawyer that your sister or family was using for advice/settling the estate? Because that would be the next step - formally contact your sister and ask her to please let you know either what the delay is, or pay the full amount, and if she will not communicate or tells you there is no money/she already gave you enough, contact the probate attorney and you may need to proceed to petitioning the court for help. You need to remind her that she is a legally responsible fiduciary as the appointed executrix, and there are actually penalties if she does not perform the legally-required duties. She must follow up on this, or she's breaking the law. There are serious consequences if she is found negligent/witholding/stealing your inheritance. Even if WF screwed things up, she should have paperwork that shows she had the estate pay in $$ money. Either it is right or it is wrong, but without proof, she is on the hook and failure to provide proof or the actual $ is her failing to complete her duties. At the very least, she will have to pay out your missing $ from her own pocket if she screwed up or can't prove what she did, and could be fined by the state for failure to uphold the fiduciary duties, but there could be criminal charges filed even (not that this is a thing with your sister, but still).
https://info.legalzoom.com/article/failure-execute-fiduciary-responsibilities-executor-will
Will she talk on the phone/zoom with you at all? You probably should try calling her and then follow up with an email. If she gives you any answer other than "so sorry, I'll get that taken care of by X date." and then does so, then you really do need to send her a formal notice (email?) that you will be contacting a lawyer to ask for formal payment of the full amount from the estate and then consult the lawyer. You don't need to involve the other siblings unless you all want to have her removed as executrix and get a court-appointed replacement. But still, formal ask (reminding her that she is putting herself in a legally dangerous position if she refuses to respond/pay out) and then lawyer consult.
This can be done politely, but it really is a mess having to ask at all and this is HER fault for being dumb about the communication factor. Every single thing I've ever read is that the executor should just communicate with the heirs and keep them informed what is happening/will happen/if there's a holdup and this would solve 99% of the issues with people getting angry/worried. Guess that would be too easy tho.
Post by: Villanelle on July 24, 2020, 11:01:38 AM
I say this (and please do confirm via Zelle!) because it is entirely possible that she did everything correctly initially. That doesn't make her failure to rectify the situation acceptable, however. She needs to handle her responsibilites. I just wanted to offer that perspective on Zelle. You can also take the info from the Zelle site and send that to her, apologize for not realizing you had to accept (the apology may allow her to save face and be less defensive) and let her know that if she wants to send it via Zelle again, you know know the process and will accept ir right away, but that you'd really like to get this taken care of ASAP and that you are sure that she, as the one with fiduciary and legal responsibility for makign sure the money is distributed properly, likely wants the same thing, so you think it best that unless there is some other issue of which she is not aware, she send the money as soon as possible. If there's some reason she can't do it before August 5, could she please let you know ASAP. Otherwise, please let you know when she has done the Zelle transfer (or a transfer via another method or mailed check) so you can keep an eye out for it.
That would be my approach. If she failed to respond or balked in any way, I would give strong consideration to something like, "I'm hopeful you will still be able to meet that August 5th deadline. I believe that hiring a lawyer will get expensive and since with both agree that I am should have received $12,500 but I did not, the expense of that would likely go back to you as the executor and the one with responsibility here. I am certain neither of us want that, and it's not what dad would have wanted, and it's entirely unnecessary. So please let me know how you will be sending the money so we can put this matter to rest. "
Post by: iluvzbeach on July 24, 2020, 11:19:41 AM
Clearly, it’s be a passive approach but she might get some sort of kick out of feeling like she “helped” you when you needed funds.
Post by: Sibley on July 24, 2020, 11:31:55 AM
Pretend that she's not your sister. How would you handle the situation if it was a purely business contact? Handle it that way.
Post by: iluvzbeach on July 24, 2020, 11:34:41 AM
Post by: partgypsy on July 24, 2020, 02:21:03 PM
Post by: saguaro on July 24, 2020, 03:28:53 PM
Yep, sounds like you’re going to have to take the stronger approach that others have suggested above. As someone else mentioned, you have to keep in mind it’s not your actions that are causing a (potential) rift with Sister1, it’s her actions that are putting you in this predicament.
As someone who finally had to hire an attorney to force my sister to do her duty as executor, the bolded is what you have to keep at the forefront of your mind.
Post by: expatartist on July 24, 2020, 09:46:33 PM
Yep, sounds like you’re going to have to take the stronger approach that others have suggested above. As someone else mentioned, you have to keep in mind it’s not your actions that are causing a (potential) rift with Sister1, it’s her actions that are putting you in this predicament.
As someone who finally had to hire an attorney to force my sister to do her duty as executor, the bolded is what you have to keep at the forefront of your mind.
Thanks saguaro.
Post by: TomTX on July 25, 2020, 07:11:23 AM
I don't. This is something that other people can help with, like when they say "oh my god, I'm so sorry, please let me know if there's anything I can do" you say "actually, can I give you a list of people to notify, I'm completely wrecked and I just can't talk to people right now." When my friend's wife was killed in an accident he asked me if I would inform our friend group because he was in shock and couldn't deal with it. I was happy to be able to help him in some small way. (I did do a mass electronic message in that case since most of them had never met her, only him, since she was not involved in our hobby group, and it didn't seem like it would really upset anyone.)
That's how I handled it when a good friend died unexpectedly. I called someone in our shared hobby group, they offered to help and I asked them to call the rest of the hobby group.
I then was able to focus on helping out his wife and newborn - and she didn't know anything about the Social Security survivor benefits, his life insurance from work, his pension, medicaid, etc. She didn't work and medical benefits were through his work, which cut them off quite quickly. Two month old newborn. No health insurance. She had enough in checking for that month's bills and maybe $1k in a savings account.
Post by: Dave1442397 on July 25, 2020, 04:14:33 PM
As part of the process, they sent a planning form to be filled in before the meeting, if possible. Now, my MIL is currently worth around $240k, including her condo (we guesstimate around $100k for that).
One question asked if she had any specific bequests. She has three distant relatives in her home country that are now in their twenties, and she has never met them. I doubt they even know she exists. We asked how much she'd like to leave them, and she says $30k! A few minutes later we talked her down to $1,000 each. Why $30k? It's a cultural thing. She wants to be remembered as the rich American who dropped a ton of money in their laps, as if they'd care where it came from :)
I'm looking forward to getting everything documented. There's one family member who will have issues with what she wants, for sure. That person was informally adopted back in the '60s, and legally, no paperwork was ever filed. I guess if they don't like it, there's not much recourse. No one else gets along with them, and the rest of my wife's family has decided that once MIL goes, they have no desire to interact with the toxic family member ever again.
We encourage MIL to enjoy what she has and spend what she likes. Her monthly SS income is enough to keep her going in comfort, and she's in her nineties, so she might as well do what she likes at this point.
So, no drama yet, but I see it coming on the horizon. Time to get everything written down and finalized.
Post by: Villanelle on July 25, 2020, 04:47:44 PM
My mother-in-law has been asking us to set up an appointment with a lawyer to make a proper will, etc, so we're doing that on 8/3.
As part of the process, they sent a planning form to be filled in before the meeting, if possible. Now, my MIL is currently worth around $240k, including her condo (we guesstimate around $100k for that).
One question asked if she had any specific bequests. She has three distant relatives in her home country that are now in their twenties, and she has never met them. I doubt they even know she exists. We asked how much she'd like to leave them, and she says $30k! A few minutes later we talked her down to $1,000 each. Why $30k? It's a cultural thing. She wants to be remembered as the rich American who dropped a ton of money in their laps, as if they'd care where it came from :)
I'm looking forward to getting everything documented. There's one family member who will have issues with what she wants, for sure. That person was informally adopted back in the '60s, and legally, no paperwork was ever filed. I guess if they don't like it, there's not much recourse. No one else gets along with them, and the rest of my wife's family has decided that once MIL goes, they have no desire to interact with the toxic family member ever again.
We encourage MIL to enjoy what she has and spend what she likes. Her monthly SS income is enough to keep her going in comfort, and she's in her nineties, so she might as well do what she likes at this point.
So, no drama yet, but I see it coming on the horizon. Time to get everything written down and finalized.
If she wants to leave them $30k, why would you try to talk her out of it? It's her money, and at that point, she won't need it so making sure she is taken care of can't be the motivation. Why should it matter if *you* think it's silly where her money goes after she's dead?
Post by: iluvzbeach on July 25, 2020, 04:58:02 PM
Post by: Dicey on July 26, 2020, 08:44:27 AM
Also, there are costs associated with selling her condo. Don't forget to include them in your estimations.
Post by: Dollar Slice on July 26, 2020, 09:49:27 AM
One should always give in percentages, not absolute dollars. Otherwise, as funds get spent down, those specific dollar bequests can eat up the entire estate, leaving nothing for anyone else.
And in rare cases, the opposite. My father was the only relative named in the will of his childless great uncle and received a specified amount... which ended up being around one half of one percent of his multi-million-dollar estate. We'll never know if that's exactly what he wanted or if he just never updated that part of his will for a few decades.
Post by: Dicey on July 26, 2020, 09:57:27 AM
Wow! Something's better than nothing, I suppose, but it does leave one hanging. Where did the rest of his estate go?One should always give in percentages, not absolute dollars. Otherwise, as funds get spent down, those specific dollar bequests can eat up the entire estate, leaving nothing for anyone else.
And in rare cases, the opposite. My father was the only relative named in the will of his childless great uncle and received a specified amount... which ended up being around one half of one percent of his multi-million-dollar estate. We'll never know if that's exactly what he wanted or if he just never updated that part of his will for a few decades.
Post by: Dollar Slice on July 26, 2020, 10:24:01 AM
Wow! Something's better than nothing, I suppose, but it does leave one hanging. Where did the rest of his estate go?One should always give in percentages, not absolute dollars. Otherwise, as funds get spent down, those specific dollar bequests can eat up the entire estate, leaving nothing for anyone else.
And in rare cases, the opposite. My father was the only relative named in the will of his childless great uncle and received a specified amount... which ended up being around one half of one percent of his multi-million-dollar estate. We'll never know if that's exactly what he wanted or if he just never updated that part of his will for a few decades.
He started a charitable foundation about 15 years before his death and left it all to them. I'm sure he intended to leave them a large bequest, but it's hard to know if he meant it to be quite that much. I was never really impressed with the aims of the foundation (which is interesting since it has my last name on it!), but happily in recent years they've added some new programs which are (IMO) much more useful/important.
Post by: ca-rn on July 26, 2020, 01:05:06 PM
am trustee over small estate for 4 siblings and a manipulative aunt ( who isn't named in the trust but was promised $- all siblings aware)
3 of 4 siblings agree (begrudgingly) to follows last parent's request to give $ to manipulative aunt except for super entitled manipulative sibling who doesn't want to share.
super entitled manipulative sibling got a early and much larger "inheritance" by taking many "loans" in the past and never paid them back. now claiming they were forgiven. always promised to repay but never did. entitled, champagne tastes charismatic but never could hold a regular job. never helped with parent's care- money or time. always too busy to help and said that i chose to help them so i shouldn't complain.
i helped the parents the most as they lived with me but 2 other siblings did help with some care and support especially when i was overwhelmed.
2 other siblings could use the money, one is kind of mustachian, the other not so much but neither borrowed money from parents.
frankly at a loss being the trustee of this estate- has caused a serious rift enough for me to write out entitled manipulative sibling from all my financial accounts. i have let them all know this but am sure if i get killed by a bus while on my bike- manipulative sibling will try to worm way into some $ somehow.
manipulative siblings insists on having copies of all accounts, receipts, even ones not part of the trust ( did not give those), accusing me of embezzling and threatening lawsuit. many many spiteful hateful texts and emails- i always knew sibling was manipulative but never so mean and cutting. i paid thousands of dollars for my parents care that were never reimbursed and took many days off work to care for them and to be accused of not "doing enough" for them and threatening lawsuit is too much.
i had "loaned" sibling many thousands of dollars as well and was never paid back.
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 26, 2020, 02:05:29 PM
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your perogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
Post by: Dicey on July 26, 2020, 02:26:11 PM
Yeah, I have a sister that could be your sib's twin. Sadly, I let the rest of my siblings outvote me on something the black sheep sister vehemently swore she was entitled to. Pissed me off so much that after acquiescing on that point, I adamantly refused to be manipulated further. I also rewrote my own will. The pressure my sibs put on me is going to cost them in the long run, but even writing that sounds bitter. Uh, it made me re-think and revise my own beneficiary designations. Does that soundcan't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your prerogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
I suggest you strongly consider taking SG's advice, unless the estate is very small. If that's the case, I'd just call their bluff and try to wrap it up as soon as possible.
BTW, ours took two years to fully disburse. All the experts said we were going to pay a shitload of taxes, but with careful research, and a little paid assistance from a CPA who used to work for the IRS, we managed to avoid paying them up front. And yes, Black Sheep sister did complain about how long it took, but she ended up getting more money. All of which she has blown. Sigh.
Post by: iluvzbeach on July 26, 2020, 03:02:20 PM
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your perogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
@SwordGuy, I think I love you in an internet stranger sort of way.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on July 27, 2020, 09:55:26 PM
I made the distributions ASAP, knowing it would be difficult to remain trustworthy any longer than necessary. I often have regrets, but they are honorable regrets.
Post by: iris lily on July 28, 2020, 09:58:10 AM
Ask me how I know, ha ha.
Situation is playing out in DH’s family has very large amounts of money going to one of the siblings who promised to pay it back which never happened. No one in his family is going after that money because it is lost. This is a family that, at one time, did dormally loan money back-and-forth to each other. Family business. Parents lent money to son. Son lent money to parents. All documented with promissory notes stating interest rate. But that was way back when. Parental expectations relaxed with younger sibs.
Post by: TomTX on July 28, 2020, 11:23:48 AM
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your perogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
If documented, those loans are an asset of the estate. Handle them as such.
My brother has taken out and never repaid loans from my parents, but they are all documented and I have been instructed that they should be considered part of "his share" of any inheritance.
And I like the lawyer plan.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 28, 2020, 11:31:22 AM
can't wait to close this trust and never speak to dis-owned ex sibling again.
Hire an attorney to do the work of dealing with sibling. It's within your perogative as executor.
Not only that, but send an invoice to said sibling for all the loans that haven't been paid back. Send copies of those you have documentation for to your other siblings. See what it would cost to take sibling to civil court to collect. If you're going to burn bridges on purpose, be sure to use napalm. :)
If documented, those loans are an asset of the estate. Handle them as such.
My brother has taken out and never repaid loans from my parents, but they are all documented and I have been instructed that they should be considered part of "his share" of any inheritance.
And I like the lawyer plan.
My wife has 2 brothers and 1 sister. Their mother is very old and not in the best of health. She's living on borrowed time, she almost died about 2 years ago.
We all fully expect her sister to act horribly when her mom passes. One of her brothers will be the executor. We've suggested he hire a lawyer to deal with his sister.
He's in the process of selling his mom's home (with her blessing) since she's in a nursing home and won't be coming out of it. His mom's home is a block away from his own and he has a horror that the problem sister will move into it. I can't say I blame him. The horror isn't the money, the house is worth very little. He just doesn't want her as a neighbor.
Post by: saguaro on July 28, 2020, 12:09:24 PM
Yeah, I have a sister that could be your sib's twin. Sadly, I let the rest of my siblings outvote me on something the black sheep sister vehemently swore she was entitled to. Pissed me off so much that after acquiescing on that point, I adamantly refused to be manipulated further. I also rewrote my own will. The pressure my sibs put on me is going to cost them in the long run, but even writing that sounds bitter. Uh, it made me re-think and revise my own beneficiary designations. Does that soundbitterbetter?
@Dicey, just want to say to the bolded that it doesn't sound bitter. It sounds like a logical consequence.
After my special trustee duties of selling my parents house were finished, I had learned so much of how my sister mishandled things that I started revising my beneficiary designations beginning when I took my disbursement check to the bank. She has no idea how much gaining for herself is going to cost her in the end.
Post by: Dicey on July 28, 2020, 02:23:45 PM
Heh-heh, I know just what you mean...my parent's estate was significantly smaller than it might have been because of sister's constant draining of parental resources. She gambles. In the year before my mom died, she stole at least $11k in cash via fradulent CC use that I know of, in addition to manymanymany other things. The fact that she still got (and squandered) the biggest piece of the pie will never be forgotten.Yeah, I have a sister that could be your sib's twin. Sadly, I let the rest of my siblings outvote me on something the black sheep sister vehemently swore she was entitled to. Pissed me off so much that after acquiescing on that point, I adamantly refused to be manipulated further. I also rewrote my own will. The pressure my sibs put on me is going to cost them in the long run, but even writing that sounds bitter. Uh, it made me re-think and revise my own beneficiary designations. Does that soundbitterbetter?
@Dicey, just want to say to the bolded that it doesn't sound bitter. It sounds like a logical consequence.
After my special trustee duties of selling my parents house were finished, I had learned so much of how my sister mishandled things that I started revising my beneficiary designations beginning when I took my disbursement check to the bank. She has no idea how much gaining for herself is going to cost her in the end.
Just to keep this thing on topic, I'll add another glimpse into her dark soul. After my Mom's Memorial, Dad didn't want to live in the house without her. He wanted to go to my brother's in AZ, so another sister, DH and I packed him up and moved him. He took what little he wanted and left the rest, which was heartbreakingly sad in itself.
My parent's gated Senior Community hosts an annual garage sale. As it happens, it was scheduled for about six weeks after her passing, which was WAY too soon, but it had to be done. Other Sister, DH and I did the seven hour each way shlep multiple times to get the house ready. The three of us ran the Estate Sale. Black Sheep Sister was nowhere to be found, as she'd already taken what was "hers" and disappeared, despite living less than an hour away.
During the sale, we got an all-cash offer on the house. The prospective buyer was - wait for it - a Probate Judge. It didn't phase him in the least that Dad was out of state and the house was in a trust. We told him we'd already had an offer for the same amount and asked him to do a little better, which he did. We were elated, because we didn't have to pay any commissions or fees to get the sale closed. All the houses in their community had one of three floor plans, so we knew exactly what it was worth.
When Black Sheep Sister is employed, she works in Title Insurance. When she discovered the house was already in escrow*, she split a fucking gasket. She screamed and swore that we had sold the house too cheaply and that she was going to consult a lawyer and sue us. She knew nothing about the terms of the deal, but we knew it was rock-solid. Talk to the hand, Black Sheep Sister.
Meanwhile, the same trio returned to the house one last time after the Estate Sale and cleaned the ever-loving shit out of it. DH touched up all the paint, and sis and I scrubbed everything. We rented a pro carpet cleaner and DH worked on it for hours until it looked like new. The buyer was thrilled, telling us he fully expected he'd have to replace the carpet and repaint. Um, nope. We took pride in the job we did, and he had offered us a fair price and completely eliminated any hassle we might have otherwise encountered. Win-win.
*Valuable lesson learned for me. Whenever we buy property, we expressly forbid the use of any Title Company BSS has ever worked for. No need for her to know any more of our business than she can already get her nosy mitts on.
I know I've told parts of this story before, but damn, @saguaro, it felt good to let that out again. Thanks!
Post by: jeninco on July 29, 2020, 05:47:51 PM
wow.
What a piece of freakin' work.
Post by: kanga1622 on July 30, 2020, 09:02:30 AM
I am not sure how one can be successful at taking a sibling to court for “loans” that are not documented. I put loans in quotes because likely it was only a verbal agreement, and casual at that. If there is a promissory note, that is a different deal. Highly unlikely, tho.
Ask me how I know, ha ha.
Situation is playing out in DH’s family has very large amounts of money going to one of the siblings who promised to pay it back which never happened. No one in his family is going after that money because it is lost. This is a family that, at one time, did dormally loan money back-and-forth to each other. Family business. Parents lent money to son. Son lent money to parents. All documented with promissory notes stating interest rate. But that was way back when. Parental expectations relaxed with younger sibs.
This is such a huge trust issue. My dad was VERY clear with all of us that one sibling had taken out loans from him and not paid them back. He told all of us that it was to come out of her share of the inheritance. Dad documented EVERYTHING so we of course found the payment schedule and my sibling was honest about how much/little was paid back.
Post by: Sugaree on July 30, 2020, 01:27:16 PM
I am not sure how one can be successful at taking a sibling to court for “loans” that are not documented. I put loans in quotes because likely it was only a verbal agreement, and casual at that. If there is a promissory note, that is a different deal. Highly unlikely, tho.
Ask me how I know, ha ha.
Situation is playing out in DH’s family has very large amounts of money going to one of the siblings who promised to pay it back which never happened. No one in his family is going after that money because it is lost. This is a family that, at one time, did dormally loan money back-and-forth to each other. Family business. Parents lent money to son. Son lent money to parents. All documented with promissory notes stating interest rate. But that was way back when. Parental expectations relaxed with younger sibs.
This is such a huge trust issue. My dad was VERY clear with all of us that one sibling had taken out loans from him and not paid them back. He told all of us that it was to come out of her share of the inheritance. Dad documented EVERYTHING so we of course found the payment schedule and my sibling was honest about how much/little was paid back.
My grandfather kept a little notebook with all the loans he'd given the family over the years and which ones had/hadn't been paid back. Funny enough, that notebook was never found after my uncle left after the funeral (with the big ass TV in the back of his truck).
Post by: mm1970 on July 30, 2020, 03:45:01 PM
@Dicey, that's just ...Yup. Wow.
wow.
What a piece of freakin' work.
Post by: Villanelle on July 31, 2020, 01:54:21 PM
I am not sure how one can be successful at taking a sibling to court for “loans” that are not documented. I put loans in quotes because likely it was only a verbal agreement, and casual at that. If there is a promissory note, that is a different deal. Highly unlikely, tho.
Ask me how I know, ha ha.
Situation is playing out in DH’s family has very large amounts of money going to one of the siblings who promised to pay it back which never happened. No one in his family is going after that money because it is lost. This is a family that, at one time, did dormally loan money back-and-forth to each other. Family business. Parents lent money to son. Son lent money to parents. All documented with promissory notes stating interest rate. But that was way back when. Parental expectations relaxed with younger sibs.
This is such a huge trust issue. My dad was VERY clear with all of us that one sibling had taken out loans from him and not paid them back. He told all of us that it was to come out of her share of the inheritance. Dad documented EVERYTHING so we of course found the payment schedule and my sibling was honest about how much/little was paid back.
We refinanced our mortgage through my parents. We all considered it a win-win. We got a lower rate (which we couldn't get on the open market because the home was no longer owner occupied, not because we didn't qualify) and he got an essentially guaranteed return on his money, and the interest stayed in the family. But it was done officially. There is a lien, we both include the $ in our tax filings (us as interest paid, them as income), and my mom faithfully enters every monthly payment into a log book. It's also well-known by my sister that the loan exists.
I think parents do their kids no favors by making loans and assuming they will be paid back when an estate is settled, but not making that official.
Even just a little book isn't super useful (though better than nothing). It can disappear, someone can claim that they were told it would be forgiven, or any number of other shenanigans. Official documentation and/or mentioning it in the will seems to be the way to go (which I would think could be done without needing frequent updates unless additional loans were made--a loan of $x0k, made on Jan 1 2010 at 3% interest was made and monthly payment will be made/received until it is paid in full. Any amount remaining upon my death will be taken out of Child1's share of the inheritance before it is distributed.) That wouldn't account for missed payments or extra payments, but it would at least get close. (I also pay by check so there is a paper trail and the check comes with a note of the address of the property to it is very clear what it is for.)
The one thing I worry about with my parents estate is that my mom has said I can have her charm bracelet (sister knows this and isn't thrilled, and has "jokingly" told me she will take one charm of her choice and then I can have it. I am actually okay with that unless it is one specific charm, which means the most) and the hope chest my mother's mother bought mom when she turned 16. Mom has made it clear to me, but not to sister, and I worry. Neither item is especially valuable in the context of the estate amount, although I'd happy pay for the weight of the gold in the bracelet if that appeases my sister. I expect her to be level-headed and reasonable, but do worry about these sentimental items. I can't think of a good way to push my mom to make it clear, however, without coming off as greedy or insensitive.
On the other hand, I consider myself very fortunate (and hope I'm right!) that this will likely be the worst of the inheritance issues.
Post by: shadesofgreen on August 25, 2020, 01:15:52 PM
My drama is that I am the executor for my Dad's estate who passed this year in late March.
I was also the executor after my Dad for my stepmom who passed 5 years ago in June. I thought he did stuff -- not so much.
Due to Dad not probating K's will and how our state is I have to get Court Approval to sell the house because my stepmom's name was never taken off the house title. So basically I am executing both estates now. This just sucks in so many ways.
The house was supposed to go on the market today but I legally can't sell it until I am approved by the court for my stepmom. I have already been approved for my Dad but now it's a waiting game and I am just so ready to be done with this. We are still hoping that we get approval by the end of the week.
Things were held up due to lockdown and COVID. By like at least 2 months plus.
Dad's Lawyer who I initially used was beyond slow also uncommunicative and the paperwork didn't get to the court until after the 4th of July. I ended up having to call and say I wanted the will and the retainer before anything occurred.
I have now gotten a new lawyer which is how I am finding out tons of things that I did not know about before -- which is good but all the extra things (aka legal hoops) are really frustrating. I really wish I had used someone else initially but hindsight is 20/20.
So please be aware that if your spouse passes and their name is not taken off the title of the property there could be issues if you die and your Executor goes to sell the home. Laws my vary by state, etc.
Post by: geekette on August 25, 2020, 04:55:00 PM
Another oddity is that the town sends the water bill to the property owner, not the occupant, so we've been forwarding those as well.
I look forward to finally being "finished" with the estate details!
Post by: talltexan on August 28, 2020, 07:13:57 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on August 28, 2020, 07:37:56 AM
It may vary by state, but I sold a property in early April and received the tax statement for that property in July (with the same request that I "forward it to the new owner")
That's ludicrously bad!
The deed should have been recorded within a business day -- and the deed should have the new owner's address of record.
Post by: talltexan on August 28, 2020, 10:50:51 AM
Post by: geekette on August 28, 2020, 11:40:21 AM
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
And the damn water bill.
Post by: talltexan on August 28, 2020, 02:11:32 PM
Post by: Rural on August 30, 2020, 06:47:12 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on August 30, 2020, 06:54:44 PM
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
I live in NC and have never received a property tax bill for a house I had already sold. And I've sold several.
I think it may be your local county that's the problem here.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 30, 2020, 08:40:23 PM
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
I live in NC and have never received a property tax bill for a house I had already sold. And I've sold several.
I think it may be your local county that's the problem here.
You know, now that I think about it a bit more, I may be wrong.
There's an adjustment on the closing statement about the taxes. I just don't remember whether I pay and they credit me their share or they pay and I credit them my share.
I've sent a question to my closing attorney to ask him. Since I've got a $0 or $3,600 property tax bill coming up on the house I just sold and another $0 or $1,200 on the other one I just sold, it would be helpful to know for sure...
Post by: talltexan on August 31, 2020, 07:16:04 AM
I couldn't imagine there being a case in which they thing approaching someone who has already sold a property for taxes would be a sensible way to collect revenue, if I were the county assessor, I would want to make sure they guy who owes me is the person who is living in the house (because the seller could be leaving the area). But local governments aren't always well run.
Post by: ixtap on August 31, 2020, 07:22:25 AM
The deed was recorded--in NC, it's a requirement for the buyer to gain access to the property--but they're still mailing the former owner the tax statement.
I live in NC and have never received a property tax bill for a house I had already sold. And I've sold several.
I think it may be your local county that's the problem here.
You know, now that I think about it a bit more, I may be wrong.
There's an adjustment on the closing statement about the taxes. I just don't remember whether I pay and they credit me their share or they pay and I credit them my share.
I've sent a question to my closing attorney to ask him. Since I've got a $0 or $3,600 property tax bill coming up on the house I just sold and another $0 or $1,200 on the other one I just sold, it would be helpful to know for sure...
In most places, it depends on the closing date relative to tax deadlines, such as the assessment date. And yes, the contract should always settle the split between the previous and the new owner, generally with the one not legally liable.handing over their share at closing.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 31, 2020, 07:28:58 AM
"Buyer will. At closing you gave buyer your share of the estimated bill since it wasn’t out. Making the bill when it comes out the responsibility of the buyer and their mortgage co. "
Post by: Uturn on August 31, 2020, 09:38:09 AM
It turns out that she lost her job just before her apartment lease expired. Since she didn't have any income, they would not renew and she couldn't get another apartment. I thought I could help since I lived alone and had two bedrooms that I had not even stepped foot inside of in months. I offered her a room for $400/mo and she buys her own food. We agreed this would be temporary until she got back on her feet. I said don't worry about the first month.
She moves in and I talk her into working through a temp agency just to get money coming in until she finds work in her chosen field. She takes a temp job about 20 miles away. I think to myself, dang 40 miles a day feeding a Suburban must suck. But I keep that to myself, I'm glad she is working again. She also eats out more than at home, but it's none of my business. I do remind her that the kitchen is a communal area and she is welcome to use anything in there as long as she cleans up after.
After about 3 months or so, I have learned a lot about this friend. She really is skilled at bad decisions, especially financial ones. Then one day I walk outside and notice her Suburban is gone. She freaks out a bit, then calls the cops to report it stolen. As the cop is doing the report, he gets word that it was repossessed. After he leaves, I said that I thought she owned it outright. She says that she got a title loan to pay me rent. But because gas and food are so expensive, she didn't have enough left over to make the payments.
I let her use my truck to get to work, since I have another car anyhow. After about a week, I figured this is not going to work. I did some research on what her Suburban was worth and asked how much she owed. She owed just about book value. I was surprised they loaned so close to book value at those places. I told her that it was not worth it to get the Suburban back, and went out and bought her a very used Mazda sedan for around $1500. It needed brakes, shocks, and full fluid change. I insisted that she help and learn something about basic auto maintenance. I told her that the only repayment I expect is she needs to get her head out of her ass and grow up. 35 and doesn't know how to cook, is very sloppy, and basically thinks like a teenager. And for goodness sake, never go to a title loan place again.
About a year later, she gets a $300k inheritance. She decides that she needs a new car because the one I bought her is barely running. The last maintenance was when she first got it. I'm happy for her and tell her that if she manages it well, it will be a blessing, if she manages it poorly, it will be a curse. I offer to show her how if she wants, she declines. I say nothing else. A few months later, I tell her that our original agreement was she could live there until she is back on her feet, it's been almost two years and it's time to go. She moves out a couple of weeks later.
Over the next few months, I notice that she is spending a ton of money. I keep my mouth shut, it's not my money to worry about. We are still friends and hang out and text often. She also has a lot of new friends, folks that I would say of questionable character. I also notice that she spends a lot of money on them. After about 8 months of this, I sit her down and tell her that I am worried about her spend rate and offer to help her invest. She gets pissed and says that I am jealous of her new friends and money, tells me to leave. She unfriends me from facebook and stops returning texts.
I don't hear from her again until 2018. I get a FB request. She is living in a subsidized apartment and wants to use me as a job reference. Sure, why not. She actually is good at what she does. I don't hear from her again until this past Saturday. Seems the job is gone, rent is due, and she doesn't have the money for the title loan. I have not responded to the three texts, FB message, or the voicemail.
Post by: geekette on August 31, 2020, 09:41:06 AM
Although this prompted me to check again - apparently, they've caught up now. Maybe we won't get those water bills anymore!
Post by: Smokystache on August 31, 2020, 10:39:01 AM
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 31, 2020, 11:17:16 AM
I don't hear from her again until 2018. I get a FB request. She is living in a subsidized apartment and wants to use me as a job reference. Sure, why not. She actually is good at what she does. I don't hear from her again until this past Saturday. Seems the job is gone, rent is due, and she doesn't have the money for the title loan. I have not responded to the three texts, FB message, or the voicemail.
You're nicer than me. People who unfriend me intentionally don't get re-friended. It's because I've noticed that letting people back into my life after they do things that ordinarily end the relationship guarantees they will continue to do relationship-ending things while expecting me to hold up my end of the friendship. No thanks to all that.
If the request for aid came in any other way, I'd tell her that she should probably ask the lowlifes who helped her spend down her inheritance. Giving her a car, a free month's rent, and a sincere offer to help her with adult skills should have been more than enough. What idiots like this generally want is an enabler so that they can continue doing whatever thing got them in trouble. With some people it's booze or gambling; with this one it's random spending and failure to live within her means.
Post by: Dicey on August 31, 2020, 11:18:15 AM
Yikes indeed.Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Post by: JGS1980 on August 31, 2020, 12:36:04 PM
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
"Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out"
Once I lived the life of a millionaire,
Spent all my money, didn't have any care.
Took all my friends out for a mighty good time,
Bought bootleg liquor, champagne and wine.
Then I began to fall so low,
Lost all my good friends, had nowhere to go.
I get my hands on a dollar again,
I'll hang on to it 'til that old eagle grins.
Because nobody loves you
When you're down and out.
In your pocket, not one penny,
And as for friends... you don't have many.
When you get back on your feet again,
Everybody wants to be your long-lost friend.
I said it straight without any doubt,
Nobody knows you when you're down and out........
Post by: Dicey on August 31, 2020, 12:40:09 PM
Ahhh...Eric Clapton."Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out"Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Once I lived the life of a millionaire,
Spent all my money, didn't have any care.
Took all my friends out for a mighty good time,
Bought bootleg liquor, champagne and wine.
Then I began to fall so low,
Lost all my good friends, had nowhere to go.
I get my hands on a dollar again,
I'll hang on to it 'til that old eagle grins.
Because nobody loves you
When you're down and out.
In your pocket, not one penny,
And as for friends... you don't have many.
When you get back on your feet again,
Everybody wants to be your long-lost friend.
I said it straight without any doubt,
Nobody knows you when you're down and out........
Post by: SwordGuy on August 31, 2020, 01:04:37 PM
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Great song and absolutely not-applicable to the poster's situation. He was a great friend to that person. He went above and beyond. He also learned (or decided to use) the old adage that you don't help people more than they are willing to help themselves.
"Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out"
Once I lived the life of a millionaire,
Spent all my money, didn't have any care.
Took all my friends out for a mighty good time,
Bought bootleg liquor, champagne and wine.
Then I began to fall so low,
Lost all my good friends, had nowhere to go.
I get my hands on a dollar again,
I'll hang on to it 'til that old eagle grins.
Because nobody loves you
When you're down and out.
In your pocket, not one penny,
And as for friends... you don't have many.
When you get back on your feet again,
Everybody wants to be your long-lost friend.
I said it straight without any doubt,
Nobody knows you when you're down and out........
Post by: Imma on August 31, 2020, 01:39:02 PM
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Isn't it remarkable how some people seem to have a talent for making the worst possible decision every single time? They were losing their place to live, but a friend offers them a roof over their head and a rent-free month. Then that friend offers to teach you car maintenance for free! I'd feel lucky if I was her.
And then there's a massive inheritance, enough money to buy a place outright, and a reliable vehicle - I know mustachians like mortgages but for an average person, owning a house outright is very sensible because you can't spend that money on crap anymore and you live there too. This kind of inheritance is life changing. But instead of taking that chance with both hands they waste it. As the Bon Jovi song says "luck ain't even lucky, gotta make your own breaks" and some people just refuse to make their own breaks even if they are handed to them on a silver platter.
Post by: jinga nation on August 31, 2020, 02:05:31 PM
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring.In Real Life parable of the drowning man (asking God for help while ignoring rescue truck, raft, helicopter).
...
Post by: saguaro on August 31, 2020, 02:25:35 PM
You're nicer than me. People who unfriend me intentionally don't get re-friended. It's because I've noticed that letting people back into my life after they do things that ordinarily end the relationship guarantees they will continue to do relationship-ending things while expecting me to hold up my end of the friendship. No thanks to all that.
This. I helped out a very good friend who fell on hard times years ago. Provided transportation when she decided to move cross country, gave her money, food and stored her stuff while she got on her feet. Long story short, after a couple of years and a ton of drama, ties were cut but reestablished a few years later. Then she cut ties again, this time unfriending me and not returning my calls. Now she is crying out to me wanting to reestablish contact, apologizing for cutting ties again. I just can't go there again, I just don't have the energy to deal with another round of drama. Especially when she ended the last appeal that if "I wait too long, she might be six feet under".
Post by: mm1970 on August 31, 2020, 06:18:14 PM
+1.I don't hear from her again until 2018. I get a FB request. She is living in a subsidized apartment and wants to use me as a job reference. Sure, why not. She actually is good at what she does. I don't hear from her again until this past Saturday. Seems the job is gone, rent is due, and she doesn't have the money for the title loan. I have not responded to the three texts, FB message, or the voicemail.
You're nicer than me. People who unfriend me intentionally don't get re-friended. It's because I've noticed that letting people back into my life after they do things that ordinarily end the relationship guarantees they will continue to do relationship-ending things while expecting me to hold up my end of the friendship. No thanks to all that.
If the request for aid came in any other way, I'd tell her that she should probably ask the lowlifes who helped her spend down her inheritance. Giving her a car, a free month's rent, and a sincere offer to help her with adult skills should have been more than enough. What idiots like this generally want is an enabler so that they can continue doing whatever thing got them in trouble. With some people it's booze or gambling; with this one it's random spending and failure to live within her means.
Heck, I'VE unfriended people on FB and then weeks later they notice and try to refriend me...yeah no. There's a reason you are gone (not money related...)
I think you were FAR too generous - a car, free rent?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 01, 2020, 10:33:53 AM
You're nicer than me. People who unfriend me intentionally don't get re-friended. It's because I've noticed that letting people back into my life after they do things that ordinarily end the relationship guarantees they will continue to do relationship-ending things while expecting me to hold up my end of the friendship. No thanks to all that.
This. I helped out a very good friend who fell on hard times years ago. Provided transportation when she decided to move cross country, gave her money, food and stored her stuff while she got on her feet. Long story short, after a couple of years and a ton of drama, ties were cut but reestablished a few years later. Then she cut ties again, this time unfriending me and not returning my calls. Now she is crying out to me wanting to reestablish contact, apologizing for cutting ties again. I just can't go there again, I just don't have the energy to deal with another round of drama. Especially when she ended the last appeal that if "I wait too long, she might be six feet under".
When you receive a message like that, the best course of action is to forward it to the moderators or the response team on Facebook or whatever other social media platform you're using. Add a note indicating that you've been out of contact for years. Then respond to the contact with two sentences:
1. Anyone who threatens suicide to force someone else to communicate is not worth a third chance.
2. I have forwarded your message to the platform response team and they should be able to get you in touch with the help you need.
After that, use the block feature.
Post by: Sugaree on September 03, 2020, 04:43:09 AM
Post by: Sibley on September 06, 2020, 11:53:22 AM
My best friend's sister's husband died of a heart attack in his sleep Sunday night. His family has called several times, not to check on their 10 year-old grandson, but to scream at the new widow about her choice to cremate him and to tell her to sign the title of his cars over to them. He apparently made decent enough money buying older cars, fixing them up, and reselling them. So, BFF's sister is currently holding the titles to 10 beaters in various stages of repair and a maybe rollback (she's not sure if he owned it outright or if he's the only one on the title). His dad was on his bank account and has likely already emptied the account and now they want the cars too. Unfortunately, the cars were being stored on his dad's land, so physically getting them may be a problem. This is going to end up being a case of a bunch of people fighting over next to nothing.
Oh dear. Does the widow have enough money to pay the bills, feed the kid, etc? Because that is REALLY crappy of the grandfather if he drained the account.
Post by: Dicey on September 06, 2020, 01:20:10 PM
Post by: SunnyDays on September 06, 2020, 03:32:18 PM
Post by: Captain FIRE on September 07, 2020, 12:52:51 PM
Ok, I’m guessing the person draining the account wouldn’t care that their family, friends and neighbors know, but it’d make me feel better!
Post by: Dicey on September 07, 2020, 01:30:50 PM
I’m not normally in favor of GoFundMes, but in this case I make an exception. Create one for her in the sum of the amount the grandfather took with an explanation why, and tell the husband’s family you’ll publicize it unless they return the money - and hand over the cars.I like the way you think, @Captain FIRE!
Ok, I’m guessing the person draining the account wouldn’t care that their family, friends and neighbors know, but it’d make me feel better!
Post by: Sugaree on September 10, 2020, 10:12:10 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on September 10, 2020, 11:00:58 AM
Just a follow up. The funeral was this weekend. His father didn't show. "Too sick" to come. His brothers showed up halfway through and looked perturbed that they didn't wait more 30 minutes, after already starting 15 minutes late, in the blistering sun for them to get there. A GFM has been started, albeit without calling out his family. It turns out that she was never added to his bank account, so couldn't have accessed the money without going through probate anyway. The widow and her dad made a surprise "we were in the area" visit to his father and just happened to have a bunch of totes in their car and were able to gather up most of his tools before they could vanish. She has an appointment with SS this week to get the ball rolling on survivor's benefits, though they aren't sure that he has enough quarters on paper in the last three years to qualify as much of his car flipping was done unofficially. Luckily, their house is in her and her sister's name and he was never put on the deed.
I would swear out a warrant for felony theft and burglary.
Post by: Dicey on September 10, 2020, 08:48:18 PM
No, wait, I think Sugaree meant the widow and her father got the tools from the FIL's place. i.e. the good guys got most of the tools. I had to read it twice to be sure and I very much hope I got it right.Just a follow up. The funeral was this weekend. His father didn't show. "Too sick" to come. His brothers showed up halfway through and looked perturbed that they didn't wait more 30 minutes, after already starting 15 minutes late, in the blistering sun for them to get there. A GFM has been started, albeit without calling out his family. It turns out that she was never added to his bank account, so couldn't have accessed the money without going through probate anyway. The widow and her dad made a surprise "we were in the area" visit to his father and just happened to have a bunch of totes in their car and were able to gather up most of his tools before they could vanish. She has an appointment with SS this week to get the ball rolling on survivor's benefits, though they aren't sure that he has enough quarters on paper in the last three years to qualify as much of his car flipping was done unofficially. Luckily, their house is in her and her sister's name and he was never put on the deed.
I would swear out a warrant for felony theft and burglary.
@Sugaree, how is it that she wasn't on the bank account?
Post by: talltexan on September 11, 2020, 05:57:42 AM
It seems like there were ways this couple had opted to not join their legal affairs, which may well have been motivated by earlier family drama.
Post by: Imma on September 11, 2020, 06:47:40 AM
I have a law degree and whenever close friends go through a major life event I always inquire whether they've talked things through with a legal professional. I always say something like "I don't want to be rude, and I certainly don't want to know the details, but my professional experience is that it's important that you talk about your situation together to make sure you're on the same page about things and whether your paperwork reflects your wishes".
More than one couple actually came back to thank me about that, because they found out things they didn't know. Like that one person who bought a house with a relative, very similar to the situation described in this thread, relative moved out, new spouse moves in - my acquintance had absolutely no idea the relative was still on the deed and not the husband. They figured marriage would take care of that "because you get told you need to get married to get your affairs in order". Other fairly common things I've encountered in my work are life insurance policies benefitting an ex instead of a current partner, a new mortgage on a home one person owned before marriage that's on both names but the property is still in one name and outdated wills.
A very painful situation happened in my family not too long ago - my cousin, in her 30s, had a long-term partner in his 50s with adult kids from a previous marriage. Cousin and him had been together for years and had a family but wanted to wait with marriage until their kids were a bit older so they could share in the happy day. Waiting with marriage until the kids are older and have a family celebration has become quite common in our country, but in our jurisdiction there are several forms of civil partnership they could have chosen instead to get their affairs in order. But they didn't think that was necessary. Well, he had a heart attack and died and he left the house that he had owned for years before they met to his adult kids and his life insurance too. And I think his pension went to his ex. Legally you can't disinherit your kids so they went to court and his young children got a share too, but the adult kids owned most of it so they forced a sale. That sale generated some funds but it belongs to the kids, mum can't use it to buy a new home. They've all lived with her parents ever since.
Post by: sixwings on September 14, 2020, 09:29:01 AM
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Post by: Sibley on September 14, 2020, 11:35:31 AM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
That so wrong, all of it. Overcharging to that extent on fees? Tying compliance to access to your family member? I hope he gets some help, because he's going to be awfully miserable driving everyone away with that behavior. Addiction really is the pits.
Post by: Sugaree on September 14, 2020, 01:18:20 PM
Indeed this whole story has some odd details: name not on bank account, sister's name on house title instead of husband's.
It seems like there were ways this couple had opted to not join their legal affairs, which may well have been motivated by earlier family drama.
This is fairly likely. They had been married for 10+ years, but it had always been a tenuous relationship and quite frankly I think they were on the verge of separating again. The house is deeded like it is because the sister bought it, with the intention that they would eventually buy it from her.
Post by: Dicey on September 14, 2020, 01:37:44 PM
My brother and I were co-executors. We took no fees. My parent's will and trust were "thinly written" and for a while it looked like there was going to be a huge tax haircut. Bro and I did backflips, along with judicious use of professional help, to make sure that didn't happen. As a result, everyone got approximately twice as much as we were initially led to believe. Through it all, BlackSheepSister complained vehemently that we were taking too long. The estate is finally settled and her share is all gone. Zero gratitude from her. Did someone mention gambling?My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
That so wrong, all of it. Overcharging to that extent on fees? Tying compliance to access to your family member? I hope he gets some help, because he's going to be awfully miserable driving everyone away with that behavior. Addiction really is the pits.
Post by: sixwings on September 14, 2020, 04:24:32 PM
My brother and I were co-executors. We took no fees. My parent's will and trust were "thinly written" and for a while it looked like there was going to be a huge tax haircut. Bro and I did backflips, along with judicious use of professional help, to make sure that didn't happen. As a result, everyone got approximately twice as much as we were initially led to believe. Through it all, BlackSheepSister complained vehemently that we were taking too long. The estate is finally settled and her share is all gone. Zero gratitude from her. Did someone mention gambling?My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
That so wrong, all of it. Overcharging to that extent on fees? Tying compliance to access to your family member? I hope he gets some help, because he's going to be awfully miserable driving everyone away with that behavior. Addiction really is the pits.
We weren't opposed to fees, it can be a lot of work and can be quite stressful, but the fee needed to reasonable... like $30/hour or something. We could have hired the best wills and estates lawyer in the country to be the executor for cheaper than he was proposing. It was brutal. He was very emotionally abusive to my sister (we never knew or saw) and it's good she got away. She was completely hands off on the finances, didn't even know the passwords to the bank accounts and he had convinced her it was too complicated for her to understand anyway. We didn't know any of this until afterwards. The conversation about fees is what made us ask what the heck was happening because prior to that we never had any indication there was an issue. On the outside everything seemed great with them. She lost a big chunk of her inheritance due to his gambling addiction and emotional abuse.
Post by: cincystache on September 14, 2020, 07:17:14 PM
Grandma didn't know how to manage money so she co-mingled her funds somehow with her brother to invest. Her brother re-married and then died about 3 years later. He got swindled by his new wife's lawyer/financial advisor and made a new will on his deathbed and left everything to the new much younger wife and step-kids... including my grandma's money since they had joint accounts of some sort (don't know all the details)
My dad didn't know about the situation until after his uncle (her brother) passed away. They had a court battle and fought it pretty hard but the judge ruled in favor of the wife. My grandma was left with nothing but social security and a paid off house for the last 5 years of her life. She was still happy and thankful for what she had until the very end which is probably the best lesson of all, money is just a tool, not the purpose of life.
Other Lessons:
1. Lawyers/financial advisors can be snakes (not all, but shitty ones are out there and they don't announce themselves).
2. Manage your own damn money
3. Talk more openly about money with your trusted family members (had my dad known what was going on he would have been able to help her avoid the situation)
4. If you want to give money to family members or causes you care about, you should consider doing it BEFORE you die.. stuff can get messy once you're gone. My grandpa is probably rolling in his grave knowing that all of the money he saved his entire life ended up in the hands of people he never met or cared about and they proceeded to spend it on vacation houses, new cars and other shit he didn't care about.
5. Don't rely on an inheritance, make your own money, be financially independent
This all happened when I was a kid and I didn't learn about it until much later but looked at through the lens of FI I learned a lot from it...
Post by: Psychstache on September 14, 2020, 08:35:37 PM
20 years ago Grandpa passed away and left everything to 80 year old Grandma (probably a million or so).
Grandma didn't know how to manage money so she co-mingled her funds somehow with her brother to invest. Her brother re-married and then died about 3 years later. He got swindled by his new wife's lawyer/financial advisor and made a new will on his deathbed and left everything to the new much younger wife and step-kids... including my grandma's money since they had joint accounts of some sort (don't know all the details)
My dad didn't know about the situation until after his uncle (her brother) passed away. They had a court battle and fought it pretty hard but the judge ruled in favor of the wife. My grandma was left with nothing but social security and a paid off house for the last 5 years of her life. She was still happy and thankful for what she had until the very end which is probably the best lesson of all, money is just a tool, not the purpose of life.
Other Lessons:
1. Lawyers/financial advisors can be snakes (not all, but shitty ones are out there and they don't announce themselves).
2. Manage your own damn money
3. Talk more openly about money with your trusted family members (had my dad known what was going on he would have been able to help her avoid the situation)
4. If you want to give money to family members or causes you care about, you should consider doing it BEFORE you die.. stuff can get messy once you're gone. My grandpa is probably rolling in his grave knowing that all of the money he saved his entire life ended up in the hands of people he never met or cared about and they proceeded to spend it on vacation houses, new cars and other shit he didn't care about.
5. Don't rely on an inheritance, make your own money, be financially independent
This all happened when I was a kid and I didn't learn about it until much later but looked at through the lens of FI I learned a lot from it...
While this story obviously sucks, don't you think the grandma considered her brother to be a 'trusted family member'?
Post by: Villanelle on September 15, 2020, 12:28:27 PM
20 years ago Grandpa passed away and left everything to 80 year old Grandma (probably a million or so).
Grandma didn't know how to manage money so she co-mingled her funds somehow with her brother to invest. Her brother re-married and then died about 3 years later. He got swindled by his new wife's lawyer/financial advisor and made a new will on his deathbed and left everything to the new much younger wife and step-kids... including my grandma's money since they had joint accounts of some sort (don't know all the details)
My dad didn't know about the situation until after his uncle (her brother) passed away. They had a court battle and fought it pretty hard but the judge ruled in favor of the wife. My grandma was left with nothing but social security and a paid off house for the last 5 years of her life. She was still happy and thankful for what she had until the very end which is probably the best lesson of all, money is just a tool, not the purpose of life.
Other Lessons:
1. Lawyers/financial advisors can be snakes (not all, but shitty ones are out there and they don't announce themselves).
2. Manage your own damn money
3. Talk more openly about money with your trusted family members (had my dad known what was going on he would have been able to help her avoid the situation)
4. If you want to give money to family members or causes you care about, you should consider doing it BEFORE you die.. stuff can get messy once you're gone. My grandpa is probably rolling in his grave knowing that all of the money he saved his entire life ended up in the hands of people he never met or cared about and they proceeded to spend it on vacation houses, new cars and other shit he didn't care about.
5. Don't rely on an inheritance, make your own money, be financially independent
This all happened when I was a kid and I didn't learn about it until much later but looked at through the lens of FI I learned a lot from it...
While this story obviously sucks, don't you think the grandma considered her brother to be a 'trusted family member'?
I assume that's partly why they said "family memberS", plural.
Post by: Goldielocks on September 17, 2020, 01:35:33 PM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.Wow, here it is max 5% of the estate value overall, (or 0.4% per year for on-going management), and often set to be less if the estate is fairly easy to handle / manage. 5% would likely involve a lot of paperwork and properties to arrange for sale.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Relatives typically charge much less, often $0 plus out of pocket expenses.
So, how did a son in law get to be the sole executor, anyway? Wouldn't it have been your sister or you?
Post by: Villanelle on September 17, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings..
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Wow, here it is max 5% of the estate value overall, (or 0.4% per year for on-going management), and often set to be less if the estate is fairly easy to handle / manage. 5% would likely involve a lot of paperwork and properties to arrange for sale.
Relatives typically charge much less, often $0 plus out of pocket expenses.
So, how did a son in law get to be the sole executor, anyway? Wouldn't it have been your sister or you?
I think I recall my parents saying their will specifies 1% for the executor, which will be my sister. She's more than welcome to that extra little bit. I consider myself with winner (when the time comes, hopefully years from now) for not having to do it.
I do agree that the BIL was an odd choice, and I wondered the same thing, especially given that he turned out to be such a greedy ass, although it sounds like that was mostly hidden until it was too late.
But my sister (she and I are the only children) and her husband named my husband (so her BIL) as their executor. Each of them has one sibling and it sounds like the disagreed over selecting which one it should be. It seems they thought picking neither was more equitable. (Whether that means just equitable between the two of them, or meant "more likely to be and seem fair when executing the responsibility", was unclear and I didn't ask.) It seems somewhat odd to me because it's not like he's in impartial third party--he's solidly team Villanelle in life so it's not like there will actually be no *appearance* of possible favoritism. But he was fine doing it, and it seemed to solve their problem, and given that he's perhaps the most honest and ethical person I've known I'm sure he'd be fair if for some reason I pushed him not to be (which of course I wouldn't do). But perhaps something like that was at play? Or maybe Six's BIL was almost as clever as he was greedy and made a play for executor duties, believing he could profit off it. Yuck.
Post by: Chris Pascale on September 17, 2020, 04:47:40 PM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Post by: scottish on September 17, 2020, 08:01:13 PM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
Post by: Imma on September 18, 2020, 01:55:19 AM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
I guess that comes with the territory if you have underage children. My parent had a similar will when we were underage, the executor was going to be my uncle. My parent made the very wise decision to appoint different people as guardian and as executor. The executor's only job was to look after the money and the guardian only had to look after the kids and got a set amount of money. Thankfully it was never necessary but I'm glad they thought things through.
Post by: Goldielocks on September 18, 2020, 09:33:50 PM
More likely it was above board when the will was written, and the gambling took over fast, fairly recently.My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings..
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Wow, here it is max 5% of the estate value overall, (or 0.4% per year for on-going management), and often set to be less if the estate is fairly easy to handle / manage. 5% would likely involve a lot of paperwork and properties to arrange for sale.
Relatives typically charge much less, often $0 plus out of pocket expenses.
So, how did a son in law get to be the sole executor, anyway? Wouldn't it have been your sister or you?
I think I recall my parents saying their will specifies 1% for the executor, which will be my sister. She's more than welcome to that extra little bit. I consider myself with winner (when the time comes, hopefully years from now) for not having to do it.
I do agree that the BIL was an odd choice, and I wondered the same thing, especially given that he turned out to be such a greedy ass, although it sounds like that was mostly hidden until it was too late.
But my sister (she and I are the only children) and her husband named my husband (so her BIL) as their executor. Each of them has one sibling and it sounds like the disagreed over selecting which one it should be. It seems they thought picking neither was more equitable. (Whether that means just equitable between the two of them, or meant "more likely to be and seem fair when executing the responsibility", was unclear and I didn't ask.) It seems somewhat odd to me because it's not like he's in impartial third party--he's solidly team Villanelle in life so it's not like there will actually be no *appearance* of possible favoritism. But he was fine doing it, and it seemed to solve their problem, and given that he's perhaps the most honest and ethical person I've known I'm sure he'd be fair if for some reason I pushed him not to be (which of course I wouldn't do). But perhaps something like that was at play? Or maybe Six's BIL was almost as clever as he was greedy and made a play for executor duties, believing he could profit off it. Yuck.
Post by: TomTX on September 19, 2020, 07:17:56 AM
Post by: Reynold on September 20, 2020, 11:15:11 AM
Grandma didn't know how to manage money so she co-mingled her funds somehow with her brother to invest. Her brother re-married and then died about 3 years later. He got swindled by his new wife's lawyer/financial advisor and made a new will on his deathbed and left everything to the new much younger wife and step-kids... including my grandma's money since they had joint accounts of some sort (don't know all the details)
Other Lessons:
1. Lawyers/financial advisors can be snakes (not all, but shitty ones are out there and they don't announce themselves).
4. If you want to give money to family members or causes you care about, you should consider doing it BEFORE you die.. stuff can get messy once you're gone. My grandpa is probably rolling in his grave knowing that all of the money he saved his entire life ended up in the hands of people he never met or cared about and they proceeded to spend it on vacation houses, new cars and other shit he didn't care about.
One thing I've learned about lawyers, is that their job is not to be "fair", it is to represent the interests of the person who hires them. Brother's new wife's lawyer may have done his job perfectly, which was to draft and get executed a new will that the brother legitimately signed for his new wife, deathbed or not. The lawyer may in fact have had no idea that Grandma had passed money to the brother in joint accounts, and who knows if the brother thought to bring it up at that point. I would say new wife was not very fair if money was not returned on being shown it was originally Grandma's, though.
Something I did learn from some experiences like that is when helping elderly relatives manage their financial affairs, regardless of the reason for doing it, be very careful with how accounts are set up. There can be good reasons for setting up joint accounts, but a better idea may be having power of attorney on an account of theirs. The latter is more of a pain, but prevents a lot of problems, such as IRS or lawsuit attachment of a jointly held account.
I can provide a story regarding your item 4, though. My FIL's half brother, H., was a frugal investor his whole life, and had saved close to $1M by the time he passed away. He left almost all of it to his long time GF, they had been together 20 years or so. Not a problem so far, he had no children or other closer relatives than my FIL. She was around 90 when he passed away, and a nice person but not very financially competent, so her family was managing her affairs. My FIL was executor, and when I was helping my FIL clear out H's apartment we came across several rather aggressive letters over the years from said family begging for money for one self inflicted disaster or another, apparently they knew H had a fair amount of money saved, and were of the mindset that if he had money, and they didn't, it was his obligation to provide them some so they could buy the things they wanted. I mean, why would anyone have money sitting around idle?
They were bugging my FIL for disbursements from the estate within a month, and wanted all the investments sold and turned into cash as fast as possible. As soon as they got it, the long time GF, their parent, was put into assisted living (to be fair, she needed it at that point) and I'm sure they spent the money H had spent a lifetime accumulating within a couple of years. Its just like winning the lottery. . .
Post by: Chris Pascale on September 22, 2020, 09:25:09 AM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
For guardianship, the first person I asked realized he couldn't after initially saying yes. The next couple thoughtlessly said yes and then when I sent them the estate instructions, they were very surprised that there was so much to consider that had already been thought of ahead of time. They divorced and now I'm on to my 3rd choice.
This is over the course of about 10 years now, and the odds of me dying before these kids reach 25 is getting slimmer by the day.
For the estate management, a very old friend who does high-level admin work agreed to it. If he is unable, I'll ask a friend who has also acted as my attorney.
Along the way, though, getting people to initially read the estate instructions was a bit of a challenge. One guardian said, 'I didn't think it mattered,' to which I had to explain it was the very instructions they'd be held to, to care for 4 kids, and if they object to anything, they need to say so, because if I'm dead, it's set.
Post by: La Bibliotecaria Feroz on September 22, 2020, 09:47:05 AM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
For guardianship, the first person I asked realized he couldn't after initially saying yes. The next couple thoughtlessly said yes and then when I sent them the estate instructions, they were very surprised that there was so much to consider that had already been thought of ahead of time. They divorced and now I'm on to my 3rd choice.
This is over the course of about 10 years now, and the odds of me dying before these kids reach 25 is getting slimmer by the day.
For the estate management, a very old friend who does high-level admin work agreed to it. If he is unable, I'll ask a friend who has also acted as my attorney.
Along the way, though, getting people to initially read the estate instructions was a bit of a challenge. One guardian said, 'I didn't think it mattered,' to which I had to explain it was the very instructions they'd be held to, to care for 4 kids, and if they object to anything, they need to say so, because if I'm dead, it's set.
It would not have occurred to me to spell things out in so much detail! Now, my kids' father and I are divorced, so the chances of it being an issue are vanishingly small.
And, of course - I would have 0 control over how he would raise them if I died. More sadly (I mean, I am dead in this scenario so don't care), neither would their stepfather, who is their primary caregiver. My ex is only sort of a dick but he's fairly self-absorbed.
My mom told me she's updating her estate plan. My brother died this year and left behind a nine-year-old daughter. My sister and I will jointly administer any funds she might need for college, etc. if my parents have died. My sister will be in charge of evaluating any money requests from my children - and vice versa!
Apparently the estate lawyer suggested it and it's quite common. I think it makes sense. My sister and I are very close but our values are not identical and this way any requests for money from the trust have to pass a sniff test from both of us, essentially.
Post by: UpNAtom on September 22, 2020, 12:59:28 PM
Thank goodness my parents have decided to declutter and sell the house. That was shaping up to be the biggest mess for an estate. Accounts already have beneficiaries to bypass probate. There are unopened boxes in the basement from my Dad's random stuff dating back from the 1970s - ones he packed up for a move 30 years ago, and never opened again.
Had the talk with my parents where they basically said: we don't have much but you can have the house and everything in it.
I had to sadly inform them that I do not live anywhere near them (sadly will sell the house) and that since I would drive up, take whatever made sense and put it in the car (keepsakes and items they specifically tell me where they are), but absolutely everything else would be auctioned/sold off.
I have no use for 2 extra vehicles, 2 others that "will get repaired at some point", boxes that have not been unpacked in over 20 years (but have moved multiple times), and every other knickknack. This is a 3 story house with a separate 3 bay garage (the garage can't fit either of the working vehicles...nor at least one of the non-functional ones) - the house was purchased AFTER us kids were out.
I did tell them that I would be too upset at their loss to want to even begin trying to deal with going through everything and planning a funeral... and that any money that was left over after debts would go towards working less and the grandchild(ren).
Post by: scottish on September 22, 2020, 03:28:29 PM
My BIL wanted $750-$800/hour in executor fees for my parents estate. He thought fees of 120K for about 150 hours of work was appropriate. Said that if we didn't agree he would not allow our sister to see us. We obviously didn't agree to that and it created quite a division between him and my sister and my other siblings and I. Turns out he had a gambling addiction, gambled away my sisters portion of the estate and wanted more. She has since left him. It was a really sad way to treat our parents legacy as they had lived a very MMM lifestyle to retire early and leave an estate for my siblings.
Lesson for me from that was make sure that executor fees are agreed to up front. We trusted that he was doing it for our parents and the family, we all considered him a close friend until this happened.
Very gross.
My estate instructions (specifically in care of the kids until the youngest is 25) state that the executor gets $5,000 a year for the first 5 years, then $7500 for the next 5 years, and $10,000 for the next 5 years. It also states that year 1 is paid in full, even if it starts on 12/31, and so year 2 would be paid the very next day, and that the last year is paid in full, even though the youngest will turn 25 in mid-year.
Funds are held in a Vanguard fund as proposed in the JL Collins Series.
Taxes are to be filed by my current CPA.
Monthly payments of XXXX paid to guardian, extra XXXX for vacation, visiting specific relatives is allowed and those relatives are to be given XXXX for the visit. College funds are for in-state tuition only, so if they go to private school, they must find the other money. If child does not go to college but works for 4 years, then equivalent funds will be paid over 4 years (same for if they get full scholarships or use the GI Bill).
There's more, but the main thing is no ambiguity, no confusion.
Wow. Where did you find someone who would agree to a 15 year commitment like that?
I'm executor for my mother and joint for my dad. They had a substantial estate, but we intend to have it wound up by 3 years. Of course, there are no children to look after...
For guardianship, the first person I asked realized he couldn't after initially saying yes. The next couple thoughtlessly said yes and then when I sent them the estate instructions, they were very surprised that there was so much to consider that had already been thought of ahead of time. They divorced and now I'm on to my 3rd choice.
This is over the course of about 10 years now, and the odds of me dying before these kids reach 25 is getting slimmer by the day.
For the estate management, a very old friend who does high-level admin work agreed to it. If he is unable, I'll ask a friend who has also acted as my attorney.
Along the way, though, getting people to initially read the estate instructions was a bit of a challenge. One guardian said, 'I didn't think it mattered,' to which I had to explain it was the very instructions they'd be held to, to care for 4 kids, and if they object to anything, they need to say so, because if I'm dead, it's set.
That's the thing. If you get a family member or close friend to be trustee, then they're bound by the terms of the trust and they have a civil liability to the beneficiaries if they fail to meet those terms. If you pay a professional, they take a pretty big piece of the action.
Post by: Just Joe on October 09, 2020, 09:14:45 AM
Back in 2011, a work acquaintance got fired. A few weeks later, I messaged her on FB to see how she was doing. Little did I know what sort of drama this simple act of compassion would bring. ...
This is so juicy that it almost needs its own ongoing thread. Wow. Just wow. You went above and beyond in multiple ways. Glad that you're not jumping on that sinking ship. Yikes.
Spending through $300K in a couple of years. OUCH!
I had visions how easy it would be to have a $5K car purchased with cash, a small tidy cottage owned outright, and a healthy investment account accruing interest.
Post by: saguaro on October 12, 2020, 10:27:43 AM
I had to sadly inform them that I do not live anywhere near them (sadly will sell the house) and that since I would drive up, take whatever made sense and put it in the car (keepsakes and items they specifically tell me where they are), but absolutely everything else would be auctioned/sold off.
I have no use for 2 extra vehicles, 2 others that "will get repaired at some point", boxes that have not been unpacked in over 20 years (but have moved multiple times), and every other knickknack. This is a 3 story house with a separate 3 bay garage (the garage can't fit either of the working vehicles...nor at least one of the non-functional ones) - the house was purchased AFTER us kids were out.
To my parents' credit they did try to declutter and got some pretty large items out such as the old upright piano, camper trailer, and old VW Super Beetle, however as they got older they pretty much abandoned the effort. But back during that time, my mother told me of how she was nagging Dad to "get rid of things because we can't leave this all for the kids". I remember advising her to keep doing that because honestly (and I said this very kindly, offering to help but was declined) none of us would be able to take all of this stuff on and we would probably sell or auction it off.
Post by: Capsu78 on October 12, 2020, 03:12:30 PM
Some strange stuff like the obituary for Bing Crosby in 1977 to which I said "Why?"... Turns out my wife's dad got to see Bing entertain the troops in October of 1944, about 8 weeks before living through the Battle of the Bulge. His 3 day pass in July 1943 which he used to get married to my wifes mom before he shipped off to Italy, then England, France, Belgium and crossing the Rhine.
Anyway, the items in the box "bring us joy" as the little Japanese declutter girl says, so probably won't be pitching much of this stuff...Just need to find a grandkid to develop an interest in the family history.
Moral of story???? 2008-2020 and we have finally finished the process of decluttering the deceased parents stuff.
Post by: Just Joe on October 14, 2020, 02:21:32 PM
I offered several years back to get it done but that meant the inlaws going away for a few hours, me loading it up and hauling it to Goodwill - not sorting it. I got a bit of evil eye for it. ;)
Yeah, it needs a little sorting for safety and privacy. They want to do it now - during a pandemic - and they are in the high risk categories in a rising case state.
DW and I are both working in public facing jobs. Not feeling like this is a safe time for them? I think they mostly want a visit. As do my parents.
The holidays are going to be hard this year for everyone.
Post by: frugalecon on October 14, 2020, 04:10:53 PM
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on October 14, 2020, 08:25:49 PM
Unfortunately I cannot share my own stories in any detail, but just a few suggestions (mostly stated before):
1) Plan your estate and discuss it with your kids.
2) It is better to give with a warm hand...
3) Make sure your parents have planned well and if they haven't, prepare yourself as best you can.
4) Don't be afraid to cut off a crazy family member. Sanity is more important than blood.
Post by: Sibley on October 17, 2020, 05:08:15 PM
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
FYI, you can refuse to take responsibility.
Post by: TomTX on October 17, 2020, 06:49:19 PM
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
FYI, you can refuse to take responsibility.
++
Know when to hold 'em.
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away.
Know when to run.
...this sounds like the 4th use case.
Post by: AMandM on October 17, 2020, 07:06:43 PM
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
If the people whom California law designates as the heirs all get along, I'm not sure this needs to be a mess worth worrying about. Sell everything, divide the proceeds. If the heirs tell the executor to prioritize speed over maximum gain, does it really have to take years?
Post by: frugalecon on October 17, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
If the people whom California law designates as the heirs all get along, I'm not sure this needs to be a mess worth worrying about. Sell everything, divide the proceeds. If the heirs tell the executor to prioritize speed over maximum gain, does it really have to take years?
My main concern is that the heirs, including my spouse, are as indecisive and disorganized as my FIL. But I appreciate the perspective above that i can just try to disengage when it happens.
Post by: SwordGuy on October 17, 2020, 08:22:30 PM
Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
OMG, are they ditherers? A group of ditherers in charge is hell on earth to me.
If the people whom California law designates as the heirs all get along, I'm not sure this needs to be a mess worth worrying about. Sell everything, divide the proceeds. If the heirs tell the executor to prioritize speed over maximum gain, does it really have to take years?
My main concern is that the heirs, including my spouse, are as indecisive and disorganized as my FIL. But I appreciate the perspective above that i can just try to disengage when it happens.
Post by: kina on November 15, 2020, 01:03:34 PM
A parent like this rarely spawns an entire group of non-dysfunctional offspring. It only takes one to drag it out for years.Reading this thread, I really worry about the mess when my FIL passes. He is late 80s, willfully intestate ("When I die, it's going to be a big mess for all of you, and you will just have to deal with it."), a large home property with multiple garages and storage buildings filled to the rafters with junk, a house that has 30 years of deferred maintenance, a vacant apartment building that could have gone up in a fire that, unfortunately, was doused before it was burned down, but which left it uninhabitable, and another house that SIL is living in, which FIL should deed to her, but hasn't. Someone is going to spend years dealing with the estate, which is in California. I wonder how much will be lost in the probate process.
If the people whom California law designates as the heirs all get along, I'm not sure this needs to be a mess worth worrying about. Sell everything, divide the proceeds. If the heirs tell the executor to prioritize speed over maximum gain, does it really have to take years?
Post by: StachingforLife on November 17, 2020, 05:52:15 PM
1. My older brother occasionally brags about the 2 homes he believes he'll inherit from our aunt. He was a very troublesome teen and was taken care of by this aunt (no kids of her own) for a few years until his high school graduation. Our mom was going through cancer treatment and he was just too much for my parents at the time. So since that time with her, he'd gotten closer to her than me. Though to be honest, she's a pretty awful person so I haven't really wanted to get that closer to her anyway.
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense.
2. When my maternal great-grandmother died, she specified in her will that my mother would get the value of her home. My maternal grandmother was furious about this. Even though my mom had been taking care of my great-grandmother for years while my maternal grandmother barely did anything for her own mother. She tried to find ways to prove that she should get some of the money and ended up claiming to have bought my great-grandmother new carpets 20 years prior to her death and demanded $10,000. My mom is a peace-keeper and gave it to her. But I'll always remember my father telling me about this and how money changes people- and in these situations, not for the better.
P.S. My grandmother is turning 81 next year and still can't retire. I'd bet if she'd been retired and good with money at the time of my great-grandmother's death, she wouldn't have tried to stake her claim.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on November 17, 2020, 08:10:19 PM
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
Post by: StachingforLife on November 17, 2020, 08:25:02 PM
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
Post by: Imma on November 18, 2020, 03:37:33 AM
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on November 18, 2020, 05:38:59 AM
There's an old saying that sums it up: "If you meet one jerk today, you've met one jerk. If *everyone* is a jerk today, then *you're* the jerk." Wise words--we use a version of this with our kids ("If one of your siblings is bugging you, then come ask for help. If everyone is bugging you, you're probably the problem")But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
Post by: StachingforLife on November 20, 2020, 05:26:41 PM
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
Exactly!!! My aunt is so awful to be around! I told my husband the same thing- putting up with her crap isn't worth the inheritance for one second. And my aunt is the same way as yours with cutting people out. If she'd had children, I'd bet she would've cut them out by now too. It amazes me she hasn't cut me out yet. Lol a ticking time bomb I'm sure with my mouth.
It really sucks to cut out family members but no one needs extra stress in their lives.
Post by: Plina on November 21, 2020, 04:06:35 AM
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
Exactly!!! My aunt is so awful to be around! I told my husband the same thing- putting up with her crap isn't worth the inheritance for one second. And my aunt is the same way as yours with cutting people out. If she'd had children, I'd bet she would've cut them out by now too. It amazes me she hasn't cut me out yet. Lol a ticking time bomb I'm sure with my mouth.
It really sucks to cut out family members but no one needs extra stress in their lives.
I believe that those difficult aunts etc in some way respect more the people who don’t take crap from them that people that take everything to gain an inheritance.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on November 21, 2020, 07:37:06 AM
But it really triggers me when he throws that in my face. It's just so unnecessary even if it ends up being true. Though we'll have been retired for decades by the time he inherits those properties. And he'll likely spend all their worth anyway. So who's the real winner here you know? This is what I repeat to myself when he goes on about this nonsense."Living well is the best revenge" -- George Herbert
Enjoy your decades of not having to work for a living, while he lives in a state of constant panic over small emergencies :)
It certainly is!
Though he drives me crazy with his insensitivity, I'm desperately hoping he'll want to retire early too after watching us. If only he could get his big head out of his ass...
I'm in a similar situation. I cut my aunt off a long time ago and I know one sibling will probably inherit everything. Every time I hear them complain about her, I just think "not my circus, not my monkeys". The worst was when I heard complaints through my siblings that it was so expensive to keep changing your will to cut more people out. I think my sibling is the only one out of all the nieces/nephews/godchildren still in the will. It happens that people fall out but when you fall out with so many people there's clearly something wrong with you. I wouldn't want such an incredibly toxic person in my life for all the money in the world.
Exactly!!! My aunt is so awful to be around! I told my husband the same thing- putting up with her crap isn't worth the inheritance for one second. And my aunt is the same way as yours with cutting people out. If she'd had children, I'd bet she would've cut them out by now too. It amazes me she hasn't cut me out yet. Lol a ticking time bomb I'm sure with my mouth.
It really sucks to cut out family members but no one needs extra stress in their lives.
This is my MIL - she's changed her will a dozen times over the last twenty years to cut or add back people. You'd think there was a big estate but she's only worth about $100K. If she goes into a nursing home it will be gone in less than a year and if she doesn't, once the funeral is paid for, it will be less than $15,000 for each of the inheritors. My husband's out of the will right now and he intends to stay that way.
Post by: iluvzbeach on November 21, 2020, 10:04:54 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on November 21, 2020, 10:35:28 AM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
It IS manipulative. That's the exact point of doing it.
Post by: shelivesthedream on November 21, 2020, 11:25:49 AM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Post by: iluvzbeach on November 21, 2020, 01:21:56 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
Post by: shelivesthedream on November 21, 2020, 01:40:41 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
Post by: SwordGuy on November 21, 2020, 02:05:20 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
You know, that synopsis explained to the COP in question might get them to rethink being such a vocal ass about their will. Maybe hand them a t-shirt or hat with cross-hairs on it to drive home the point...
Post by: Imma on November 21, 2020, 02:44:54 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
It IS manipulative. That's the exact point of doing it.
Yes, my aunt always used to inform us that so-and-so was out of the will because he did this thing, so we should make sure we never do this thing because that would mean we were going to be out of the will and we weren't going to get The Inheritance. The way she talkes about it you may think it's a multi million trust fund, but it's a bog standard terraced house that still has a mortgage and her china from the 1980s.
She used to teach me valuable life lessons like how you should set aside 10% of your earnings to invest in jewelry, that no one has ever gotten a job through networking and that I will probably end up on my own because I didn't go steady with anyone during highschool and always look like a mess. And then came "at your age I was married already!". I first met Mr Imma at the ripe old age of 22 and didn't "go steady" with him until I was 23! The horror. Instead of investing in jewelry I became a home owner at 24. I'm 30 now and just bought my first set of china and my first piece of real (vintage) jewelry this year. Still look like a mess, so I made sure to find a guy who doesn't like make-up and nailpolish and things like that.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on November 21, 2020, 08:06:38 PM
Post by: iluvzbeach on November 21, 2020, 10:40:18 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
I will definitely check them out! Thanks for the info. By the way, I know of Agatha Christie, just don’t recall reading any of her books or what they are about.
Post by: shelivesthedream on November 22, 2020, 12:01:25 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
I will definitely check them out! Thanks for the info. By the way, I know of Agatha Christie, just don’t recall reading any of her books or what they are about.
I actually haven't *read* that many but am a HUGE fan of the ITV Poirot series with David Suchet. Maybe it's an acquired taste? But it's our go-to comfort viewing. I'm currently trudging through the ITV Marples and they are just not up to snuff.
Post by: Imma on November 22, 2020, 02:05:03 PM
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
The worst thing is, she truly is! I can't imagine actually caring enough about the life choices of family members I don't like to be disappointed in them. When we were still in touch she was in my phone as Hyacinth Bucket.
My dad and aunt had one of those Agatha Christie aunts too so I guess they just think that's normal behaviour? She died of natural causes, but I'm sure some family members were sometimes tempted as she was so difficult.
Post by: rpr on November 22, 2020, 02:16:34 PM
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0868397/
I enjoyed that series.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on November 22, 2020, 08:52:54 PM
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
The worst thing is, she truly is! I can't imagine actually caring enough about the life choices of family members I don't like to be disappointed in them. When we were still in touch she was in my phone as Hyacinth Bucket.
Well, at least we all know you're doing it right!
Post by: shelivesthedream on November 23, 2020, 12:31:44 AM
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
The worst thing is, she truly is! I can't imagine actually caring enough about the life choices of family members I don't like to be disappointed in them. When we were still in touch she was in my phone as Hyacinth Bucket.
My dad and aunt had one of those Agatha Christie aunts too so I guess they just think that's normal behaviour? She died of natural causes, but I'm sure some family members were sometimes tempted as she was so difficult.
Hilarious detective novel plot: yes, I did murder COP, but not for the money - just to get them to shut up about it!
Post by: PhilB on November 23, 2020, 02:02:41 AM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
You've obviously never read much Agatha Christie...
Um, can’t say that I have...
She's a writer from the golden age of detective fiction (between the wars) and SO many of her books are about a cantankerous old person changing their will multiple times with great fanfare to include or exclude various family members in order to keep them at their beck and call, and include a large cast of hangers-on who kowtow to COP (cantankerous old person)'s every demand in the hope of being in their good books on the day they die and therefore being in the latest version of the will. Naturally, that means they all have a potent motive for being the murderer. In fact, the catalyst for the murder is often that COP has a fight with someone and announces that they will call their solicitor tomorrow and cut them out of the will - but they mysteriously die before they manage to do it...
I will definitely check them out! Thanks for the info. By the way, I know of Agatha Christie, just don’t recall reading any of her books or what they are about.
I actually haven't *read* that many but am a HUGE fan of the ITV Poirot series with David Suchet. Maybe it's an acquired taste? But it's our go-to comfort viewing. I'm currently trudging through the ITV Marples and they are just not up to snuff.
No Marple is ever likely to hold a candle to the late, great Joan Hickson. And don't get me started on Kenneth Branagh's murdering of Poirot. Harrumph.
Post by: Just Joe on November 23, 2020, 08:11:44 AM
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
She has solid priorities! That's MMM marrying material! ;)
Post by: Plina on November 23, 2020, 10:36:59 AM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
It IS manipulative. That's the exact point of doing it.
Yes, my aunt always used to inform us that so-and-so was out of the will because he did this thing, so we should make sure we never do this thing because that would mean we were going to be out of the will and we weren't going to get The Inheritance. The way she talkes about it you may think it's a multi million trust fund, but it's a bog standard terraced house that still has a mortgage and her china from the 1980s.
She used to teach me valuable life lessons like how you should set aside 10% of your earnings to invest in jewelry, that no one has ever gotten a job through networking and that I will probably end up on my own because I didn't go steady with anyone during highschool and always look like a mess. And then came "at your age I was married already!". I first met Mr Imma at the ripe old age of 22 and didn't "go steady" with him until I was 23! The horror. Instead of investing in jewelry I became a home owner at 24. I'm 30 now and just bought my first set of china and my first piece of real (vintage) jewelry this year. Still look like a mess, so I made sure to find a guy who doesn't like make-up and nailpolish and things like that.
I wonder if it is a generations thing. From a generation that has seen wars it would not be such a stupid advice. Jewelries are easy to take with you if you have to flee or are possible to use to buy necessities if money loose the value due to inflation. Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective. Americans seems more conservative and get married early. Two generations ago you got married early or when someone got pregnant by mistake. Here, many get a couple of kids first and then they might get married after living together for many years. You rarely see people getting married in their 20ies if they don’t have a foreign background.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 23, 2020, 10:45:55 AM
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
I don't know where you got that idea. Gobs of working class people have helped a buddy get a job.
Post by: Plina on November 23, 2020, 11:15:44 AM
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
I don't know where you got that idea. Gobs of working class people have helped a buddy get a job.
That is why I wrote in todays sense. Networking in the meaning of going to networks events, lunches or conferences with the purpose of getting a job or business but if I look up the word in a english dictionary it can be for both professional and social reasons. I would skip a lot of events if it would not be a part of being in the business as I do. I don’t meet my friends for ”networking” and I don’t see it as networking to help a buddy or a family member get a job but maybe it is a language difference.
Post by: SwordGuy on November 23, 2020, 11:34:40 AM
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
I don't know where you got that idea. Gobs of working class people have helped a buddy get a job.
That is why I wrote in todays sense. Networking in the meaning of going to networks events, lunches or conferences with the purpose of getting a job or business but if I look up the word in a english dictionary it can be for both professional and social reasons. I would skip a lot of events if it would not be a part of being in the business as I do. I don’t meet my friends for ”networking” and I don’t see it as networking to help a buddy or a family member get a job but maybe it is a language difference.
You mean conferences like this:
"https://1tomplumber.com/best-plumbing-trade-shows-in-2020/ (https://1tomplumber.com/best-plumbing-trade-shows-in-2020/)"
Lead paragraph from the site:
"Whether you own a plumbing business or aspire to one day, plumbing trade shows help you stay up to date with the greatest trends and technology in the industry. Creating a better customer experience through new tools, supplies, and networking with others will give you a leg up on the competition. Here’s our recommendation of the top ten plumbing trade shows to attend in 2020!"
I've met tradespeople coming to REIA (Real Estate Investors Association) meetings to meet and network with the investors.
I suspect it's just not on your radar screen.
Post by: Plina on November 23, 2020, 01:14:14 PM
Networking in todays sense didn’t exist at least in the working classes. The same with marriage at least from a more european perspective.
I don't know where you got that idea. Gobs of working class people have helped a buddy get a job.
That is why I wrote in todays sense. Networking in the meaning of going to networks events, lunches or conferences with the purpose of getting a job or business but if I look up the word in a english dictionary it can be for both professional and social reasons. I would skip a lot of events if it would not be a part of being in the business as I do. I don’t meet my friends for ”networking” and I don’t see it as networking to help a buddy or a family member get a job but maybe it is a language difference.
You mean conferences like this:
"https://1tomplumber.com/best-plumbing-trade-shows-in-2020/ (https://1tomplumber.com/best-plumbing-trade-shows-in-2020/)"
Lead paragraph from the site:
"Whether you own a plumbing business or aspire to one day, plumbing trade shows help you stay up to date with the greatest trends and technology in the industry. Creating a better customer experience through new tools, supplies, and networking with others will give you a leg up on the competition. Here’s our recommendation of the top ten plumbing trade shows to attend in 2020!"
I've met tradespeople coming to REIA (Real Estate Investors Association) meetings to meet and network with the investors.
I suspect it's just not on your radar screen.
I did presume that Immas aunt was elderly based on her advice, which might be wrong. Trade shows have existed for a long time but a generation or two ago it was not that many workers that visited those. I come across a lot of industrial history in my work and trade shows seemed to be something for owners, management and salespeople, not blue collar workers. I agree, that is is a different situation today.
Post by: Imma on November 23, 2020, 01:50:08 PM
My family doesn't have a refugee background and no one ever bought "real" jewelry, I guess that rule of thumb is more to impress the neighbours rather than something you could easily take with you. I know in the generation of my great-grandparents in the early 20th century people bought gold coins and kept them in a safe because they didn't trust banks. Before her marriage my aunt only worked on Saturday mornings so I doubt 10% of that could buy anything valuable.
As for the networking thing, I didn't really mean the networking events. I don't have to go there (thankfully!). To me it means keeping in touch with people in my field in an informal way. The reason why we even talked about this in the first place is because at the time my job was ending, so I casually said I was going to call around for a bit. That started a "networking doesn't work" rant that lasted months. In the mean time, I actually got a job due to my network (a place where I'd covered a maternity leave wanted me back). And my uncle is an extremely skilled tradesman who has always gotten jobs through his network. He's known to be the best at what he does in our hometown and he knows and talks to everyone, and that's why people call him to offer him jobs. That sounds quite a lot like networking! He can only read and write up to primary school level so I'm glad he has a huge existing network and doesn't have to write job applications.
Post by: Plina on November 23, 2020, 02:38:43 PM
The funny thing about trousseau is that me and my siblings had a ”trosseau” ready when we moved away from home at 16. We had a complete kitchen, towels and sheets when we moved out. Sometimes it has been quite annoying. Now, for the first time after almost 25 years away I have choosen the sheets that I want to have. It tooks that long to use all those I got before I moved away from home.
Maybe, you can separate between more intentional networking that you seem to do and what I view as networking and unintentional. My father is similar to your uncle but he would never talk about networking but he does it unintentionally as he has an interest in people that I don’t have.
Post by: Imma on November 23, 2020, 03:14:35 PM
In the 50s the average age for a woman to get married was 27 in here. That dropped to around 23 in the 70s and 80s and now we're at 30 or something. I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo. Our parents are apparantly of a similar age but it sounds like yours were a few decades ahead of mine! My friend's parents had to get married when her mum's landlady caught her dad sneaking in at night and called mum's parents! That was probably during the early 80s. Things changed quickly in the 90s.
My parents and in-laws are pushing for grandchildren too but it looks like that's not going to happen on either side of the family. It makes me kind of sad that even if one of our siblings were to have children, those kids won't experience family life like I did. It wasn't always great, there was lots of drama, but there were lots of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, people you were somehow related to but you didn't actually know how exactly. Everyone's door was always open. There are only a handful of family members left now.
Post by: economista on November 24, 2020, 07:31:25 AM
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Post by: Sugaree on November 24, 2020, 09:31:59 AM
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Yeah, I'm in the Bible belt and weddings during the summer following HS graduation aren't *that* uncommon. It's usually either because one, or both, are joining the military or that they want to have sex without sinning.
Post by: Psychstache on November 24, 2020, 11:12:03 AM
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Yeah, I'm in the Bible belt and weddings during the summer following HS graduation aren't *that* uncommon. It's usually either because one, or both, are joining the military or that they want to have sex without sinning.
Or there is a baby coming in 6-7 months.
Post by: Sugaree on November 24, 2020, 11:25:13 AM
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Yeah, I'm in the Bible belt and weddings during the summer following HS graduation aren't *that* uncommon. It's usually either because one, or both, are joining the military or that they want to have sex without sinning.
Or there is a baby coming in 6-7 months.
True. Though I've seen a trend against getting married just because there's a baby on the way. Which isn't a bad thing, IMO.
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
Post by: iluvzbeach on November 24, 2020, 11:40:55 AM
Post by: Plina on November 24, 2020, 12:41:19 PM
I had a trousseau too at that age! Not with fine china for 12 people like my aunt but I really wanted to move out, so any time someone got rid of something, or when you could collect trading stamps for something I would ask people for that.( I googled that term, I hope that's the correct term - the kind of stamps you get with every X amount spent in a store that you can exchange for household goods. ) I collected it in a box under my bed. I still have almost all of it - the towels and the knives and the mug I got as a Christmas present at my first job. Only the pots and pans turned out to be not great quality and I threw out the last one a few weeks ago.
In the 50s the average age for a woman to get married was 27 in here. That dropped to around 23 in the 70s and 80s and now we're at 30 or something. I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo. Our parents are apparantly of a similar age but it sounds like yours were a few decades ahead of mine! My friend's parents had to get married when her mum's landlady caught her dad sneaking in at night and called mum's parents! That was probably during the early 80s. Things changed quickly in the 90s.
My parents and in-laws are pushing for grandchildren too but it looks like that's not going to happen on either side of the family. It makes me kind of sad that even if one of our siblings were to have children, those kids won't experience family life like I did. It wasn't always great, there was lots of drama, but there were lots of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, people you were somehow related to but you didn't actually know how exactly. Everyone's door was always open. There are only a handful of family members left now.
I got my things over several christmases. I think that is pretty common here that relatives buy two plates, someone buys glasses etc. I got quality stuff so most of the stuff is still in use.
I had to look at the statistics. In 1871 the year of first marriage was for male 29,3 years and for women 27,8 years. It was around that age until the the end of the second world war when it started to decline. So same pattern as in your country. The lowest age was reached in 1966 when the men was in average 25,9 years and the women 23,3 years. We had a bump in 1989 in the age curve as there was a change in the pension system so many "older" couples (33 years) got married to benefit from the possibility to get survivors pension for widows. Many of my parents friends got married then as well as my parents. In 2018 the average age was 36,3 for the men and 33,9 years for the women.
I have sometimes jokingly said to my parents, that I am an illegitimate child after seeing it in some American TV-show, which prompted my mother to ask if I have seen it as a problem. It has never been an issue because if I looked at others in my generation they had parents that were not married. So yes, the society in the 70-80ies were a lot more liberal here than in your country. I think many view marriage as a piece of paper that makes inheritance easier and a possibility to throw a big party.
I think the loss of family feeling is sad. My maternal grandmother died a year ago and my grandfather is having health problems. Their place has always been the gathering place, were you saw your aunts, uncle and cousins for different occasions. When my grandfather passes away sometimes in the future, there will be no such place anymore as we are spread across two countries.
I think my country remained conservative for a long time - in my parents' youth, pre-marital sex, let alone living together before marriage, were taboo.
This is still the case in parts of the US. When Mr E and I moved in together before we got married (we were engaged but not married yet) we were no longer welcome at some family gatherings because we were a "bad example." It caused quite a lot of stress and heartache and my relationship with that part of the family will never be the same again.
ETA: In my family and with most of the community I grew up in getting married young is still the case as well. My grandparents got married at 18 & 21, my parents got married at 17 & 18, and then I got married at 28. My family members couldn't figure out why I wan't getting married. When I got pregnant for the first time at 29 I got lots of comments about being so OLD to be a parent, and then when I got pregnant again at 30 there was honest to goodness shock because they thought I had waited so late to get started that I would only have 1. All of my cousins/aunts/etc all had their first child before 22. I should also point out that I'm the first and still one of the only people in my family to have a college degree, and in that community it is very rare for someone to go to college.
Yeah, I'm in the Bible belt and weddings during the summer following HS graduation aren't *that* uncommon. It's usually either because one, or both, are joining the military or that they want to have sex without sinning.
I think my parents would have been really opposed towards a marriage after high school even if there had been babies involved. They would have been totally ok with the baby, I have learned later. In smaller towns as the one that I went in high school, you would get children younger but before 22 would be considered as a malfunction with birth control. According to statistics the average age for first time parents is 29,6 years for women and 31,8 for men. Can you get married before 18? Here, it would require a special license, that is really hard to obtain.
Post by: partgypsy on November 24, 2020, 01:00:44 PM
I'm always surprised that so many people don't have their affairs in order. A lot of people really don't want to face their own mortality. Recently we found out that something like that happened in our family too - and that person was a mentally sharp 90-something. Even they had not seen death coming.
I have a law degree and whenever close friends go through a major life event I always inquire whether they've talked things through with a legal professional. I always say something like "I don't want to be rude, and I certainly don't want to know the details, but my professional experience is that it's important that you talk about your situation together to make sure you're on the same page about things and whether your paperwork reflects your wishes".
More than one couple actually came back to thank me about that, because they found out things they didn't know. Like that one person who bought a house with a relative, very similar to the situation described in this thread, relative moved out, new spouse moves in - my acquintance had absolutely no idea the relative was still on the deed and not the husband. They figured marriage would take care of that "because you get told you need to get married to get your affairs in order". Other fairly common things I've encountered in my work are life insurance policies benefitting an ex instead of a current partner, a new mortgage on a home one person owned before marriage that's on both names but the property is still in one name and outdated wills.
A very painful situation happened in my family not too long ago - my cousin, in her 30s, had a long-term partner in his 50s with adult kids from a previous marriage. Cousin and him had been together for years and had a family but wanted to wait with marriage until their kids were a bit older so they could share in the happy day. Waiting with marriage until the kids are older and have a family celebration has become quite common in our country, but in our jurisdiction there are several forms of civil partnership they could have chosen instead to get their affairs in order. But they didn't think that was necessary. Well, he had a heart attack and died and he left the house that he had owned for years before they met to his adult kids and his life insurance too. And I think his pension went to his ex. Legally you can't disinherit your kids so they went to court and his young children got a share too, but the adult kids owned most of it so they forced a sale. That sale generated some funds but it belongs to the kids, mum can't use it to buy a new home. They've all lived with her parents ever since.
I thought the same thing happened with my Dad. he passed away this year unexpectedly just shy of 88. Whenever we broached the topic of a will or getting affairs in orders he said that he had "taken care of it" and "don't worry about it." He passed unexpectedly. He did have my little brother on the two main accounts but there was not enough to cover funeral expenses. So we paid the bills and assumed we each would be on the hook for around 4K each. We were puzzled because he seemed so emphatic he had taken care of it. Anyways maybe a month later my sister going through the files and paperwork found a sealed envelope addressed to us. Between that and selling his car paid off the funeral expenses and gave each of us around 500. So he HAD planned it. Just that we almost didn't find it, and the whole process (especially trying to figure out what his wishes were and have it happen in a short period of time) was unnecessarily nerve wracking and stressful. At the same time he lived very simply; unlike the horror stories here there was just an apartment with minimalistic furnishings (most of which is in my brother's garage). Every time I think of buying something for someone, I now think, who is going to have to deal with this after the person is gone? It just becomes junk at that point.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 24, 2020, 01:10:00 PM
Can you get married before 18? Here, it would require a special license, that is really hard to obtain.
It depends on whether the parents agree.
In California, Maine, Washington, Idaho, West Virginia and New Mexico there is no lower age limit, provided at least one parent or guardian consents.
There are several states that have low minimum ages. The lowest is in Massachusetts, where boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 can be married when the parents consent and the judge goes along with it. That dates back to English civil law; it doesn't appear that they got around to changing it. Massachusetts marriages do not emancipate the minor, but marriages in other states do.
In Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, and Utah the minimum age of marriage is 15. In Mississippi it's 15 for females but 17 for males. Most states have a minimum age of 16 or 17. At age 18 it's no longer an underage marriage in most states... meaning parental consent is not required.
So yes, it's legal to marry 12-year-old females in Boston, provided the consent of at least one parent or guardian can be had and the judge goes along with it.
Post by: Imma on November 24, 2020, 01:33:10 PM
I'm always surprised that so many people don't have their affairs in order. A lot of people really don't want to face their own mortality. Recently we found out that something like that happened in our family too - and that person was a mentally sharp 90-something. Even they had not seen death coming.
I have a law degree and whenever close friends go through a major life event I always inquire whether they've talked things through with a legal professional. I always say something like "I don't want to be rude, and I certainly don't want to know the details, but my professional experience is that it's important that you talk about your situation together to make sure you're on the same page about things and whether your paperwork reflects your wishes".
More than one couple actually came back to thank me about that, because they found out things they didn't know. Like that one person who bought a house with a relative, very similar to the situation described in this thread, relative moved out, new spouse moves in - my acquintance had absolutely no idea the relative was still on the deed and not the husband. They figured marriage would take care of that "because you get told you need to get married to get your affairs in order". Other fairly common things I've encountered in my work are life insurance policies benefitting an ex instead of a current partner, a new mortgage on a home one person owned before marriage that's on both names but the property is still in one name and outdated wills.
A very painful situation happened in my family not too long ago - my cousin, in her 30s, had a long-term partner in his 50s with adult kids from a previous marriage. Cousin and him had been together for years and had a family but wanted to wait with marriage until their kids were a bit older so they could share in the happy day. Waiting with marriage until the kids are older and have a family celebration has become quite common in our country, but in our jurisdiction there are several forms of civil partnership they could have chosen instead to get their affairs in order. But they didn't think that was necessary. Well, he had a heart attack and died and he left the house that he had owned for years before they met to his adult kids and his life insurance too. And I think his pension went to his ex. Legally you can't disinherit your kids so they went to court and his young children got a share too, but the adult kids owned most of it so they forced a sale. That sale generated some funds but it belongs to the kids, mum can't use it to buy a new home. They've all lived with her parents ever since.
I thought the same thing happened with my Dad. he passed away this year unexpectedly just shy of 88. Whenever we broached the topic of a will or getting affairs in orders he said that he had "taken care of it" and "don't worry about it." He passed unexpectedly. He did have my little brother on the two main accounts but there was not enough to cover funeral expenses. So we paid the bills and assumed we each would be on the hook for around 4K each. We were puzzled because he seemed so emphatic he had taken care of it. Anyways maybe a month later my sister going through the files and paperwork found a sealed envelope addressed to us. Between that and selling his car paid off the funeral expenses and gave each of us around 500. So he HAD planned it. Just that we almost didn't find it, and the whole process (especially trying to figure out what his wishes were and have it happen in a short period of time) was unnecessarily nerve wracking and stressful. At the same time he lived very simply; unlike the horror stories here there was just an apartment with minimalistic furnishings (most of which is in my brother's garage). Every time I think of buying something for someone, I now think, who is going to have to deal with this after the person is gone? It just becomes junk at that point.
I'm sorry you had to go through that. I hope what you had planned for him turned out to be what he wanted.
My mum recently called all of her kids to announce she had figured out where she wanted to be buried. Some of us were shocked since she's only 60 but I'm very glad she has been so explicit. Should the worst happen we'll know what to do.
@TheGrimSqueaker that's quite shocking actually! Until a few years ago, teenagers between 16 and 18 could get married in my country with parental consent, but now you always need permission from a judge if you're underage. I think that's a good development. There are too many stories of children pressured into marriage by their parents due to pregnancy. Now a judge can say no if they think one party doesn't really want to get married. I think permission is usually granted in case of pregnancy or when the bride or groom is terminally ill. Pregnancy is the only way to get permission to marry under the age of 16.
Post by: Plina on November 24, 2020, 02:27:30 PM
Can you get married before 18? Here, it would require a special license, that is really hard to obtain.
It depends on whether the parents agree.
In California, Maine, Washington, Idaho, West Virginia and New Mexico there is no lower age limit, provided at least one parent or guardian consents.
There are several states that have low minimum ages. The lowest is in Massachusetts, where boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 can be married when the parents consent and the judge goes along with it. That dates back to English civil law; it doesn't appear that they got around to changing it. Massachusetts marriages do not emancipate the minor, but marriages in other states do.
In Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, and Utah the minimum age of marriage is 15. In Mississippi it's 15 for females but 17 for males. Most states have a minimum age of 16 or 17. At age 18 it's no longer an underage marriage in most states... meaning parental consent is not required.
So yes, it's legal to marry 12-year-old females in Boston, provided the consent of at least one parent or guardian can be had and the judge goes along with it.
You learn so many different things in this forum.
Personally, I can't understand why you would want to marry your child under any circumstances. Since last year, we don't actually recognize child marriages under any circumstances. The law is made to prevent immigrants marrying off their children when they are on visit in their previous home countries. It is illegal to force your kid abroad to get married.
Post by: Kitsunegari on November 24, 2020, 07:56:17 PM
Can you get married before 18? Here, it would require a special license, that is really hard to obtain.
It depends on whether the parents agree.
In California, Maine, Washington, Idaho, West Virginia and New Mexico there is no lower age limit, provided at least one parent or guardian consents.
There are several states that have low minimum ages. The lowest is in Massachusetts, where boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 can be married when the parents consent and the judge goes along with it. That dates back to English civil law; it doesn't appear that they got around to changing it. Massachusetts marriages do not emancipate the minor, but marriages in other states do.
In Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, and Utah the minimum age of marriage is 15. In Mississippi it's 15 for females but 17 for males. Most states have a minimum age of 16 or 17. At age 18 it's no longer an underage marriage in most states... meaning parental consent is not required.
So yes, it's legal to marry 12-year-old females in Boston, provided the consent of at least one parent or guardian can be had and the judge goes along with it.
I'm looking it up and seems the 12 years of age is somewhat "advised" by common law, but not enforceable (in California at least), so a judge could theoretically give their nulla osta to someone wanting to marry a child under that age, if the child's guardians are allowing it?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 25, 2020, 05:59:58 AM
Post by: shelivesthedream on November 25, 2020, 09:05:47 AM
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Post by: 20957 on November 25, 2020, 10:54:16 AM
Post by: Sugaree on November 25, 2020, 11:12:11 AM
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Yeah, I know. He's only 7 though, so I figure that will come about the same time as the "where do babies come from" talk.
Post by: jeninco on November 25, 2020, 12:10:30 PM
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Yeah, I know. He's only 7 though, so I figure that will come about the same time as the "where do babies come from" talk.
PSA: Which starts really soon! At least with age-appropriate explanations, which are as detailed as he seems to have the interest and attention span for!
Post by: partgypsy on November 25, 2020, 08:14:17 PM
Post by: ender on November 25, 2020, 09:42:33 PM
Oh well.
Post by: Missy B on November 26, 2020, 11:48:06 PM
My bf had a conversation with his Dad in which he point-blank asked for the only thing of his Dad's he really wanted, and his Dad got kind of huffy about why they couldn't sort all that out *after* he was dead, but his Dad did agree that he should have that thing. He also made copies of old slides and photos his Dad had of his childhood. His Dad also went and made sure he gave him a shoebox that he wanted to make sure my bf got. Bf didn't open it til later.
So, his Dad dies. No funeral, Dad didn't want one. The wife decides that no one can have anything of her husband's, including all the photos of their childhood that bf wasn't able to copy, that have nothing to do with her and which took place fully 30 years before Dad met her. Bf goes to take his thing and third wife acts like she will simply die if any object of his is removed from the house, and bf says, no, Dad agreed it was mine and you were there. I'm taking it. (He lives on the other side of the continent from them.) Third wife, no doubt sensing he will not back down, backs off.
Years later BTW, grandchildren still do not have the thing their Granpa wanted them to have, because third wife wouldn't let them take it at the time and someone has to go all the way cross country to get it.
So back to the box that of all the things his father owned, was the only thing he really made sure to give to his son while he was still alive. Bf opens the box, and what is in it?
Why, the wedding photos to the second wife. Not a long marriage, a few years, but he kept the photos for 25 years.
Post by: okisok on December 04, 2020, 06:26:22 PM
Imma, you are such a late bloomer. Your auntie must be soooo disappointed...
The worst thing is, she truly is! I can't imagine actually caring enough about the life choices of family members I don't like to be disappointed in them. When we were still in touch she was in my phone as Hyacinth Bucket.
As long as you pronounce it Boo-KAY and not BUCK-it! Love this comparison. It gives me a very clear idea of what kind of person she is :)
Post by: La Bibliotecaria Feroz on December 05, 2020, 10:11:37 AM
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Yeah, I know. He's only 7 though, so I figure that will come about the same time as the "where do babies come from" talk.
My high school boyfriend was almost EIGHTEEN when he realized that his parent's eighteenth anniversary was only four months before his birthday. They had written both dates on the calendar. They were clearly waiting for him to math this out.
I had a friend who was born eight and a half months after her parents' wedding and I always liked to imagine people wondering she was a preemie before finding out she was ten pounds!
Post by: markbike528CBX on December 05, 2020, 11:55:00 AM
At some point, my son is going to realize that he was born 5.5 months after my husband and I got married.
You might want to talk to him about that. I realised that at some point about my parents and it was actually a really sucky thing to realise. I never talked to them about it, but I always wondered if maybe they never really wanted to get married but "had to" because I was on the way and so I trapped them into a marriage they never wanted. They had a tiny lunchtime wedding and there is only one photo. Is it because they're not showy people or because it was a bit of a rush? I mean, I'm highly over-dramatising things here, but I was a histrionic child with not very emotionally open parents and found it an unpleasant discovery when I was little.
Not that you need to have A Talk, but you might want to mention that it happens sometimes and it's OK.
Yeah, I know. He's only 7 though, so I figure that will come about the same time as the "where do babies come from" talk.
My high school boyfriend was almost EIGHTEEN when he realized that his parent's eighteenth anniversary was only four months before his birthday. They had written both dates on the calendar. They were clearly waiting for him to math this out.
I had a friend who was born eight and a half months after her parents' wedding and I always liked to imagine people wondering she was a preemie before finding out she was ten pounds!
Parents married in June, I was born healthy in November. mmmmmm :-) I've figured this out previously. I've forgotten my exact age of this realization (maybe 12?).
As far as I know, no one mentioned it explicitly. I'm sure it was a hush, hush matter to the families in the early 60's. I'm healthy, so no big deal to me, except it makes me giggle a bit. I do now understand my father's "keep it in your pants" version of the talk (no capital T there).
Post by: DaMa on December 07, 2020, 07:54:57 PM
I was 28 at my grandparents' 50th anniversary, when I realized that my oldest uncle was born at least a month too early. When I asked my mom, she laughed and said, "The story I got is that it was only one time, and Mom didn't know until after they were married."
Post by: Rural on December 07, 2020, 08:08:31 PM
Post by: Dicey on December 07, 2020, 11:33:24 PM
Post by: Rubic on December 08, 2020, 04:56:53 AM
they could have lowered my full retirement age for Social Security benefits.
Dad's response: "I tried."
Post by: Master of None on December 08, 2020, 08:51:58 AM
Post by: ixtap on December 08, 2020, 10:41:02 AM
I have a mid November birthday. A poor pastor once asked, in front of the whole congregation, why he had to announce so many birthdays this particular week. Most of those who responded kind of muttered "Valentines," but one guy was gleeful and louder than the rest.
My SIL and BIL have one kid in their arms and are clearly expecting again in their wedding pictures, but last I knew they were still telling the kids they waited until they got married...It seems to their family's version of Santa Claus, the older kids don't let on when they get it.
Post by: Plina on December 08, 2020, 10:44:59 AM
No Inheritance Drama here...at least not yet, but I do have a story of something good that happened this past weekend. My grandfather who is 97 moved in with my parent's about a month ago due to him getting older in age and he didn't want to go into a nursing home. In order for that to work out they all purchased a larger home and both of their old houses are under contract. My grandfather packed up all of his must haves and took them to the new house and told the rest of the family that anything still at his house is fair game. So over the past few weeks family members have gone over and taken the few sentimental items that they would like to have. So far everyone has been extremely cordial and there hasn't been any issues. My wife and I were the last to go through the house and there was still quite a bit of stuff there. Surprisingly the family Antique Singer sewing machine was still there and it is fully operational. About 9 years ago he had a repairman come in and get it all working. He was thrilled when we took it as no one else wanted it. We got a few other small items which I hold dear to my heart but really all we want is for grandpa to be around longer. We've got a lot of wonderful years with him and I have to say that going through this process is going to help relieve some unneeded stress when he does pass. This is one time I've actually been proud of my family for not being absolutely insane.
I got my grandmothers old Singer sewing machine. After having it stored for 20 years at my parents place I finally took it home this summer because i drove to them due to the pandemic instead of flying. Now I am using it as a computer table. I guess you could use it for sewing to but I haven’t figured out how to do it.
Post by: PDXTabs on December 08, 2020, 10:53:21 AM
My daughter was also born 6.5 months after the wedding. When I tried to discuss it with her, she said with voice dripping preteen disdain, "Mom, I know. I can do the math!"
Ha! My son was born 5.5 months later, but I'm no longer married to his mom. I wonder if he even knows when our anniversary was? I'm sure that he knows why we got married when we did.
Post by: Sugaree on December 08, 2020, 02:17:36 PM
My daughter was also born 6.5 months after the wedding. When I tried to discuss it with her, she said with voice dripping preteen disdain, "Mom, I know. I can do the math!"
I was 28 at my grandparents' 50th anniversary, when I realized that my oldest uncle was born at least a month too early. When I asked my mom, she laughed and said, "The story I got is that it was only one time, and Mom didn't know until after they were married."
It was a 50th wedding anniversary party that made me realize that my uncle was a little too young too. Mom's explanation was that my grandmother was diabetic and they induced her early. And that my grandfather pushed for December 31st instead of January 1st for the tax benefits. It did go a long way in explaining why my great-grandmother wouldn't allow my grandfather in her house for the first 5 years of their marriage.
Post by: DadJokes on January 04, 2021, 01:20:03 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
Post by: iris lily on January 04, 2021, 01:30:07 PM
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 04, 2021, 01:40:16 PM
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Part of the notification can be that you plan to review it every 5 years (or whatever), and if anything major happens. Lots of life events mean wills need revision.
Plus you don't have to go into great detail. Person X is my executor, person Y is backup, rough division of assets. A list for important personal items. Where the executor can find the will, important documents.Etc.
This has been standard in my family, no drama in any generation.
Post by: Imma on January 04, 2021, 01:47:07 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I've been thinking about this actually. The way my aunt handled things is manipulative, for sure. I don't want to be like that. But Covid got me thinking a little bit. We are a childless couple with no nieces/nephews. We have left money to some relatives and friends and not to others. We've written very plainly in our will that A and B are not going to inherit and no one is going to be surprised because we're not in touch at all. And I figured that everything will go to the surviving spouse first anyway.
But with Covid I realized that we could pass at roughly the same time as well (from a legal point of view this is covered in the will). Someone outside of us needs to be aware of our will, where in the house we keep our financial stuff, who has keys to the house etc. But who do you pick? It is well known that we don't like A and B and we haven't been in touch for years and years. But our heirs do have a bond with them and I don't want to burden them with that information.
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
Post by: Villanelle on January 04, 2021, 01:56:38 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I've been thinking about this actually. The way my aunt handled things is manipulative, for sure. I don't want to be like that. But Covid got me thinking a little bit. We are a childless couple with no nieces/nephews. We have left money to some relatives and friends and not to others. We've written very plainly in our will that A and B are not going to inherit and no one is going to be surprised because we're not in touch at all. And I figured that everything will go to the surviving spouse first anyway.
But with Covid I realized that we could pass at roughly the same time as well (from a legal point of view this is covered in the will). Someone outside of us needs to be aware of our will, where in the house we keep our financial stuff, who has keys to the house etc. But who do you pick? It is well known that we don't like A and B and we haven't been in touch for years and years. But our heirs do have a bond with them and I don't want to burden them with that information.
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
Something like this may be a good role for a friend. You don't really even need to specify "in case of death". Just give them a key and tell them where important papers are kept, 'in case of emergency'.
For the second issue, is it a problem if A and B are notified? Is the concern that they wouldn't then notify C and D, who are the people who need to know? This could also be something you tell that friend. "Hey, my family dynamics are a bit strained in some regards. If anything happens to me and you become aware of it, C and D need to be notified. Their contact info is in that place I told you all our important papers are located. They also have medical PoA."
You might also make sure your phone is set up with an emergency contact. I don't know about other systems, but with Apple there is a way to do this that first responders and hospital staff can access that emergency contact without unlocking your phone. Google can tell you how to do it, but it's pretty simple. My coroner sister alerted me to the function and encouraged me to use it. If you set that to C or D, they'd get the call and could step in.
Post by: iris lily on January 04, 2021, 02:03:57 PM
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Part of the notification can be that you plan to review it every 5 years (or whatever), and if anything major happens. Lots of life events mean wills need revision.
Plus you don't have to go into great detail. Person X is my executor, person Y is backup, rough division of assets. A list for important personal items. Where the executor can find the will, important documents.Etc.
This has been standard in my family, no drama in any generation.
Oh relevant parties know who the executors are and where to find the will.
It’s when we talk about rough division of assets ...that will change. I’m less and less interested in leaving money to relatives as time goes on. And as I plan to spend my assets, it will be less likely that I will divide assets 10 ways as in our current will.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 04, 2021, 02:15:50 PM
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
We have a laminated card in our wallets from our lawyer that directs the appropriate parties to contact them.
Post by: Imma on January 04, 2021, 02:42:06 PM
What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I've been thinking about this actually. The way my aunt handled things is manipulative, for sure. I don't want to be like that. But Covid got me thinking a little bit. We are a childless couple with no nieces/nephews. We have left money to some relatives and friends and not to others. We've written very plainly in our will that A and B are not going to inherit and no one is going to be surprised because we're not in touch at all. And I figured that everything will go to the surviving spouse first anyway.
But with Covid I realized that we could pass at roughly the same time as well (from a legal point of view this is covered in the will). Someone outside of us needs to be aware of our will, where in the house we keep our financial stuff, who has keys to the house etc. But who do you pick? It is well known that we don't like A and B and we haven't been in touch for years and years. But our heirs do have a bond with them and I don't want to burden them with that information.
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
Something like this may be a good role for a friend. You don't really even need to specify "in case of death". Just give them a key and tell them where important papers are kept, 'in case of emergency'.
For the second issue, is it a problem if A and B are notified? Is the concern that they wouldn't then notify C and D, who are the people who need to know? This could also be something you tell that friend. "Hey, my family dynamics are a bit strained in some regards. If anything happens to me and you become aware of it, C and D need to be notified. Their contact info is in that place I told you all our important papers are located. They also have medical PoA."
You might also make sure your phone is set up with an emergency contact. I don't know about other systems, but with Apple there is a way to do this that first responders and hospital staff can access that emergency contact without unlocking your phone. Google can tell you how to do it, but it's pretty simple. My coroner sister alerted me to the function and encouraged me to use it. If you set that to C or D, they'd get the call and could step in.
Yes, they are both not rational people and I could see them not informing family, or delaying it, or making important decisions before other family is contacted. I've seen both behave irrationally under stress, including when I was in the hospital (a long time ago when I was still single). We just can't predict what these people will do. My friend just informed the police that she had no relationship with that sibling, but here's the phone number of the relative that should be contacted, bye. I think our family members wouldn't do that.
My partner is my emergency contact in my phone but I had not considered adding the right family member as the second one. That would probably work!
Another concern, a friend of mine was recently contacted by police that a long lost sibling was dying in the hospital. Turns out the police contact family members in a certain specific order in our country and guess which relatives are on top of our lists? Yes. A and B. Now, I hope our relatives would contact the rest of the family but since these people are idiots I have no idea what they'd do. I've arranged medical power of attorney and my own doctors are aware of that but if I fall ill out of town and the wrong people are contacted, it all falls apart. Chances of this happening are low but stakes are high.
We have a laminated card in our wallets from our lawyer that directs the appropriate parties to contact them.
This is also smart. I'm not sure if ours offers this as a service (never heard of it) but it would make sure that the right people would be contacted. We are only in our 30s so likely we won't need all this paperwork for decades, and by that time A and B may have passed away already, but you never know when you may need it.
Post by: jinga nation on January 05, 2021, 05:54:55 AM
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Part of the notification can be that you plan to review it every 5 years (or whatever), and if anything major happens. Lots of life events mean wills need revision.
Plus you don't have to go into great detail. Person X is my executor, person Y is backup, rough division of assets. A list for important personal items. Where the executor can find the will, important documents.Etc.
This has been standard in my family, no drama in any generation.
Oh relevant parties know who the executors are and where to find the will.
It’s when we talk about rough division of assets ...that will change. I’m less and less interested in leaving money to relatives as time goes on. And as I plan to spend my assets, it will be less likely that I will divide assets 10 ways as in our current will.
Wills can be contested (at least in my US state). Hence we created a revocable living trust to avoid probate.
(Wife has a workplace benefit; we got it done for free.)
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/051315/will-vs-trust-difference-between-two.asp
Post by: iris lily on January 05, 2021, 11:24:33 AM
Both attorneys we talk to about wills say make your intentions known before hand. No surprises.What I don’t get is that people would publicize updates to their will and who is/isn’t in it this go-round. Sounds extremely manipulative to me.
Publicizing in that manner may be manipulative, but you should always share your plans with the people involved. What's in your will should not be a surprise to people after you die.
I am uncomfortable with that advice for my household because my will will not look like it does now in ten years, in 20 years.
Part of the notification can be that you plan to review it every 5 years (or whatever), and if anything major happens. Lots of life events mean wills need revision.
Plus you don't have to go into great detail. Person X is my executor, person Y is backup, rough division of assets. A list for important personal items. Where the executor can find the will, important documents.Etc.
This has been standard in my family, no drama in any generation.
Oh relevant parties know who the executors are and where to find the will.
It’s when we talk about rough division of assets ...that will change. I’m less and less interested in leaving money to relatives as time goes on. And as I plan to spend my assets, it will be less likely that I will divide assets 10 ways as in our current will.
Wills can be contested (at least in my US state). Hence we created a revocable living trust to avoid probate.
(Wife has a workplace benefit; we got it done for free.)
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/051315/will-vs-trust-difference-between-two.asp
Actually, we do have a trust. Are used the term “will “just to make life easier here.
Post by: talltexan on January 07, 2021, 06:56:12 AM
I also happen to know that my friend was a committed pro-Business member of the Texas Republican party, for which he gave a series of speeches advocating an elimination of the estate tax. His dad died on 12/31, and part of me cannot help but suspect that no one wanted the estate to be exposed to a possible Biden tax hike.
Post by: livesimplecolorado on February 11, 2021, 10:32:47 AM
Long story short, my sister and I got into some major fight prior to her passing. I was named executor for my mothers will. When it came time to probate my mothers assets, my sister and brother in law put together a three-way call with their attorney to try to get me to release my executor responsibilities and give it to them instead because "They had a system in place" (they were paying my moms bills etc.)
I said no. They got mad at me. They had access to the original will which they refused to turn over unless I had a noterized form sent over to them stating that I will not take my executor commission and split it up between everyone because mom "Wanted everything to be fair." So in essence they had me up against a wall.
My lawyer said no, we are not signing anything. They finally send over the will so I could probate the assets and get appointed as executor. As soon as I was appointed, I went right to my mothers banks (she had two) and had the bank manager turn over the last 14 months of bank statements.
As soon as those statements came to my house, my husband opens it up and calls me at work, he says "This does not look right" He was spot on.
My mother started with 120k in one account, when I took it over there was about 20k left in it. Overall there were over 40 ATM withdrawals by my brother in law (sometimes 2 a day) draining the account before my mother died.
I called my sister about the money and of course she got defensive but I held my ground and told her she was going to have to account for the missing money and anything that was not related to my mothers bills or care was to be paid back.
There was almost 80k that they helped themselves to and that I deducted from their account.
To this day, my sister refuses to admit that they stole anything. We just started communicating again a few months ago, mostly because I have moved past it and let it go. I guess denial is not just a river in Egypt they say.
But I guess the moral of the story was, that my brother in law called me up recently to say he "mismanaged" the money because they were so broke. So the people that are the most desperate do the most immoral things when it comes to money. It was not like my husband and I were rich at the time but we just never thought about stealing anything. Never have, never will.
When the estate was ready to be split up, there was almost 900k in assets. I was so meticulous with all the records and sent everything to my attorney for a full accounting. I guess if I was like my sister or brother in law I could have had a field day with that money. I used to joke with my husband, we can go to an island and have drinks under a palm tree lol.
But, I thought back to my dad who had passed away 5 years prior to my mom, he was the one that put the wills together and appointed me executor. He pulled me aside at the ripe old age of 18 and told me he trusted me and wanted everything split 3 ways, no drama, no fighting. I could not control the fighting part but I could control the fairness part. His words rang through my brain and that was what I did.
My story in a nutshell, money makes people do crazy shit
Post by: ducky19 on February 11, 2021, 10:54:55 AM
I have a friend who went through a similar amount of drama when her step-mom died. Most of the money had been brought into the marriage by my friend's dad, and the step-mom's will had all assets split 3 ways between her and her three step-siblings. The one step-sister went and completely lost her shit. "Oh, mom wanted my daughter to have the car and this bank account" (that the granddaughter was added to recently), refused to turn over bank statements, demanded that my friend come to AZ "immediately" so they could sell the trailer, etc. Obviously we're not talking about a lot of money (I think it was in the tens of thousands), but this woman started cursing out my friend and her other siblings anytime someone suggested doing something other than her way. It was a complete shit show. I just don't understand people sometimes. My siblings know that if there's something they want, I'm not going to fight them over it when the time comes. I am getting my grandpa's Victrola, sis is getting grandma's bible and the jewelry, brother is getting great-grandma's '61 Buick Special. Honestly, there's not much else in the way of stuff that I want to add to my life, so if there's something they want, go nuts.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 11, 2021, 11:24:18 AM
... story about horrible sibling and her spouse...
@livesimplecolorado , Bravo. Well done. You did the right thing with grace and courage. I wish we had more people like you in this country.
Post by: saguaro on February 11, 2021, 01:54:47 PM
But, I thought back to my dad who had passed away 5 years prior to my mom, he was the one that put the wills together and appointed me executor. He pulled me aside at the ripe old age of 18 and told me he trusted me and wanted everything split 3 ways, no drama, no fighting. I could not control the fighting part but I could control the fairness part. His words rang through my brain and that was what I did.
My parents did their wills with everything to be split equally between their 3 daughters and fully expected that there would be no issues. Little did they know. Mom died in 2015, Dad in late 2017. My middle sister (I am oldest of the 3), who had taken over their financials prior to their deaths, was appointed executor. Neither I or my youngest sister any reason to not trust her, and for the first six months things proceeded normally with the usual stuff and, after meeting with her attorney, middle sister told me and youngest sister that all there remained was selling the house, everything else was done. This was in spring of 2018. Btw, this was not a complicated estate with the house as the main asset, one car and one bank account.
To make a long story short, middle sister was continually finding reasons to delay selling the house. Fast forward to late 2019, 2 years had now passed since my Dad's death, the house was now empty, fixed up, a real estate agent engaged, but she continued to stall with crazy reasons on why not to list the house. Also she refused to provide an accounting to both of us, any requests from us were ignored. Youngest sister and I decided to hire an attorney to force the sale of the house. Not an easy decision but middle sister was continuing to stall and was not listening to her own attorney. We figured this would get her to move. Instead what happened was that per a provision in our parents trust, sister designated me as special trustee to list and sell the house. House sold 2 months later. During the time I served as special trustee, I found out that my sister wasn't exactly doing things, um, to put it politely, as correctly as she led us to believe.
She had never set up an estate account as she said she was going to do but continued to use my Dad's checking account which had her name on it. Under immense pressure, she finally provided bank statements that showed she took some liberties with the money. It wasn't enough to be worth fighting over, but it raised some serious questions on how she accessed the account prior to my Dad's death, as his checking account dropped 45K during the 2 1/2 years between my mom's death and my dad's. I knew roughly what Dad's expenses were and it didn't add up. She never provided a full accounting of other things either such as my mom's china and silver which we all agreed should be sold. There was jewelry that went missing.
My point is that my parents fully expected for everything to be done fairly, without conflict, and never in a million years would they have thought things would go the way they have. The middle (executor) sister and youngest sister are not speaking. I am on speaking terms with middle sister (per her initiation) but I am wary, too wary to trust her again.
During the time I was special trustee, I kept in touch with both sisters on the progress (in spite of middle sister being mad) and made sure at the closing, they each got their share of the disbursement. This was the way it was supposed to be done as my parents wished but it took hiring an attorney and forcing the issue to get there.
Post by: Capsu78 on February 12, 2021, 04:47:48 PM
https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/families-and-inheritance-107772.html
Post by: livesimplecolorado on February 13, 2021, 07:57:58 AM
I guess for me, this is why I have always been interested in learning as much as I could about money, investing, saving, etc. Why I am a huge fan of MMM. The less dependent you are on others, the system, etc., the less you care about things like inheritance to fix your bad money mistakes.
Unfortunately, my sister and BIL always lived beyond their means, so desperation bleeds into things like this. He told me he only had 6 cents in their account when all of this happened. Just recently, he tried to get me to buy into feeling bad for their choices. I told my sister I knew what happened and I did not care anymore. I was waiting for an "I'm sorry" and that never happened, so I let it go.
When you are not financially secure, when you live beyond your means, when you are trying to impress others with things that nobody cares about, this is what happens when you have access to cash. My mom spent her whole life being frugal. I realized that even If my husband and I had not inherited anything, we would have been fine. My sister would have still been struggling.
Ironically, she has always made more than me too. I could never figure it out.
Post by: livesimplecolorado on February 13, 2021, 08:08:22 AM
Another thing irked me here (and it's not you): I hate fake apologies. Oh, yeah, we might have "mismanaged" something. No: you stole. Money. Lots of it. And you knew you were stealing. You kept stealing. Almost daily. While the person who owned the money was dying. And your own kin.
It's the lowest form of theft.
^This
This is why it took me until just recently to get over it. I used to tell my husband how they had such an over inflated sense of self worth. The fact that my BIL could just help himself to my mothers money still disgusts me.
Recently, I think my sister actually feels some remorse as she has been really trying to connect. She had my BIL call me to explain what happened. This is now 6 years later and all it did was stir up the pot. I expected an admission of guilt and apology, all I got was an excuse about "mismanagement and being so broke they had no choice." Part of the conversation though that put me over the edge was him saying "Your sister had nothing to do with any of this" which is pretty much a lie.
After that call I told my sister, I know what happened to the money and I don't care to discuss it anymore and I also never want to talk to my BIL again.
The positive about all of this is I now feel like I have a real relationship with my sister, I know who she is, I accept that, and I have moved past all of it. Even writing this all down no longer makes me angry like it used to. What I feel now is indifference.
I will never be close to her, that is OK, I can have at least something where we can have pleasant conversation and my son will know his cousins. My friends are my real family. She, sadly, has been demoted.
Post by: livesimplecolorado on February 13, 2021, 08:33:23 AM
So to your point about protecting myself, I recently put together a trust. I have appointed my best friend as trustee and guardian should anything happen to me.
I have everything detailed to protect myself and my son. I am donating a portion of my estate to the Denver Dumb Friends League and The American Cancer Society.
None of my family will get a dime after the rest goes to my son. My friend will get some as well for taking care of everything.
Post by: Dicey on February 13, 2021, 09:33:59 AM
My brother and I were co-trustees and co-executors of my parent's modest estate. Ironic that the one who burned through so much of it before they died was also the one being a dick about getting "her" money as we tried to unsnarl the estate mess that my parents unintentionally created. This would be funny, if it wasn't. We actually found the ad my mom had saved from the guy who advertised Wills & Trusts for $495. Yup, that's who they used.
Post by: Smokystache on February 13, 2021, 08:22:10 PM
@Finances_With_Purpose
... I am donating a portion of my estate to the Denver Dumb Friends League and The American Cancer Society.
None of my family will get a dime after the rest goes to my son. My friend will get some as well for taking care of everything.
I'll save others a google (like I had to do) - this is a group of pet shelters and medical centers in Colorado that have been around for over 100 years. I wasn't sure if this was a name you called your friend-group or what? Wish the "Our story" page on the website gave more info on how it came to be named this ... it doesn't appear to be anyone's last name...
Post by: Adventine on February 13, 2021, 08:51:51 PM
@Finances_With_Purpose
... I am donating a portion of my estate to the Denver Dumb Friends League and The American Cancer Society.
None of my family will get a dime after the rest goes to my son. My friend will get some as well for taking care of everything.
I'll save others a google (like I had to do) - this is a group of pet shelters and medical centers in Colorado that have been around for over 100 years. I wasn't sure if this was a name you called your friend-group or what? Wish the "Our story" page on the website gave more info on how it came to be named this ... it doesn't appear to be anyone's last name...
Thank you for saving me a google :)
I guess it stems from the definition of "dumb" as "unable to speak", not stupid. The name certainly didn't age well...
Post by: Caoineag on February 14, 2021, 06:46:17 AM
@Finances_With_Purpose
... I am donating a portion of my estate to the Denver Dumb Friends League and The American Cancer Society.
None of my family will get a dime after the rest goes to my son. My friend will get some as well for taking care of everything.
I'll save others a google (like I had to do) - this is a group of pet shelters and medical centers in Colorado that have been around for over 100 years. I wasn't sure if this was a name you called your friend-group or what? Wish the "Our story" page on the website gave more info on how it came to be named this ... it doesn't appear to be anyone's last name...
Thank you for saving me a google :)
I guess it stems from the definition of "dumb" as "unable to speak", not stupid. The name certainly didn't age well...
Yup when we moved to Denver way back in the day, we were curious which side they were calling dumb, the animals or the humans, lol.
Post by: AMandM on February 14, 2021, 10:04:01 PM
My story in a nutshell, money makes people do crazy shit
All money does is magnify what's already there: for bad character, it's just a greater opportunity to do wrong. As they did to you. (And for good character, it's the opposite.)
[...]money doesn't make people do anything that they wouldn't already do. It just makes it easier.
I am curious: For those of you who've had to deal with crazy inheritance drama, was the crazy behaviour a bolt from the blue, brought into being as it were by the prospect of money? Or was is merely a larger-scale version of previous attitudes and patterns, magnified by the prospect of money?
Post by: SwordGuy on February 14, 2021, 11:07:52 PM
I am curious: For those of you who've had to deal with crazy inheritance drama, was the crazy behaviour a bolt from the blue, brought into being as it were by the prospect of money? Or was is merely a larger-scale version of previous attitudes and patterns, magnified by the prospect of money?
My wife and her brothers all fully expect their sister to act like a spoiled, self-centered ass and to be a pain in the ass throughout the entire process after their mother dies. This is based on the fact that she acted like a spoiled, self-centered ass when their father died and tried to bilk their mom out of her house some years later. "Oh, mom, with the 2000 bug about to destroy the nation, can you go ahead and sign your home over to me? That's because after the year 2000 bug hits I might not be able to get across the country afterwards." I shit you not, that was her scam. We expect said house would have been sold out from under the mom shortly thereafter.
None of the three of them have any intention of notifying their sister of their mom's death until AFTER the funeral. One of the brothers will be the executor and he may hire a lawyer to deal with her so he won't have to. My wife and the other brother consider that to be in the "money well spent" category.
We don't need the money. The executor brother doesn't need the money. The other brother could probably use it. The selfish sister could certainly use the money which is the single best reason she may go along with the will -- so she can get the money faster.
It won't be fun.
Her mom is a tough old bird, she's getting close to 100 years old and still hanging in there with just one lung working.
Post by: markbike528CBX on February 14, 2021, 11:55:04 PM
None of the three of them have any intention of notifying their sister of their mom's death until AFTER the wedding.
Is this an autocorrect from will reading? Or did I miss something?
Oh , the Y2K scam, awesome in a very twisted way.
I spent Dec 31, 1999 in a suit, pushing a cart with wedding balloons and cake around a grocery store cleared out of canned goods. Best man for the wedding, since introduced them.
Post by: talltexan on February 15, 2021, 07:45:06 AM
I feel like there's more of a story there than you've already shared.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 15, 2021, 07:52:43 AM
None of the three of them have any intention of notifying their sister of their mom's death until AFTER the wedding.
Is this an autocorrect from will reading? Or did I miss something?
Oh , the Y2K scam, awesome in a very twisted way.
I spent Dec 31, 1999 in a suit, pushing a cart with wedding balloons and cake around a grocery store cleared out of canned goods. Best man for the wedding, since introduced them.
Sorry, meant to write "funeral"!
Post by: markbike528CBX on February 15, 2021, 09:39:23 AM
Wait, so you were an attendant for a Y2K wedding?Nope, except for being in a suit in a low class town grocery store. No drama.
I feel like there's more of a story there than you've already shared.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 16, 2021, 08:56:02 AM
Thank you all for your kind words. It has taken me until this last year to just move past some of this and forgive my sister. I think the biggest part of my forgiveness though has revolved around the fact that I need to lower my expectations with her. Sadly, her character has left me with the type of relationship you have with a coworker, not the one we used to have.
When it comes to forgiving someone who will not change his or her behavior, there are two necessary things. First, you have lowered your expectations. Not expecting her to change will save you a huge amount of time and stress. Second, you have put enough distance into the relationship for her behavior to not have a direct effect on you. From that position, it's easy to "forgive" in the sense of not pursuing her for revenge (which doesn't sound like your style anyway) and not investing any more thought or emotional energy into stewing over the initial offense.
Forgiveness doesn't mean you have to give the other person another opportunity to hurt you.
Post by: SunnyDays on February 16, 2021, 09:15:12 AM
Thank you all for your kind words. It has taken me until this last year to just move past some of this and forgive my sister. I think the biggest part of my forgiveness though has revolved around the fact that I need to lower my expectations with her. Sadly, her character has left me with the type of relationship you have with a coworker, not the one we used to have.
When it comes to forgiving someone who will not change his or her behavior, there are two necessary things. First, you have lowered your expectations. Not expecting her to change will save you a huge amount of time and stress. Second, you have put enough distance into the relationship for her behavior to not have a direct effect on you. From that position, it's easy to "forgive" in the sense of not pursuing her for revenge (which doesn't sound like your style anyway) and not investing any more thought or emotional energy into stewing over the initial offense.
Forgiveness doesn't mean you have to give the other person another opportunity to hurt you.
Agree. Forgiveness is for your sake, so you don't carry around resentment that will only hurt you in the end. But it's wise not to forget and not to put yourself in any position with her where her character defect(s) can cause you further harm. It's sad that your relationship with her has been damaged, but she obviously doesn't care enough about that to take responsibility. Like Maya Angelou said, "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time."
Post by: Imma on February 16, 2021, 10:30:45 AM
Thank you all for your kind words. It has taken me until this last year to just move past some of this and forgive my sister. I think the biggest part of my forgiveness though has revolved around the fact that I need to lower my expectations with her. Sadly, her character has left me with the type of relationship you have with a coworker, not the one we used to have.
When it comes to forgiving someone who will not change his or her behavior, there are two necessary things. First, you have lowered your expectations. Not expecting her to change will save you a huge amount of time and stress. Second, you have put enough distance into the relationship for her behavior to not have a direct effect on you. From that position, it's easy to "forgive" in the sense of not pursuing her for revenge (which doesn't sound like your style anyway) and not investing any more thought or emotional energy into stewing over the initial offense.
Forgiveness doesn't mean you have to give the other person another opportunity to hurt you.
Agree. Forgiveness is for your sake, so you don't carry around resentment that will only hurt you in the end. But it's wise not to forget and not to put yourself in any position with her where her character defect(s) can cause you further harm. It's sad that your relationship with her has been damaged, but she obviously doesn't care enough about that to take responsibility. Like Maya Angelou said, "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time."
It's been a few years so I don't remember where I read it, but one of the most helpful things I've ever read was something like this: "When someone mistreats someone else, with their act they create a negative emotional connection, an emotional debt. Trying to chase after this debt takes a lot of time and energy, and in most cases, this debt can never be fully repaid: the damage cannot be undone or compensated for. When you forgive this debt, you release yourself from the pressure of chasing after it. You no longer have to spend negative energy on someone (wishing someone harm, plotting grevenge) You need to get to a place where you can say: I leave him be. Whatever happens to him, be it good or bad, it's not my concern. When there is no debt, no negative emotional connection, people are free to go their own way, or to resume contact if they want to, without the pressure of the debt".
Someone in my family did awful things to me. At first I was angry of course. But I let it go. I hardly ever even think about that person anymore. If they won the lottery I don't think I'd have hard feelings, but if something awful happened to them I wouldn't be dancing on their grave either. It's just not a matter of concern for my anymore.
My family member is still angry with me though. Even though they have not even attempted to pay back the emotional debt - although it can never be repaid fully you could think of plenty of ways to start "repayments", first of all by acknowledging the existence of the debt - they are demanding "forgiveness" from me like I owe them something. I have forgiven them years and years ago. But "forgiveness" doesn't mean "everything is in the past, let's do what we always did'. It just means "I accept you cannot ever pay this back, so you don't have to and I'll be fine, and what happens to you is of no concern to me". When you forgive an actual loan you also don't have to go and lend money to that person again. You just have accepted that they aren't going to pay it back, and can either continue to see them or not. It's the same for an emotional debt.
Post by: AMandM on February 16, 2021, 03:34:46 PM
Even though they have not even attempted to pay back the emotional debt - although it can never be repaid fully you could think of plenty of ways to start "repayments", first of all by acknowledging the existence of the debt - they are demanding "forgiveness" from me like I owe them something.
So often, when a wrongdoer asks for forgiveness, what they really want is whitewashing. They want to be told that they don't owe anything because they never did, instead of recognizing that you have released them from the debt.
Post by: saguaro on February 17, 2021, 12:19:36 PM
Quote from: Finances_With_Purpose link=topic=48800.msg2793262#msg2793262 ate=1613426431
All money does is magnify what's already there: for bad character, it's just a greater opportunity to do wrong. As they did to you. (And for good character, it's the opposite.)
[...]money doesn't make people do anything that they wouldn't already do. It just makes it easier.
I am curious: For those of you who've had to deal with crazy inheritance drama, was the crazy behaviour a bolt from the blue, brought into being as it were by the prospect of money? Or was is merely a larger-scale version of previous attitudes and patterns, magnified by the prospect of money?
Magnification, in my experience, over and over again.
Now, there is once in a while an appearance that something is new when someone who had that kernel of a lout all along finally goes all in now that there's suddenly more to gain (e.g. the drunk who realizes that stealing will solve his financial problems caused by drinking), and folks who didn't know him/her well think it must have been the money, while folks who've known the person well aren't that surprised.
Also agree that in my experience it was magnification when it came to executor sister.
Now in the beginning, I was hoping that she would do the right thing, especially since her role was now a legal responsibility and that same responsibility would ensure she would do things properly. At the very least, I thought simple greed would get her to resolve things quickly because she was always stressing about "the money" when our parents were alive and pushed both me and youngest sister to pay some funeral costs in order to have "more money left for Dad" which she, of course, had control over. But no, IMHO having control of our parents' estate was a playground for her controlling and bullying personality, a way to punish me and my younger sister over various "wrongs" either to her or our parents. The money was a tool of that control, she was a beneficiary as well as executor which meant her decisions affected all of us. She racked up costs while finding ways to reimburse herself or just flat out didn't account for things altogether.
One of the very few relatives who knew the situation asked me how my late parents would have felt about getting an attorney to force the house sale. My answer was "they would have not liked it but they shouldn't have been surprised".
Post by: mm1970 on February 17, 2021, 01:55:50 PM
Quote
My family member is still angry with me though. Even though they have not even attempted to pay back the emotional debt - although it can never be repaid fully you could think of plenty of ways to start "repayments", first of all by acknowledging the existence of the debt - they are demanding "forgiveness" from me like I owe them something. I have forgiven them years and years ago. But "forgiveness" doesn't mean "everything is in the past, let's do what we always did'. It just means "I accept you cannot ever pay this back, so you don't have to and I'll be fine, and what happens to you is of no concern to me". When you forgive an actual loan you also don't have to go and lend money to that person again. You just have accepted that they aren't going to pay it back, and can either continue to see them or not. It's the same for an emotional debt.This is well said. I've been reading some comments here and there about Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears of late. Full disclosure: I don't know enough about either of them to know the full history, nor do I care to. But apparently, he's apologized.
A significant percentage of headlines have been of the "too little, too late". Is it really? Do we REALLY want to say that people can't change, can't have regret, can't be better people? Sure, in some cases, friends think it's "fake" and he's just trying to save himself from a business standpoint. (Again, I don't know enough about the situation to know if that is true or false.) What bothered me is the idea that we don't allow people to become better people. We don't acknowledge that.
NOW, that doesn't mean she owes him forgiveness. She owes him nothing. Donald Trump could become Mother Teresa and I'd never forgive him for being an asshat narcissist. It doesn't mean he shouldn't become a better person.
Post by: Hula Hoop on February 17, 2021, 02:41:27 PM
Post by: Imma on February 18, 2021, 05:47:05 AM
That said, I was a teenager when Britney and Justin were the most famous teen couple in the world, so I do remember a bit. In my country there's no viriginity cult like in the US so we were all very confused by why her virginity was such a big deal. They had a long-term relationship and in our country, it would be the most normal thing if they eventually discovered sexuality together.
It must have been so confusing for her, to present as sexually provocative to an adult audience, which in itself is pretty sickening, regardless of whether she was a virgin or not, and to pretend she was a virgin and a good christian girl outside of the stage. But I also feel bad for teenage Justin. He was also a child star, growing up in the media. He didn't have to pretend he was a virgin because he was a boy, but I feel he was probably also under pressure to show he was a "red-blooded male" and not a "sissy" who didn't sleep with his gorgeous girlfriend. In his position it was expected from him to brag about sexual conquests, because that's what we expect from handsome young men with lots of female admirers. They were just two teenagers and both of them were probably suffering from gendered expectations. Of course, being a woman, Britney got the worst of it.
I totally agree with you @Hula Hoop that public apologies in the media don't usually mean much. Maybe the documentary opened their eyes, maybe not, maybe they've felt bad about this for a long time, maybe they feel bad they got caught. I just hope that if any of them have anything to say they also reached out to Britney (and other people who got hurt) directly. It would be none of our business of course, but that's the only kind of apology that would mean something.
@AMandM Yes, whitewashing is the good word for my family member's behaviour. That's what they want. There's no genuine regret. But true regret can and does happen, like you said @mm1970 . It doesn't happen often in my experience, but it can happen. My partner also has a relative who has treated him badly in the past. They got in touch again after a few decades and the family member fully recognized what they did and apologized for it. It was clear it was hard for them to do, but they did it anyway. We're a few years later now and that family member is still putting in so much effort into healing this relationship. They're still making an effort, for example reading up on things that interest my partner so they can discuss them together. The past can't be changed but my partner is so happy that this person is trying so hard to be a better person now.
Post by: Zamboni on February 20, 2021, 04:05:52 AM
So back to the box that of all the things his father owned, was the only thing he really made sure to give to his son while he was still alive. Bf opens the box, and what is in it?
Why, the wedding photos to the second wife. Not a long marriage, a few years, but he kept the photos for 25 years.
Did your bf have a close relationship with the second wife? If not, then that just seems weird to be the one thing he carefully gave his son.
Post by: livesimplecolorado on February 25, 2021, 08:59:12 AM
I am curious: For those of you who've had to deal with crazy inheritance drama, was the crazy behaviour a bolt from the blue, brought into being as it were by the prospect of money? Or was is merely a larger-scale version of previous attitudes and patterns, magnified by the prospect of money?
To answer your question, it was completely uncharacteristic. We had what appeared to be a decent relationship prior. There were some cracks in the relationship prior but nothing that made me think that this is what would happen.
As a matter of fact, when they were both appointed POA I trusted them completely. Never questioned any decisions.
The problem I think stemmed from the fact that they always seemed to have financial drama. I think the financial drama put them over the edge. I know my sister had some resentment towards me because my husband and I had money, a home, investments because she would complain to my mother all the time. However, she never realized how much we busted our hump to have anything. When my husband and I met we had nothing.
They always aspired to live above their means and seemed concerned with what others thought of them too. Who knows, like I said, money makes people do crazy shit.
Post by: Sibley on February 25, 2021, 09:08:22 AM
Post by: livesimplecolorado on February 25, 2021, 09:15:26 AM
Great @livesimplecolorado . I got the sense that you had things together already, and I'm glad to hear that you do. And I meant no criticism, either: it is genuinely hard dealing with folks who behave in those ways. There's a reason that society often imprison people who act with that kind of disregard for others...
Thank you, and I did not take it as criticism at all. If anything, after all these years, it has been a learning experience for me. For a long time, I grieved the relationship with my sister. But now, it feels honest. I looked at everything through rose-colored glasses with her. The reality was that she always looked down on me and my husband and I never saw it. My friend said once that she underestimated me, thought they could get away with all of it. Perhaps she thought i was less intelligent or "sloppy." Who knows.
The last few months she has been putting a ton of effort into something, some kind of friendship, who knows. I also think she realizes I am indifferent to it, so maybe that is the reason? Guilt could be another, although she would never admit that. Indifference is a good place for me with her right now.
Post by: livesimplecolorado on February 25, 2021, 09:18:15 AM
It's actually not surprising that there's so much hinkyness wtih inheritances, especially executors. There's been a lot of research done into fraud and what leads to it. It takes 3 basic things - pressure, opportunity, and justification. Being an executor is opportunity. Financial problems or just plain old grief are pressures. Justification - well, mommy loved me more so I deserve it/mommy loved me less so I deserve it etc work just fine. It's probably more surprising that there are any instances where there isn't fraud.
I agree with this. Entitlement really is the main issue. I was executor, I could have been so unethical, but I did what was right. So many people do the opposite though.
Post by: Scotts on February 25, 2021, 11:35:52 PM
To answer your question, it was completely uncharacteristic. We had what appeared to be a decent relationship prior. There were some cracks in the relationship prior but nothing that made me think that this is what would happen.
As a matter of fact, when they were both appointed POA I trusted them completely. Never questioned any decisions.
The problem I think stemmed from the fact that they always seemed to have financial drama. I think the financial drama put them over the edge. I know my sister had some resentment towards me because my husband and I had money, a home, investments because she would complain to my mother all the time. However, she never realized how much we busted our hump to have anything. When my husband and I met we had nothing.
They always aspired to live above their means and seemed concerned with what others thought of them too. Who knows, like I said, money makes people do crazy shit.
Money is just a tool, not a cause. It has no bias one way or the other. Having it simply allows someone the freedom to make any decision they choose, good or bad.
Post by: saguaro on February 26, 2021, 09:47:02 AM
Thank you, and I did not take it as criticism at all. If anything, after all these years, it has been a learning experience for me. For a long time, I grieved the relationship with my sister. But now, it feels honest. I looked at everything through rose-colored glasses with her. The reality was that she always looked down on me and my husband and I never saw it. My friend said once that she underestimated me, thought they could get away with all of it. Perhaps she thought i was less intelligent or "sloppy." Who knows.
Dealing with my sister over the last 6 years opened my eyes to how she really thinks and operates. She has always been, to put it charitably, the source of much hand wringing by our parents but still when she had POA and then became executor, I didn't think she would stoop to fraud and outright theft. I trusted she would do the right thing because it was our parents' estate. To hear her tell it, she shouldered "all this responsibility", playing the martyr as opposed to me and my younger sister, but in discovering what I did while selling my parents' home it was pretty much a front for her to take what she wanted. There are major questions over her handling of my dad's finances, after forcing an accounting from her (btw she was in violation of state law as well as blowing off the annual accounting provision in my parents' trust) but we were only entitled to see what she did as executor not when she had my dad's financial POA.
All through this she exhibited outright hostility towards us and to this day, while she is making efforts to repair things, that hostility still is apparent, she can blow up at the littlest things. I have gone through therapy to talk about what happened and while things have been patched up to some extent (for my nephews' sake tbh) I am not certain what the future holds. I certainly can never trust her again. Covid has made it easy to keep my distance but once it's safe to have family gatherings I am not sure how much I want to see her except in group settings.
Post by: Psychstache on February 26, 2021, 02:27:32 PM
She has always been, to put it charitably, the source of much hand wringing by our parents...
Pressure
she had POA and then became executor..
Opportunity
To hear her tell it, she shouldered "all this responsibility", playing the martyr as opposed to me and my younger sister...
Justification
Post by: saguaro on February 26, 2021, 03:36:34 PM
She has always been, to put it charitably, the source of much hand wringing by our parents...Pressureshe had POA and then became executor..OpportunityTo hear her tell it, she shouldered "all this responsibility", playing the martyr as opposed to me and my younger sister...Justification
Exactly all these things.
Being tagged by my parents as the more difficult aka "Bad Daughter" earlier in life I believe this set her on the road to proving herself otherwise (in her view) while at the same time seeking compensation of sorts from them when she had the chance via financial POA and executor.
Post by: TomTX on February 27, 2021, 08:33:38 PM
ZCP may be in order.
Post by: Lomonossov on March 03, 2021, 08:05:21 AM
After reading the full thread from cover to cover, I decided to tell my inheritance drama as well. It's been an expensive way to learn some lessons. Forget the probable grammar and spelling mistakes of this non-native speaker, if you will. Just another long story, but I hope you find it interesting.
My family, like every other family, doesn't work properly. Mine works a little bit worse than the average, though. My parents got married, divorced, remarried (with each other) again, redivorced and remarried (to other people). My mom got herself a third divorce from the unlucky guy who decided to marry her, my father is still hanging in there. From each of the marriages between themselves, a son was born: I have a smaller brother. I'm 33, he's 25.
Most of my childhood is defined by visit to courts about custody and pre and post-divorce arguments about money. The fact that my parents are not able to handle finances properly is what led to the divorce in the first place. All the estate they were ever able to put together was a very small flat where my brother and I lived, while they were coming and going through the years as a result of different custody agreements and court orders. Every time a new parent came, it brought along pets, couples and their new life. Nobody really cared about my brother and me, we were mostly the free ticket to living in the property.
Eventually, I found a job and left. I was in college and working full time to rent a bedroom, but I was so happy I never had to come back to that place that I didn't care about being poor. My brother was a teenager at the time, and was stuck in that flat. As a result of the last custody change, my father was responsible but he just had found the woman that would become his wife, and decided to move with her, which meant that my brother was living by himself when he was in his late teens. My father paid the mortgage of that flat and gave him a few euros each week for groceries. My brother stopped going to school, and the whole place looked like a heroin-addict place.
After I finished college and found myself a proper average-paying job in a Megacorp I decided to move to the flat and try to make it work. I cleaned and renovated the whole place with money out of my pocket, paid all the bills and taxes that were due and forced my brother to go to trade school. He hated me for it, but after several years of living like a bum he got some training in cooking and found himself a job. I kept paying for all the cost of living for the both of us except from the flat itself, since my parents had finalized paying for it in the meantime. This arrangement lasted around 5 years in total, until I decided to move to another country. I still was sending money to my brother each month to help him get by. Terrible mistake.
Fast forward a few years my mom decides to sell her half of the property to a third party that sues my father to go on auction for his half. After some negotiations and in order to keep my brother living there - since he's earning just enough to live and has no savings to rent anything - we find an agreement in which my father donated his half to my brother, and my brother got a mortgage for the other half, which he bough from the second party. As part of the arrangement, I agreed to pay for half of the mortgage w/o owning any property, since our local law does not allow resident and non-resident mortgages at the same time. In summary, I was paying for half of the flat without owning it on paper because "we all know and appreciate your contribution, and half of it it's yours regardless of papers". Second terrible mistake.
Last summer my brother calls me and tells me that his new girlfriend moved in, after that he informs me that all my memories from childhood (books, pictures, some family objects) were taken to the trash "since you didn't take them with you in all these years" and that he will mail me whatever he's not dumped. After thinking it through I replied that since obviously the arrangement was not honored and I was not free to use the flat to store my things I did not feel welcome anymore and I would stop contributing, I also said I would not expect any reimbursement from my previous contributions. This is the last conversation we had, and it was in August. My father has approached me to ask me to "fix things with your brother" because "you are doing very well in life and does not make a big difference for you" and "one day everything will be sorted on paper, but right now your brother needs a place to live".
Sadly this story has damaged permanently my already not very good relationship with my family and on top of that has costed me a ton of money over the years. I should have set boundaries a long time ago, but the next best time is right now, so I decided to stand and not concede. I'm getting married a few weeks from now and my brother, who was supposed to be my witness, will not attend. I want to think that is for the best.
Due to our local laws parent to child gifts should be discounted from the inheritance, so I have the right to fight for some of this money in court when my parents pass. I don't really count on any inheritance at all for my plans, anyway, and I will probably just forget about the whole thing and renounce to the remaining small spoils that will be there when my parents pass. It's just sad how mixing money and family is a recipe for disaster.
If you made it that far, thanks for reading my sob inheritance story!
Post by: AlanStache on March 03, 2021, 09:12:27 AM
Post by: better late on March 03, 2021, 09:57:30 AM
Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
ZCP? Zero contact?
Post by: Lomonossov on March 03, 2021, 10:03:54 AM
Lomonossov - I might count you lucky that you did not have any paper work connecting you to the property; much easier to walk away financially. Leaving family to there own mess can be hard.
Yeah, in that sense I was at least able to cut the losses and don't have to be worried about the lack of maintenance or missing taxes.
The personal part is complicated, but if they just want to be in contact with me for my money I'd rather stop the relationship for the time being
Post by: Imma on March 03, 2021, 11:19:10 AM
Lomonossov - I might count you lucky that you did not have any paper work connecting you to the property; much easier to walk away financially. Leaving family to there own mess can be hard.
Yeah, in that sense I was at least able to cut the losses and don't have to be worried about the lack of maintenance or missing taxes.
The personal part is complicated, but if they just want to be in contact with me for my money I'd rather stop the relationship for the time being
I'm so sorry for you. That's an awful story. It's very sad to have to cut contact with your family (I know all about it) but sometimes it's the best thing you can do for yourself. It's clear what they appreciated you for.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on March 03, 2021, 09:32:16 PM
Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
ZCP? Zero contact?
Zero Contact Policy?
Post by: jeninco on March 03, 2021, 09:49:16 PM
I think Zero Contact Protocol. Same difference, however.Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
ZCP? Zero contact?
Zero Contact Policy?
Post by: prudent_one on March 06, 2021, 09:03:05 AM
Now in the beginning, I was hoping that she would do the right thing, especially since her role was now a legal responsibility and that same responsibility would ensure she would do things properly.
Having heard about estate drama with a number of friends who have endured it, I have come to realize that often you can predict how things are going to shake out. People who are morally "flexible" in everyday life will be just the same if an inheritance is involved. They brush off legalities because it's not fair, not what Dad/Mom would have wanted, I deserve, it's what's best, our situation is different... pick one or more.
The sibling who cheats on taxes, says it was a hit-and-run when they really drove into a pole, lies that their package wasn't delivered to get another one free, keeps the money from a wallet they found... that's who they are. And it won't be any different when an inheritance is involved with family.
Post by: markbike528CBX on March 06, 2021, 02:56:43 PM
Off topicNow in the beginning, I was hoping that she would do the right thing, especially since her role was now a legal responsibility and that same responsibility would ensure she would do things properly.
Having heard about estate drama with a number of friends who have endured it, I have come to realize that often you can predict how things are going to shake out. People who are morally "flexible" in everyday life will be just the same if an inheritance is involved. They brush off legalities because it's not fair, not what Dad/Mom would have wanted, I deserve, it's what's best, our situation is different... pick one or more.
The sibling who cheats on taxes, says it was a hit-and-run when they really drove into a pole, lies that their package wasn't delivered to get another one free, keeps the money from a wallet they found... that's who they are. And it won't be any different when an inheritance is involved with family.
Morally flexible reminds me of a housemate I had once, who was drummed out of a foreign military service for "excessive moral flexibility".
Allegedly he whacked persons outside of the rules of engagement.
Nice guy, never showed even any irritation towards me, but not someone who's "big red button" you jam down on.
It's a high bar to leap over, but it allegedly can be done (third party story).
I'd trust him with my wallet totally, and apparently others did with other stuff (too identifying info to specify what the stuff was).
Post by: better late on March 06, 2021, 04:30:16 PM
Hi all,
After reading the full thread from cover to cover, I decided to tell my inheritance drama as well. It's been an expensive way to learn some lessons. Forget the probable grammar and spelling mistakes of this non-native speaker, if you will. Just another long story, but I hope you find it interesting.
My family, like every other family, doesn't work properly. Mine works a little bit worse than the average, though. My parents got married, divorced, remarried (with each other) again, redivorced and remarried (to other people). My mom got herself a third divorce from the unlucky guy who decided to marry her, my father is still hanging in there. From each of the marriages between themselves, a son was born: I have a smaller brother. I'm 33, he's 25.
Most of my childhood is defined by visit to courts about custody and pre and post-divorce arguments about money. The fact that my parents are not able to handle finances properly is what led to the divorce in the first place. All the estate they were ever able to put together was a very small flat where my brother and I lived, while they were coming and going through the years as a result of different custody agreements and court orders. Every time a new parent came, it brought along pets, couples and their new life. Nobody really cared about my brother and me, we were mostly the free ticket to living in the property.
Eventually, I found a job and left. I was in college and working full time to rent a bedroom, but I was so happy I never had to come back to that place that I didn't care about being poor. My brother was a teenager at the time, and was stuck in that flat. As a result of the last custody change, my father was responsible but he just had found the woman that would become his wife, and decided to move with her, which meant that my brother was living by himself when he was in his late teens. My father paid the mortgage of that flat and gave him a few euros each week for groceries. My brother stopped going to school, and the whole place looked like a heroin-addict place.
After I finished college and found myself a proper average-paying job in a Megacorp I decided to move to the flat and try to make it work. I cleaned and renovated the whole place with money out of my pocket, paid all the bills and taxes that were due and forced my brother to go to trade school. He hated me for it, but after several years of living like a bum he got some training in cooking and found himself a job. I kept paying for all the cost of living for the both of us except from the flat itself, since my parents had finalized paying for it in the meantime. This arrangement lasted around 5 years in total, until I decided to move to another country. I still was sending money to my brother each month to help him get by. Terrible mistake.
Fast forward a few years my mom decides to sell her half of the property to a third party that sues my father to go on auction for his half. After some negotiations and in order to keep my brother living there - since he's earning just enough to live and has no savings to rent anything - we find an agreement in which my father donated his half to my brother, and my brother got a mortgage for the other half, which he bough from the second party. As part of the arrangement, I agreed to pay for half of the mortgage w/o owning any property, since our local law does not allow resident and non-resident mortgages at the same time. In summary, I was paying for half of the flat without owning it on paper because "we all know and appreciate your contribution, and half of it it's yours regardless of papers". Second terrible mistake.
Last summer my brother calls me and tells me that his new girlfriend moved in, after that he informs me that all my memories from childhood (books, pictures, some family objects) were taken to the trash "since you didn't take them with you in all these years" and that he will mail me whatever he's not dumped. After thinking it through I replied that since obviously the arrangement was not honored and I was not free to use the flat to store my things I did not feel welcome anymore and I would stop contributing, I also said I would not expect any reimbursement from my previous contributions. This is the last conversation we had, and it was in August. My father has approached me to ask me to "fix things with your brother" because "you are doing very well in life and does not make a big difference for you" and "one day everything will be sorted on paper, but right now your brother needs a place to live".
Sadly this story has damaged permanently my already not very good relationship with my family and on top of that has costed me a ton of money over the years. I should have set boundaries a long time ago, but the next best time is right now, so I decided to stand and not concede. I'm getting married a few weeks from now and my brother, who was supposed to be my witness, will not attend. I want to think that is for the best.
Due to our local laws parent to child gifts should be discounted from the inheritance, so I have the right to fight for some of this money in court when my parents pass. I don't really count on any inheritance at all for my plans, anyway, and I will probably just forget about the whole thing and renounce to the remaining small spoils that will be there when my parents pass. It's just sad how mixing money and family is a recipe for disaster.
If you made it that far, thanks for reading my sob inheritance story!
Wondering if your brother "neglected" to mention to his girlfriend that you were paying 1/2 the mortgage cost of the apartment and somehow he framed it as you just irresponsibly left your stuff there. In any case, he sounds pretty incredible to me. Someone gave him half an apartment and you were splitting the cost of the other half without living there and somehow he managed screw it up by being a jerk.
Post by: TomTX on March 06, 2021, 09:17:43 PM
Condolences that your sister is a thief who isn't above ripping off family and still emotionally abuses the family.
ZCP may be in order.
ZCP? Zero contact?
Zero Contact Protocol.
Set up a filter to route their email directly to the trash. Do not read the trash. Block them on all social media. Block their number on your phone. etc.
Post by: saguaro on March 07, 2021, 11:03:54 AM
The sibling who cheats on taxes, says it was a hit-and-run when they really drove into a pole, lies that their package wasn't delivered to get another one free, keeps the money from a wallet they found... that's who they are. And it won't be any different when an inheritance is involved with family.
Executor sister was always the difficult, more "morally flexible" one growing up but as I left the family home shortly after college and no longer had to live with her, only seeing her socially for years afterward, I made the erroneous assumption that she actually matured, especially since she was a parent and she didn't tolerate too much nonsense from my nephews. My BIL, her husband, now he was known to be more "morally flexible" but since this was my sister as executor and not him, I didn't worry too much about that. Over the last couple of years, I have gotten a lot of stories from my youngest sister on both of them that are pretty damning on the personal integrity front. Had I know this stuff beforehand, yeah, then I would have totally expected to see how things went down. Youngest sister didn't share these things with me before because, in spite of what she knew, she did expect executor sister be honest since this was our parents' estate.
They brush off legalities because it's not fair, not what Dad/Mom would have wanted, I deserve, it's what's best, our situation is different.. pick one or more.
"not fair", "I deserve" and "our situation is different" that was executor sister. In spite of our parents telling us that the estate was to be evenly split 3 ways: "share and share alike" were their exact words, sister thought it was unfair. She definitely felt she deserved more because she lived the closest to my parents (5 minutes away) which meant dealing with all the emergencies in their final years. But I also learned that for years prior, my folks had her on speed dial for all kinds of things, things that were more a convenience than a need, as they were still healthy and independent to do these things themselves. They came to rely on her long before they needed help and I think she fell into that dynamic because she had been tagged the "bad daughter" for so long this was her chance to prove herself the "good daughter who never says no" instead. The "our situation is different" piece was that her mindset was that she and BIL had kids as opposed to myself and youngest sister who have none. Nephews were about to go to college and executor sister was wringing her hands over the college costs.
FWIW, youngest sister and I agreed to let executor sister have certain things such as our parents' car, our mother's jewelry, pretty much told her to take whatever she wanted from the house rather than insisting on a 3 way value split on those things. We figured the financial aspect (house, bank accounts) was governed by the will / trust and she would be beholden to that especially since she had an attorney. Turns out she wasn't even listening to her own attorney, I have it on good authority that she was an impossible client.
Post by: Dicey on March 07, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Post by: TomTX on March 07, 2021, 01:34:23 PM
Wow, your sister and mine have a lot in common. At least mine wasn't the executor, but she did plenty of damage and was a general pain in the ass.
Thank goodness my parents are preparing to sell their house this year and drastically downsize. A good chunk of potential "stuff" drama should be headed off. Not all, of course.
Financial accounts are already set up with beneficiaries, so that won't even go through the estate.
Post by: markbike528CBX on March 07, 2021, 02:17:46 PM
While I don't worry about my sister, I'm still temped to get disinherited to remove potential hassle. :-)Wow, your sister and mine have a lot in common. At least mine wasn't the executor, but she did plenty of damage and was a general pain in the ass.
Thank goodness my parents are preparing to sell their house this year and drastically downsize. A good chunk of potential "stuff" drama should be headed off. Not all, of course.
Financial accounts are already set up with beneficiaries, so that won't even go through the estate.
My stepmom is likely to live for quite a while, and has a plan for my dad's stuff (ham radio). The plan is an auction.
Post by: saguaro on March 07, 2021, 04:31:36 PM
Wow, your sister and mine have a lot in common. At least mine wasn't the executor, but she did plenty of damage and was a general pain in the ass.
Youngest sister and I suspect that executor sister, having financial POA for my Dad after my mom died, did a number of questionable things once she had control. She was constantly stressing out about "money being left for Dad" even as we still had Mom to take care of and got angry when I told her we had to worry about Mom first and sort things out for Dad later. Mom qualified for Medicaid assistance but executor sister mysteriously stopped making the application. Mom didn't live that long afterward but executor sister pushed both me and youngest sister to cover some funeral costs because she was concerned about "money being left for Dad". In the 2/12 years between my Mom's death and my Dad's the retirement account dropped significantly and while we knew of significant costs like paying for my parents' cremation niches and some money was being drawn on a monthly basis to cover the difference between Dad's social security and his living costs, it still didn't account for the total drop in those 2 1/2 years. Because executor sister wasn't legally accountable to us during the time she had financial POA, we couldn't force any accounting from her, only for during the time she was executor and she was resistant to that. The accounting was stipulated in the will / trust and also required by state law. She blew through a number of legalities according to our attorney and I believe she gave me the authority to sell our parents' house because her own attorney strong armed her into it.
While I don't worry about my sister, I'm still temped to get disinherited to remove potential hassle. :-)
I was considering possibly removing myself as beneficiary had the estate situation continued to drag out. It was down to hire an attorney to force things to move now or let executor sister carry on as she was, causing the estate to lose value to the point it would not be worth it. The house sold 6 weeks before Covid lockdowns in our state began. Executor sister was finding all kinds of reasons not to list the house (even though it was mostly cleared out, fixed up and the real estate agent she contacted was bugging her on a weekly basis) and no doubt Covid would have become another reason not to list.
Post by: Lomonossov on March 08, 2021, 03:00:15 AM
Wondering if your brother "neglected" to mention to his girlfriend that you were paying 1/2 the mortgage cost of the apartment and somehow he framed it as you just irresponsibly left your stuff there. In any case, he sounds pretty incredible to me. Someone gave him half an apartment and you were splitting the cost of the other half without living there and somehow he managed screw it up by being a jerk.
I only met her once (because of pandemic) and we did not get along very well from the beginning, we're very different kind of people.
Both my brother and I had a horrible childhood full of visits to court, absent parents too busy fighting each other to look after us and were neglected and dismissed on a regular basis. My parents, for example, don't know what degree I was doing in college or when I finished it.
The big difference between us is that I spent a lot of money and time in therapy until I got rid of most of the hatred and reconciled with most of my childhood memories. My brother is still so angry for things that happened 10 or 15 years ago that thinks that all the Universe (including me, of course) owns him reparations for all his suffering. I tried to give him a hand for a very long time - monetary and otherwise - but I'm not responsible for him nor will I be dragged to that dark place full of "I did, you did, mom did, dad did" speech.
It took me a very long time to get out of there, I hope he's able to do so as well and we can have a normal relationship in the future. He has to walk that path on his own, if he chooses to. My personal work now is focused on understand that he may choose not to do it, and is a decision I have to respect as well.
Post by: saguaro on March 08, 2021, 08:58:56 AM
The big difference between us is that I spent a lot of money and time in therapy until I got rid of most of the hatred and reconciled with most of my childhood memories. My brother is still so angry for things that happened 10 or 15 years ago that thinks that all the Universe (including me, of course) owns him reparations for all his suffering. I tried to give him a hand for a very long time - monetary and otherwise - but I'm not responsible for him nor will I be dragged to that dark place full of "I did, you did, mom did, dad did" speech.
As someone in therapy right now, glad to hear that it helped you come to terms and move forward.
To the bolded: this is exactly executor sister. She is not only angry for past wrongs, real and perceived, done to her but she was so enmeshed with our parents, she is angry on their behalf, years after their passing. And she loves to do the "I did this, you did that, Mom said this, Dad said that". I don't know how someone can go through life being so angry. I understand being angry about things for the shorter term, but longer term (as in decades long which is what we are talking about here) or being mad on behalf of other people (who were less angry about the situation than you are and years ago), I don't get it.
Post by: SunnyDays on March 08, 2021, 08:24:24 PM
The big difference between us is that I spent a lot of money and time in therapy until I got rid of most of the hatred and reconciled with most of my childhood memories. My brother is still so angry for things that happened 10 or 15 years ago that thinks that all the Universe (including me, of course) owns him reparations for all his suffering. I tried to give him a hand for a very long time - monetary and otherwise - but I'm not responsible for him nor will I be dragged to that dark place full of "I did, you did, mom did, dad did" speech.
As someone in therapy right now, glad to hear that it helped you come to terms and move forward.
To the bolded: this is exactly executor sister. She is not only angry for past wrongs, real and perceived, done to her but she was so enmeshed with our parents, she is angry on their behalf, years after their passing. And she loves to do the "I did this, you did that, Mom said this, Dad said that". I don't know how someone can go through life being so angry. I understand being angry about things for the shorter term, but longer term (as in decades long which is what we are talking about here) or being mad on behalf of other people (who were less angry about the situation than you are and years ago), I don't get it.
Living one’s life in victim mode makes it easier to justify bad behaviour. People give themselves a pass on decency because they’ve been hard done by and believe they deserve more than they got, so they’re taking whatever they can now. The thing is, no amount of “payment” now will undo past damage.
Post by: Lomonossov on March 09, 2021, 03:45:24 AM
As someone in therapy right now, glad to hear that it helped you come to terms and move forward.
To the bolded: this is exactly executor sister. She is not only angry for past wrongs, real and perceived, done to her but she was so enmeshed with our parents, she is angry on their behalf, years after their passing. And she loves to do the "I did this, you did that, Mom said this, Dad said that". I don't know how someone can go through life being so angry. I understand being angry about things for the shorter term, but longer term (as in decades long which is what we are talking about here) or being mad on behalf of other people (who were less angry about the situation than you are and years ago), I don't get it.
Living one’s life in victim mode makes it easier to justify bad behaviour. People give themselves a pass on decency because they’ve been hard done by and believe they deserve more than they got, so they’re taking whatever they can now. The thing is, no amount of “payment” now will undo past damage.
I don't think is a matter of easy vs. hard. All memories and past experiences define us as individuals. In my personal case I considered myself a victim of my childhood for a very long time, and it did not limit myself very much for all practical purposes: I had good friends, loving relationships and a decent career.
But there was (sometimes, there still is) an interior feeling of bitterness and anger that whispers "I did not deserve that, I should have been loved more, treated better". And, although you can live a normal adult life with that whispering inside you, and in fact most people do, it will limit the amount of happiness you can experience. I found out that sometimes it does trigger jealousy and envy about other people's happiness: since I deserve more than them, how come they can be happy and I cannot?
Is hard to let go such a significant part of our personal history and make the conscious decision of not letting your past define your present, get rid of that source of identity and stop playing that role in your present situations just because you were dragged into that behavior years or decades ago. Inertia is a powerful force of nature, once you're used to behave in a certain way and you know how to play that part it will take a significant amount of will to actively change that.
Post by: Dicey on March 09, 2021, 07:03:22 AM
I don't get the impression that anyone's saying it's easy, just that it's very much worth doing. If you feel you're not getting what you "deserve", the path to change comes from within. Therapy is a great tool to help you construct a better narrative for the rest of your life.As someone in therapy right now, glad to hear that it helped you come to terms and move forward.
To the bolded: this is exactly executor sister. She is not only angry for past wrongs, real and perceived, done to her but she was so enmeshed with our parents, she is angry on their behalf, years after their passing. And she loves to do the "I did this, you did that, Mom said this, Dad said that". I don't know how someone can go through life being so angry. I understand being angry about things for the shorter term, but longer term (as in decades long which is what we are talking about here) or being mad on behalf of other people (who were less angry about the situation than you are and years ago), I don't get it.Living one’s life in victim mode makes it easier to justify bad behaviour. People give themselves a pass on decency because they’ve been hard done by and believe they deserve more than they got, so they’re taking whatever they can now. The thing is, no amount of “payment” now will undo past damage.
I don't think is a matter of easy vs. hard. All memories and past experiences define us as individuals. In my personal case I considered myself a victim of my childhood for a very long time, and it did not limit myself very much for all practical purposes: I had good friends, loving relationships and a decent career.
But there was (sometimes, there still is) an interior feeling of bitterness and anger that whispers "I did not deserve that, I should have been loved more, treated better". And, although you can live a normal adult life with that whispering inside you, and in fact most people do, it will limit the amount of happiness you can experience. I found out that sometimes it does trigger jealousy and envy about other people's happiness: since I deserve more than them, how come they can be happy and I cannot?
Is hard to let go such a significant part of our personal history and make the conscious decision of not letting your past define your present, get rid of that source of identity and stop playing that role in your present situations just because you were dragged into that behavior years or decades ago. Inertia is a powerful force of nature, once you're used to behave in a certain way and you know how to play that part it will take a significant amount of will to actively change that.
Post by: racquetcat on March 10, 2021, 09:58:35 AM
My FIL grew up farming with his father (my DW’s grandfather) and has been farming his whole life (except for the 4 years he spent in college). My FIL’s mother died and his father married again, this 2nd wife is known to me only as the “wicked witch”. Basically from what I gather she was mean and tried to cut out my FIL and his siblings out of any inheritance. A couple of specific examples of her that I’ve gotten are: FIL’s father got cancer, she wouldn’t drive him to the hospital to receive chemotherapy and my FIL/MIL were both working full time to scrape by so my ~14 year old future DW had to drive her grandfather to the hospital and sit with him while he received chemotherapy. After my FIL’s father’s death the 2nd wife did not invite my FIL to the funeral and did not let him have any of his father’s ashes. Fast forward 20 years and my MIL receives an email from the wicked witch’s adult daughter. The daughter basically says, I know my mother was a real piece of work and I feel bad for what she did to your family. She has access to her mother’s safety deposit box and found the ashes of my FIL’s father and wanted to return them to the family. They met in person and have a nice conversation and we were part of a small grave side service to bury my FIL’s father’s ashes 20 years after his death.
All of that back story was to say that my FIL/MIL did not want what happened to them to happen to my DW and her brother. So at Christmas we took a family tour of all the farm land owned, the history of the land, and who it would be going to (which is all recorded in a trust and will). Farms can be tricky because just splitting the acreage 50/50 between siblings might not be fair due to the productivity of certain fields. So my FIL looked at past yields, acres, pasture rent, etc. and tried to split up the land with equal value between my DW and her brother. It was kind of weird, because in a way it's like walking into someone's personal bank vault and looking at the piles of cash and them saying "you get this pile, you get this pile". My FIL/MIL are only in their mid 60’s so I’m very happy that they’ve planned well and have communicated it all to their kids so early.
On the other side of my DW’s extended family is her MIL’s parents. They are in their 80’s and have amassed a large farming operation. 4 kids (of which my MIL is one). The only son has stayed and worked on the farm his whole life and has taken much of the elderly parent caring duties on as he lives the closest. They have not communicated any of their estate plans to my MIL, but she suspects that the brother who farms with the parents knows the plans. There is one sister who will likely create drama when the time comes. When there is a child who has helped expand and grow the farming business some people think they have earned a larger share of the inheritance, while others feel it should be split equally because coming home to farm wasn’t a choice given to the other children (due to either career choices or gender, these people are very “old fashioned”). It will be interesting to see what happens when the time comes.
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Post by: iris lily on March 10, 2021, 10:02:11 AM
Post by: racquetcat on March 10, 2021, 10:33:08 AM
Yes. Farm inheritance stupidity here. Will give update later, but bottom line: no movement on inheritance due to 1recalcitrant sibling who has managed to postpone it cor a year, dragging principles into court. Of course, Covid shutdowns did not aid this process.
I could see something similar happening with my MIL's parents. One of the daughters is always creating drama and feeling slighted about something. She has a upper 6 figure salary with a big consulting firm, no kids, but chooses to spend her money very questionably. I'm sure she'll be upset about whatever she gets when the time comes.
I don't really know much about farming, but there are farmers on both sides of my DW's family and my father's parents farmed, so if the time comes ( 30-40 years from now) to inherit farm land I have no idea what my DW and I will do with it, rent, sell, etc. By that time we'll be FIRE'd so it won't be a big deal, but it'll be an interesting decision.
Post by: talltexan on March 10, 2021, 11:30:36 AM
Post by: racquetcat on March 10, 2021, 11:58:35 AM
Does "upper 6 figure" salary mean $700,000+ annually?
The numbers I've heard second hand are in the $750,000 range annually, I'm not sure if that includes/excludes bonuses etc. But she calls my MIL and complains about it not being enough and was mad when she wanted to buy a condo and her parents wouldn't co-sign a loan for it, silly stuff for someone making that amount of money.
Post by: dandarc on March 10, 2021, 12:02:07 PM
Post by: racquetcat on March 10, 2021, 12:36:13 PM
What in the actual fuck could she possibly be doing with all that money that she needs a co-signer to buy a condo? Also I'd love to see the condo - imagine it is probably an amazing space in a major city somewhere.
I think that's the family's thoughts too!
The condo is downtown in a major city so she can walk to the fancy restaurants she frequents. Other potential money drains are a designer dog, a car even though she can walk to work, fancy pants exclusive gym membership, and frequent long exotic vacations. I'm sure there's more, but I usually only know info I get second hand.
Post by: Villanelle on March 10, 2021, 02:20:22 PM
I think the big issue with farms is that often the sibling(s) who want to keep it can't afford to buy out the others, but most of the siblings don't want to keep it. So half wants to force a sale and the other half (or portion) wants to keep the farm but can't buy the other shares. And that creates tension and bad feelings and stress. If the estate happens to have enough other assets to offset at least most of the farm, it won't be an issue, but it seems that is rarely the case.
Post by: racquetcat on March 10, 2021, 02:49:31 PM
My MIL inherited a share of a farm. I don't know all the details and I think she was pretty chill about it, just willing to take whatever was handed out, whenever. But it dragged on for years. She would get a check for her share of the soy bean crop, but the property wasn't sold for (I believe) a decade, not by the choice of her.
I think the big issue with farms is that often the sibling(s) who want to keep it can't afford to buy out the others, but most of the siblings don't want to keep it. So half wants to force a sale and the other half (or portion) wants to keep the farm but can't buy the other shares. And that creates tension and bad feelings and stress. If the estate happens to have enough other assets to offset at least most of the farm, it won't be an issue, but it seems that is rarely the case.
Yeah, through several generations a farm can be broken down to so many people that you can have like 15 people that own a couple of acres and then the situation you described happens.
Owning farm ground can be a decent passive income I believe, through cash rent, hunting leases, pasture leases, etc. Just like any real estate it all depends on location and quality to know what kind of income you can make. It would be interesting to see if any one on this board had invested in farm land.
--->to the real estate investing thread!!!
Post by: SwordGuy on March 10, 2021, 04:39:36 PM
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Post by: iris lily on March 10, 2021, 05:59:33 PM
Why do you want your money tied up in land you cannot sell?Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Post by: SwordGuy on March 10, 2021, 06:20:45 PM
Why do you want your money tied up in land you cannot sell?Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Who said I can't sell it? Or wouldn't be allowed to sell it?
Oh, maybe you don't understand the right of first refusal? It does NOT mean "someone can say you can't sell the land".
It means if you want to sell the land, the other members of the family have the option to purchase it first, before you can sell it outside the family. If no one wants (or is able) to buy it on the terms offered, then the owner would be free to sell to anyone who wants to buy it at those terms. That's all. It's a way to avoid having to be in business with strangers, particularly strangers who are mega-corporations who most certainly won't have our interests at heart.
Obviously, it needs to be fair and balanced, so that it's easy to sell it for market value and other family members can't force you to offer it to them at a ridiculously low price.
As for why I want some of my wealth tied up in that land, it makes me money every year. It's an uncorrelated source of income that's independent of our stock and bond portfolio, our rental home portfolio, and our social security income.
I doubt my share of the farm land sale would raise enough, especially after taxes, to purchase a stock portfolio that would provide the same level of income at the 4% rule. I would lose the uncorrelated source of income too, thus increasing volatility in our income while we're FIRED.
Plus, the current arrangement has served my uncle and aunt for 50+ years and I don't want to be a dick and rock the boat. They're not only family, they're good family and I love them.
Post by: AMandM on March 10, 2021, 06:49:32 PM
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Even if it's technically out of place on this thread, I can honestly say I'm very happy to read about a proactive, amicable plan. :-)
Post by: racquetcat on March 10, 2021, 07:05:45 PM
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
That's great that the farm has stayed in the family, is making money, and there is no drama involved!
Those handshake deals always make me laugh! One example from my FIL is that he rents out some of his pasture to hunters every year. We asked him, "how do you find hunters that want to pay for the rights to hunt on it", his answer was "call Rick, but he's about 80 years old, doesn't hear well, only has a home phone, doesn't have an answering machine, and sometimes doesn't answer his phone at all, but he always has hunters lined up".
All the kids and in laws were just kind of stunned, like uh, ok, sure, we'll probably just put it on some website or something, but thanks.
Post by: talltexan on March 11, 2021, 06:39:42 AM
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Even if it's technically out of place on this thread, I can honestly say I'm very happy to read about a proactive, amicable plan. :-)
Credit to your family for keeping your better angels at the table.
Now we need to hear from some more train-wrecks!
Post by: former player on March 11, 2021, 08:12:06 AM
It sounds as though Rick is thoroughly plugged in to local society and has good paying clients lined up. I'd be careful of passing that up in order to get who knows off the internet. I certainly wouldn't do it without getting in touch with Rick first to see if he wanted to carry on - in a rural community that isn't a good look to starting managing a property.Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
Mom was one of 3 siblings, the middle one. My parents and her brother bought a 2nd farm with her dad. When her parents died the original farm was organized into a partnership with ownership split evenly 3 ways. The 2nd farm was organized into a second partnership and split 50-50.
Brother was very business savvy plus he lived closest to the farm so he ran the businesses. He found farm families in the area to farm the land in a sharecropping arrangement. Those sharecropping arrangements have been running on a handshake basis for over 50 years with nary a problem. That's pretty awesome.
My mom was the first of the 3 siblings to pass (my dad having passed away 5 years earlier), so I inherited her 1/3rd of the original farm and her 1/2 of the 2nd farm. My uncle (her brother) knew what he was doing so I just left things as they were. My uncle had taught his son (my cousin) the business and my cousin had taught his son so succession planning was in place.
My uncle passed away about 2 years ago. We're now in the process of changing the partnerships to a regular corporate form with a corporate manager instead. We want to do that because as the number of partners increases, the harder it is to get in touch with everyone. Plus, legally, if a partner agrees to something for the partnership the other partners just agreed to it to, whether they wanted to or not. That's just a problem that is bound to happen eventually -- possibly within my generation after my uncle's wife and my aunt die. :( I want that liability locked down before 2 of my 6 cousins are in the partnership (and so do their brothers and sisters, so it's not just me).
I should be receiving a draft of the agreement to review within a week or so. :)
Things that should be in it are options for first refusal among family members if someone wants to sell their share of the farm and how much the corporate manager can spend/commit to without owner approval.
So, happily, the only sad drama is that my uncle and my parents passed away. We're hoping we can keep it that way.
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
That's great that the farm has stayed in the family, is making money, and there is no drama involved!
Those handshake deals always make me laugh! One example from my FIL is that he rents out some of his pasture to hunters every year. We asked him, "how do you find hunters that want to pay for the rights to hunt on it", his answer was "call Rick, but he's about 80 years old, doesn't hear well, only has a home phone, doesn't have an answering machine, and sometimes doesn't answer his phone at all, but he always has hunters lined up".
All the kids and in laws were just kind of stunned, like uh, ok, sure, we'll probably just put it on some website or something, but thanks.
Post by: iris lily on March 11, 2021, 08:44:59 AM
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 11, 2021, 08:57:07 AM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks....Hehehe, I see what you did there! :)
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 11, 2021, 09:41:36 AM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks....Hehehe, I see what you did there! :)
(Giggle) Yeah.
Post by: talltexan on March 11, 2021, 11:22:15 AM
Post by: Catbert on March 11, 2021, 11:43:31 AM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Post by: Dicey on March 11, 2021, 11:45:54 AM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.OTOH, I would bet most first-time buyers purchase homes far in excess of their net worth. However, the couple you know of have significantly higher Q Scores than your average home buyer.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets. That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Post by: iris lily on March 11, 2021, 11:53:09 AM
are you suggesting I dont personally know this young couple?I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.OTOH, I would bet most first-time buyers purchase homes far in excess of their net worth. However, the couple you know of have significantly higher Q Scores than your average home buyer.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets. That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Hahahahaha
Post by: Villanelle on March 11, 2021, 01:18:40 PM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Interesting, as I look at it more like a case study in what you can do when you have FU money. That hand no longer feeds them, and they are going to be just fine.
Post by: Sibley on March 11, 2021, 01:25:14 PM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Interesting, as I look at it more like a case study in what you can do when you have FU money. That hand no longer feeds them, and they are going to be just fine.
And if the hand that feeds you is also abusing you, then I'd say that skipping out is a very good idea.
Post by: DadJokes on March 11, 2021, 01:28:26 PM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Thanks for the hint. I was lost.
Post by: AlanStache on March 11, 2021, 02:03:54 PM
I was thinking it was a couple in the kardashian orbit.I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Thanks for the hint. I was lost.
Post by: Imma on March 11, 2021, 02:06:11 PM
I know a young couple who were living a life of luxury costing around $800,000 annually with houses, cars, and many luxurious perks automatically provided to them. They had a falling out with their family and are not currently speaking to key family members who control purse strings. The big family money has been cut off from them and the young couple have a paltry net worth of around $10-$15 million.
They sank $5 million into a $14 million home. They are counting on their ability to earn money through contracts In the entertainment industry and social media. They do have one contract for $3 million a year so that might see them through.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy that expensive property with their smallish assets.That’s probably Pete-level money at this point in Pete’s life.
I guess if they wander into this website for financial help, we can ask them to post a case study.
Has this young couple recently been interviewed by Oprah by any chance?
Biting the hand that feeds you is always a bad idea.
Interesting, as I look at it more like a case study in what you can do when you have FU money. That hand no longer feeds them, and they are going to be just fine.
I'm sure they will be just fine, but their complete naivety is surprising. He served in the army, she didn't come from money. How could his father have possibly cut him off financially when he quit working for the family business, at the age of 35 with a wife and a kid? Apparantly his family didn't even want his wife become part of the family business and suggested she keep her well-paid job... Then all he had to live on was his £30 million inheritance from his mum and great grandma, so he had no choice but to start working with these entertainment companies. How else was he going to provide for his family?
I don't know what happened in that family, and he and his wife have every right to get out of the family firm if that's what they want to do, but they're going to need some time to adapt to the real world.
Post by: talltexan on March 11, 2021, 02:13:38 PM
Post by: Just Joe on March 11, 2021, 03:23:46 PM
I can honestly say I'm very happy to have disappointed those of you wanted horrible drama based on sordid behavior. :)
Even if it's technically out of place on this thread, I can honestly say I'm very happy to read about a proactive, amicable plan. :-)
A few positive outcome stories sort of clean the palate before the drama stories begin again. :)
Seriously, I enjoy the positive outcome stories as much as the scandal stories.
Post by: Dave1442397 on March 11, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
My Uncle worked smart, not hard. He took the EEC up on every harebrained scheme they had to balance production, so he got paid to not produce milk, not plant certain crops, not do anything he could possible avoid, in fact. By the time he officially retired at 65, he wasn't farming at all.
He still has the land, and one of my cousins got a couple of acres to build a house on, and I think he leases some land out to local farmers.
Post by: NorCal on March 11, 2021, 08:29:03 PM
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
I have some that I posted maybe ~40 pages back. Here's the simplified version to keep it short.
My grandfather had three kids and three pieces of property. He had 2x cattle ranches in CA that are about 200 acres each and a house in the local city. Instead of giving one property to each child, every property got split 3 ways.
Now my mom lives in the house and her brothers live on a ranch of their own. Since it's jointly owned, they all pay rent to each other and pay out ranch income. I've never figured out how they allocate income since it's technically owned 1/3 each way, but each ranch has one person doing all the labor. I know the ranches don't make much money.
About a decade ago, the family enters into a business deal to sell a conservation easement on a separate property owned by one brothers second wife. No one ever told me the full story, but I know that somehow my mom now owns half of this new property and the new wife sued the other brother over the deal. Being ranchers, no one ever talked about this. They just stopped talking to each other. Yet they still pay each other rent.
I'm now set to inherit 1/6 of each property eventually. I've talked to my mom about changing it so that me and my brother can inherit the house and our cousins can inherit the property that their parents live on. Unfortunately my mom has zero interest in this. She enjoys having a partial ownership stake in the ranch.
I'm not sure what I'll do when I inherit this mess. I have zero interest in owning a 1/6 stake in a ranch. None of the other family members have the funds to buy anyone else out. I also remain irrationally angry at one of my uncles over a property purchase I tried to make from the family (this is a different story). Part of me wants to force a sale of something just to get out of it. But I know this would destroy my relationship with all of my uncles and cousins.
Post by: Plina on March 12, 2021, 04:38:04 AM
Counterpoint: giving the interview in which they see these things is part of the strategy for monetizing their fame since they do not have access to much of the family money anymore.
I kind have a hard time to sympatize with someone that wants to be independent but then complains of daddy cutting of the money supply. Add to that they seem to be complaining about the media coverage and wanting to live a normal life but then go on Oprah to pump up the interest to further monetize their public personas.
I have all sympathy to people that want out of the royal business. One of our princesses have chosen that route because she didn’t like the publicity. She is living outside of the country and doing some limited public appearances with the family but is cut out of the public money. She is not out dishing shit about her family. In my book if you don’t want to play the game, you don’t. They, of all people, should be aware that they can’t choose when to be private and when to be public. With the constant access to social media and phones on cameras, it doesn’t work like that any longer.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 12, 2021, 04:52:18 AM
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
I have some that I posted maybe ~40 pages back. Here's the simplified version to keep it short.
My grandfather had three kids and three pieces of property. He had 2x cattle ranches in CA that are about 200 acres each and a house in the local city. Instead of giving one property to each child, every property got split 3 ways.
Now my mom lives in the house and her brothers live on a ranch of their own. Since it's jointly owned, they all pay rent to each other and pay out ranch income. I've never figured out how they allocate income since it's technically owned 1/3 each way, but each ranch has one person doing all the labor. I know the ranches don't make much money.
About a decade ago, the family enters into a business deal to sell a conservation easement on a separate property owned by one brothers second wife. No one ever told me the full story, but I know that somehow my mom now owns half of this new property and the new wife sued the other brother over the deal. Being ranchers, no one ever talked about this. They just stopped talking to each other. Yet they still pay each other rent.
I'm now set to inherit 1/6 of each property eventually. I've talked to my mom about changing it so that me and my brother can inherit the house and our cousins can inherit the property that their parents live on. Unfortunately my mom has zero interest in this. She enjoys having a partial ownership stake in the ranch.
I'm not sure what I'll do when I inherit this mess. I have zero interest in owning a 1/6 stake in a ranch. None of the other family members have the funds to buy anyone else out. I also remain irrationally angry at one of my uncles over a property purchase I tried to make from the family (this is a different story). Part of me wants to force a sale of something just to get out of it. But I know this would destroy my relationship with all of my uncles and cousins.
One of the reasons we want to do all this legal stuff is that people would not be inheriting partial ownership of LAND, they would be inheriting partial ownership of a corporation. That way, no one can force anyone to sell. They would be able to sell to outsiders as long as no family members would meet the price. That way, they can get their money out if they want to. At some point folks may decide it's better to sell the entire corporation to some mega-corporation because it's not worth the hassle. Right now, my 1/3rd and 1/2 share is worth $20k to $25k a year. (I budget for $20k in my income projections.)
I was an only child. My mom's siblings each had 3 kids, so their share would be 1/9th and 1/6th (or 1/9th and 0/6ths). Two more generations and it won't be that much money per share. Except in my branch of the family; my daughter will inherit the income rights but my son will inherit my share of the farm, so it will take another generation before my share gets diluted 3 ways (3 grandkids).
$6-8k is still solid money to help middle class folks jump-start their savings or their schooling.
When you get down to $1k or $2k, not so much. At that point it probably won't be worth a family member's time to manage things for everyone else and it would make far more sense to sell.
As for me, I like having a source of income that's in the $20k to $25k range that's uncorrelated to stocks, bonds, social security or rental houses in a different state. :) And for that I have my grand parents to thank for it. They were smart, hardworking, good hearted folks who passed that on to their kids. They didn't have much money during the depression but they made it thru with their farm intact.
My grandfather was very smart fellow. The local mill and grain silo company had been in the same local family for some generations. Millers tend to be wealthier than farmers because they get a cut of all the farmer's income. I don't know how much you know about small town or small rural areas. It's not uncommon for someone really hard-working and sharp to make a lot of money and become important in their small area. Their kids partially grew up as regular kids so they have a lot of the traits their parents have. But the 3rd and 4th generation are often ignorant, lazy and feel more entitled than the mythical Reagan welfare queen. They grow up being "important people" and never really have to develop their abilities to provide for themselves. Once they take over they often run the business into the ground and spend themselves broke.
The millers in that area were in the 3rd or 4th generation and had all the bad qualities I just described. My grandfather had received a very large check from them for his grain (minus their cut for the work, of course). The check bounced.
Because he paid attention and knew people, he found out that other checks had bounced. This is back before computers checked the balance right away, etc. So if you needed a bit of float in your account, you could play some games. Let's say the millers had $10,000 in their account. If they wrote an $11,000 check it would bounce, but it looked to whomever was processing it to be a simple mistake instead of a fraudulent check. If they wrote several such checks, each would look, to whichever teller processed it, to be a simple mistake.
My grandfather realized that there were more serious problems than just a simple oops. So he went to the bank and asked how much they had in the bank account. His feeling was that $10,000 out of $11,000 was better than $0 out of $11,000, so maybe he could just get what they had instead of what they owed. The bank teller shook her head no and explained they weren't allowed to reveal that information.
My grandfather thought for a moment, then asked, "If I were to deposit $100 in the account, would there be enough to cash this check?"
The teller looked at him, thought about the rules, and said, "No--o--o--o--o..."
"How about $200?"
A few hundred dollars deposited into their account later, he walked out with as much of his money as they had. Other folks ended up getting bupkis.
Post by: AMandM on March 12, 2021, 12:21:05 PM
Counterpoint: giving the interview in which they see these things is part of the strategy for monetizing their fame since they do not have access to much of the family money anymore.As a strategy for monetizing theor fame, I think it's very effective, but as a strategy for garnering sympathy, not so much.
I kind have a hard time to sympatize with someone that wants to be independent but then complains of daddy cutting of the money supply. Add to that they seem to be complaining about the media coverage and wanting to live a normal life but then go on Oprah to pump up the interest to further monetize their public personas.
I don't believe for a minute that they want to live normal lives, unless by "normal" they mean "extraordinarily privileged and unencumbered by any obligation."
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 12, 2021, 01:23:08 PM
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.
If they had really wanted privacy they would have stayed on Vancouver Island, where their privacy was being respected. But no, they moved to LA in the middle of the pandemic.
Someone somewhere joked Harry would make a good next GG. NO. Just, NO!!!!!!!
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on March 13, 2021, 01:13:09 AM
I heard their location in Vancouver was released, and due to the family pulling security away from them, they wanted to find a new location with security.
No, their location was known pretty much in the first week. I don't live that far away. The locals were pretty respectful, though, even going to the point of not helping the international media that descended to ask questions and take pictures.
I do have some empathy for their problems, but deciding to go for Oprah-type publicity is a decision I wouldn't have made. You are either in the public eye or you aren't. There is no half-way. Personally, I think they might come to regret going back into the madness of media scrutiny.
Post by: former player on March 13, 2021, 02:54:48 AM
They are proposing to make money to support their lifestyle (£5 million last year, apparently, even with help on their accommodation) through media deals. And Meghan's chosen profession of actress has always been open to media scrutiny. A quiet life living privately within their means was always unlikely.I heard their location in Vancouver was released, and due to the family pulling security away from them, they wanted to find a new location with security.
No, their location was known pretty much in the first week. I don't live that far away. The locals were pretty respectful, though, even going to the point of not helping the international media that descended to ask questions and take pictures.
I do have some empathy for their problems, but deciding to go for Oprah-type publicity is a decision I wouldn't have made. You are either in the public eye or you aren't. There is no half-way. Personally, I think they might come to regret going back into the madness of media scrutiny.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 13, 2021, 07:12:42 AM
I had a full time housekeeper when I lived in Ethiopia. She and the rest of the house staff (gardener, grounds guards) "came with the house" my company was renting. It was nice having someone clean the house but I hated having someone puttering around the house when I occasionally worked at home. I can't imagine having a house full of servants. (Shudders.)
I suppose I could get up to $200k per year with a whole lot more energy than I actually have and I would feel like that was incredibly extravagant. If they wanted to be out of the public eye they could pick up a very nice home in a gated community in much of the country for $500k or a decent one for less than $2m in a few select metro areas. With their assets they wouldn't need to work if they kept their spending in the $400k to $500k range -- which is a damned extravagant lifestyle with a paid off house.
I feel sorry for them in that the press won't leave them alone for years, but not one iota over finances.
Post by: gaja on March 13, 2021, 11:08:17 AM
Royalty is a shit job. It might pay well, but otherwise it is just a glorified public servant role with no true power. If it is true that Megan didn't prepare at all, and Harry declined help to prepare her, then it is no wonder everything blew up. Sure, there is plenty of racism in the royal family. Sure, they probably have an extremely shit HR department. But M&H very clearly did not want to do their jobs.
Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.
Post by: AlanStache on March 13, 2021, 11:22:43 AM
Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year. Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants. Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc. So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly.
Post by: Plina on March 13, 2021, 01:56:33 PM
Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.
I think this reflects my thinking regarding our royal family. The working royal family has been limited and the grandchildren, with the exception of the family of the crownprincess will not be part of the working royal family. I like Viktoria and thinks she is a worthy repsentative of the country. If the other siblings would take over I would probably have a more negative picture of a continuing representation by the royal family.
Post by: racquetcat on March 13, 2021, 03:14:37 PM
Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?
I have some that I posted maybe ~40 pages back. Here's the simplified version to keep it short.
My grandfather had three kids and three pieces of property. He had 2x cattle ranches in CA that are about 200 acres each and a house in the local city. Instead of giving one property to each child, every property got split 3 ways.
Now my mom lives in the house and her brothers live on a ranch of their own. Since it's jointly owned, they all pay rent to each other and pay out ranch income. I've never figured out how they allocate income since it's technically owned 1/3 each way, but each ranch has one person doing all the labor. I know the ranches don't make much money.
About a decade ago, the family enters into a business deal to sell a conservation easement on a separate property owned by one brothers second wife. No one ever told me the full story, but I know that somehow my mom now owns half of this new property and the new wife sued the other brother over the deal. Being ranchers, no one ever talked about this. They just stopped talking to each other. Yet they still pay each other rent.
I'm now set to inherit 1/6 of each property eventually. I've talked to my mom about changing it so that me and my brother can inherit the house and our cousins can inherit the property that their parents live on. Unfortunately my mom has zero interest in this. She enjoys having a partial ownership stake in the ranch.
I'm not sure what I'll do when I inherit this mess. I have zero interest in owning a 1/6 stake in a ranch. None of the other family members have the funds to buy anyone else out. I also remain irrationally angry at one of my uncles over a property purchase I tried to make from the family (this is a different story). Part of me wants to force a sale of something just to get out of it. But I know this would destroy my relationship with all of my uncles and cousins.
One of the reasons we want to do all this legal stuff is that people would not be inheriting partial ownership of LAND, they would be inheriting partial ownership of a corporation. That way, no one can force anyone to sell. They would be able to sell to outsiders as long as no family members would meet the price. That way, they can get their money out if they want to. At some point folks may decide it's better to sell the entire corporation to some mega-corporation because it's not worth the hassle. Right now, my 1/3rd and 1/2 share is worth $20k to $25k a year. (I budget for $20k in my income projections.)
I was an only child. My mom's siblings each had 3 kids, so their share would be 1/9th and 1/6th (or 1/9th and 0/6ths). Two more generations and it won't be that much money per share. Except in my branch of the family; my daughter will inherit the income rights but my son will inherit my share of the farm, so it will take another generation before my share gets diluted 3 ways (3 grandkids).
$6-8k is still solid money to help middle class folks jump-start their savings or their schooling.
When you get down to $1k or $2k, not so much. At that point it probably won't be worth a family member's time to manage things for everyone else and it would make far more sense to sell.
As for me, I like having a source of income that's in the $20k to $25k range that's uncorrelated to stocks, bonds, social security or rental houses in a different state. :) And for that I have my grand parents to thank for it. They were smart, hardworking, good hearted folks who passed that on to their kids. They didn't have much money during the depression but they made it thru with their farm intact.
My grandfather was very smart fellow. The local mill and grain silo company had been in the same local family for some generations. Millers tend to be wealthier than farmers because they get a cut of all the farmer's income. I don't know how much you know about small town or small rural areas. It's not uncommon for someone really hard-working and sharp to make a lot of money and become important in their small area. Their kids partially grew up as regular kids so they have a lot of the traits their parents have. But the 3rd and 4th generation are often ignorant, lazy and feel more entitled than the mythical Reagan welfare queen. They grow up being "important people" and never really have to develop their abilities to provide for themselves. Once they take over they often run the business into the ground and spend themselves broke.
The millers in that area were in the 3rd or 4th generation and had all the bad qualities I just described. My grandfather had received a very large check from them for his grain (minus their cut for the work, of course). The check bounced.
Because he paid attention and knew people, he found out that other checks had bounced. This is back before computers checked the balance right away, etc. So if you needed a bit of float in your account, you could play some games. Let's say the millers had $10,000 in their account. If they wrote an $11,000 check it would bounce, but it looked to whomever was processing it to be a simple mistake instead of a fraudulent check. If they wrote several such checks, each would look, to whichever teller processed it, to be a simple mistake.
My grandfather realized that there were more serious problems than just a simple oops. So he went to the bank and asked how much they had in the bank account. His feeling was that $10,000 out of $11,000 was better than $0 out of $11,000, so maybe he could just get what they had instead of what they owed. The bank teller shook her head no and explained they weren't allowed to reveal that information.
My grandfather thought for a moment, then asked, "If I were to deposit $100 in the account, would there be enough to cash this check?"
The teller looked at him, thought about the rules, and said, "No--o--o--o--o..."
"How about $200?"
A few hundred dollars deposited into their account later, he walked out with as much of his money as they had. Other folks ended up getting bupkis.
@SwordGuy
I totally get the point that at a certain point it doesn't make sense to keep land if you own 1/9th of a quarter section or something. I don't know how much land my wife's grandparents or my grandmother owns, but at some point that could be broken into such small parts that it would make more sense to sell it then to keep such a small portion (maybe I should start saving now so I could potentially buy out other family members). It'll be interesting to see how that all plays out for my wife and I, but we probably have another 30 years before anything would get in our hands.
Post by: Dave1442397 on March 13, 2021, 03:48:00 PM
My grandfather was very smart fellow. The local mill and grain silo company had been in the same local family for some generations. Millers tend to be wealthier than farmers because they get a cut of all the farmer's income. I don't know how much you know about small town or small rural areas. It's not uncommon for someone really hard-working and sharp to make a lot of money and become important in their small area. Their kids partially grew up as regular kids so they have a lot of the traits their parents have. But the 3rd and 4th generation are often ignorant, lazy and feel more entitled than the mythical Reagan welfare queen. They grow up being "important people" and never really have to develop their abilities to provide for themselves. Once they take over they often run the business into the ground and spend themselves broke.
The millers in that area were in the 3rd or 4th generation and had all the bad qualities I just described. My grandfather had received a very large check from them for his grain (minus their cut for the work, of course). The check bounced.
Because he paid attention and knew people, he found out that other checks had bounced. This is back before computers checked the balance right away, etc. So if you needed a bit of float in your account, you could play some games. Let's say the millers had $10,000 in their account. If they wrote an $11,000 check it would bounce, but it looked to whomever was processing it to be a simple mistake instead of a fraudulent check. If they wrote several such checks, each would look, to whichever teller processed it, to be a simple mistake.
My grandfather realized that there were more serious problems than just a simple oops. So he went to the bank and asked how much they had in the bank account. His feeling was that $10,000 out of $11,000 was better than $0 out of $11,000, so maybe he could just get what they had instead of what they owed. The bank teller shook her head no and explained they weren't allowed to reveal that information.
My grandfather thought for a moment, then asked, "If I were to deposit $100 in the account, would there be enough to cash this check?"
The teller looked at him, thought about the rules, and said, "No--o--o--o--o..."
"How about $200?"
A few hundred dollars deposited into their account later, he walked out with as much of his money as they had. Other folks ended up getting bupkis.
A smart guy, indeed. Some good logical thinking there!
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 13, 2021, 06:02:49 PM
"The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me."You'd probably need security 24/7. Crazy people don't necessarily follow business hours.
Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year. Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants. Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc. So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly.
But $30k per flight hour is excessive--that's military fighter and bomber prices.
Post by: AlanStache on March 13, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
"The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me."You'd probably need security 24/7. Crazy people don't necessarily follow business hours.
Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year. Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants. Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc. So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly.
But $30k per flight hour is excessive--that's military fighter and bomber prices.
30k$/flight hour: yeah I messed up with the reading; confused cost vs rate...
Post by: talltexan on March 13, 2021, 07:28:47 PM
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
Post by: iris lily on March 13, 2021, 07:32:30 PM
I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.(edit: sorry I didn’t realize it Montecito is a area in Santa Barbara region.)
Post by: former player on March 13, 2021, 08:10:29 PM
He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
Post by: PhilB on March 14, 2021, 04:26:48 AM
He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Post by: former player on March 14, 2021, 04:33:59 AM
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Post by: Plina on March 14, 2021, 05:07:05 AM
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Does he actually inherit a dukedom? I thought the titels were only an honorary thing. Here, they get a duchesse or duke title but that does not come with castles or land as they did a couple of hundreds of years ago. It only means a bit more ribboncutting in that specific part of the country.
Post by: PhilB on March 14, 2021, 06:17:03 AM
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Does he actually inherit a dukedom? I thought the titels were only an honorary thing. Here, they get a duchesse or duke title but that does not come with castles or land as they did a couple of hundreds of years ago. It only means a bit more ribboncutting in that specific part of the country.
The title doesn't come with any lands, property etc. It is, however, hereditary unlike the life peerages handed out by the government which die with the holder. Basically it just gives extra points in ribbon cutting Top Trumps.
Harry has already inherited a fortune and seems not to have grasped that being a main member of the Royal Family is a job. Moaning about having been cut off financially is like complaining that your boss stopped paying you after you resigned.
Post by: Imma on March 14, 2021, 06:58:36 AM
Just like Plina explaind from Sweden, Norway also has a princess who didn't want to be princess anymore. As long as she doesn't stir any trouble, she is left alone. There have been some issues of her trying to profit from her titles, and now she has been stripped of them. There was also an issue when she started dating an American self proclaimed shaman. Was some if it racism: no doubt. But 90 % of the backlash was from her promoting a misogynist charlatan to the Norwegian audience, and them trying to make money by basically defrauding people. Her attempts at making money are not going very well, so she has started selling some of her inherited property. Her children never had titles . They are at the same place as UK's Archie, and titles are not normal that far out in the inheritance list. In all likelyhood, they will silently disappear from the limelight and get normal jobs. I think some of the current crown prince's first cousins are selling trucks and running clothes stores, but they have never made an appearance in the newspapers, so I don't really know.
Royalty is a shit job. It might pay well, but otherwise it is just a glorified public servant role with no true power. If it is true that Megan didn't prepare at all, and Harry declined help to prepare her, then it is no wonder everything blew up. Sure, there is plenty of racism in the royal family. Sure, they probably have an extremely shit HR department. But M&H very clearly did not want to do their jobs.
Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.
Your princess Martha Louise is in the Dutch tabloids all the time! See, we have the convention that pictures of royals are only taken at official engagements, they don't write about the private lives of the underage members at all, and they don't publish "paparazzi" pics of royals unless they do really really stupid shit. Our royal family seems to have half a brain so they have never been caught playing strippoker or dressing up as nazi's. So we look to other royal houses for more entertaining stories, and she definitely fits that description. Plus she lived in the Netherlands for a while so there's a connection. But they don't stalk her either, they just publish whatever she puts online.
Our King's late brother was totally not interested in being a royal, so he studied engineering, got a job and moved abroad and nobody cared about that, and it's the same for the King's cousins. They have access to a great network, the best education money can buy, they have excellent career opportunities. They don't have to flip burgers. Some are entrepeneurs, other are in banking or startups or they work for the military or the UN. Honestly I think their quality of life is probably better than that of the heir.
I think many people feel the same about the monarchy in the Netherlands. Our current King does his job ok-ish, his wife is very well liked. She comes across as kind and fun and is always dressed nicely. Her main charity interest is financial independence for women! (she's a former banker with a degree in economics). The job of being royalty seems pretty boring though, and if none of our current princesses is interested, we'll happily abolish it. It seems that all we care about for royal women is how they dress. Our Queen Maxima is a great dresser though - it's clear she just wears whatever she likes (and is appropriate for the occasion of course). English royals all seem to dress like they're in their 50s/60s. I wonder what those ladies wear in their private lives. I expect the dress code makes the job even less fun.
Post by: TomTX on March 14, 2021, 04:15:05 PM
I don't believe for a minute that they want to live normal lives, unless by "normal" they mean "extraordinarily privileged and unencumbered by any obligation."
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.
They literally can't live normal lives unless they want the kids (and possibly themselves) at very high risk for kidnapping or worse. They are at a level of fame where full-time security and a secure household location is a requirement.
Post by: Hula Hoop on March 14, 2021, 04:19:18 PM
Post by: DaMa on March 14, 2021, 07:57:49 PM
Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince. My bad.He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them. Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them? And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered? For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.
A whole extra house and household in Montecito...
They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.
They are now living in Santa Barbara California.
Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson. So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.
I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way. Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses. Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).
Once Charles is King, Archie will be entitled to be a Prince.
Prince/Princess are children of the sovereign, children of the sons of the sovereign , and children of the Prince of Wales' eldest son.
This is why Andrew's daughters are princesses. Edward's children are entitled to be prince/princess, but their was a decision made that they would not.
It used to be just the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' was a prince (which would be just George), but that was changed to all the children in December 2012. I suspect the "complaint" may have come from that. Why just William's children and not Harry's?
If the Queen were to outlive Charles, Archie won't be a prince.
Post by: Imma on March 15, 2021, 01:31:47 AM
I don't believe for a minute that they want to live normal lives, unless by "normal" they mean "extraordinarily privileged and unencumbered by any obligation."
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.
They literally can't live normal lives unless they want the kids (and possibly themselves) at very high risk for kidnapping or worse. They are at a level of fame where full-time security and a secure household location is a requirement.
I'm sure that's true, but it seems that most of the royal family pays for their own security. It seems only prince Charles and prince William & family have their security paid for, and Harry while he was a working royal. Others pay their own security out of pocket, apparantly from their private wealth. Plus, they lived on a secure family compounds like Windsor and Kensington Palace. It's kind of naieve to not think of what would happen to your security if you quit the job.
But having security doesn't mean you can't live a relatively normal life. I think prince William lived a quiet life in rural Wales when he was in the military. He certainly still had security but it's very different from living in London or in LA. If Harry really wanted to live a "normal" life going back into active duty, preferably in a remote part of the country or somewhere overseas, would have been a great option.
Post by: PhilB on March 15, 2021, 02:12:07 AM
As to the 'Why W's kids not H's?' question, the 2012 changes were made as part of the whole changes to ensure that if their firstborn was a girl she would not be leapfrogged by any subsequent boys. This specific change avoided the nonsense of a future queen being styled 'Lady' whilst her younger brother would be 'Prince'. I'm guessing that the eldest son being a Prince was sufficiently embedded in different things that it was easier to make all of them princes than change son to child.
The overarching issue is the widely supported drive towards a slimmed down monarchy. Basically the idea is that only those in direct line plus their siblings get a (very onerous) job for life. Not children of said siblings.
Post by: DadJokes on March 15, 2021, 05:01:02 AM
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Post by: Imma on March 15, 2021, 05:34:29 AM
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.
I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.
Post by: former player on March 15, 2021, 05:42:54 AM
Don't actually discount the cutting ribbons stuff either. Very often that is just the publicity icing on a long-term interest and involvement in a cause that wouldn't be happening, or wouldn't be happening on the same scale, without the push of royal involvement. Which is a big regret to me in Meghan deciding to leave the UK Royal family - her scope to influence for the better in the decades to come was enormous, if she had put in the work behind the scenes.Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.
I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 15, 2021, 05:59:37 AM
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Kate and Meghan are mighty easy on the eyes so I never mind a good photo of them, any more than any other pretty woman.
I suspect the general reason is because all the other royalty are from countries that don't speak English, so it's easier for our press to repackage stories about English royalty than other ones.
Post by: Dicey on March 15, 2021, 06:05:29 AM
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Post by: dcheesi on March 15, 2021, 06:24:08 AM
In the USA, it's definitely all about the house of Windsor. Some of the same people obsess about the latest UK royal drama would be hard pressed to even tell you which other (European) countries have royal families, much less naming their members.Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.
I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.
I think it's just natural for the English-speaking former colonies to focus on the English/UK royalty for historical reasons. Even though the US has been independent for longer than "Commonwealth" countries like Canada, and more forcefully so, we still have a fascination with where we "came from" as a country. And with the pomp & circumstance of the old monarchy.
Post by: PhilB on March 15, 2021, 06:50:18 AM
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.despisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Unless there is a jubilee to celebrate or one of the turns up to open a new building, it's likely that most British children will hear little if anything about the monarchy from their schooling. We don't have daily pledges of allegiance to the flag or anything like that. British support for the Royal Family is largely based on our deep dislike for our politicians such that the thought of replacing the Queen with a politician is enough to make us stick with what we've got - as long as they don't muck it up.
The general reaction to Harry marrying Meghan was overwhelmingly positive. People thought he was definitely batting above his average and most of us liked what her being of mixed race signaled about us as a modern, tolerant country. It's just a shame that neither of them seemed to have properly read the job description in advance.
Post by: By the River on March 15, 2021, 07:14:40 AM
In the USA, it's definitely all about the house of Windsor. Some of the same people obsess about the latest UK royal drama would be hard pressed to even tell you which other (European) countries have royal families, much less naming their members.
I think it's just natural for the English-speaking former colonies to focus on the English/UK royalty for historical reasons. Even though the US has been independent for longer than "Commonwealth" countries like Canada, and more forcefully so, we still have a fascination with where we "came from" as a country. And with the pomp & circumstance of the old monarchy.
In 1990, we went to Brussels where we met up with a friend's old exchange student. As he showed us around downtown, we came down the side of a large elegant building (the Opera house) where there was a crowd of maybe 15 people. In a few minutes, an older lady came out, gave the royal wave to the crowd and got into a black town car. Our host told us that was the queen of Belgium. I didn't know Belgium had a monarchy until then.
Post by: AMandM on March 15, 2021, 08:43:35 AM
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
Don't forget that the British monarch is also the monarch of countries outside of Britain.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 15, 2021, 10:58:05 AM
* Victoria and Elizabeth, good longevity genes in that family.
Post by: DaMa on March 15, 2021, 11:07:28 AM
Serious question:
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.
For me it's part of a love of history. The history of England from 1066-1603 has always fascinated me, and 1603-current to a lesser degree. The thing with the prince title is basically a bit of trivia I just happen to know.
I am also a history buff on American westward migration, the Holocaust, and Himalayan mountain climbing.
Post by: SunnyDays on March 15, 2021, 03:49:59 PM
Post by: PhilB on March 16, 2021, 03:16:35 AM
I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king). Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them? They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.
Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them. A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.
Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.
Post by: former player on March 16, 2021, 03:50:38 AM
It's finding an alternative which is the problem. Either the PM becomes Head of State as well (and there's just been an example of that going badly wrong in the USA) or a new form of elected President has to be invented which would be almost impossible to keep out of politics.I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king). Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them? They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.
Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them. A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.
Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.
One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is that it fills a position of power without being able to exercise any of that power: there is no vacuum into which bad actors can insert themselves and the Prime Minister, who does exercise power, always has someone above them in the hierarchy to whom they have to answer, even if only formally.
The Church of England does much the same for the UK: it occupies a central spiritual space, preventing anyone else from taking that over either religiously or politically (see eg: Irish Catholicism, USA evangelism), and because its status is legally defined it has no need to define itself by a narrow and/or exclusionary creed, making it inclusive of anyone who wants to participate and also being able (slowly) adapt to societal change.
Post by: TomTX on March 16, 2021, 06:58:16 AM
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.despisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Be fair - as an American she wouldn't even know what petrol is!
/s (as an American)
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 16, 2021, 08:11:13 AM
Serious question:I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also
Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.despisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Be fair - as an American she wouldn't even know what petrol is!
/s (as an American)
Kate Middleton thought long and hard before marrying a Royal. Megan seems to have not done her homework. Being a Royal close to the throne is a job. One you can't take a vacation from.
Post by: Imma on March 16, 2021, 08:50:02 AM
It's finding an alternative which is the problem. Either the PM becomes Head of State as well (and there's just been an example of that going badly wrong in the USA) or a new form of elected President has to be invented which would be almost impossible to keep out of politics.I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king). Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them? They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.
Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them. A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.
Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.
One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is that it fills a position of power without being able to exercise any of that power: there is no vacuum into which bad actors can insert themselves and the Prime Minister, who does exercise power, always has someone above them in the hierarchy to whom they have to answer, even if only formally.
The Church of England does much the same for the UK: it occupies a central spiritual space, preventing anyone else from taking that over either religiously or politically (see eg: Irish Catholicism, USA evangelism), and because its status is legally defined it has no need to define itself by a narrow and/or exclusionary creed, making it inclusive of anyone who wants to participate and also being able (slowly) adapt to societal change.
I dislike the idea of the monarchy as well, but for this reason a constitutional monarchy is the last bad option I can think of. The other big advantage is that a monarch has a strong long-term incentive to behave - unlike Presidents and Prime Ministers. In the worst case scenario, they are not re-elected or made to resign and look like a fool, but their behaviour does not have direct job consequences for their offspring, or for themselves for that matter. A politician can cause and problem and then leave someone else to fix it (you just have to look at Cameron to see what I mean) but the monarch will be stuck with their past mistakes for the next few decades.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 16, 2021, 09:07:42 AM
Quote
You can't change the people around you but you can change the people around you.
Post by: Sibley on March 16, 2021, 10:27:44 AM
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
Post by: former player on March 16, 2021, 10:43:39 AM
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.If that were true I would agree with you. But -
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
1) "Thoughts of suicide" is not the same as "suicidal". I can think rationally about potential methods of suicide without having any intention of doing anything about them.
2) Meghan is a grown woman with large amounts of money and direct access to anyone in the world she wanted to call, including any heath care professional - who would have been under a duty of confidentiality. I agree she was in a foreign country but she spoke the language and no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
Unfortunately the interview by Oprah had so little rigour to it and so little follow up to what was said. It's possible to completely accept everything Meghan said in it and still not be certain of an objective truth.
Post by: Sibley on March 16, 2021, 11:27:59 AM
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.If that were true I would agree with you. But -
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
1) "Thoughts of suicide" is not the same as "suicidal". I can think rationally about potential methods of suicide without having any intention of doing anything about them.
2) Meghan is a grown woman with large amounts of money and direct access to anyone in the world she wanted to call, including any heath care professional - who would have been under a duty of confidentiality. I agree she was in a foreign country but she spoke the language and no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
Unfortunately the interview by Oprah had so little rigour to it and so little follow up to what was said. It's possible to completely accept everything Meghan said in it and still not be certain of an objective truth.
I suggest you do some research into the effects of mental illness on someone's life and mental/emotional capacity.
Someone who's sitting and crying while breastfeeding is not capable of standing up to much. Someone saying "no", even if they don't have actual power, could certainly be a real roadblock. I've had enough experience with people dealing with depression, anxiety, etc to know that the normal rules of what you can manage go out the window.
Post by: Sandi_k on March 16, 2021, 11:41:17 AM
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
Post by: Villanelle on March 16, 2021, 11:44:20 AM
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
I broke down and watched the interview because it was a topic of conversation among the friend-group text string.
All of the stuff about how she was unprepared, how she didn't realize one actually curtsied to the queen in private, etc. just made me think less of Harry. (Well, part of me was skeptical it was true, but the other part blamed Harry.) He was the one who was part of that culture. He knew to at least some large extent what would be expected of her. He had the people he could ask questions of or put her in touch with.
But somehow it is her fault? If you invite me to a party and I show up in jeans and it turns out it was a formal even and you failed to mention that, you are far more in the wrong for not telling me than I am for not asking about the dress code.
Post by: Villanelle on March 16, 2021, 11:49:08 AM
I think they are kind of ridiculous. I think the interview harmed them at least as much as it helped them, though I'm coming at this from someone who has payed little attention to them until now so I don't have all the context. I think they have a fair amount of fault in just how badly things went.
But some of these comments are just horrible, unless we assume they were outright lying about several things.
Post by: Sibley on March 16, 2021, 11:52:54 AM
I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.
So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.
I broke down and watched the interview because it was a topic of conversation among the friend-group text string.
All of the stuff about how she was unprepared, how she didn't realize one actually curtsied to the queen in private, etc. just made me think less of Harry. (Well, part of me was skeptical it was true, but the other part blamed Harry.) He was the one who was part of that culture. He knew to at least some large extent what would be expected of her. He had the people he could ask questions of or put her in touch with.
But somehow it is her fault? If you invite me to a party and I show up in jeans and it turns out it was a formal even and you failed to mention that, you are far more in the wrong for not telling me than I am for not asking about the dress code.
I haven't watched the interview. I was reacting to the comments in this thread, combined with the bits and pieces I have seen or learned.
Post by: former player on March 16, 2021, 11:59:10 AM
She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.
I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it. But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage. She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself. She had a loving and supportive spouse. She had options.
I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.
Post by: Sibley on March 16, 2021, 12:09:48 PM
She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.
I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it. But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage. She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself. She had a loving and supportive spouse. She had options.
I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.
And mental illness is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will negate everything you just said. That is why its so terrible. Because instead of being a mature, strong person, it can make you weak and vulnerable, regardless of what the objective reality is. The fact that she had a loving and supportive spouse is probably why she's still alive. The fact that she had personal wealth is probably a big chunk of how they were able to get out of what was a toxic situation for her.
Post by: former player on March 16, 2021, 01:59:31 PM
OK, I can accept that view. According to her interview with Oprah she still feels the same way about that time now as she did at the time, so I hope that doesn't mean she hasn't come out of that illness.She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.
I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it. But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage. She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself. She had a loving and supportive spouse. She had options.
I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.
And mental illness is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will negate everything you just said. That is why its so terrible. Because instead of being a mature, strong person, it can make you weak and vulnerable, regardless of what the objective reality is. The fact that she had a loving and supportive spouse is probably why she's still alive. The fact that she had personal wealth is probably a big chunk of how they were able to get out of what was a toxic situation for her.
Post by: ExitViaTheCashRamp on March 16, 2021, 02:40:21 PM
I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits alsodespisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Unless there is a jubilee to celebrate or one of the turns up to open a new building, it's likely that most British children will hear little if anything about the monarchy from their schooling. We don't have daily pledges of allegiance to the flag or anything like that. British support for the Royal Family is largely based on our deep dislike for our politicians such that the thought of replacing the Queen with a politician is enough to make us stick with what we've got - as long as they don't muck it up.
The general reaction to Harry marrying Meghan was overwhelmingly positive. People thought he was definitely batting above his average and most of us liked what her being of mixed race signaled about us as a modern, tolerant country. It's just a shame that neither of them seemed to have properly read the job description in advance.
Agree with this entirely as another British subject. The only day my school had anything regarding a Royal day was when Princess Diana visited once, one of my friends was chosen to give her the schools bunch of flowers and then he shook her hand -- I missed it as I was off school being ill :( Outside that one day - nothing. To be honest it just wouldn't be British to be fawning, flag waving and saluting in a school - people would think you were part of the national front (i.e. far right nationalists). I mean its one thing if a member of the royal family is there in front of you - but otherwise people would think you are a bit odd. The morning school routine I have seen used in TV/films of American schools if replicated here would likely result in claims of racism against the teacher.
To be honest, the premise is a bit laughable - I mean the linage is chock full of foreign princesses and in the case of the Queen, her husband is a foreigner.
For replacing the royals, I can't see the point. Yes the system is anachronistic and out of place in modern society but it is also really cheap - something like under £40million... and they all pay tax on all their earnings (even the Queen). The net cost is truly tiny compared to anything that might replace them. Worse still for me is WHO might replace them - President Blair ? No thank you..
Post by: markbike528CBX on March 16, 2021, 02:44:53 PM
Worse still for me is WHO might replace them - President Blair ? No thank you..We have lots of ex-Presidents that we could
Post by: Imma on March 16, 2021, 03:36:09 PM
OK, I can accept that view. According to her interview with Oprah she still feels the same way about that time now as she did at the time, so I hope that doesn't mean she hasn't come out of that illness.She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.
... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to. Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.
You're wrong on two counts here:
1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.
2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."
We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.
I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it. But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage. She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself. She had a loving and supportive spouse. She had options.
I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.
And mental illness is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will negate everything you just said. That is why its so terrible. Because instead of being a mature, strong person, it can make you weak and vulnerable, regardless of what the objective reality is. The fact that she had a loving and supportive spouse is probably why she's still alive. The fact that she had personal wealth is probably a big chunk of how they were able to get out of what was a toxic situation for her.
I think both views can exist at the same time. If their situation was this bad for her mental health, then it's right that they got out. They have every right to do that & no one should stay in a situation like that.
In the interview Meghan sounded very naive about her future role. It's clear she was not prepared and that she did not receive proper guidance from her husband. At the same time, that doesn't mean that somehow she "deserved" or "caused" the mental health struggles that she later experienced. I can totally imagine that a very clumsy palace jobsworth may have told her that they don't offer their counselling services to non-employees and in the situation she was in, that may have affected her a lot. I'm sure the palace is full of stiff upper lip aristocratic apparatchiks. As you said, at that point in time she was very vulnerable. I hope her husband was able direct her to people who could help her. Since he founded a mental health charity and is open about the fact that he needed years of therapy to get over his mother's death, I would assume he was able to put his wife in touch with professionals.
Post by: Dicey on March 16, 2021, 09:07:37 PM
I wonder if it's age specific. I heard this from an older Brit. Then when Sharon Osbourne defended Piers Morgan's right to have an opinion, she expressed something similar. Of course, I hear she's in a ton of hot water now for defending PM, so who the hell knows?I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits alsodespisedislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!
Unless there is a jubilee to celebrate or one of the turns up to open a new building, it's likely that most British children will hear little if anything about the monarchy from their schooling. We don't have daily pledges of allegiance to the flag or anything like that. British support for the Royal Family is largely based on our deep dislike for our politicians such that the thought of replacing the Queen with a politician is enough to make us stick with what we've got - as long as they don't muck it up.
The general reaction to Harry marrying Meghan was overwhelmingly positive. People thought he was definitely batting above his average and most of us liked what her being of mixed race signaled about us as a modern, tolerant country. It's just a shame that neither of them seemed to have properly read the job description in advance.
Agree with this entirely as another British subject. The only day my school had anything regarding a Royal day was when Princess Diana visited once, one of my friends was chosen to give her the schools bunch of flowers and then he shook her hand -- I missed it as I was off school being ill :( Outside that one day - nothing. To be honest it just wouldn't be British to be fawning, flag waving and saluting in a school - people would think you were part of the national front (i.e. far right nationalists). I mean its one thing if a member of the royal family is there in front of you - but otherwise people would think you are a bit odd. The morning school routine I have seen used in TV/films of American schools if replicated here would likely result in claims of racism against the teacher.
To be honest, the premise is a bit laughable - I mean the linage is chock full of foreign princesses and in the case of the Queen, her husband is a foreigner.
For replacing the royals, I can't see the point. Yes the system is anachronistic and out of place in modern society but it is also really cheap - something like under £40million... and they all pay tax on all their earnings (even the Queen). The net cost is truly tiny compared to anything that might replace them. Worse still for me is WHO might replace them - President Blair ? No thank you..
Post by: SwordGuy on March 16, 2021, 09:50:28 PM
For replacing the royals, ... Worse still for me is WHO might replace them - President Blair ? No thank you..
Ok, here's an inheritance story. I promise.
I quit my job to take a job at a major international software company to work in their office in the London area. They had called me and invented a job for me. I did it so my wife could affordably complete her doctoral research in the various libraries there. I told my boss that I really enjoyed working at the company and with him, but I needed to support my wife and this was the only way I had found to do it. And that I didn't really want to go to work for the big megacorporation, but needs must, and I hoped I would be welcomed back in a couple of years.
The next morning I was called into the big bosses office and they offered to park me in a hotel, covering room and board and a rental car, for a month. "We wanted you to take some time to do some writing for us, and we don't much care where you do it." I stayed and my wife, daughter and I went off to London for the month.
This happened back when Tony Blair and his wife first occupied #10 Downing Street. They inherited Humphrey, a truly friendly cat who hung out in the waiting room and greeted folks therein. This cat had been there when Thatcher and later Major were the PM. (I promised an inheritance story!!!)
Then a newspaper reporter noticed the cat was gone and they had also heard that Blair's wife hated cats. So they wrote a glowing editorial about it in the London Times that extolled the virtue of this wonderfully friendly cat and mentioned that Mrs. Blair didn't like cats. They closed by hoping that Humphrey was well and not tossed out into the alleys of London.
The London Times had never received more letters on any other topic in its entire history. People were very concerned about this cat. We heard the story and, being cat lovers, started following the story.
Now I have to digress a bit. About the same time some information started to come out about how Mr. Blair might have been a bit misleading with some public statements he had made about some large sums of money that he ought not to have been able to spend on his campaign. I don't recall the exact quote, but basically, it sounded like he had flatly denied it. However, as the information started to come out, people realized that his words had two possible meanings, the one that sounded like a denial and another, possibly more truthful one in which he had done it.
In an attempt to minimize the public relations damage, Mrs. Blair posed in a photo with a cat to show she liked cats. This isn't the photo I saw (it was in a black and white newspaper), but her facial expression is exactly the same. Sort of a grimace frozen in place trying to be a smile. Let's just say we were absolutely not convinced she likes cats.
Now, nothing makes people more suspicious about what you say than catching someone doing that. It's poisonous for maintaining trust in any way, shape or fashion. People don't like to be played for fools. It's important to understand this digression to get what happens next.
The photo didn't assuage public opinion at all.
Blair was answering a few questions from the press before left on a helicopter. The last question he was asked was "Where's the cat?" His answer was short and snippy, "The cat is in a quiet country place." With that, Blair turned and started to walk away towards the helicopter.
The reporter called out very loudly, "By 'quiet country place', do you mean a cemetery?"
Boy, howdy! Blair looked like he had been hit with a brick bat. He actually staggered under the weight of that question!
The very next night, a television cameraman was taken in an unmarked van with no windows to someone's carport. He was rushed out of the van into a house whereupon he was presented with "the cat" to video, in order to prove that the cat was alive and well.
The next thing to happen was an editorial in the London Times wondering whether the cat really was Humphrey or whether it was an imposter. Perhaps Thatcher or Major could be called in to verify the cat's identity?
I don't know whether there was more or not after that. That's about the time we left the country and pre-internet it was harder to get detailed foreign news.
I still love this story.
The PM of Britain is one of the most powerful people in the world and he couldn't even get rid of a cat in his house without this much grief from his constituents. I think our republics would be ever so much better if our legislators and presidents learned that lesson to their core in their first months in office.
And not all inheritance stories are about relatives, eh?
Post by: SwordGuy on March 17, 2021, 05:46:04 AM
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/larry-the-cat-staying-put-in-10-downing-street (https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/larry-the-cat-staying-put-in-10-downing-street)
Cats rule!
Post by: Taran Wanderer on March 17, 2021, 08:45:19 AM
Post by: ExitViaTheCashRamp on March 17, 2021, 08:51:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqF4q9mjW-E
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 17, 2021, 09:47:24 AM
A few moments before the Brexit deal was announced, he stormed into action live on TV:Dangit, now I'm trying to stifle a giggle at work. Curse you! :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqF4q9mjW-E
Post by: MoStash on March 18, 2021, 07:27:26 AM
My grandmother had four sons and my mother. When she passed she split her money (<50K) evenly among the five and left my mother all of her belongings.
Mom took her rocking chair and told the rest of the family to tag what they wanted. There were lots of us grandkids in our 20s so all of the furniture and household items were useful. I wanted the old wooden footstool the kids used while baking with Grandma, and a tiny spoon with a miner on the handle that had fascinated me as a child. One of those “earliest memories” things.
My uncle’s wife claimed the whole souvenir spoon collection, and decreed that I couldn’t take the one I wanted because it was part of the collection. Do you remember those tacky wooden racks that held tacky souvenir spoons? That’s what I’m talking about. Zero value and not a set per se.
So I took the one spoon and the footstool. For the rest of her life my uncle’s wife resented me for taking that spoon! She brought it up yearly for almost 30 years. People will create drama over the smallest things.
Post by: Smokystache on March 18, 2021, 07:42:25 AM
You would think that if there’s no money and no real estate to fight over there won’t be any inheritance drama, right?
My grandmother had four sons and my mother. When she passed she split her money (<50K) evenly among the five and left my mother all of her belongings.
Mom took her rocking chair and told the rest of the family to tag what they wanted. There were lots of us grandkids in our 20s so all of the furniture and household items were useful. I wanted the old wooden footstool the kids used while baking with Grandma, and a tiny spoon with a miner on the handle that had fascinated me as a child. One of those “earliest memories” things.
My uncle’s wife claimed the whole souvenir spoon collection, and decreed that I couldn’t take the one I wanted because it was part of the collection. Do you remember those tacky wooden racks that held tacky souvenir spoons? That’s what I’m talking about. Zero value and not a set per se.
So I took the one spoon and the footstool. For the rest of her life my uncle’s wife resented me for taking that spoon! She brought it up yearly for almost 30 years. People will create drama over the smallest things.
Is your uncle's wife dead? If not, you could buy this - leave it outside to age for a few weeks and then give it to her and look like the bigger person (if you want to play that game): https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon (https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon)
Post by: Dicey on March 19, 2021, 05:35:51 PM
That's awesome!You would think that if there’s no money and no real estate to fight over there won’t be any inheritance drama, right?
My grandmother had four sons and my mother. When she passed she split her money (<50K) evenly among the five and left my mother all of her belongings.
Mom took her rocking chair and told the rest of the family to tag what they wanted. There were lots of us grandkids in our 20s so all of the furniture and household items were useful. I wanted the old wooden footstool the kids used while baking with Grandma, and a tiny spoon with a miner on the handle that had fascinated me as a child. One of those “earliest memories” things.
My uncle’s wife claimed the whole souvenir spoon collection, and decreed that I couldn’t take the one I wanted because it was part of the collection. Do you remember those tacky wooden racks that held tacky souvenir spoons? That’s what I’m talking about. Zero value and not a set per se.
So I took the one spoon and the footstool. For the rest of her life my uncle’s wife resented me for taking that spoon! She brought it up yearly for almost 30 years. People will create drama over the smallest things.
Is your uncle's wife dead? If not, you could buy this - leave it outside to age for a few weeks and then give it to her and look like the bigger person (if you want to play that game): https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon (https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon)
Post by: MoStash on March 19, 2021, 09:14:24 PM
Yep, that looks like a much shinier version of the same spoon! And if you scroll down in that link you can see more tacky souvenir spoons. But she passed away in 2019, and I'm sure the spoons went in the trash. They really have no value.
Is your uncle's wife dead? If not, you could buy this - leave it outside to age for a few weeks and then give it to her and look like the bigger person (if you want to play that game): https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon (https://www.bonanza.com/items/like/21719741/Whitehorse-Yukon-Gold-Miner-Figural-Souvenir-Spoon)
Post by: partgypsy on March 21, 2021, 12:04:42 AM
Post by: TomTX on March 21, 2021, 03:56:00 PM
Post by: partgypsy on March 22, 2021, 06:58:42 AM
Post by: iris lily on March 25, 2021, 02:08:28 PM
The latest issue is daddy who died gave a substantial amount of objects worth $$$ to one sibling. He gave these objects away more than 10 years before his death. One sibling challenged daddy‘s giving away of the stuff and the judge sided with that sibling.
It is a rare situation when the words “the judge went against us” really mean an economic win.
Post by: talltexan on March 26, 2021, 06:10:42 AM
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 26, 2021, 06:52:19 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
Post by: iris lily on March 26, 2021, 08:09:01 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 26, 2021, 08:21:53 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” She demands that dead dad treat her equally economically. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
Equal isn't the same thing as fair.
Anyone who has more than one kid knows that each is unique and different, and has different needs. Later in life, different kids will also provide different levels of support to their parents. At the extreme end you get the stereotypical moocher who never moves out and who gets parented or enabled until the parents die, or else the stereotypical overachiever who takes on all the elder-care responsibilities while other siblings skate.
A lot of people use an inheritance to do more than one thing: to set up a disabled or needy child, to compensate a child who provided more in terms of support, or even to balance out giving from earlier in life (kid A got college expenses paid but kid B did not). Some use it to punish a child who for whatever reason doesn't live up to their expectations.
Post by: iris lily on March 26, 2021, 11:07:06 AM
All of them, each and every sibling as well as the dead dad, are/were operating from emotion.I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” She demands that dead dad treat her equally economically. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
Equal isn't the same thing as fair.
Anyone who has more than one kid knows that each is unique and different, and has different needs. Later in life, different kids will also provide different levels of support to their parents. At the extreme end you get the stereotypical moocher who never moves out and who gets parented or enabled until the parents die, or else the stereotypical overachiever who takes on all the elder-care responsibilities while other siblings skate.
A lot of people use an inheritance to do more than one thing: to set up a disabled or needy child, to compensate a child who provided more in terms of support, or even to balance out giving from earlier in life (kid A got college expenses paid but kid B did not). Some use it to punish a child who for whatever reason doesn't live up to their expectations.
Which is why when the judge awards DH more stuff, it is a “loss.”
Doh people! Use your brains! But not my family, not my monkeys.
Post by: DadJokes on April 01, 2021, 08:46:27 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Post by: Plina on April 01, 2021, 09:38:05 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Actually, it is dependent on the legal system if a father is allowed to do what he wants with money after death. Here, half of your estate goes to your children and have to be divided in equal slots. That is if you are not married to your childrens mother because in that case she inherits all and the kids gets their part after she is dead. The other half you can do what you want with. So if you want to decide what to do with your money, spend it before your death. Oh, and you can’t gift it before your immediate death to your favourite kid because then he/she has to return it to the estate.
Post by: iris lily on April 02, 2021, 06:39:03 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Actually, it is dependent on the legal system if a father is allowed to do what he wants with money after death. Here, half of your estate goes to your children and have to be divided in equal slots. That is if you are not married to your childrens mother because in that case she inherits all and the kids gets their part after she is dead. The other half you can do what you want with. So if you want to decide what to do with your money, spend it before your death. Oh, and you can’t gift it before your immediate death to your favourite kid because then he/she has to return it to the estate.
Where is “here?”
Post by: Plina on April 03, 2021, 05:28:22 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Actually, it is dependent on the legal system if a father is allowed to do what he wants with money after death. Here, half of your estate goes to your children and have to be divided in equal slots. That is if you are not married to your childrens mother because in that case she inherits all and the kids gets their part after she is dead. The other half you can do what you want with. So if you want to decide what to do with your money, spend it before your death. Oh, and you can’t gift it before your immediate death to your favourite kid because then he/she has to return it to the estate.
Where is “here?”
Here is Sweden. In Finland, you have to fulfill certain provisions to disinherit your children. So getting pissed of at your kids is not enough for them to loose their inheritance.
Post by: gaja on April 03, 2021, 11:17:23 AM
I'm sorry you're having to live through this weirdness. Of course, economic benefit and relational benefit are different.It's really a matter of game theory, and maybe even a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone goes along, they all end up happy (ish). But one person can get greedy, and in the process ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
I am not blessed with a big family, but I'd hope the estate planning could be designed toward the goal of keeping the family relationships intact rather as a priority ahead of keeping assets intact.
I dont know that I would call the challenging sibling in this family drama “greedy.” That sib is demanding dead dad give equal economic treatment to all siblings. Is that greedy?
But yeah, this outlier sibling is paying a lot for an attorney, so yeah, is losing ground there.
If you are gifted $10k but are not happy about it bc the person next to you is gifted $15k, and you decide to pursue legal action to ensure that you both get the same amount, is that greedy on your part? Yes!
Expecting anything from an estate is greedy, because you didn't earn that money. In this case dad earned the money/items/whatever and is free to give them out however he pleases.
Actually, it is dependent on the legal system if a father is allowed to do what he wants with money after death. Here, half of your estate goes to your children and have to be divided in equal slots. That is if you are not married to your childrens mother because in that case she inherits all and the kids gets their part after she is dead. The other half you can do what you want with. So if you want to decide what to do with your money, spend it before your death. Oh, and you can’t gift it before your immediate death to your favourite kid because then he/she has to return it to the estate.
Where is “here?”
Here is Sweden. In Finland, you have to fulfill certain provisions to disinherit your children. So getting pissed of at your kids is not enough for them to loose their inheritance.
In Norway, there is a "duty inheritance" of $150 000 for the spouse and each kid (roughly speaking, with some caveats). If there is money left over after that, you can do with it as you please.
Post by: racquetcat on April 05, 2021, 07:47:25 AM
I spent a semester in Sweden during college and I absolutely loved the culture, landscape, and pizza with kebab on it!
I especially loved the culture of lagom and the freedom to access land, both are things I wish we had more of in the US. I really wish I had tried to find a job in Sweden after I graduated from University, but oh well.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
Post by: lemanfan on April 05, 2021, 10:44:26 AM
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
Another swede here filling in, although not a lawyer:
People in Sweden who live like that - not formally married but living like they were - are sometimes doing it without knowing the consequences. The author Stieg Larsson ("The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and many others) and his partner did that... so that even that they had lived like they were married for over 30 years, his brothers ended up with the rights to the very big estate instead of his life partner.
I have friends who have stayed "not married" but instead written a legal contract to regulate as much as possible as they want it, as they feel it was easier to get it "right" according to their wishes than getting the default situation that a marriage would give. This kind of contract, "samboavtal", is often encouraged by advisors for those who are not married if they have a joint home or kids together.
Edit to add: Much of that contract stuff I mentioned is for separation ("divorce"), not inheritance. Then you of course also need to look into the wills and inheritance laws. And at least one couple in my circle of friends got married after the Stieg Larson debacle.
Post by: AMandM on April 05, 2021, 07:56:46 PM
Did that happen to Larsen's estate because he didn't have a will? Or did he have a will naming his partner but that will was illegal under Swedish law?
Does any Swede have any leeway in how to leave money? What happens if I have no husband, no children, no siblings, and my parents are both dead?
Post by: Plina on April 05, 2021, 11:18:24 PM
Hej, hej @Plina !
I spent a semester in Sweden during college and I absolutely loved the culture, landscape, and pizza with kebab on it!
I especially loved the culture of lagom and the freedom to access land, both are things I wish we had more of in the US. I really wish I had tried to find a job in Sweden after I graduated from University, but oh well.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
It seems to be a way to protect the inheritance of the family and going back to the 13 th century. The right of children to inherit seems to have been subject to some changes during the years. In 1848 both male and female children got the equal right to inherit. In 1917 the children born out of wedlock got the right to inherit their mothers and 1969 for fathers due to the blood relations. The current system is a mix of the right of the children to their inheritance and the protection of the spouse. There was an investigation in the beginning of the 80ies if to allow a free choice regarding the inheritance as most people don’t have a need of an inheritance today but it was seen as a way to create fairness among all children of the deceased. There was a fear that the children in previous relationsships would be left out. I didn’t actually know this before but it seems to not have anything to do with our domestic partnerships.
Actually you can leave different amount to your children, it is only half of your estate that have to be equally distributed among all your children. If you have given large gifts to one of your children it can be accounted towards the inheritance. Maybe, it is just me but I don’t know anyone that support their adult children. The father of a friend gave a monthly stipend to both of his children as a way to distribute the inheritance before his death but neither of them needed it for their living.
If you don’t have children and a spouse, your parents inherit. If they are dead your siblings inherit and in case they are dead their children. Thereafter, you have to have a will if you don’t want the money to go to the state owned public estate trust. The trust donates money to different causes. But if you don’t have kids or a spouse you can do what you want with your money. I don’t have neither and I have currently chosen to not have a will. That will change the day my parents are gone.
It happened because Stieg Larsen didn’t have a will. He could have named his partner and she would have inherited everything. The law is made to protect your children and married spouse, not the rest of the relatives.
Post by: lemanfan on April 06, 2021, 01:45:12 AM
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
That is a really good question. And my answer is that I don't really know, for possibly two reasons.
The first is that altough Sweden is a very open society (Example: anyone can make an anonymous call to the tax office and find out the personal ID-number (SSN equivalent) and the taxed income of anyone else), many people simply don't talk about money. Not in the workplace and not among friends. You might say how much you paid for your car or your house, but you don't talk about income or wealth.
The second reason I think is that due to structural differences, many people simply don't have a very big estate. Even the top earners make less money than in the USA, and we're taxed higher. Many people also live quite long, spending their money as time passes and few people get a life-changing windfall upon the death of a relative. Inheritance is therefore not really a widespread way to support your kids.
I'm closing in on 50 years of age, meaning that my parents, and the parents of most of my friends are still alive in their 70-ies. I've yet to hear of any big disputes about inheritance among my friends or acquaintances. As the results of the real estate boom in the last few years, I'm sure I will hear of someone with a house worth millions (in SEK, not necessarily in USD) which will create a conflict, but nothing yet in my surroundings.
Up until 2004 Sweden had taxes on inheritance and gifts above a certain threshold and that created some work regarding wills and estates, but the main focus I saw was more often to create a situation where the children or other recipients would not have to sell the land, company or other holding that was passed down in order to pay these taxes.
One of my grandfathers had a small plot of forest (70 hectares, 150 acres) and back in the 1980-ies he made a plan that took over a decade to execute in order to gift this plot to his four kids without a too high tax burden. The removal of the gift- and estate taxes made this kind of planning redundant.
Edit: I see that I use "inheritance tax" as a synonym for "estate tax". Sorry for any confusion, I'm not sure they mean the same thing in the US. :)
Post by: merula on April 06, 2021, 08:08:00 AM
Edit: I see that I use "inheritance tax" as a synonym for "estate tax". Sorry for any confusion, I'm not sure they mean the same thing in the US. :)
They do mean the same thing here. :)
As someone who lives in a place heavily settled by Swedish immigrants, I'm always fascinated by random stuff that seems to originate from the Old Country. The US on the whole is a "talk about money" place, if not directly then indirectly, but Minnesota is not AT ALL.
Post by: Imma on April 06, 2021, 09:39:30 AM
Hej, hej @Plina !
I spent a semester in Sweden during college and I absolutely loved the culture, landscape, and pizza with kebab on it!
I especially loved the culture of lagom and the freedom to access land, both are things I wish we had more of in the US. I really wish I had tried to find a job in Sweden after I graduated from University, but oh well.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
It seems to be a way to protect the inheritance of the family and going back to the 13 th century. The right of children to inherit seems to have been subject to some changes during the years. In 1848 both male and female children got the equal right to inherit. In 1917 the children born out of wedlock got the right to inherit their mothers and 1969 for fathers due to the blood relations. The current system is a mix of the right of the children to their inheritance and the protection of the spouse. There was an investigation in the beginning of the 80ies if to allow a free choice regarding the inheritance as most people don’t have a need of an inheritance today but it was seen as a way to create fairness among all children of the deceased. There was a fear that the children in previous relationsships would be left out. I didn’t actually know this before but it seems to not have anything to do with our domestic partnerships.
Actually you can leave different amount to your children, it is only half of your estate that have to be equally distributed among all your children. If you have given large gifts to one of your children it can be accounted towards the inheritance. Maybe, it is just me but I don’t know anyone that support their adult children. The father of a friend gave a monthly stipend to both of his children as a way to distribute the inheritance before his death but neither of them needed it for their living.
If you don’t have children and a spouse, your parents inherit. If they are dead your siblings inherit and in case they are dead their children. Thereafter, you have to have a will if you don’t want the money to go to the state owned public estate trust. The trust donates money to different causes. But if you don’t have kids or a spouse you can do what you want with your money. I don’t have neither and I have currently chosen to not have a will. That will change the day my parents are gone.
It happened because Stieg Larsen didn’t have a will. He could have named his partner and she would have inherited everything. The law is made to protect your children and married spouse, not the rest of the relatives.
I think it's pretty common across Europe that it's mandatory to leave money to your kids or you have to leave equal amounts etc. An inheritance is historically seen as a birthright, and would usually consist of (a share in) a farm or farmland or maybe a townhouse - and of course, lots of people never left inheritances at all. Those rules were designed for the wealthy. In some juridictions I think you can disinherit your children but if you fight that decision, a judge will decide if the reason you did that was 'good enough'.
In my country, if you do not leave a will, your children will inherit equal parts in your inheritance. You can change that in your will, but your child is always entitled to half of what they would have inherited if you did not leave a will (their "legitimate portion" or "child's share") but they can only inherit money, not goods. So you can make sure one child inherits valuable goods like an art collection, the other child is only entitled to a portion of the value but cannot claim the paintings itself.
Post by: Plina on April 06, 2021, 11:30:02 AM
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
That is a really good question. And my answer is that I don't really know, for possibly two reasons.
The first is that altough Sweden is a very open society (Example: anyone can make an anonymous call to the tax office and find out the personal ID-number (SSN equivalent) and the taxed income of anyone else), many people simply don't talk about money. Not in the workplace and not among friends. You might say how much you paid for your car or your house, but you don't talk about income or wealth.
The second reason I think is that due to structural differences, many people simply don't have a very big estate. Even the top earners make less money than in the USA, and we're taxed higher. Many people also live quite long, spending their money as time passes and few people get a life-changing windfall upon the death of a relative. Inheritance is therefore not really a widespread way to support your kids.
In government workplaces the salaries are open info so everybody knows how much your colleagues earn. I have always had a pretty good view of how much my colleagues earn even when in private companies and I have no problem telling someone how much I earn. My boss told me what my colleagues earn when we talked about my salary. I actually knew it beforehand because I had looked it up so I knew I would end up ok.
We are also pretty open about salaries in the family and my parent have a pretty good picture about my financial situation even if they don’t know the actual numbers. I have known my parents financial situation since I was a kid. I also talk about finances with friends so salaries are no secret although the wealth numbers are. I guess it depends a lot on how open you are about your salaries and financial situation on how much info you get.
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 06, 2021, 02:44:25 PM
Hej, hej @Plina !
I spent a semester in Sweden during college and I absolutely loved the culture, landscape, and pizza with kebab on it!
I especially loved the culture of lagom and the freedom to access land, both are things I wish we had more of in the US. I really wish I had tried to find a job in Sweden after I graduated from University, but oh well.
Anyway, do you expect Swedish inheritance laws are set up that way since a lot of people have long term domestic partnerships and kids without ever getting officially married?
It seems to be a way to protect the inheritance of the family and going back to the 13 th century. The right of children to inherit seems to have been subject to some changes during the years. In 1848 both male and female children got the equal right to inherit. In 1917 the children born out of wedlock got the right to inherit their mothers and 1969 for fathers due to the blood relations. The current system is a mix of the right of the children to their inheritance and the protection of the spouse. There was an investigation in the beginning of the 80ies if to allow a free choice regarding the inheritance as most people don’t have a need of an inheritance today but it was seen as a way to create fairness among all children of the deceased. There was a fear that the children in previous relationsships would be left out. I didn’t actually know this before but it seems to not have anything to do with our domestic partnerships.
Actually you can leave different amount to your children, it is only half of your estate that have to be equally distributed among all your children. If you have given large gifts to one of your children it can be accounted towards the inheritance. Maybe, it is just me but I don’t know anyone that support their adult children. The father of a friend gave a monthly stipend to both of his children as a way to distribute the inheritance before his death but neither of them needed it for their living.
If you don’t have children and a spouse, your parents inherit. If they are dead your siblings inherit and in case they are dead their children. Thereafter, you have to have a will if you don’t want the money to go to the state owned public estate trust. The trust donates money to different causes. But if you don’t have kids or a spouse you can do what you want with your money. I don’t have neither and I have currently chosen to not have a will. That will change the day my parents are gone.
It happened because Stieg Larsen didn’t have a will. He could have named his partner and she would have inherited everything. The law is made to protect your children and married spouse, not the rest of the relatives.
I think it's pretty common across Europe that it's mandatory to leave money to your kids or you have to leave equal amounts etc. An inheritance is historically seen as a birthright, and would usually consist of (a share in) a farm or farmland or maybe a townhouse - and of course, lots of people never left inheritances at all. Those rules were designed for the wealthy. In some juridictions I think you can disinherit your children but if you fight that decision, a judge will decide if the reason you did that was 'good enough'.
In my country, if you do not leave a will, your children will inherit equal parts in your inheritance. You can change that in your will, but your child is always entitled to half of what they would have inherited if you did not leave a will (their "legitimate portion" or "child's share") but they can only inherit money, not goods. So you can make sure one child inherits valuable goods like an art collection, the other child is only entitled to a portion of the value but cannot claim the paintings itself.
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.
Post by: Dicey on April 06, 2021, 02:50:42 PM
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 06, 2021, 02:53:24 PM
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
He was extremely wealthy though - owned several apartment buildings in a nice part of town. Seemed to live a life of luxury. It would be difficult to spent that amount of money on his partner.
Post by: Dicey on April 06, 2021, 03:25:40 PM
I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to give it all to his partner. Personally, I'd just want to divert enough so that he and the partner weren't completely shafted by the long-lost daughter.It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
He was extremely wealthy though - owned several apartment buildings in a nice part of town. Seemed to live a life of luxury. It would be difficult to spent that amount of money on his partner.
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 06, 2021, 03:33:38 PM
I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to give it all to his partner. Personally, I'd just want to divert enough so that he and the partner weren't completely shafted by the long-lost daughter.It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
He was extremely wealthy though - owned several apartment buildings in a nice part of town. Seemed to live a life of luxury. It would be difficult to spent that amount of money on his partner.
From what I remember there was a small portion that he could will to his partner but the vast majority would go to rotten daughter automatically. If it hadn't gone to her it would have gone to his siblings.
Post by: TomTX on April 06, 2021, 03:58:03 PM
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
Establish residency in a country with sane inheritance laws, or put everything into a trust/corporation/whatever legal structure with the partner as beneficiary.
I don't know if it's the same in Italy, but in the USA it's pretty simple to have money, stocks, bonds and such bypass probate entirely. Set up a "payable on death" beneficiary. Estate never even sees the money. Real estate ownership can be structured with right of survivorship. Etc.
If you're even moderately wealthy, there are always ways to do what you want with your money (for the most part.) Find a good estate lawyer and get it done.
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 06, 2021, 04:12:38 PM
It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
Establish residency in a country with sane inheritance laws, or put everything into a trust/corporation/whatever legal structure with the partner as beneficiary.
I don't know if it's the same in Italy, but in the USA it's pretty simple to have money, stocks, bonds and such bypass probate entirely. Set up a "payable on death" beneficiary. Estate never even sees the money. Real estate ownership can be structured with right of survivorship. Etc.
If you're even moderately wealthy, there are always ways to do what you want with your money (for the most part.) Find a good estate lawyer and get it done.
The point of my post is that inheritance laws are completely different here from the US. I don't think that what you're suggesting is possible under italian law but if there are any italian lawyers on the forum they could correct me.
Post by: SwordGuy on April 06, 2021, 04:50:37 PM
Lots of other things for the lawyer to double-check, but that's the start of how to try to do it. Of course, he had better (rightly) trust his partner. Then again, without the gifts the partner might not be able to make the payments and would lose out on their investment.
Post by: Villanelle on April 06, 2021, 05:15:35 PM
I wouldn't expect that it would be possible to give it all to his partner. Personally, I'd just want to divert enough so that he and the partner weren't completely shafted by the long-lost daughter.It's the same here in Italy so I guess this is a European thing. It can lead to some terrible outcomes. The worst story I heard was many years ago when i first moved here and taught English on the side to make some money. One of my students was a very wealthy, old Italian man who actually spoke great English (which he learned by reading the Economist) but just wanted to chat for practice. He was a semi-closeted gay man with a long term partner that not everyone knew about. Anyway, his long lost daughter had come out of the woodwork a few years before we met. At first, he was delighted. Apparently he had had a girlfriend during his university days and she had become pregnant without his knowledge. When he met his daughter he spent a lot of time with her, they did DNA tests to confirm paternity and he acknowledged paternity legally. As soon as he did this, she disappeared. He was absolutely heartbroken as it was clear that she'd only sought out her father in order to get him to acknowledge paternity and inherit his entire (very sizable) estate when he died. The saddest thing is that gay marriage didn't exist here in Italy (still doesn't) so his long term partner would have no rights to his estate whereas his rotten daughter would. There was absolutely nothing he could do about this.Hmmm, in his [fine Italian] shoes, I'd have spent money on my SO in any way possible. Lavish gifts, travel, jewelry, gold coins...
He was extremely wealthy though - owned several apartment buildings in a nice part of town. Seemed to live a life of luxury. It would be difficult to spent that amount of money on his partner.
Yeah, I'd be buying gifts for that partner that held their value, even if the partner didn't actually like them. Jewelry, precious stones, truly valuable antiques and art, etc. Not hard to spend a *lot* of money on someone. Gift them one Picasso and that should more or less take care of most of it!
Post by: Dicey on April 06, 2021, 11:36:31 PM
Post by: Imma on April 07, 2021, 04:05:48 AM
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 07, 2021, 02:29:52 PM
Another inheritance drama I heard about here was an old man without a spouse or kids who lived in our old building. He left his apartment to the doorman and his wife when he died after a long illness. The doorman and wife had been taking care of him, bringing him food, taking him to doctor's appointments etc. for years. Several people in the building claimed that they were only doing all this in order to manipulate the old man to leave them his apartment. At one point one of these neighbors came to our door to try to convince my husband to join them in digging up the old man's long lost relatives in his home village (I think they said that they were cousins) and convincing them to sue the doorman and his wife for stealing their rightful inheritance. My husband told them to go away and never ask him this again. Apparently these cousins in the old man's birth village, who hadn't seen him in many years and didn't even know that he had died, had a right to half (or it may have been three quarters) of his apartment because they were his closest relatives. Luckily for everyone, they declined to sue so the doorman and his wife got to keep the apartment.
Post by: scottish on April 07, 2021, 03:17:29 PM
I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
How are inheritance taxes structured in the Netherlands? This particular tax grab is largely missing in Canada, I'm curious what the future may bring.
Post by: Imma on April 08, 2021, 12:49:50 AM
I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
How are inheritance taxes structured in the Netherlands? This particular tax grab is largely missing in Canada, I'm curious what the future may bring.
Inheritance taxes have been a thing since the mid-19th century and were at that point a way to deal with aristocratic landownership. And by the turn of the 20th century, the aristocracy's power over the land had been broken. My family were able to set themselves up as independent farmers in the late 19th century and without inheritance tax, that wouldn't have happened. The local lord of the manor would never voluntarily sell to his former tenant farmers. Tenant farmers had few rights in those days, they could be kicked out of their farm if they converted to a different religion and if they wanted to move they needed a good reference from their old lord to secure a new tenancy elsewhere. So for my ancestors to start owning their own property was a massive thing.
A part of the inheritance is tax-free, then there's a portion that is taxed at a lower rate, then anything over that is taxed at full rate. For a spouse or legal partner, something like €675.000 is tax free and €125.000 over that is taxed at a lower rate of 10%. So only if the estate is larger than €800.000, a spouse has to pay 20% tax. So that's something you'd only have to deal with if your total net worth is over 1,6 million. The average inheritance from a spouse is €80.000, so very few spouses actually pay inheritance tax.
What bothers me though, as a childless person, that there are great tax advantages to leaving money or a business to a spouse or a direct descendent, but if you are leaving money to someone who is not a blood relative, it's taxed at an extremely high rate (tax-free portion of €2000, 30% tax over the next €125.000, 40% tax over the rest of the estate). I can give away some money before death as a tax-free gift, but that's only €3000/year. So unfortunately a large part of my estate will go to the taxman for the simple reason that I did not have children - and I've already saved society a fortune by not having them.
Post by: SwordGuy on April 08, 2021, 07:27:23 AM
but if you are leaving money to someone who is not a blood relative, it's taxed at an extremely high rate (tax-free portion of €2000, 30% tax over the next €125.000, 40% tax over the rest of the estate). I can give away some money before death as a tax-free gift, but that's only €3000/year.Set up a passive business for with them with the terms that their ownership of the business increases because they are doing the work on the business and you aren't. Then it's not a gift and each year the percentage that would be taxed would drop. Rental real estate would be an example, another would be sharecropped farmland. If you can set it up as a joint tenancy with write of survivorship, they own it when you die.
Post by: Catbert on April 08, 2021, 10:53:24 AM
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
Did that happen to Larsen's estate because he didn't have a will? Or did he have a will naming his partner but that will was illegal under Swedish law?
Does any Swede have any leeway in how to leave money? What happens if I have no husband, no children, no siblings, and my parents are both dead?
My memory of the Steig Larrson case: Steig Larrson and his partner had been together their entire adult life. They were broke reporters owning nothing of particular value and no will. He wrote 3 books (and outlined 7 more). Shortly after a book deal was signed and before they were published he died suddenly (heart attack?). The books were published posthumously and were surprise best sellers. His brother (and father?) inherited his entire estate. His partner may have had physical possession of the outlines but no right to use them. I may have some details wrong but really in this case what happened is exactly what would happen in the US in similar circumstances.
Post by: Imma on April 08, 2021, 02:31:21 PM
but if you are leaving money to someone who is not a blood relative, it's taxed at an extremely high rate (tax-free portion of €2000, 30% tax over the next €125.000, 40% tax over the rest of the estate). I can give away some money before death as a tax-free gift, but that's only €3000/year.Set up a passive business for with them with the terms that their ownership of the business increases because they are doing the work on the business and you aren't. Then it's not a gift and each year the percentage that would be taxed would drop. Rental real estate would be an example, another would be sharecropped farmland. If you can set it up as a joint tenancy with write of survivorship, they own it when you die.
You're right, there are many tax planning options. Right now I'm hesitating to start that because I'm not FI yet and a lot of those options are not-reversible. But I am slowly starting to plan for the day I have more money than I'll ever need.
My mother recently disclosed to me how much I'd inherit if she were to die today (I'm glad we're open about that in my family). It's more than I thought it would be. She started over from less than 0 when she divorced in middle age but through smart decisions and frugal life she's now doing just as well as many married couples in their 60s are. She enjoys her job and isn't planning on retiring anytime soon. Judging by the lives and deaths of her parents and grandparents she could have 25 good healthy years ahead of her and then die very quickly and unexpectedly (and needing very little care). At that point I may not need any inheritance at all and I could just choose to not accept any money from her estate so my siblings get more (they'll need it more too), I could just take some sentimental things. That would be more tax efficient since I'd want money from her estate to go to my siblings after my death. I've told my mother she should take the trips she's always talked about and spend money on what makes her happy, she worked hard for that money, but she's frugal, she's not going to spend much.
We own our family home in joint tenancy with right of survivorship but in our country that still makes you liable for inheritance tax. We chose the right of survivorship as an extra protection in case any of our relatives would think of contesting the will. When we bought the house was our only real asset. I don't think any of our heirs could ever succesfully contest the will, but in case someone tried I want Mr Imma to have full control over our house immediately, even though he may have to wait for the rest of my estate.
Post by: iris lily on April 09, 2021, 08:38:04 AM
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
Did that happen to Larsen's estate because he didn't have a will? Or did he have a will naming his partner but that will was illegal under Swedish law?
Does any Swede have any leeway in how to leave money? What happens if I have no husband, no children, no siblings, and my parents are both dead?
My memory of the Steig Larrson case: Steig Larrson and his partner had been together their entire adult life. They were broke reporters owning nothing of particular value and no will. He wrote 3 books (and outlined 7 more). Shortly after a book deal was signed and before they were published he died suddenly (heart attack?). The books were published posthumously and were surprise best sellers. His brother (and father?) inherited his entire estate. His partner may have had physical possession of the outlines but no right to use them. I may have some details wrong but really in this case what happened is exactly what would happen in the US in similar circumstances.
It sounds like his partner still could’ve made out like a bandit by selling the physical objects she owned, the remaining manuscripts, to Larrson’s family who owned the rights to publish them.
Post by: Villanelle on April 09, 2021, 12:27:35 PM
Fascinating. I wonder whether Swedes make different decisions about supporting their children financially than people do who live in places where you can leave different amounts to different children.
Did that happen to Larsen's estate because he didn't have a will? Or did he have a will naming his partner but that will was illegal under Swedish law?
Does any Swede have any leeway in how to leave money? What happens if I have no husband, no children, no siblings, and my parents are both dead?
My memory of the Steig Larrson case: Steig Larrson and his partner had been together their entire adult life. They were broke reporters owning nothing of particular value and no will. He wrote 3 books (and outlined 7 more). Shortly after a book deal was signed and before they were published he died suddenly (heart attack?). The books were published posthumously and were surprise best sellers. His brother (and father?) inherited his entire estate. His partner may have had physical possession of the outlines but no right to use them. I may have some details wrong but really in this case what happened is exactly what would happen in the US in similar circumstances.
It sounds like his partner still could’ve made out like a bandit by selling the physical objects she owned, the remaining manuscripts, to Larrson’s family who owned the rights to publish them.
That depends. If the outlines were his at the time of death, those would have inherited by the family. If she owned them, she probably could have done that. But that would have required him to give her outlines for stories he hadn't actually written, which seems unlikely to happen. I'm a writer and I have all sorts of outlines and partially written things. I would never say to anyone, "these belong to you" both because they have no value (which is how Larrson would have perceived them at the time) and because they are sort of personal-feeling. Why would you think to gift them to anyone else? And if he didn't specifically do that, they were his, not the partners (who I've assumed is a 'her', mostly for the sake of clarity so I can use different pronouns) so is family owned them--both the physical objects and the intellectual and creative property.
Now, I'd hope in that case that the family would be decent and share at least some of their windfall with their son/brother's. That seems the morally correct choice. But not everyone strives for "moral" in these cases, and even when they do, the bottom line they arrive at as fair my not feel fair to the partner. Should have have given her half? 90%? All except death and funeral expenses? What is "fair"? What would Steig have wanted? Absent a specific conversation, there's no way to know that.
This thread caused me to google their situation. Supposedly, a big part of the reason they didn't marry is that he was a political journalist who had made enemies (and a time when Sweden had a high-profile murdering of a political journalist, even). Marrying would have required publishing their address. And she also used to sometimes hide the identity of her partner from people, for their safety. But it sounds like they had actually planned to marry, finally, because he had gotten a book deal and was moving out of political journalism (at least partly). Apparently (I don't know if this fact is disputed) they had planned a birthday party at which they planned to surprise the guests with the knowledge that it was actually a wedding reception. But he died before it happened. And because of that, she got nothing (though she ended up getting to keep their apartment, though she had to fight the family even for that). She also claims to have been active in advising him on his writing, making many suggestions he used in the book. And she claims that many things the family did with the estate were actively against his wishes. he had refused to let the Swedish publishers change the name he had chose for the book (Men who Hate Women) so clearly that was important to him, but the family let the US (and other) publishers change it to what we know--The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
It's a sad story.
Post by: Imma on April 09, 2021, 02:30:49 PM
Post by: iris lily on April 09, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
Post by: merula on April 09, 2021, 03:18:40 PM
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
So many people don't think they need wills if they don't have kids, or don't have significant assets. If he'd had a will, he could've done whatever he wanted with his assets, but he didn't. And even in the countries that require leaving some amount to immediate family, there's nothing to prevent you from giving to charity instead of your nieces/nephews.
Post by: Imma on April 09, 2021, 03:28:30 PM
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
I don't know about Sweden, but in my country (the Netherlands) only parents are obliged to leave something to their children. If you don't have a spouse or kids it's just tax disadvantaged to let non-family inherit, it's not impossible. A child has a birthright to their parents' estate, but a sibling or niece/nephew doesn't, there's only a strong moral obligation in my social circle, and a tax advantage.
In my country, charities can get inheritances tax-free. If I wanted to leave my estate to a friend they'd pay a fortune in taxes but a charity would not have to pay that.
Post by: Plina on April 09, 2021, 04:14:39 PM
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
I don't know about Sweden, but in my country (the Netherlands) only parents are obliged to leave something to their children. If you don't have a spouse or kids it's just tax disadvantaged to let non-family inherit, it's not impossible. A child has a birthright to their parents' estate, but a sibling or niece/nephew doesn't, there's only a strong moral obligation in my social circle, and a tax advantage.
In my country, charities can get inheritances tax-free. If I wanted to leave my estate to a friend they'd pay a fortune in taxes but a charity would not have to pay that.
You can exclude everyone except your married spouse or kids. You are under no obligation to leave anything to your parents, siblings, nieces or nephews. I would not say there is a moral obligation to leave your money to nieces or nephews in Sweden but it is common that they receive the inheritance because there is no will or there is a will to a favourite among nieces or nephews. There is no point in having a will if your inheritance goes to the one that you want to anyway as we don’t have an estatetax there is no reason to make extra hassle to avoid taxes.
I would say it is less common to give to charities but it also exists. We fund a lot of what your charities fund already through taxes.
In Larsson case it is pretty simple legally. If there is no will, the partner don’t inherit. You can pretty much look up everyones adresses on internet if they are not made secret due to some threat, which happens only in extreme cases. If you Google me you would get my adress, birthday, who I am living with, how much my apartment is worth and my neighbours, my vehicules and if you paid income. You can also call the tax authority to get the same information as well as the social security number. The telephonenumber is pretty much the only thing that you can hide. So I don’t believe the adress theory. If you have protection it would not be realised due to a marriage.
I believe it was one of the cases were they could not be bothered to do wills. In Sweden there is a societal expectation that both parties support themselves so I am not that surprised that there was no will. I had friends that got married after being together for 20 years, when he got terminal cancer probably to make things easier when the inevitable happened.
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on April 09, 2021, 10:37:10 PM
In Larsson case it is pretty simple legally. If there is no will, the partner don’t inherit.
Amazing. It does show how different laws are around the world. In British Columbia, if you have cohabited for 2 years you are considered married. Dying without a will causes the estate to be handled by the government, so other family members could have also made claims, but (without kids) his partner would have had the strongest claim.
Post by: Plina on April 09, 2021, 11:54:09 PM
In Larsson case it is pretty simple legally. If there is no will, the partner don’t inherit.
Amazing. It does show how different laws are around the world. In British Columbia, if you have cohabited for 2 years you are considered married. Dying without a will causes the estate to be handled by the government, so other family members could have also made claims, but (without kids) his partner would have had the strongest claim.
The heirs handle the estate together her. When my fathers uncle without spouse or kids died my father and a cousin stepped in and handled the funeral and the estate. In this case there are about 20 nieces and nephews that inherited because of lack of will. They hired someone to make a list of the inventory. It was made based on the cousins knowledge of the content. Most of the cousins gave a power of attorney to the person hired. The list was submitted to the tax authority who approved it.The estate is now ready to be divided. It would have been a pretty standard case if there had not been a property that is coowned.
If the heirs can’t agree on how to handle the estate or to split the estate then the court can appoint a lawyer to handle the estate. It is pretty rare because the cost of lawyer will in most case eat up the estate and most of the people don’t want to end up with a legal bill.
Post by: lemanfan on April 10, 2021, 03:52:28 AM
@Plina check out https://mrkoll.se/ - there you might find even more info available about us, free for anyone and online. :)
Post by: lemanfan on April 10, 2021, 04:28:12 AM
My paternal grandfather had six siblings. One sister and five brothers. Four of the brothers emigrated in the early 1900:s and two ended up in Canada with large families and to in California but left no kids (at least not known to us). One sister and two brothers thus stayed in Sweden.
The remaining Swedish brother had a partly hard life, where he survived both his son and his wife by decades, but I remember him as the joker of the family - always in a good mood and always making jokes or playing pranks. I think he drank quite a bit.
In the mid 1980:ies he passed away and my father as his nephew was then one of the closest living relatives - but there was scores of more distant relatives in Sweden, Canada, UK and possibly in the USA. I was in the early teens at the time but I helped my father and another relative to clean out the apartment and when doing that we found an envelope addressed to the survivors of his death.
So we opened the envelope, which gave directions to a hidden cabinet in the apartment, which in turn directed us to an urn in a bookshelf... and then a treasure hunt took place with one clue leading to the next in several steps - until we finally found a key to a security box at the local bank.
At the bank, the manager first wouldn't let us open the safety box since all affected relatives was not there, but after a long discussion and a call to a lawyer, we were finally allowed to open the box. And in the box we found just an old rubber band.
He had managed to play one final joke on us. Wherever he ended up in the afterlife, I'm sure he giggled like I remember him doing when thinking of this. :)
Post by: Plina on April 10, 2021, 05:04:52 AM
This thread made me realize I need a will. If nothing else but to prevent my money going to the Swedish Inheritance Fund if the unexpected happens.
@Plina check out https://mrkoll.se/ - there you might find even more info available about us, free for anyone and online. :)
Nice, it only gets worse.
I will wait with the will while my parents are alive but thereafter I will deal with getting one as I don’t want the money spent on some thing that I would probably consider stupid by my siblings. So either it goes to my sisters kids depending on if I like what they become or charity.
Post by: TomTX on April 10, 2021, 07:10:25 AM
but if you are leaving money to someone who is not a blood relative, it's taxed at an extremely high rate (tax-free portion of €2000, 30% tax over the next €125.000, 40% tax over the rest of the estate). I can give away some money before death as a tax-free gift, but that's only €3000/year.Set up a passive business for with them with the terms that their ownership of the business increases because they are doing the work on the business and you aren't. Then it's not a gift and each year the percentage that would be taxed would drop. Rental real estate would be an example, another would be sharecropped farmland. If you can set it up as a joint tenancy with write of survivorship, they own it when you die.
Yep. There is almost always some kind of arrangement where you can legally avoid estate taxes if you plan early enough. Which is why I originally suggested an estate lawyer (or whatever the Italian equivalent is).
Post by: iris lily on April 10, 2021, 08:45:25 AM
Post by: Dicey on April 10, 2021, 09:03:56 AM
Lemanfan, I loved your story!Me, too!
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on April 10, 2021, 12:58:47 PM
It was so cool. I really, really want to do this now!Lemanfan, I loved your story!Me, too!
Post by: Sayyadina on April 10, 2021, 02:02:16 PM
Post by: iris lily on April 10, 2021, 02:29:15 PM
Post by: talltexan on April 12, 2021, 08:31:54 AM
Post by: DadJokes on April 15, 2021, 06:22:21 AM
OK, I've spammed this thread enough without posting a story, so let me post one which might be a bit different drama than most...
...
He had managed to play one final joke on us. Wherever he ended up in the afterlife, I'm sure he giggled like I remember him doing when thinking of this. :)
Absolutely beautiful. Thanks for sharing that.
Post by: bluebelle on April 15, 2021, 09:14:02 AM
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
How are inheritance taxes structured in the Netherlands? This particular tax grab is largely missing in Canada, I'm curious what the future may bring.
Post by: Imma on April 15, 2021, 09:33:58 AM
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.I have absolutely no idea how that works in Italy, but in the Netherlands, gifts over about €3000 to someone who is not a relative (blood or by marriage) are taxable. And any gifts that are gifted in the 6 months before death have to be returned to the estate, to make sure people aren't going to give away a large part of the estate when they know they are going to die, to avoid inheritance tax. Depending on the circumstances, if an elderly person would give large gifts to someone before their death, the heirs could potentially claim that that someone abused the trust and the age of the person leaving the inheritance and it could go to court.
It happened in my family when an elderly person died, that person had no children or spouse but lots of nieces and nephews. One of them spent a lot of time caring for that person and in return for that they would get money. Not significant amounts, something like €50/100 a week. People seriously considered going to court over that, but in the end the size of the estate was not worth it. But inheriting equal shares of the "family money" was something that everyone considered to be a birthright, even though one was a carer and the others were not. I was not an heir of that estate, but I knew my family member was mentally competent, no one took advantage of them, so I feel they absolutely had a right to give their own money to their carer.
In our country only parents can't disinherit their children, so if you don't have children you can totally disinherit your siblings or nieces/nephews, but it would be extremely unusual in my social circle.
How are inheritance taxes structured in the Netherlands? This particular tax grab is largely missing in Canada, I'm curious what the future may bring.
We have no capital gains tax at all, so I guess that's the difference.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on April 15, 2021, 10:17:06 AM
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
Post by: SwordGuy on April 15, 2021, 10:51:58 AM
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
No, it's not necessarily at ALL the same thing.
If the estate owes taxes it can't pay, in one case you might inherit nothing and in the other you inherit the debt!
However, if debt can't be inherited without voluntarily accepting real property that the debt is attached to AND the tax is progressively tied to income (i.e., the more income the higher the effective rate of taxation), then an estate divided into multiple parts might pay more tax than the individuals only being taxed on their share might pay. And if their was only one inheritor, the inheritor might pay more tax in total because they have their own income added in.
:)
Post by: marty998 on April 22, 2021, 01:39:24 AM
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
Late to this discussion but I'm starting to understand why Regicide was so common among European royalty....
Post by: Capsu78 on April 22, 2021, 10:09:41 AM
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
Post by: Plina on April 22, 2021, 11:20:23 AM
I wonder why he didn't leave a will. It sounds like they were together for ages, and lived like a married couple but didn't want to go through the formalities for understandable reasons. From a quick google search it seems like he was long-term estranged from his father and brother and had been engaged to his partner for 20 years. Maybe because he figured he'd have nothing of value to leave her? But it seems like at the very least they owned a flat together and he must have had some personal property. Even if he hadn't become famous after death, you'd think he'd wanted that to go to his partner rather than his stranged family.
His isnt one of those countries that awarded his assets to his legal relatives?
I do find that idea of European countries shocking. Damn, it’s my money, the last thing I want is my $3 million going to my brothers and sisters nieces and nephews. Well they are getting some of it in our current well, they’re organizations I would much rather leave money to.
So in these European countries spoken of above, do organizations i.e. charities get anything upon someone’s death?
Late to this discussion but I'm starting to understand why Regicide was so common among European royalty....
There is a limitation. If you kill your parents, you can’t inherit them. So you have to do it undetected.
Post by: wevan on April 22, 2021, 12:50:26 PM
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
I know I'm misreading your post, but I'm laughing over the picture of a thread earnestly discussing which subforum to post a copy of your will on.
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 05, 2021, 10:03:48 AM
not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
I am not certain about exactly how this works, but I think in the UK the heir(s) have to pay the inheritance tax before getting their hands on the estate. This is a colossal pain in the ass, because it's really not that unusual for the amount assessed for inheritance tax to be more than the heirs personal NW. It's like in Guys and Dolls - if they only had a lousy little grand they could be a millionaire! But as it is, if they can't afford £30k for the tax, they can't inherit £300k (numbers made up). I believe you can get loans for this specific purpose. IMO, it should be the executors job to pay inheritance tax from the estate before distribution.
Post by: former player on May 05, 2021, 10:11:20 AM
It's not a problem if there is cash in the estate. The main problem is when the estate is basically a single house that the heirs want to keep: in that situation the tax bill can be big but there's no cash in the estate. I can't say I feel too sorry - inheritance tax only kicks in above £325,000 so the heirs are going to get a nice increase in worth whatever they do.not so much missing as paid a different way. When someone dies, without a spouse, everything they own is deemed 'sold' at time of death and any capital gains are taxed to the estate, even RRSPs and RRIFs. If the deceased has a spouse, RRIFs and RRSPs can transfer without tax, primary residence is also excluded. So the deceased pays the taxes, not the one inheriting.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Either pay taxes, then distribute, vs distribute, then pay taxes?
I am not certain about exactly how this works, but I think in the UK the heir(s) have to pay the inheritance tax before getting their hands on the estate. This is a colossal pain in the ass, because it's really not that unusual for the amount assessed for inheritance tax to be more than the heirs personal NW. It's like in Guys and Dolls - if they only had a lousy little grand they could be a millionaire! But as it is, if they can't afford £30k for the tax, they can't inherit £300k (numbers made up). I believe you can get loans for this specific purpose. IMO, it should be the executors job to pay inheritance tax from the estate before distribution.
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 05, 2021, 10:43:47 AM
Post by: partgypsy on May 06, 2021, 11:32:01 AM
Post by: Goldielocks on May 06, 2021, 12:15:23 PM
It's definitely a first world problem, but still an annoying one! I stand corrected about the cash. I know about it because my mother's friend was inheriting and couldn't pay the IHT upfront but now I come to think of it, she was inheriting a London house.
Here this is the primary use of "Term-100" life insurance -- the aging current owner buys life insurance to cover taxes due on the property when they die, so that the property does not need to be sold. It is common for cottages or other real property.
Post by: Sibley on May 06, 2021, 12:34:35 PM
The odds are good that whenever this does break up your sister is going to struggle. You won't be able to fix that either. It sucks. Try to disengage.
Post by: partgypsy on May 06, 2021, 05:09:32 PM
@partgypsy You can't fix this. I get why it's frustrating, because it is ultimately unhealthy. Your sister is getting free housing/food, your mom gets a servant. Short of your brother selling the place (and both have to move out), the only person who can fix this situation is your sister. And since she's getting something out of it she may not want to. Even if your brother sells, it's possible that they will find a place together and continue the dynamic.
The odds are good that whenever this does break up your sister is going to struggle. You won't be able to fix that either. It sucks. Try to disengage.
I don't think it's a healthy dynamic at all. My mom had a codependent relationship with my brother (different, he was the one being "taken care of") and the longer this goes the more sister will feel this is all she is capable of (she's even said as such. Also that she just needs a break because life is so stressful). And even if Mom gives her 100% of her assets, it will not be enough to live on if sister is unable to live independently.
Post by: charis on May 06, 2021, 05:30:57 PM
@partgypsy You can't fix this. I get why it's frustrating, because it is ultimately unhealthy. Your sister is getting free housing/food, your mom gets a servant. Short of your brother selling the place (and both have to move out), the only person who can fix this situation is your sister. And since she's getting something out of it she may not want to. Even if your brother sells, it's possible that they will find a place together and continue the dynamic.
The odds are good that whenever this does break up your sister is going to struggle. You won't be able to fix that either. It sucks. Try to disengage.
I don't think it's a healthy dynamic at all. My mom had a codependent relationship with my brother (different, he was the one being "taken care of") and the longer this goes the more sister will feel this is all she is capable of (she's even said as such. Also that she just needs a break because life is so stressful). And even if Mom gives her 100% of her assets, it will not be enough to live on if sister is unable to live independently.
I think Sibley was agreeing that it's not healthy, but pointing out that there is nothing you can do about it. I have a sibling living with elderly parents for much longer than necessary and it could easily become permanent because nobody seems to be willing to do anything about it. I am primarily concerned that the sibling is contributing nothing to the household and will continue to take advantage until my parents are basically broke (though the sibling routinely points out that they will never run out of money due to pensions and SS). I can see the trainwreck from years away and I will be the one (paying) to pick up the pieces, but I can't do anything about it. My parents are very stubborn and exhibiting cognitive decline. I've done the most I can - talking it out, making suggesting, sending books, suggesting therapy, etc, but nothing changes, nor can I expect it to.
Post by: alcon835 on May 07, 2021, 07:10:16 AM
Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
Post by: talltexan on May 07, 2021, 09:21:34 AM
It's definitely a first world problem, but still an annoying one! I stand corrected about the cash. I know about it because my mother's friend was inheriting and couldn't pay the IHT upfront but now I come to think of it, she was inheriting a London house.
Indeed many people don't receive sympathy for these problems because it seems like--at the center of it--is the receipt of a lot of wealth. I was discussing a friend's estate with him (his dad recently passed away), and found that using the term "emotional labor" to describe all the work he's having to do really resonated.
Post by: partgypsy on May 07, 2021, 11:51:59 AM
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
Post by: SwordGuy on May 07, 2021, 12:01:35 PM
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
Oh, now, THAT makes the situation different.
If they ask for help you should provide good advice at the least. It should follow this process:
Next time they bitch, "I'm so sorry you're facing this problem. What are you going to do to solve it?"
Next time they bitch after that, "Oh, I'm so sorry you're still facing this problem. What have you already done to try solving it?"
And if the answer is the expected, i.e., not a damn thing, then the next time they bitch after that, "Oh, I'm so sorry you're still facing this problem! What have you already done to try solving it?" Which, if the answer is still, not a damn thing, followed by, "Well, if you're not going to do a damn thing about solving this problem, they I've really got better things to do than listen to you whine about it. When you're ready to actually use actionable advice, or you've tried something and it didn't work and you want help in coming up with something else to try, let me know. Until then, I don't want to hear about it any more."
Post by: alcon835 on May 07, 2021, 12:06:28 PM
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
Yeah, I can only imagine how much that sucks :(
But I mean, if they start complaining you at least have an out, "Hey, I know you just want to complain, but it really wears me down. You know I'm willing to help you. Can we talk talk about something else?"
Post by: Villanelle on May 07, 2021, 12:18:00 PM
You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
"We've talked about this and about how you have agency in the problem and in solving it. You choose not to do so, so I ask that you please not come to me about it. I've offered all the input I have and it seems it doesn't work for you. So I don't want to discuss the mom/sister/brother situation with you anymore as it upsets me and makes me uncomfortable. On another note, did you see that cute news story about the cat who put out a fire in the family home..."
They bitch to you because you let them, just as mom and sister take advantage of brother because he lets them, and sister takes advantage of mom because she lets her. If you don't want to hear about this, tell them that. Set a boundary, and every. single. time they test it, remind them, "I told you I'm staying out of the situation and don't want to discuss it, remember? is they anything else you want to talk about?"
Post by: partgypsy on May 09, 2021, 12:06:10 PM
You are right. I listen because, I feel bad for them (brother, sister) and feel it's the least I can do (let them vent). So, I will still allow them to bitch, but let them know they have a 2/5 min; after that they need to change subject. I think might be a good approach for any of those long-standing, bitch sessions that esp my sister likes to do (same basic themes, over past 20, 30 years)You are right. It's just that then they individually bitch to me (esp my sister) so it is frustrating. But no one wants to change, so...Any suggestions?
I have one, but you're not going to like it.
Stay out of this. It sucks. It's not healthy. long-term, it's bad for everyone. And yet, none of those things are yours to fix. Your mother and sister are unwilling to change and your brother is unwilling to make them change.
They are family, so you're not impartial or truly separated from the situation, but you are powerless. You can't do anything here and you shouldn't unless someone asks you too.
You offered advice to your mom and sister (schedule and consolidate errands/chores and pay sister for her time) and they both rejected it for their own reasons. Your brother, it seems, isn't forcing sister pay rent. So, legitimately, there is nothing you can do.
The real and only suggestion you should consider is "stay out of it" unless someone asks you for help down the road. You already did all you can do. Don't try to do any more. Let it go. This isn't your battle to fight.
"We've talked about this and about how you have agency in the problem and in solving it. You choose not to do so, so I ask that you please not come to me about it. I've offered all the input I have and it seems it doesn't work for you. So I don't want to discuss the mom/sister/brother situation with you anymore as it upsets me and makes me uncomfortable. On another note, did you see that cute news story about the cat who put out a fire in the family home..."
They bitch to you because you let them, just as mom and sister take advantage of brother because he lets them, and sister takes advantage of mom because she lets her. If you don't want to hear about this, tell them that. Set a boundary, and every. single. time they test it, remind them, "I told you I'm staying out of the situation and don't want to discuss it, remember? is they anything else you want to talk about?"
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 09, 2021, 01:35:22 PM
Post by: fredbear on May 10, 2021, 09:56:26 AM
Having read all the posts, I see that @Villanelle had the exact same approach. And @SwordGuy had a good approach as well. All of our approaches involve setting some hard boundaries.
...
Here are some I have used:
- on the third complaint about a wife, "Right. I've heard that from you. Now what I want to know is what your divorce attorney said. Get back to me with that."
- on the third complaint about a nuthatch girlfriend, "Done listening. Suppose we meet at your place at 4 and I'll help you change the locks."
- on the second request for financial advice, "A man always gives his best advice first. You got that and you said, 'Oh, I could never do that.' You need to specify what my role in this conversation is, or it can't continue."
Post by: partgypsy on May 10, 2021, 05:21:30 PM
Having read all the posts, I see that @Villanelle had the exact same approach. And @SwordGuy had a good approach as well. All of our approaches involve setting some hard boundaries.
...
Here are some I have used:
- on the third complaint about a wife, "Right. I've heard that from you. Now what I want to know is what your divorce attorney said. Get back to me with that."
- on the third complaint about a nuthatch girlfriend, "Done listening. Suppose we meet at your place at 4 and I'll help you change the locks."
- on the second request for financial advice, "A man always gives his best advice first. You got that and you said, 'Oh, I could never do that.' You need to specify what my role in this conversation is, or it can't continue."
I especially love that third retort
Post by: Reynold on May 13, 2021, 01:21:51 PM
Edit: I see that I use "inheritance tax" as a synonym for "estate tax". Sorry for any confusion, I'm not sure they mean the same thing in the US. :)
They do mean the same thing here. :)
They are not actually the same thing in the U.S. The Estate tax is federal and most states follow the same formula and take a piece as well, in 2021 it has an $11.7M exemption, and it is paid by the estate. Leave anyone, relative, friend, etc. $10M and nobody pays tax on it, leave anyone $15M and there is tax paid by the estate on the amount over $11.7M. The person inheriting never pays anything. There are trusts that can be set up to get around this to some extent, but they involve high end estate planning.
The Inheritance tax exists only in a few states such as New Jersey. That is a tax paid by the person getting the money, and depends on how much they specifically get, not the size of the total estate, though they do get the money first at least. In New Jersey the exemption for a non-relative is around $25k, so if you leave a non-relative $30k, they start paying taxes on anything above that $25k exemption. Close relatives are exempt from the inheritance tax, so the inheritance tax depends a lot on who you are leaving a bequest to. I'm not sure what the latest laws are regarding domestic partners, that is also very much state by state.
Finally, in general in the U.S., you can disinherit anyone you want and make anyone the inheritor to your money and property. I believe there are even cases of making pets the inheritors of estates. If you want to disinherit a long time spouse or children, though, you had better have an air tight, witnessed will, and if it is big money there can still be a legal battle. But anything involving big money in the U.S. usually results in a legal battle. :)
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on May 14, 2021, 12:01:22 AM
They are not actually the same thing in the U.S.Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
I am not a USian, but I do have an unhealthy interest in tax systems around the world.
Post by: Capsu78 on May 14, 2021, 03:07:53 PM
They are not actually the same thing in the U.S.Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
I am not a USian, but I do have an unhealthy interest in tax systems around the world.
Re:Tax Systems. I was told a story by an Italian that the Italiian version of the IRS has an actual Police component in its ranks that have the authority to stop your vehicle. If you happen to stand out by driving a Ferrari across the border from, say, Switerland they are dressed similar to traffic law enforcement and can pull out their little Stop lollipop and by the time you are pulling out your drivers license, they are running your plates against the tax data base. "Sir, this expensive vehicle is registered to you, we can see... How can you manage such a vehicle on your reported $13,000 Euro income you have reported for the last 3 years?"
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on May 14, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
"How can you manage such a vehicle on your reported $13,000 Euro income you have reported for the last 3 years?"
The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has started using neighbourhood land values to target people for audits, if the owners don't have a matching income to afford their $2m house.
See number 8 here:
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2013/top-ten-cra-audit-flags/
I am not sure how they can sort through all the odd cases, though. Inheritance, job loss, or mustachianism could all throw off the "usual" income/asset balance.
Post by: SwordGuy on May 14, 2021, 09:36:37 PM
"How can you manage such a vehicle on your reported $13,000 Euro income you have reported for the last 3 years?"
The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has started using neighbourhood land values to target people for audits, if the owners don't have a matching income to afford their $2m house.
See number 8 here:
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2013/top-ten-cra-audit-flags/
I am not sure how they can sort through all the odd cases, though. Inheritance, job loss, or mustachianism could all throw off the "usual" income/asset balance.
In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
It's not usually too hard to see the difference between a purchase and an inheritance or gift.
Death records of the grantor of the deed could be checked to weed out most inheritances from gifts.
As for income changes for job loss, presumably the revenue service knows the income reported in past years so that wouldn't be too hard to figure out either.
Shucks, you would be surprised at how much info I can get from the registrar of deeds. I can find out how much your purchase price was, how much the mortgage was for (and thus calculate your down payment). I know when that transaction happened. I know when you took out a second mortgage against the property and how much it was for. I know when you paid off your mortgages.
Since I know when, I can search for average mortgage interest rates for a month before that and using a mortgage calculator estimate your possible P&I payments on your mortgage. The property tax office will tell me the amount of property tax you're paying.
As people are added to or subtracted from a deed I can guess there was a divorce or marriage. Don't think folks usually bother to remove a deceased person from the deed, but if they did, I would know it.
Post by: markbike528CBX on May 15, 2021, 04:27:11 AM
In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
It's not usually too hard to see the difference between a purchase and an inheritance or gift.
Death records of the grantor of the deed could be checked to weed out most inheritances from gifts.
As for income changes for job loss, presumably the revenue service knows the income reported in past years so that wouldn't be too hard to figure out either.
Shucks, you would be surprised at how much info I can get from the registrar of deeds. I can find out how much your purchase price was, how much the mortgage was for (and thus calculate your down payment). I know when that transaction happened. I know when you took out a second mortgage against the property and how much it was for. I know when you paid off your mortgages.
Since I know when, I can search for average mortgage interest rates for a month before that and using a mortgage calculator estimate your possible P&I payments on your mortgage. The property tax office will tell me the amount of property tax you're paying.
As people are added to or subtracted from a deed I can guess there was a divorce or marriage. Don't think folks usually bother to remove a deceased person from the deed, but if they did, I would know it.
To be clear, Swordguy's information extraction is not a superpower as the registrar of deeds (County Auditor or similar) have public, internet searchable databases.
I used this type of info to start my "History of My House" . Unfortunately, the US Government owned my house from when it was built in 1944 to 1957 so no tenant records exist for that period.
Post by: SwordGuy on May 15, 2021, 07:13:57 AM
In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
It's not usually too hard to see the difference between a purchase and an inheritance or gift.
Death records of the grantor of the deed could be checked to weed out most inheritances from gifts.
As for income changes for job loss, presumably the revenue service knows the income reported in past years so that wouldn't be too hard to figure out either.
Shucks, you would be surprised at how much info I can get from the registrar of deeds. I can find out how much your purchase price was, how much the mortgage was for (and thus calculate your down payment). I know when that transaction happened. I know when you took out a second mortgage against the property and how much it was for. I know when you paid off your mortgages.
Since I know when, I can search for average mortgage interest rates for a month before that and using a mortgage calculator estimate your possible P&I payments on your mortgage. The property tax office will tell me the amount of property tax you're paying.
As people are added to or subtracted from a deed I can guess there was a divorce or marriage. Don't think folks usually bother to remove a deceased person from the deed, but if they did, I would know it.
To be clear, Swordguy's information extraction is not a superpower as the registrar of deeds (County Auditor or similar) have public, internet searchable databases.
Absolutely! Anyone can do it and now that many counties have online databases, it's even convenient to do so!
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on May 15, 2021, 10:51:19 PM
In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
BC uses a Torrens land title system, but not nearly so much information is publicly available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title
https://ltsa.ca/about-ltsa/#
Charges on title can be searched for a fee, but sale prices and mortgage values are currently not available.
While I don't mind my country's tax man having access to the data, I am happy that it is not publicly available for identity theft by agents sitting in Beijing or St Petersburg.
Post by: Dicey on May 16, 2021, 10:48:11 AM
Ha! In my state, Zillow et al provide sale prices and tax history to all comers. I use it for reference it all the time. Heck, Redfin even provides photos from prior listings, which are a ton of (frugal) fun to pore through.In the US, which also got its land system from the UK, the counties has a registrar of deeds and the history of the transactions. I suspect Canada does also.
BC uses a Torrens land title system, but not nearly so much information is publicly available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title
https://ltsa.ca/about-ltsa/#
Charges on title can be searched for a fee, but sale prices and mortgage values are currently not available.
While I don't mind my country's tax man having access to the data, I am happy that it is not publicly available for identity theft by agents sitting in Beijing or St Petersburg.
Post by: 20957 on May 16, 2021, 07:22:23 PM
Post by: iris lily on May 17, 2021, 07:22:18 AM
Where I am the land records don't go back/aren't digitized (not sure which) before 1920, so lots and lots of houses were "built" in 1920 according to the system. But that actually just means "built in 1920 or earlier", it's a placeholder. I'm always surprised at how many real estate pros don't know this and will just post a house for sale with the wrong data on the listing. Mine is from 1906 (neighbor has the ad from the developer). I wish I could find out more about its early history!That is similar to records for houses in my neighborhood. Most all Reed built in 1885 but there are real life variances. I think that was an arbitrary date the city assessors office chose for historic records.
Post by: Goldielocks on May 17, 2021, 12:06:46 PM
"How can you manage such a vehicle on your reported $13,000 Euro income you have reported for the last 3 years?"
The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has started using neighbourhood land values to target people for audits, if the owners don't have a matching income to afford their $2m house.
See number 8 here:
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2013/top-ten-cra-audit-flags/
I am not sure how they can sort through all the odd cases, though. Inheritance, job loss, or mustachianism could all throw off the "usual" income/asset balance.
It's the 80/20 rule, though-- 80% or more of the time, the home was bought with foreign assets and there is foreign income supporting the household.
The taxes at $20,000/yr on a $15k/yr income? That's a red flag, even if the home is inherited.
It's pretty easy to look into the the 20% cases and realize what you have immediately -- e.g., a senior now retired or a person who used to make a lot and is now on disability, inheritances, etc.
What they are trying to find -- Wife and kid(s) move to new country to get kids in high school, to live in a nice green area of the world with little pollution, get local graduation diploma and apply to local prestige university as residents. Get citizenship / passports after about 5 years from the start of this, (security against chaotic political climate at home) meanwhile husband is working overseas, has lots of overseas assets. So far nothing wrong with this and fully AOK all around as they did all the proper applications.
BUT
Maybe (likely! 80% rule?) Family does not report family net world income, only Cdn sourced income and therefore receives a lot of subsidies, breaks on taxes, free base healthcare and payouts from the government. They pay extremely little tax to the country they are living in, and don't really help support the local economy tax-wise other than buying things and driving up home prices. The father now has moved back to original country, but Canada considers him to be substantially tied to and a deemed resident to Canada because his whole family is permanently residing there, therefore he needs to send in a tax return, too showing his income, taxes paid elsewhere to figure out net taxes owing to Canada.
Family meanwhile living in a $2m home and can easily afford the taxes each year, the nice car(s), etc all on a declared income of $15k for a household of 3 persons.
IMO, everyone who lives in a region should pay for their regional benefits through taxes, according to their actual incomes, up to a maximum. Libraries, rec centres, roads, parks, schools, public landscaping, healthcare are all heavily subsidized by the government here, through taxes.
This is why I am hugely in favor of sales taxes (consumption taxes excluding essential items) and lower income taxes. Pay as you go, according to what you can afford to actually spend. It is an indirect tax on having huge assets, but only if/as you choose to spend.
Monthly sales tax rebates of a set amount per person will reduce the impact of sales taxes lower income situations, contrary to conventional arguments that sales taxes hit lower income people more.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on May 17, 2021, 12:42:48 PM
IMO, everyone who lives in a region should pay for their regional benefits through taxes, according to their actual incomes, up to a maximum. Libraries, rec centres, roads, parks, schools, public landscaping, healthcare are all heavily subsidized by the government here, through taxes.What you're describing sounds a lot like the FAIRtax (https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works). (That website is a mess, but the short version of the plan is "The only federal tax is a flat sales/consumption tax on everything. And everybody gets a check for $x every year."
This is why I am hugely in favor of sales taxes (consumption taxes excluding essential items) and lower income taxes. Pay as you go, according to what you can afford to actually spend. It is an indirect tax on having huge assets, but only if/as you choose to spend.
Monthly sales tax rebates of a set amount per person will reduce the impact of sales taxes lower income situations, contrary to conventional arguments that sales taxes hit lower income people more.
It definitely has its appeal, and I, for one, would not shed a single tear for the leeches at Intuit if their business model were made moot.
Post by: Capsu78 on June 03, 2021, 12:34:18 PM
Post by: Dicey on June 03, 2021, 03:40:01 PM
This story fits into this thread perfectly: https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/my-sisters-one-of-whom-was-a-fortune-500-vp-emptied-my-mother-s-house-and-told-me-to-take-what-was-left/ar-AAKCm91?ocid=msedgdhpWise words from Quentin, "As you are aware, our possessions do not define us. Our actions define us. Guard your actions and words as they would guard your mother’s furniture."
Post by: MilesTeg on June 03, 2021, 10:37:08 PM
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 04, 2021, 05:05:30 AM
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
Post by: Imma on June 04, 2021, 05:36:36 AM
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
I'm not American, but in my country (NL) wills certainly have legal standing. Of course, people can contest it and if they do so on valid grounds the end result may be different than what's described in the will but in my country courts seem pretty careful about that. It's not easy to succesfully contest a will.
In my country, wills are only valid if they are written down by a solicitor and registered in a central register for wills. I can imagine that DIY wills can lead to more issues.
Post by: former player on June 04, 2021, 05:54:02 AM
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
Post by: DadJokes on June 04, 2021, 06:00:04 AM
Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
People can contest the will, but as long as the deceased followed state law in making the will, it will generally hold up in court.
This website (https://www.thebalance.com/what-are-the-grounds-for-contesting-a-will-3505208) notes four areas where a will might be contested:
1. Not signed in accordance with state law
2. Lacks mental capacity
3. Influenced by others
4. Will acquired by fraud
People can waste the estate's money and contest a will all they want, but unless they can prove any of those things, it's not likely to change anything.
Edited to fix link - I was doing Reddit's formatting.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 04, 2021, 06:02:03 AM
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
Ok, that makes sense. My biggest concern was just that if a will wasn't good enough - then what would be? If the answer is nothing, it's just that people can be terrible to each other and draw out things by being jerks, suing, etc. then there's nothing I can do, so I won't worry about it. Thanks!
Post by: former player on June 04, 2021, 06:10:47 AM
And if in the meantime your nearest but not dearest have appropriated or trashed all the property left under the will, with the support of your other family members, what do you do?Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
People can contest the will, but as long as the deceased followed state law in making the will, it will generally hold up in court.
[This website](https://www.thebalance.com/what-are-the-grounds-for-contesting-a-will-3505208) notes four areas where a will might be contested:
1. Not signed in accordance with state law
2. Lacks mental capacity
3. Influenced by others
4. Will acquired by fraud
People can waste the estate's money and contest a will all they want, but unless they can prove any of those things, it's not likely to change anything.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 04, 2021, 07:11:43 AM
And if in the meantime your nearest but not dearest have appropriated or trashed all the property left under the will, with the support of your other family members, what do you do?
If you can prove it, enter a complaint with the police and have them arrested for theft. No one needs thieves in their life even if they are family. Actually, especially if they are family. So burn those bridges and hope they go to jail.
Same with wife beaters or pedophiles.
Post by: Villanelle on June 04, 2021, 08:42:25 AM
And if in the meantime your nearest but not dearest have appropriated or trashed all the property left under the will, with the support of your other family members, what do you do?Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
People can contest the will, but as long as the deceased followed state law in making the will, it will generally hold up in court.
[This website](https://www.thebalance.com/what-are-the-grounds-for-contesting-a-will-3505208) notes four areas where a will might be contested:
1. Not signed in accordance with state law
2. Lacks mental capacity
3. Influenced by others
4. Will acquired by fraud
People can waste the estate's money and contest a will all they want, but unless they can prove any of those things, it's not likely to change anything.
You do the same thing you'd do if they did that while the person was alive (and against that person's wishes or without your consent). In many cases, that would mean involving the police. It doesn't matter, in most senses, whether someone goes in and takes grandma's jewelry and her antique armoire when she's alive or after she has died. If they aren't legally entitled to those items, it is theft. They stole from granny, or from granny's estate.
Now, just as if granny was alive, you have to be able to prove it.
Post by: MilesTeg on June 04, 2021, 03:30:58 PM
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
In trying to settle my father's affairs between my sister and I, we've spent 6 months fighting courts and banks and paying a crap ton of money to a lawyer. The will is very straight forward, done properly according to state law, and there's no disagreement of any kind between my sister and I, yet every step of the way we have had to pay out the nose to get it executed and in one case threaten legal action against banks who refused to hand over money despite a will and a court judgement/order.
The investment accounts and bank accounts that had a beneficiary were in our hands with exactly zero trouble, zero expense and no delay other than filling out paperwork and proving our identities.
Like I said: if you want your heirs to not go through hell and pay an absurd amount of money to inherit your assets, you want beneficiaries and/or a living trust on _everything_. Neither you nor your heirs are served by relying on a will.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 04, 2021, 04:17:59 PM
I was the executor of my last surviving parent's will. I hired a lawyer to deal with getting the death certificates and me appointed as the executor by the court. Cost me a couple hundred dollars. I could have easily done that myself by driving to the county courthouse where my mom had lived, but that was 6 hours away.
Once I had those documents I just contacted the relevant institutions and sent them a copy of the death certificate and the letters testamentary (that named me the executor). With two exceptions, everything was that simple, other than there is no automated answering machine menu option for "Your account holder is dead, I am their legal executor." and sometimes it would take awhile to get a human being on the phone.
The two exceptions were savings bonds and one account I just didn't get to in a timely manner. I had to get more copies of the letters testamentary with a stamped on date saying they were still in effect for one account. The only bother on this was that they didn't explain what they wanted clearly and I was ignorant and too busy to deal with it for awhile.
The other was the savings bonds. We decided to wait a year and a bit for them to mature before cashing them in, but the banks wouldn't cash them in at that point, I had to mail them in to the feds. (I sent them certified mail, signature required by everyone handling them.) The feds were the ones that explained what was meant by the other institution, once I understood, I was able to get those funds.
Other than a lot of time on the phone to talk to a human, and even more time to muddle thru the documents to figure out what money was where, the process was simple.
Now, since I was the only beneficiary I didn't have to deal with anyone else and I couldn't steal from myself. The court has never asked for any documents from me and it's been 6 years. It's possible they court realized that and saved themselves the bother. Or it's possible that there just isn't enough supervision.
Post by: lhamo on June 05, 2021, 10:56:11 AM
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem. A legal problem approached with good will all around can be solved at a reasonable cost in people's time, money and emotions. But if someone wants to make things difficult they can obstruct, they can lie, they can misdirect, they can steal, they can gaslight, they can turn other people against reality and justice and they can make any affordable settlement within a reasonable time scale impossible. Sadly when they do that they often "win" because the price of fighting them is just too high for any reasonble person to do it.Here is a pretty good discussion of where to put your will over on Bogleheads.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=337890
My recent experience tells me wills aren't worth the paper they are printed on, so you might as well just store them in the circular.
The only way to make your inheritor's life not insane upon your death is to make sure *everything* you own has a beneficiary listed. Your bank accounts, your investments, your house, etc.
OR you need to take the time to put everything you own in a living trust and set the beneficiaries there.
A will is nothing more than a way for a deceased person to tell people what their wishes are, it has no legal standing at all as far as I can tell. It can be completely ignored by the courts and even if they are not you still have to get a lawyer and go through probate (which can be very costly).
Not trying to start an argument here - just genuinely curious. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I've never heard of a will being held in such low regard. Are you meaning people can sue and rack up legal fees even with a will? If so, I guess that makes sense - you can sue anything and make a mess of it. If wills truly have "no legal standing" that's kind of an important thing to know.
In trying to settle my father's affairs between my sister and I, we've spent 6 months fighting courts and banks and paying a crap ton of money to a lawyer. The will is very straight forward, done properly according to state law, and there's no disagreement of any kind between my sister and I, yet every step of the way we have had to pay out the nose to get it executed and in one case threaten legal action against banks who refused to hand over money despite a will and a court judgement/order.
The investment accounts and bank accounts that had a beneficiary were in our hands with exactly zero trouble, zero expense and no delay other than filling out paperwork and proving our identities.
Like I said: if you want your heirs to not go through hell and pay an absurd amount of money to inherit your assets, you want beneficiaries and/or a living trust on _everything_. Neither you nor your heirs are served by relying on a will.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Post by: MilesTeg on June 05, 2021, 11:39:27 AM
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
Post by: AMandM on June 05, 2021, 02:44:22 PM
I suspect it's not a legal problem it's a people problem.
I agree. From the opposite side, my grandmother died intestate, leaving me and my sisters as her only living close relatives. Under Ontario law, the estate was to be divided equally among us. Fine by us, and we agreed with each other that we'd reimburse our father for some expenses he had incurred on our grandmother's behalf. We found the process pretty simple and not expensive. One sister was appointed as the agent, got the money from the various banks, and wrote checks to the other two.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 05, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
And yet that's exactly what I did as executor with my Letters Testamentary and a Death Certificate. Not a single concern from any person at multiple organizations that those weren't sufficient documents.
The only pushback I got was that for one account the Letters Testamentary were over a year old when I found that account and they wanted Letters with a later date on them. Pain in the butt but reasonable.
Post by: Dicey on June 05, 2021, 04:20:53 PM
We had trouble with US Bank, too, and my parents had a trust. They had 401ks in four different institutions. We got bullshit from three and cooperation from Fidelity, after I paid a call on them with a CPA friend who used to work for the IRS. Once they cooperated, we moved everything, one by one, to Fidelity. Once that was done, we distributed the funds and called it done. It took over a year. Oh, and Fidelity has made their share of mistakes, so I'm not saying they're perfect, but they did help us settle the estate without the 50% tax haircut the others (including a hired, then fired, attorney) said had to be paid prior to distribution. No, no it did not.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
Oh and the most difficult life insurance policy to cash was the smallest one, which netted us each about $150.00. Not kidding.
Post by: PhilB on June 06, 2021, 01:14:12 AM
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
And yet that's exactly what I did as executor with my Letters Testamentary and a Death Certificate. Not a single concern from any person at multiple organizations that those weren't sufficient documents.
The only pushback I got was that for one account the Letters Testamentary were over a year old when I found that account and they wanted Letters with a later date on them. Pain in the butt but reasonable.
"I hereby confirm that xyz is still dead"
Post by: dcheesi on June 06, 2021, 04:18:40 AM
I assume the issue is more about confirming that the estate is still active. If you've formally settled the estate, then find new money later on, you may need to re-qualify as executor/admin and re-open the estate/probate.
If you are willing to disclose which state and/or which banks, that might be more helpful. Certain states have much more complex processes, which may also give the banks more room to play games.
Colorado and US Bank.
To be clear, we got it taken care of, but only after threatening the bank manager with legal action. Apparently dispersing money to the executor of the estates with "only court documents and a will" is a "very non-standard practice" according to them. Obviously shady bullshit of course. I don't hold that as a knock against wills, but with us listed as beneficiaries on other accounts the process was pretty much "would you like that as cash, check or money order?" after showing them a death certificate and proof of identity. With investment accounts it was also very straightforward too with only a bit more paperwork due to the need to establish beneficiary accounts, etc.
And yet that's exactly what I did as executor with my Letters Testamentary and a Death Certificate. Not a single concern from any person at multiple organizations that those weren't sufficient documents.
The only pushback I got was that for one account the Letters Testamentary were over a year old when I found that account and they wanted Letters with a later date on them. Pain in the butt but reasonable.
"I hereby confirm that xyz is still dead"
Post by: SwordGuy on June 06, 2021, 08:32:04 AM
Post by: Car Jack on June 14, 2021, 12:02:21 PM
Post by: Sibley on June 14, 2021, 12:45:26 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on June 14, 2021, 02:00:40 PM
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.
Some of our best museum holdings of ancient coins and jewelry come from hoards that people lost track of...
Post by: dcheesi on June 14, 2021, 02:48:46 PM
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans."There's always money in the banana stand..."
Post by: Dicey on June 15, 2021, 04:36:49 AM
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
Post by: SwordGuy on June 15, 2021, 06:21:14 AM
Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
Oh, so you didn't check the spare tire in the car that doesn't run in the garage for kruegerrands? That's one of many places my wife's aunt put stuff.
Post by: Dicey on June 15, 2021, 06:59:53 AM
We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
Oh, so you didn't check the spare tire in the car that doesn't run in the garage for kruegerrands? That's one of many places my wife's aunt put stuff.
Post by: SwordGuy on June 15, 2021, 08:52:58 AM
We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.
How illuminating!
Post by: Dicey on June 15, 2021, 11:05:04 AM
Or inflammatory ;-)We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.
How illuminating!
Post by: Imma on June 15, 2021, 02:03:26 PM
We've heard that stashing money in light switches was also a popular hiding place, but couldn't be arsed to check them.Not sure what the cause was of that family attitude, but I frequently wonder what the (now dead) people who buried their money, or hid it in mattresses or whatever, would think about the time and effort they have caused their descendants. Or how much got thrown out or lost because no one knew about the thousands stashed in the blue coffee can, amongst the pile of all the coffee cans.Oof, after FIL died, we had to clean out both of their homes and move MIL and her pal Al Z. Heimer in with us. We tackled the second home first, beginning with an estate sale. We found a couple thousand in a linen closet as we were preparing for the sale. Then I moved a nightstand and found a pouch of cash tucked underneath. It had ten grand in it. Finally, on Day 2 of the sale, I moved a floor lamp and found $800 underneath it. Grand total was about $13k. Who knows what else we missed?
Oh, so you didn't check the spare tire in the car that doesn't run in the garage for kruegerrands? That's one of many places my wife's aunt put stuff.
My greataunt and uncle never threw away any clothing they didn't wear anymore because, you know, WWIII was going to happening and rationing was going to be a thing again and they would still have their worn-out, moth infested clothing from 1965. Well, they always told they hid "the money" in the lining of the coats in the attic. We found a rail in the attic with 30 coats, cut open the lining of every single one of them... and didn't find a cent.
Post by: Leseratte2021 on June 15, 2021, 07:07:10 PM
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 17, 2021, 12:31:14 PM
I think the family might need to have a betting pool on how much cash we find in how many different locations, because she withdraws her full income in cash every month, spends about half of it, then sends some portion of the rest to various family members in carefully disguised stacks of twenties "to avoid inheritance tax" but the rest... well, it must be somewhere. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't remember any more where she's put it over the years.
Post by: bacchi on June 18, 2021, 01:28:03 PM
My grandmother has £10k hidden in her flat "for her funeral". And once gave her two kids money "for her funeral". And has some amount of a prepaid funeral plan. She is not a showy person and I have no idea what she ever imagined all that money would be spent on.
I think the family might need to have a betting pool on how much cash we find in how many different locations, because she withdraws her full income in cash every month, spends about half of it, then sends some portion of the rest to various family members in carefully disguised stacks of twenties "to avoid inheritance tax" but the rest... well, it must be somewhere. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't remember any more where she's put it over the years.
I have more than once opened a book at a certain close relative's house only to have a stack of 50s or 20s fall out. God only knows what'll get destroyed/trashed/thrown out when she dies, because all I do know is that we'll never find all the spare small stowaways of cash. Not big money, just a tiny bit here and there--just enough to make it tempting to dig thoroughly through everything...
Same. There's a lot of stuff, too, so it'll take
Post by: chaskavitch on June 20, 2021, 06:37:36 AM
Post by: iris lily on June 20, 2021, 07:49:31 AM
My grandmother has £10k hidden in her flat "for her funeral". And once gave her two kids money "for her funeral". And has some amount of a prepaid funeral plan. She is not a showy person and I have no idea what she ever imagined all that money would be spent on.My dementia brained mother had a thing about her funeral as well. Salesmen were hitting her house as an easy mark. A “funeral insurance” guy talked her up but I think my brother intervened before she signed on the dotted line.
I think the family might need to have a betting pool on how much cash we find in how many different locations, because she withdraws her full income in cash every month, spends about half of it, then sends some portion of the rest to various family members in carefully disguised stacks of twenties "to avoid inheritance tax" but the rest... well, it must be somewhere. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't remember any more where she's put it over the years.
I told her “mom, funeral insurance is for poor people who have no money. You have enough money to pay for ten funerals.”
And oh yeah, she had already paid for her funeral and made all of the plans.
I guess planning one’s funeral, multiple times, is a bit of a hobby at that advanced age.
Post by: lemanfan on June 22, 2021, 01:38:35 AM
I guess planning one’s funeral, multiple times, is a bit of a hobby at that advanced age.
The psychological aspects of contemplating your own mortality can affect us all. Especially when it becomes 'real' through increasing age, bad health, or deaths in your circle of friends.
Post by: Plina on June 22, 2021, 01:44:23 PM
I guess planning one’s funeral, multiple times, is a bit of a hobby at that advanced age.
The psychological aspects of contemplating your own mortality can affect us all. Especially when it becomes 'real' through increasing age, bad health, or deaths in your circle of friends.
My grandmothers death opened that door in our family. I told my parents were I would want to be buried in case I died before them and what kind of memorial stone I would like to have. It makes things easier as I don’t have a spouse or kids. But I am not making funeral planning a hobby.
Post by: Dave1442397 on June 22, 2021, 04:15:21 PM
I guess planning one’s funeral, multiple times, is a bit of a hobby at that advanced age.
The psychological aspects of contemplating your own mortality can affect us all. Especially when it becomes 'real' through increasing age, bad health, or deaths in your circle of friends.
My grandmothers death opened that door in our family. I told my parents were I would want to be buried in case I died before them and what kind of memorial stone I would like to have. It makes things easier as I don’t have a spouse or kids. But I am not making funeral planning a hobby.
I told my daughter that if I die around Halloween, dress me in a zombie costume and stick me on the porch. I want to see how long it takes before "Wow, what a realistic zombie dummy!" turns into "Ermagod it's a body!!!!"
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 23, 2021, 03:53:56 AM
My mother got really angsty a few years ago that she doesn't know what my grandmother wants for her funeral. (Possibly when she tried to give her *another* installment of money "for her funeral"?) I pointed out that she and my dad have never expressed any wishes for their funerals (ages 70 and 65, ish at the time) and it was like I'd spat in her face and wished her dead. But this is exactly how you get to 93 without having ever expressed any funeral wishes...
I went home and Mr SLTD and I planned our funerals that night. Nothing detailed, just a few notes on style and readings and hymns and not to buy a fancy coffin. Still lots of details to be worked out if we died tomorrow, but no angst over the Big Questions. Your twenties is the ideal time to plan your funeral and write your first will. It takes all the Meaning and Anguish out of it because you don't expect to die for decades so it's not about looking your mortality in the face when you're toe to toe.
Post by: former player on June 23, 2021, 04:20:39 AM
Post by: By the River on June 23, 2021, 07:03:13 AM
No inheritance drama coming though. Every one is level-headed and no estate really to fight about, the second wife gets his insurance proceeds to live on.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on June 23, 2021, 07:23:10 AM
When they died in 2010 & 11 no one could find any paperwork for the burial plots and by then there was a Veteran's Cemetery opened in our region for which they were eligible. The family only knew about the plots because it was a running joke about how they had their graves but they had no wills. Eventually late in life they did get simple wills.
There are still a couple plots out there that are rightfully theirs but will never get used. I am sure there are countless situations like that where the heirs have no clue about pre-paid plots and what obligation the cemeteries have to reimburse estates for them, how that could ever be tracked.
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 23, 2021, 07:28:59 AM
I heartily second working out what you want for your funeral and either telling your nearest and dearest or writing it down somewhere it will be found. It is so much easier for your grieving loved ones to follow a script rather than trying to second guess what should be done. Even if it's just indicating burial or cremation.
Agreed that ANYTHING is helpful. At least my mother said she wanted an eco funeral, so I've got SOMETHING to go on even if she never plans anything else. My dad... Not a clue.
Post by: Sibley on June 23, 2021, 08:15:20 AM
He divorced his first wife, smearing her name in the process. Then basically abandoned his 3 daughters. Then he married a woman who I'm told was the inspiration behind a nasty character on the West Wing tv show. Yes, really. (I forget the character's name, sorry.) That's when he actually abandoned his daughters. Up to that point he'd been a mostly absent father who gave them no affection, after he married again he moved cross country and as far as I know had no contact with the girls.
Funny enough, after this guy nearly died, he suddenly decided to try to do a bunch of good stuff. Guess he's afraid he'll go to hell? He's out of luck - you can't undo 30 years of neglect and nastiness with a few phone calls. My dad got a call from him. First time in at least 15 years. Even my dad was unimpressed.
Oh and the best part? Wife and him are devout Christians. The kind that annoy people because everything is "god's will" or "god's blessing". The kind that are nasty to gays and lesbians and are "pro life" (really, forced birth"). They hit all the stereotypes. I haven't met the 2nd wife's adult children, but from what I've been told, they're messed up, likely because of their mother.
If there is any drama, I won't be involved or probably even know about it. I just feel bad for the 3 girls who got messed up so badly because their dad sucks as a human being.
Post by: Villanelle on June 23, 2021, 09:49:42 AM
But I wonder now if that actually is a disservice to whomever ends up planning it, because there's no direction at all. Am I inadvertently making it more difficult than someone who plans down to the last detail, complete with photo examples and links to specific items? Or at a minimum, do I need to give everyone permission (even encouragement) to go cheap and easy? Basic cremation, unless people feel it would be helpful for them to bury me and have a grave, in which case basic coffin and a plot with a view of the freeway and a strip club are fine?
Post by: JGS1980 on June 23, 2021, 10:44:31 AM
These are the extent of my wishes expressed to my wife.
My only stipulation is that I am dead before she throws me in. ;)
JGS
Post by: Spiffy on June 23, 2021, 10:51:16 AM
Post by: CNM on June 23, 2021, 10:58:16 AM
Post by: Dicey on June 23, 2021, 11:13:11 AM
Oh and they left not one word about what kind of ceremony they wanted. "Secular crematorium service" is what we did for my FIL, but DH's mentally ill sister showed up and was very disruptive. Sad as it seems, nobody wants a repeat of that scene, nor do we want to do something and not invite her.
DH's parents had zero interest in religion of any kind. They were not involved in their community. That's the result, I suppose. We can't even think of any reason to run an obituary.
We will most likely use the pandemic as an excuse to do...nothing.
On a brighter note, DH's parents took up pottery in retirement. FIL was quite talented. We kept a few pieces as mementos when MIL moved in with us. MIL "hid" things in her dresser drawers. When I started to sort her things, I found a lovely, small vase tucked in a corner. We always assumed was done by FIL. On closer inspection, it has her initials on the bottom. Huh. Did they make it together? The finish looks like his work, but we'll never know. We've decided to put it into the niche, beside the small stuffed Mickey Mouse that we included in FIL's inurnment. They were avid garage salers, with a particular affection for inexpensive Mickey Mouse memorabilia.
So the niche will hold their two urns, the MM stuffie they most likely got at a garage sale, and a pretty little vase that one or both of them made.
.
Post by: Imma on June 23, 2021, 12:03:14 PM
Interesting food for thought in the latest posts. I've told DH that I truly could not care less what sort of funeral or memorial or whatever happens in my name. I'm dead; I don't care. I don't care what is done with my body (I'm finished with it!) or anything else. I view it like an old pair of shoes--if they can be donated so that someone else can get use out of them, great, beyond that, I'm no longer attached to them so... whatever.
But I wonder now if that actually is a disservice to whomever ends up planning it, because there's no direction at all. Am I inadvertently making it more difficult than someone who plans down to the last detail, complete with photo examples and links to specific items? Or at a minimum, do I need to give everyone permission (even encouragement) to go cheap and easy? Basic cremation, unless people feel it would be helpful for them to bury me and have a grave, in which case basic coffin and a plot with a view of the freeway and a strip club are fine?
I guess telling your loved ones that you don't have a personal preference but they can do whatever they feel will help them most would be the best thing. No need to plan details if you truly don't care, and it gives them the approval to do whatever feels best for them.
In my family so far we've only had bog standard Catholic funerals, but I kind of like the rituals, as well as the 'not having to think too deeply about it' aspect. I've organized a few funerals and it's not a lot of hassle because the script is there. You just need to pick a reading and a few hymns. Having a death in the family is stressful enough without having to plan a whole funeral in just a couple of days. I like the familiary of the rituals, so I've decided that's what I want for myself as well. Personally, I've never been to a crematorium service that feels "right" and let's not even talk about the music from a stereo and the bright lights on the ceiling. The atmosphere is just terrible. Give me a beautiful old church and a proper choir and organ please.
@Dicey I'm so sorry for your loss.
Post by: AMandM on June 23, 2021, 10:25:08 PM
I guess telling your loved ones that you don't have a personal preference but they can do whatever they feel will help them most would be the best thing. No need to plan details if you truly don't care, and it gives them the approval to do whatever feels best for them.I agree, unless you have reason to think that there will be strife among the survivors about what kind of funeral to have.
My family's funerals are all standard Catholic masses, but where possible we have the wake at home. Partly we just like keeping a personal event out of the hands of professional strangers, and partly it works better for us on a practical level: you can come and go, eat and drink as you please, and it's much easier to deal with children at home than in a funeral parlour.
Post by: talltexan on June 24, 2021, 07:33:46 AM
My MIL died last week, after having ALZ for at least a decade. All the arrangements were made at least a decade ago. Everything was paid for, including transport of her body to the mortuary. Well, everything that could be paid for. The massive, ancient, creepily wonderful place where several generations of the family are interred has a couple of "gotchas". There is a niche that already contains her husband's ashes. There is a fee to turn the key that opens the small glass door. We're sure it will be at least $2,000, probably more. Possibly double that. We'll find out on Friday.
Oh and they left not one word about what kind of ceremony they wanted. "Secular crematorium service" is what we did for my FIL, but DH's mentally ill sister showed up and was very disruptive. Sad as it seems, nobody wants a repeat of that scene, nor do we want to do something and not invite her.
DH's parents had zero interest in religion of any kind. They were not involved in their community. That's the result, I suppose. We can't even think of any reason to run an obituary.
We will most likely use the pandemic as an excuse to do...nothing.
On a brighter note, DH's parents took up pottery in retirement. FIL was quite talented. We kept a few pieces as mementos when MIL moved in with us. MIL "hid" things in her dresser drawers. When I started to sort her things, I found a lovely, small vase tucked in a corner. We always assumed was done by FIL. On closer inspection, it has her initials on the bottom. Huh. Did they make it together? The finish looks like his work, but we'll never know. We've decided to put it into the niche, beside the small stuffed Mickey Mouse that we included in FIL's inurnment. They were avid garage salers, with a particular affection for inexpensive Mickey Mouse memorabilia.
So the niche will hold their two urns, the MM stuffie they most likely got at a garage sale, and a pretty little vase that one or both of them made.
.
@Dicey , I am so sorry for your loss. I hope everything goes well. The mickey mouse stuffy that you mentioned resonated with me, I am certain my MiL will ask for similar, she loves Mickey Mouse!
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 24, 2021, 08:46:50 AM
Post by: Villanelle on June 24, 2021, 02:00:58 PM
@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on June 24, 2021, 03:34:08 PM
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
Post by: Sibley on June 24, 2021, 05:03:34 PM
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
If that actually does happen, we need someone to come post the whole story here.
Post by: Villanelle on June 24, 2021, 05:43:24 PM
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
Thankfully, anyone close to me (parents, sibling, spouse) would likely have fairly similar views, or at least none of them are the Stoic Catholic or the Naturalist.
But I do think maybe I'll jot a few notes, probably still not specifics, but more along the line of "please don't spend a fortune, go basic on urn or casket or zip lock from which what's left of me is sprinkled or whatever you decide, and don't feel pressured to do anything fancy. Simple, basic, and easy is just fine, with a focus on the people who are left, not on me or what I'd have chosen or wanted. A basic thing in someone's home or whatever is convenient is fine and no need to do fancy or elaborate things either to my body or to mark the occasion." Hopefully that is at lease a basic sense of direction.
Post by: Jenny Wren on June 28, 2021, 12:32:08 PM
It was a surprise. My father was terrified of death and it was a taboo subject. I'm guessing he took care of it all in one fell swoop so he wouldn't have to think about it ever again. My mother, on the other hand, just goes on and on about how she should plan something in advance but never does so. My sister and I are tempted to just bury her in the backyard... (I jest, I jest!)
Post by: Dicey on June 28, 2021, 02:21:47 PM
Case in point: MIL's father bought a niche for 3 in an older section many years ago. When FIL died, the family tried to claim it. Uh, it seems the other two spots were in full use, with someone else's ashes. I thought they should have moved the interlopers, but the place offered them a "better" niche for 2 in a different area 9 years ago.
DH and I got there early and had a look around. We found the niche with no trouble, then had a good wander about. When we finally moseyed over to the office, BIL was there amidst a bit of an uproar because they had FIL listed in a place BIL knew was wrong. "No problem", said we. The mausoleum person had to escort all of us to where we said it was, just to make sure we were right, ffs.
Edited to override the fucking autocorrect. Again.
Post by: Captain FIRE on June 29, 2021, 10:44:25 AM
I think you're right that providing direction when they are grieving is a good thing to do. There's also the issue that may arise if there's a disagreement among your loved ones about what type of service (or not) is appropriate. For example, Stoic Catholic Relative A might want a traditional Catholic funeral, while Naturalist Relative B might want to wrap you in a burlap sack and toss you in a hole, and they're each horrified by the other's proposal. If you provide direction, it also (hopefully!) eliminates that potential source of conflict.@Villanelle I'd still jot down a few things, even if it's just stuff you don't want. You don't know who might end up wanting a say in the funeral plans so "do whatever makes you feel good" will be different for different people - and how will they decide between themselves with nothing to go on? Same reason it's good to make a will even if it's super simple and what everyone expects - it removes any debate, internal or external. There are a few tickbox funeral planning guides online if you just want to take ten minutes over it to ensure less hassle for your heirs/friends and family.
I genuinely don't care, to the point that there's nothing I don't want. For example, a full catholic funeral would seem super odd because I'm decidedly not Catholic (or Christian, or religious), but if that's what people want to do, the decision doesn't affect me in any way, what with me being dead. So I really mean if when I say that whatever those closest to me find most meaningful or comforting or silly, or cheap or easy, or whatever criteria they want to use is A-okay with me. I've told them that, and it does seem to me like that would make it easy because they don't have any pressure to guess what I would have wanted if I was there for the event, but I can see that it does provide no direction in a time that I'm guessing they will be at least a bit upset and overwhelmed.
Outside of those who feel like there are certain things that need to be done for religious or similar reasons, I'm not sure why anyone much cares (but acknowledge and respect that they do) with few exceptions (and things like "make sure you invite cousin Fred because I think it's mean when is is excluded). But that's because I believe that when we die, we stop entirely and in all ways, so it's a thing that has zero affect on my whatsoever.
Yep yep.
Case in point: 15+ years ago my grandfather passes away. My uncle is devastated - they lived nearby and were very close. He did not engage in planning the funeral because he was too upset. (He would walk out of a room if anyone but my dad entered it.) My grandma was very much "whatever you want". So my family plans the funeral since we have no engagement with my uncle and my grandma is agreeing to whatever is presented.
Next day, day of funeral, my uncle says to us that he thinks we may have mistakened his grief for lack of interest. Well, no, but we also couldn't get your input so we had to move on. He tells us he made a few changes. Fine. Except he removed a song that had special meaning to my family and wouldn't agree to putting it back in. ("I was there to hear your borning cry") It was our only "change back" request. Some rule about singing songs in Catholic church. My grandma won't weigh in. "Whatever you guys want." We think we've struck upon a solution: we can't for some unknown reason have everyone sing it, but we can do a eulogy. My siblings and I will sing the piece as a eulogy instead. Grandpa would have loved it (grandkids performing?!). Uncle didn't say anything then to object.
Uncle didn't say anything again for another ~15 years in fact. Stopped speaking over this, well, other than to tell off my mom for sending him her annual Christmas letters sharing what they've done for the past year, considering it bragging. Only started up again limited as my grandma's health deteriorated to share limited information related to her. It's possible he wanted to speak sooner but felt he needed a reason. He did not tell us when his wife had cancer or passed away, we found out after the fact. He also lost one of his two sons during this time (though we did hear about that in time to attend his funeral at least, without objections).
TLDR: You might not care what happens to you after you die, but consider if you want there to be a family rift over something you may think is ridiculous.
Post by: Smokystache on June 29, 2021, 11:44:31 AM
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Post by: Sugaree on June 29, 2021, 11:49:55 AM
Post by: Villanelle on June 29, 2021, 12:30:13 PM
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 29, 2021, 12:55:49 PM
I understand that there may or may not be a plot in my husband's family's cemetery in a state where I have never lived. I don't want to be embalmed or buried, so no thanks. I want my ashes interred into a reef ball that is sunk off the coast.
Reef ball! Never heard of them but off to investigate.
Funerals can be surprising - my Dad said not to bother because he was in his 90s, didn't think there would be enough people to show up. But we did have a funeral, and the small chapel was full. The person in charge after my aunt died did not arrange a funeral, so several of my aunt's friends and a few local family gathered at one person's house for tea and to tell stories. It was lovely. Of course we did not invite the person in charge of arrangements, who was a stranger to us.
Post by: frugalecon on June 29, 2021, 04:34:48 PM
I understand that there may or may not be a plot in my husband's family's cemetery in a state where I have never lived. I don't want to be embalmed or buried, so no thanks. I want my ashes interred into a reef ball that is sunk off the coast.
Reef ball! Never heard of them but off to investigate.
Funerals can be surprising - my Dad said not to bother because he was in his 90s, didn't think there would be enough people to show up. But we did have a funeral, and the small chapel was full. The person in charge after my aunt died did not arrange a funeral, so several of my aunt's friends and a few local family gathered at one person's house for tea and to tell stories. It was lovely. Of course we did not invite the person in charge of arrangements, who was a stranger to us.
What I like about this story is that it meshes with my view that funerals are for the living, not the dead. It sounds like those who cared about your aunt had the opportunity to come together and reflect and share, and that is just about perfect.
Post by: Jenny Wren on June 29, 2021, 06:25:06 PM
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This depends greatly on the situation and family, so don't always judge too harshly. In my father's case, a service would have been the worst possible thing for the main grievers. Family that couldn't afford to travel (and honestly weren't that close to him) would have gone into debt to do so just to keep up appearances. My mother would have turned it into a borderline narcissistic shit show, and the entire burden would have fallen on her children whom she would have used the whole thing as a means to torture us. His death removed the protection he had extended to us all of his life, as he was the only one my mother listened to. He knew this and used his final power as "man of the house" to protect his children from his wife's crazy. My sis and I had our own memorial at a local pub, so it was all good.
Post by: Imma on June 30, 2021, 02:56:27 AM
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
I went through a grief process alone during Covid and it was hard for me. The person I loved most in the world passed from Covid and I was not able to visit them in hospital before their death. I was able to see their body about a week after death and we had a short burial service with a handful of people there - not all of course close relatives since some were still fighting Covid and not out of the danger zone. Less than 10 people. That's when I noticed how important the informal parts of the grieving process are. Just talking about people, laughing and crying. I really missed not having that. In this case, my own friends reached out to me and helped me but I really missed not being in touh with other people. I live out of town so the people my loved one knew wouldn't even know how to reach me and I wouldn't know how to reach them. I know where they live but Covid prevented me from going there.
But the people in our family who have expressed the wish that they want "no service" literally mean no service at all, no informal gatherings either. They do not want their death acknowledged in any way. We are going to defy their last wishes. One of our parents is in the last stages of their lives and wishes to just disappear off the face of the earth after death. It's their choice to not have a service or a headstone but we aren't going to hide their death from anyone. We are going to tell our friends, neighbours, coworkers, extended family etc that our parent passed. I believe that as a parent you can't burden your kids with a secret like that. When a member of our family or a friend calls and says "hey how are you doing, how's your parent?" we're just going to tell them the parent passed. I don't even know what those people think will happen. Do they expect us to keep up the charade and pretend they're not dead? Are we supposed to tell them the person disappeared (and get people worried and maybe even the police involved for no reason?).
Post by: Smokystache on June 30, 2021, 11:23:28 AM
Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. .... "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
I think this is a fair critique of my statement. I don't have any doubt that many people will be fine in their grief process as they work through things without a public service. I believe my biggest concern is that someone else is making this decision for their survivors - often without allowing them to have any input.
This depends greatly on the situation and family, so don't always judge too harshly. In my father's case, a service would have been the worst possible thing for the main grievers. Family that couldn't afford to travel (and honestly weren't that close to him) would have gone into debt to do so just to keep up appearances. My mother would have turned it into a borderline narcissistic shit show, and the entire burden would have fallen on her children whom she would have used the whole thing as a means to torture us. His death removed the protection he had extended to us all of his life, as he was the only one my mother listened to. He knew this and used his final power as "man of the house" to protect his children from his wife's crazy. My sis and I had our own memorial at a local pub, so it was all good.
Without question, long-standing family drama and feuds may create a situation where it is best to not have service because it will add further trauma. I should have specified this contingency.
Your reactions have helped me think further about this and I'm willing to take a half-step back from my previous bold statement. I will argue that in most families we would all be better served with more frequent and more open discussions about death and what that means for the living. Perhaps that is half the less on of this entire thread: a lot of inheritance drama could be avoided by honest conversations prior to death.
Post by: shelivesthedream on June 30, 2021, 12:28:53 PM
Post by: Dicey on June 30, 2021, 01:06:27 PM
I tend to disagree with the bolded. Other than occasionally planning a memorial service, I have no connection to the industry. I went to my first funeral when I was about 17. My boyfriend's mother died rather suddenly. The funeral was amazing in that I got to learn so much more about her than my teenage level of maturity had allowed me to notice while she was alive. It taught me a valuable and abiding lesson. Everybody has an interesting story or scores of them. In fact, in the years since, I've never been to a service where I haven't learned more about the person being remembered. Even my parent's friends told stories that I had never heard before. It is very cathartic. I suppose this makes me feel lucky that there is no one in my life about whom anyone says, "Goodbye, you miserable wretch."Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
Post by: Villanelle on June 30, 2021, 03:30:05 PM
I tend to disagree with the bolded. Other than occasionally planning a memorial service, I have no connection to the industry. I went to my first funeral when I was about 17. My boyfriend's mother died rather suddenly. The funeral was amazing in that I got to learn so much more about her than my teenage level of maturity had allowed me to notice while she was alive. It taught me a valuable and abiding lesson. Everybody has an interesting story or scores of them. In fact, in the years since, I've never been to a service where I haven't learned more about the person being remembered. Even my parent's friends told stories that I had never heard before. It is very cathartic. I suppose this makes me feel lucky that there is no one in my life about whom anyone says, "Goodbye, you miserable wretch."Full Disclosure: I work with funeral homes & cemetery (but am not a licensed professional)
I think one of the worst trends is the "don't have a service for me" trend. I understand that in most cases it said/done as a gesture of help -- as in, "I don't want you to have to go through a funeral. So I don't want one." What they are misunderstanding is that grief happens whether there is a service or not. It's just that they are putting you through their loss without any support or rituals that might be helpful.
This doesn't mean that everyone should have a big, expensive funeral to deal with their grief. If you think it would be more helpful to your family to rent out the local event center, buy some food and drinks, and give people a chance to tell a few stories and hug and console your closest loved ones, then great - do that. (But set up some way to have this pre-arranged so that it doesn't fall on your grieving loved ones to have to plan an event in a few days.)
But honestly, if you are directly or indirectly telling people "don't have a service" or "just throw me in a ditch" then you are essentially saying to your survivors (whether you mean to or not), "I want you to suffer through your grief alone."
Since I'm one of the ones who said I truly don't care what happens, I'll address this. I'm not telling anyone NOT to have a service. If they want to sit in grief for 7 days, cool. If they want to invite anyone I've ever met (and some I haven't) to an epic service with A-list entertainers and an open mic for "Villanelle was Amazing" stories, fantastic. Or if they want to throw me in a ditch, that's wonderful, too.
But I also think your post somewhat shows your bias. You deal mostly with the families who do end up doing something beyond a ditch, which creates a confirmation bias for "services of some kind are helpful" because the people you deal with are generally doing at least something. I have no remaining grandparents and have lost my best friend of 30+ years, my Father in law (husband's dad), as well as a handful of other people close to me. For all of them, there was either not a service, or I was unable to attend due to living on the other side of the world. *I* didn't need a service to help my grief. I didn't feel like a lack of service was "grieving alone". There were phone calls and texts and stories shared and FB posts, and comfort from my husband and from local friends who didn't know these people but reached out to me, and all sorts of things. A service is surely helpful to some people. An informal wake, "Hey, come by our place on Tuesday night, BYOB, and let's honor Villanelle in that way", may be helpful for others. But for plenty of people, the service isn't necessary and doesn't aid the grief, and a lack of service certain does not mean "grieving alone". I wouldn't have grieved those people any "better", faster, healthier, whatever, if I'd stood at a gravesite and thrown dirt, or in a church and heard sermons and hymns, or in a living room and shared whiskeys and stories, or anything else. And I certainly wasn't alone in my grief just because I didn't gather with other grievers.
I'm not sure how that conflicts with what I said. I didn't say (and don't think) that no one benefits from death services of some kind, and that in some cases they aren't very helpful. I was disagreeing with the fact that not having them is a bad idea *for everyone*, and that not having a service necessarily means "grieving alone", as though the only way not to grieve alone is a death service of some kind. Not wanting a service isn't telling people they must "grieve alone". And some people don't need a service to help process grief. Some do, and that's okay, too. But I was arguing against the notions that everyone benefits from them and is better off if there is one, and that the only other option is some kind of unshared, solitary grief.
It's great that a service was of value for you. I'm sure they are for many people. But not everyone finds them helpful or useful in the grieving process.
Post by: lhamo on July 01, 2021, 09:31:20 PM
But one of the best things I did was to have a separate little service at the assisted living facility where she spent her last few months. The staff and the other residents had been so kind, I wanted to acknowledge they had lost her, too. It meant so much to them. They said it was one of the few opportunities they had had to hear stories about their friends from their kids, and say goodbye. I was really moved by how touched they were. And bemused that somebody ran off with the family photo from my brother's wedding I had put out!
Post by: Zamboni on September 16, 2021, 09:59:40 PM
"narcissistic shit show"
I'm going to this type of funeral very soon. :-( Wish me luck.
Post by: Sugaree on September 17, 2021, 04:31:06 AM
"narcissistic shit show"
I'm going to this type of funeral very soon. :-( Wish me luck.
I went to one of those recently. May the odds be ever in your favor.
Post by: saguaro on September 17, 2021, 08:10:34 AM
"narcissistic shit show"I went to one of those recently. May the odds be ever in your favor.
I'm going to this type of funeral very soon. :-( Wish me luck.
Recently attended one also. Wishing you luck.
Post by: Sibley on September 17, 2021, 08:15:08 AM
"narcissistic shit show"I went to one of those recently. May the odds be ever in your favor.
I'm going to this type of funeral very soon. :-( Wish me luck.
Recently attended one also. Wishing you luck.
If you can stay out of the shit, and view it as entertainment, it can actually be pretty fun. Unfortunately, the odds of being able to do both of those things is not great. Good luck.
Post by: Zamboni on September 17, 2021, 05:21:20 PM
The narcissistic shit show did morph from sad and scary to guarded awe at the shear performative aspect of it to being able to kind of chuckle at the absurdity by the end of the several days. It was super super duper hard on my other half, though. Having other sane family around who started with neutral face but ended with some clandestine eye rolling helped. We are now relieved it is over but totally exhausted by it all.
Post by: AMandM on September 19, 2021, 02:43:34 PM
Post by: Zamboni on September 19, 2021, 05:06:50 PM
Get your ducks in a row, people, and do NOT hide the documentation about your lined up ducks in a "safe" place. And please get rid of most of your stuff way, way before you die. Seriously.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on September 19, 2021, 05:49:15 PM
Post by: Zamboni on September 19, 2021, 06:30:48 PM
Within 24 hours of the death, she also went to the bank of the deceased to try to get the account information. Instead of providing it, the bank thanked her for letting them know about the death and told her the assets, which they will not disclose to her in any way, are now frozen. She seemed genuinely surprised that they bank would not give her money or information about accounts that are not in her name.
Since this is likely going to turn into a legal mess, I'm not going to write any more until it's all sorted out. But think about what happened here when you are making your own estate plans.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 19, 2021, 06:48:01 PM
PS The best part of between periods is watching the Zamboni make the ice beautiful. I like your user name. :-).
Post by: Zamboni on September 19, 2021, 06:54:40 PM
Post by: Zamboni on September 19, 2021, 07:11:59 PM
Quote
PS The best part of between periods is watching the Zamboni make the ice beautiful. I like your user name. :-).
Thank you. Just trying to make the path smoother for those who come after me.
Send a copy of your lawyer's business card to every single person who will inherit anything in your will. Seriously. Then send them a photo of the card via text and email. Make sure everyone knows where it is . . . not just one person or even a couple of people. Some of the people you might think are responsible will flake out and lose the card, or that type of "might or might not need it someday" little business card could be lost in a fire (as happened to my better half).
Post by: SwordGuy on September 19, 2021, 07:43:31 PM
Post by: Villanelle on September 20, 2021, 03:44:55 PM
All I'm gonna say at this time here is that the narcissistic shit show freight train person went to the house of the deceased and found what may have been the only copy of the will within 24 hours of the death. She told siblings she found it and it was "really old", that she didn't like who was in it, and that she was going to burn it. Now she denies that there ever was any will, and says she plans to move into the home of the deceased "so it stays in the family."
Within 24 hours of the death, she also went to the bank of the deceased to try to get the account information. Instead of providing it, the bank thanked her for letting them know about the death and told her the assets, which they will not disclose to her in any way, are now frozen. She seemed genuinely surprised that they bank would not give her money or information about accounts that are not in her name.
Since this is likely going to turn into a legal mess, I'm not going to write any more until it's all sorted out. But think about what happened here when you are making your own estate plans.
This has "get a lawyer" written all over it -- as in yesterday. Whoever else is involved needs to protect themselves, ASAP. Going to be an absolute mess now, no matter what. If she burned a will, it's into criminal territory.
Also: that's a terrific reason not to post/say more about it here.
I'd say that it might be a good time to really evaluate things and consider whether it's worth it. This is another way that FU money can come in handy. It there is a freight train loaded with manure heading toward you, you can simply decide to step off the tracks and walk away. This is, loosely, my plan for an estate from which I may someday be a partial inheritor, along with someone very, very likely to be difficult, dishonest, and distasteful. It is likely to be a fairly modest amount (I'd estimate--but could be wrong!-- that it will be less than $100k). For the headache it may well be, that's just not worth it. Telling the other party they can have everything (but also must do all the work), signing whatever needs to be signed to have no part of any of it, and walking away may well be worth the price.
FU money for inheritance instead of employment.
Post by: Zamboni on September 20, 2021, 04:35:55 PM
Basically it rewards someone for their terribly toxic behavior, which has been a pattern for decades. But my other half had already mentioned completely going no contact with this person whether or not the FU money is used to avoid an estate dispute. He has told me for years how totally rotten this person is, but I never witnessed it first hand until now. Whatever is decided by my beloved, I will be fully supportive, of course.
Post by: Sibley on September 20, 2021, 09:05:47 PM
Post by: By the River on September 21, 2021, 07:28:42 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on September 21, 2021, 07:47:03 AM
I think my wife's family may have headaches with a couple of her brothers fighting over what I assume will be a smaller inheritance (~$100K?). It would be great to just walk away but she has been made executor by her parents because she is the level headed one. We probably need to discuss this with them and see if we can move that duty to a neutral party.As the executor you have the authority to hire out the tasks that need to be done. By law you're probably allowed to charge for your time and expenses, which can be used to pay the person you hire. Problem solved.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on September 21, 2021, 08:14:05 AM
I'm not quite sure that it's a reward for misbehavior, though I'm sure that at least in the short term it will feel like one. If someone pulls all that crap and gets what they want right now, but everyone else decides they're just done and walks away.... It may not be a problem initially. But at some point, they're going to want something, or need help, and no one is going to be there.That's a very important point. Also, If the toxic person receives a double (or triple) inheritance but doesn't have any fiscal discipline, the larger windfall is likely to only marginally extend and/or enrich the ensuing spending spree. I.e. the extra money will buy the toxic person a couple months worth of pleasure, at the cost of trashing what's left of their familial relationships.
Post by: Villanelle on September 21, 2021, 10:57:28 AM
I'm not quite sure that it's a reward for misbehavior, though I'm sure that at least in the short term it will feel like one. If someone pulls all that crap and gets what they want right now, but everyone else decides they're just done and walks away.... It may not be a problem initially. But at some point, they're going to want something, or need help, and no one is going to be there.
Also, I don't care if their bad behavior is rewarded. I can only control and influence my life and if the decision makes my life better and easier, I don't care what it does to their life. If choice A is better for me than choice B, I will choose A and if that means the other person ends up with $10m dollars? Thats irrelevant because I could only choose between A or B for myself. I'm not going to make my life worse by going with B, just because I want to make sure their life isn't made better by my choice, regardless of what I think they may "deserve".
(Clearly, in healthy relationships with reasonable people, choosing between A and B isn't always about just what is best for only one's self. But when you no longer care how your decision affects them then all you can do is look at what is best for you. If that happens to make their life better too, it is irrelevant.)
And to Sibley's specific point, I also agree. When I've considered the possibility walking away from an inheritance, it has always been with the idea that if it comes to that it will be, "Congrats, everything is yours. You are also now the executor and even though you are bumbling idiot, you have to sort out, on your own, how to manage that and what is legally required including paperwork, tax filing, and everything else. And, lose my number. This is the end of the relationship. The $100k [or whatever the amount is] you are receiving is the cost of our relationship which is now over in all ways." And for someone like this person specifically, that may not feel meaningful initially, but they are not good at life and have spend their entire life being dependent on other people. Even something like filing their own, very basic taxes has probably always been handled by a family member. (And yes, this is an able-bodied and able-minded adult. They just dig in and remain intentionally ignorant on so many aspects of basic adulting.) So it likely will be problematic for them. When the money is spent, which will happen quickly, they will want a hand out. When they can't figure out how to tell various entities that the person has passed away, in order to get access to accounts or proceed with legalities, they will want help. When they need to sell a house but don't know how, they will be at the mercy of whatever real estate agent they find. When they decided to invest everything in Bitcoin, not even understanding the most basics of what Bitcoin is, and they lose it all? Not my problem. In this scenario, I would not take those phone calls because this person would be basically a stranger to me. Less than a stranger, in fact, because a stranger is neutral and hasn't squandered any good will or decency.
So sure, their bad behavior might be rewarded with more inheritance, but that will hardly be the boon they make think it is.
Post by: Zamboni on September 21, 2021, 08:45:05 PM
It is becoming clear that there are two relatives who will be fighting like crabs in a bucket over this fairly small estate. One destroyed the will (explicitly because the other was named in it), and told others proudly in real time, but now denies it ever happened and says no will was found. They hate each other, of course, but this week they seem to be trying to form some sort of weird but certainly transient alliance against the two other heirs, who are rational people.
There's no way their alliance will last even a month, much less as long as it takes to get through probate, because the bottom line is that they both want the house and/or contents of the house of the deceased for themselves. Right now they seem intent on finding reasons to cut out the people who live out of town. To hear them tell it, neither cared enough about the deceased to stay living in the same town with her, so why should they inherit anything, amirite? But neither of the crabs-in-a-bucket are competent at all. Both have always "needed" help and had enablers. Their principal helper/enabler is the deceased. You all hit that right on the head. I guess it's a common theme in families.
Probably an actual lawyer should be appointed as administrator of the estate. Thankfully there is an abundance of lawyers, so perhaps one will be willing take on the estate administration for the state allocated fee? Does anyone have experience with something like that?
Post by: talltexan on September 22, 2021, 06:15:25 AM
Post by: Dicey on September 22, 2021, 07:25:13 AM
Imagine a circus like this, and OP somehow convinces the two dramatic siblings to actually pay a few $K to walk away?Because OP would never, ever be rid of them.
Post by: Zamboni on September 22, 2021, 01:52:22 PM
We may be the only people she knows who do have that amount of money easily accessible today, although thankfully our stealth wealth means we can deny having it, but it's going to be a no from us anyway. Which is sad, because if she was decent on any level we would just pay for things and help her sort it out (or at least take the necessary steps get it all taken care of by someone else who is competent.) My God, this is so ugly.
Post by: Dicey on September 22, 2021, 01:56:40 PM
Post by: Villanelle on September 22, 2021, 02:48:18 PM
Instead, imagine one dramatic sibling demanding that she be paid over $10K cash (or sent $10K via Venmo) by the end of the day TODAY, because that is a conversation that just happened . . . not even two weeks since the death. This was a quick death too, as deaths go, not a prolonged illness where bills piled up. No offer to provide receipts for anything, no polite request to work together to figure things out, just a nasty and rude demand for money immediately "for the bills."
We may be the only people she knows who do have that amount of money easily accessible today, although thankfully our stealth wealth means we can deny having it, but it's going to be a no from us anyway. Which is sad, because if she was decent on any level we would just pay for things and help her sort it out (or at least take the necessary steps get it all taken care of by someone else who is competent.) My God, this is so ugly.
Wow.
This is when my, "we have no extra cash" speech comes in handy. And it is also true, if a bit misleading (especially when inferences are made by a spendthrift). It's true because none of our money is "extra".
Is this supposedly for bills related to the estate? What $10,000 bills come up in two weeks?
Post by: SwordGuy on September 22, 2021, 03:21:39 PM
Instead, imagine one dramatic sibling demanding that she be paid over $10K cash (or sent $10K via Venmo) by the end of the day TODAY, because that is a conversation that just happened . . . not even two weeks since the death. This was a quick death too, as deaths go, not a prolonged illness where bills piled up. No offer to provide receipts for anything, no polite request to work together to figure things out, just a nasty and rude demand for money immediately "for the bills."
We may be the only people she knows who do have that amount of money easily accessible today, although thankfully our stealth wealth means we can deny having it, but it's going to be a no from us anyway. Which is sad, because if she was decent on any level we would just pay for things and help her sort it out (or at least take the necessary steps get it all taken care of by someone else who is competent.) My God, this is so ugly.
Wow.
This is when my, "we have no extra cash" speech comes in handy. And it is also true, if a bit misleading (especially when inferences are made by a spendthrift). It's true because none of our money is "extra".
Is this supposedly for bills related to the estate? What $10,000 bills come up in two weeks?
First of all, you don't owe anyone anything as far as the estate goes. Neither does your sibling.
The estate owes the money. The only way you can become liable is if you voluntarily choose to accept something that has a debt attached to it. You can just refuse the item and leave it and the debt for the estate to settle.
If you notify any reasonable and/or competent business that the person who owes them money has died and the paperwork for being the executor has not yet been received, they'll know you simply can't pay them yet and they will wait. Utility companies know this. So do credit cards, mortgage holders, car finance companies, etc. Ditto for doctors and hospitals.
So, unless it's some loan collectors from the local loan shark equipped with some baseball bats, there's simply little reason for that kind of urgency.
If there truly is an emergency, then it should be easily explainable and independently verifiable.
Post by: AMandM on September 23, 2021, 06:31:24 AM
Zamboni, all my sympathy to your SO and you!
Post by: Zamboni on September 23, 2021, 03:11:37 PM
First of all, you don't owe anyone anything as far as the estate goes. Neither does your sibling.
The estate owes the money. The only way you can become liable is if you voluntarily choose to accept something that has a debt attached to it. You can just refuse the item and leave it and the debt for the estate to settle.
If you notify any reasonable and/or competent business that the person who owes them money has died and the paperwork for being the executor has not yet been received, they'll know you simply can't pay them yet and they will wait. Utility companies know this. So do credit cards, mortgage holders, car finance companies, etc. Ditto for doctors and hospitals.
So, unless it's some loan collectors from the local loan shark equipped with some baseball bats, there's simply little reason for that kind of urgency.
If there truly is an emergency, then it should be easily explainable and independently verifiable.
Yes, everyone seems to understand that. At least everyone seems to understand that except the "gimme cash today" person, who also happens to be the destroyer of the last will and testament (DotLWaT!).
DotLWaT! also demands everyone sign (& get notarized) a freshly prepared document she has had drawn up that declares her to be the executor of the estate. It's not the will . . . you can imagine how (not) well that worked.
Wow.
This is when my, "we have no extra cash" speech comes in handy. And it is also true, if a bit misleading (especially when inferences are made by a spendthrift). It's true because none of our money is "extra".
Is this supposedly for bills related to the estate? What $10,000 bills come up in two weeks?
I like that "no extra cash" phrasing. Gonna borrow that as needed ;-)
That was fast.
SO's family has a relatively high proportion of fast twitch muscle. My own genetics lean more towards slow twitch . . . I can keep shaking my head "no" forever, for example.
@Finances_With_Purpose, those are some great ideas. Very creative. It seems like "sit on it and do nothing" is the direction this is headed, though, mostly because the siblings don't want to interact with DotLWaT! at all anymore. It takes two to make a fight, they say. So true.
Post by: Catbert on September 23, 2021, 04:42:56 PM
Post by: Adventine on September 23, 2021, 05:09:55 PM
Post by: Villanelle on September 23, 2021, 05:27:31 PM
I'm not a lawyer/don't know where you are, so I'll start from that point. I happen to have walked through these types of things with some people, though. To your questions, here's what I would do and why:
First, a lawyer can't just up and decide to take over someone's estate. Instead, in general, a person involved must ask for that--someone who has an interest has to ask for that. So someone would have to get involved, most likely, to make that happen.
I don't know how it works where you are, but in many places you'd have to go to court, notify the other siblings, and convince a judge to appoint some other lawyer to run things (which might be easy to do in this case). All at your own cost initially, since clearly, these guys aren't going to agree to let anyone else control it but themselves.
So, what would I do?
1. Consult a lawyer now, even if you don't plan to sue or be involved. For instance, you mentioned a house. I'm guessing they won't pay taxes on it until ownership is decided. Maybe they'll fight over who lives there. They'll surely fight over who pays what.
The third heir - the honest person - will be on the hook too, though, and may get tagged for debts due for the house/estate eventually. It can become a mess; I've seen a relative sued for foreclosure over a house she disclaimed and didn't want. It was just good that she wasn't trying to get a mortgage at the time. (Ditto suits if someone gets injured there.) You may want to figure out a reasonable exit plan, even if that's just to disclaim whatever you may have been entitled to.
2. Hire a lawyer if you plan to take any action steps, though at least consult one regardless. Go to a lawyer you know and trust. You ultimately want a good estate litigation lawyer in the area near where this house/estate is (i.e. in that state and not too far away). But you may not know one, so find a lawyer that you do know and trust to help you find the right lawyer. That'll help in many ways, and it protects you to some extent against getting some weird scumbag.
Short answer is that you need a consult if not a lawyer for the longer term. Depends on what your loved one wants to do, but the best way to decide that is to go lay it all out for a lawyer and weigh the options.
Since there's a house, I would assume that this whole fiasco will be long and ugly until. Eventually, a bank may foreclose for debts on the house, or a government will, for taxes (and taxes may take years upon years), or the courts will ultimately take it over. All of those futures will are messy and probably a long ways away.
Houses are hard to sell without: (1) the titled owner or (2) agreement among those who remain. So you may as well get some legal help to figure out what to do. You'll rest better even if the best option is to sit on it for ten years and do nothing.
Besides, the lawyer may give you devilish lawyer ideas like (**consult a lawyer first!!**): do nothing until the brothers are finally forced to create an estate in a court in order to sell the house and they are desperately fighting over who's in charge. Then send in a lawyer (or a letter) to the court to notify the judge that Brother A burned the actual will and is using that to commit fraud against both the parents and the heirs. You are ready and willing to testify and also supply the judge the names of witnesses who heard Brother A tell them that himself and have no financial interest, should this proceed, and you now request that those witnesses be called to testify. Furthermore, you have notified the police and their presence will be requested as well. You can politely suggest that you, the honest heir, don't want to profit from the Brothers' shenanigans, which have harmed everyone (including the court), and you lament that the actual will probably had thoughtful protections for Brother A, Brother B, you, and the Court from having to deal with this godawful ugly public mess that Brother A has now necessitated. Sadly though, you just can't stand to sit idly by and watch Brother A profit from theft against your parents and destruction of all that they built while these brothers smear their good reputation, so you felt it necessary to propose that the court allocate Brother A's fair share to a charity/cause that your parents liked, in their honor, since we'll never know what the will said, but we know it was worse for Brother A, and that he committed fraud to stop it. Then sit back and watch Brother A self-immolate while the court spends the rest of the case finding creative ways not to give Brother A one single dime. Because consequences.
But really, it may be better for your mental health to just do a consult and then walk away entirely in the most efficient manner possible and let the others go to war with one another while you're enjoying life somewhere far, far away.
I'm not saying this is the wrong approach, but the problem I would have with it is that this is work and stress and uncomfortable confrontation and time spent for me. And the whole point of walking away is to avoid that. For the same reason that I don't care if my choice supposedly rewards bad behavior, I have no desire to make my life worse (even just slightly so, for all the time and thought spent on this legal maneuvering) in order to make sure someone else's life is also worse. That's the point of walking away--they don't matter in my life, and that's for better or for worse.
So the effort I plan to make--while fully recognizing that things could change if and when this is no longer a hypothetical--will be hopefully only one meeting with a lawyer and that will be to determine how I can make sure my name is in no way associated with anything having to do with the estate, lest their be unpaid taxes or anything else. Once I've figured out how to completely remove myself, legally from anything, I get to walk away, unburdened. What happens with, for, and to Greedy Relative after that is entirely not my concern.
Post by: Zamboni on September 24, 2021, 08:11:50 AM
Followed your advice and consulted with the estate lawyer who did our wills. He's a friend that I've known for years. He had some good advice and said anyone with a basic education should be able to administer an estate with the help of the county clerk. When we mentioned that that house needs very extensive clean up regardless of whether a family member moves there or it is sold, he then suggested that the county probate clerk can recommend a local attorney to be the administrator appointed by the family. That atty would handle all of the matters related to the estate accounting, legal notices, paying debtors, etc. for the state allocated rate, which depends upon the amount of assets and transactions and it is capped at $6K total. He said the clerk will know people who accept that rate. He said he would do it if it was located in a closer county, but it's a couple of hours away, so he's not interested in making any trips.
This all seemed really reasonable. SO thought he had found the solution to the bickering and suggested it to his siblings as a route to making things smooth and easy. DotLWaT wigged out and started hurling insults. She insists on doing it herself and now wants the others to sign something releasing her from the requirement to have a bond. So, yes, she has already been filing documents to be the estate administrator, which isn't surprising.
Apparently the bond is required by state law unless all of the other heirs are adults AND willing to sign a waiver of the bond. See how much we are learning?! The bond cannot be waived if any of the heirs are under 18. Sounds like the bond is supposed to provide some level of protection in case of mismanagement or incompetence or theft by the estate administrator. If everyone is normal, sure, sign it.
SO declined to sign that for obvious reasons. More rage. More insults. DotLWaT does not like rules or boundaries. Now says she will smear his name to anyone who will listen and that everyone already knows what a terrible person he is. Umm, okay.
Edited to add: his Mom died less than 2 weeks ago. Sheesh.
Post by: Dicey on September 24, 2021, 08:17:39 AM
Post by: FIPurpose on September 24, 2021, 08:21:52 AM
Having a lawyer do it sounds best. Heck, even if everyone was on the same page, 6k sounds like a good deal for someone else to just handle all of that.
Post by: PDXTabs on September 24, 2021, 08:50:40 AM
SO thought he had found the solution to the bickering and suggested it to his siblings as a route to making things smooth and easy. DotLWaT wigged out and started hurling insults. She insists on doing it herself and now wants the others to sign something releasing her from the requirement to have a bond. So, yes, she has already been filing documents to be the estate administrator, which isn't surprising.
Apparently the bond is required by state law unless all of the other heirs are adults AND willing to sign a waiver of the bond. See how much we are learning?! The bond cannot be waived if any of the heirs are under 18. Sounds like the bond is supposed to provide some level of protection in case of mismanagement or incompetence or theft by the estate administrator. If everyone is normal, sure, sign it.
SO declined to sign that for obvious reasons. More rage. More insults. DotLWaT does not like rules or boundaries. Now says she will smear his name to anyone who will listen and that everyone already knows what a terrible person he is. Umm, okay.
Good, don't sign that bond waiver. That's a normal part of the estate dissolution process in every state I've been involved with (namely: Oregon).
Post by: Zamboni on September 24, 2021, 01:03:56 PM
Within 24 hours of the death, DotLWaT claims she spent in the neighborhood of $22000 on final arrangements (funeral, burial plot, etc). This is what she supposedly immediately needed $10K cash for. Regardless of whether or not you think it was reasonable of her to rush out and spend that amount the morning right after the death without consulting anyone, there are 3 siblings . . . so how is $10K each adding up to $22K? And why would someone need it in cash immediately?
Any normal person would ask to see receipts: DotLWaT was asked for receipts and responded that she would send them "tomorrow". That was a couple of days ago. Still nothing on that front.
Post by: Villanelle on September 24, 2021, 01:13:42 PM
It has pretty much all been via text.
Within 24 hours of the death, DotLWaT claims she spent in the neighborhood of $22000 on final arrangements (funeral, burial plot, etc). This is what she supposedly immediately needed $10K cash for. Regardless of whether or not you think it was reasonable of her to rush out and spend that amount the morning right after the death without consulting anyone, there are 3 siblings . . . so how is $10K each adding up to $22K? And why would someone need it in cash immediately?
Any normal person would ask to see receipts: DotLWaT was asked for receipts and responded that she would send them "tomorrow". That was a couple of days ago. Still nothing on that front.
And having made those decisions without consulting anyone doesn't mean she can bill the estate for them. (of course, consult a lawyer; I am not one.) A $22,000 funeral is a personal choice and therefore a personal expense, not an estate expense if the estate (meaning, all the heirs) didn't agree to it.
She's ridiculous. I'm so sorry anyone has to deal with this, but especially they they are days out from the loss of a parent.
Post by: SwordGuy on September 24, 2021, 01:39:31 PM
And if that wasn't feasible, I would conduct affairs so that they would completely burn ALL bridges to all the other siblings.
Unless, of course, my spouse, her sibling, wanted otherwise.
Post by: Zamboni on September 24, 2021, 02:37:19 PM
My SO is very distraught after all of this and now just doesn't want to deal with anything, which is understandable. He has started having some nightmares about DotLWaT and it is making him lose sleep. :-( He worries about the crazy things she is saying. His Dad also has very serious behavior issues and has become DotLWaT's flying monkey . . . that is odd because supposedly he and DotLWaT hate each other. They are both being awful.
When we were told the death was imminent, SO rushed there and was able to be with her at the end. After that we discussed that SO would go to the funeral home with family and offer to contribute $5K towards the funeral expenses later that week. . . an offer he never had a chance to make since DotLWaT reaffirmed that she is a force of destruction.
Just now I looked up the law and I learned this: in our state, there are legislated caps on final arrangement expenses that can be reimbursed by an estate: $3500 for the funeral and $1500 for the burial plot and headstone or marker. So $5K total towards those costs from estates. Which makes sense, because average final expenses are in the $5-10K range, even with a full service funeral. Oh dear. DotLWaT's gonna absolutely lose whatever is left of her mind. Maybe as part of her initiating her oversight of the estate she recently learned that and it led to the sudden demand for the cash? Based upon prior negative experiences with DotLWaT, SO thinks she is just trying to extort money from him and his sibling, who both told her on the evening of the death that the deceased had told them she wanted a cremation and modest funeral, but I think she actually put a crap ton of guilt money on her credit card (for the miles!) and now is having serious buyer's remorse.
Post by: Sibley on September 24, 2021, 05:44:21 PM
Zamboni - suggest to your SO that he place the problematic family members on mute on his phone, so that he can read and respond (or not) to messages when he's up for it, rather than getting notifications as they come in. Same with email. Filter emails to a separate folder, read all at once. It can be quite helpful.
Post by: Zamboni on September 24, 2021, 05:53:50 PM
Post by: Villanelle on September 24, 2021, 06:07:58 PM
So DotLWaT is going to be having money trouble shortly. Wonderful. /s
Zamboni - suggest to your SO that he place the problematic family members on mute on his phone, so that he can read and respond (or not) to messages when he's up for it, rather than getting notifications as they come in. Same with email. Filter emails to a separate folder, read all at once. It can be quite helpful.
Agree! And if you are up for it, Zamboni, you might even offer to be the initial screen. Read/listen to the messages once a day and give him a polite summary of anything he actually needs to know and have him directly read/listen only anything that he absolutely must get word for word.
Post by: Zamboni on September 24, 2021, 06:38:27 PM
Post by: SunnyDays on September 24, 2021, 08:07:02 PM
Are her words about finding a really old will and threatening to burn it in a text? If so, this should be presented to the lawyer/police. Even if it was only verbal, it still might be worth getting authorities involved. Threats of legal action might bring her into line.
Post by: Zamboni on September 24, 2021, 08:56:36 PM
Honestly I just don't want to ask him about it for awhile for the sake of our peace and happiness. I'll wait for him to bring it up if he hears anything over this next month.
I'm also not sure DotLWaT officially filed the death certificate with the county clerk. Clearly she was at least getting things ready for the process, but when he refused to sign a document and give her cash immediately when she demanded it, she flew into a rage and told him that he could deal with it all alone and that he would come begging her for help later. Because, in her words, we are broke losers who can't make our own money. Uh huh. So maybe she's not going to do it? Other than a general prediction of stirring up problems, it's hard to predict what she will do with any certainty.
Post by: Weisass on September 30, 2021, 06:49:45 AM
And also:
I’ve asked my parents to take the time to lay out their intentions with all of the siblings clearly while we are all together next summer.
I’ve told my husband it is time to put our intentions in writing
Thank you for all of the cautionary tales and occasional positive stories that remind me how important it is to be transparent, to hold things lightly, and to put healthy boundaries around ourselves. Because nobody will do that for us.
Post by: Zamboni on October 01, 2021, 08:00:07 AM
Darkly hilariously update on the saga of DotLWaT (destroyer of the last will and testament):
The named executor, who had travelled from out of state for the funeral, has now gone home, sifted through a pack rat stash of documents, and found a copy of the will: Hahaha DotLWaT's efforts are foiled!
But it gets better: this will is >20 years old and names the deceased's ex-spouse (who was their spouse at the time the will was signed) as inheriting their entire estate. Executor is not willing to just trash this document, much to the consternation of DotLWaT. So suddenly DotLWaT is playing nice to everyone and trying to get everyone to "reach an agreement" that everyone has to unite to fight ex-spouse getting it all.
The ex-spouse has not been informed of this as far as I know. It's important to know that the ex-spouse did have a continuing seemingly friendly relationship with the deceased and did visit during the duration of the pre-death hospital stay and did attend the funeral. But neither the named executor nor DotLWaT want him to get everything. DotLWaT doesn't want him to get anything.
And for anyone who is sure that he won't get anything, I will refer you to the fact that Freddie Mercury's ex-wife inherited the vast majority of his gigantic estate . . . and he was an out of the closet homosexual who had a live-in domestic partner who received relatively little in the end. They were friends until his death, which is not actually that different than the situation that is happening right now with our family.
I'll update more later.
Post by: former player on October 01, 2021, 08:17:41 AM
The named executor needs to take legal advice on whether or not the ex-spouse can still inherit if the divorce came after the will was executed - this depends on the legal rules that apply where the maker of the Will died.
If the Will left everything to the ex spouse and the ex spouse isn't able to inherit, then the executor will probably have to distribute the estate according to intestacy rules - ie as if there were no Will at all. But again this depends on the local jurisdiction.
I suppose it's possibly that the will destroyed by DoftLWaT might have been a later will than the one the executor has a copy of? If so, the earlier Will may have been revoked by the later destroyed one which would technically still be in force - although evidence of that would be tricky given that the only live person to see that will destroyed it. From what is said, I suspect there was only ever one Will and DoftLWaT destroyed the original of what the executor now has a copy.
The executor for the Will should 1) contact the legal firm (if any) that helped draw up the will to see if they've got any further information about the circumstances in which it was made and whether they know of any later Will, and 2) call round the legal firms near where the deceased lived to see if they have any record of her having made any other will. Probably both these efforts will turn up nothing, but a negative to those two questions could be useful in removing doubt and helping the executor to get probate and then distribute the estate according to it, or according to the rules of intestacy if relevant.
Post by: LadyMuMu on October 01, 2021, 07:39:12 PM
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2021, 04:44:42 PM
Post by: RWTL on October 03, 2021, 05:32:10 PM
Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
This is hard to wrap my head around how someone could feel this way.
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2021, 05:37:57 PM
Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
This is hard to wrap my head around how someone could feel this way.
Right? My parents would never ever have wanted to burden me with anything. It floors me.
Post by: iris lily on October 03, 2021, 06:12:04 PM
This is not a super crazy story, but symbolizes my family. My dad died over a year ago. He had told my two living siblings that he had "taken care" of the funeral expenses. He unexpectedly passes. Luckily he lived in an apartment and was not a packrat. The plot was already paid for, but despite covid it just being a burial and not a funeral, was close to 16k just for those expenses none of it paid ahead of time. Week or so later one of my siblings finds an envelope with 14k in it, realize this was what he meant by "taking care" of it, though it honestly wasn't enough to cover the burial let alone a full funeral. As there was no will or wishes written down it was stressful. We tell mom, please plan ahead. She has no will. Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
In this situation my relative would be getting the $700 special, which is cremation with remai s picked up in a cardboard box, then Scattered.
$16,000 Sounds like a lot to me but I suppose if there was a cost of a burial plot and you are in a high population place, and then there’s an expensive casket and vault, I suppose all that adds up.
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2021, 08:17:51 PM
This is not a super crazy story, but symbolizes my family. My dad died over a year ago. He had told my two living siblings that he had "taken care" of the funeral expenses. He unexpectedly passes. Luckily he lived in an apartment and was not a packrat. The plot was already paid for, but despite covid it just being a burial and not a funeral, was close to 16k just for those expenses none of it paid ahead of time. Week or so later one of my siblings finds an envelope with 14k in it, realize this was what he meant by "taking care" of it, though it honestly wasn't enough to cover the burial let alone a full funeral. As there was no will or wishes written down it was stressful. We tell mom, please plan ahead. She has no will. Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
In this situation my relative would be getting the $700 special, which is cremation with remai s picked up in a cardboard box, then Scattered.
$16,000 Sounds like a lot to me but I suppose if there was a cost of a burial plot and you are in a high population place, and then there’s an expensive casket and vault, I suppose all that adds up.
I was surprised how much it cost, considering there was no funeral (there was graveside service). The plot was already paid for. We did purchase a solid wood casket as that is customary but from another company so "reasonable". Other costs were: transportation from the morgue and to the gravesite. cost for opening up the plot, open (less expensive) casket cover, burial services, closing the plot, prayer cards, set of flowers, and setting of the marker (The metal burial marker was free because he was former military, but the cemetary required it was affixed to stone and then set). That alone cost around 1K.
Post by: RWTL on October 04, 2021, 03:24:03 AM
This is not a super crazy story, but symbolizes my family. My dad died over a year ago. He had told my two living siblings that he had "taken care" of the funeral expenses. He unexpectedly passes. Luckily he lived in an apartment and was not a packrat. The plot was already paid for, but despite covid it just being a burial and not a funeral, was close to 16k just for those expenses none of it paid ahead of time. Week or so later one of my siblings finds an envelope with 14k in it, realize this was what he meant by "taking care" of it, though it honestly wasn't enough to cover the burial let alone a full funeral. As there was no will or wishes written down it was stressful. We tell mom, please plan ahead. She has no will. Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead". And also since we all were prepared to pay for dads expenses before we found the money, we should be prepared to do the same for her.
In this situation my relative would be getting the $700 special, which is cremation with remai s picked up in a cardboard box, then Scattered.
$16,000 Sounds like a lot to me but I suppose if there was a cost of a burial plot and you are in a high population place, and then there’s an expensive casket and vault, I suppose all that adds up.
I was surprised how much it cost, considering there was no funeral (there was graveside service). The plot was already paid for. We did purchase a solid wood casket as that is customary but from another company so "reasonable". Other costs were: transportation from the morgue and to the gravesite. cost for opening up the plot, open (less expensive) casket cover, burial services, closing the plot, prayer cards, set of flowers, and setting of the marker (The metal burial marker was free because he was former military, but the cemetary required it was affixed to stone and then set). That alone cost around 1K.
Unfortunately I've had several deaths in my family in a short time period. Both members wanted cremation and one wanted as cheap as possible (specific wishes indicated Cheap!)
Family member 1: Cremation was pre-paid and remains buried. Burial was about $1500 with permits, opening, closing, and headstone. Plot was pre-paid.
Family member 2: Cremation was pre-paid but there were "extra" charges from the funeral home that added up to around $1200. Ashes were spread at a farm that the family member was raised on.
This is an area where you could easily spend a lot of money quickly since the funeral homes are first in line with the family and most people aren't going to shop around.
Post by: snowball on October 04, 2021, 08:13:07 AM
Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead".
I mean. She can't have it both ways...
The last bit rings the truest to me, so if she won't care because she'll be dead, then I'd want to take her at her word. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Post by: Zamboni on October 04, 2021, 09:08:46 AM
Also, since she won’t write anything down, then anything that amounts to her estate will be intestate and will be equally divided between her descendants who survive her per stirpes. Sounds like a win for the responsible.
I actually had to talk a friend out of the “leave more to the irresponsible druggie adult child bc he needs it more” mindset. It simply hadn’t occurred to her that doing that might hurt the feelings of her younger two sons, who are very responsible adults and already pretty tired of what a burden their lay about addict older brother is to their mom. Guess enablers just are conditioned to keep on enabling even after they are dead.
Post by: lhamo on October 04, 2021, 09:46:22 AM
enablers just are conditioned to keep on enabling even after they are dead.
This is an appropriate TL/DR subtitle for this thread! Not that it should end, but it is the gist of story after story after story.
If you are in a dysfunctional family and somebody dies, put your big kid pants on, draw your boundaries and prepare to defend them.
Post by: Zamboni on October 04, 2021, 10:28:30 AM
So @Zamboni several things: first, and most important of which is THAT I AM TERRIBLY SORRY YOU AND YOUR SO ARE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS! That can't be said enough. This is not normal or humane behavior.
Seriously. You two may want to consider something that has helped us in the midst of awful situations: go out and have some fun some nights and try to forget about all of this. I know it's hard to do that in the midst of a tragedy, but it's also the best medicine, as folks have reminded me over the years (because I'll let the stress of it get to me).
Now, I can help as to where this is headed, as I have experience dealing with (lots of) conflicts and unreasonable situations. Actions speak louder than words, and this started with outright fraud and seizure of things that DotL (for short) had no business taking.
It's headed towards outright fraud and theft. She's going to camp on the estate, control it, and drain every thing of any possible value. It's already underway.
The estate will continue on until she converts everything that she possibly can into cash for herself, the estate goes bankrupt, and things get seized. Her cash problems will only hasten the speed of the theft.
This is someone who does what she wants, not someone who cares about paperwork, laws, and rules--that much she has shown you. I hate to tell you this, but to prepare yourself, I would prepare for maximum ugly here and start establishing those boundaries so that you can stay out of and above the drama.
Eventually, you're likely to need hard no-contact rules. Why let her drag your own emotional lives down, rather than shut her off for periods of time, and/or mediate it through a lawyer/trusted friend/someone else/ignore her completely, so that you can stay away from it all. That path is going to get increasingly attractive over time.
As I see it, there are two paths here: SO can either jump in, take over the estate, and fight it out (or, rather, employ the lawyers to do so), which would be a large emotional lift and expensive due to DotL and her inevitable shenanigans. Or you both can walk away, let her trash it all, ignore it all as it circles the drain, but preserve more of your peace and sanity. And nothing is worth more than peace and sanity...once you don't have it anymore.
Anyway, I'm sorry once again and wish you nothing but the best in dealing with a truly awful situation. There's nothing like death and money to bring out the worst in some people. But thankfully you two have each other to get through this and stay above the fray.
Thanks again for this. We decided to go on vacation to a tropical paradise this past weekend . . . that was a great idea!
Your predictions are so spot on.
Updates about the Destroyer of the Last Will and Testament (DotLWaT!, DotLW for short):
-DotLW got so mad that Mr. Zamboni wouldn't send her money for "the bills" that she threatened no contact with him . . . a threat that of course she just can't make good on because of her continuous need to send rude texts and demand things. And then there was the whole emergence of another copy of a will wrinkle she hadn't anticipated. So she's already followed up several times since then. *Eyeroll*
-Mr. Zamboni has decided that No Contact with DotLW is the only sane strategy from his side . . . so he is not responding.
-As far as I can discern, the named executor in the only copy of a will anyone has seen beside DotLW has thrown in the towel and given the reins over to DotLW. Honestly, everyone is just quietly backing away from the mess with their hands in the air. Other sane sibling is also just saying "whatever, do what you want, but I'm not giving you money" to all demands.
-DotLW has communicated that she is going to obtain the divorce finalization paperwork from the court to negate the named sole inheritor in the will from getting anything. No idea if this is how it works or not, and no idea if DotLW has sought any legal advice.
-DotLW has sent copies of credit card receipts for what she paid for the hastily solo planned over-the-top funeral/burial. Oh, Lordy, I guess it's no surprise that she spread it out over several different credit cards even to the same funeral home. Predictions that she is in financial trouble coming true. She appears to have bought the most expensive plot at the most expensive cemetery in town. Despite the deceased belonging to a large local church for decades, she paid extra to have the service held in the chapel owned by the funeral home instead. And despite having to charge it all on various cards, she is still vowing to spend over $4K additionally for a headstone which she is picking out. According to her texts, she IS doing this and she WILL get her money back and no one better stand in her way! No one else is on board with her plan. Seriously I've purchased cars for less than this theoretical headstone.
-DotLW is whining to extended family that people are not jumping in to pay her back for her ridiculous choices.
-DotLW also sent a copy of her bank statement showing that she is paying the bills of the deceased. These include normal things like utilities on the home and absurd things such as renewing an AARP membership (Um, why?) She is paying these from her personal account, rather than an established estate bank account.
-Although DotLW once said she planned to move into the house left by the deceased, she has reversed course and now says she plans to sell it.
Post by: TomTX on October 04, 2021, 06:45:02 PM
I was surprised how much it cost, considering there was no funeral (there was graveside service). The plot was already paid for. We did purchase a solid wood casket as that is customary but from another company so "reasonable".
https://www.costco.com/funeral-caskets.html
Post by: Sibley on October 04, 2021, 08:13:43 PM
It sounds like everyone is deciding to walk away. While a shame to the ideals of law and order, it's probably the most efficient and effective way to avoid a mess. DotLW is going to learn the very hard lesson of karma though. By behaving as she is, she is going to alienate everyone. She's also going to end up completely broke. Which she will then blame on everyone else, conveniently forgetting that she did it to herself.
Glad you got a break from everything at least.
Post by: AMandM on October 05, 2021, 12:34:27 PM
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Post by: mm1970 on October 05, 2021, 12:49:12 PM
+1. That's how I feel.Says she wants to be buried, full funeral etc. But also says she is not planning to set aside any money to pay for her wishes, (or write anything down). Also says she is going to leave all her money (hypothetical whether she will even have any assets by the time she does) to only one of the three siblings. Before my brother died she said he was going to inherit it because he "needed" it more. Now she says the same for my sister. Ironically it is the more responsible siblings who have helped her (she lives with my brother) and also have grandkids, that get cut out. Me and my brother shrug. It's not worth talking about but we asked, why leave things in a way you know will make it more difficult for the living? Responds "why should I care, I'll be dead".
I mean. She can't have it both ways...
The last bit rings the truest to me, so if she won't care because she'll be dead, then I'd want to take her at her word. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Zamboni Oooh boy, what a hot mess that is. Good luck.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 05, 2021, 01:27:23 PM
Post by: AlanStache on October 05, 2021, 03:05:02 PM
Post by: SunnyDays on October 05, 2021, 04:12:41 PM
Post by: PDXTabs on October 05, 2021, 04:24:24 PM
@Zamboni, can the named executor just “turn over the reins?” This is a legal responsibility, so I hope they have gone through proper channels to do so.
Is it? Can I name Donald Trump as the executor of my estate and force him to work for me once I'm dead?
Post by: Zamboni on October 05, 2021, 05:11:49 PM
The person was an elementary school teacher and not wealthy by any means. There was a small designated beneficiary account that is already being split between her children. There is a car (with an existing loan) and a house (with rumors or an existing second mortgage) . . . I expect DotLW will drain everything else and sell anything else of value as she pleases without entering it into the estate. This is a hoarder situation and it's going to be a lot of work, so she'll be earning it and I predict she will seriously regret that she ever went the direction she is going.
Named executor lives out of state and not interested in entering the fray. As far as I know there is no law that compels anyone to be executor. My other half was willing to help sort things out, but DotLW doesn't want any help, and she's super nasty to anyone who makes any bland suggestion of any kind, so whatever.
Post by: Adventine on October 05, 2021, 10:34:10 PM
Post by: AMandM on October 06, 2021, 07:05:38 AM
Is it? Can I name Donald Trump as the executor of my estate and force him to work for me once I'm dead?
Yes to the first part, no to the second.
In the jurisdictions where I have had to deal with a death, the executor named in the will has the right to decline the job, but not the right to appoint the replacement. If the will doesn't name a backup executor, a court appoints one. If someone (e.g., DotLWaT) volunteers, the court will generally appoint that person as long as the presumptive heirs don't object. E.g., I had to sign a paper agreeing that my sister could be the executor for our grandmother's estate.
Post by: Britan on October 06, 2021, 12:25:18 PM
How does one find a reputable lawyer to draft a will? And what is a reasonable rate for this service? DH and I are young still (30s), but we do have some simple assets and 1 kid with another on the way. It’s something we’ve discussed growing up and just doing, but no idea where to start. Our parents would have recommendations but are not local and I gather that lawyers in entirely different states are of limited help. I don’t think things would be complex enough to involve a lawyer except that, due to Reasons (which could be a post into itself), I am no contact with my mother and we need to have an ironclad plan to ensure that our kid(s) would go to the right guardian, and that she would not be able to find some legal visitation loophole.
And since I feel like I’ve gotta leave something here for y’all to sip tea over, there is no drama as of yet. However, my grandparents, both in their 80s, have a sizable fortune, and if I had to guess, my mother is the executor. No amount of money in the world could get me to deal with her. If it means I get nothing because I’d have to fight her over it, so be it. But I have heard that she has already tried selling some of their furniture (they are very much alive!). So I do not have high expectations of how that will all go down. Not my circus, not enough money in the world to make it my monkeys.
On the other hand, my dad retired early. He and my mother acrimoniously divorced some time ago, and he’s since remarried a lovely woman who is his executor. God willing, he’ll be around for a good long time, and none of this will come to pass or at least will be long in the future. Dad has done FAR more for my mother financially post-divorce than was required or even fair imho… could also be a drama post unto itself… and if she tries to give his new wife a hard time, or god forbid something happens to both him and new wife at the same time and I am appointed backup executor, and she gives me a hard time, I very well could go salted earth.
Who knows, though. If mother takes enough of her bleach miracle cures, none of this will be a problem. Not that I’d love that outcome, but the realist in me knows it’s a possibility.
Post by: SwordGuy on October 06, 2021, 12:42:06 PM
A simple will should be well within the competence of most. Ask around locally for recommendations.
Write up what you want to happen in plain language. Make it simple, use bullet points or if priority is important, numbered points.
Call a few and talk to them for a few minutes to get a feel for them. Tell them what you want. If they don't show an understanding of the details of what you want, walk.
If you're really worried, hire one to write it and another to break and fix it.
What metropolitan area is nearest to you, you might get lucky and get a recommendation here. I know a good one in the Raleigh/Durham NC area, for example.
Post by: Britan on October 06, 2021, 01:08:11 PM
Post by: Dee18 on October 06, 2021, 01:14:12 PM
Here is a short article raising some of the issues about choosing (or trying to choose) a guardian for a minor child.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/legal-guardian.html
I was a single parent and wanted the guardian to be a very close friend who was male and single and lived in another state. I lived in a conservative state where the law is that the judge decides what is "in the best interests of the minor child" and is not bound at all by the deceased parent(s)' wishes. In my case my fear was that the court might designate my married sister. She had no children and lived an extremely materialistic lifestyle. (Years later she invited my 12 year old to visit her for several days...and then left her home alone in a strange neighborhood while going off to work, instead of doing the sightseeing and outings she and my daughter had planned.). My attorney advised me to, in addition to specifying my preference in my will, establish a record that supported my choice. At the attorney's suggestion I wrote series of emails to a close girlfriend in which I discussed the issues and why my sister would not be a good guardian and my friend would. (On my daughter's 18th birthday my girlfriend burned the record.) I also made sure we had at least annual visits with the potential guardian. My daughter is now in her 20s and has a great relationship with both her designated guardian and my sister.
Post by: mm1970 on October 06, 2021, 01:39:28 PM
Not so much a concern about a lawyer out to be malicious. But in any profession, if I just pick the first person I happen to see a sign for, I’d never know if they’re gonna half-ass it, especially if it isn’t a lot of income for them to do a simple will? My friend group used to be primarily childless PhD students, so I wouldn’t think any of them would have a recommendation. Though I suppose I could ask some of my kid and/or asset having local friends who might actually have a will drafted. Seems a weird topic of conversation to bring up I guess, haha.It's not at all a weird discussion to have. We drafted our will and trust with a local attorney that we found by asking local friends with kids and houses.
Post by: clarkfan1979 on October 06, 2021, 01:42:58 PM
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
Post by: PDXTabs on October 06, 2021, 01:47:18 PM
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
I've seen this up close and personal. I'm in the middle of a protracted legal battle, but as soon as that legal issue is resolved I plan to setup a testamentary trust for my children and will probably just wait for them to be 30 before giving them the money. At that point, if they blow it, that's on them.
Post by: Villanelle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:21 PM
Post by: Adventine on October 06, 2021, 02:04:12 PM
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.The only durable guard rails I can think of are:- staggering the release of the life insurance payout- raising your kids with non-materialistic values
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
Otherwise, not much else to be done except hope that your kids hold on to those values after you pass.
Post by: Imma on October 06, 2021, 02:26:22 PM
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.The only durable guard rails I can think of are:- staggering the release of the life insurance payout- raising your kids with non-materialistic values
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
Otherwise, not much else to be done except hope that your kids hold on to those values after you pass.
I know my mother put a staggered release of funds in her will when we were younger. It was possible to get larger payments but only after the permission of a specially appointed trustee or a judge. The person who was appointed as a trustee was a proto-mustachian. This part was removed from the will when we all proved to be sensible with money.
Other than those options, there's not much you can do either way except raise your children well. I know of people who were in their 50s with a comfortable income who blew through an inhertance in no time, I also know a person who inherited a fairly large amount of money at the age of 18, made a mess of their whole life for years, but never ever touched the inheritance in their savings account. Still has it as far as I know, waiting to be used as a downpayment on a property some day (not the best option from a mustachian point of view, but there are lots of worse things to do with a 6-figure inheritance than putting it in a savings account and buying a family home eventually).
Post by: DadJokes on October 06, 2021, 03:02:23 PM
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.The only durable guard rails I can think of are:- staggering the release of the life insurance payout- raising your kids with non-materialistic values
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
Otherwise, not much else to be done except hope that your kids hold on to those values after you pass.
I know my mother put a staggered release of funds in her will when we were younger. It was possible to get larger payments but only after the permission of a specially appointed trustee or a judge. The person who was appointed as a trustee was a proto-mustachian. This part was removed from the will when we all proved to be sensible with money.
Other than those options, there's not much you can do either way except raise your children well. I know of people who were in their 50s with a comfortable income who blew through an inhertance in no time, I also know a person who inherited a fairly large amount of money at the age of 18, made a mess of their whole life for years, but never ever touched the inheritance in their savings account. Still has it as far as I know, waiting to be used as a downpayment on a property some day (not the best option from a mustachian point of view, but there are lots of worse things to do with a 6-figure inheritance than putting it in a savings account and buying a family home eventually).
I'd agree that paying out smaller portions over time and raising money-smart adults are the best two options. A third option could be to severely limit how much the kids get, spreading the money around more.
Assuming that I'm a multi-millionaire by the time I die, I don't plan to leave all of my money to my only child, regardless of how responsible he is. I'll leave him a good amount, but hopefully not so much that it significantly impacts his life (other than speed up his time until FI). The rest would go to college funds & student loan debt of grandchildren, nieces, and nephews, followed by favorite charities.
Post by: Dee18 on October 06, 2021, 03:18:53 PM
Post by: Zamboni on October 06, 2021, 04:09:39 PM
Not so much a concern about a lawyer out to be malicious. But in any profession, if I just pick the first person I happen to see a sign for, I’d never know if they’re gonna half-ass it, especially if it isn’t a lot of income for them to do a simple will? My friend group used to be primarily childless PhD students, so I wouldn’t think any of them would have a recommendation. Though I suppose I could ask some of my kid and/or asset having local friends who might actually have a will drafted. Seems a weird topic of conversation to bring up I guess, haha.
We received lawyer recommendations from two people: the guy who finalized our term life insurance (you have that too, right?), and some friends we play cards with. Then I ended up going with a friend from college who had become a lawyer. He sent me a boilerplate questionaire over email, drew up a draft quick, and then we met at a copy shop to get it all signed and notarized.
From what you describe, you should be able to get everything you need (will, healthcare power of attorney) for about $300-500. I'd be skeptical of anyone who says it needs to cost more than that unless you already have millionaires of dollars and need a trust to avoid taxes.
You should definitely have a will with name guardians unless you want your child to end up in the foster care system temporarily in the event of your untimely death.
Post by: PDXTabs on October 06, 2021, 04:43:15 PM
Post by: Britan on October 06, 2021, 06:50:25 PM
We received lawyer recommendations from two people: the guy who finalized our term life insurance (you have that too, right?), and some friends we play cards with. Then I ended up going with a friend from college who had become a lawyer. He sent me a boilerplate questionaire over email, drew up a draft quick, and then we met at a copy shop to get it all signed and notarized.Hahaha. Did I mention we need to be adults? We gotta figure out life insurance too. My old workplace had an option. But now neither of our workplaces offer it.
From what you describe, you should be able to get everything you need (will, healthcare power of attorney) for about $300-500. I'd be skeptical of anyone who says it needs to cost more than that unless you already have millionaires of dollars and need a trust to avoid taxes.
You should definitely have a will with name guardians unless you want your child to end up in the foster care system temporarily in the event of your untimely death.
Tbh, temporary foster care would be preferable to my closest (physical proximity) relative - my mother - swooping in for temporary custody.
Post by: Zamboni on October 07, 2021, 02:05:26 AM
Hahaha. Did I mention we need to be adults? We gotta figure out life insurance too. My old workplace had an option. But now neither of our workplaces offer it.
Tbh, temporary foster care would be preferable to my closest (physical proximity) relative - my mother - swooping in for temporary custody.
Yeah, buying something like life insurance can seem overwhelming. How do you know if you are getting a good deal?
But you are young, so this is the cheapest time for you both to get something like 20 year term life insurance (the kind that will be there to provide adequate resources for your child if something happens.) Often for younger adults there is a short health questionnaire asking about things like smoking but no physical exam, so it isn't a big deal to get it.
My advice is to just pick an amount of coverage you want (we went with $1 million for each of us) and a term length you want (we went with 20 years because we were slackers and our youngest was already 3 years old) and get quote from three places. Maybe start with the company that provides your car or home insurance first?
As far as picking some other reputable companies for quotes, Nerd Wallet even has a little estimate calculator and did the legwork for you.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/term-life-insurance/ (https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/term-life-insurance/)
Then you'll definitely need a will because you'll need to name who will have custody and who will MANAGE THAT MONEY for your offspring . . . the custody and money management doesn't have to be the same person. I actually think it's better if it is different people, but your mileage may vary. Which reminds me that our local credit union also offers basic estate planning and referrals for wills. That's another place you could ask about it.
Good luck!
I still can't believe that crazy turn with the will: yet more evidence of my theory that God has a sense of irony.
Having been through awfulness, there is one lone upside of dealing with crazy people: it leaves you in a situation to (hopefully) share something of use to someone like you who's just now in the midst of crazy, in hopes of helping you pull through in a better fashion without having to learn some things the hard way. I'm impressed that Mr. Z is already no-contact; you both are ahead of the situation and that will serve you well.
It's not his first rodeo with DotLWaT . . . this was just the least avoidable situation. He was already very low contact out of self-preservation. The illness and death just gave her (in her mind) lots of reasons she needed to contact him over and over. Her machinations to be in charge of the estate management is just an extension of that.
During the grave illness and immediately afterwards, he had to balance what he needed to do for the deceased and his other relatives with his desire to not interact with DotLWaT.
Post by: Sugaree on October 07, 2021, 06:16:07 AM
This is a cautionary tale for parents leaving their children money. In my opinion, the child didn't do anything wrong. However, they were not mature enough and/or not emotionally ready to handle an inheritance of 250K.
My brother-in-law shared a story of a mutual friend who broke up with their girlfriend. The girlfriend was in their early to mid 20's and was gifted 250K of life insurance when her mom died a few years ago. She is a college grad and has a full-time job. Before the death she was able to fully support herself. However, after the death she was emotionally devastated and spent 200K of the 250K over the course of 3 years. She has nothing to show for it other than a car. At one point, she owned two cars. However, she has since sold the second car.
What type of guard rails could you put up for your children to try to avoid this? Can anything be done?
I've seen this in action with a close friend. I estimate that she's blown through at least $500k of life insurance money in the last three years since her husband died. Some decisions weren't that bad, like paying off her house and buying a rental property. Some were horrible, like the in-ground heated pool or vehicle large enough that each kid has their own zip code inside of it, or the yearly trips to Disney.
It's definitely had an impact on how I want my estate plans to look. My kid's guardianship will be separated from the money. My parents would be the current choice for guardianship, but a trustee would release funds at regular intervals. I'm not saying that my parents would have him living under the stairs like Harry Potter, but I bet he'd end up taking a whole lot of cruises on his dime.
Post by: TomTX on October 07, 2021, 08:35:50 AM
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
Post by: Britan on October 07, 2021, 09:00:56 AM
Also good luck with DotLW. I too have no-contact relatives, so I have much sympathy for anyone else in a similar position.
Post by: Zamboni on October 07, 2021, 09:19:09 AM
It's definitely had an impact on how I want my estate plans to look. My kid's guardianship will be separated from the money. My parents would be the current choice for guardianship, but a trustee would release funds at regular intervals. I'm not saying that my parents would have him living under the stairs like Harry Potter, but I bet he'd end up taking a whole lot of cruises on his dime.
I share this issue, and so I gave the purse strings to my stingiest relative. She's not great at investing, but she's not a spender, so my hope was that she would just follow my lead on where to keep it parked in index funds. I thought about having my local credit union act as trustee. They charge 1% per year to manage the estate, releasing funds only for the health, education, welfare, and maintenance of the child.
Otherwise, yeah, in the hands of other relatives there would be "family" cruises. And home remodels. And new bigger cars. I don't begrudge someone who is taking care of my kids having money to be comfortable, but odds that it would be wiped out before the kids reached adulthood are high.
I've seen plenty of advice to delay giving inheritance to young adult children. Sometimes the advice is given with caveats like "they will meet some gold digger who will then divorce them and take half the money." I even had my will set up that way for awhile, a delay for full disbursement until they were 30 years old. However, I've also seen plenty of examples of people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's who are spendthrifts and will blow through huge amounts in no time. There are even TV shows about it like Money Moron and Til Debt Do Us Part.
So, now that my kids are young adults, they will just get it directly. I updated my will when they turned 18 to just give it straight to them because the named trustee is starting to have memory problems. I don't have any other viable trustee options in my family. So it's straight to the young adult kids or a trustee like a lawyer or bank who will take a cut.
This weekend I'm going to work on updating my estate planning and I will write both children letters to put in my estate planning portfolio. That way my "wishes" for what they do with the money will be clear: hookers and blow.
Just kidding. I probably will write something like "take 5-10% of the money and get yourself a limited amount of some discrete fun things you really want right now, like maybe a vacation or vehicle or furniture or some clothes, etc. Remember me while you are living well enjoying that! Then the party is temporarily over. Please keep the rest parked in passive Vanguard stock index funds using the advice from here, here and here. Don't touch the principal! Let's this money grow from this little pile to a giant pile in 10-20 years by riding out dips in the market without meddling. That's what Warren Buffet wants for his children, and that's what I want for you."
But, after all, I'll be dead, so I'll just have to trust that they absorbed some common sense about how to manage money from our conversations and from watching how my financial situation improved over time. They already have Vanguard Roth IRA's, after all.
Post by: DadJokes on October 07, 2021, 09:54:38 AM
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 07, 2021, 10:42:48 AM
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Wouldn't a hand axe or hatchet do better for chopping your way out of the coffin?
Hmm, I was planning on cremation, but how do I reincarnate as a zombie if I am just a pile of ashes?
Post by: TomTX on October 07, 2021, 11:02:29 AM
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Okay, I am really fond of my machete. Hm.
Post by: DadJokes on October 07, 2021, 12:40:00 PM
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Wouldn't a hand axe or hatchet do better for chopping your way out of the coffin?
Maybe I should go for a mausoleum then.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on October 07, 2021, 01:14:11 PM
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Wouldn't a hand axe or hatchet do better for chopping your way out of the coffin?
Hmm, I was planning on cremation, but how do I reincarnate as a zombie if I am just a pile of ashes?
I thought they were being considerate of others and providing a means nearby for someone to dispatch them if necessary...
Post by: ixtap on October 07, 2021, 01:19:08 PM
Even cheaper than Costco, if you don't require varnish:
https://mountmichael.org/mount-michael-abbeys-caskets/
Ha, if you want cheap - I've been clear that I'm perfectly happy (and would actually prefer) if someone wants to slap together a box from the plywood and lumber I have in the garage. Then invite guests to draw/paint/whatever on it.
In a nod to the old tradition of having a bell, perhaps I should ask to be buried with my bicycle bell.
I wish to be buried with a machete, just in case I come back as a zombie.
Wouldn't a hand axe or hatchet do better for chopping your way out of the coffin?
Hmm, I was planning on cremation, but how do I reincarnate as a zombie if I am just a pile of ashes?
I thought they were being considerate of others and providing a means nearby for someone to dispatch them if necessary...
I thought they were planning on being the baddest ass zombie...
So how do all of those urban zombies get out of their sealed coffins in cement vaults? Doesn't seem like a hatchet nor a machete is going to be much use against a steel coffin nor the cement vault...
Post by: rpr on October 07, 2021, 05:12:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnXi3SVJXbM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnXi3SVJXbM)
Post by: partgypsy on October 09, 2021, 09:32:04 PM
I have a membership! But we were on a time crunch. We did purchase a nice casket from "best price" caskets that was flown up in time for all the preparations. Recommend.I was surprised how much it cost, considering there was no funeral (there was graveside service). The plot was already paid for. We did purchase a solid wood casket as that is customary but from another company so "reasonable".
https://www.costco.com/funeral-caskets.html
Post by: okonumiyaki on October 11, 2021, 02:42:38 AM
Post by: partgypsy on October 11, 2021, 10:59:38 AM
Zamboni - has anyone told the ex-spouse they are in the will? If they have a grudge vs DotW, they may be willing to take up cudgels. As it were.
that might be an even match : )
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 11, 2021, 02:00:40 PM
Zamboni and the other sane siblings could sell tickets, as a way of getting what they deserved from the estate in the first place! :PZamboni - has anyone told the ex-spouse they are in the will? If they have a grudge vs DotW, they may be willing to take up cudgels. As it were.
that might be an even match : )
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on October 11, 2021, 06:14:25 PM
I'd agree that paying out smaller portions over time and raising money-smart adults are the best two options.
Yeah. If you plan on still having wealth when you die, you should plan like a wealthy person and prepare your heirs. You can either raise smart kids (not always replicable, but worth the effort) or you can assume they will be dumb and force a trust on them.
Now, how are they going to raise their own kids (your grandkids) if they only "magically" get some trust money when they are 40 years old? Good money practices have to become a multi-generational family strategy.
Otherwise:
Fu Bu Guo San Dai ( 富不过三代)
Wealth does not pass three generations...
Post by: Zamboni on October 11, 2021, 11:10:13 PM
Zamboni - has anyone told the ex-spouse they are in the will? If they have a grudge vs DotW, they may be willing to take up cudgels. As it were.
I doubt it. Ex-spouse and DotW have gone at each other before and tried to get people to take sides, so it wouldn't be anything new. Everyone else is just tired of their drama.
Ex-spouse is elderly and lives in a flood-prone very low rent apartment. Therefore, ex-spouse actually needs a home and food money, whereas everyone else bickering over the scraps really does not. I'm staying out of it, though.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on October 12, 2021, 06:50:40 AM
The attorney who advised me, when my daughter was one and I got my first will, set up a revocable trust with my assets rolling over to that trust upon my death. (A trust can be named as the beneficiary for life insurance, investment accounts, etc.) I had a friend willing to be trustee and the terms (again recommended by the attorney) provided that until my daughter was 26 the trustee was in charge of the money and could use it to support her and for things like college and for travel. At 26 she would get 25% of the remaining money, at 30 she would get 30% of the remaining money, at 35 she would get 50% and the rest at age 40. I was always very responsible with money so I was prepared to have it go to her at 25, but the attorney advised me that no one can predict how a one year old will be with money and my assets were likely to much higher by the time of my death.
My ex-husband is notoriously bad with money. When his mother died 5 years ago the estate was over a million. Ex-SIL, who was the executor, got her payout of the estate immediately but the will specified that my ex, who was 56 at the time, get his money in 4 equal payments on the anniversary of her death minus 100k for my kids. He blew through the money every year before the next payment and he would call his sister screaming that he needed the money. Needless to say ex-SIL no longer speaks to him.
Post by: partgypsy on October 13, 2021, 06:02:14 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on October 13, 2021, 06:23:28 AM
So, is there a recommended way to set up trusts for someone who won't be responsible with money? I've seen all kinds of different payout ages and frequency of payment. Unless the person gets a monthly stipend for life it seems like there is no way to protect against someone blowing through money, even though I agree one lump payment seems the worst of all. I wonder if there is a happy medium, that is less work for an executor but give the person "training wheels" so to speak.
The only other approach I know of is the film "Brewster's Millions". But the person receiving the money had the capacity to learn from it, and the willful lack of that capacity is why most plans fail. Even monthly payments can be squandered in 2-4 days leaving the rest of the month with no money.
Post by: former player on October 13, 2021, 06:36:49 AM
So, is there a recommended way to set up trusts for someone who won't be responsible with money? I've seen all kinds of different payout ages and frequency of payment. Unless the person gets a monthly stipend for life it seems like there is no way to protect against someone blowing through money, even though I agree one lump payment seems the worst of all. I wonder if there is a happy medium, that is less work for an executor but give the person "training wheels" so to speak.If you haven't managed to "train" someone in your lifetime then expecting someone else to succeed where you have failed is unreasonable.
There is such a thing as a "discretionary trust" which means that the trustee (who may or may not be the same person as an executor) can decide how much money is disbursed, when and for what purpose, and your wishes can be taken into account by the trustee (eg money for education and housing only before a certain age and after that at the trustee's discretion). It's a heavy burden on someone though to make them the regulator of someone else's chaotic life.
Post by: talltexan on October 13, 2021, 07:04:29 AM
Post by: ixtap on October 13, 2021, 07:47:18 AM
Post by: PhilB on October 13, 2021, 08:49:37 AM
So, is there a recommended way to set up trusts for someone who won't be responsible with money? I've seen all kinds of different payout ages and frequency of payment. Unless the person gets a monthly stipend for life it seems like there is no way to protect against someone blowing through money, even though I agree one lump payment seems the worst of all. I wonder if there is a happy medium, that is less work for an executor but give the person "training wheels" so to speak.
The only other approach I know of is the film "Brewster's Millions". But the person receiving the money had the capacity to learn from it, and the willful lack of that capacity is why most plans fail. Even monthly payments can be squandered in 2-4 days leaving the rest of the month with no money.
Or worse, that income stream can probably be borrowed against so that soon all future income ends up going straight to creditors.
As former player says, if you haven't managed to teach someone good money habits whilst you're alive, you're unlikely to come up with an arrangement that will do so after you're dead.
Post by: sonofsven on October 13, 2021, 10:04:33 AM
Her husband (my partner's step father) passed four years ago and at that time the family was told the estate would be split up (after the passing of partner's mother) amongst all the surviving children and grandchildren equally.
So my partner and her daughter: two shares.
Her half sister and husband and three children: five shares.
Her half brother and wife and two children: four shares.
I thought this was kind of a silly way to go about it, I guess I just assumed that an inheritance would go to the next generation who would add it to their stash and then that would go to their children, etc.
I also thought it was unfair to my partner, but I'm biased, and of course people get to make their own decisions with their money so I kept my mouth shut. I did wonder if this was a Mormon thing as the deceased came from a Mormon family.
So the change is that the estate will be split equally amongst the three surviving children, exactly as I thought it should be from the start.
Turns out that the driver for the original plan was one of the grandchildren is "on the spectrum", lives with his parents in his mid twenties and will likely never be self supporting and this was a way to mitigate that.
Surviving mother is smart with money and has made other plans for the grandchild to secure his future. Deceased had worked at a government nuclear facility and surviving spouse and one daughter (the mother of the grandchild in question) received a fairly large settlement upon his death from cancer, they combined this money for this grandchild exclusively.
Well, there is a bit of drama: deceased had a secret "love child" from an affair prior to his second marriage to partner's mother that nobody knew about until the details were laid out just prior to his passing. LC is a delusional alcoholic, unfortunately.
Love Child could also receive her own government settlement but she refused to work with my partners mother when she reached out and sent her the forms she needed to fill out because she thinks everyone is trying to take advantage of her.
Post by: FIPurpose on October 13, 2021, 11:54:10 AM
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
Post by: Sugaree on October 13, 2021, 12:02:34 PM
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
Post by: PDXTabs on October 13, 2021, 12:18:08 PM
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
I'm the same way. I will probably get a meaningful inheritance from my one remaining parent right when I absolutely do not need it. But you know, maybe I'll use it to take care of the less fortunate in my family.
Post by: PDXTabs on October 13, 2021, 12:19:26 PM
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
Yup. In my family we tend to distribute to the children of the deceased parent. Which means that there is no incentive to crank out more kids.
Post by: FIPurpose on October 13, 2021, 01:23:36 PM
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I'd like to think that my siblings wouldn't quibble, but then again only 2/4 even have children. (And I kind of assume they won't) So perhaps I'm just biased for passing on the wealth to the next generation.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren. Especially if their grandchildren have been around a long time, then they love them too. And I'd like to think that if I were a grandparent, I'd want to treat all of my descendants as fairly and equitably as possible.
The number of children may be the choice of siblings, but that has a direct impact on the grandparents' legacy. Those siblings are building out the family tree, and funding that to be as healthy and taken care of as possible is important. It's in the grandparents' interest to treat them equitably, no matter whose children they are.
At the very least, giving an equal share to all parents and grandparents is a good way of splitting that baby. The children get a share that they will likely only pass to their children, and the grandchildren get a share that helps equality and also helps them get a jump start in life. (70 year old parents shouldn't need additional 6 figures, but 30 year old grandchildren will be in the perfect time in their life for needing a down payment, a business start up, or continuing education.) 30k to a 30 year old is far more valuable than 100k to a 60-70 year old imo.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 13, 2021, 02:48:17 PM
I have to say, it's kind of weird to be debating what's "fair" when dividing up money among people who didn't earn it.
Post by: sonofsven on October 13, 2021, 03:02:22 PM
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I'd like to think that my siblings wouldn't quibble, but then again only 2/4 even have children. (And I kind of assume they won't) So perhaps I'm just biased for passing on the wealth to the next generation.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren. Especially if their grandchildren have been around a long time, then they love them too. And I'd like to think that if I were a grandparent, I'd want to treat all of my descendants as fairly and equitably as possible.
The number of children may be the choice of siblings, but that has a direct impact on the grandparents' legacy. Those siblings are building out the family tree, and funding that to be as healthy and taken care of as possible is important. It's in the grandparents' interest to treat them equitably, no matter whose children they are.
At the very least, giving an equal share to all parents and grandparents is a good way of splitting that baby. The children get a share that they will likely only pass to their children, and the grandchildren get a share that helps equality and also helps them get a jump start in life. (70 year old parents shouldn't need additional 6 figures, but 30 year old grandchildren will be in the perfect time in their life for needing a down payment, a business start up, or continuing education.) 30k to a 30 year old is far more valuable than 100k to a 60-70 year old imo.
I think I was just surprised because I had never heard of this idea; I can see the benefits, too, but it's not how it's been done in my family. So, different.
I wonder if maybe the deceased knows things about the other adults (all in their 50's now) that I don't? Maybe he thought some of them would waste the money? Grandmother apparently does not believe that.
I think it's interesting that she is going against what were their shared wishes. She always took the back seat, she's a traditional "stand by (behind) your man" type who believed the man should be in charge, but look now, she's taking charge and doing what she thinks is right.
Post by: FIPurpose on October 13, 2021, 03:19:40 PM
One thing I've seen done: The grandparents, while living, give an equal sum to each grandchild at birth, where it'll have 18 years to compound, and when the grandparents pass away, their estate is divided equally among their immediate children (i.e. grandkids' parents). The idea is that each grandkid gets an reasonably equal benefit, the parents have to worry less about paying for college, and the parents themselves are treated equally when the grandparents pass away.
I have to say, it's kind of weird to be debating what's "fair" when dividing up money among people who didn't earn it.
Alternatively, you could just decide to divide your wealth into chunks of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, and then just randomly assign those to different relatives.
Seeing as the standard in our society is to evenly divide the wealth among the next generation (donating a large sum to charity is also a common cultural norm), I'd say that deviating too far from the cultural norm can start to err into "unfair". And we can judge it as unfair in the same way that someone who wants their money withdrawn and then burned can be labeled "stupid" despite it being their money to do with as they please.
Post by: La Bibliotecaria Feroz on October 13, 2021, 05:23:47 PM
One thing I've seen done: The grandparents, while living, give an equal sum to each grandchild at birth, where it'll have 18 years to compound, and when the grandparents pass away, their estate is divided equally among their immediate children (i.e. grandkids' parents). The idea is that each grandkid gets an reasonably equal benefit, the parents have to worry less about paying for college, and the parents themselves are treated equally when the grandparents pass away.
I have to say, it's kind of weird to be debating what's "fair" when dividing up money among people who didn't earn it.
I mean, yes, but it's crappy to set up a situation where some heirs feel more loved and respected because they got more money!
When my grandfather passed and the large estate of my grandparents was divvied up, my cousins split the share of their father who had pre-deceased Grandfather by many years* and the rest went to his other children/stepchildren. The grandchildren are all grown and educated but the great-grands receive yearly 529 contributions.
*Fun fact: This is because my grandfather was much younger than Grandma, and her older two sons were maybe 10-12 years younger? So my uncle was a respectable 70 when he died.
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on October 13, 2021, 08:47:13 PM
If you haven't managed to "train" someone in your lifetime then expecting someone else to succeed where you have failed is unreasonable.
Very well said.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren.
We should all remember that these choices are entirely cultural. What is "fair" varies between societies and there is no objective right or wrong. Obviously, if expectations are different, then conflicts can arise.
For intestate individuals, different jurisdictions will default to different choices:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
Post by: Captain FIRE on October 14, 2021, 08:20:45 AM
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren.
We should all remember that these choices are entirely cultural. What is "fair" varies between societies and there is no objective right or wrong. Obviously, if expectations are different, then conflicts can arise.
For intestate individuals, different jurisdictions will default to different choices:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
It's also up to the decedent to determine what they think is right (as in, what they want to do), regardless of whether it's fair. (On the flip side, a person estate planning ought to realize that if they don't provide in a way that is deemed generally fair, whether right or wrong that relationships amongst their heirs could be irreparably damaged and it may impact how a descendant feels about the giver/their relationship - "how loved" they feel they were.)
For me, I personally default towards inheriting per stirpes, where the inheritance is split by child. It's seems wrong to me that if a child were deceased, their children would receive no share in a per capita split. But, I recognize not everyone feels that way. If I wanted to skip a generation, I would give my grandkids their "portion" of their child's share, rather than give equally at the grandchild level. (That said, I might likely give equal money for a 529 at a grandchild's birth.)
Post by: Sugaree on October 14, 2021, 08:56:31 AM
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I'd like to think that my siblings wouldn't quibble, but then again only 2/4 even have children. (And I kind of assume they won't) So perhaps I'm just biased for passing on the wealth to the next generation.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren. Especially if their grandchildren have been around a long time, then they love them too. And I'd like to think that if I were a grandparent, I'd want to treat all of my descendants as fairly and equitably as possible.
The number of children may be the choice of siblings, but that has a direct impact on the grandparents' legacy. Those siblings are building out the family tree, and funding that to be as healthy and taken care of as possible is important. It's in the grandparents' interest to treat them equitably, no matter whose children they are.
At the very least, giving an equal share to all parents and grandparents is a good way of splitting that baby. The children get a share that they will likely only pass to their children, and the grandchildren get a share that helps equality and also helps them get a jump start in life. (70 year old parents shouldn't need additional 6 figures, but 30 year old grandchildren will be in the perfect time in their life for needing a down payment, a business start up, or continuing education.) 30k to a 30 year old is far more valuable than 100k to a 60-70 year old imo.
Perhaps. In my family there is a situation where there are two siblings. One sibling has one child while the other has four. The sibling with four children has already received a lot in the way of economic outpatient care, including two mostly-funded international moves, more than one graduate degree, and significant help buying a house. The sibling with one child has received some financial support, but is also the one that is local to the parents and has provided a lot of practical support while the parents have been ill. That one already feels as if their sibling is the "favorite" and splitting the estate 5 ways where one branch gets 4/5 as opposed to 1/2 would just be seen as a final slap in the face.
Post by: ixtap on October 14, 2021, 09:20:16 AM
One way my parents show that respect is by treaty us as near equals on joint vacations. They wouldn't even think of inviting my siblings on a cruise without offering to pay for them. I say near equals because Dad still loves to pay for dinners whenever he can.
If either my parents or ILs decide to disinherit or lesser inherit us, it will be because they worry more about our siblings, which is not the same as loving them more. Currently, they are just as worried about our siblings blowing through an inheritance as any other outcome, so they figure they might as well include us in an inheritance. ILs do seem to hope that we would somehow use it to the benefit of the family, but my parents have absolved me of being responsible for my financially irresponsible siblings.
Post by: FIPurpose on October 14, 2021, 09:26:14 AM
I think splitting among the children/grandchildren is a good idea. Otherwise, the parent with only one child ends up being far wealthier than the other grandchildren and that might foment some distrust among the family.
There is some tax advantage to skipping generations if there's a lot of money in the estate, but I'm assuming they weren't close to that line.
At the age most people are living to now (SO and I have 5 grandparents and 4 parents still living between the 2 of us) So I really don't expect to inherit anything until I'm passed 50 or even 60 years old. I'd have waay more than enough money and if my parents wanted to skip me on inheritance and go straight to the grandchildren / charity, I think that would be a fine decision.
And on the other side, the parent who has only one child may feel like they're being punished for the choices of their sibling.
I'd like to think that my siblings wouldn't quibble, but then again only 2/4 even have children. (And I kind of assume they won't) So perhaps I'm just biased for passing on the wealth to the next generation.
I think though that it would be unfair to make the grandparents choose between fairly distributing between their children or their grandchildren. Especially if their grandchildren have been around a long time, then they love them too. And I'd like to think that if I were a grandparent, I'd want to treat all of my descendants as fairly and equitably as possible.
The number of children may be the choice of siblings, but that has a direct impact on the grandparents' legacy. Those siblings are building out the family tree, and funding that to be as healthy and taken care of as possible is important. It's in the grandparents' interest to treat them equitably, no matter whose children they are.
At the very least, giving an equal share to all parents and grandparents is a good way of splitting that baby. The children get a share that they will likely only pass to their children, and the grandchildren get a share that helps equality and also helps them get a jump start in life. (70 year old parents shouldn't need additional 6 figures, but 30 year old grandchildren will be in the perfect time in their life for needing a down payment, a business start up, or continuing education.) 30k to a 30 year old is far more valuable than 100k to a 60-70 year old imo.
Perhaps. In my family there is a situation where there are two siblings. One sibling has one child while the other has four. The sibling with four children has already received a lot in the way of economic outpatient care, including two mostly-funded international moves, more than one graduate degree, and significant help buying a house. The sibling with one child has received some financial support, but is also the one that is local to the parents and has provided a lot of practical support while the parents have been ill. That one already feels as if their sibling is the "favorite" and splitting the estate 5 ways where one branch gets 4/5 as opposed to 1/2 would just be seen as a final slap in the face.
I definitely depends on the family's circumstances. I'm not saying this would work out for all families and circumstances. But the method suggested would be splitting it evenly 7 ways (basically 70/30), or heck you could do a double share to the children and go 9 ways (66/33 split). But yes, no matter how you slice the cake, someone isn't going to like it and everyone has to just deal with what they're given at the end of the day.
However, this wouldn't make sense if the grandparents die relatively young and not all of their grandchildren are born yet. I was saying that skipping a generation seems to make more sense due to increasing lifespan. The children are more likely to do nothing with the money but sit on it til they die, and the grandchildren would be in the exact spot to do something useful with the money.
This isn't true for every family. If you know you won't be making it to 70, perhaps the typical per stirpes is the best decision. But but if all the direct heirs are over 70, maybe it would be best to skip them. (Kind of like how maybe Charles just shouldn't bother becoming King). But then again, perhaps your descendants are all snots and you want to give your money to some friends or a charity. That could make sense given certain circumstances.
Post by: TMB on October 15, 2021, 05:54:48 PM
Or worse, that income stream can probably be borrowed against so that soon all future income ends up going straight to creditors.
You can insert a spendthrift clause into the trust, which, if operable in that state, basically means that creditors can't come after the future income directly. Of course, they can still try to grab the money once distributed.
Also, you could set up a trust where the trustee directly pays for certain obligations which also limits the ability of foolish people to bargain away future interests.
Post by: DadJokes on October 18, 2021, 09:10:49 AM
My wife's uncle (we'll call him Pop) died a few weeks ago. That's no surprise, as he was 60 and 300+ pounds, but of course no will. Wife's cousin (we'll call her DQ for drama queen, as drama seems to follow her) calls my wife to vent about everything her dad's wife (we'll call her SM for step mom) has been doing.
SM went and hired an attorney without consulting anyone else in the family. I guess that's no big deal, but it seems a little shady to not include the deceased's daughter in the conversation. Yesterday, my wife hung out with DQ to let her vent. During that time, SM called DQ, and the two engaged in a 15 minute screaming match, largely over the issue of getting a lawyer and SM not communicating with DQ about it. All of this happens on speaker phone, with my poor anti-conflict wife stuck in the car listening to it all.
Pop's gravesite was already paid for, but SM wants a plot next to him, which costs $950 to reserve. She doesn't have $950, but apparently the money can come directly out of the life insurance policy on Pop. Pop's life insurance has a 50/50 payout between SM & DQ. However, because the $950 comes directly out of the life insurance policy, it's happening before the 50/50 split, meaning that DQ is losing out on $475 so that SM can get the plot adjacent. That doesn't pass the smell test to me, but I'm not much of an expert on life insurance and funeral planning. I'm hoping that DQ is misinterpreting when the money comes out of the policy.
SM show's up at Pop's mom's house. She asks Pop's 50 year-old mentally-handicapped brother for the key to the garage to get Pop's stuff (tools and such). Thankfully, brother doesn't know where it is. Then SM asks Pop's mom (who has Alzheimer's and also isn't aware of things) and gets the key from her. She proceeds to take a bunch of stuff out of the garage. Pop's sister, who is the caretaker for their mom and mentally-handicapped sibling, finds out about it, goes to the garage and finds that SM took nearly everything out of the garage, including things that weren't Pop's. So sister called the police on SM yesterday.
Pop ran a large farm. He had a lot of equipment with debt on it all. The proceeds from the farm barely covered the debt payments. I know for a fact that Pop had discussed letting DQ's husband take over running the farm (but again, no will). SM has the keys to the equipment and isn't turning them over. It's approaching harvest time, and missing the harvest will result in a lot of lost revenue.
I don't imagine that Pop had much of an estate, aside from the farm itself, which is saddled with debt.
Post by: iluvzbeach on October 18, 2021, 09:35:11 AM
Post by: Zamboni on October 18, 2021, 01:46:21 PM
Having recently been adjacent to similar petty-level drama, I'll ask this:
is DQ indigent? If not, then seriously: who cares about $475? I know, I know, it's the principle of the matter. But, everything you've written indicates to me that SM is in a heap of financial trouble. Does SM work outside the home?
Sounds like the lawyer has probably informed SM that, in the absence of a will, she is inheriting everything except beneficiary-designated assets. The tools have value and can be sold. Yes, it is shitty that she has gone out of her way to steal even tools that weren't his and that she is hoarding things (probably even sentimental things that might have no real value) from the rest of the family. She likely is freaking out and worried that she will need to sell everything that isn't nailed down to survive.
Don't be surprised if she puts the entire farm on the market shortly . . . in her eyes, this year's harvest might be fairly irrelevant at this point. She might even be hoping to sell it really fast before harvest is due, which makes the harvest someone else's problem while she is counting her cash from the sale. Since it's October, I doubt any sale will happen that fast, but that might be where her brain is. Or maybe a lawyer has advised her she can apply for a govt farm subsidy if she doesn't harvest the crops? (yes, that is a thing people do in the USA.)
Again, sorry your wife got pulled into the mess. I suspect DQ is screwed and SM will prevail.
Written estate planning is especially important in 2nd and 3rd marriages unless you want your own biological kids to get nothing while your step son (who treats you like dirt and acts like a jackass at Thanksgiving) ultimately inherits all of your stuff and money when your second wife finally passes and gets buried in that plot right next to you.
Post by: DadJokes on October 18, 2021, 02:25:35 PM
@DadJokes that certainly does sound like it's becoming messy.
Having recently been adjacent to similar petty-level drama, I'll ask this:
is DQ indigent? If not, then seriously: who cares about $475? I know, I know, it's the principle of the matter. But, everything you've written indicates to me that SM is in a heap of financial trouble. Does SM work outside the home?
Sounds like the lawyer has probably informed SM that, in the absence of a will, she is inheriting everything except beneficiary-designated assets. The tools have value and can be sold. Yes, it is shitty that she has gone out of her way to steal even tools that weren't his and that she is hoarding things (probably even sentimental things that might have no real value) from the rest of the family. She likely is freaking out and worried that she will need to sell everything that isn't nailed down to survive.
Don't be surprised if she puts the entire farm on the market shortly . . . in her eyes, this year's harvest might be fairly irrelevant at this point. She might even be hoping to sell it really fast before harvest is due, which makes the harvest someone else's problem while she is counting her cash from the sale. Since it's October, I doubt any sale will happen that fast, but that might be where her brain is. Or maybe a lawyer has advised her she can apply for a govt farm subsidy if she doesn't harvest the crops? (yes, that is a thing people do in the USA.)
Again, sorry your wife got pulled into the mess. I suspect DQ is screwed and SM will prevail.
Written estate planning is especially important in 2nd and 3rd marriages unless you want your own biological kids to get nothing while your step son (who treats you like dirt and acts like a jackass at Thanksgiving) ultimately inherits all of your stuff and money when your second wife finally passes and gets buried in that plot right next to you.
I asked a lot of the same questions. I definitely don't think that $475 is that material to DQ. It's probably more the principle.
The farm bit is concerning though. I don't really know the actual ownership structure. Several members of the extended family have houses on the farm, including my wife's parents, Pop's mom, Pop's sister, and a couple others. While the houses are all owned outright, it'd still be a PITA for that not to be in family hands.
Edit: Pop's mom technically owns the farm, and it would have been passed down to Pop but will now be passed down to DQ. Pop owned all of the equipment, which SM now owns.
Post by: Dee18 on October 21, 2021, 06:35:01 AM
I think one of the key complexities after a parent remarries is that the now-deceased spouse (Pop here) probably thought of the new spouse (SM) as family, but the extended family may not feel that way.
Post by: LD_TAndK on October 29, 2021, 09:21:12 AM
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Post by: JoePublic3.14 on October 30, 2021, 08:31:11 AM
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Ouch. When the time unfortunately comes to settle things, I would have some choice words for that crook.
So bad.
Post by: dandarc on October 30, 2021, 09:13:10 AM
Post by: Dicey on October 30, 2021, 10:08:58 AM
3% - seems maybe more likely than your standard financial advisor to be doing some kind of Fraud. High price can make it seem more legit - "you get what you pay for" and such.Not necessarily fraud, per se, Edward Jones, perhaps?
Post by: TomTX on October 30, 2021, 11:04:09 AM
3% - seems maybe more likely than your standard financial advisor to be doing some kind of Fraud. High price can make it seem more legit - "you get what you pay for" and such.Not necessarily fraud, per se, Edward Jones, perhaps?
You're saying that in a Venn diagram of Fraud and Edward Jones that EJ isn't totally contained within the Fraud circle?
Post by: Dicey on October 30, 2021, 12:29:25 PM
In a Mustachian Venn Diagram of Fraud, of course it is!3% - seems maybe more likely than your standard financial advisor to be doing some kind of Fraud. High price can make it seem more legit - "you get what you pay for" and such.Not necessarily fraud, per se, Edward Jones, perhaps?
You're saying that in a Venn diagram of Fraud and Edward Jones that EJ isn't totally contained within the Fraud circle?
Post by: RWTL on November 01, 2021, 04:08:28 AM
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on November 01, 2021, 02:24:11 PM
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Post by: dandarc on November 01, 2021, 02:31:53 PM
Post by: RWTL on November 01, 2021, 03:04:09 PM
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Honestly, I think it was ignorance rather than sarcasm....I think he truly thought he helped my relative out.
Post by: AlanStache on November 01, 2021, 03:37:16 PM
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Honestly, I think it was ignorance rather than sarcasm....I think he truly thought he helped my relative out.
If his head is 100% in an active trading world or where everything has a 3% fee, I can see where he would think that. Not everyone is in IVV
Also there is the old saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
My grandpa had most of his stuff with Raymond James and after his passing some family inherited it and decided to leave it with them. I mentioned the fees to them but did not push to hard as I figured them not touching it was probably better than them trying to do something without really knowing what they are doing or selling it all at the first down turn and never rebuying. An imperfect plan today is better than a prefect one tomorrow.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on November 01, 2021, 04:04:37 PM
This isn't super dramatic but... my parents are frugal and well off, retired with very little chance of running out of money. They've told my sister and I several times they plan on leaving their money as an inheritance to us.
My low estimate of their invested assets is 2 Million dollars. I found out recently their current money manager is taking a 3% fee! So they're paying at least 60k annually to have their investments managed. It's particularly egregious considering their typical annual spending is only around 50k.
Thankfully my sister and I aren't depending on any money, but it's still outrageous!
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Honestly, I think it was ignorance rather than sarcasm....I think he truly thought he helped my relative out.
If his head is 100% in an active trading world or where everything has a 3% fee, I can see where he would think that. Not everyone is in IVV
Also there is the old saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
My grandpa had most of his stuff with Raymond James and after his passing some family inherited it and decided to leave it with them. I mentioned the fees to them but did not push to hard as I figured them not touching it was probably better than them trying to do something without really knowing what they are doing or selling it all at the first down turn and never rebuying. An imperfect plan today is better than a prefect one tomorrow.
I ran into that with someone I was talking with who was "saving" money with a whole life insurance plan. Basically he admitted to me if he didn't have it going in there and auto pulled out of his account, it would be spent. Since it was already going there and under the guise of life insurance which his SO could get behind, it could stay and wouldn't get spent... so, I dropped it sadly.
Post by: Reynold on January 11, 2022, 07:12:59 PM
Unfortunately, I had a close family member pass away several months ago. As the executor of the estate, I found he was in a similar situation - but with far less total amount. Same type of deal, the company managing his assets were taking between 2-3% and had him invested in all kinds of crazy mutual funds with high fees, plus several individual stocks that I'm sure my relative had no clue what they were. It took a while, but I got everything moved over to Vanguard and into low cost mutual funds.
I looked at the returns he was getting, and it only ended up being around 4% annually during this crazy bull market.
The ironic part is when I told the advisor I was moving everything he said "Good luck with that..." in reference to his thought that I couldn't do better than his performance.
That kind of stuff makes me wonder. Was it just a sarcastic snide comment to hopefully make you feel bad or maybe reconsider, or are these people ignorant enough they truly buy in on what they're selling?
Honestly, I think it was ignorance rather than sarcasm....I think he truly thought he helped my relative out.
Think of the number of examples we see in the MMM forums of people who instantly blow every dime they get when they get their hands on money. These advisors were trained in an environment where everyone is either like that, or they "wisely" save with a management company like theirs. They aren't meeting the people who can save on their own, like most of us on these forums.
When we started getting invites to investment seminars, my DW was reading the educational backgrounds of the people running them, expecting it to be Harvard business degrees and such. Nope, Fine Arts degree, Communications degree, etc. Anyone peddling investments to the likes of ordinary consumers, especially if they have to offer free seminars for customers, is not exactly Warren Buffett in terms of investing knowledge. They have, however, been told that investing is Super Hard, so only Professionals should try it.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on January 13, 2022, 06:24:38 AM
Think of the number of examples we see in the MMM forums of people who instantly blow every dime they get when they get their hands on money. These advisors were trained in an environment where everyone is either like that, or they "wisely" save with a management company like theirs. They aren't meeting the people who can save on their own, like most of us on these forums.
[/quote]
Similarly, I have heard that a main selling point for whole life insurance policies is that it creates a monthly bill that people will pay when they otherwise would not save that same amount. That same amount invested monthly in VTSAX would have worked wonders but most don't have the discipline for that, but they will pay a bill. Even though it is a terrible product it is one way to get some people to have even one nickel set aside. I would never recommend it, but that is the same mindset as people believing they could never invest without an expensive Ed Jones holding their hand.
Post by: JGS1980 on January 13, 2022, 07:32:02 AM
Think of the number of examples we see in the MMM forums of people who instantly blow every dime they get when they get their hands on money. These advisors were trained in an environment where everyone is either like that, or they "wisely" save with a management company like theirs. They aren't meeting the people who can save on their own, like most of us on these forums.
Similarly, I have heard that a main selling point for whole life insurance policies is that it creates a monthly bill that people will pay when they otherwise would not save that same amount. That same amount invested monthly in VTSAX would have worked wonders but most don't have the discipline for that, but they will pay a bill. Even though it is a terrible product it is one way to get some people to have even one nickel set aside. I would never recommend it, but that is the same mindset as people believing they could never invest without an expensive Ed Jones holding their hand.
[/quote]
Well.... I have to agree the Financial Adviser argument to a certain degree, and my best possible example of this is Social Security. SS has been one of the most successful programs any government has ever instituted ever. It has single handedly lifted millions of seniors out of poverty over the last few generations.
Why? Because a large segment of humanity (most?) can't seem to make long term plans.
Remember that we here at MMM are oddballs. We ENJOY planning for this stuff. Most people RUN in the opposite direction when confronted with this financial stuff, especially if it leads to their perceived decrease in lifestyle.
JGS
Post by: DeniseNJ on January 13, 2022, 07:43:23 AM
Post by: Zamboni on January 16, 2022, 11:49:34 AM
So @Zamboni several things: first, and most important of which is THAT I AM TERRIBLY SORRY YOU AND YOUR SO ARE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS! That can't be said enough. This is not normal or humane behavior.
Seriously. You two may want to consider something that has helped us in the midst of awful situations: go out and have some fun some nights and try to forget about all of this. I know it's hard to do that in the midst of a tragedy, but it's also the best medicine, as folks have reminded me over the years (because I'll let the stress of it get to me).
Now, I can help as to where this is headed, as I have experience dealing with (lots of) conflicts and unreasonable situations. Actions speak louder than words, and this started with outright fraud and seizure of things that DotL (for short) had no business taking.
It's headed towards outright fraud and theft. She's going to camp on the estate, control it, and drain every thing of any possible value. It's already underway.
The estate will continue on until she converts everything that she possibly can into cash for herself, the estate goes bankrupt, and things get seized. Her cash problems will only hasten the speed of the theft.
This is someone who does what she wants, not someone who cares about paperwork, laws, and rules--that much she has shown you. I hate to tell you this, but to prepare yourself, I would prepare for maximum ugly here and start establishing those boundaries so that you can stay out of and above the drama.
Eventually, you're likely to need hard no-contact rules. Why let her drag your own emotional lives down, rather than shut her off for periods of time, and/or mediate it through a lawyer/trusted friend/someone else/ignore her completely, so that you can stay away from it all. That path is going to get increasingly attractive over time.
As I see it, there are two paths here: SO can either jump in, take over the estate, and fight it out (or, rather, employ the lawyers to do so), which would be a large emotional lift and expensive due to DotL and her inevitable shenanigans. Or you both can walk away, let her trash it all, ignore it all as it circles the drain, but preserve more of your peace and sanity. And nothing is worth more than peace and sanity...once you don't have it anymore.
Anyway, I'm sorry once again and wish you nothing but the best in dealing with a truly awful situation. There's nothing like death and money to bring out the worst in some people. But thankfully you two have each other to get through this and stay above the fray.
Thanks again for this. We decided to go on vacation to a tropical paradise this past weekend . . . that was a great idea!
Your predictions are so spot on.
Updates about the Destroyer of the Last Will and Testament (DotLWaT!, DotLW for short):
-DotLW got so mad that Mr. Zamboni wouldn't send her money for "the bills" that she threatened no contact with him . . . a threat that of course she just can't make good on because of her continuous need to send rude texts and demand things. And then there was the whole emergence of another copy of a will wrinkle she hadn't anticipated. So she's already followed up several times since then. *Eyeroll*
-Mr. Zamboni has decided that No Contact with DotLW is the only sane strategy from his side . . . so he is not responding.
-As far as I can discern, the named executor in the only copy of a will anyone has seen beside DotLW has thrown in the towel and given the reins over to DotLW. Honestly, everyone is just quietly backing away from the mess with their hands in the air. Other sane sibling is also just saying "whatever, do what you want, but I'm not giving you money" to all demands.
-DotLW has communicated that she is going to obtain the divorce finalization paperwork from the court to negate the named sole inheritor in the will from getting anything. No idea if this is how it works or not, and no idea if DotLW has sought any legal advice.
-DotLW has sent copies of credit card receipts for what she paid for the hastily solo planned over-the-top funeral/burial. Oh, Lordy, I guess it's no surprise that she spread it out over several different credit cards even to the same funeral home. Predictions that she is in financial trouble coming true. She appears to have bought the most expensive plot at the most expensive cemetery in town. Despite the deceased belonging to a large local church for decades, she paid extra to have the service held in the chapel owned by the funeral home instead. And despite having to charge it all on various cards, she is still vowing to spend over $4K additionally for a headstone which she is picking out. According to her texts, she IS doing this and she WILL get her money back and no one better stand in her way! No one else is on board with her plan. Seriously I've purchased cars for less than this theoretical headstone.
-DotLW is whining to extended family that people are not jumping in to pay her back for her ridiculous choices.
-DotLW also sent a copy of her bank statement showing that she is paying the bills of the deceased. These include normal things like utilities on the home and absurd things such as renewing an AARP membership (Um, why?) She is paying these from her personal account, rather than an established estate bank account.
-Although DotLW once said she planned to move into the house left by the deceased, she has reversed course and now says she plans to sell it.
Update on the saga of Destroyer of the Last Will and Testament (DotLWaT):
-It seems like DotLWaT got her wish and is functioning as executor, primarily because no one else wants to do it and deal with her crap. Mr. Zamboni has made internal peace with the fact that she will take any assets that she can for herself. Both he and his sane sibling think the estate is a net loss and so he tried to offer to help with the expenses of cleaning up the home (it is hoarded), but she was super nasty in response, so he threw in the towel on helping her.
Which leads to this:
-The deceased had some sort of insurance policy that pays out a very small amount. Mr. Zamboni is the designated beneficiary. Since other accounts listed all three children of the deceased, it's possible that this tiny policy was set up before his siblings were born. So, he is the only one who can claim it. DotLWat already tried to claim it and was told by the insurance company that only Mr. Zamboni can claim it. So, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
ROFL!
He responded that he would be happy to follow up directly with the company, put in the claim himself, and then send each sibling their share of the money if DotLWaT sent her the contact information for the insurance rep. Not surprisingly, she has not responded.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 16, 2022, 02:05:23 PM
-The deceased had some sort of insurance policy that pays out a very small amount. Mr. Zamboni is the designated beneficiary. Since other accounts listed all three children of the deceased, it's possible that this tiny policy was set up before his siblings were born. So, he is the only one who can claim it. DotLWat already tried to claim it and was told by the insurance company that only Mr. Zamboni can claim it. So, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
ROFL!
He responded that he would be happy to follow up directly with the company, put in the claim himself, and then send each sibling their share of the money if DotLWaT sent her the contact information for the insurance rep. Not surprisingly, she has not responded.
Keep those emails. They are evidence.
Request and require the information ASAP. Let her know that you will prosecute if she does not forward that information to you as the executor, and you have proof from her that she has that information.
This has several benefits.
1) You might get some money, which you can share with all the siblings except her.
2) You might get her put in prison.
3) And most importantly, she will be motivated to stay the hell out of your lives forever.
Post by: Sibley on January 16, 2022, 02:07:30 PM
-The deceased had some sort of insurance policy that pays out a very small amount. Mr. Zamboni is the designated beneficiary. Since other accounts listed all three children of the deceased, it's possible that this tiny policy was set up before his siblings were born. So, he is the only one who can claim it. DotLWat already tried to claim it and was told by the insurance company that only Mr. Zamboni can claim it. So, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
ROFL!
He responded that he would be happy to follow up directly with the company, put in the claim himself, and then send each sibling their share of the money if DotLWaT sent her the contact information for the insurance rep. Not surprisingly, she has not responded.
The insurance company may do an end run around her, regardless of what she or you do. Many (if not all, not sure) life insurance companies have a process where they periodically match up their book to a variety of compilations of deaths. It's not perfect but eventually they'll figure out their insured is dead, and then they'll try to find the beneficiary. Since you are listed as the bene, that would be you (or if you die, your estate/heir). Frankly, I'd leave this alone for a while. Do check periodically the state unclaimed property, as if the insurance company can't find you they'll escheat the amount to the state - and they'd use the last known address of the bene if they have it or of the deceased.
Post by: iluvzbeach on January 16, 2022, 02:56:49 PM
Post by: DeniseNJ on January 18, 2022, 05:31:47 AM
Quote
So, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 18, 2022, 05:47:56 AM
QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
I believe that should read: "the amount of the benefit as specified by the policy holder".
Post by: JoePublic3.14 on January 18, 2022, 06:29:36 AM
QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Yeah, this. Makes sense to me to simply find out the carrier, file. Done. Makes no sense to even comment about it to anyone else.
I know family dynamics makes this weird, but man this saga is bizarre. But, thanks so much for keeping us updated! Lots of lessons and tips buried in there.
Post by: DeniseNJ on January 18, 2022, 07:45:50 AM
Yes. That's correct. Whatever the policy says. If it's in thirds or if each of you was left a different amount or whatever. But you should get it all as stated, not the estate.QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
I believe that should read: "the amount of the benefit as specified by the policy holder".
Post by: former player on January 18, 2022, 08:06:13 AM
Technically true, of course. But I can see that given all the drama about this situation and that the policy was written before the younger siblings were born and never changed, I can well see that the Zambonis might decide that the most politic approach would be an equal split.Yes. That's correct. Whatever the policy says. If it's in thirds or if each of you was left a different amount or whatever. But you should get it all as stated, not the estate.QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
I believe that should read: "the amount of the benefit as specified by the policy holder".
Post by: Sibley on January 18, 2022, 11:01:25 AM
Technically true, of course. But I can see that given all the drama about this situation and that the policy was written before the younger siblings were born and never changed, I can well see that the Zambonis might decide that the most politic approach would be an equal split.Yes. That's correct. Whatever the policy says. If it's in thirds or if each of you was left a different amount or whatever. But you should get it all as stated, not the estate.QuoteSo, she emailed him a week ago that she had already tried to claim it and they wouldn't let her, so he needs to send her a copy of both his driver's license and Social Security card so that she can claim it on behalf of the estate.
Insurance benefits are not part of the estate. They belong solely to the beneficiary, in this case the money is your husband's only. Insurance benefits don't go to pay debts from the estate or anything else. If the three siblings are all named on a policy you should get exactly one third of the money in its entirety to the penny with nothing taken out to cover any estate costs.
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
I believe that should read: "the amount of the benefit as specified by the policy holder".
And that's fine, but it would be a personal decision made by the bene what to do with their money. Zamboni can donate it all to an animal shelter. The law doesn't care.
Post by: Zamboni on January 18, 2022, 06:11:53 PM
Go to https://eapps.naic.org/life-policy-locator/#/welcome to help you find out what company has the policy so he can collect his money and not have to deal with his sister at all. That's the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Thank you for this!
Post by: iris lily on January 21, 2022, 08:28:19 AM
There was a knock on our door a couple weeks ago, it was a process server. We’re being sued in a partition suit. Oh, joy.
When this is over I can reveal more details, suffice to say that I am in an awkward position because my name is listed as a defendant. Yet, I agree with the plaintive. So I have to spend money to defend in court a sentiment I don’t have.
My only salve Is that I have told DH any money defending this thing comes from his own IRA. Our joint monies will not pay for an attorney. Not happening dude.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 21, 2022, 09:44:42 AM
Our family farm saga continues.We have a family-owned farm as well. My mom, aunt and uncle each owned 1/3rd of a farm and my mom and uncle owned 1/2 of another farm. It was all on a handshake deal. Mom and uncle have passed away and we're in the process of getting an agreement in writing before the number of people involved balloons up. Just read the 3rd draft of the agreement this week and it's looking good. Should have the final version in a few weeks and we'll get everything signed.
There was a knock on our door a couple weeks ago, it was a process server. We’re being sued in a partition suit. Oh, joy.
When this is over I can reveal more details, suffice to say that I am in an awkward position because my name is listed as a defendant. Yet, I agree with the plaintive. So I get to spend my own money to defend in court a sentiment I don’t have.
My only salve Is that I have told DH any money defending this thing comes from his own IRA. Our joint monies will not pay for an attorney. Not happening dude.
Still no guarantee that everyone will behave, but at least there will be a legal framework in place to attempt to deal with things.
One of the things that I insisted on was that while I agree we want it to be a family-owned farm and don't want to be in business partners with a soulless corporation, I didn't want the definition of family to be at the whim of a red state legislature. So the agreement recognizes same sex marriages regardless of whether that specific state does, and recognizes common law marriages as well. It also recognizes step children, including step children of a previous marriage, and it also includes foster children as eligible candidates. (Now, the deceased will need to make provisions for some of those folks in their will as we aren't upsetting the normal rules any given state might have for intestate inheritances, but it does mean we'll accept and acknowledge their wishes if they do.) We have some family friends who have adopted a bunch of kids and foster gobs more and I had people like them in mind. Plus, adoption can take FOREVER and these are uncertain times.
Post by: Captain FIRE on January 21, 2022, 10:05:53 AM
Our family farm saga continues.
There was a knock on our door a couple weeks ago, it was a process server. We’re being sued in a partition suit. Oh, joy.
When this is over I can reveal more details, suffice to say that I am in an awkward position because my name is listed as a defendant. Yet, I agree with the plaintive. So I get to spend my own money to defend in court a sentiment I don’t have.
My only salve Is that I have told DH any money defending this thing comes from his own IRA. Our joint monies will not pay for an attorney. Not happening dude.
What does DH think? I mean, you don't *have to* defend if he doesn't want to.
Post by: talltexan on January 21, 2022, 10:40:35 AM
Post by: Chris Pascale on January 21, 2022, 11:00:39 AM
Based on the lawsuits I've defended, I generally wish I'd made more generous settlement offers earlier.
Would love to learn more about this.
Post by: iris lily on January 21, 2022, 12:18:43 PM
He wants to, that is why we are in this situation to begin with.Our family farm saga continues.
There was a knock on our door a couple weeks ago, it was a process server. We’re being sued in a partition suit. Oh, joy.
When this is over I can reveal more details, suffice to say that I am in an awkward position because my name is listed as a defendant. Yet, I agree with the plaintive. So I get to spend my own money to defend in court a sentiment I don’t have.
My only salve Is that I have told DH any money defending this thing comes from his own IRA. Our joint monies will not pay for an attorney. Not happening dude.
What does DH think? I mean, you don't *have to* defend if he doesn't want to.
Edited my first post to make it slightly more clear. This is DH’s problem, not mine, but unfortunately my name is on the lawsuit.
Post by: talltexan on January 21, 2022, 02:26:39 PM
Based on the lawsuits I've defended, I generally wish I'd made more generous settlement offers earlier.
Would love to learn more about this.
Sold a property when we moved from Ohio to NC. Buyers later claimed we misrepresented the condition of the property (they had hired an inspector, etc.). We ultimately settled for about half of their initial "demand", but there were more than $10,000 in legal fees on top of that because we had let the process drag on well into discovery.
It was just writing checks for us, but we allowed emotions, etc., to ruin seventeen months of our lives.
Post by: Chris Pascale on January 21, 2022, 09:29:43 PM
Based on the lawsuits I've defended, I generally wish I'd made more generous settlement offers earlier.
Would love to learn more about this.
Sold a property when we moved from Ohio to NC. Buyers later claimed we misrepresented the condition of the property (they had hired an inspector, etc.). We ultimately settled for about half of their initial "demand", but there were more than $10,000 in legal fees on top of that because we had let the process drag on well into discovery.
It was just writing checks for us, but we allowed emotions, etc., to ruin seventeen months of our lives.
Very sorry to hear this. My parents sold their home before the 2008 crash. The buyers wanted the full purchase price from (A) them, (B) the inspector, and (C) the RE company that listed it. They claimed the home was completely unlivable. We'd been there 17 years, and they are still there now.
What really happened was that they were buying/selling every other year and got caught in the bubble.
I think my folks spent $20,000 defending themselves. My dad died before it was over, and these people wanted to make sure he was really dead, and not just tricking them to get the suit settled up, so they checked to make sure. Later, my mom got something like $2500 in damages from them. I think it was the limit on counter-suing; the idea is that you don't want someone not to be able to sue a giant corporation for fear of having to reimburse them for a zillion dollars, and that lawyers won't take frivolous cases, judges won't permit the cases to go to court, etc.
Post by: Zamboni on January 22, 2022, 06:53:44 AM
One of the things that I insisted on was that while I agree we want it to be a family-owned farm and don't want to be in business partners with a soulless corporation, I didn't want the definition of family to be at the whim of a red state legislature. So the agreement recognizes same sex marriages regardless of whether that specific state does, and recognizes common law marriages as well. It also recognizes step children, including step children of a previous marriage, and it also includes foster children as eligible candidates. (Now, the deceased will need to make provisions for some of those folks in their will as we aren't upsetting the normal rules any given state might have for intestate inheritances, but it does mean we'll accept and acknowledge their wishes if they do.) We have some family friends who have adopted a bunch of kids and foster gobs more and I had people like them in mind. Plus, adoption can take FOREVER and these are uncertain times.
You're the best! My brother has adopted children. Even though it is a dozen years since the first adoption and he lives only a couple of miles from my Mom, so she sees them regularly, unfortunately she still can't seem to fully embrace them as her grandchildren in a way that is equivalent to her biological grandchildren. It makes me see RED every time she says something that makes me remember that. I don't want to go into very specific details, but her "blood relative" comments to me have gotten really old, and it is getting worse now that she is losing her brain cells and becoming fixated on what's going to happen to her stuff when she dies.
Quote
What really happened was that they were buying/selling every other year and got caught in the bubble.
I think my folks spent $20,000 defending themselves.
What a nightmare scenario. Too many flaky buyers in the real estate market.
Thanks again, @DeniseNJ, for the link to the NAIC link! Mr. Zamboni has started that process.
We figured out that what DotLWaT! meant when she wrote to him with:
"You have to send me a photocopy of your ID and social security number so I can claim this life insurance for the estate because only the first person listed can submit a claim, and you are listed first"
really probably meant
"You are the primary beneficiary, but I would like to take that money for myself instead."
In that same communication, she also demanded that he write her a check for a portion of the money if he claimed it himself instead. LOLOL.
If he does get anything from this mysterious policy, he is going to split it evenly between the deceased's grandchildren for their college funds. That will be a nice surprise for his nephews, and it will probably be all they ever see from the estate given DotLWaT's machinations.
He laughed at @Sibley 's comment about donating it to an animal shelter . . . I told him the best use of the funds would be hookers and blow, but he has this idea that college funds would honor the deceased better.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 22, 2022, 07:25:09 AM
One of the things that I insisted on was that while I agree we want it to be a family-owned farm and don't want to be in business partners with a soulless corporation, I didn't want the definition of family to be at the whim of a red state legislature. So the agreement recognizes same sex marriages regardless of whether that specific state does, and recognizes common law marriages as well. It also recognizes step children, including step children of a previous marriage, and it also includes foster children as eligible candidates. (Now, the deceased will need to make provisions for some of those folks in their will as we aren't upsetting the normal rules any given state might have for intestate inheritances, but it does mean we'll accept and acknowledge their wishes if they do.) We have some family friends who have adopted a bunch of kids and foster gobs more and I had people like them in mind. Plus, adoption can take FOREVER and these are uncertain times.
You're the best! My brother has adopted children. Even though it is a dozen years since the first adoption and he lives only a couple of miles from my Mom, so she sees them regularly, unfortunately she still can't seem to fully embrace them as her grandchildren in a way that is equivalent to her biological grandchildren. It makes me see RED every time she says something that makes me remember that. I don't want to go into very specific details, but her "blood relative" comments to me have gotten really old, and it is getting worse now that she is losing her brain cells and becoming fixated on what's going to happen to her stuff when she dies.
Thanks! It's a sensitive subject for me too. I have 2 step kids that I consider mine. To her dying day my mom didn't think that I had any children. Mom wanted me to keep the farm in the family and THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I INSISTED ON THOSE CHANGES. It's just that her definition of FAMILY and mine are different. I believe I have the right one. She may be spinning in her grave and that's on her.
Post by: Sibley on January 22, 2022, 11:16:48 AM
....
We figured out that what DotLWaT! meant when she wrote to him with:
"You have to send me a photocopy of your ID and social security number so I can claim this life insurance for the estate because only the first person listed can submit a claim, and you are listed first"
really probably meant
"You are the primary beneficiary, but I would like to take that money for myself instead."
In that same communication, she also demanded that he write her a check for a portion of the money if he claimed it himself instead. LOLOL.
If he does get anything from this mysterious policy, he is going to split it evenly between the deceased's grandchildren for their college funds. That will be a nice surprise for his nephews, and it will probably be all they ever see from the estate given DotLWaT's machinations.
He laughed at @Sibley 's comment about donating it to an animal shelter . . . I told him the best use of the funds would be hookers and blow, but he has this idea that college funds would honor the deceased better.
I mean, she could TRY, but in my experience with life insurance companies (on the company side), there's a good chance she'd get the fraud department involved, which may well get the FBI or other law enforcement involved. Insurance companies are not going to knowingly go along with fraud just because some crackpot got greedy.
And college funds are a good idea. I like animals more than I like people though, so totally going with the animal shelter.
Post by: DeniseNJ on January 24, 2022, 07:46:25 AM
Quote
Thanks again, @DeniseNJ, for the link to the NAIC link! Mr. Zamboni has started that process.You're very welcome. :)
Post by: AMandM on January 24, 2022, 08:38:14 AM
I mean, she could TRY, but in my experience with life insurance companies (on the company side), there's a good chance she'd get the fraud department involved, which may well get the FBI or other law enforcement involved. Insurance companies are not going to knowingly go along with fraud just because some crackpot got greedy.
Part of me (admittedly not the best part) kind of hopes this happens so DotLWaT gets her comeuppance.
Post by: talltexan on January 24, 2022, 08:40:48 AM
It's basically a public goods problem.
Post by: merula on January 24, 2022, 12:05:08 PM
I mean, she could TRY, but in my experience with life insurance companies (on the company side), there's a good chance she'd get the fraud department involved, which may well get the FBI or other law enforcement involved. Insurance companies are not going to knowingly go along with fraud just because some crackpot got greedy.
And college funds are a good idea. I like animals more than I like people though, so totally going with the animal shelter.
Seconding, even though I'm on the opposite side of the insurance industry. Seems likely given the regulations insurance operates under that if they pay someone other than who they were supposed to pay, they might end up paying twice. And that leads to all kinds of internal paperwork no one at the insurance company wants to deal with.
Post by: Zamboni on January 24, 2022, 04:15:37 PM
So, yeah, once they told her she couldn't claim this insurance policy for the estate, and that he was the primary beneficiary, she moved straight into full fledged fraud territory. But I'm with talltexan: not gonna waste any money on her. She is digging out an infested hoarded house with absolutely no help from anyone else in the family as her penance for her bad behavior. People tried to offer help, or to pay junk crews to help (even with simple instructions like "gather up all of the clothes") but she was so hell bent on getting "everything" for herself that she refused all help quite nastily. The contents of the home are certainly a net loss if one counts the time it takes to dig through it, and the smell in there was quite intense. I'm sure she'll find plenty of little crap to hock for petty cash, though, so good for her?
Post by: SwordGuy on January 24, 2022, 04:47:32 PM
Post by: JoePublic3.14 on January 24, 2022, 06:38:49 PM
The police don't charge you to investigate insurance fraud and the public prosecutor doesn't charge you to prosecute either.
And the next potential victim(s) say thanks for not tolerating criminal behavior. Next time she may defraud someone who really needs the money. But if she is stopped here and now…
So easy to type that of course, but if she already stole years ago it seems incredibly likely it has happened many times since, and undoubtedly will happen in the future.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 24, 2022, 08:11:20 PM
The police don't charge you to investigate insurance fraud and the public prosecutor doesn't charge you to prosecute either.
And the next potential victim(s) say thanks for not tolerating criminal behavior. Next time she may defraud someone who really needs the money. But if she is stopped here and now…
So easy to type that of course, but if she already stole years ago it seems incredibly likely it has happened many times since, and undoubtedly will happen in the future.
Well said. I agree completely! Someone who lacks even the honor to avoid stealing from family will not care about the impact of their actions on others.
Post by: Zamboni on January 25, 2022, 02:58:25 AM
Sure, maybe the police or DA would investigate "for free," but it would still involve our time and probably cause us more emotional distress. And it would give DotLWaT ammo for her victim narrative to extended family: "I'm getting stuck doing everything and no one is helping me and now they are being greedy and uncooperative and accusatory when I'm just trying to do my job" etc.
Sometimes, when someone shows you who they really are, your best move is just to get far away from them.
It sounds like this is one of those small policies that people forget they even have anyway. If she tried to nick a giant policy, then it would make more sense to pursue justice, but she'd just claim ignorance and go into victim mode. Even then, I still think our legal system wouldn't do anything to her that would change her ways.
Post by: RWTL on January 25, 2022, 04:08:56 AM
Sometimes, when someone shows you who they really are, your best move is just to get far away from them.
It's good to have FU money so you have options.
Post by: saguaro on January 25, 2022, 01:24:59 PM
I appreciate y'all's sense of justice, I really do. But our legal system is just not very well set up to put an end to the behavior of low-level thieves and grifters. I grew up in a very low income neighborhood watching friends and neighbors who engaged in a wide variety of petty property crime and fraud, so I am certain about this.
Sure, maybe the police or DA would investigate "for free," but it would still involve our time and probably cause us more emotional distress. And it would give DotLWaT ammo for her victim narrative to extended family: "I'm getting stuck doing everything and no one is helping me and now they are being greedy and uncooperative and accusatory when I'm just trying to do my job" etc.
Sometimes, when someone shows you who they really are, your best move is just to get far away from them.
It sounds like this is one of those small policies that people forget they even have anyway. If she tried to nick a giant policy, then it would make more sense to pursue justice, but she'd just claim ignorance and go into victim mode. Even then, I still think our legal system wouldn't do anything to her that would change her ways.
@Zamboni sorry you have to deal with this. Unfortunately there's no good options when there's an executor hell bent on doing hinky things.
In summary, my youngest sister and I had to hire an attorney to get our other sister, who was executor on my dad's estate, to finally settle things, namely get her to finally sell our parents' house. It had been 2 years, she was dragging her feet costing money and she had not given us a single accounting on expenditures (which was required by law) plus it turned out she had taken some um, liberties, when it came to those.
In hiring the attorney, my goal was strictly to get her to move on the house which was 95% of the estate. She appointed me, likely under pressure from her own attorney, as special trustee to handle the sale instead, the house sold immediately. There was still the question of what she had done with regard to expenditures but to me the likely amounts were just not worth going after. My youngest sister wanted to continue that but I opted out at that point. Youngest sister quit after a final conversation with the attorney telling her the same, what was left was not worth continuing. We did force an accounting out of executor sister in which we discovered what she did with some of the money, not to mention the costs associated with an empty house sitting around for 2 years and it confirmed that she had spent money for things not related to the estate.
I didn't like having to spend money on getting what basically should have been done without any cost to me, but I weighed the money spent vs. gain (with the house sale) plus the chances of being successful. Had the estate been less or if my sister was the sort who was going to fight to the bitter end, then I would have just walked. It was expensive enough just to get the house sold quickly and that was with me doing the work. Shortly after Dad died, executor sister asked to have have our father's car and having some of our mother's jewelry stating that our nephews would like their grandmother's jewelry and they could use the car. Youngest sister and I agreed but honestly, knowing what we know now, we would have not allowed it. But at the time, we trusted that executor sister would do the right thing. Even at the end there were things that have gone completely unaccounted for, such as items (china/silver) that executor sister said she would sell and split the proceeds but nothing.
So yeah, even when you decide to spend money to push things even the attorneys will tell you it may not be worth it...in terms of money, effort, stress. It certainly played into executor sister's victim narrative to the extended family. In our case, there was enough money bound up in the house sale to be worth it from a cost perspective, we approached this strategically meaning not going after everything (I had to talk youngest sister off the ledge on this one), focus on the house sale during a good housing market (it sold just before Covid hit) and, well, knowing your enemy.
Post by: scottish on January 25, 2022, 07:21:09 PM
What was involved in hiring a lawyer for such a case?
Post by: Sibley on January 25, 2022, 07:47:22 PM
I do know they're at least consulting a lawyer, but who knows if anything will come of it. I hope my deceased cousin is rotting in hell.
Post by: Zamboni on January 26, 2022, 06:26:11 AM
Yeah, dying during a second or third marriage without a will (or without a will that your children explicitly know about and can locate) is basically deciding that you don't care whether or not your children from your first marriage get anything from your estate. Many states hand the entire estate to the surviving current spouse.
Challenge
Okay, Mustachians, if you have young children and don't have life insurance already, Please read onward:
I challenge you to go get some separate term life insurance THIS WEEK for each parent. Unless you are older or infirm, it shouldn't cost that much per month that it is unrealistic, and you owe it to your kids in case you get hit by a bus next week. This is important regardless of your marital status. Please don't assume that the other parent can just take care of them . . . sometimes people die in a common catastrophe, or one parent dies very shortly after the other in unrelated circumstances.
The only rational exception would be if you are sitting on a huge pile of easily liquified assets that have your children listed as primary beneficiaries, but you still need a will and named trustees. The less money a parent has, the more important it is to have some life insurance, in my opinion.
Your kids are going to need some resources for their health, education, welfare, and maintenance if you die. This is especially true if the accident that kills you also leaves one or more of your kids permanently disabled. Trust me on this: my brother has adopted several children who were left in extremely dire straits when both of their parents died. Don't do that to you own kids, because there are not very many people in the world like my brother. Be a responsible parent! If you have the resources to access the internet and read this, then you have the resources to get some term life insurance. If the children are little you can go with a 20 year term, but if they are teenagers already, then it might make more sense to get a 10 year term. No excuses!
Post by: Zamboni on January 26, 2022, 07:30:24 AM
You inspired me to look up the rules here: in my state the executor is supposed to provide the court with a full listing of assets (bank accounts, property, etc) within 90 days of being appointed. That window has probably passed. We did look and see that the home is now listed as being owned by the heirs of the deceased, so at least some progress is being made.
Then the executor is supposed to provide a full accounting to the court showing that the estate matters are settled within one year from appointment. If they are unable to do that within the first year, then they can petition for an additional year for settlement, but they still have to provide an annual accounting showing where things stand at a year and another final accounting after the second year.
So sorry your sister's accounting had to be pulled out like a rotten tooth. And that the extent of the rot put your youngest sister out onto a ledge. Good job talking her off the ledge!
Post by: Sibley on January 26, 2022, 07:56:45 AM
Post by: AMandM on January 26, 2022, 08:08:23 AM
Will those rules be enforced, or are the courts too busy under Covid to go after her?
Post by: merula on January 26, 2022, 10:26:58 AM
Challenge
Okay, Mustachians, if you have young children and don't have life insurance already, Please read onward:
I challenge you to go get some separate term life insurance THIS WEEK for each parent.
This is an excellent idea. There's SS survivor benefits in the US, and certain other insurance might pay out for specific reasons for death, but term life insurance will always be there.
I used Policy Genius to find my policy based on my risk factors and have been very happy with my 15 year term policy from TransAmerica. My premium is $98/year for the first 15 years (which will last until my kids are 19 and 17, which will also hopefully be after I've FIREd), and I can renew it without a new medical exam after that if needed, but the premiums go up quite a bit. (So if something happens that I want to keep term life insurance, I can shop around but I'll at least have the option of keeping this one.)
I will say, though, that I did NOT buy separate term life insurance for my husband. I'm the sole earner, and his medical history made insuring him very expensive. My company does offer spousal life insurance as an optional benefit for ~$50/year, so I have that, but I am accepting the risk that if I were to become unable to work, and he died before we figured out another option, we wouldn't have life insurance benefits.
Post by: Capsu78 on January 26, 2022, 10:35:14 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/she-took-his-queen-size-bed-for-herself-my-sister-mooched-off-my-father-while-pretending-to-be-his-caregiver-then-he-died-a-painful-death/ar-AAT8oQ8?ocid=msedgntp
Post by: saguaro on January 26, 2022, 10:55:30 AM
That's an unpleasant story. I hope we won't have to deal with anything like that when my MIL passes away. I'm glad you and your sister were able to put it behind you - letting these things fester is just a big waste of time.
What was involved in hiring a lawyer for such a case?
My youngest sister (henceforth YS for brevity) had contacts from her previous banking job who recommended several attorneys. YS lives in another state, executor sister (ES) and I live in same area as deceased parents. After discussion over a period of months while ES found reasons to keep on dithering (despite my assistance in cleaning out the house and trying to talk her out of all kinds of reasons to keep on dithering) we contacted one attorney. In going over the estate information, the big thing he asked us was what we wanted to accomplish. In this case it was getting ES to move on the house. Possibility of petitioning for ES' removal as executor due to mismanagement was also discussed but that would take time and delay the house sale, thereby incurring more costs both to the estate and legal. Upon review of the will/trust, he found one way to speed things up: there was a provision allowing the primary trustee (ES) to empower a special trustee to handle specific duties. In this case, it would mean ES appointing me to handle the house sale, so that is what attorney recommended in his letter to ES' attorney. To our surprise, ES appointed me, perhaps out of spite, but as time goes on I highly suspect ES' attorney pressured her into it. Reasons were that our attorney pointed out that ES had not provided the required annual accounting to the beneficiaries that was not only laid in the will/trust, he referenced the state statute that also required it.
ES continued as the executor/primary trustee, paying bills such as utilities. I was empowered to list the house, cover any costs associated with selling like maintenance/repairs, negotiate price, handle all listing and closing documents so it was very specific (or as my attorney called "surgical") because one of my concerns was, not knowing what ES was doing, I did not want to be responsible for any of her mismanagement. From the day that ES appointed me to the day I closed on the house sale was all of two months, because I got a buyer 3 days after listing.
It really came down to deciding what specifically we wanted to accomplish, that we had only so much money and time so finding an attorney who would do that. Attorney also had a good penchant for reminding YS not to be too driven in letting emotions / family resentments rule the day and go off in unproductive/expensive directions such as going after bank accounts. But he really did earn his fee when it came to our attention 24 hours before closing that ES had not set up a proper estate account and continued paying bills using Dad's checking account with her name on it. So we had to avoid the sale proceeds going into that account because legally it would be hers. So he had a talk with ES' attorney advising him of that and to arrange for proceeds to be disbursed directly avoiding deposit into the bank account.
ETA: Regarding the covering of costs for selling, any costs were to be charged to the estate but according to attorney if ES refused to pay, then it could be reimbursed via the sale closing document. Luckily I had none other than spending $20 for ice melter.
Post by: saguaro on January 26, 2022, 11:44:51 AM
@saguaro Thank you for sharing your story. Sorry you had to deal with an inept and dishonest family member not taking care of things properly!
You inspired me to look up the rules here: in my state the executor is supposed to provide the court with a full listing of assets (bank accounts, property, etc) within 90 days of being appointed. That window has probably passed. We did look and see that the home is now listed as being owned by the heirs of the deceased, so at least some progress is being made.
Then the executor is supposed to provide a full accounting to the court showing that the estate matters are settled within one year from appointment. If they are unable to do that within the first year, then they can petition for an additional year for settlement, but they still have to provide an annual accounting showing where things stand at a year and another final accounting after the second year.
So sorry your sister's accounting had to be pulled out like a rotten tooth. And that the extent of the rot put your youngest sister out onto a ledge. Good job talking her off the ledge!
@Zamboni, thanks. Glad to see that my post inspired you to check some things out!
Since there was a will/trust with a named executor there was no court involvement (other than initially filing the will) but there were some times I wished that the estate was overseen by the court because that would have made ES more accountable. I remember when my MIL had to petition and be appointed by the court as executor to her parents' estate who died intestate. Everything had to be run through the court and when MIL went to close the estate, the judge wanted to see everything, he had questions and MIL had to provide more information before he would sign off.
But as mentioned in my above post, the annual accounting that ES was supposed to provide was not just specified in the will/trust, it was governed by state statute so ES had blown through that requirement twice by the time we got the attorney. It was pointed out in the letter to her own attorney that she had done this. After that initial letter, ES provided an "accounting" that was simply a spreadsheet quickly pulled together to which her own attorney made a disclaimer that he had "not vetted" the expenses. We insisted on actual bank statements which finally followed a couple of months later. It was then YS and I confirmed there were expenses made not related to the estate, some questionable such as repairs made to our dad's car done after ES had taken official possession of it. And the veterinary expenses for my mother's cat that ES adopted.
Regarding talking YS off the ledge, she and ES had other issues going on between them, so one thing I made clear to YS was this was about the estate and not her need to go to war.
Post by: Zamboni on January 26, 2022, 06:47:57 PM
Zamboni, sorry if you already explained this, but I thought DotLWaT was merely the self-appointed executor, whom the family is allowing to act to save themselves the stress that would ensue from objecting. Or did that extend to DotLWaT getting a formal legal appointment?
Will those rules be enforced, or are the courts too busy under Covid to go after her?
Honestly no one has any idea if she is officially legally appointed by the courts or not. She was not the executor in the "very old" will copy that surfaced later, but that person didn't want the responsibility. That will also left everything to the ex-husband of the deceased, and he is alive and well.
I'm going to guess she did go to the court to be appointed legally so that she had the papers she needed to get at the deceased's bank accounts, and so that she could block the ex-husband, whom she hates, from getting anything. The odds that she never opened a proper estate bank account are extremely high.
Post by: scottish on January 26, 2022, 08:06:14 PM
That's an unpleasant story. I hope we won't have to deal with anything like that when my MIL passes away. I'm glad you and your sister were able to put it behind you - letting these things fester is just a big waste of time.
What was involved in hiring a lawyer for such a case?
My youngest sister (henceforth YS for brevity) had contacts from her previous banking job who recommended several attorneys. YS lives in another state, executor sister (ES) and I live in same area as deceased parents. After discussion over a period of months while ES found reasons to keep on dithering (despite my assistance in cleaning out the house and trying to talk her out of all kinds of reasons to keep on dithering) we contacted one attorney. In going over the estate information, the big thing he asked us was what we wanted to accomplish. In this case it was getting ES to move on the house. Possibility of petitioning for ES' removal as executor due to mismanagement was also discussed but that would take time and delay the house sale, thereby incurring more costs both to the estate and legal. Upon review of the will/trust, he found one way to speed things up: there was a provision allowing the primary trustee (ES) to empower a special trustee to handle specific duties. In this case, it would mean ES appointing me to handle the house sale, so that is what attorney recommended in his letter to ES' attorney. To our surprise, ES appointed me, perhaps out of spite, but as time goes on I highly suspect ES' attorney pressured her into it. Reasons were that our attorney pointed out that ES had not provided the required annual accounting to the beneficiaries that was not only laid in the will/trust, he referenced the state statute that also required it.
ES continued as the executor/primary trustee, paying bills such as utilities. I was empowered to list the house, cover any costs associated with selling like maintenance/repairs, negotiate price, handle all listing and closing documents so it was very specific (or as my attorney called "surgical") because one of my concerns was, not knowing what ES was doing, I did not want to be responsible for any of her mismanagement. From the day that ES appointed me to the day I closed on the house sale was all of two months, because I got a buyer 3 days after listing.
It really came down to deciding what specifically we wanted to accomplish, that we had only so much money and time so finding an attorney who would do that. Attorney also had a good penchant for reminding YS not to be too driven in letting emotions / family resentments rule the day and go off in unproductive/expensive directions such as going after bank accounts. But he really did earn his fee when it came to our attention 24 hours before closing that ES had not set up a proper estate account and continued paying bills using Dad's checking account with her name on it. So we had to avoid the sale proceeds going into that account because legally it would be hers. So he had a talk with ES' attorney advising him of that and to arrange for proceeds to be disbursed directly avoiding deposit into the bank account.
ETA: Regarding the covering of costs for selling, any costs were to be charged to the estate but according to attorney if ES refused to pay, then it could be reimbursed via the sale closing document. Luckily I had none other than spending $20 for ice melter.
Wow nicely done. You were able to focus the attorney on the one important item and get it done without winding up in court. I'm learning that it's important to find an attorney who communicates very clearly.
Post by: saguaro on January 27, 2022, 10:22:42 AM
Wow nicely done. You were able to focus the attorney on the one important item and get it done without winding up in court. I'm learning that it's important to find an attorney who communicates very clearly.
Thank you, @scottish I appreciate that. I was very reluctant at first to go the attorney route as I knew that even a simple petition to the court for executor removal would drag things out and the issue at hand was that things were already being dragged out and costing us. The house had sat empty for 2 years, we were on the verge of it sitting empty through a 3rd Chicago winter because even though the house was nearly ready for sale, ES told me she wanted to wait AGAIN because she was convinced that "houses don't sell in the winter". At this point the property insurance on the house had doubled and property taxes went up because the county senior citizen homestead exemption no longer applied. So taking this to court would be counterproductive.
Now I didn't especially want the job of special trustee but I stepped up because it had to be done. Since YS and I had taken the action to force the sale, it was only right that one of us accept the job. YS offered to do it but I said since I was the one who was local that I should handle it. Luckily YS works at a title company and helped me out as this was the first time I ever sold a house.
Honestly it was one of the hardest things I have ever done and I am not proud of it, even if it was necessary. As I learned in the course of selling the house, that it was even more necessary because ES had to disclose financial information to me so I could complete the house sale. Not setting up a proper estate account was just one of the things she did not do, in spite of all her talk of "having a fiduciary duty" throughout this whole thing. She repeated it all the time yet clearly she didn't do it. Btw, she has a degree in finance and works in the finance department of a major corporation.
I'm going to guess she did go to the court to be appointed legally so that she had the papers she needed to get at the deceased's bank accounts, and so that she could block the ex-husband, whom she hates, from getting anything. The odds that she never opened a proper estate bank account are extremely high.
@Zamboni, something I learned from our attorney (when it was discovered that ES did not open a proper estate account) is that it is a common thing because a lot of people don't realize they have to do it, they think they can continue with existing accounts even if they are honest (this was not our attorney's opinion on ES btw). It also takes time. However, given that ES had an attorney through all this, it seems likely he would have advised her of doing this. One option presented to me when discussing how to bypass the checking account for house sale proceeds was to have the title company hold the proceeds while ES set up a proper estate account, then deposit and disburse from there. But that was going to take over a week.
One option presented to me when discussing how to bypass the checking account for house sale proceeds was to have the title company hold the proceeds while ES set up a proper estate account, then deposit and disburse from there. But that was going to take over a week.
ETA: I will bring up another thing that ES failed to do, something that should have been done from the beginning and not 2 years later which was getting a tax ID from the IRS for the estate. She didn't get around to that until we had our attorney engaged and then when she messed up on the trust name for the estate, called and told me to request another ID since I was "special trustee". I had to remind that taxes was not something she empowered me to do. Incidentally there were a number of times when she called, or rather commanded me to do something that was outside the scope of the special trustee duties listed on the document that she herself had signed.
Post by: Zamboni on January 30, 2022, 08:47:03 AM
Incidentally there were a number of times when she called, or rather commanded me to do something that was outside the scope of the special trustee duties listed on the document that she herself had signed.
That sounds familiar. The commanding part is getting old in the little saga of the Zambonis. Mr. Zamboni complied with the first couple of commands in an attempt to avoid family drama, but she got so nasty when he asked a couple of reasonable questions and offered his help that he has decided to no longer comply.
Victory! Mr. Zamboni used information from the kind and knowledgable posters in this thread to figure out what he needed to do to find and claim the life insurance. He is indeed the primary beneficiary and his younger sister is listed as secondary beneficiary.
DotLWaT is not a beneficiary at all . . . yet she has now twice sent demands about sending a copy of his social security card to let her claim it "for the estate" or that he must send her money if he claims it. Her radio silence when he asked for the policy details and then her follow up command a week later that he just send her his private information pushed him into motion to figure it out.
And you know what's hilarious? He has now successfully filed a claim for the life insurance policy payout, and the agent on the phone told him the check should arrive at our address within a couple of weeks, but he has absolutely no idea what the amount is! He didn't even think to ask the phone rep about that, probably because we don't need money. DotLWaT said it was a small amount in her initial demand email, but she's not exactly a reliable source of information. His plan to split it among the deceased's grandchildren for their schooling funds stands.
Meanwhile, a letter with a probate case number from the court listing him as an heir recently came to his work address. So presumably DotLWaT has opened the probate case in order to get access to the bank accounts, which she was very eager to do as her first action after the death. But the address the letter got mailed to is really odd. Did she falsely claim to not know the contact information or addresses of the heirs? *Eyeroll* Why else would such a letter go to his work address rather than a home address? My guess is that the Clerk of the Court looked up the tax records and just used his W2 employer address as the most reliable. He never has anything else mailed to his office, ever, and DotLWaT does know where he lives, but whatever.
Mr. Zamboni continues to worry about DotLWaT's machinations. But, I think these last couple of developments have put his mind somewhat at ease. The court oversight might put some actual boundaries on her behavior. The courts have seen her act before, I've assured him. In fact, the way she operates outside of the normal rules is likely 90% of the reason that probate court is required even for estates with wills.
Post by: sonofsven on January 30, 2022, 09:36:27 AM
He originally set up his will so I could assist his surviving spouse in selling all of his tools, boats, and vehicles upon his passing as I have a good understanding of their value, and experience in selling such items.
Unfortunately his wife died first and he has no communication with his adult daughter and step son due to long and ugly family disfunction, so even though she and he will be the beneficiaries of the estate neither will talk to him, at all.
He is concerned they will not respect his wishes regarding the placement of his ashes in a place that is dear to him, as well, and he knows I will.
I have no experience as an executor so this thread has been a good wake up call that I need to educate myself to avoid some of these problems. One thing I don't want is his angry daughter and her family accusing me of any improper behavior.
One thing we've discussed is him pre-signing all of his vehicle and bost titles and storing them with me. He won't have many bills because he is so credit averse: power, water, phone, garbage, car insurance are probably his only bills. With a paid off house he doesn't even have homeowners insurance (!). I know with some family situations the son/daughter is added to the parents checking account but I don't know if that's necessary, or a good idea in this case?
Any advice is appreciated.
Post by: DaMa on January 30, 2022, 09:55:14 AM
In Michigan, you can transfer title on cars without going through probate. You can also have a "ladybird" deed on your home that transfers title to the named person(s) upon your death without going through probate.
Post by: Zamboni on January 30, 2022, 11:15:40 AM
Probably the best thing to do, when the time comes, is start with the wishes in the will. You'll need to obtain and file a death certificate with the county clerk of probate court. He or she can help you with the needed forms and procedures. Our local county has a pretty good step-by-step guide for executors with actions to take and timelines. The clerk can also likely recommend local lawyers who will handle the estate accounts and paperwork for the state allocated rate, if that is a thing where you live and something you want to do. It sounds like it isn't really all that hard to take care of things, though, but it's not something you can do in a single day because there are loose ends for months.
I have also gone the route of asking a good friend to be executor. She grew up in a funeral home and knows both the ropes and the family drama that go along with cleaning up affairs after a death. It's a bit of a burden, for sure, so I'm putting one of my 4-5 figure beneficiary-directed investment accounts to her.
It's not that unusual for people to leave assets to charities or people outside of their family. I know someone who inherited two beautiful Jaguars (the car, not the cat) from two different friends! My guess is that he just sincerely admired those cars more than anyone else, and the deceased were fairly wealthy and figured their families were getting plenty already, so why not help out a very poor and very lovable ski bum friend? Anyway, he alternates driving his red Jag and his green Jag.
Post by: AMandM on January 30, 2022, 11:23:44 AM
Post by: Villanelle on January 30, 2022, 02:22:37 PM
Thanks for all these latest posts. An elderly friend alerted me recently that I am the named executor, or personal representative, to his estate.
He originally set up his will so I could assist his surviving spouse in selling all of his tools, boats, and vehicles upon his passing as I have a good understanding of their value, and experience in selling such items.
Unfortunately his wife died first and he has no communication with his adult daughter and step son due to long and ugly family disfunction, so even though she and he will be the beneficiaries of the estate neither will talk to him, at all.
He is concerned they will not respect his wishes regarding the placement of his ashes in a place that is dear to him, as well, and he knows I will.
I have no experience as an executor so this thread has been a good wake up call that I need to educate myself to avoid some of these problems. One thing I don't want is his angry daughter and her family accusing me of any improper behavior.
One thing we've discussed is him pre-signing all of his vehicle and bost titles and storing them with me. He won't have many bills because he is so credit averse: power, water, phone, garbage, car insurance are probably his only bills. With a paid off house he doesn't even have homeowners insurance (!). I know with some family situations the son/daughter is added to the parents checking account but I don't know if that's necessary, or a good idea in this case?
Any advice is appreciated.
This sounds like a mess waiting to happen. Pre-signing the deeds doesn't sound legal for being able to sell, and even if it is, it certainly can look shady and if the kids are upset, they will be looking for anything not above board, or appearing not to be above board .
First, I would tell him I'm happy to be his executor, but only if he tells his kids in advance, so there are no surprises. I know you said he doesn't speak with is daughter and step-son (so I question why he is leaving his estate to them, but that's his business), but this would be a non-negotiable on my part. If they are the beneficiaries and I, a friend, am the executor, I want everyone to know that in advance. Second, I would have him ask the attorney who writes up the will and everything else about the best way to handle the cars and boats.
He should also add them as beneficiaries, meaning they get it when he is dead but can't access it before then, on anything that he can, as that makes it a bit easier for everyone.
Post by: sonofsven on January 31, 2022, 08:32:31 AM
I'll have a discussion with him today, and I'll stop by our county office to see what resources they have.
Good to have a plan for the inevitable.
Post by: AMandM on January 31, 2022, 02:54:00 PM
Post by: Zamboni on January 31, 2022, 05:20:38 PM
The state actually makes it pretty hard to claim money that isn't yours. Even if a utility company owes you $5.12 from a refund issued after you moved that ends up in the state's unclaimed coffers. There's gonna be some forms and ID checks and other bureaucratic hoops to jump through to prove that you and you and that you are actually the person who lived at that address who is owed $5.12.
Post by: JetBlast on February 04, 2022, 11:16:54 PM
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
Post by: trashtalk on February 05, 2022, 09:53:28 AM
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on February 05, 2022, 10:08:50 AM
Post by: MissNancyPryor on February 05, 2022, 10:16:27 AM
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
I think this is "per stirpes" and it often gets the grand kids all wound up about something being unfair. As if. People really get twisted about what they think is their right to other peoples' stuff, as @Zamboni reminds us with that recent drama.
The scene in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where the groups try to decide how to divide up the yet unfound loot is a good example of per stirpes. Is it by CAR or is it by PERSON? Does the RELATIONSHIP in the car matter?
RUN FOR THE MONEY was their solution.
Post by: Sibley on February 05, 2022, 11:55:13 AM
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
I think this is "per stirpes" and it often gets the grand kids all wound up about something being unfair. As if. People really get twisted about what they think is their right to other peoples' stuff, as @Zamboni reminds us with that recent drama.
The scene in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where the groups try to decide how to divide up the yet unfound loot is a good example of per stirpes. Is it by CAR or is it by PERSON? Does the RELATIONSHIP in the car matter?
RUN FOR THE MONEY was their solution.
That is a hilarious movie though.
Post by: trashtalk on February 05, 2022, 12:54:24 PM
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
I **think this is "per stirpes" and it often gets the grand kids all wound up about something being unfair. As if.** People really get twisted about what they think is their right to other peoples' stuff, as @Zamboni reminds us with that recent drama.
Well you inspired me to read up and the Wikipedia article on the various possible splits. Per capita versus per stirpes and the various flavors of each is very interesting!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_stirpes
Also interesting from the inheritance article: “In modern law, the terms *inheritance* and *heir* refer exclusively to succession to property by descent from a deceased dying intestate. Takers in property succeeded to under a will are termed generally *beneficiaries*, and specifically devises for real property, *bequests* for personal property (except money), or *legatees* for money.”
Post by: marion10 on February 05, 2022, 02:16:00 PM
Post by: AMandM on February 05, 2022, 02:30:11 PM
His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
Post by: scottish on February 05, 2022, 02:41:12 PM
His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
Unless one or both of them dies first...
Post by: SwordGuy on February 05, 2022, 06:09:26 PM
Pretty sure that then the kids of the deceased wife would get it unless the will specified otherwise.His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
Unless one or both of them dies first...
Post by: gooki on February 05, 2022, 08:18:27 PM
Quote
Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it"
Yip. For all they know it'll all get spent and nothing will be handed down to the children.
Post by: Chris Pascale on February 05, 2022, 10:17:59 PM
Challenge
I challenge you to go get some separate term life insurance
To add to this, I got a 20-year $1,000,000 policy at age 33 and it costs $730 a year. My wife got the same at age 36 and the price wasn't much different.
Post by: FIPurpose on February 06, 2022, 08:37:33 AM
Post by: JetBlast on February 06, 2022, 11:24:24 PM
His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
That’s one of the two major reasons I think it’s a terrible plan. Exes could blow it all the kids get nothing. The second is setting up the three older siblings to feel like they got cheated out their ‘fair share’ since ex-DW would almost certainly be getting the bulk of her mother’s estate.
I think he’s actually trying to avoid a fight by handing it to the ex-wives. Instead of the kids squabbling about who needs or deserves it more, he’ll give it to the exes 50/50 and then the kids have no claim to fair and unfair shares since they’re inheriting from their mother, not him. Logically it seems reasonable, but the siblings aren’t Vulcans and human emotions tend to get in the way of that sort of thinking.
I have little faith that plan will leave nobody feeling hurt, and I’m glad I won’t have to be involved.
Post by: former player on February 07, 2022, 03:02:36 AM
The usual method for dealing with spendthrift widows is to leave them a life interest only - they can spend the interest but not the capital, so the capital gets handed down to the kids. The problem is finding trustees who will do a good job of investing the capital and doling out the interest.His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children.Once he dies and his two ex-wives inherit, isn't that "it" indistinguishable from the rest of their money? When one of the ex-wives dies, how can you say which of her dollars are "hers" to bequeath as she chooses and which of them are "the ones she inherited" that have to be split among her children?
That’s one of the two major reasons I think it’s a terrible plan. Exes could blow it all the kids get nothing. The second is setting up the three older siblings to feel like they got cheated out their ‘fair share’ since ex-DW would almost certainly be getting the bulk of her mother’s estate.
I think he’s actually trying to avoid a fight by handing it to the ex-wives. Instead of the kids squabbling about who needs or deserves it more, he’ll give it to the exes 50/50 and then the kids have no claim to fair and unfair shares since they’re inheriting from their mother, not him. Logically it seems reasonable, but the siblings aren’t Vulcans and human emotions tend to get in the way of that sort of thinking.
I have little faith that plan will leave nobody feeling hurt, and I’m glad I won’t have to be involved.
Post by: talltexan on February 07, 2022, 06:45:12 AM
How about impending inheritance drama?Yeah there’s a fancy legal word for this inheritance setup but I can’t remember what it is.
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
I know someone who was planning to skip his kids and have the grandkids be his heirs. One kid had produced one grandkid and another kid had produced four grandkids. The “unfair” distribution went over like a lead balloon with first kid, even thought it wouldn’t have gone to them in any case. I believe after years of whining by first kid the dad reverted to having the kids being the heirs.
I think this is "per stirpes" and it often gets the grand kids all wound up about something being unfair. As if. People really get twisted about what they think is their right to other peoples' stuff, as @Zamboni reminds us with that recent drama.
The scene in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where the groups try to decide how to divide up the yet unfound loot is a good example of per stirpes. Is it by CAR or is it by PERSON? Does the RELATIONSHIP in the car matter?
RUN FOR THE MONEY was their solution.
Everyone who was in a car that pulled over by that wreck (in the opening scene) would have still gotten $zero if they'd followed through on the fair division, because Culpepper would have done some Civil asset forfeiture bs anyway, their best chance was to try to get to the money as quickly as possible (which they were motivated to try by mistrust of each other).
Post by: DadJokes on February 07, 2022, 06:53:11 AM
How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
Post by: Captain FIRE on February 07, 2022, 07:52:02 AM
How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Post by: DeniseNJ on February 07, 2022, 09:13:54 AM
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Post by: Captain FIRE on February 07, 2022, 09:32:49 AM
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Yep. To be clear, it's not their money, and fully the dad's choice as to how to distribute, if at all. BUT that said, I think it's ripe for issues and I 100% get why people might feel hurt, even if they each had $10 million in the bank.
Post by: DadJokes on February 07, 2022, 10:22:50 AM
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Yep. To be clear, it's not their money, and fully the dad's choice as to how to distribute, if at all. BUT that said, I think it's ripe for issues and I 100% get why people might feel hurt, even if they each had $10 million in the bank.
I guess that's all the more reason for deceased dad to have discussed this with the kids when he was alive.
Maybe my perspective is because I don't plan to receive much of an inheritance, but I don't measure my father's love for me based on how much he plans to leave me. I have two step-siblings, and they can have all of my father's stuff for all I care. They probably need it more anyway.
Post by: Sugaree on February 07, 2022, 10:39:35 AM
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Yep. To be clear, it's not their money, and fully the dad's choice as to how to distribute, if at all. BUT that said, I think it's ripe for issues and I 100% get why people might feel hurt, even if they each had $10 million in the bank.
I think that of all the choices in this case the most "fair" is to split everything equal among the children. I don't know the dynamics of this particular case, but children from first marriages often feel replaced by children from subsequent ones. This is not going to help this at all.
Post by: Zamboni on February 07, 2022, 03:54:50 PM
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Y'all are neglecting the fact that the ex-wives both probably need this money to live out their days. Perhaps they were both homemakers? And why should he leave anything to his children at all? How his fortune is split between his wives is a stupid thing for his kids to worry over . . . instead they should be happy that he had money to leave, and so their Moms are not destitute.
Post by: Captain FIRE on February 07, 2022, 04:52:29 PM
I'm with you. It really should be left to his children equally. Not to the ex-wives. Also, not to grandchildren but to the children themselves. If a child/heir has 1 child or ten it should not make a difference, that's their choice. Just like if the parent/deceased had one kid they would get it all but if the parent/deceased had ten kids, then the "fortune" gets divided by ten. Maybe it sucks to be one of ten when money is concerned but that's a choice parents make. Under ordinary circumstances, leave everything equally to your kids. Or better yet, blow it all! ;)How about impending inheritance drama?
Ex-DWs father is worth as of a couple years ago ~$14 million. She’s the only child of his second wife (since divorced). Ex-FIL has three children with his first wife. His plan when he passes is to split his estate 50/50 between the two ex-wives, with the understanding that when they pass it goes to the children. So…..my ex gets what’s left of $7 million and her three step brothers get to divide what’s left of the other half by three.
What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
The greediness of people knows no bounds.
If I knew that I was getting north of $2 million, I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because my step sibling is getting $7 million. None of it is money that I earned, so getting anything at all is great.
I get it though. $2 million v. $3.5 million is a large difference. Considering they are both divorced wives, with no current spouse, it does seem odd to split by ex wives instead of children. And then it starts getting into all of the emotional issues - does this mean I'm loved less, did dad not care enough about me to think this through, etc.
Y'all are neglecting the fact that the ex-wives both probably need this money to live out their days. Perhaps they were both homemakers? And why should he leave anything to his children at all? How his fortune is split between his wives is a stupid thing for his kids to worry over . . . instead they should be happy that he had money to leave, and so their Moms are not destitute.
Ex wives I repeat again. Presumably that was taken care of in the divorces, particularly where the poster offers no hint they are “destitute”.
Post by: Zamboni on February 07, 2022, 06:20:06 PM
Anyway, I don't think people should feel entitled to inheritances. I agree that the guy's plan is terrible, but it's his money and he is allowed to give it to whomever he pleases. To be honest, many of the stories along these lines seem to end with the 3rd wife getting everything and the earlier wives and biological children getting nothing, so his children should be happy if any money does eventually go to them.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 07, 2022, 06:37:45 PM
If the deceased cares enough for their ex-wives to give them money in their will, it's their own God-damned business and no one else's, unless the law says otherwise.
Same as if they like kittens and decide to give all their money to no-kill cat shelters.
Post by: Captain FIRE on February 07, 2022, 07:38:49 PM
Post by: talltexan on February 08, 2022, 09:50:58 AM
Of course, that difference may be an illusion of their age. $2 million probably changes the life of a 20-year old much more than it changes the life of a 35-year-old.
Post by: AlanStache on February 08, 2022, 11:00:41 AM
If the children came from two relationships, there may be the kind of age difference that means the older children are significantly better off than the younger.
Of course, that difference may be an illusion of their age. $2 million probably changes the life of a 20-year old much more than it changes the life of a 35-year-old.
I am over 40 and FI but $2mil drastically increase the amount of hookers and blow in my life :-) yeah age matters but that cash magnitude sort of swamps the age effects.
Post by: Chris Pascale on February 08, 2022, 09:55:10 PM
$2mil drastically increase the amount of hookers and blow in my life :-)
And the amount you can waste, too!
Post by: stashja on February 13, 2022, 05:14:42 PM
Post by: talltexan on February 16, 2022, 07:23:30 AM
Post by: kina on February 16, 2022, 09:15:37 AM
I had times in my thirties where I thought a couple mill might actually be enough to pay for all the childcare I wanted to hire. :-)oh, yeah...
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 16, 2022, 03:11:40 PM
I think that of all the choices in this case the most "fair" is to split everything equal among the children. I don't know the dynamics of this particular case, but children from first marriages often feel replaced by children from subsequent ones. This is not going to help this at all.
If you ever want some juicy reading, type "accidental disinheritance" into a search engine.
Post by: talltexan on February 17, 2022, 06:52:38 AM
Post by: Money Badger on February 20, 2022, 09:22:02 PM
Post by: NorCal on February 22, 2022, 03:46:40 PM
I also think about guys like Rupert Murdoch, whose older sons become essentially business partners, while his third wives have to pull together an All-Star legal team just to make sure the newest kids get some coin.
I must say I have been enjoying watching “Succession”. It’s entirely fictional, but loosely inspired by the Murdoch family drama. It’s worth watching for any fan of this thread.
Post by: Zamboni on February 22, 2022, 06:54:14 PM
Thanks again, @DeniseNJ, for the link to the NAIC link! Mr. Zamboni has started that process.
We figured out that what DotLWaT! meant when she wrote to him with:
"You have to send me a photocopy of your ID and social security number so I can claim this life insurance for the estate because only the first person listed can submit a claim, and you are listed first"
really probably meant
"You are the primary beneficiary, but I would like to take that money for myself instead."
In that same communication, she also demanded that he write her a check for a portion of the money if he claimed it himself instead. LOLOL.
If he does get anything from this mysterious policy, he is going to split it evenly between the deceased's grandchildren for their college funds. That will be a nice surprise for his nephews, and it will probably be all they ever see from the estate given DotLWaT's machinations.
He laughed at @Sibley 's comment about donating it to an animal shelter . . . I told him the best use of the funds would be hookers and blow, but he has this idea that college funds would honor the deceased better.
Success story: Mr. Zamboni has received funds from the mysterious life insurance that DotLWaT was trying to claim even though he was listed as the beneficiary. It was about 3 times the amount he was expecting based upon what she said when she was trying to get copies of his personal identification out of him so that she could claim it. Maybe it was whole life and the amount grew since the statement she found? Or maybe she under-reported the amount significantly in her communications to him? We'll never know . . .
Couldn't have done it without the kind folks here!
Post by: Taran Wanderer on February 22, 2022, 10:52:38 PM
Post by: Dicey on February 22, 2022, 11:49:18 PM
Post by: JoePublic3.14 on February 23, 2022, 05:17:01 AM
Post by: AMandM on February 23, 2022, 06:34:27 AM
eta: Does DotLWaT know? What was her reaction?
Post by: DeniseNJ on February 23, 2022, 07:21:15 AM
Post by: Turtle on February 23, 2022, 07:22:31 AM
Tempting as it might be to tell the DotLWaT, the lower drama course of action would be to let her wonder about it and stew in her own issues.
Post by: Adventine on February 23, 2022, 07:30:31 AM
BUT it might be even sweeter justice to wait for DotLWaT to uncover more stuff for which Mr. Zamboni is a beneficiary, wait for her to follow up ("Now I need your info for policies x, y, AND z!") and then Mr. Zamboni can just go and file more claims directly with the insurance companies. Cha-ching!
Post by: Zamboni on February 23, 2022, 07:49:51 AM
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Post by: Turtle on February 23, 2022, 08:41:14 AM
Post by: Sibley on February 23, 2022, 08:55:29 AM
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Zamboni, I'm sorry, but that one sentence makes me curse you. I HATE it when an outsider comes into the family and assumes that everyone should play by their rules without considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a damn good reason why certain dynamics exist. Who are you, or anyone, to dictate that someone interact with anyone "because family". In this case it sounds like it wasn't as bad as it could be - but that isn't always the case.
Post by: Capsu78 on February 23, 2022, 12:56:10 PM
Post by: NorthernIkigai on February 23, 2022, 01:04:50 PM
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Zamboni, I'm sorry, but that one sentence makes me curse you. I HATE it when an outsider comes into the family and assumes that everyone should play by their rules without considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a damn good reason why certain dynamics exist. Who are you, or anyone, to dictate that someone interact with anyone "because family". In this case it sounds like it wasn't as bad as it could be - but that isn't always the case.
Hmm, I know it’s all relative (hah!), but I wouldn’t equate “encourage” with “dictate”. I think it’s quite normal for a couple to discuss these kinds of things and look to each other for advice and thoughts. Interactions with the wider family affect both partners in a couple, so it only makes sense to decide such things as a unit. That doesn’t mean one person is dictating anything.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 23, 2022, 01:36:10 PM
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Zamboni, I'm sorry, but that one sentence makes me curse you. I HATE it when an outsider comes into the family and assumes that everyone should play by their rules without considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a damn good reason why certain dynamics exist. Who are you, or anyone, to dictate that someone interact with anyone "because family". In this case it sounds like it wasn't as bad as it could be - but that isn't always the case.
Hmm, I know it’s all relative (hah!), but I wouldn’t equate “encourage” with “dictate”. I think it’s quite normal for a couple to discuss these kinds of things and look to each other for advice and thoughts. Interactions with the wider family affect both partners in a couple, so it only makes sense to decide such things as a unit. That doesn’t mean one person is dictating anything.
I didn't get that vibe either. There's absolutely nothing I don't want my SO to comment on. I value her opinion over anyone else's. She doesn't tell me what I have to do... never has, but she encourages me a lot and is very often spot on.
Post by: Zamboni on February 23, 2022, 03:15:25 PM
Yeah, he knows what he is going to do with the money, but for now mum is the word. He doesn't want to interact with DotLWaT at all . . . he felt this way when I met him, but for many years I encouraged him to play nice (bc she's family, etc.) At this point, even my kind heart has given up on that relationship.
Once the estate is completely settled, with the house sold and probate all completed, then he'll send checks to the deceased's grandsons. It's a decent chunk of money, so it will help them with college or whatever they need to start their adult lives, but for us it is an irrelevant amount in the grand scheme of things.
Zamboni, I'm sorry, but that one sentence makes me curse you. I HATE it when an outsider comes into the family and assumes that everyone should play by their rules without considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a damn good reason why certain dynamics exist. Who are you, or anyone, to dictate that someone interact with anyone "because family". In this case it sounds like it wasn't as bad as it could be - but that isn't always the case.
It's okay, Sibley. I do understand "just no" as a concept. There is at least one person I will never play nice with . . . ever . . . so I get it.
When someone in his family would do something nasty or send some really cruel text and he'd want to respond similarly, and I would just point out that it isn't really productive . . . learning not to take the bait is a skill. Taking the high road when you can. That is playing nice to me.
I never dictated anything or made any rules. He'd say "I got invited to this family thing, ugh, I don't want to go." and I'd say "well, you don't have to go, but I can go with you if you think that will provide a buffer." Then he'd decide for himself, and pretty much without fail he'd be happy he went for one reason or another. I certainly never made him go to anything or call anyone or anything like that. There are often some people at family events he DOES want to see, like cousins he really likes and their kids. I don't think he has ever regretted that we went together to something. He definitely regretted some of the things he chose to attend alone, but that was never my idea. For awhile the family members known to be horrible to him were on their best behavior when I was around, I guess. But that has definitely worn off, so finally I have seen their true colors, and I am no longer an effective buffer as they just see me as an extension of him now.
I had friends growing up who had parents who refused to go to their own child's wedding because they refused to see their ex and that hate was ultimately more important to them than anything. Unless that person beat you or truly abused you, then it makes sense to me to swallow your irritation and petty squabbles with your ex in support of your child. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Easier said than done, I know.
Post by: Sibley on February 23, 2022, 09:15:50 PM
As for everyone else - great you don't see an issue, but be careful. Because you don't know what happens behind closed doors and plenty of abusers are fully capable of putting on a nice face.
Post by: trashtalk on February 23, 2022, 09:23:42 PM
Zamboni, that's good. You're in the clear. Clearly, bit of a button for me, and my extended family isn't even bad!I hear you. When I first met DH he was semi-estranged from his parents and I thought it was just a consequence of youthful immaturity opposite emotionally unintelligence boomers. I know better now. It was just that within my experience *at the time* I couldn’t conceive of parents being as malignant or truly disturbed. It’s been a learning journey for us separately and together as a couple.
As for everyone else - great you don't see an issue, but be careful. Because you don't know what happens behind closed doors and plenty of abusers are fully capable of putting on a nice face.
Uh…inheritance drama? None yet but this thread has convinced me we should hire a probate attorney to help us monitor the inevitable future shenanigans with the settlement of the in-laws estate.
Post by: Capsu78 on March 17, 2022, 06:38:59 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/when-my-mom-dies-i-want-complete-control-of-her-estate-i-have-not-spoken-to-my-mother-in-20-years-but-she-owes-me-for-the-hell-she-put-me-through/ar-AAV77lv?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Post by: iluvzbeach on March 17, 2022, 07:21:18 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on March 17, 2022, 08:46:57 PM
Funny thing about that article is the poster is under the impression there will be assets to inherit. The joke could be on them if mom dies and has no assets to speak of, yet the child is left to clear out the house, close out finances, etc.
You don't have to be the executor. You can hire someone else to do the work or even just walk away and forget about it.
Post by: iluvzbeach on March 17, 2022, 09:13:36 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on March 17, 2022, 09:34:31 PM
Yes, absolutely. However, if there are no assets to speak of, it sure wouldn’t be fun to pay out of pocket for someone else to do it for a parent you haven’t communicated with in 20 years. I guess at that point the person could just leave it to others to handle if they didn’t want to deal with it.
I don't think you understood.
You can just plain walk away and have nothing to do with it. Period.
Refuse to receive any assets you don't want. Or, since there's none worth taking none at all. Refuse to deal with it. Period.
What happens then? Not your circus, not your monkeys.
As a kindness to whomever lives nearby, you could check with a lawyer to quit-claim any and all rights to the property to the local city or county or charity, making sure that doesn't open you up to any taxes, fines, etc. Or just let the place fall apart until the city or county condemns it.
Post by: iluvzbeach on March 17, 2022, 09:55:20 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on March 17, 2022, 10:20:59 PM
I understood perfectly and even mentioned the person could just walk away and leave it to others. We’re on the same page.You're absolutely right. I misread.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 24, 2022, 10:56:53 AM
Quote
DotLWaT
My sick, demented mind pronounced this as "Dotty La Twat".
I think that, after five years of having my brains licked out through my nose by the Venomous Spaz Beast, I've finally gotten eccentric enough for other people to notice.
Post by: iluvzbeach on March 24, 2022, 08:37:17 PM
Post by: Zamboni on March 25, 2022, 03:14:14 PM
The Moneyist is a treasure trove of drama and bizarre or sad situations.
Post by: Capsu78 on April 01, 2022, 03:30:44 PM
An entitlement "Do Over" request. Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on April 01, 2022, 09:06:49 PM
Post by: NorCal on April 03, 2022, 10:37:08 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/we-re-headed-for-a-family-feud-my-father-offered-his-3-kids-equal-monetary-gifts-my-siblings-took-cash-i-took-stock-it-s-soared-in-value-now-they-re-crying-foul/ar-AAVHck1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=849b5047f55e46ab956323ad5c89eaf9
An entitlement "Do Over" request. Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.
Good grief, I can't stand that attitude. Those who don't invest somehow think of investment gains like lottery money instead of capital-at-risk.
I'm dealing with a sorta-similar attitude in my family, although it's not an inheritance issue yet.
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Post by: SwordGuy on April 03, 2022, 01:15:10 PM
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Wow. I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it. She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house. You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month. Otherwise, STFU.
Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.
Post by: Villanelle on April 03, 2022, 01:29:38 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/we-re-headed-for-a-family-feud-my-father-offered-his-3-kids-equal-monetary-gifts-my-siblings-took-cash-i-took-stock-it-s-soared-in-value-now-they-re-crying-foul/ar-AAVHck1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=849b5047f55e46ab956323ad5c89eaf9
An entitlement "Do Over" request. Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.
Good grief, I can't stand that attitude. Those who don't invest somehow think of investment gains like lottery money instead of capital-at-risk.
I'm dealing with a sorta-similar attitude in my family, although it's not an inheritance issue yet.
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
It might pay to spend the money for a couple hours with a lawyer, drawing up a contact that clearly shows he is a tenant and they he is in no way a part owner in the property or any equity. That will make it much more difficult for SIL to try to challenge things when he passes away. Or just have him sign an annual lease, with the rent listed as a specific dollar amount, that happens to coincide with the mortgage payment. You can likely find a basic lease online for free or very cheap.
Post by: Dicey on April 03, 2022, 04:23:47 PM
Post by: former player on April 03, 2022, 04:50:09 PM
I've also heard the IRS does not like when people rent to family members for below-market rates. When you take @Villanelle's excellent advice, be sure to run that past the professional, too.Wouldn't it count as a gift, though? As long as it's below the limits for a gift?
Post by: Zamboni on April 03, 2022, 05:41:23 PM
Post by: NorCal on April 03, 2022, 09:10:28 PM
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Post by: NorCal on April 03, 2022, 09:16:35 PM
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Wow. I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it. She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house. You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month. Otherwise, STFU.
Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.
Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.
With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.
Post by: SwordGuy on April 03, 2022, 10:07:11 PM
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Wow. I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it. She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house. You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month. Otherwise, STFU.
Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.
Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.
With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.
Sweet!
I don't blame you at all!
Post by: former player on April 04, 2022, 02:29:43 AM
bib is the perfect answer to any future griping from SIL about wanting a cut.
My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died. After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity. We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name. He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates). This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before. He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.
Enter SIL. We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes. While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.
Wow. I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it. She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house. You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month. Otherwise, STFU.
Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.
Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.
With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.
Sweet!
I don't blame you at all!
Post by: iluvzbeach on April 04, 2022, 09:19:37 AM
Post by: former player on April 04, 2022, 11:23:08 AM
@former player, what the heck is bib?bit in bold
Post by: Zamboni on April 04, 2022, 11:27:09 AM
I was guessing "bring it, bitch." So then I thought, no, former player would never be so crass, we must search urban dictionary!
Which led to:
Bib
A coward. Someone who won't take risks. They have no nuts and their scrotum is nothing but a bib for their penis.
OMG, I loooove learning!
Post by: shadesofgreen on April 04, 2022, 02:43:10 PM
Oh, that's such a responsible definition of bib.
I was guessing "bring it, bitch." So then I thought, no, former player would never be so crass, we must search urban dictionary!
Which led to:
Bib
A coward. Someone who won't take risks. They have no nuts and their scrotum is nothing but a bib for their penis.
OMG, I loooove learning!
That is funny!
Post by: Ladychips on April 04, 2022, 03:10:53 PM
@former player, what the heck is bib?bit in bold
I reread the bit in bold in the previous post several times trying to figure out what bib meant. When I finally figured it out, I felt like the star idiot in a far side cartoon. MMM Forum...keeping me humble!
Post by: jeninco on April 07, 2022, 10:21:15 AM
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.
Post by: shureShote on April 07, 2022, 05:27:22 PM
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.
This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.
So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?
How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted, but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?
Thanks.
Post by: iluvzbeach on April 07, 2022, 05:43:55 PM
Post by: shureShote on April 07, 2022, 08:39:35 PM
Post by: NorCal on April 08, 2022, 10:03:23 PM
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.
This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.
So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?
How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted, but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?
Thanks.
The way to think about it is a categorization issue. This type of property will be categorized differently depending on who’s looking at it. An insurance company will think of it like a rental property and insure it as such. The IRS will say “it’s not a business” (which is what they really care about). I don’t even recall how the mortgage broker classified it, but I seem to remember they were looking into categorizing it as a primary residence, since my FIL was involved in the purchase decision.
Post by: jeninco on April 11, 2022, 12:06:23 PM
The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?
So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.
I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes. Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved. The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.
Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.
This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.
So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?
How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted, but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?
Thanks.
The way to think about it is a categorization issue. This type of property will be categorized differently depending on who’s looking at it. An insurance company will think of it like a rental property and insure it as such. The IRS will say “it’s not a business” (which is what they really care about). I don’t even recall how the mortgage broker classified it, but I seem to remember they were looking into categorizing it as a primary residence, since my FIL was involved in the purchase decision.
Yeah, probably this. I blessed the arrangement in the first place, but MrInCO takes care of the details. I think the IRS probably doesn't care, as long as we're not claiming that it's a business thing.
Post by: Catbert on April 16, 2022, 11:42:34 AM
Post by: AMandM on April 21, 2022, 02:47:37 PM
Post by: Zamboni on April 21, 2022, 05:26:38 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on April 21, 2022, 06:09:57 PM
^Not a tax professional here, but I can't imagine why you would claim it as income if a family member is paying part of a mortgage on a home you own. Especially if you are letting them stay in your house for below market value, on paper it would likely come out as a net loss if it was treated as rental income (remember there are things like depreciation on appliances, maintenance costs, etc. that landlords can write off as deductions.)
If it's treated as a business, the IRS will tax them on what they SHOULD HAVE charged for rent instead of what they actually are charging for rent. And that's fair because if they are renting it out at well below market value, it's a family charity thing instead of a business, i.e., it would be a sham business if they treated it as one.
Only a tax accountant could tell them which option would be better dollar-wise.
Post by: jeninco on April 25, 2022, 04:11:04 PM
^Not a tax professional here, but I can't imagine why you would claim it as income if a family member is paying part of a mortgage on a home you own. Especially if you are letting them stay in your house for below market value, on paper it would likely come out as a net loss if it was treated as rental income (remember there are things like depreciation on appliances, maintenance costs, etc. that landlords can write off as deductions.)
If it's treated as a business, the IRS will tax them on what they SHOULD HAVE charged for rent instead of what they actually are charging for rent. And that's fair because if they are renting it out at well below market value, it's a family charity thing instead of a business, i.e., it would be a sham business if they treated it as one.
Only a tax accountant could tell them which option would be better dollar-wise.
Haha, yes. MrInCO had a long conversation with our tax accountant about how to handle it, so I assume we're all on the up-and-up (because those two are SUCH crazy rule-followers).
I pay the utilities -- the family member has only SSDI income to use for his other expenses.
It's interesting, because it sounds in writing like we're totally being taken advantage of, but we went into this eyes wide open, the family member has done his level best to hold up his end of the deal, and we're comfortable with making sure that he's housed and warm (as opposed to dying of exposure on the street during a depressive episode). To forcibly drag this somewhat back nearer the original topic, MrInCO's dad left a little $ to be used to care for this family member who has declined to spend it so far. I guess it's not "drama" if we don't make it into some, though!
Post by: Taran Wanderer on April 25, 2022, 09:39:46 PM
I guess it's not "drama" if we don't make it into some, though!
It’s actually kind of refreshing to hear your story after the many examples of selfish and short-sighted behavior. Your family member is fortunate to have people so thoughtful and caring.
Post by: MyOtherBrotherDarryl on July 25, 2022, 09:54:32 AM
https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-priest-a-dress-a-college-oh-my
Everyone else will have to settle for this:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/05/judge-forces-catholic-university-to-halt-auction-of-wizard-of-oz-dress/
Basically, the niece of the priest who was CUA's president at the time contends that the dress was her uncle's personal property and that she therefore deserves to inherit as his oldest surviving descendant. This claim has temporarily stopped the sale of the dress at auction, intended to raise money for the university's drama program.
The university has countered with documentation stating that clergy sign vows of poverty and therefore own no personal property. They add that many former staff and students recall the president's representing the dress as owned by the university when he showed it to them. Twenty-seven members of the niece's extended family have also signed a letter insisting that the dress belongs to CUA.
From the Chronicle article:
"Even if Barbara Hartke did have claim to the dress, as Catholic’s lawyers point out, 'her claim to the estate can only be (at most) one-fifth, so to satisfy her interests, the dress would need to be sold.' Hartke had six siblings, five with living descendants."
Greed knows no time.
Post by: Villanelle on July 25, 2022, 10:30:45 AM
Post by: TomTX on July 26, 2022, 08:31:42 PM
Somewhat odd that he didn't have a will. I wonder if that was kind of "never got around to it" or if it was because he considered himself to own nothing.
I've been doing a bit of reading on the Catholic vow of poverty (primarily The Journal of Catholic Legal Studies) - and it turns out to be rather complex, including whether it is a "simple" or "solemn" vow (the latter being more restrictive.) The need for a will and a "patrimony" (basically a trust where an inheritance is held either in case of leaving the priesthood/monastery/etc or for relatives to inherit) is emphasized. It's also noted that legal contracts should be drawn up for transfer of property, not just a religious vow.
If the vow isn't a legal contract and there is no will, I can definitely see the argument that possessions should be distributed to family members per the laws of the state in question.
Not claiming that's how it will shake out, just that there does seem to be grounds for the argument being made.
Post by: AMandM on July 26, 2022, 09:26:14 PM
This article from the Washington Post seems to say that Fr. Hartke passed the dress along to someone else while he was still alive. If that's correct, then even it it was a gift to him personally, it wasn't part of his estate.
Post by: TomTX on July 27, 2022, 09:15:26 AM
Anyway, it was interesting looking into how complex the question of a vow of poverty can be.
Post by: Capsu78 on July 27, 2022, 08:06:08 PM
That does seem to tip the balance toward the Church. Hard to judge for sure without getting validated evidence, witnesses, etc.
Anyway, it was interesting looking into how complex the question of a vow of poverty can be.
Yes, sort of like my later in life Aha observation moment when I realized "Non Profit" does not mean "no money is involved".
Post by: MayDay on July 31, 2022, 07:42:07 PM
20+ years ago, FIL moved in with his mother (GMIL) because of her failing house. He cared for her for ~10 years and took care of all house maintenance and repairs in exchange for getting to live in the house until he died.
10 years ago she moved in with her daughter (sister of FIL). Aunt makes noises every so often about how FIL should move out so they can sell the house.
GMIL dies a month ago. FIL has a will saying he can live in the house. Aunt has a newer will saying it should be sold. FIL was never told about the newer will and has put significant money into the house (somewhat stupidly IMO).
Now aunt is forcing FIL to buy or move, and FiL says aunt is dead to him. And is apparently buying the house for around 100k.
The whole thing is just messy messy messy. I assume both sides are to blame - FIL for assuming a 20 year old deal was still good with nothing to back it up (looking in it was obvious how this would go), and Aunt for possibly influencing the will.
Of course the other factor is that it would make sense for a 75 year old who lives alone to buy a condo instead of a 3 story (with basement) house in the Cleveland snow belt.....
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Stay tuned for chapters 2 and 3, featuring MIL and my GPA, both of whom have similar arrangements about staying in a house after a spouse dies. Hopefully theirs are better legally defined.
Post by: ATtiny85 on July 31, 2022, 08:34:32 PM
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
Post by: former player on August 01, 2022, 02:21:49 AM
If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
Post by: Sugaree on August 01, 2022, 08:34:00 AM
If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
Post by: former player on August 01, 2022, 08:45:17 AM
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
Post by: Sugaree on August 01, 2022, 09:51:11 AM
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
In this case, I'd leave it to aunt who wanted it so badly. Or to the local fire department to use for training.
In my own case, I've told my parents on several occasions that I will, under no circumstances, deal with their timeshares. I will turn it down. As will, I assume, my brother. At that point, it's up to the timeshare company's lawyers to deal with.
Post by: Villanelle on August 01, 2022, 10:24:07 AM
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
There are many, many people and organizations that would be happy to have a house full of crap. If you called them and offered to deed the house to them--crap contents and all--I am quite sure there would be a taker and the house would not be "left to rot".
That said, I'd likely accept the inherited house and call an organization to come take care of the contents. If it is decent stuff, there are companies that will hold an estate sale, take much of the profits, and then haul off everything else. If there isn't much of value, a charity might be interested, but if not, you can pay someone to haul it away. Then you just have to deal with the sale, not the cleaning out.
There's no reason to take on the cleaning out of a home if someone doesn't want to, just to get a few extra dollars. I don't see how that's different that not taking a job someone doesn't want to do. If they pay isn't worth it, don't do it. How is it mustachian to do work you dread doing (clearing out the house) in order to earn money you don't need?
Post by: Dee18 on August 01, 2022, 10:36:46 AM
Post by: scottish on August 01, 2022, 02:37:59 PM
Habitat's a great place though.
Post by: less4success on August 01, 2022, 03:09:47 PM
Post by: former player on August 01, 2022, 03:27:47 PM
If you are the nearest relative and executor/inheritor of a house and "simply refuse the whole deal" then the administration of the estate goes undealt with and the house and contents get left to rot, unless someone else with an interest starts a legal action over it all.
If you deal with the legal side then you are to some extent going to also have to deal with the practical side because 1) you are going to have to search the house for legal and ownership documents to make sure the legal side is properly dealt with and 2) you (if you inherit) are going to be responsible for things like property taxes and utility bills. You could always leave everything else to rot, of course.
If you decide to deal with the practical side as well as the legal side you can get someone else to do the practical side but you still need to find them and agree terms, which is hardly "refusing the whole deal". And even then if you don't do the job of properly employing someone -scoping out the work, understanding the terms of the offer from the contractor, negotiating the deal - then you are not being mustachian.
It used to be the case that most people died owning very little - houses were rented, physical belongings were useful and got parcelled out among relatives, no shares were owned and money in the bank was below the levels at which formal administration of an estate would be needed. Now with more property owned and fewer relatives to deal with it all managing a death is becoming a different scale of problem, and it's one it is not easy to duck out of doing.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on August 01, 2022, 03:27:53 PM
If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?
Post by: former player on August 01, 2022, 03:34:22 PM
How does the government know that it is theirs to deal with if you haven't dealt with it to the extent of telling them? And if you've done that much what's the excuse for not dealing with the whole issue?If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?
Post by: Villanelle on August 01, 2022, 03:40:25 PM
How does the government know that it is theirs to deal with if you haven't dealt with it to the extent of telling them? And if you've done that much what's the excuse for not dealing with the whole issue?If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?
Turning down an inheritance and managing an estate is about a million times less complicated and time-consuming than being the executor to an estate (if that's what we are talking about) and dealing with the cleaning out and selling of a home, especially if you do that work yourself.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on August 01, 2022, 04:30:45 PM
How does the government know that it is theirs to deal with if you haven't dealt with it to the extent of telling them? And if you've done that much what's the excuse for not dealing with the whole issue?If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it. If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house. Is that a better outcome? It's certainly not the mustachian one.
And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!
Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.
I dunno. Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.
I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?
First, I have never done it and am not wanting to come off as claiming to be an expert. A quick search makes it seem that it's pretty easy to decline being an executor and/or to not take an inheritance. Once you did that, it would go to someone else, and, I imagine, eventually to the government if they ran out of heirs.
This seems like a much lower bar of effort than truly dealing with it, which could be worth it or not to you personally, but unless you're deliberately trying to screw up the works by not being willing to submit a rejection in writing - again a low bar, then I don't see how it's being mean to anyone.
Post by: former player on August 01, 2022, 04:40:09 PM
Post by: iris lily on August 01, 2022, 05:24:37 PM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
For me it would entirely depend on who I know is impacted by the presumed property left sitting there with no one taking care of it.
If it was in a neighborhood where neighbors I know were impacted by the property not being mowed and cared for, yes, I would feel responsible for stepping up to take care of it. I really wouldn’t mind that aspect of it because I can deal with physical objects easily. The problem comes into play if there are a whole bunch of other inheritors who want to squabble over money in the estate. But if that were the case, I would just opt out of my share and suggest to the squabblers they take care of it.
While I have respect for the amount of time it takes to close out an estate, it really does not take out that much time to clean a house if you’re single minded about it and understand that most crap isn’t worth money so don’t bother with it. And just sell the real estate AS IS. Too many people try to “fix it up” for maximum resale. “No one needs to do that.
Now, if there are people inheriting who desperately need the money and who are incapacitated and cannot act as executor, then yes I would feel a moral responsibility to carefully dispose of the estate getting the most money possible. I can see acting responsibly this for a disabled child of the dead person or similar case.
Post by: Sibley on August 01, 2022, 05:56:14 PM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
Oh, you're not alone in thinking that. Yes, there are situations where it's morally justified to wash your hands of it, but they're not because you're lazy and don't want to deal with it.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on August 01, 2022, 07:39:51 PM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
What an odd situation to be sanctimonious about...
It doesn't make sense in a specific sense or a general sense.
On the one hand, the situation that was being discussed was already contentious. The situation with their FIL could be "over" when he buys it out, or it could come with more baggage. Hard to tell from the description, but I could see it happening.
From a general situation, if there's a whole house up for grabs, I would imagine there would be a number of heirs who would be willing to handle it for even a few thousand dollars in hand. So, saying you don't want to deal with it, as long as you (as I stated) are not a jerk about it and put in written notice about it, would cause the property to go to them without much trouble and they could handle it.
In the first situation, there's a reason beyond "being lazy" for not doing it. In the second one, you're not causing some calamity or gunking up the works horribly by distancing yourself from it.
Ultimately, I'm a firm believer in cleaning up your own messes. This is not their own mess. As is stated in numerous threads and other situations - you are not responsible for your parents - you are responsible for yourself. I'm also a believer in cleaning up other people's messes....to a point. We all clean up messes all the time we don't cause - we pick up trash we didn't drop, we help others out of bad situations that we had nothing to do with. It's a laudable thing. It's also not something we should expect of everyone to do every time the situation comes their way. There are just too many messes in the world.
I just, again, find it really odd that on this thread full of problems, challenges, and insane situations caused by inheritance that you would take the perspective implying someone was an irresponsible child who didn't want to deal with something that 9 times out of 10 wouldn't cause any real issues by passing it along to someone else who would literally get paid for doing it and likely be more than happy to handle it for the money.
I'm going to help handle my parents and in laws estates when the time comes. I'm also not going to look down on others who don't. I don't see why this is so controversial.
Post by: iris lily on August 01, 2022, 08:16:47 PM
So now I’ve watched two real estate booms come and go where some of these buildings STILL sit vacant. Who are these dummies who own these things? I just don’t get it. Because my old neighborhood is a historic preservation District, we are very concerned about the buildings being vacant, water getting in, structure going downhill.
There’s one on my Block in my new town, but it is a cute tidy brick house that is kept mowed so no one is bothered by it. The heirs cannot agree what to do with it. That seems very stupid to me but whatever.
Post by: Imma on August 02, 2022, 01:10:11 AM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
Post by: Sugaree on August 02, 2022, 04:09:42 AM
I guess because I am nosy and pay attention to real estate in various places where I live, I see houses that are vacant for decades. I am not exaggerating. In my old neighborhood we called them “problem properties “ and we zeroed in on absentee owners, usually children of the deceased, who for some reason could not get off their duff and sell the thing.
So now I’ve watched two real estate booms come and go where some of these buildings STILL sit vacant. Who are these dummies who own these things? I just don’t get it. Because my old neighborhood is a historic preservation District, we are very concerned about the buildings being vacant, water getting in, structure going downhill.
There’s one on my Block in my new town, but it is a cute tidy brick house that is kept mowed so no one is bothered by it. The heirs cannot agree what to do with it. That seems very stupid to me but whatever.
We have a similar neighborhood in my area. The problem seems to be that this used to be a lower income part of town. If you're familiar with the concept of a mill village then you kind of understand. Some residents are fifth or sixth generation on the same street. And some are people who've moved in from out of state and have no concept of what the neighborhood was like before the mill closed down. So, you've got an interesting mix of people who are gentrifying the neighborhood (got it put on the national historical register), people who are doing their best to hold on to their great-great-great-grandparents' house, and houses that are sitting empty because there might be a dozen heirs and none of them can agree on what to do. The way it usually goes down is that the ones who want to live there can't afford to buy out their cousins, the ones who can afford it don't want to live there, the ones who want nothing to do with the family don't respond to anything, and meanwhile the house sits empty and rots.
In one local case, a local woman passed her house to her five grandchildren. The house was in a horrible location for a residence, but the block had been rezoned to commercial some years back. Four of the five grandchildren had gotten a great offer on it, and the fifth held it up because she was opposed to her grandmother's house becoming a liquor store. They went to court over it. The four who wanted to sell "won," but I suspect that there were no winners in the end.
Post by: Sugaree on August 02, 2022, 04:16:13 AM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Post by: Villanelle on August 02, 2022, 08:16:20 AM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
This is such a strange thing to be aggressively sanctimonious about. An inheritance is a gift. If someone offers you a gift that you don't want, it is okay to say, "no, thank you". There's nothing "not adult" about that. If the person that started this strange thread drift doesn't accept the house, there is almost certainly someone else who will. "Hey aunt, we don't want the house; it's yours". And yet you seem intent on making this some sort of selfish, lazy, self-involved decision that will lead to decaying crack houses of undetermined ownership.
Post by: Plina on August 02, 2022, 08:39:51 AM
I guess because I am nosy and pay attention to real estate in various places where I live, I see houses that are vacant for decades. I am not exaggerating. In my old neighborhood we called them “problem properties “ and we zeroed in on absentee owners, usually children of the deceased, who for some reason could not get off their duff and sell the thing.
So now I’ve watched two real estate booms come and go where some of these buildings STILL sit vacant. Who are these dummies who own these things? I just don’t get it. Because my old neighborhood is a historic preservation District, we are very concerned about the buildings being vacant, water getting in, structure going downhill.
There’s one on my Block in my new town, but it is a cute tidy brick house that is kept mowed so no one is bothered by it. The heirs cannot agree what to do with it. That seems very stupid to me but whatever.
We have a similar neighborhood in my area. The problem seems to be that this used to be a lower income part of town. If you're familiar with the concept of a mill village then you kind of understand. Some residents are fifth or sixth generation on the same street. And some are people who've moved in from out of state and have no concept of what the neighborhood was like before the mill closed down. So, you've got an interesting mix of people who are gentrifying the neighborhood (got it put on the national historical register), people who are doing their best to hold on to their great-great-great-grandparents' house, and houses that are sitting empty because there might be a dozen heirs and none of them can agree on what to do. The way it usually goes down is that the ones who want to live there can't afford to buy out their cousins, the ones who can afford it don't want to live there, the ones who want nothing to do with the family don't respond to anything, and meanwhile the house sits empty and rots.
In one local case, a local woman passed her house to her five grandchildren. The house was in a horrible location for a residence, but the block had been rezoned to commercial some years back. Four of the five grandchildren had gotten a great offer on it, and the fifth held it up because she was opposed to her grandmother's house becoming a liquor store. They went to court over it. The four who wanted to sell "won," but I suspect that there were no winners in the end.
Here you can force a sale if a property if one of the owners wants to sell but if the property is not worth much you can get stuck with the bill of a lawyer selling the house.
My father inherited his fathers 1/9 of a property 20 years ago. The property was owned by his grandfathers estate. His grandfather had died before he was born about some 70 years ago. Thereafter his grandmother continued living on the property until she died some 40+ years ago. One of grandfathers siblings continued living on the property until about five years ago when he went to an assisted living housing. He paid the bills during those 40+ years and nobody wanted to throw him out. When he went to assisted living housing he wanted to stop paying for the house but so we started looking in to issue and realised what a mess it was. Nobody wanted to deal with it and he did in the beginning of the covid epidemic. He didn’t have a will so his two sisters and the children of the now deceased siblings inherited him and the crap with the house.
My father and one of his cousins started to trying to solve the situation. Two of the 30 heirs expressed interest in buying the house and there was finally one interested in giving 3000 USD for the house. Most of the heirs didn’t give a crap about the house but didn’t want to be a pain in the ass for those that finally wanted to solve the crap situation left for them by their parents so they agree to everything suggested by father and his cousin. Ass everyone wanted the issue resolved they let the estate of the uncle to pay for the cost of a person dealing with the formalia and all expenses assoicated with it. Two years later the house is now sold and they have to finalise both estates. The sisters didn’t want to sell to the person finally buying the property so their children had to do some armtwisting to get it achieved. My father told them that if the house was not sold now it would rot and be the estate would eventually go bankrupt. The 3000 USD will be split after the costs are reduced among app 20 persons. What is left of the uncles estate will also be split among app. 20 persons. It will probably amount to 200-300 USD in the end for most of them. My father and his aunts will gain 300-400 USD as they owned 1/9 of the first estate and got 1/9 of his uncles estate.
This 60+ year old issue is finally getting solved because the issue was forced by death. If would not have been possible if not all the heirs had not been able to agree on a solution and if the aunts had not finally come to their sense due to the risk of an even worse faith. I understand if people leave things to rot because that is often the cheapest route. If this issue had to be solved through court it could have been really expensive and nobody would have been prepared to pay thousand or tens of thousands of dollars to get a 3000 dollar property in the middle of nowhere sold.
Post by: talltexan on August 02, 2022, 12:17:11 PM
Post by: Imma on August 02, 2022, 02:07:20 PM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 03, 2022, 08:19:10 AM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
With the timeshare, there are some extra steps you will have to take to ensure that you don't accidentally saddle yourself with responsibility you don't want.
1. Make sure your name is not on the deed. If you're on the deed, you're equally and severally responsible for paying maintenance fees (and "mortgage" payments if the timeshare is bought with borrowed money). If you're on the deed now, GET OFF. This may mean that you lose the ability to log into the timeshare Web site and book vacations yourself. It won't mean that you can't use the timeshare as your parents' guests, but it's your parents who will have to set it up.
2. Make sure that you and your dependents don't use the timeshare at any point after your parents die or become incompetent. Even if a vacation was scheduled prior to the owner passing away, if you show up and use that timeshare it can be interpreted as evidence that you intend to own it.
3. If you have Power of Attorney and are paying your parents' bills for them, make sure that any payments related to the timeshare come from *their* accounts and not yours.
The way the timeshare company (and the law) will see it is like this: as timeshare owners your parents can have whatever guests they want, including you, because they've paid for the right to do it and continue to pay every year in the form of maintenance fees. But if they're dead and you're continuing to use the timeshare (even for a vacation booked before your parents pass away) you're enjoying the benefit of the timeshare, so that's interpreted as an intention to own it and to assume responsibility for the maintenance fees.
If you touch the account by putting money into it, consider the timeshare as something financially and legally sticky like co-signing for another person's car loan.
Contrary to what timeshare salespeople say (and they say a lot of random nonsense that isn't always true), a timeshare isn't real estate. It's the purchase of whatever vacations you plan to take for the rest of your life, in advance. Mathematically, depending on things like family size and travel patterns, it can work out for some. Inheriting a timeshare does let a person off the hook for the initial purchase price. But if the location or travel style doesn't suit you, or doesn't justify the annual maintenance fees, DON'T DO IT. It's better to try to give back or sell back the timeshare while your parents are still alive. Some timeshare companies maintain right-of-first-refusal. No matter what else they do, the owners extremely unlikely to get their initial purchase price back out of the timeshare, much less inflation. That's not a big deal if they have actually used the vacation accommodations and received the value for their purchase. But timeshares are not an "investment".
Post by: scottish on August 03, 2022, 06:06:36 PM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
A question:
If the estate has a negative net worth, does this mean the beneficiary has liability? I think there's a rule like this in Quebec, but it may be the executor who's liable rather than the beneficiary. (I don't live in Quebec.)
Post by: Imma on August 04, 2022, 02:04:56 PM
I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
A question:
If the estate has a negative net worth, does this mean the beneficiary has liability? I think there's a rule like this in Quebec, but it may be the executor who's liable rather than the beneficiary. (I don't live in Quebec.)
I'm not in Québec either, but yes, here if one accepts an inheritance unconditionally, you can end up with a negative net-worth estate and in that case you'd be legally liable.
In very exceptional circumstances an unconditional acceptance can be reversed to a conditional acceptance, but you'd need a judge's approval. A minor can only accept an inheritance conditionally, so they can't end up in debt. Also, student loans are tied to a person, they don't have to be paid out of the estate. But mortgages, credit card debt, bank loans, yes.
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Post by: former player on August 04, 2022, 02:10:10 PM
In the UK the debts have to be paid out of the assets. If the debts take up all the assets no-one inherits anything, it is all sold to pay the debts. But if there is not enough in the estate to pay all the debts then some of them go unpaid, and in that case there are rules as to the order in which the debts are paid from the assets of the estate. No-one can inherit a debt as such, but if for instance someone had been left a house that was subject to a mortgage they could agree to pay off the mortgage in order to inherit the house rather than the house being sold to pay off the mortgage.I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
I think rejecting an inheritance can be a good option for some people under some circumstances, but I feel people here make it sound a little more easy than it is. Or maybe the laws are different where you guys all live?
Here, rejecting an inheritance means not being able to organize the funeral (if you organize the funeral you are legally accepting you are an heir). It means stepping away from all the posessions of your loved one. That includes childhood pictures and their dog. A few years ago one of our neighbours died. He was a lifelong bachelor, not a friendly guy at all, apparantly in debt as well. His distant relatives decided to reject the inheritance. Which is understandable, since he wasn't nice, he rented and had debts. I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nasty uncle's mess either. But in that case, the local goverment handles everything. In practice that meant the local government picked up his body from the hospital, had him cremated without any kind of ceremony and sent guys who carried all his possessions into a dumpster in about an hour. He didn't have pets but they would have been surrendered to a shelter. It's a pretty big thing to do. I have an unfriendly bachelor uncle as well. I'm not sure if I would reject that inheritance, it would depend on the amount of debts. But I still feel like I owe him at least a decent funeral, and I'd like to get back a few family heirlooms.
Of course, in many cases, if one person rejects an inheritance there will be people next in line. You may still be able to attend a funeral as a guest while someone else is legally liable for it. But you will be dependant on the kindness of the other heirs to ever get your baby pictures back.
So, where I live, I can actually pick and choose which parts of an inheritance I want to take. For example, I can (and will) simply refuse my parents' timeshares. As long as I don't use them after my parents pass, they can't force me to take responsibility for them. That doesn't disqualify me from receiving anything else (though I'm not expecting anything from them). Debt is almost never inherited, thankfully. The few cases I can think of where debt could be passed down would be secured debt like a mortgage or if the descendants co-signed on something.
Oh, that sounds ideal! I imagine few people would want to accept a timeshare, but you'd still be able to pick the things you'd want.
Here you get three options:
- refuse outright. You need to register this with the local court, it's not expensive, but it means you get literally nothing. Inheritance will go to the person next in line until there's no one left and then it's the local government's problem.
- accept on the condition the inheritance is a net-positive. You also need to register this with the court. You settle the estate (figure out the debts of the estate, find where the money is, sell the valuables) if the result is positive it's for you, if the result is negative, it's divided among the creditors. In this situation you are allowed to sell the jewelry to benefit the estate but you can't take your parents wedding ring for yourself until everything is settled and you've accepted the result.
- accept the inheritance, whatever the outcome. If you take anything for yourself before the estate is settled, you "act as an heir" and you're automatically stuck with it regardless of the result.
Many people choose to accept the inheritance because they're so attached to family heirlooms and other material things. In my family we've always been open about money so I hope that should one of my parents die in debt, they'd give me the photo albums and wedding rings before their death.
A question:
If the estate has a negative net worth, does this mean the beneficiary has liability? I think there's a rule like this in Quebec, but it may be the executor who's liable rather than the beneficiary. (I don't live in Quebec.)
I'm not in Québec either, but yes, here if one accepts an inheritance unconditionally, you can end up with a negative net-worth estate and in that case you'd be legally liable.
In very exceptional circumstances an unconditional acceptance can be reversed to a conditional acceptance, but you'd need a judge's approval. A minor can only accept an inheritance conditionally, so they can't end up in debt. Also, student loans are tied to a person, they don't have to be paid out of the estate. But mortgages, credit card debt, bank loans, yes.
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Post by: AMandM on August 04, 2022, 03:47:26 PM
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
IANAL, but my understanding is that in the US, debts have to be repaid using the decedent's assets before anything gets distributed to the heir(s). If the estate has a negative net worth, the heirs won't get anything because the valuable parts of the estate will be used/sold to repay as much debt as possible.
Post by: lemanfan on August 05, 2022, 01:28:25 AM
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Sweden: The estate (Swedish "dödsbo", or older "stärbhus") is a separate legal person that is created upon the death of the physical person. If the assets on the day of the death are not enough to cover the debts and other liabilities, it can be placed in bankruptcy - and the assets are then divided by the bankruptcy proceedings among the parties that are owed money. Once all proceedings are over, the estate "person" is dissolved. The heirs get nothing.
In this case, if a heir has taken any asset out of the estate before the proceedings are done and over, they will be held legally liable to pay back the value of what they took to the estate.
Post by: former player on August 05, 2022, 02:17:48 AM
Turning down an inheritance isn't a problem, the problem would be in refusing to deal with it at all so that it just rots in limbo or forces someone else to take on the job that the will leaves to the person refusing the responsibility: that would probably mean that other person having to start a legal action to get the proper authority: potentially time wasting and expensive and making someone clear up something which is properly for someone else to do. It might be slightly less complicated if there is no will but there is still an expectation of the next of kin taking on the job and the court/other authority having to be satisfied as to why they are not.I seem to be alone in thinking that sometimes being an adult means stepping up and doing your bit to make the world run a little more smoothly. Good to know.
This is such a strange thing to be aggressively sanctimonious about. An inheritance is a gift. If someone offers you a gift that you don't want, it is okay to say, "no, thank you". There's nothing "not adult" about that. If the person that started this strange thread drift doesn't accept the house, there is almost certainly someone else who will. "Hey aunt, we don't want the house; it's yours". And yet you seem intent on making this some sort of selfish, lazy, self-involved decision that will lead to decaying crack houses of undetermined ownership.
In the last resort if there is no next of kin or no-one willing to take on the responsibility then some form of government can probably take on the job, but how and when will they know it is needed? Maybe the government can sell the property to cover its costs or maybe the taxpayer ends up paying.
In the past abandoned property wasn't much of a problem because property ownership was not as widespread and inheritors and next of kin were not so rich they would turn down an inheritance in most cases. Abandoned properties have become more of an issue in the past few decades and that will probably grow into the future with a higher proportion of property owners and smaller and more fractured families. But it's a waste of resources to leave a house to rot: bad for the locality, bad for society and bad for the planet. And not taking the time and trouble to deal properly with a house's contents, maximising reuse and resale and minimising waste, is also bad for the environment. Of course there are situations of abuse and neglect and family trauma that can make it understandable not to want to do this, but in general mustachians should be the people most likely to have the time and resources and motivation to do the thing properly for their deceased next of kin.
Post by: dcheesi on August 05, 2022, 04:58:11 AM
Estate law in the USA varies by state, but generally this is how it works. The heirs aren't responsible for the debts, but they can't collect on the assets until the debts have been paid by the estate. In some cases there are exceptions made for e.g., covering funeral expenses.In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
IANAL, but my understanding is that in the US, debts have to be repaid using the decedent's assets before anything gets distributed to the heir(s). If the estate has a negative net worth, the heirs won't get anything because the valuable parts of the estate will be used/sold to repay as much debt as possible.
Post by: talltexan on August 05, 2022, 09:16:17 AM
Post by: Villanelle on August 05, 2022, 12:15:17 PM
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Sweden: The estate (Swedish "dödsbo", or older "stärbhus") is a separate legal person that is created upon the death of the physical person. If the assets on the day of the death are not enough to cover the debts and other liabilities, it can be placed in bankruptcy - and the assets are then divided by the bankruptcy proceedings among the parties that are owed money. Once all proceedings are over, the estate "person" is dissolved. The heirs get nothing.
In this case, if a heir has taken any asset out of the estate before the proceedings are done and over, they will be held legally liable to pay back the value of what they took to the estate.
In the US, as I understand it, holding on to grandma's wedding right is technically against the law if she owes more in debts than the value of her estate. Everything has to be dissolved, people paid, and then the rest is distributed as per the will (or the law, if there is no will). But once the balances reach $0, debt isn't inheritable unless it is something you signed for (like cosigning on a mortgage or having a joint credit card).
My parents can't anymore make me pay their debts (when they die) then you or any other stranger can make me pay them. They pay them (after they are gone) with money in their accounts and from liquidating their assets, after that, the creditors are out of luck.
Post by: Imma on August 06, 2022, 04:14:20 AM
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Sweden: The estate (Swedish "dödsbo", or older "stärbhus") is a separate legal person that is created upon the death of the physical person. If the assets on the day of the death are not enough to cover the debts and other liabilities, it can be placed in bankruptcy - and the assets are then divided by the bankruptcy proceedings among the parties that are owed money. Once all proceedings are over, the estate "person" is dissolved. The heirs get nothing.
In this case, if a heir has taken any asset out of the estate before the proceedings are done and over, they will be held legally liable to pay back the value of what they took to the estate.
In the US, as I understand it, holding on to grandma's wedding right is technically against the law if she owes more in debts than the value of her estate. Everything has to be dissolved, people paid, and then the rest is distributed as per the will (or the law, if there is no will). But once the balances reach $0, debt isn't inheritable unless it is something you signed for (like cosigning on a mortgage or having a joint credit card).
My parents can't anymore make me pay their debts (when they die) then you or any other stranger can make me pay them. They pay them (after they are gone) with money in their accounts and from liquidating their assets, after that, the creditors are out of luck.
Sounds like it's actually not really that different in my country compared to other countries, exept here heirs have to make the decision early on whether to accept the estate regardless of the outcome or whether you want to accept the inheritance only if it's a net-positive.
I have to add that in the Netherlands people are usually quite open about money so most people will know what to expect. So they'll know whether it's safe to accept unconditionally or not. I would absolutely accept my mother's estate unconditionally, but for my in-laws we'd have to go with a conditional acceptance.
Post by: TomTX on August 06, 2022, 08:59:02 AM
In other jurisdictions where an heir can't be held legally liable for the debts of an estate, what happens there? Can an heir walk away with the valuable parts of an estate without having to pay back the debt? If so, why would anyone take the risk of lending someone money if they can't recoup it after death?
Sweden: The estate (Swedish "dödsbo", or older "stärbhus") is a separate legal person that is created upon the death of the physical person. If the assets on the day of the death are not enough to cover the debts and other liabilities, it can be placed in bankruptcy - and the assets are then divided by the bankruptcy proceedings among the parties that are owed money. Once all proceedings are over, the estate "person" is dissolved. The heirs get nothing.
In this case, if a heir has taken any asset out of the estate before the proceedings are done and over, they will be held legally liable to pay back the value of what they took to the estate.
In the US, as I understand it, holding on to grandma's wedding right is technically against the law if she owes more in debts than the value of her estate. Everything has to be dissolved, people paid, and then the rest is distributed as per the will (or the law, if there is no will). But once the balances reach $0, debt isn't inheritable unless it is something you signed for (like cosigning on a mortgage or having a joint credit card).
My parents can't anymore make me pay their debts (when they die) then you or any other stranger can make me pay them. They pay them (after they are gone) with money in their accounts and from liquidating their assets, after that, the creditors are out of luck.
All financial accounts should have a "payable on death" beneficiary. This typically allows the account to bypass the estate/probate in the USA. Jewelry and such can be gifted before death - last year my Dad distributed his coin collection and some long-unused jewelry.
Again, different states have different laws.
Post by: Sugaree on August 10, 2022, 02:00:41 PM
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on August 10, 2022, 03:32:50 PM
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??LOL! Did you inform him that even a free house costs money (taxes, maintenance, etc)?
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Post by: Freedomin5 on August 10, 2022, 04:34:08 PM
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
Post by: Dicey on August 10, 2022, 04:55:17 PM
Post by: Imma on August 11, 2022, 12:14:59 AM
We've changed our will in such a manner that the capable adults will make all the decisions and the vulnerable adults only get a check and specific items, and they can't object to that. The capable adult has absolutely no interest in *stuff* so if possible I'm sure they will try to involve the vulnerable adults in the whole process of clearing out my house etc. But if the bad family member will start to meddle, they can just decide to send them grandma's wedding ring and the money and not involve the vulnerable adults at all. Obviously, if one of my heirs decides to send the money to that bad family member afterwards, that's out of my hands, but I feel like at least I've tried to protect all of their heirs from drama as much as I can.
Post by: Villanelle on August 11, 2022, 08:59:35 AM
After reading through this entire thread, I decided to update my will. The beneficiaries are one capable adult that I would trust with my life and two vulnerable adults. At least one of them is getting closer and closer to a baaaad family member, who has caused inheritance dramas that would be great for this thread. I was not directly a part of those dramas but watched them from the sideline. It has happened enough times that it's a pattern. The family member and I are not in touch and I'm pretty sure they hate me, but they'd love to get their hands on my money! They're nosy enough that they'd want to figure out where it comes from too, so they'd want to go through all of the books to "make sure the others weren't stealing anything" but really just to figure out whether I've got a sugar daddy or won the lottery. The whole concept of spending less than you make would be way over their head. They've also sued executors of an estate more times than I can count (sometimes several times over one inheritance).
We've changed our will in such a manner that the capable adults will make all the decisions and the vulnerable adults only get a check and specific items, and they can't object to that. The capable adult has absolutely no interest in *stuff* so if possible I'm sure they will try to involve the vulnerable adults in the whole process of clearing out my house etc. But if the bad family member will start to meddle, they can just decide to send them grandma's wedding ring and the money and not involve the vulnerable adults at all. Obviously, if one of my heirs decides to send the money to that bad family member afterwards, that's out of my hands, but I feel like at least I've tried to protect all of their heirs from drama as much as I can.
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Post by: Captain FIRE on August 11, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Ooof. Ok, if you want to dissuade them from suing, there needs to be more motivation than "one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount". Otherwise, see it from their viewpoint: "I sue and I get a lot if I win - but I might forfeit this inexpensive item if I lose?" Not much downside for them in suing in that case.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on August 11, 2022, 11:48:31 AM
Well, they *do* lose the costs of bringing the suit as well. It turns it into "I could fight it, pay lots of legal bills, and still may lose, OR I could just go along with it and have a guaranteed XX." It sweetens the pot for not contesting the willSomething to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Ooof. Ok, if you want to dissuade them from suing, there needs to be more motivation than "one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount". Otherwise, see it from their viewpoint: "I sue and I get a lot if I win - but I might forfeit this inexpensive item if I lose?" Not much downside for them in suing in that case.
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on August 11, 2022, 11:58:08 AM
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Under the rules we have here in BC (Canada), as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent, it is better not to mention them at all in the will. As soon as someone's name is written in the will, they have the right to see the text and challenge it. If the state does not consider them to be a "usual" dependent, it would be much harder for them to challenge your will if they don't appear in it.
Obviously, rules are different in different places.
Post by: Imma on August 11, 2022, 12:45:23 PM
After reading through this entire thread, I decided to update my will. The beneficiaries are one capable adult that I would trust with my life and two vulnerable adults. At least one of them is getting closer and closer to a baaaad family member, who has caused inheritance dramas that would be great for this thread. I was not directly a part of those dramas but watched them from the sideline. It has happened enough times that it's a pattern. The family member and I are not in touch and I'm pretty sure they hate me, but they'd love to get their hands on my money! They're nosy enough that they'd want to figure out where it comes from too, so they'd want to go through all of the books to "make sure the others weren't stealing anything" but really just to figure out whether I've got a sugar daddy or won the lottery. The whole concept of spending less than you make would be way over their head. They've also sued executors of an estate more times than I can count (sometimes several times over one inheritance).
We've changed our will in such a manner that the capable adults will make all the decisions and the vulnerable adults only get a check and specific items, and they can't object to that. The capable adult has absolutely no interest in *stuff* so if possible I'm sure they will try to involve the vulnerable adults in the whole process of clearing out my house etc. But if the bad family member will start to meddle, they can just decide to send them grandma's wedding ring and the money and not involve the vulnerable adults at all. Obviously, if one of my heirs decides to send the money to that bad family member afterwards, that's out of my hands, but I feel like at least I've tried to protect all of their heirs from drama as much as I can.
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
I'm in Europe so it all works a bit differently here. We don't mention people we don't want to leave anything to, and I don't think it's legal to include a clause that anyone who sues over the will gets nothing. Succesfully contesting a will is extremely difficult here and almost impossible if you're not a spouse or child of the deceased (and I don't have children) so I'm not too worried about that. Just about all the drama that this person will create if given the slightest opportunity to do so.
This person isn't even really in for the money for herself, just someone who likes to stir up trouble and be the "good person" that someone else leans on for support. They're also extremely nosy and they would just love to literally go through my underwear drawer and my credit card statements to see if there's anything juicy there. This lady thrives on drama and scandal.
What I think she'd do is try to stir up trouble between the two vulnerable heirs and encourage them to fight the other over money and stuff. By appointing a reasonable adult as executor, neither of the vulnerable adults have to deal with the practicalities of the inheritance. The only thing they need to do is collect it. Our executor will not be fazed by angry phonecalls, long letters and threats of court. She's managed to interfere herself into several inheritance wars where she was never an heir and managed to stir up enough trouble that no one in the family is speaking to eachother anymore, but she's never managed to succesfully contest an inheritance, she's always been immediately dismissed in court.
To succesfully contest an inheritance she'd have to prove that I wasn't of sound mind when I made up my will or that it wasn't witnessed correctly. Both of which are not an issue. If a will was succesfully contested, the judge would almost certainly rule that it should go to those who'd inherit if I died without a will - and that would be those same two vulnerable adults. It would never go to the drama queen relative in any case.
Literally the only things I would want to leave this particular relative is a wooden stake, a bunch of garlic and a vial of holy water so I'm glad the rules are different here.
Post by: Villanelle on August 11, 2022, 01:05:07 PM
Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Ooof. Ok, if you want to dissuade them from suing, there needs to be more motivation than "one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount". Otherwise, see it from their viewpoint: "I sue and I get a lot if I win - but I might forfeit this inexpensive item if I lose?" Not much downside for them in suing in that case.
Sorry, i wasn't clear. The "if you sue you get nothing" was in reference to the person that might be swayed by BadFamilyMamber, but that Imma does seem to want to leave something significant. That would be incentive for her not to sue (potentially urged on by the greedy other party) because they do have something to lose if they do so. The "leave something insignificant" was a provision I often hear discussed to make it very clear that you wanted someone to get that and only that, and that they weren't forgotten or otherwise accidentally left out, and would apply to BFM. Two different approaches, for different situations/relationships/intentions.
But that's also why I mentioned discussing the possibilities with a lawyer to see if either of these strategies are appropriate.
Post by: Imma on August 11, 2022, 03:15:29 PM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 11, 2022, 04:36:20 PM
Literally the only things I would want to leave this particular relative is a wooden stake, a bunch of garlic and a vial of holy water so I'm glad the rules are different here.Careful: he or she might misconstrue your intent and use the inheritance on you directly.
Post by: MayDay on August 13, 2022, 06:10:33 AM
In this case H is the executor of the will and will not abandon that responsibility, but it is annoying to suddenly go from what we thought would be simple (comb through house for important documents, hire junk company to deal with stuff, walk away) to selling a house.
As all 4 of our parents get closer to dying and all have fairly simple estates but own property, etc, it's overwhelming thinking about dealing with it! H is the responsible child in his family so he is the executor for both (divorced) parents, and we don't live near them, and we both work FT in demanding jobs and have kids..... I hope they don't die for awhile.
Post by: Sugaree on August 15, 2022, 09:26:13 AM
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Post by: charis on August 15, 2022, 11:04:23 AM
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Um, what? I have so many questions.
Post by: Sugaree on August 15, 2022, 11:14:55 AM
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Um, what? I have so many questions.
Honestly, I don't know if that means that the house that they live in is supposed to go to my husband and then to my son. Or if it's supposed to go directly to my son. I'll worry about it when, god forbid, something actually happens to them. The will and/or executor has been changed several times in the last few years. I'm not playing that game and I wish they wouldn't do that to my kid. And like I said, there's still the matter of my BIL, who needs more economic outpatient care than we do.
Post by: charis on August 15, 2022, 11:23:54 AM
He wasn't surprised? How has your husband not discussed with you a situation where your kid might directly inherit a house, but your young son seems to be in the loop? This seems like something you should at least know and have at least a vague plan for in case it happens.Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Um, what? I have so many questions.
Honestly, I don't know if that means that the house that they live in is supposed to go to my husband and then to my son. Or if it's supposed to go directly to my son. I'll worry about it when, god forbid, something actually happens to them. The will and/or executor has been changed several times in the last few years. I'm not playing that game and I wish they wouldn't do that to my kid. And like I said, there's still the matter of my BIL, who needs more economic outpatient care than we do.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 15, 2022, 11:29:44 AM
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
I think you were joking on that last bit.
But for those who didn't catch that, here's my take on that suggestion, were it offered in all seriousness.
That's a HORRIBLE thing to teach a child! What an awesome way to teach a kid to be suck-up lying shitweasel waiting for someone to die to get an inheritance. Read a novel or watch a documentary on how warped people get when they're focused on an inheritance. It's sickening.
How about teaching them that their friendship and their kindness is NOT FOR SALE. Teach them their kindness is given to everyoneone until proven unworthy of it and their friendship is only given to those worthy of it. Make sure they know a polite but firm way to express this if said wealthy person tries to manipulate them with "the will".
And teach them that if they want a fortune, it's up to them to go out and earn it, save it, and invest it. Plan their future as the result of their own actions, not someone's death.
Post by: Sugaree on August 15, 2022, 11:40:12 AM
He wasn't surprised? How has your husband not discussed with you a situation where your kid might directly inherit a house, but your young son seems to be in the loop? This seems like something you should at least know and have at least a vague plan for in case it happens.Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Also, just because grandparents have said it, it doesn't mean anything unless your 9-year-old has seen their will, which is what I would tell my kiddo if she said something so presumptuous. :D
Also, I'd tell my kid that means she has to be REALLY NICE to her grandparents from now on to make sure she doesn't get taken out of their will. LOL!
This is pretty much what I told him. My husband wasn't at all surprised when I told him what the kid said, so I think there's probably something to it. Who knows what the situation will look like next month or next year. I can't remember if I've mentioned my BIL on the anti-mustacian hall-of-fame thread about relatives, but it's a doozy. I've always placed the odds of him sucking them dry at greater than zero. At which point, my husband and I will be taking care of them because they live next door.
Um, what? I have so many questions.
Honestly, I don't know if that means that the house that they live in is supposed to go to my husband and then to my son. Or if it's supposed to go directly to my son. I'll worry about it when, god forbid, something actually happens to them. The will and/or executor has been changed several times in the last few years. I'm not playing that game and I wish they wouldn't do that to my kid. And like I said, there's still the matter of my BIL, who needs more economic outpatient care than we do.
My FIL can't decide what he wants to do with his estate and is somewhat secretive about it to boot. It's changed several times over the last few years and I told my husband awhile back that I'm not borrowing trouble about it anymore. I do have some general contingency plans for the most likely outcomes, but nothing concrete until it happens. The only thing I've said about it is that if FIL follows through with the plan of leaving all the property to DH and all the cash to my BIL that we can't afford the property taxes and something will have to be sold.
Given my BIL's situation, I'm not counting on DH or DS inheriting anything and make our own plans accordingly.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 15, 2022, 01:05:21 PM
My FIL can't decide what he wants to do with his estate and is somewhat secretive about it to boot. It's changed several times over the last few years and I told my husband awhile back that I'm not borrowing trouble about it anymore. I do have some general contingency plans for the most likely outcomes, but nothing concrete until it happens. The only thing I've said about it is that if FIL follows through with the plan of leaving all the property to DH and all the cash to my BIL that we can't afford the property taxes and something will have to be sold.
Given my BIL's situation, I'm not counting on DH or DS inheriting anything and make our own plans accordingly.
You might want to pass along that insight to your son. He doesn't necessarily know what's in the will (or even if there is one). People often change their wills. People's needs often change as well: Grandpa may decide to buy a condo in a senior community, and most people who do that sell the home they've got. Others do a reverse mortgage to provide end of life care, so after they die they no longer own the property. Between that and bailing out your brother-in-law, there might not be much to inherit.
Post by: Sugaree on August 15, 2022, 01:40:33 PM
My FIL can't decide what he wants to do with his estate and is somewhat secretive about it to boot. It's changed several times over the last few years and I told my husband awhile back that I'm not borrowing trouble about it anymore. I do have some general contingency plans for the most likely outcomes, but nothing concrete until it happens. The only thing I've said about it is that if FIL follows through with the plan of leaving all the property to DH and all the cash to my BIL that we can't afford the property taxes and something will have to be sold.
Given my BIL's situation, I'm not counting on DH or DS inheriting anything and make our own plans accordingly.
You might want to pass along that insight to your son. He doesn't necessarily know what's in the will (or even if there is one). People often change their wills. People's needs often change as well: Grandpa may decide to buy a condo in a senior community, and most people who do that sell the home they've got. Others do a reverse mortgage to provide end of life care, so after they die they no longer own the property. Between that and bailing out your brother-in-law, there might not be much to inherit.
Which is why I warned him that a lot of things can happen between now and then.
Post by: Villanelle on August 17, 2022, 06:36:01 AM
I told my parents I have zero problem with this, and that I have no concerns at all about my sister trying to use this to take money that isn't intended to be hers. The intent is still a 50/50 split and I believe she knows that and if there is $20,000 in the accounts with her name on them, she will consider that as $20,000, minus whatever goes to estate expenses, of her half. So if the rest of the estate is $1m, she would acknowledge that I'm entitled to $510k of it, even if on paper it may look like I should only get $500k.
If not, she's an asshole, and I'll still be just fine.
It's nice to feel quite confident about how family will behave, and also not to have to fret over what happens if they hypothetically don't act honestly (other than the damage to the relationship and the disappointment in someone) because I'm fine financially either way.
Post by: Captain FIRE on August 17, 2022, 06:46:51 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on August 17, 2022, 07:00:33 AM
I'm suspect that contacting the utility company in the interim, if needed, would be sufficient. Or just write the check, sign their name and print your own followed by "- Executor" and I suspect it will go thru regardless. Nobody is going to give you a hassle for doing that.
Post by: Zamboni on August 17, 2022, 08:05:53 AM
Maybe not exactly drama, but my 9 year-old informed me the other day that he'll be inheriting his grandparents' house. How am I supposed to threaten him with living in a van down by the river if he knows he already knows he has a has a house??
In all seriousness, I did caution him that a lot of things could happen between now.
My Mom also told my daughter this same thing that she was going to will daughter her house to live in recently . . . thankfully I was sitting right there at the time. She has certainly said that verbatim to me previously, and also separately to my brother, and I happen to know that she has also said the same to one of my adult nephews, which I told my daughter about when we got back in our car. Basically, yes she owns a little house, but otherwise Granny is poor and has always been full of $hit about what she is going to do, so my daughter is best to just smile and nod at her but not believe what she says. I explained that her ideas about her house is because she is old and batty (which is only partly true . . . she's always been manipulative like that, but it's easier to blame her dementia to my daughter.) So, my daughter doesn't take what Granny says very seriously, and thankfully my daughter is also much more diplomatic and level headed than I have ever been, so I'm not that worried about any sort of disappointment or scrap later either way.
My Mom has 12 Grandchildren, btw, 10 of whom live very near to her home. No reason to be telling this person and then that one that she will give them her house to live in . . . unless she thinks 16 people are going to merrily move into her tiny home when she dies.
Post by: Siebrie on August 18, 2022, 01:44:06 AM
Post by: Villanelle on August 18, 2022, 08:07:59 AM
@Villanelle If your sister's name is on the account, what happens if she were to die or become unfit to deal with financial matters before your parents? Would they 'inherit' their own money? Would it go to her partner or children?
It seems like the same would happen, but in reverse. If parents die, the account goes to her. If she dies, it would go [back to] to them.
And again, since this is a relatively insignificant portion of the total inheritance so if it goes awry somehow, it isn't especially meaningful.
Post by: TomTX on August 21, 2022, 08:48:27 PM
@Villanelle If your sister's name is on the account, what happens if she were to die or become unfit to deal with financial matters before your parents? Would they 'inherit' their own money? Would it go to her partner or children?
It seems like the same would happen, but in reverse. If parents die, the account goes to her. If she dies, it would go [back to] to them.
And again, since this is a relatively insignificant portion of the total inheritance so if it goes awry somehow, it isn't especially meaningful.
I'm the executor for my parents, and I'm on one of their bank accounts to more easily handle immediate costs. It's somewhere around 2% of their NW.
Just about every other account has payable-on-death beneficiaries, divided up roughly equally among all the kids. There will be some evening out to do and distribution of items - but really, there simply won't be any big chunks of money to fight over now that they sold the house. The vast majority will bypass the estate.
Post by: Goldielocks on August 28, 2022, 04:33:21 PM
Yes... but... Don't most wills with assets need to be probated, and once probated become public record, so vast majority of people will be able to request a copy of the will anyway, even if unrelated?Something to discuss with a lawyer, if you haven't already, is either specifically mentioning that BadFamilyMember gets nothing (or leaving them one specific and relatively inexpensive item or amount), and/or including a clause that anyone who sues over the will receives nothing. The former can be helpful in making intentions clear if it is a close family member, and the latter can disincentivize the greedy lawsuits.
Under the rules we have here in BC (Canada), as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent, it is better not to mention them at all in the will. As soon as someone's name is written in the will, they have the right to see the text and challenge it. If the state does not consider them to be a "usual" dependent, it would be much harder for them to challenge your will if they don't appear in it.
Obviously, rules are different in different places.
Some estates have small assets and no real estate and can bypass probate...but anything with significant money usually can't be kept fully private...
(or maybe I am misinformed about BC?)
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on August 28, 2022, 06:38:50 PM
Under the rules we have here in BC (Canada), as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent, it is better not to mention them at all in the will. As soon as someone's name is written in the will, they have the right to see the text and challenge it. If the state does not consider them to be a "usual" dependent, it would be much harder for them to challenge your will if they don't appear in it.Yes... but... Don't most wills with assets need to be probated, and once probated become public record, so vast majority of people will be able to request a copy of the will anyway, even if unrelated?
Obviously, rules are different in different places.
I think you are right about probate eventually making the proceedings public, but it takes doing a specific search (for a fee). What I meant is that putting someone's name in the will gives them much greater legal standing to challenge the estate in court. Nothing can prevent an asshole from suing you for any old reason, but you can sure make it harder for them.
BC Court search here:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/deceasedSearch.do
Post by: Reynold on September 26, 2022, 09:36:05 AM
I just had a visit with my parents. My sister is named as their executor. They informed me that they are adding her name to some of their accounts (mostly their main checking and savings) and asked if I was okay with that. My mom went on to explain that after her dad passed, she was so glad he had added her a few months before his death because it made it very easy to do things like pay his outstanding electric bill, property taxes, and other things that might be due ASAP, before the estate is settled enough to open access to those funds.
It might be a better idea to have your parents give your sister power of attorney for that account, rather than adding her as an account holder. That will still let her operate the account as needed, without muddying the waters as to whether that account is part of the estate for purposes of things like estate taxes, division of assets, and such. I'm not an expert on that, but have seen that discussed in articles on the subject.
I sadly don't have very exciting drama to report for this thread, when my last parent passed away, my siblings and I divided things up with zero issues. Maybe a bit more on my DW's side, when her last parent passed away, her sister bought the family house from the estate to use as a summer place. They have in writing, though, that the contents have not been divided and still belong to both of them. At some point dividing up the stuff will still have to happen, and then my SIL will want to resolve it all in about half an hour and my DW will want to resolve it all in about a week of detailed negotiations and discussions, so I see some possible issues there. Also, my DW feels that her sister doesn't do an adequate job of trimming the bushes at the familial house. . . :)
Post by: Missy B on October 05, 2022, 06:40:19 AM
Anyone who would have been entitled to a claim if the decedent had died intestate is entitled to see the will, whether they are in it or not.Under the rules we have here in BC (Canada), as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent, it is better not to mention them at all in the will. As soon as someone's name is written in the will, they have the right to see the text and challenge it. If the state does not consider them to be a "usual" dependent, it would be much harder for them to challenge your will if they don't appear in it.Yes... but... Don't most wills with assets need to be probated, and once probated become public record, so vast majority of people will be able to request a copy of the will anyway, even if unrelated?
Obviously, rules are different in different places.
I think you are right about probate eventually making the proceedings public, but it takes doing a specific search (for a fee). What I meant is that putting someone's name in the will gives them much greater legal standing to challenge the estate in court. Nothing can prevent an asshole from suing you for any old reason, but you can sure make it harder for them.
BC Court search here:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/deceasedSearch.do
Post by: Missy B on October 05, 2022, 07:01:19 AM
My experience was that it took a couple of weeks to get the death certificate. A few more days to get the document appointing me the executor and -- with copies of both -- I had all the access I needed.Speaking from BC here. Accounts that aren't joint are frozen on death with the exception of funeral expenses only. The executor cannot write cheques on the decedents account, period. The executor cannot even write cheques on "The Estate of..." account either, until probate is completed.
I'm suspect that contacting the utility company in the interim, if needed, would be sufficient. Or just write the check, sign their name and print your own followed by "- Executor" and I suspect it will go thru regardless. Nobody is going to give you a hassle for doing that.
I assume if you use a law firm that they'll front some of the cash needed for filing and to maintain the estate, and bill you through the nose for the privilege later. Otherwise, without a joint account the executor is on the hook for costs until probate is complete.
Post by: SwordGuy on October 05, 2022, 07:25:37 AM
My experience was that it took a couple of weeks to get the death certificate. A few more days to get the document appointing me the executor and -- with copies of both -- I had all the access I needed.Speaking from BC here. Accounts that aren't joint are frozen on death with the exception of funeral expenses only. The executor cannot write cheques on the decedents account, period. The executor cannot even write cheques on "The Estate of..." account either, until probate is completed.
I'm suspect that contacting the utility company in the interim, if needed, would be sufficient. Or just write the check, sign their name and print your own followed by "- Executor" and I suspect it will go thru regardless. Nobody is going to give you a hassle for doing that.
I assume if you use a law firm that they'll front some of the cash needed for filing and to maintain the estate, and bill you through the nose for the privilege later. Otherwise, without a joint account the executor is on the hook for costs until probate is complete.
Wow. That's awful! I just did exactly what the attorney told me to do and the banks were ok with it too.
Post by: Sugaree on October 05, 2022, 09:35:58 AM
Post by: Missy B on October 05, 2022, 09:44:38 AM
It gets better :) You have to pay probate fees of 1.4% *before* you can access any value of the estate. Assuming probate has gone through by tax filing, hopefully you can pay the estate taxes from the value, but depending on timing you might have to file tax and pay first as well.My experience was that it took a couple of weeks to get the death certificate. A few more days to get the document appointing me the executor and -- with copies of both -- I had all the access I needed.Speaking from BC here. Accounts that aren't joint are frozen on death with the exception of funeral expenses only. The executor cannot write cheques on the decedents account, period. The executor cannot even write cheques on "The Estate of..." account either, until probate is completed.
I'm suspect that contacting the utility company in the interim, if needed, would be sufficient. Or just write the check, sign their name and print your own followed by "- Executor" and I suspect it will go thru regardless. Nobody is going to give you a hassle for doing that.
I assume if you use a law firm that they'll front some of the cash needed for filing and to maintain the estate, and bill you through the nose for the privilege later. Otherwise, without a joint account the executor is on the hook for costs until probate is complete.
Wow. That's awful! I just did exactly what the attorney told me to do and the banks were ok with it too.
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on October 06, 2022, 09:40:21 PM
Anyone who would have been entitled to a claim if the decedent had died intestate is entitled to see the will, whether they are in it or not.
Yes, which is why my original post has the line:
"...as long as someone like that is not considered a dependent..."
i.e. partner or child, etc.
Cousins and aunties can bugger off.
Post by: SpeedReader on October 18, 2022, 10:38:09 AM
My SIL knew very well that my MIL's will said to split her estate equally between the 3 kids. She was the executor and the only one on MIL's accounts, which held most of her estate.Her attorney said she could keep the money, so she did. DH got his 1/3rd share of the (modest) house sale and life insurance. That influx of money revved up our ability to pay off our bills and eventually retire a little early. Getting cheated out of the balance didn't matter much to us financially in the long run, but DH hasn't spoken to his sister since.
I wonder sometimes if she thinks losing her brother was worth the money.
Post by: AlanStache on October 18, 2022, 10:45:01 AM
...
I wonder sometimes if she thinks losing her brother was worth the money.
It has taken me some time to learn that other people dont always know how much I dislike them, she may not understand that she lost a brother and she may think thinks they just drifted apart or will someday reconcile. Sometimes its wroth taking a HIMARS to a bridge.
Post by: Villanelle on October 18, 2022, 12:50:25 PM
"I just had a visit with my parents. My sister is named as their executor. They informed me that they are adding her name to some of their accounts (mostly their main checking and savings) and asked if I was okay with that... I told my parents I have zero problem with this, and that I have no concerns at all about my sister trying to use this to take money that isn't intended to be hers... If not, she's an asshole, and I'll still be just fine."
My SIL knew very well that my MIL's will said to split her estate equally between the 3 kids. She was the executor and the only one on MIL's accounts, which held most of her estate.Her attorney said she could keep the money, so she did. DH got his 1/3rd share of the (modest) house sale and life insurance. That influx of money revved up our ability to pay off our bills and eventually retire a little early. Getting cheated out of the balance didn't matter much to us financially in the long run, but DH hasn't spoken to his sister since.
I wonder sometimes if she thinks losing her brother was worth the money.
I've had several conversations with my spouse (and several more with my friends as a vent frustrations and worries) about what will happen with his mother's estate when that time comes, hopefully no time soon. There is very good reason to believe spouse's brother will be... challenging. My best guess is he thinks that when his mom goes, he will be set, but we have very good reasons to believe the estate will be modest. So there will be far less money than he probably thinks he is getting, and it will be split in half. Spouse's conclusion is generally that if his brother is difficult about it, tries to take more than his share in shady ways, or anything else, spouse will just sign everything over to BIL (to include dealing with all the legal hoops to jump through, taxes, etc., which there is no way BIL will be able to navigate well). And then walk away and basically say, "that was the price of having me in your life in any way at all. Lose my number." That's easier said than done, and of course I hope against hope that BIL is reasonable, fair, and pleasant about it all, so we will see what happens.
But it may well be a situation like you mention, where BIL chooses money over his relationship with his brother, which admittedly is already not a close one.
Post by: SpeedReader on October 18, 2022, 09:18:16 PM
But it may well be a situation like you mention, where BIL chooses money over his relationship with his brother, which admittedly is already not a close one.
The sad part is that my husband used to be quite close with his sister.
Post by: Villanelle on October 19, 2022, 01:16:06 PM
I've had several conversations with my spouse (and several more with my friends as a vent frustrations and worries) about what will happen with his mother's estate when that time comes, hopefully no time soon. There is very good reason to believe spouse's brother will be... challenging. My best guess is he thinks that when his mom goes, he will be set, but we have very good reasons to believe the estate will be modest. So there will be far less money than he probably thinks he is getting, and it will be split in half. Spouse's conclusion is generally that if his brother is difficult about it, tries to take more than his share in shady ways, or anything else, spouse will just sign everything over to BIL (to include dealing with all the legal hoops to jump through, taxes, etc., which there is no way BIL will be able to navigate well). And then walk away and basically say, "that was the price of having me in your life in any way at all. Lose my number." That's easier said than done, and of course I hope against hope that BIL is reasonable, fair, and pleasant about it all, so we will see what happens.
But it may well be a situation like you mention, where BIL chooses money over his relationship with his brother, which admittedly is already not a close one.
The sad part is that my husband used to be quite close with his sister.
We the inheritance what cause the split, or was it a gradual distancing that culminated in the split? DH and his brother were never super tight, but they were certainly closer than they are now. It's been a gradual thing over the years, with lots of complicating factors.
Post by: moof on October 19, 2022, 01:20:21 PM
Post by: SpeedReader on October 19, 2022, 04:11:35 PM
[/quote]
We the inheritance what cause the split, or was it a gradual distancing that culminated in the split? DH and his brother were never super tight, but they were certainly closer than they are now. It's been a gradual thing over the years, with lots of complicating factors.
[/quote]
It was 5% the way she acted the week of the funeral, and 95% the inheritance.
Post by: Capsu78 on October 22, 2022, 05:47:27 PM
Unfortunately, he was a better friend than a Father as over the years, after his divorce, he managed to alienate his (nice, launched) kids who we all knew and his ex so much that they ghosted him... it was hard to watch this play out and had many heart to hearts with him on why he shouldn't go down this road, but he did. Now he is "dearly departed", no longer gets or needs a "vote". Conversations on both sides that should have occurred didn't. The clock had hit 4Qtr - 0:00
His 2nd wife wasn’t in the picture until years after the divorce. She did some very hard relationship work with each of the kids and never feuded with his ex. She was being counseled by his former Fraternity brother and another close friend of all of us. They have been helping her make the decisions and are both 5* reliable successful in life, business and marriage guys. We all wanted to welcome a family reconciliation for our friends final services. Wife #2 wrote a beautiful obituary including everyone from Family #1 on the "survived by" list...including the wives and grandkids our friend never met.
Well the drama continued and we had no idea if any of his family would be attending the farewell. Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
W2 probably could have been persuaded with a phone call but now says "HARD NO"- there will be 1 celebration of life and "everyone" is welcome. The whole Celebration of Life, the whole room had to wonder if any of them would walk through the door, even if just to say “Dad, you were a real A****le”
While I had held my friend as being 90% responsible for the bed he made, my final accountability scorecard changed as all of his "namesakes" were no show. Still the minister and speakers said all kinds of nice things about F1 and W2 said many nice things as well. At the after party, I had an aside with his closest friend who said he worked so hard to bring about some reconciliation, but was openly sad that he couldn’t . He told the ex wife and all the kids privately “The war was over…Please do the right thing”. Unfortunately, Bad Blood won out.
Post by: Sandi_k on October 23, 2022, 12:55:26 PM
My oldest hometown friend passed away this past summer. Elementary school, HS, College rival football teams.
( snip )
Well the drama continued and we had no idea if any of his family would be attending the farewell. Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
While I had held my friend as being 90% responsible for the bed he made, my final accountability scorecard changed as all of his "namesakes" were no show. Still the minister and speakers said all kinds of nice things about F1 and W2 said many nice things as well. At the after party, I had an aside with his closest friend who said he worked so hard to bring about some reconciliation, but was openly sad that he couldn’t . He told the ex wife and all the kids privately “The war was over…Please do the right thing”. Unfortunately, Bad Blood won out.
As someone who didn't go to her own father's funeral after 45 years of drama, give the kids a break. You have no right to judge their choice.
It's a horrible thing to have a parent who refuses to live up to the role of father, but expects all the public approbation from the kids. Even after death.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on October 23, 2022, 01:29:39 PM
My oldest hometown friend passed away this past summer. Elementary school, HS, College rival football teams.
( snip )
Well the drama continued and we had no idea if any of his family would be attending the farewell. Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
While I had held my friend as being 90% responsible for the bed he made, my final accountability scorecard changed as all of his "namesakes" were no show. Still the minister and speakers said all kinds of nice things about F1 and W2 said many nice things as well. At the after party, I had an aside with his closest friend who said he worked so hard to bring about some reconciliation, but was openly sad that he couldn’t . He told the ex wife and all the kids privately “The war was over…Please do the right thing”. Unfortunately, Bad Blood won out.
As someone who didn't go to her own father's funeral after 45 years of drama, give the kids a break. You have no right to judge their choice.
It's a horrible thing to have a parent who refuses to live up to the role of father, but expects all the public approbation from the kids. Even after death.
His friends were doing all the work for reconciliation for him while the father was still doing 90% asshole?
I will never understand the flying monkeys. They are more invested in the fake Happy Families notion so they can feel good about themselves and their view of the world, never understanding what it takes for children to reject a parent or what kind of creep it takes to discard their child. How dare that friend declare themselves the arbiter of what is right and wheedle at F1 to change their position, swanning around as hostage negotiator to diminish their own discomfort.
"Do the right thing," puh-leeze, as if that notion ever occurred to Mr. Ninety Percent.
To be very clear, I mean no ill will to you as the poster of this story, just the situation.
My adult children rejected their Asshat of a father and it is the most difficult thing they will ever do. He will live and die without their presence because they already grieved for him.
Post by: okits on October 23, 2022, 01:31:59 PM
My oldest hometown friend passed away this past summer. Elementary school, HS, College rival football teams.
( snip )
Well the drama continued and we had no idea if any of his family would be attending the farewell. Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
While I had held my friend as being 90% responsible for the bed he made, my final accountability scorecard changed as all of his "namesakes" were no show. Still the minister and speakers said all kinds of nice things about F1 and W2 said many nice things as well. At the after party, I had an aside with his closest friend who said he worked so hard to bring about some reconciliation, but was openly sad that he couldn’t . He told the ex wife and all the kids privately “The war was over…Please do the right thing”. Unfortunately, Bad Blood won out.
As someone who didn't go to her own father's funeral after 45 years of drama, give the kids a break. You have no right to judge their choice.
It's a horrible thing to have a parent who refuses to live up to the role of father, but expects all the public approbation from the kids. Even after death.
"You are invited to publicly perform forgiveness and reconciliation your parent and his friends feel you are obligated to give." With an atmosphere like that, no wonder the kids didn't go to the funeral.
Post by: Sibley on October 23, 2022, 01:38:58 PM
Capsu - you weren't local. You didn't see the day to day. You have no idea what really happened. I'm sorry that you lost your friend, but it is entirely possible that he was a good friend to you and pretty shitty to everyone else. People are complicated. Grieve the loss of your friend, remember the good times you had, but recognize that you knew a small piece of who your friend was.
Post by: Adventine on October 23, 2022, 01:50:02 PM
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the don't speak ill of the dead stuff. If someone was a shitty parent, them dying doesn't change that. Everyone skipping a funeral tells me that there's some serious history and problems, and no one on the outside is qualified to judge.
Capsu - you weren't local. You didn't see the day to day. You have no idea what really happened. I'm sorry that you lost your friend, but it is entirely possible that he was a good friend to you and pretty shitty to everyone else. People are complicated. Grieve the loss of your friend, remember the good times you had, but recognize that you knew a small piece of who your friend was.
+1. People can be good friends and at the same time bad parents.
I've also seen a few blended family situations where the parent treated their kids from Family #1 very differently (usually much worse) compared to their kids from Family #2. Of course it created lifelong resentment in the kids from Family #1.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on October 23, 2022, 02:21:42 PM
Post by: Mighty Eyebrows on October 23, 2022, 04:43:13 PM
I would be fine if almost no-one came to my funeral. The people I love and who love me back already know who they are.
Edit: A party in my honor would be fine, as long as everyone invited was expected to be actual friends (with each other).
Post by: SmartyCat on October 24, 2022, 04:35:22 PM
Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
W2 probably could have been persuaded with a phone call but now says "HARD NO"- there will be 1 celebration of life and "everyone" is welcome.
This doesn't speak well for W2 at all. "Probably could have been persuaded with a phone call" suggests she expected them to grovel a bit before *maybe* deigning to consent. If she wouldn't consent to a private viewing for his kids (and why on earth not? She wouldn't have had to be there, and it would have allowed them to pay their final respects at no cost to her), it's hard to imagine that they would have taken "everyone welcome" at face value for the public service.
Due to a very complicated situation, I may someday receive a similar request and I would agree in a heartbeat.
Post by: Villanelle on October 24, 2022, 06:12:23 PM
Behind W2’s back, someone in the family 1 even contacted the funeral home to see if a "private" viewing could take place. Funeral director said “…only with consent of W2”
W2 probably could have been persuaded with a phone call but now says "HARD NO"- there will be 1 celebration of life and "everyone" is welcome.
This doesn't speak well for W2 at all. "Probably could have been persuaded with a phone call" suggests she expected them to grovel a bit before *maybe* deigning to consent. If she wouldn't consent to a private viewing for his kids (and why on earth not? She wouldn't have had to be there, and it would have allowed them to pay their final respects at no cost to her), it's hard to imagine that they would have taken "everyone welcome" at face value for the public service.
Due to a very complicated situation, I may someday receive a similar request and I would agree in a heartbeat.
Yes, this.
It's hard to think of any decent reason for her to have denied the request. It sounds like she wanted everyone else to see them present, so they could look like a big happy family. If she didn't get the appearance of having come together, then she wasn't interested in working with the children to facilitate their grieving.
It could have cost her nothing to have let the children had a separate viewing. It seems it would have changed her plans in no way at all. But she decided to be stubborn and exert her power because...? I guess because the children didn't properly kiss her ring and go through her?
I feel awful for those kids. Perhaps this man was a great friend, but it sounds like he was a crap dad and W2 was a lousy stepmom as well. People are complicated and can be more than one thing.
Post by: Dicey on October 24, 2022, 08:31:58 PM
Post by: tygertygertyger on October 25, 2022, 07:43:24 AM
I remember a rough family situation when my mom was in the hospital getting ready for heart surgery, and her sister and adult niece showed up, with the niece insisting that my mom and her resolve their issues (totally on the niece's side) before my mom possibly died (the niece's words). Given that my mom's heart rate spiked during THAT conversation, a nurse came in and kicked them out. The next day one of them called the hospital to ask a doctor about my mom's condition. Given the hospital's policy of only allowing 2 listed people to get medical status, they refused to share information. I got an earful from them about how we must have told the hospital not to share information with them, etc, when at any time they could have asked to be put through to my mom's room to talk to her directly about her status. I mean, I'm glad they didn't talk to my mom - I have doubts about their good intentions - but we didn't do anything.
I can imagine if W2 had made a real effort with F1, and then F1 decided to call the funeral home to request this rather than even talk to W2, that might be a little weird. But I don't have an inside scoop on that situation. Also, I definitely get leaving sleeping dogs like when you don't owe a family member anything.
Post by: Capsu78 on October 25, 2022, 09:39:23 AM
Or maybe W2 had to hear about it from the funeral home rather than directly.
I can imagine if W2 had made a real effort with F1, and then F1 decided to call the funeral home to request this rather than even talk to W2, that might be a little weird. But I don't have an inside scoop on that situation. Also, I definitely get leaving sleeping dogs like when you don't owe a family member anything.
Pretty much this ^^^
I arrived 15 minutes early as I had a task I was asked to perform. F1 or any of them could have easily cycled through at this time and not had to really talk to anybody. W2 would have welcomed them. She had manageable relationships with all of them and I even have several pics where W1 and W2 are both smiling for the camera. (For clarities sake, there is no F2... just a second marriage that took place 15+ years after the divorce, which W1 demanded)
Post by: iris lily on October 25, 2022, 03:26:19 PM
Perhaps she was afraid the kids would mutilate the corpse.lol
Post by: Capsu78 on October 25, 2022, 05:14:06 PM
Perhaps she was afraid the kids would mutilate the corpse.lol
Actually, he left a pretty good looking one all things considered.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 02, 2022, 01:48:24 PM
I will never understand the flying monkeys. They are more invested in the fake Happy Families notion so they can feel good about themselves and their view of the world, never understanding what it takes for children to reject a parent or what kind of creep it takes to discard their child.
Flying monkeys are rewarded for their manipulative, controlling, and inappropriate behavior in three ways.
1. They get to feel superior to the aggressor whose dysfunctional behavior drove a close family member away.
Flying monkeys truly believe themselves to be all-wise, all-knowing, and benevolent. But they simultaneously know that they aren't really gods, so they go around looking for ways to validate their unreasonably high opinions of themselves. They test or demonstrate their superiority by gracing the poor benighted sinner-aggressors with redemption. Using their mighty powers of manipulation and control, they swoop down from the heavens in a golden chariot to rescue the aggressor from the predictable consequences of his or her bad behavior. They do something the aggressor no longer can: they bring away the person who successfully escape. It's a big ego moment if the flying monkey can swoop down in a golden chariot to wipe the aggressor's butt, using the victim as the human toilet paper, and restore events to the way they were before the aggressor drove the victim away. This guarantees the abuse will recur, because the aggressor has just learned that he or she really CAN abuse the victim without permanent consequence.
2. They get to feel superior to the victim too.
Flying monkeys believe that the victim of abuse has a the moral duty to forgive the aggressor no matter what, to allow further abuse no matter what, and to lick the boot that kicks them especially if the person wearing the boot is Family or has A Disease. This obviously isn't accompanied by the notion that the aggressor might have a duty to not abuse the victim. It's strictly one-sided. To the flying monkey, a person who has an addiction, a mental health problem, PMS, a hangnail, or any other problem is forgiveness on demand, to determine how long the victim should take to "get over it", and to move beyond the consequences of the abuse the moment it's convenient for the aggressor. Anything short of doormat-like submission with full joy and sincerity is not only unacceptable but morally wrong. By saying "no" to future abuse, the victim becomes a Very Bad Person according to the flying monkey, who by definition is a Very Good Person (since they have good intentions and only want what they know to be best for the victim). In the name of Family Reunification, or Scripture, or Tradition, or the flying monkey's own righteous Emotional Feelings, the flying monkey does whatever he or she can to bully the victim into line. A victim who resists, who refuses to kowtow to both the aggressor and the flying monkey, is wrong, bad, immoral, misguided, and in poor standing with the Sky Bunny. The flying monkey is therefore obligated, as a representative of the Sky Bunny, to punish the misbehaving victim for attempting to escape. This is a huge ego boost to the flying monkey. Success validates his or her belief in his or her own psychic powers and Sky Bunny favor.
3. They get approval from other flying monkeys even if they don't succeed.
By developing a massive emotional commitment to other people's life decisions that do not affect them, flying monkeys can put on a giant martyr act when they don't get their way. If their manipulations are unsuccessful, such as if the victim escapes or tells them to get stuffed, they get to go hang out with others of their own kind. There, they boo-hoo about how sad they are and how much emotional stress the victim is causing them. This earns them the sympathy of others of their ilk, who reinforce the flying monkey's big martyr act and sense of personal hurt. This rewards the flying monkey for having such bad boundaries that they give a flying fuck about a relationship that doesn't involve them.
Basically, even when they lose, there's an emotional and social payoff.
Post by: Sibley on November 02, 2022, 08:18:01 PM
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 03, 2022, 01:02:56 PM
When the victim DOES get away, and the Flying Monkeys fail in dragging them back for further abuse, there is sometimes a nasty justice when the Flying Monkey becomes subject to the abuse that the victim previously was.
And it comes as a surprise, somehow. I should probably keep a bag of popcorn handy.
Post by: Spiffsome on November 07, 2022, 08:56:00 PM
(Please read this with all of the sarcasm the Internet has to offer.)
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 08, 2022, 07:04:38 AM
But you don't understand, Grim! They're special! They're better than the designated victim, so the bad things aren't supposed to happen to them!
(Please read this with all of the sarcasm the Internet has to offer.)
Indeed, I was raised in a family that had exactly that kind of value system. I've also seen it in the occasional workplace, church, charity, social club, and school. That's why I can laugh about it.
On a more serious note, you've identified a very common phenomenon in groups of people where there's one designated person who is destructive, predatory, abusive, or otherwise toxic. People develop strategies to avoid being abused themselves, and to gain status within the group. Part of what a flying monkey thinks he or she is doing is buying immunity from the abuse. When that tacit contract isn't upheld by the abuser, it comes as a surprise because the flying monkey truly believes there's a quid pro quo.
I've made a study of groups of toxic or dysfunctional people. They're like a messed-up Imperial court, with a toxic Emperor in the middle of it and a bunch of courtiers, profiteers, and other people jockeying for position or simply trying to get by and dodge the worst of the abuse. They end up unintentionally creating the environment the toxic person needs to survive, and perpetuating the toxicity by filling the vacuum left when the family alcoholic sobers up or the abusive boss leaves.
I've identified seven different ways in which individual people unintentionally contribute to a toxic family or environment. The process showed me how to identify toxic groups of people from a distance, without getting involved, and how to permanently leave a toxic group to do some things differently. I published the book a few years ago on Amazon.
Post by: Dicey on November 08, 2022, 07:32:56 AM
I didn't realize you knew my sister!But you don't understand, Grim! They're special! They're better than the designated victim, so the bad things aren't supposed to happen to them!
(Please read this with all of the sarcasm the Internet has to offer.)
Indeed, I was raised in a family that had exactly that kind of value system. I've also seen it in the occasional workplace, church, charity, social club, and school. That's why I can laugh about it.
On a more serious note, you've identified a very common phenomenon in groups of people where there's one designated person who is destructive, predatory, abusive, or otherwise toxic. People develop strategies to avoid being abused themselves, and to gain status within the group. Part of what a flying monkey thinks he or she is doing is buying immunity from the abuse. When that tacit contract isn't upheld by the abuser, it comes as a surprise because the flying monkey truly believes there's a quid pro quo.
I've made a study of groups of toxic or dysfunctional people. They're like a messed-up Imperial court, with a toxic Emperor in the middle of it and a bunch of courtiers, profiteers, and other people jockeying for position or simply trying to get by and dodge the worst of the abuse. They end up unintentionally creating the environment the toxic person needs to survive, and perpetuating the toxicity by filling the vacuum left when the family alcoholic sobers up or the abusive boss leaves.
I've identified seven different ways in which individual people unintentionally contribute to a toxic family or environment. The process showed me how to identify toxic groups of people from a distance, without getting involved, and how to permanently leave a toxic group to do some things differently. I published the book a few years ago on Amazon.
Based on her bullshit when I was co-exec of my parent's estate, I have kept contact with her to the bare minimum. All my other siblings have
Post by: Siebrie on November 08, 2022, 10:03:45 AM
- My estranged Sister is in a hiring process with the police for a Receptionist position, which has taken 6 months so far. (Sister was estranged from both my parents as well as me; contact has been resumed with my parents, but very minimally.)
The stress of both situations above is getting to my Sister, and she is starting to fabricate stories to get at our parents. She told my parents last week that my Cousin (who my Father has a close connection with, because my Father was his guardian when my Uncle died) had called me and that we had agreed that my parents were nasty beings.... I'm not in touch with him, haven't been for the last 3 years, which was at his Mother's funeral.
I'm the executor of my parents' wills, on purpose, and just hope that Sister is hired in that position before my Father kicks the bucket.
Post by: Zamboni on November 08, 2022, 07:37:20 PM
Here is a short recap, leaving out all of the juicy drama about the funeral planning and related insanity:
1. Mama Zamboni died after a brief illness that involved hospitalization. She was old enough to have adult children--Mr. Zamboni and his siblings--but she was not that old and she didn't have cancer or anything like that, so the death was fairly sudden and unexpected.
1. DotLWaT went straight from the hospital to Mama Zamboni's home right after her death and found the Will that evening. She informed a few people including Mr. Zamboni and his sister that she found it. DotLWaT stated that she didn't like who is named as heir in it.
2. DotLWaT threatened to burn the Will. Everyone assumed she was joking.
3. DotLWaT then changed her story to "there was no Will" and insisted that she be named Executor of the Estate. The sister of the deceased (Mr. Zamboni's Aunt), whom everyone including DotLWaT seemed to agree was actually named the Executor by the deceased, said "fine, you got it, I don't want to be involved."
4. Mama Zamboni lived alone and unfortunately she was a Hoarder to an extent that she could have been featured on the TV show. Out of obligation, Mr. Zamboni offered to either physically help with her belongings or pay to hire help to clean out her home. DotLWaT got angry at the suggestion. She said she wanted to go through it all herself and she didn't want Mr. Zamboni or his sister involved. Mama Zamboni was a retired public school teacher of modest means who had immigrated to the US without a dime, so it's not like there were priceless heirlooms involved, but DotLWaT apparently thought there is some sort of buried treasure in the home I guess? Dunno. I can't even imagine what she thought she would find.
5. Mr. Zamboni's sister and Mr. Zamboni agreed that DotLWaT could clear out the home herself if that is what she wanted to do, but they balked at DotLWaT's stated plan to move into the home. They agreed that it should be listed for sale and the proceeds split among the heirs via the probate process. DotLWaT begrudgingly agreed to list it for sale after she cleared it out.
So here we are, more than a year after DotLWaT successfully petitioned the court to be appointment Executor. Has Mama Zamboni's home been listed for sale? Nope. No surprises there. Mr. Zamboni's sister has been trying to keep tabs on it, but Mr. Zamboni has ceased all communication with DotLWaT to preserve his own sanity.
Meanwhile, another family member has recently died. Although DotLWaT had openly and repeatedly professed hatred of this person, once he became gravely ill you know DotLWaT began hovering. He seemed to trust her and have no clue what mean and horrible things she has said about him over the years. You may have successfully guessed that she went to the hospital immediately upon learning he died. She said she wanted to see his body and then she told Mr. Zamboni's sister that her plan was going to go from there into his home to "look for important papers." Seriously, WTF. I guess she thought she'd get there before anyone else and the hospital would fork over all the stuff from his locker to her. Then she'd go into his place in a repeat of what she had done when Mama Zamboni died.
But in a twist she wasn't expecting, the hospital staff wouldn't even let her in to see him because she isn't "next of kin." She must have asked about his stuff, because she told Mr. Zamboni's sister that hospital staff had informed her his possessions all go to his wife because he was MARRIED! Which she didn't even know! To be fair, while we knew he had a very serious lady friend, who was often there when we visited and who seemed to be taking care of him for the past couple of years, we also didn't know they had officially married. So his wife inherited everything, much to DotLWaT's annoyance . . . I certainly hope she stayed out of his home and didn't get in there somehow to rifle through his stuff under the auspices of "helping" his wife, but I wouldn't put anything past DotLWaT at this point.
Post by: Ladychips on November 08, 2022, 08:06:08 PM
Post by: RWTL on November 09, 2022, 03:06:50 AM
For anyone who remembers the saga of the Destroyer of the Last Will and Testament (DotLWaT!), here is a brief recap and update. For those who don't know or can't remember, DotLWaT actually did go to the home of deceased and destroyed the Will within 24 of the death. This was more than a year ago.
Here is a short recap, leaving out all of the juicy drama about the funeral planning and related insanity:
1. Mama Zamboni died after a brief illness that involved hospitalization. She was old enough to have adult children--Mr. Zamboni and his siblings--but she was not that old and she didn't have cancer or anything like that, so the death was fairly sudden and unexpected.
1. DotLWaT went straight from the hospital to Mama Zamboni's home right after her death and found the Will that evening. She informed a few people including Mr. Zamboni and his sister that she found it. DotLWaT stated that she didn't like who is named as heir in it.
2. DotLWaT threatened to burn the Will. Everyone assumed she was joking.
3. DotLWaT then changed her story to "there was no Will" and insisted that she be named Executor of the Estate. The sister of the deceased (Mr. Zamboni's Aunt), whom everyone including DotLWaT seemed to agree was actually named the Executor by the deceased, said "fine, you got it, I don't want to be involved."
4. Mama Zamboni lived alone and unfortunately she was a Hoarder to an extent that she could have been featured on the TV show. Out of obligation, Mr. Zamboni offered to either physically help with her belongings or pay to hire help to clean out her home. DotLWaT got angry at the suggestion. She said she wanted to go through it all herself and she didn't want Mr. Zamboni or his sister involved. Mama Zamboni was a retired public school teacher of modest means who had immigrated to the US without a dime, so it's not like there were priceless heirlooms involved, but DotLWaT apparently thought there is some sort of buried treasure in the home I guess? Dunno. I can't even imagine what she thought she would find.
5. Mr. Zamboni's sister and Mr. Zamboni agreed that DotLWaT could clear out the home herself if that is what she wanted to do, but they balked at DotLWaT's stated plan to move into the home. They agreed that it should be listed for sale and the proceeds split among the heirs via the probate process. DotLWaT begrudgingly agreed to list it for sale after she cleared it out.
So here we are, more than a year after DotLWaT successfully petitioned the court to be appointment Executor. Has Mama Zamboni's home been listed for sale? Nope. No surprises there. Mr. Zamboni's sister has been trying to keep tabs on it, but Mr. Zamboni has ceased all communication with DotLWaT to preserve his own sanity.
Meanwhile, another family member has recently died. Although DotLWaT had openly and repeatedly professed hatred of this person, once he became gravely ill you know DotLWaT began hovering. He seemed to trust her and have no clue what mean and horrible things she has said about him over the years. You may have successfully guessed that she went to the hospital immediately upon learning he died. She said she wanted to see his body and then she told Mr. Zamboni's sister that her plan was going to go from there into his home to "look for important papers." Seriously, WTF. I guess she thought she'd get there before anyone else and the hospital would fork over all the stuff from his locker to her. Then she'd go into his place in a repeat of what she had done when Mama Zamboni died.
But in a twist she wasn't expecting, the hospital staff wouldn't even let her in to see him because she isn't "next of kin." She must have asked about his stuff, because she told Mr. Zamboni's sister that hospital staff had informed her his possessions all go to his wife because he was MARRIED! Which she didn't even know! To be fair, while we knew he had a very serious lady friend, who was often there when we visited and who seemed to be taking care of him for the past couple of years, we also didn't know they had officially married. So his wife inherited everything, much to DotLWaT's annoyance . . . I certainly hope she stayed out of his home and didn't get in there somehow to rifle through his stuff under the auspices of "helping" his wife, but I wouldn't put anything past DotLWaT at this point.
That's crazy.
Post by: Hula Hoop on November 09, 2022, 03:17:30 AM
Post by: saguaro on November 11, 2022, 09:15:54 AM
I didn't realize you knew my sister!But you don't understand, Grim! They're special! They're better than the designated victim, so the bad things aren't supposed to happen to them!
(Please read this with all of the sarcasm the Internet has to offer.)
Indeed, I was raised in a family that had exactly that kind of value system. I've also seen it in the occasional workplace, church, charity, social club, and school. That's why I can laugh about it.
On a more serious note, you've identified a very common phenomenon in groups of people where there's one designated person who is destructive, predatory, abusive, or otherwise toxic. People develop strategies to avoid being abused themselves, and to gain status within the group. Part of what a flying monkey thinks he or she is doing is buying immunity from the abuse. When that tacit contract isn't upheld by the abuser, it comes as a surprise because the flying monkey truly believes there's a quid pro quo.
I've made a study of groups of toxic or dysfunctional people. They're like a messed-up Imperial court, with a toxic Emperor in the middle of it and a bunch of courtiers, profiteers, and other people jockeying for position or simply trying to get by and dodge the worst of the abuse. They end up unintentionally creating the environment the toxic person needs to survive, and perpetuating the toxicity by filling the vacuum left when the family alcoholic sobers up or the abusive boss leaves.
I've identified seven different ways in which individual people unintentionally contribute to a toxic family or environment. The process showed me how to identify toxic groups of people from a distance, without getting involved, and how to permanently leave a toxic group to do some things differently. I published the book a few years ago on Amazon.
Based on her bullshit when I was co-exec of my parent's estate, I have kept contact with her to the bare minimum. All my other siblings havedeveloped amnesiaresumed cordial relations with her and I am the odd man out. Apparently they can't see she's simply a snake who has recoiled and is awaiting her next opportunity to strike. It won't be me, nor will I pick up the pieces for her next victim. Maybe I need to read your book.
This describes my sister too (executor/estate shenanigans courtesy of her detailed earlier in this thread) and our flying monkey cousin who is showing herself to be just as toxic.
Oh, and the few family members who want to see us all reconcile now, who of course expect me and my other sister to "develop amnesia" according to their own notions of "family".
I would be interested in the book as well.
Post by: Zamboni on November 11, 2022, 03:59:52 PM
Post by: BNgarden on November 11, 2022, 04:43:06 PM
https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2018/03/the-narcissistic-conspiracy-scapegoating-smear-campaigns-and-black-sheep-how-narcissistic-groups-bully-their-chosen-victims/ (https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2018/03/the-narcissistic-conspiracy-scapegoating-smear-campaigns-and-black-sheep-how-narcissistic-groups-bully-their-chosen-victims/)
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on November 14, 2022, 10:03:25 AM
Me too, what is the title of this book?
Hi! Check your inbox; I sent a link.
Post by: frugalecon on November 16, 2022, 07:17:18 PM
Me too, what is the title of this book?
Hi! Check your inbox; I sent a link.
GS, you helped me some years ago in a different thread, when I was dealing with a toxic vampire type of person. I really appreciated your honest feedback about what you saw…sounds like you have really learned the hard way from situations.
Post by: Purple_Crayon on December 06, 2022, 01:22:16 AM
When my Grandma died, my parents asked us to come out to help do some trailer runs to the thrift store. During the visit, my mom asked me to go into the house to find anything I wanted. I walked through every room, remembering her house and things I did there as a kid. I told my mom that I didn't feel right taking anything from the house (and it was obvious that seemingly everyone in my family felt the same way because it was untouched for weeks after she died).
Eventually, I discovered the one and only thing I ended up taking -- a stack of unfinished crossword puzzles in her den, each page half done in her handwriting. For the last six years, a few times per month I'll hang out with her and help her with the puzzles she started and didn't finish.
Two books left.
Post by: Dicey on December 06, 2022, 04:57:29 AM
With my family, the biggest controversary has been guilt trips over NOT taking a relative's stuff.Awww, that is so sweet!
When my Grandma died, my parents asked us to come out to help do some trailer runs to the thrift store. During the visit, my mom asked me to go into the house to find anything I wanted. I walked through every room, remembering her house and things I did there as a kid. I told my mom that I didn't feel right taking anything from the house (and it was obvious that seemingly everyone in my family felt the same way because it was untouched for weeks after she died).
Eventually, I discovered the one and only thing I ended up taking -- a stack of unfinished crossword puzzles in her den, each page half done in her handwriting. For the last six years, a few times per month I'll hang out with her and help her with the puzzles she started and didn't finish.
Two books left.
Post by: Capsu78 on December 22, 2022, 11:57:21 AM
https://www.amazon.com/Harimaya-Bridge-Ben-Guillory/dp/B005FDWERE
Post by: AdrianC on December 30, 2022, 05:35:16 AM
My dad just passed away. He had a will, written in 2009. My brother is executor. This is in the UK. I’m on a different continent. I was able to be there with him for his last 3 weeks (it’s good to be FI).
The will is simple. Mostly everything is 50/50 between my brother and me. There are several areas that could turn dramatic, the main one is the family business. Dad started the business in the early 80’s. Brother worked for it then was made partner with dad. Dad retired about 10 years ago and brother took over, expanding the business. He has worked very hard at it.
It seems I will inherit 25% of this business. I don’t want it. Brother ran it, it’s his business. We all assumed that this had been taken care of in the will and brother would get dad’s shares, or they died with him. Apparently not. I've said I will sign it over to him, but we have to be sure about the tax consequences.
Post by: ATtiny85 on December 30, 2022, 06:26:39 AM
Potential for some drama here.
My dad just passed away. He had a will, written in 2009. My brother is executor. This is in the UK. I’m on a different continent. I was able to be there with him for his last 3 weeks (it’s good to be FI).
The will is simple. Mostly everything is 50/50 between my brother and me. There are several areas that could turn dramatic, the main one is the family business. Dad started the business in the early 80’s. Brother worked for it then was made partner with dad. Dad retired about 10 years ago and brother took over, expanding the business. He has worked very hard at it.
It seems I will inherit 25% of this business. I don’t want it. Brother ran it, it’s his business. We all assumed that this had been taken care of in the will and brother would get dad’s shares, or they died with him. Apparently not. I've said I will sign it over to him, but we have to be sure about the tax consequences.
Sorry about your loss.
Good luck, sounds like positive intent in place, just need to figure out paperwork that makes it work. Hope it goes smooth.
Post by: Zamboni on December 30, 2022, 06:49:39 AM
A nice movie I just watched on Amazon Prime "The Bridge at Harimaya" has a touching storyline dealing with after life issues as well as other ones. As a bonus, it is filmed in a beautiful part of rural Japan.
https://www.amazon.com/Harimaya-Bridge-Ben-Guillory/dp/B005FDWERE
I'll have to check this out, thank you for the recommendation!
Potential for some drama here.
My dad just passed away. He had a will, written in 2009. My brother is executor. This is in the UK. I’m on a different continent. I was able to be there with him for his last 3 weeks (it’s good to be FI).
The will is simple. Mostly everything is 50/50 between my brother and me. There are several areas that could turn dramatic, the main one is the family business. Dad started the business in the early 80’s. Brother worked for it then was made partner with dad. Dad retired about 10 years ago and brother took over, expanding the business. He has worked very hard at it.
It seems I will inherit 25% of this business. I don’t want it. Brother ran it, it’s his business. We all assumed that this had been taken care of in the will and brother would get dad’s shares, or they died with him. Apparently not. I've said I will sign it over to him, but we have to be sure about the tax consequences.
Hopefully the paperwork on that won't be too complicated. When I got divorced I was able to just able to remove myself from a family business just by saying I wanted out. There were some forms to sign, but I don't remember anything at all about taxes, but I am in the US.
Post by: former player on December 30, 2022, 07:44:51 AM
Potential for some drama here.I'm sorry for your loss.
My dad just passed away. He had a will, written in 2009. My brother is executor. This is in the UK. I’m on a different continent. I was able to be there with him for his last 3 weeks (it’s good to be FI).
The will is simple. Mostly everything is 50/50 between my brother and me. There are several areas that could turn dramatic, the main one is the family business. Dad started the business in the early 80’s. Brother worked for it then was made partner with dad. Dad retired about 10 years ago and brother took over, expanding the business. He has worked very hard at it.
It seems I will inherit 25% of this business. I don’t want it. Brother ran it, it’s his business. We all assumed that this had been taken care of in the will and brother would get dad’s shares, or they died with him. Apparently not. I've said I will sign it over to him, but we have to be sure about the tax consequences.
Regarding the business there are two possible routes to go down. One is that you accept ownership of your share of the business and transfer it to your brother. The other is that you disclaim that part of your inheritance altogether. This might be difficult, depending on the wording of the will (if it is mentioned separately then it is reasonably simple, if it is part of everything (eg a statement such as "half each of everything I own") I'm not sure if you can do this, you might need to take advice.
You do need advice on the tax implications if your father's estate is worth more than £325k (£500k if he left his house to his children or grandchildren), because a gift specifically mentioned in a will can be tax free (with the tax paid out of the remainder of the estate) and the tax payable on it from the rest of the estate can change the balance of what each person gets quite significantly.
The gov.uk site is a good starting point but won't answer all the questions. You and your brother need to work out the consequences before acting, and that may need specialist advice.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35161
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax
Post by: AdrianC on December 31, 2022, 05:06:19 PM
Regarding the business there are two possible routes to go down. One is that you accept ownership of your share of the business and transfer it to your brother. The other is that you disclaim that part of your inheritance altogether. This might be difficult, depending on the wording of the will (if it is mentioned separately then it is reasonably simple, if it is part of everything (eg a statement such as "half each of everything I own") I'm not sure if you can do this, you might need to take advice.
We will be taking advice. Just hope it's the right advice. I have not seen the will and don't know the wording. Brother is under the impression that the will is for his eyes only. Not sure if that's a UK legal thing. I'll mention it.
Quote
You do need advice on the tax implications if your father's estate is worth more than £325k (£500k if he left his house to his children or grandchildren), because a gift specifically mentioned in a will can be tax free (with the tax paid out of the remainder of the estate) and the tax payable on it from the rest of the estate can change the balance of what each person gets quite significantly.
The gov.uk site is a good starting point but won't answer all the questions. You and your brother need to work out the consequences before acting, and that may need specialist advice.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35161
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax
Thanks for the links. I've been reading. But definitely we need to get a solicitor and tax accountant involved. It would be best for all if brother can just hand it off to a professional. It is not his area of expertise at all, or mine. We're both engineers...
Post by: Villanelle on December 31, 2022, 09:18:16 PM
Post by: former player on January 01, 2023, 02:25:55 AM
Getting a valuation for the business will have to be done for tax reasons before the grant of probate. Any inheritance tax due also needs to be paid before grant of probate.
So the order of operations should be: first, the executors establish the value of the estate. Second, you understand the implications for inheritance tax, both how much is payable and which parts (if any) of the estate are to be inherited free of tax and which parts of the estate the tax will be payable. Third, you find out whether the way the will is drafted allows you to disclaim inheritance of your part of the business and who gets the value of that part of the business under the will if you do disclaim (depending on how the will is drafted this might not be your brother). Fourth, you find out the tax consequences of disclaiming that part of the business. Fifth: if you can and still want to disclaim your part of the business you will need to do so before grant of probate. Sixth, the executors pay inheritance tax and get the grant of probate. Seventh, the executors transfer ownership of the estate to the inheritors.
You certainly shouldn't give up your share of anything under the will unless you've seen the original copy that will get probate and seen advice on whether and how you can give up your share of the business and what the consequences for tax are. It might be less complicated for you to inherit your part of the business and then pass it over to your brother, and this is probably the only way to go if your brother is not forthcoming about the contents of the will, the value of the business and the tax implications. The only slight downside of inheriting and then giving it to your brother is that if you die within seven years of the gift there may be a second lot of inheritance tax to pay on the value of your gift. Hopefully the chances of that are low and if it worries your brother he can take out life insurance on you for seven years to cover the potential tax liability.
The worst thing that can happen, as demonstrated by this thread, is that families fall out over an inheritance, and because all this complication happens when people are grieving it's easier for that to happen. I hope you navigate a soccessful way through it all with your family.
Post by: AdrianC on January 03, 2023, 07:17:29 AM
The worst thing that can happen, as demonstrated by this thread, is that families fall out over an inheritance, and because all this complication happens when people are grieving it's easier for that to happen. I hope you navigate a successful way through it all with your family.
Thanks.
I did come across this: Deed of Variation
https://www.gov.uk/alter-a-will-after-a-death
"You can change a person’s will after their death, as long as any beneficiaries left worse off by the changes agree."
Not sure if this is an option for us. There are some other complications. In one of his more lucid moments, dad asked me to make gifts from his estate to a few charities and two people he had left out. It doesn't amount to a lot (40k) and brother and I decided it would be easier for us to just make the gifts ourselves after the monies are disbursed. Probably better to do through a Deed of Variation.
Regarding the business, I believe it has 100% exemption from estate tax.
Post by: former player on January 03, 2023, 08:32:40 AM
It sounds as though you are getting on top of this and having productive discussions with yoru brother, good for you.The worst thing that can happen, as demonstrated by this thread, is that families fall out over an inheritance, and because all this complication happens when people are grieving it's easier for that to happen. I hope you navigate a successful way through it all with your family.
Thanks.
I did come across this: Deed of Variation
https://www.gov.uk/alter-a-will-after-a-death
"You can change a person’s will after their death, as long as any beneficiaries left worse off by the changes agree."
Not sure if this is an option for us. There are some other complications. In one of his more lucid moments, dad asked me to make gifts from his estate to a few charities and two people he had left out. It doesn't amount to a lot (40k) and brother and I decided it would be easier for us to just make the gifts ourselves after the monies are disbursed. Probably better to do through a Deed of Variation.
Regarding the business, I believe it has 100% exemption from estate tax.
If you can give the charitable gifts from the estate then they will reduce the amount in the estate which is subject to inheritance tax by the amount of the charitable gifts, so that would be a good reason to give them through a Deed of Variation, and if you are doing that it is easy to add the personal gifts in as well, with two advantages - the recipients will be able to see that the gift is coming directly from your father, and if you or your brother die leaving a taxable estate in the next 7 years the gifts don't have to be counted back into your estates.
And with that I think you've reached the limits of my knowledge - and if 40k from the estate "is not a lot" there should be plenty of financial scope for getting expert paid advice!
Post by: talltexan on January 03, 2023, 08:45:04 AM
Post by: stealthwealth on January 21, 2023, 09:21:02 PM
Post by: Turtle on January 24, 2023, 08:13:55 AM
My FIL invested in an obviously topping out stock at the height of the pandemic stock market, went mostly all in, and has ridden it to a parabolic 90 plus percent loss on something like $3M. My wife and I have built our own fireable stash, greatly helped by the pandemic, and I'm still working but not out of need but more to be extra secure with an unknown terminal inflation picture. We're pretty much FI in other words. But his plan had been to split his wealth between my wife and her siblings after he dies in the future. We tried warning him numerous times that he was in a bad investment and that he needed a good exit strategy or diversification, and he violated his own maximum 20pct loss rule. But he's held it. Fortunately he kept a few hundred thousand in a savings account so he isn't destitute, but he still seems to think it's going to shoot back up, which I doubt will happen.
Ouch! I'm sorry. Even watching from the sidelines, that's painful
Post by: frugalecon on January 29, 2023, 07:55:34 AM
My FIL invested in an obviously topping out stock at the height of the pandemic stock market, went mostly all in, and has ridden it to a parabolic 90 plus percent loss on something like $3M. My wife and I have built our own fireable stash, greatly helped by the pandemic, and I'm still working but not out of need but more to be extra secure with an unknown terminal inflation picture. We're pretty much FI in other words. But his plan had been to split his wealth between my wife and her siblings after he dies in the future. We tried warning him numerous times that he was in a bad investment and that he needed a good exit strategy or diversification, and he violated his own maximum 20pct loss rule. But he's held it. Fortunately he kept a few hundred thousand in a savings account so he isn't destitute, but he still seems to think it's going to shoot back up, which I doubt will happen.
That is really unfortunate, that so much of the wealth your FIL probably worked hard for has vaporized. Fortunately you were not going to need an inheritance to be FI. Are the other heirs in a similar situation as you, or is this going to create hardship for one or more of them?
Post by: stealthwealth on January 29, 2023, 09:18:02 PM
Post by: eostache on March 28, 2023, 11:40:51 AM
We have been renting from a private LL man (in his 90s) for a dozen years. Our rental is “rustic” and we have been paying way under market rent. Our LL has never raised the rent on us. We are in a 5-plex in town. Our LL is elderly and a widower and over the years we have become friendly with him and helped him with many things at this rental, and at his nearby house, and with personal things sometimes. We would sometimes share meals or go out to lunch or dinner together. Of course we always pay our rent on time and keep an eye out for things happening at this rental property.
He has an older daughter (OD) (single, almost 70) who we get along with. She has had somewhat unstable living situations but for the past few years has been a live-in caretaker for a fairly wealthy widow. OD has adult children and maybe even grandchildren but I don’t know if she has much of a relationship with any of them. I don’t think LL has any relationship with these grandchildren, maybe barely knows them.
He has a younger daughter (YD), married, no kids, late 50s. OD is a half sister. YD’s mother may have been LL’s wife who died a couple decades ago. I don’t know the details of the family relationships. YD does not like OD, although OD would like to be able to get along. So OD keeps her distance but calls or visits LL father from time to time when she can.
We get along with YD ok, but observe that she is entitled, narcissist and manipulative.
YD lives in another state, doesn’t work, and seems financially stable. Her husband is nice enough and we get along with him too. I think YD has a house she has long owned in a third state that she rents out, so she has some assets there. Her and her husband have health issues that limit what they can do.
LL’s health is failing quite a lot recently, cancer I think. He is getting hospice care at home. YD and husband have come to town to stay with him to help him. They even brought their cat so I assume they will be here for quite a while.
LL owns our 5-plex that has two adjacent empty lots, another 3-plex rental, and a rental house next door to that. He has several long term renters (probably most paying way under market rent) and his tenants like him a lot. Plus his own house. He has managed all his rentals on his own for decades. He fixes things himself, or hires someone to fix things. All his properties are old and outdated, but functional.
I’m not sure what he has for money. He has been driving a 20+ year old car that he bought new. He’s frugal and seems to handle his money well. We have helped him with projects and he would often pay us though we tell him he doesn’t need to.
YD seems to have $$ in her eyes and her sights set on inheriting everything, but I really have no idea of what the plans are. I don’t ask. I have no idea if OD is going to inherit anything.
OD has previously lived in an apartment in the complex we live in. I don’t know if he may leave this property to her as a place for her to live and make some income with. If so, she would probably encourage us to stay.
LL’s house is functional but very outdated and the yard is large and requires a lot of maintenance. He also has a lot of stuff, though it is fairly well organized.
YD may inherit the property we are renting. She would be a long distance landlord. Or she might sell it all. Her husband does not want to live here. We are not sure how well a property management place would manage a rustic place like this. We have it in mind to move anyways, to see new sights.
Post by: TomTX on March 28, 2023, 12:29:54 PM
Post by: eostache on March 28, 2023, 12:42:09 PM
You could offer to act as the property manager...
I'm not sure how involved I want to get in the whole thing.
If Older Daughter ends up with the property, she would probably be ok to deal with.
Younger Daughter is the type of person I really want to avoid, so it's a no go with her.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 28, 2023, 02:00:55 PM
You could offer to act as the property manager...
I'm not sure how involved I want to get in the whole thing.
If Older Daughter ends up with the property, she would probably be ok to deal with.
Younger Daughter is the type of person I really want to avoid, so it's a no go with her.
An excellent Mustachian suggestion and an equally well thought out Mustachian response! :)
Post by: AlanStache on March 28, 2023, 02:19:24 PM
You could offer to act as the property manager...
I'm not sure how involved I want to get in the whole thing.
If Older Daughter ends up with the property, she would probably be ok to deal with.
Younger Daughter is the type of person I really want to avoid, so it's a no go with her.
An excellent Mustachian suggestion and an equally well thought out Mustachian response! :)
eostache you could always quit the job if YD gets involved, or OD is not ok to deal with.
Post by: eostache on March 28, 2023, 06:13:08 PM
You could offer to act as the property manager...
I'm not sure how involved I want to get in the whole thing.
If Older Daughter ends up with the property, she would probably be ok to deal with.
Younger Daughter is the type of person I really want to avoid, so it's a no go with her.
An excellent Mustachian suggestion and an equally well thought out Mustachian response! :)
eostache you could always quit the job if YD gets involved, or OD is not ok to deal with.
We have stupid cheap rent, which is very nice. If things keep going ok here in the future we will try to stay. But we have the eject button nearby to get out if it gets bad. It has given us incentive to clear out a lot of clutter in case we have to move.
Post by: Zamboni on March 28, 2023, 06:29:52 PM
I'm sorry to read about your LL's failing health. He sounds like a nice guy.
Post by: eostache on March 28, 2023, 08:30:26 PM
^Wise move. Always better to be clutter free anyway.
I'm sorry to read about your LL's failing health. He sounds like a nice guy.
I stopped by to see him today (and drop off the rent check). He was sitting up in his favorite chair. He's on oxygen. He was happy to see me. I stayed a while visiting with Younger Daughter and her husband. LL drifted off to nap in his chair. YD said he has better moments, and bad moments, but is failing. Her and her husband are doing a very good job taking care of him.
Post by: ducky19 on March 29, 2023, 09:55:00 AM
Post by: glacio09 on March 29, 2023, 10:03:43 AM
We are onlookers to this impending inheritance situation, so not our circus. We may be affected as it involves the rental we have been living in for a dozen years.
This is very similar to the situation that I'm in, except my landlord is in her mid 80s and I don't have any interaction with her (it's been my husband's apartment for 11 years). I am hoping she lives a long, long, and happy life, while socking as much money as possible into savings. About twice a year she won't cash the rent checks for 2 or 3 months and it's always with bated breath if this is going to be the start of the inheritance drama. I'm hoping that we'll leave the state before that happens, but I have a list of for sale condos just in case.
Good luck!
Post by: Catbert on April 05, 2023, 12:45:26 PM
His youngest son (mid-40s) has been talking a lot lately about wanting to buy a house. While according to him he has great credit, he can only get a loan of 300K based on his income. Hmmm, what to do since he doesn't want to leave our HCOL area? I took this as a hint and ignored it. I'm not sure if DH understood the hint, but yesterday son directly asked him for his share of the eventual inheritance. DH would like to do so in order to facilitate a house purchase. I'm okay with it if it doesn't cause us tax problems. I did the rough math yesterday. Some of the money is in a money market and Roth IRA but a chunk is in tIRA so fully taxed. I figured with 24% income tax, 10% state and 3.8% NIIT it'll cost us about 42K in taxes. That'll still leave him with ~200K.
Several potential sources of drama. The two brothers are exact opposites in personally, politics, and every other way except that they are both bad with money and careers. The plan is to not tell the other son. He lives on a different coast and the boys don't speak, however, you know how families are. Ex-wife (sons' mother) is very close to youngest son. She'll certainly guess where this 200K came from. She may even have been the one to suggest he hit up his Dad for the down payment. While the older son doesn't talk to his mother often, I envision him finding out that his brother is buying a house and drawing a logical conclusion that one of his parents loan/gave money. If we paid both the boys their "inheritance" in a single year it would put us somewhere in the 32% federal bracket which would be a hard "Hell No".
I'm not at all sure what you can buy for 500K in our area. Probably a fixer-upper on the outer fringes. Condos can be a long-term problem if they don't have adequate reserves - and relatively inexpensive ones often have owners that want to keep HOA dues down at the expense of reserves. He could move to a lower COL area (like his mother's) but that means he would be further from his own son.
Since my DH started RMDs he's given them to his sons as a Christmas present (5K each last year). By getting his share now, youngest son will forgo getting this Christmas gift. Or will he? DH may feel bad giving one son a large Christmas gift and the other a shirt. This already happen when younger son "borrowed" several thousand with the plan to deduct it from the annual gift. But when the time came he got his usual gift. This is an area I'd put my foot down on.
When DH eventually dies, will youngest son forget his "early inheritance" and be upset that his brother gets it "all"? Or upset that he got "only" 200K while his brother's half will continue to grow and could be 300K or more.
Lots of potential drama.
*We live in a community property state and I'm well aware that in the case of divorce most of our investments would be community property and divided evenly. However, we aren't getting divorced but rather dividing inheritance.
Post by: MaybeBabyMustache on April 05, 2023, 12:55:54 PM
Post by: AlanStache on April 05, 2023, 01:07:28 PM
Post by: Captain FIRE on April 05, 2023, 01:14:22 PM
Post by: tygertygertyger on April 05, 2023, 01:33:33 PM
If not, honestly I’d suggest being honest with older brother rather than hoping he doesn’t find out and *documenting* younger’s clear understanding of implications so when older has to fight younger later in court, he’s at least got some solid proof on his side.
Seconding this.
Post by: Sibley on April 05, 2023, 01:42:12 PM
Post by: Catbert on April 05, 2023, 01:44:26 PM
Spreading out between tax years would have helped a bit although I've been doing sizable Roth conversions for the past few years (e.g., 90K last year) so much of this is a substitute for that taxwise.
I can certainly see this causing drama among DH's family, hence the post. Nobody but my DH would care about having a ruined relationship with his older son. He is an asshole. I made clear to him that his older sonwill figure it out at some point. If push came to shove we could give him an early "inheritance", just not this tax year. I leave his family handling him.
Post by: SwordGuy on April 05, 2023, 02:00:48 PM
It's possible that I've read more into your description than it warrants. Only you will know that. If I have, my advice is kindly meant.
The dictionary definition of "Inheritance" is:
"Inheritance is the practice of receiving private property, titles, debts, entitlements, privileges, rights, and obligations upon the death of an individual."
You aren't dead.
Your kid isn't ever "entitled" to a damn thing you own, and certainly not an inheritance at this time.
The only path to progress is to make it clear they need to get their head out of their self-entitled ass and grow up. If they do that, they'll be a better person and your entire family will be better off because of it.
If they don't, well, it was probably going to be bad anyway. You may well have kept it from getting worse.
Post by: Villanelle on April 05, 2023, 02:13:53 PM
Gosh, this is all just such a terrible idea, and I think in trying to please his son, your husband is actually risking his relationship and legacy with both his sons. Sometimes, being a parents means saying no and setting a healthy boundary. But if he's hell bent on doing this, at a minimum he should very clearly lay out all the thing you mention in your post. Doesn't mean younger son won't whinge about them later on, but at least your DH refer back to the conversation and remind Younger Son that he agree to these terms.
Post by: Omy on April 05, 2023, 02:17:19 PM
I agree that both kids should understand that you'll be giving them their inheritance ahead of time and that you will be giving the gifts in separate tax years so they will net more due to tax reasons. Or do them at the same time and make sure they are getting the net amount so you aren't footing the tax bill. Also, I'd let them know not to expect any more big Christmas checks.
My father did this with me and my siblings in 3 different years for tax reasons. The amounts were much smaller, but we had no problem receiving the gifts at different times. It made sense that the sibling who needed it most received it first.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 05, 2023, 03:24:37 PM
Anyway, we signed a formal loan agreement, and it went in with his financial records. It was very clear that if he were to die while the loan was outstanding, it would be deducted from my share of the estate. No fuss, no muss, my sister knew.
I also gave him postdated cheques for the payments - no way for me to ask off a payment one month because money was tight. This was all business.
And it worked. I think it worked because everything was clear, aboveboard, and not emotional.
The only one who didn't like it was my Ex - I am sure he would have liked to be able to skip a payment every now and then, not have the loan counted against my inheritance if worst came to worst (it didn't, my Dad lived decades after this). But then my Ex had bad attitudes about money.
All this to say, if your DH decides to do this, it all needs to be very business-like and clear with both sons. Or are there more children? - "youngest son" implies more than 2, younger son would mean 2. Anyway, youngest son may not be so interested when all the financial consequences are laid out to both him and the other direct heirs to your husband. He sound like the type who would like a good chunk (or all) of his potential inheritance now and still expect to get "his share" of the estate later.
And inheritances - I have told DD that she gets a large chunk of mine (it was larger but now grand-daughter is getting some directly). But she also knows that if I have an expensive last few years, it may not be much so don't count on it. Seriously, every child should be planning based on the fact that the last few years of a parent's life may be super expensive and the estate may shrink a lot.
Good luck with all this, you are the innocent bystander but it is potentially very messy.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 05, 2023, 04:45:14 PM
My own preference, with regard to my adult daughter and niece, is to provide help when they're young, when they really need it, and when the assistance results in something that lasts. Investing now for a grandchild's education seems to me like an effective use of money, and I'd rather do that and see them benefit from it (or at least have a shot) instead of either squandering the resources on plastic crap or watching someone I love take on unnecessary debt.
The big three-- education, housing, and vehicles-- are increasing in price even faster than the rate of inflation, and one reason why is that it's become commonplace to pay for these things with borrowed money. Whether I (or my heirs) pay with cash or with borrowed money won't change the price point one iota.
Post by: FIPurpose on April 05, 2023, 04:56:35 PM
Spending lots and lots of extra money just to give him a couple extra 100k. This whole situation is really saying "not worth it" from every possible angle.
Post by: lhamo on April 05, 2023, 06:53:01 PM
Also realize that the younger son will very likely be liable for gift tax and will have to pay an extra 20% himself on that money. Whereas as an actual inheritance would likely owe 0 in taxes on it.
Spending lots and lots of extra money just to give him a couple extra 100k. This whole situation is really saying "not worth it" from every possible angle.
In the US the giver is typically responsible for declaring the gift (if over annual exclusion amounts) and paying the tax:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes
Post by: Zamboni on April 05, 2023, 07:23:48 PM
So that advance was supposed to be subtracted from that brother's share. But then, after the funeral, there was drama. Brother didn't want that paperwork honored, wanted the total just divided equally. He manipulated a sister into lobbying others that he "needed" the money more than his siblings. There was a big kerfuffle. In the end, grandfather's documentation was honored by the executor lawyer who was handling the distributions. Overall it wasn't good for sibling harmony, though. And that was with a batch of siblings who did get along well before it all went down, while this is two sibling who already don't seem to like each other?
If your DH wants to give the money away now, which I don't oppose and you don't seem to oppose it either, then my vote is to give both brothers bigger Christmas gifts annually, no strings attached. A fee-based financial advisor can let you know an amount that makes sense tax-wise. DH can use tax issues as the excuse for not just forking it all over now. Younger brother may have to save up and wait a couple more years to buy a house, but personally I think it's not a good time to buy right now given the real estate market indicators. If he can't handle putting it in a 5% CD and saving it up for a couple years and wastes it on hookers and blow (or jetskis or a new car etc), then he shouldn't be buying a house anyway because it shows he he doesn't have the discipline to keep it maintained.
Just my opinion, and your opinion is probably different, but I have witnessed it play out already.
Post by: Captain FIRE on April 05, 2023, 07:42:03 PM
Nobody but my DH would care about having a ruined relationship with his older son. He is an asshole.
Is DH also ok with this guaranteeing the two will never mend fences, but instead that he will be directly creating a further wedge between them? Is he ok with you/OS/YS being tied up in litigation, wasting everyone's time and money after he's gone?
Post by: Siebrie on April 06, 2023, 05:39:17 AM
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 06, 2023, 07:36:59 AM
My parents are meticulous: sister gets financial help buying babystuff? I get the same amount. I get financial help moving abroad? Sister gets the same amount. Within a week all is equal. Sister and I are estranged (she was estranged with our parents for a while, too. Our parents still gave her money whenever they helped me), but at least we won't have to have this argument, ever. It helps.
Mine were the same, without the estrangement. It definitely helps.
Post by: iris lily on April 06, 2023, 08:06:41 AM
@Catbert - do you have any concerns of you/your husband needing that money for long term care? What would happen in the event your medical or care expenses exceed your shared and/or individual pots of money? Given how expensive & unpredictable LTC can be, I always struggle with the idea of giving away part of an "inheritance" before you die.This, so much this.
I cannot relate to people who think that big clump of money sitting in mom and dad‘s account when they’re 65 will not be needed when they’re 85 years old, 95 years old, etc.
I struggle myself with how much to give away now, but knowing that I have Alzheimer’s disease rampant in my family, I don’t want to short change my DH in taking care of me in old age.
Post by: tygertygertyger on April 06, 2023, 08:10:18 AM
My parents are meticulous: sister gets financial help buying babystuff? I get the same amount. I get financial help moving abroad? Sister gets the same amount. Within a week all is equal. Sister and I are estranged (she was estranged with our parents for a while, too. Our parents still gave her money whenever they helped me), but at least we won't have to have this argument, ever. It helps.
Mine were the same, without the estrangement. It definitely helps.
My partner's parents keep a mental running tab on this same stuff. The only difference is that partner's sibling has kids, and we don't. So the grandkids have a different pot, but the siblings get equalized.
Kind of to a hilarious extent. I get the impression that sibling has needed a bit more help than my partner has, so we get sudden unexpected offers for them to cover things for us - like recently we mentioned that our garage roof leaks, so we'd better start getting some quotes for a new roof. They offered to cover the expense when we figure it out. It's incredibly nice of them, but always surprising to me. My family in general does not offer financial assistance, so it's taken some getting used to.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 06, 2023, 01:49:51 PM
My parents are meticulous: sister gets financial help buying babystuff? I get the same amount. I get financial help moving abroad? Sister gets the same amount. Within a week all is equal. Sister and I are estranged (she was estranged with our parents for a while, too. Our parents still gave her money whenever they helped me), but at least we won't have to have this argument, ever. It helps.
I have parents like that, but only in one direction. It makes me sad and nervous whenever they give me a gift that costs more than what I give to them, because I know my brother has done something self-destructive again, and they're rushing to his rescue with money. There have been times I've been sick or injured, and would have appreciated a generous gift, but since my brother was doing well obviously help isn't as available to me. It's kind of messed up. If my brother goofs up, I get "help" I don't need or want. If he's doing well, help is not available to me even if I need and want it.
Post by: Catbert on April 06, 2023, 02:22:29 PM
You're all right, older son should be told. I'll convince my DH to tell him if/when younger son finds a home to buy and is ready to go into escrow. That may never happen given the state of our real estate market.
Several people have mentioned possible litigation and need for paperwork. The "his" portion of our money is all in a Fidelity account with TOD or beneficiary designations. There's no probate or executor involved. Sure, I guess either older or younger son could sue, however, neither has money for an attorney. Certainly in California you're not legally obligated to leave any money to your adult children or treat them all either fairly or evenly. (I believe this is different in some other countries.) Once he makes the gift to younger son the TODs and beneficiaries will be changed to older son.
Ihamo is correct no gift tax would be required. I would need to file a form with our taxes showing the gift over 17K (34K as a couple) and it would be counted against the 12 million and change estate tax exemption.
The dividing of "his" portion between his sons is pretty straightforward. I'll divide each holding (money market, tIRA, Roth IRA) in half and then determine what it will cost us in taxes and subtract from the total.
Post by: jinga nation on April 20, 2023, 10:44:21 AM
I've always believed that help today is better than money later, if there's a genuine need (not enabling) or if it's the kind of thing that lasts.
My own preference, with regard to my adult daughter and niece, is to provide help when they're young, when they really need it, and when the assistance results in something that lasts. Investing now for a grandchild's education seems to me like an effective use of money, and I'd rather do that and see them benefit from it (or at least have a shot) instead of either squandering the resources on plastic crap or watching someone I love take on unnecessary debt.
The big three-- education, housing, and vehicles-- are increasing in price even faster than the rate of inflation, and one reason why is that it's become commonplace to pay for these things with borrowed money. Whether I (or my heirs) pay with cash or with borrowed money won't change the price point one iota.
While I'm not a fan of the Economic Outpatient Care situation that @Catbert seems to be in, as it isn't "inheritance" per the definition, I'm in agreement with TGS. Current market economic conditions have to be considered.
Post by: Channel-Z on May 22, 2023, 10:30:54 AM
Post by: Dancin'Dog on May 22, 2023, 11:21:55 AM
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
That's quite rude.
My father passed a year, or so, before Covid-19 struck, fortunately. He was in a wonderful nursing facility for the last year of his life. I was the executor & I felt that it would be nice to gift something to his two favorite nurses. He'd gifted a number of folks before his health had declined so, so I knew he would have been very happy to share a bit more with his nurses. Of course, I had my brother approve it beforehand. Individual gifts were against the facilities policy, so I privately contacted each and hand-delivered a card to their homes.
The gifts were generous, but in hindsight, I would have made them larger. Theirs is such an honorable and difficult profession.
Post by: ATtiny85 on May 22, 2023, 05:30:14 PM
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
Sorry for your loss.
That’s a pretty gutsy move. I’d like to think their heart was in the right place somehow, but sheesh.
Post by: charis on May 22, 2023, 05:37:01 PM
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
Sorry for your loss.
That’s a pretty gutsy move. I’d like to think their heart was in the right place somehow, but sheesh.
I think I am reading this wrong? I first thought that he was a painter and the home health aide wanted to buy one of his paintings after his death, which sounds sweet.
Post by: ATtiny85 on May 22, 2023, 05:43:00 PM
My dad died recently, and we're not at the inheritance drama stage yet. But, the day his death notice appeared in the paper, a home health aide who had taken care of him from time to time showed up at the door asking about his paintings (not for sale, not yet anyway). Scavengers move quickly!
Sorry for your loss.
That’s a pretty gutsy move. I’d like to think their heart was in the right place somehow, but sheesh.
I think I am reading this wrong? I first thought that he was a painter and the home health aide wanted to buy one of his paintings after his death, which sounds sweet.
I doubt Channel-Z would have posted it if it was sweet. I view all posts on this thread with my super pessimistic lens. I’ll be glad if you are correct in your first thought, as Green Eggs said, the work they do is otherworldly.
Post by: Siebrie on May 23, 2023, 02:20:23 AM
Sister was told I was executor of our parents' wills about 6 months ago, and was really upset, even offering to pay for 'rectifying' their wills. Parents refused her 'offer'. A few days after Dad's passing, Mum called the Notary who made the wills - while Sis and I could listen in - to ask what needed to be done, and he said 'nothing' :). Battle postponed until Mum passes :D
Sis is and always has been jealous of me. There is no reason, from the outside she has a better life than me: husband makes a lot of money, 3 kids are doing well, she had 2 small businesses doing what she loved, nice vacations, nice house, on top of housework, time for voluntary work (school parents' association), husband that spoils her (surprise trips to Paris and Dubai, for instance :)). Whatever she puts her mind and hands to, she can do.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
Post by: AlanStache on May 23, 2023, 07:23:23 AM
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
Wtf? Is she one of those who think they can just joke around about anything anytime, and "you need to lighten up-bro"?
Post by: Siebrie on May 23, 2023, 07:29:48 AM
Post by: Dancin'Dog on May 23, 2023, 07:36:35 AM
No, the level is more that of a 3-year old, who knows she's not allowed to hit or bite, so destroys a drawing you made or your favourite book.
It's obvious why your parents chose you over her. Parents know their children.
Post by: Dicey on May 23, 2023, 07:55:08 AM
My Dad passed a fortnight ago. Estranged Sister and I spent a week at Mum's to sort the service and cremation. Funnily enough, Sis and I work together really well, but the conversations other than Dad's passing were only an inch deep: 'what shall we have for dinner tonight?', 'will you take the trash out?'You know her better, but I would confront that shit head-on. Writing a letter might be cathartic. Sorry for your loss.
Sister was told I was executor of our parents' wills about 6 months ago, and was really upset, even offering to pay for 'rectifying' their wills. Parents refused her 'offer'. A few days after Dad's passing, Mum called the Notary who made the wills - while Sis and I could listen in - to ask what needed to be done, and he said 'nothing' :). Battle postponed until Mum passes :D
Sis is and always has been jealous of me. There is no reason, from the outside she has a better life than me: husband makes a lot of money, 3 kids are doing well, she had 2 small businesses doing what she loved, nice vacations, nice house, on top of housework, time for voluntary work (school parents' association), husband that spoils her (surprise trips to Paris and Dubai, for instance :)). Whatever she puts her mind and hands to, she can do.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
Post by: mm1970 on May 23, 2023, 03:27:01 PM
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
Wtf? Is she one of those who think they can just joke around about anything anytime, and "you need to lighten up-bro"?
Seriously, this is demented. Photoshopping on weight and hiding your pants??
Post by: MaybeBabyMustache on May 23, 2023, 08:35:41 PM
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
Wtf? Is she one of those who think they can just joke around about anything anytime, and "you need to lighten up-bro"?
Seriously, this is demented. Photoshopping on weight and hiding your pants??
Yeah, this is well outside the bounds of normal behavior. If you told me she was 13, I'd think she still had some growing up to do, but understand the pants hiding as overall maturity. At 50, it's just beyond.
Post by: Siebrie on May 24, 2023, 01:29:17 AM
Last year, she spent 6 months training to become a 112 (911/999) police telephone responder, and they failed her at the end.
She was adopted into our family at age 3; our Mum is a social worker with a lot of experience and she managed to talk Sis through her issues and unjumble everything in her head until Sis was about 27. Now she has a husband who 'saved' her from her horrible family and life; he's behind her 100% (which is good for her, but not so much for the family dynamic).
When I was heavily pregnant with dd2, my parents were staying with us. Her eldest had a birthday party and my parents planned on going, and taking my eldest (2 years old at the time). Sis forbade them to bring my eldest, because the attention would no longer be solely on her kids (that's a quote). Parents did attend the party, because they did not want to punish the grandchildren for their mother's behaviour, but I broke with Sis, and soon after my parents and Sis broke, too.
After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Post by: Freedomin5 on May 24, 2023, 04:41:49 AM
Post by: saguaro on May 25, 2023, 10:21:44 AM
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
This sounds like my own sister to be honest. She's always had issues, no compunction about behaving badly, we hoped she would grow up but never did.
After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Same with our sister but even that had its limits. My parents tried to get her to curtail her bad behavior, but in the end they just threw up their hands and told the rest of us to deal with it because "family". We did but now that our parents are gone, my youngest sibling finally decided to break ties completely for her own well being. I maintain some contact but have limited it in recent months for similar reasons. BIL (sister's husband) left the ring a long time ago, there's no one to speak up and check her behaviour not that it really worked that well anyway.
Post by: SwordGuy on May 25, 2023, 11:35:22 AM
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
This sounds like my own sister to be honest. She's always had issues, no compunction about behaving badly, we hoped she would grow up but never did.After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Same with our sister but even that had its limits. My parents tried to get her to curtail her bad behavior, but in the end they just threw up their hands and told the rest of us to deal with it because "family". We did but now that our parents are gone, my youngest sibling finally decided to break ties completely for her own well being. I maintain some contact but have limited it in recent months for similar reasons. BIL (sister's husband) left the ring a long time ago, there's no one to speak up and check her behaviour not that it really worked that well anyway.
I understand! My wife's family (except for her younger sister) are all hoping that when their mom dies, the funeral will happen and the first the youngest sister knows about it is when she gets a big check from the executor, with a letter that says cash this unchallenged or get nothing. None of them want to deal with her in any capacity for any time for any reason.
And yes, having her miss the funeral is a reasonable wish given her behavior at her dad's funeral.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 25, 2023, 01:12:00 PM
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
This sounds like my own sister to be honest. She's always had issues, no compunction about behaving badly, we hoped she would grow up but never did.After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Same with our sister but even that had its limits. My parents tried to get her to curtail her bad behavior, but in the end they just threw up their hands and told the rest of us to deal with it because "family". We did but now that our parents are gone, my youngest sibling finally decided to break ties completely for her own well being. I maintain some contact but have limited it in recent months for similar reasons. BIL (sister's husband) left the ring a long time ago, there's no one to speak up and check her behaviour not that it really worked that well anyway.
Classic controlling parent move: they couldn't control the person who was behaving badly, so they shifted their effort to control the victims of the bad behavior, to manipulate them into absorbing more of it.
Post by: saguaro on May 25, 2023, 01:48:26 PM
Sounds like she still has issues to unjumble.
This sounds like my own sister to be honest. She's always had issues, no compunction about behaving badly, we hoped she would grow up but never did.After a few years, and at Mum's insistence, my parents and Sis have some form of regular contact. Mum insisted because Sis has no anchors, no people who can (bother to) stand up to her if she deviates from generally accepted behaviour.
Same with our sister but even that had its limits. My parents tried to get her to curtail her bad behavior, but in the end they just threw up their hands and told the rest of us to deal with it because "family". We did but now that our parents are gone, my youngest sibling finally decided to break ties completely for her own well being. I maintain some contact but have limited it in recent months for similar reasons. BIL (sister's husband) left the ring a long time ago, there's no one to speak up and check her behaviour not that it really worked that well anyway.
Classic controlling parent move: they couldn't control the person who was behaving badly, so they shifted their effort to control the victims of the bad behavior, to manipulate them into absorbing more of it.
Exactly this. And it never stopped, parents continued to make excuses and allow her to run roughshod until the day they died. My youngest sister bore the brunt of it because she was always the easier target even after moving 1200 miles away. This is the main reason for the estrangement, though there are other issues at play as well.
When asked about how my late mother, who ironically worried about family rifts, would feel about this state of affairs, my answer was "she would not like it but she shouldn't be surprised".
Post by: eostache on June 25, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
We are onlookers to this impending inheritance situation, so not our circus. We may be affected as it involves the rental we have been living in for a dozen years.
We have been renting from a private LL man (in his 90s) for a dozen years. Our rental is “rustic” and we have been paying way under market rent. Our LL has never raised the rent on us. We are in a 5-plex in town. Our LL is elderly and a widower and over the years we have become friendly with him and helped him with many things at this rental, and at his nearby house, and with personal things sometimes. We would sometimes share meals or go out to lunch or dinner together. Of course we always pay our rent on time and keep an eye out for things happening at this rental property.
He has an older daughter (OD) (single, almost 70) who we get along with. She has had somewhat unstable living situations but for the past few years has been a live-in caretaker for a fairly wealthy widow. OD has adult children and maybe even grandchildren but I don’t know if she has much of a relationship with any of them. I don’t think LL has any relationship with these grandchildren, maybe barely knows them.
He has a younger daughter (YD), married, no kids, late 50s. OD is a half sister. YD’s mother may have been LL’s wife who died a couple decades ago. I don’t know the details of the family relationships. YD does not like OD, although OD would like to be able to get along. So OD keeps her distance but calls or visits LL father from time to time when she can.
We get along with YD ok, but observe that she is entitled, narcissist and manipulative.
YD lives in another state, doesn’t work, and seems financially stable. Her husband is nice enough and we get along with him too. I think YD has a house she has long owned in a third state that she rents out, so she has some assets there. Her and her husband have health issues that limit what they can do.
.......
Update on this situation.
LL died in early May. Very sad, we miss him.
YD did arrange a memorial service and it was nice. OD showed up to the service and everyone behaved themselves.
YD is still in area, staying in LL's house, but I'm sure she wants to go back to her home in CA sometime.
We are still renting and it's been ok.
I think all properties are in a trust.
I had thought YD was going to inherit everything as she had been talking about it like that
She is chatty so I let her talk when I see her. She mentioned that OD has part of the inheritance and YD was going to try to do something about that, buying OD out or something. I don't know much about these matters, but maybe it can take a long time to straighten these things out? Especially if the people can't or won't talk to each other.
Post by: Zamboni on June 25, 2023, 03:44:36 PM
One friend of mine rented on the California coast for years at way-below market rates because the children who inherited the home couldn't agree on what to do with it in terms of a sale, so they were each getting a portion of the rent and the status quo prevailed at least until he decided to move years later for other reasons.
In other situations at least one of the heirs wants a big hunk of cash and pushes for sale of the property. This happened in the case of a revenue-producing farm that my Mom inherited along with her two siblings. My guess is that they all would have been much better off continuing to collect the revenue for years, but one sister wanted to upgrade her home and pushed hard for the sale.
So you won't know until you know, but it sounds like YD will keep you in the loop. Good luck with it.
Post by: Siebrie on July 10, 2023, 04:21:03 AM
My Dad passed a fortnight ago. Estranged Sister and I spent a week at Mum's to sort the service and cremation. Funnily enough, Sis and I work together really well, but the conversations other than Dad's passing were only an inch deep: 'what shall we have for dinner tonight?', 'will you take the trash out?'
Sister was told I was executor of our parents' wills about 6 months ago, and was really upset, even offering to pay for 'rectifying' their wills. Parents refused her 'offer'. A few days after Dad's passing, Mum called the Notary who made the wills - while Sis and I could listen in - to ask what needed to be done, and he said 'nothing' :). Battle postponed until Mum passes :D
Sis is and always has been jealous of me. There is no reason, from the outside she has a better life than me: husband makes a lot of money, 3 kids are doing well, she had 2 small businesses doing what she loved, nice vacations, nice house, on top of housework, time for voluntary work (school parents' association), husband that spoils her (surprise trips to Paris and Dubai, for instance :)). Whatever she puts her mind and hands to, she can do.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
It continues:
- the week before the funeral service I had put Dad's facebook to 'don't let others know when you are online', to give Mum the time to look at his facebook undisturbed (and not freak friends and family out) and only then decide what to do with it. This weekend, I have found that all settings were changed to 'everyone gets to see everything' and 'stories only to be sent to [sister]'. Together with Mum I have changed all settings I could find to the most restrictive options. I don't have facebook, so I hope I caught all.
- sister and her middle daughter were with Mum on Tuesday to pick up Dad's ashes from the crematorium. Afterwards, she helped Mum sort through a small pile of insurance papers, from an insurance firm sister used to work for. Mum wasn't confident all was correct, so on Saturday we had another look, and I discovered that it actually related to 3 different insurances, and that there was a mistake in 1 of the certificates. The papers were quite jumbled up, 1 policy of about 56 pages was in 3 parts inbetween the letters, for instance. Mum will not let sister help anymore.
- the Sunday after the funeral I found a SIM card on the floor of the guest bedroom were sister was staying. I kept it safely. A week later Mum tells me that she took Dad's mobile phone to the phoneshop to change the contract to her name, and that they couldn't find the SIM card in the phone. My guess is that sister has cloned or copied information from the card (she's savvy, and her husband is high up in IT). I've told Mum that I found a/the card. I am now searching the web to see how I can find out if it's actually cloned. I can't help if it was just copied (that's static information), but if cloned I can render it useless, perhaps, by asking the phone company for a new SIM-card with the same phone number.
Post by: JAYSLOL on July 10, 2023, 07:50:59 AM
My Dad passed a fortnight ago. Estranged Sister and I spent a week at Mum's to sort the service and cremation. Funnily enough, Sis and I work together really well, but the conversations other than Dad's passing were only an inch deep: 'what shall we have for dinner tonight?', 'will you take the trash out?'
Sister was told I was executor of our parents' wills about 6 months ago, and was really upset, even offering to pay for 'rectifying' their wills. Parents refused her 'offer'. A few days after Dad's passing, Mum called the Notary who made the wills - while Sis and I could listen in - to ask what needed to be done, and he said 'nothing' :). Battle postponed until Mum passes :D
Sis is and always has been jealous of me. There is no reason, from the outside she has a better life than me: husband makes a lot of money, 3 kids are doing well, she had 2 small businesses doing what she loved, nice vacations, nice house, on top of housework, time for voluntary work (school parents' association), husband that spoils her (surprise trips to Paris and Dubai, for instance :)). Whatever she puts her mind and hands to, she can do.
The jealousy I noticed the week of the funeral service: she hid my new pair of trousers so I couldn't wear them to the funeral service where I was reading the In Memoriam. I had checked my suitcase 3 times before the service, and then found them when I packed to leave the next day; and in the family group picture we took after the funeral dinner, she photoshopped some extra weight on me :D How petty can you get? (BTW: she's 50, I'm 51)
It continues:
- the week before the funeral service I had put Dad's facebook to 'don't let others know when you are online', to give Mum the time to look at his facebook undisturbed (and not freak friends and family out) and only then decide what to do with it. This weekend, I have found that all settings were changed to 'everyone gets to see everything' and 'stories only to be sent to [sister]'. Together with Mum I have changed all settings I could find to the most restrictive options. I don't have facebook, so I hope I caught all.
- sister and her middle daughter were with Mum on Tuesday to pick up Dad's ashes from the crematorium. Afterwards, she helped Mum sort through a small pile of insurance papers, from an insurance firm sister used to work for. Mum wasn't confident all was correct, so on Saturday we had another look, and I discovered that it actually related to 3 different insurances, and that there was a mistake in 1 of the certificates. The papers were quite jumbled up, 1 policy of about 56 pages was in 3 parts inbetween the letters, for instance. Mum will not let sister help anymore.
- the Sunday after the funeral I found a SIM card on the floor of the guest bedroom were sister was staying. I kept it safely. A week later Mum tells me that she took Dad's mobile phone to the phoneshop to change the contract to her name, and that they couldn't find the SIM card in the phone. My guess is that sister has cloned or copied information from the card (she's savvy, and her husband is high up in IT). I've told Mum that I found a/the card. I am now searching the web to see how I can find out if it's actually cloned. I can't help if it was just copied (that's static information), but if cloned I can render it useless, perhaps, by asking the phone company for a new SIM-card with the same phone number.
Wow, that’s some seriously strange behaviour. Do you ever call her out directly for her antics? It also sounds like you don’t have concrete proof that she is doing most of these though, so why not plant something intentionally to get her to slip up? I’m sure we can all come up with some suggestions on items you could set up to be tempting if she decided to go digging through your luggage again.
Post by: Siebrie on July 10, 2023, 08:04:47 AM
Post by: Turtle on July 10, 2023, 08:52:38 AM
Drama source is a control freak who is likely to use the possession of sentimental items as leverage to continue control with my kids; but a will wouldn't likely have made much difference for that case. There's not much of monetary value to fight over, however, except for one classic car in middling condition but great sentimental value.
It also seems that employer beneficiaries were filled out based on what USPS Informed Delivery says is coming to my house this afternoon. My brother happens to work at the same company, so I had gotten the relevant phone numbers to give to my kids this week once services were over. It's looking like that won't be necessary, though.
Post by: Miss Piggy on July 10, 2023, 09:53:20 AM
Wow, that’s some seriously strange behaviour. Do you ever call her out directly for her antics? It also sounds like you don’t have concrete proof that she is doing most of these though, so why not plant something intentionally to get her to slip up? I’m sure we can all come up with some suggestions on items you could set up to be tempting if she decided to go digging through your luggage again.
This has "glitter bomb" written all over it. Unfortunately, it would create a huge mess, but damn, the joy of catching her in the act...
Post by: Zamboni on July 10, 2023, 11:21:51 AM
My ex passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week. There's no will. There's already been some drama and likely to be more. Services and such went OK, however, and the main source of drama behaved themselves for that.
Drama source is a control freak who is likely to use the possession of sentimental items as leverage to continue control with my kids; but a will wouldn't likely have made much difference for that case. There's not much of monetary value to fight over, however, except for one classic car in middling condition but great sentimental value.
It also seems that employer beneficiaries were filled out based on what USPS Informed Delivery says is coming to my house this afternoon. My brother happens to work at the same company, so I had gotten the relevant phone numbers to give to my kids this week once services were over. It's looking like that won't be necessary, though.
I'm sorry for your loss, and for your children's grief, and that you are having to worry about it. It does seem like the insurance companies and places like Vanguard have plenty of mechanisms in place to safeguard inheritances and make sure they get to the intended heir without too much interference.
Nothing really can be done about the sentimental items that have no other value, though. What type of age are your children? Little, K-12, or 18+? This is age dependent, but if there is something specific one of your children wants, then my advice is that at some point they ask control freak for it. Ideally they should ask for all things they can think of at once. Something like "Hi, I know there is a picture of my Dad and me with a big fish we caught that he had on his desk. May I have it now, please? Also, he and I use to do XXX together a lot, my I please have YYY item associated with that now, please?"
Control freak might surprise you and just say "Of course! here you go!" If control freak says "no" or "maybe later" or "only if you do XYZ" or "what picture? No you can't come look for anything" or "no, he wanted me to have that" then I would cut control freak out of my life, go no contact, and he or she better hope they never need my help. Easier said than done if it is a grandparent and aunt or uncle, though. Pretty easy if it is a step parent who they aren't close to. If they are younger, even HS age, hopefully there is a way you can tactfully let control freak know that you expect any photos or other highly sentimental items to be preserved for his children and given to them all at once in the fairly near future. No trickle out over time BS. Good luck with it all, and again I'm sorry.
Post by: Turtle on July 10, 2023, 02:56:48 PM
Apparently you can buy a version of a glitter bomb on Etsy. They don't have the cameras, which is too bad, but it would still be funny. Mark Rober should definitely go into manufacturing and sell the high end, camera loaded glitter bombs. He'd probably make a fortune.My ex passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week. There's no will. There's already been some drama and likely to be more. Services and such went OK, however, and the main source of drama behaved themselves for that.
Drama source is a control freak who is likely to use the possession of sentimental items as leverage to continue control with my kids; but a will wouldn't likely have made much difference for that case. There's not much of monetary value to fight over, however, except for one classic car in middling condition but great sentimental value.
It also seems that employer beneficiaries were filled out based on what USPS Informed Delivery says is coming to my house this afternoon. My brother happens to work at the same company, so I had gotten the relevant phone numbers to give to my kids this week once services were over. It's looking like that won't be necessary, though.
I'm sorry for your loss, and for your children's grief, and that you are having to worry about it. It does seem like the insurance companies and places like Vanguard have plenty of mechanisms in place to safeguard inheritances and make sure they get to the intended heir without too much interference.
Nothing really can be done about the sentimental items that have no other value, though. What type of age are your children? Little, K-12, or 18+? This is age dependent, but if there is something specific one of your children wants, then my advice is that at some point they ask control freak for it. Ideally they should ask for all things they can think of at once. Something like "Hi, I know there is a picture of my Dad and me with a big fish we caught that he had on his desk. May I have it now, please? Also, he and I use to do XXX together a lot, my I please have YYY item associated with that now, please?"
Control freak might surprise you and just say "Of course! here you go!" If control freak says "no" or "maybe later" or "only if you do XYZ" or "what picture? No you can't come look for anything" or "no, he wanted me to have that" then I would cut control freak out of my life, go no contact, and he or she better hope they never need my help. Easier said than done if it is a grandparent and aunt or uncle, though. Pretty easy if it is a step parent who they aren't close to. If they are younger, even HS age, hopefully there is a way you can tactfully let control freak know that you expect any photos or other highly sentimental items to be preserved for his children and given to them all at once in the fairly near future. No trickle out over time BS. Good luck with it all, and again I'm sorry.
Thank you. They're in their early 20's, so it's all really up to them. Doesn't stop me worrying, but it does keep me out of the middle.
And remind me to double check all my beneficiary designations to make sure my late spouse is no longer primary.
Post by: Sibley on July 12, 2023, 11:09:21 AM
The biggest lesson from the whole affair: you need to have the hard conversations. The family was in the position of doctors sending hospice to the family and the family having no idea what she wanted. Coma, ventilator, 2 months in hospital and acute care and the entire time, death was when, not if. I knew with in a few days of the initial heart attack that her mom wouldn't survive. The heart damage was too severe, the blockages too severe, there was nothing they could do about the blockages because of where they were. Two months of stress and uncertainty, all because the hard conversations didn't happen. Then, there was nothing about funeral wishes either. I sat at the wake as my friend cried because she worried her mom wouldn't have wanted things done as they were. I sat at the house after the funeral as her dad was upset because he worried his wife wouldn't have liked the service.
Don't do that to your loved ones. Have the hard conversations. Even though they're hard.
Post by: Siebrie on July 13, 2023, 01:19:50 AM
My parents (and I) have a burial insurance (very common in The Netherlands) with a non-profit. This non-profit is rather active in helping people prepare for the inevitable: they have open days of their crematoria and burial grounds, they have volunteers who come speak at, say, church conversation groups, they have checklists for last wishes, the volunteers come to your home and help work through the checklist.
My Dad had his own wishes, service, In Memoriam, and card all ready. And Mum has her wishes ready, and has started on her own In Memoriam and service. It has given me great peace of mind, knowing that what happened and how it happened was in agreement with Dad's wishes.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 28, 2023, 01:48:35 PM
My X is estranged from our adult children. Within the last 5 years he updated his will to name our eldest as executor with everything going 50/50 to the 2 daughters upon his death. His relationship with both daughters broke down severely a couple years later and they are no contact. It is unclear if he changed the will and may be hoping to mend things with his kids so has left it.
After the last straw with our girls he married the affair partner in 2021 (a foreign born co-worker, the same age as our eldest daughter). Odds are good they will not stay together for all the usual reasons but mostly that she is likely using him for US citizenship which obviously, once secured, makes him highly jettison-able. Old farts don't often stay married to young foreign chicks especially when their True Love Story started out as a family-destroying affair and they have zero in common culturally or generationally. This is another reason we doubt he changed the will, he must realize that the current marriage is likely to end at some point and he would not like his wealth going to the twatwaffle flatterfuck.
If the X croaks while still married she will get to stay in the home as half owner since she is on the deed. If he didn't change his will I would think that all still stands, but perhaps the widow could sue for some chunk of it as assets they accumulated after marriage (?). She has no children so there are no step kids who might have a case of the grabbies. Since she is European I doubt she is familiar with the nuances of state inheritance law but she is an accountant so is not necessarily stupid about financial things and might be highly motivated to research all of this.
A question my girls and I were wondering is how they would they even get notified of the death at all since they are not in contact with their dad? What is to keep the widow from simply grabbing all she can without consequences? I know that anything with the kids listed as beneficiaries would go to them directly from the institutions where they are held once a death certificate is presented, but WHO does the presenting if the widow pulls some shenanigans? How would my girls ever hold the widow accountable for anything?
Who steps in front of the widow to start the cycle of notifications if she just sits there? It occurred to us that the Asshat could be dead already for all we know.
Anybody got stories or advice?
Post by: iluvzbeach on July 28, 2023, 01:56:54 PM
P.S. Nice to see you posting around here. Haven’t seen your name on the forums in a while.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 28, 2023, 02:10:03 PM
The X and I had a lot of money when we divorced and so there was definitely a pile of pre-marriage assets that were his first and he would have had to deliberately add her or name her as the benny. Possible. But if not, what then? I know about the house for sure as public record but that is it.
If he did change his will it is just as likely that their fantasy runs its course and he changes it back to his kids once she has the next affair with an age-appropriate dude (the karma bus owes him a stop), so the question of how notifications are made and who is responsible for setting the wheels in motion still lingers.
As my eldest daughter said, it is not if, it is when. One day he will die and we wonder how the spark of all the post-death processing gets lit.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on July 28, 2023, 02:16:06 PM
Slight shift of gears here.
My X is estranged from our adult children. Within the last 5 years he updated his will to name our eldest as executor with everything going 50/50 to the 2 daughters upon his death. His relationship with both daughters broke down severely a couple years later and they are no contact. It is unclear if he changed the will and may be hoping to mend things with his kids so has left it.
After the last straw with our girls he married the affair partner in 2021 (a foreign born co-worker, the same age as our eldest daughter). Odds are good they will not stay together for all the usual reasons but mostly that she is likely using him for US citizenship which obviously, once secured, makes him highly jettison-able. Old farts don't often stay married to young foreign chicks especially when their True Love Story started out as a family-destroying affair and they have zero in common culturally or generationally. This is another reason we doubt he changed the will, he must realize that the current marriage is likely to end at some point and he would not like his wealth going to the twatwaffle flatterfuck.
If the X croaks while still married she will get to stay in the home as half owner since she is on the deed. If he didn't change his will I would think that all still stands, but perhaps the widow could sue for some chunk of it as assets they accumulated after marriage (?). She has no children so there are no step kids who might have a case of the grabbies. Since she is European I doubt she is familiar with the nuances of state inheritance law but she is an accountant so is not necessarily stupid about financial things and might be highly motivated to research all of this.
A question my girls and I were wondering is how they would they even get notified of the death at all since they are not in contact with their dad? What is to keep the widow from simply grabbing all she can without consequences? I know that anything with the kids listed as beneficiaries would go to them directly from the institutions where they are held once a death certificate is presented, but WHO does the presenting if the widow pulls some shenanigans? How would my girls ever hold the widow accountable for anything?
Who steps in front of the widow to start the cycle of notifications if she just sits there? It occurred to us that the Asshat could be dead already for all we know.
Anybody got stories or advice?
If there's enough money to entice her, she will likely stick around until she can get it. He would, at some point, likely give her his financial & medical PoA's. After assuming control of the finances she will transfer it into her account and close his accounts. The accounts which might have contacted his heirs will have been closed prior to his death, so there will be nothing to report.
If he doesn't trust her he may have somehow protected his assets. I'm not sure what will prevent her from them accessing them with a PoA.
An unrestricted financial PoA allows a person to handle any type of financial transaction that the owner could do themselves. That includes buying and selling real estate and securities.
PoA's are often given to one's heirs, which is obviously a "conflict of interest". But, who else are you going to trust?
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 28, 2023, 02:32:46 PM
The X lives many states away so it is not a matter of stopping by or one day reading a local obit. The X is 55, the NewForeignWife NFW is 31. There may not be an obit since he has no family there 2000 miles from everyone who ever mattered to us.
He will not be ailing anytime soon to need a PoA and it seems like the NFW will be gone to younger pastures before he would become infirm. It doesn't feel like that is the way it would go, and I think she will be watching her youth and fertility slip away (he is snipped) and won't want to hang around while he rusts out.
Post by: Dicey on July 28, 2023, 02:45:29 PM
My advice to my girls was to expect nothing. They are not greedy about the money but do wish they could retrieve a couple of physical things they recall from their grandmother, and if there was any money they would probably use it for a house down payment rather than hookers and blow. He is tainted severely in their minds and his only contribution to their lives now would be much like a rotted compost can help a garden grow. The anxiety about how they would be notified is real and it would be nice to be assured how it works -- google was no help sussing out who is responsible for it and puts so much on the "duty" of this or that person to act as named in the will. I don't trust this chick to respond to any sense of duty.Nice to "see" you here, MNP. Your voice has been missed. I think you had more of an impact here that you realized. Great to hear you're enjoying your post-FIRE life. Don't be a stranger!
The X lives many states away so it is not a matter of stopping by or one day reading a local obit. The X is 55, the NewForeignWife NFW is 31. There may not be an obit since he has no family there 2000 miles from everyone who ever mattered to us.
He will not be ailing anytime soon to need a PoA and it seems like the NFW will be gone to younger pastures before he would become infirm. It doesn't feel like that is the way it would go, and I think she will be watching her youth and fertility slip away (he is snipped) and won't want to hang around while he rusts out.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 28, 2023, 02:46:58 PM
Post by: Omy on July 28, 2023, 03:10:39 PM
My dad's wife is going to be a nightmare to deal with if my dad goes first. She's savvy and has been setting things up to her financial advantage for years. I will be shocked if we see a penny (and my siblings and I have a good relationship with our father).
Post by: tygertygertyger on July 28, 2023, 03:26:58 PM
Well... one day my mom gets a letter in the mail from a lawyer that included a check for $100. He had passed away some time before, and there had been no death announcement. All the nieces and nephews listed in the original will received only the check for $100... we found out that my great uncle (as he declined in health) had decided to adopt my mid-40s cousin and make her the recipient of the bulk of his estate.
His longtime lawyer had refused to go along with his wishes when he wanted to change his will, so he had found another lawyer to help him adopt her and change the will. The $100 checks were intended to make sure none of the original recipients named would sue the estate.
My mom was livid about not being informed when he died! She had been worried about him for some time. They used to go out to lunch and talk on the phone. She showed up at his house when he hadn't been returning any of her calls, which is when she learned he'd sold the house and not told anyone.
My cousin (who he adopted) and her mom (my mom's sister) told my mom he didn't want to talk to anyone. My mom refused to cash the check. She didn't pursue anything further, but didn't want to "accept" anything in those circumstances.
Good luck to your kids!
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 28, 2023, 03:51:29 PM
Yeah... my great-uncle and great-aunt never had children, so they listed all their nieces and nephews on their will (including my mom). My great-aunt passed away long before he did, and he told everyone he wouldn't change his will.
~snip~
Ay ay ay.... people. Amazing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the NFW gets him to change everything to give to her since he already objectively ruined his life for her and now he must show that his mid life crisis buffoonery was all worth it by making her fully legitimate. For now.
It is also just as possible that he changes it all back one day.... or maybe gives it to a third, fourth, or fifth wife as the estrangement with his kids continues and he never meets his grandchildren. And he is just as likely to die alone. Peter Pan refuses to be held to anything he commits to and he may go all in over and over until the music stops and he finds himself standing alone.
I read that the coroner and funeral directors are supposed to make some legal notifications (like to social security) and I suppose if he was unmarried the local government or sheriff would look for next of kin.
If he is married at death it is likely the kids wouldn't find out until the current wife absconds with whatever she can get, selling precious things for pennies at a yard sale. Nothing can be done there.
The kids are not going to keep even a threadbare relationship with him for the money and have found no contact as the way to protect themselves.
Post by: Dave1442397 on July 28, 2023, 04:14:02 PM
Ay ay ay.... people. Amazing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the NFW gets him to change everything to give to her since he already objectively ruined his life for her and now he must show that his mid life crisis buffoonery was all worth it by making her fully legitimate. For now.
It is also just as possible that he changes it all back one day.... or maybe gives it to a third, fourth, or fifth wife as the estrangement with his kids continues and he never meets his grandchildren. And he is just as likely to die alone. Peter Pan refuses to be held to anything he commits to and he may go all in over and over until the music stops and he finds himself standing alone.
I read that the coroner and funeral directors are supposed to make some legal notifications (like to social security) and I suppose if he was unmarried the local government or sheriff would look for next of kin.
If he is married at death it is likely the kids wouldn't find out until the current wife absconds with whatever she can get, selling precious things for pennies at a yard sale. Nothing can be done there.
The kids are not going to keep even a threadbare relationship with him for the money and have found no contact as the way to protect themselves.
I know here in NJ that the banks will freeze all accounts once notified of the death of the account owner. His new wife may be savvy enough to avoid doing this, and could drain the accounts if she has access.
Social Security would have to be notified. The month of death is the last SS payment. Anything paid out after that because they weren't notified has to be paid back to the gov't.
My neighbor's husband took off with his secretary when their three kids were very young. He pretty much took all their liquid assets with him, and absconded to the Middle East with the secretary. He never paid a penny in child support, but could also never come back to the US because of judgements against him. The secretary died suddenly maybe ten years ago, so he and his money live in exile with little to no contact with his kids. I know they agreed to talk to him at one point, but nothing much came of it. That was all years ago - the youngest kid is 38 now. People can be such assholes.
Post by: Zamboni on July 28, 2023, 10:17:23 PM
There seems to be an assumption on this thread that people are changing their wills frequently as their relationships change. Some people do but I think it's more likely that many people don't get around to it. It's a hassle because it means you have to think about it and then involve a lawyer, notary (some banks will no longer allow staff to notarize wills), and witness signatures.
My state allows a photocopy to be submitted as "the" will in probate, but only if nothing with an inked signature and notary can be found.
But if they/you don't have any copy of a will that he made, then I suspect the point about whether he may have revised it or not is probably moot if he dies while married.
Post by: LaineyAZ on July 29, 2023, 08:55:51 AM
Related to this, I continue to be amazed at how many people - mostly men - are willing to blow up their lives and those of their families and others around them - just for a physical relationship with a younger person. Have a friend who was married 40 years who discovered her 65 year old husband having an affair with his 30 year old married co-worker. Friend got a divorce pronto (to her husband's surprise) and she is managing to cope okay, but their wonderful 2 adult children and young grandchildren have cut ties with him.
I'm genuinely wondering, Was it worth it? Is it biology, or pride, or ingrained entitlement, or fear of their own mortality, or what? I'd be curious to read some anonymous discussion from these cheaters if they would give honest answers, especially several years post-divorce.
Post by: Villanelle on July 29, 2023, 09:03:42 AM
Was going to add, I've never heard of a requirement for the mortuary to notify Social Security. But I believe there's info on the Social Security website about death records? Maybe a chat with a SocSec rep would be a place to start.
Related to this, I continue to be amazed at how many people - mostly men - are willing to blow up their lives and those of their families and others around them - just for a physical relationship with a younger person. Have a friend who was married 40 years who discovered her 65 year old husband having an affair with his 30 year old married co-worker. Friend got a divorce pronto (to her husband's surprise) and she is managing to cope okay, but their wonderful 2 adult children and young grandchildren have cut ties with him.
I'm genuinely wondering, Was it worth it? Is it biology, or pride, or ingrained entitlement, or fear of their own mortality, or what? I'd be curious to read some anonymous discussion from these cheaters if they would give honest answers, especially several years post-divorce.
I think they feel they will never get caught, so they never ask, "is this worth losing my relationship with my kids and grand kids". So IMO it's more just a divorce (ha) from reality and what could happen. They act on impulse and lust and the insecurity of aging, rather than saying, "I want to be with this woman so much that I'm willing to risk my relationships with my entire family".
Post by: Adventine on July 29, 2023, 09:40:26 AM
Was going to add, I've never heard of a requirement for the mortuary to notify Social Security. But I believe there's info on the Social Security website about death records? Maybe a chat with a SocSec rep would be a place to start.
Related to this, I continue to be amazed at how many people - mostly men - are willing to blow up their lives and those of their families and others around them - just for a physical relationship with a younger person. Have a friend who was married 40 years who discovered her 65 year old husband having an affair with his 30 year old married co-worker. Friend got a divorce pronto (to her husband's surprise) and she is managing to cope okay, but their wonderful 2 adult children and young grandchildren have cut ties with him.
I'm genuinely wondering, Was it worth it? Is it biology, or pride, or ingrained entitlement, or fear of their own mortality, or what? I'd be curious to read some anonymous discussion from these cheaters if they would give honest answers, especially several years post-divorce.
I think they feel they will never get caught, so they never ask, "is this worth losing my relationship with my kids and grand kids". So IMO it's more just a divorce (ha) from reality and what could happen. They act on impulse and lust and the insecurity of aging, rather than saying, "I want to be with this woman so much that I'm willing to risk my relationships with my entire family".
Some older men also seek out younger women because they think they're more impressionable and aren't as financially secure or established in their own careers, and so more easily "controlled."
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 29, 2023, 09:55:17 AM
MNP, do you or your daughters have a signed original or even a photocopy of that will naming them as heirs?
There seems to be an assumption on this thread that people are changing their wills frequently as their relationships change. Some people do but I think it's more likely that many people don't get around to it. It's a hassle because it means you have to think about it and then involve a lawyer, notary (some banks will no longer allow staff to notarize wills), and witness signatures.
My state allows a photocopy to be submitted as "the" will in probate, but only if nothing with an inked signature and notary can be found.
But if they/you don't have any copy of a will that he made, then I suspect the point about whether he may have revised it or not is probably moot if he dies while married.
We know for sure that the will was changed after our divorce in 2017 and he was in touch with our daughters to confirm that new status and got their contact information to include. He was prompt on the update to exclude me (I did the same).
That is why we think he might have left it to stand with the daughters while their relationship crumbled and the NFW was finally let out of the shadows. He had denied her existence at the top of his lungs until 2019 and then ended up marrying her when covid stopped the world and he could no longer do international work for his job. I think the only way to keep her in the states was to marry her.
He bought a house in 2020 when covid kept him from working internationally and then added the NFW to the deed in 2022. This is the moment he might have changed his will if he was going to, since he was deliberately giving this chick half his house, why not half of everything else.
Except.... to his twisted mind he is the daddy and she is the little girl with clunky English, he is the big stud engineer and she is a 'mere' accountant, he is the masterful American and she is his sex maid. With his astounding ability to deny reality he might have left his will alone and hoped that his daughters would come around (that his how he did everything else in life - do something horrid and if enough time goes by all must be forgiven without ever addressing or admitting to a thing). The relationship is based entirely on the lopsided quality of it so giving her half his wealth seems out of character for him. We wondered if putting her on the deed was an effort to help with her immigration.
Yes, if he never changed the will but there are no copies to be found and we have another Destroyer in the NFW it might be moot. Anything where they were not named beneficiaries could easily be taken by the widow and there is nothing that would be done.
To be clear, the break down between our daughters and him is complete. They wish him dead because it would be easier and already did all their grieving for the father they once knew. He is a monstrous cartoon now. They will live fine without the money and are more bothered by the uncertainty than anything, and feeling sad about some of the personal items from their grandma that they will never see again.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 29, 2023, 10:23:30 AM
Was going to add, I've never heard of a requirement for the mortuary to notify Social Security. But I believe there's info on the Social Security website about death records? Maybe a chat with a SocSec rep would be a place to start.
Related to this, I continue to be amazed at how many people - mostly men - are willing to blow up their lives and those of their families and others around them - just for a physical relationship with a younger person. Have a friend who was married 40 years who discovered her 65 year old husband having an affair with his 30 year old married co-worker. Friend got a divorce pronto (to her husband's surprise) and she is managing to cope okay, but their wonderful 2 adult children and young grandchildren have cut ties with him.
I'm genuinely wondering, Was it worth it? Is it biology, or pride, or ingrained entitlement, or fear of their own mortality, or what? I'd be curious to read some anonymous discussion from these cheaters if they would give honest answers, especially several years post-divorce.
I think they feel they will never get caught, so they never ask, "is this worth losing my relationship with my kids and grand kids". So IMO it's more just a divorce (ha) from reality and what could happen. They act on impulse and lust and the insecurity of aging, rather than saying, "I want to be with this woman so much that I'm willing to risk my relationships with my entire family".
Some older men also seek out younger women because they think they're more impressionable and aren't as financially secure or established in their own careers, and so more easily "controlled."
He blew up the family in stunning and brutal fashion, total abandonment without a hint, we didn't even have a fight. No conversations. I got an e-mail and came home from a business trip to find the house empty of all of his belongings. Poof. His daughters got a text. We had been together 31 years.
It was not his first affair with a younger co-worker. When confronted he lied and raged, but the truth was found soon. He was shocked that his daughters didn't fall in line to amputate mom and overlook the fact he chose someone his daughter's age to bang. He told them to grow a spine, get over it, and stop being bitter, arrogant bitches and get going along with his grand new life plan. He deserved to be happy you see. Just for once in his life.
And hey, they also needed to find his new apartment, keep a huge sum of money in their checking account for him, and would they mind terribly if he offered drugs to one of their friends at a college house party, right in front of them? Cool dad. Any attempts to discuss anything were met with rage and physical violence to the point they have determined they will never be alone with him again. Yes, that bad.
A much younger chick he can look down on is perfect for him, but also he will become angry that she doesn't do at least half. He was a rolling-goalposts guy for sure and will become exasperated that he is dragging around this much younger chick who doesn't understand any of his cultural and age-related references. Since he is a covert narc and passive aggressive jack wang he will certainly blame her for 'making him' abandon his family and will be looking at her daily and challenging her on whether she was worth it.
He did not get a character transplant.
Post by: iluvzbeach on July 29, 2023, 10:35:00 AM
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 29, 2023, 10:41:07 AM
MNP - sounds like NFW did you a favor by taking him off your hands! Good riddance to him...
I can see that now, but it took a long time to really believe that. He made sure to rage at me, too, and assure me that it was 100% my fault and that everything he did was because of me. He is truly sick.
Post by: Adventine on July 29, 2023, 12:53:04 PM
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 29, 2023, 01:40:41 PM
@MissNancyPryor I'm sorry he treated you and his daughters so badly.
Thank you. I don't think we will ever really be over it but we are learning to live with it. My daughters and I have a better relationship now than before he poofed and they don't suffer fools. I am grateful they are unswayed by his demands to be the pater familia and his insistence that they overlook everything and that he is owed respect because "He is Their Father."
He was shocked to hell to find out they are grown women who have decided his behavior is intolerable and life is way better without him. I am the sane parent.
He will face the consequences of his selfish choices for the rest of his life, long or short.
Post by: Hula Hoop on July 31, 2023, 06:30:37 AM
MNP - sounds like NFW did you a favor by taking him off your hands! Good riddance to him...
x1000! And @MissNancyPryor this is another great thing about being FIRE. Just imagine what hell this would have been if you'd been financially dependent on your Ex, like so many other women.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that Ex and his new wife won't last. You never know - I've seen couples like this last a long time in my own family and friends circles and -since she's European and an accountant- it's unlikely she is just after a green card.
At any rate, if I were your daughters and certain family heirlooms in his possession really meant a lot to me, I'd reach out to the Ex just one last time to ask him about these. Maybe he'd be willing to hand them over now or put them as line items in his will. But I'd weigh carefully whether these items are really important enough to them to warrant having to communicate with their dad. Is inheriting grandma's china or grandpa's photos really worth this stress? In my own personal life, I've had to learn to let go of certain sentimental things from my childhood - including things that I made as a child with my parent - in order to keep the peace with a step parent. No idea why my parent's spouse wanted these items which I made with my parent as a child about 30 years before they met - but it risked becoming a power struggle so I just let it go. I try to reason that I have too much clutter in my house anyway so these sentimental things would just add to the clutter anyway. Most important is my mental health.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 31, 2023, 10:36:48 AM
Example: When he abandoned the home he took some things he should not have, including an extensive and rare vinyl record collection for an esoteric band that was a gift to the youngest daughter for her 16th birthday. He loved that band too and was the one who found the collection on eBay back then so he believed he deserved to have it. Other people aren't real anyway so he saw no problem in taking things he wanted (he took things he had given to me and gave them to the new girlfriend since I am not a real person, either-- when challenged about this he claimed I never liked them anyway so he had the right....such a complete Asshat).
Daughter was away at college and we didn't realize they were gone until months later when she came back one final time to pack her room as the home was sold, and at that point he was already having raging blowouts with the girls and she decided to give up on ever getting her things back. Daughter is 28 now and would really like to have them, but she will never, ever reach out to retrieve the gift. Not worth it. She does not even want him knowing where she lives. She told me not to try to retrieve anything either.
Side note- at abandonment he also took EVERY SINGLE framed picture of our daughters as young girls up till age 8 or so, but none of them as older teenagers and adults-- dozens of framed things from the home. Fortunately the younger daughter saw him that first day and told him hell-to-the-no you do not get to abandon mom and then also steal every picture of her little girls, so he brought them back with the idea I would get him copies. Once the extent of his deceit was understood the girls refuse to allow him to have any of their pictures, and he never once asked me for them after that. He never asked for pictures of his kids. What a shit.
We accept that he set our house on fire when he pulled his colossal dick move of abandonment, and everything he took is gone forever.
It is still fair to wonder how we will hear about it when he croaks.
Post by: Sibley on July 31, 2023, 11:17:53 AM
Real answer? You may not. Or you may hear about it significantly afterwards. If lawyers, insurance companies, or law enforcement need to track you down for some reason, you'll find out. If his family or friends have a way to contact you they may decide to notify you. Otherwise, it'll likely be chance. Very good chance you won't hear in time to go to a funeral even if you wanted to go.
I highly recommend therapy to help work through the tangle of emotions if you haven't already. And good chance therapy will be needed again when he does die.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 31, 2023, 11:28:28 AM
We have done extensive emotional labor and sought all kinds of help and therapy to work through this, individually and as the family unit that remains. That is why we know what is actually valuable (not stuff, not money) and have zero expectations that he will ever be a decent guy. We have zero false ideals about "daddy." We are pretty healthy, considering. We will see what happens when he departs but we are prepared to deal similarly.
Post by: Sandi_k on July 31, 2023, 11:56:57 AM
I knew this, and so when he passed, *my* mom asked if my stepmom or half sister would inform his siblings. I told her I thought it unlikely, as all family relationships had been "guarded" - we had to go through him. Given the gatekeeping, I wasn't sure that my stepmom would have any idea on how to reach out to them.
Well, my sweet Southern mom - who had had these two ladies as her SILs from age 18 to age 34 - decided that she would find them so they knew.
All three of them had gone to the same high school, back in the 1950's. So she had her "class chair" reach out to the "class chair" for the younger SIL, with whom she'd been closest. We knew her married name. In the alumni directory, my aunt had noted that she was fine with her phone number and email address being released to other alums....so the class chair for Aunt Helen gave the contact info to the class chair for my mom. (Even funnier, the younger class chair had been in my parents wedding in 1958!).
So my incredible mom got Aunt Helen's phone number, and PICKED UP THE PHONE to call her, 40 years after mom and dad divorced.
What has ensued these past 10 years has been amazing: we are now back in touch with most of dad's family, including me and my siblings being in touch with our cousins. We all gathered at my other aunt's house in 2017, which was lovely, cathartic, and amazing. The aunts have been out twice to visit us, and one cousin reached out for dinner when he was in the area, too.
So - if you have former ILs with whom you are close, perhaps your girls could ask for notification when he passes, without breaking the NC commitment.
I am so sorry - this is an awful betrayal of you and your daughters, and I am so glad that you can see clearly that staying NC with a malignant narcissist is the smart thing to do. (As a side benefit, it drives them nuts!) ;)
Post by: Turtle on July 31, 2023, 12:01:29 PM
My kiddos also both got something in the mail from the insurance company which my ex's company used. The younger one was addressed to my house and the older to that grown kid's house. The way it was done with my address rather than my ex's make me think that perhaps the 2nd spouse wasn't aware of this.
Inertia is a powerful force, especially with a narcissist who wants to do what they want to do and not be bothered with boring busywork. So I would recommend your kids keep up to date forwarding orders in for the addresses where they lived at the time your ex's will was made, even if they use your house as the forwarding address.
Social Security didn't know about my spouse passing away until I called and told them, despite SSN being required on death certificates in my state. I wasn't particularly quick about it because there were no payments which needed to be stopped, and I knew the death benefit was tiny. Maybe they would have eventually found out, but it was 3 or 4 months as I recall, which I would have thought was enough time in the computer age.
That's my relatively recent experience, if any of it is helpful.
It may also be beneficial to set up a Google alert on your ex's name plus the term Obit. Funeral homes and crematoriums generally put something online nowadays, even without putting anything in a local newspaper.
Post by: MissNancyPryor on July 31, 2023, 12:24:08 PM
I have kept the same landline telephone number we had for decades and even though I only get garbage calls on it I have paid the $10 a month so it is out there. During their final declarations of no contact to their dad, both girls told him the house number is the same if something tragic happens (like he gets cancer) then he can call me. My address is also publicly searchable so anyone could write, and I still use the same old e-mail addresses. Anyone else could easily find me and we share the same unusual last name with a long list of publicly-visible property history so I am totally discoverable. I do have a google alert set on him.
You can bet I will be updating this thread if something ever happens!
Post by: Catbert on August 03, 2023, 11:44:15 AM
If they are beneficiaries on bank or brokerage accounts it's unlikely that the financial institution will notify you of his death. They don't have beneficiary contact info (at least I've never been asked for it) and won't waste time trying to track you down. Money will eventually go to the state as abandoned (at least in CA). Heir/beneficiary can get it from the state by jumping through lots of hoops. If there is a will that's being handled by an attorney they will look for heirs.
Google tells me the life expectancy of a 55 year old man is another 25 years. He'll have moved on to another wife by then. :-/
Post by: MissNancyPryor on August 03, 2023, 09:59:03 PM
Post by: newco on August 04, 2023, 09:09:10 AM
Here is where the fun begins. After deploying to his first assignment, they need to build a brand new home because they can't rent with a child. Where do they get the down payment, you guessed it the inheritance money. Mind you this after multiple disney trips, international trip, new cars, etc., Ok, not a problem, it's his money he can do as pleases. What does the wife do during this time? You guessed it, not work. So she stays at home and pulls a $5,000 a month to cover groceries, general spending, etc. to supplement her lost wages from working (granted she never brought home this much to begin with).
5 years later, it is time to move because of a new deployment and they have to sell their house. They have about $40,000 in equity at this point, so they sell the house and use this to buy a $400,000 house with 10% down on a VA loan. After moving in to their new(used) place they discovered an issue with their plumbing which required a $25,0000 repair. Where did they get this money for the repair? A personal loan...
Some people are given a golden ticket and piss it away. It's hard at times to be empathetic with people that cause their own problems.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on August 04, 2023, 09:19:36 AM
Some people are given a golden ticket and piss it away. It's hard at times to be empathetic with people that cause their own problems.
The sad thing is that there are lots of people who would think this was perfectly normal behaviour. Except maybe the getting married to someone so fast. But, the financial stuff would be completely normal.
Post by: Zamboni on August 04, 2023, 12:46:47 PM
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
Post by: Dicey on August 04, 2023, 04:27:33 PM
Yes, my parents have received multiple inheritances and lawsuit settlement windfalls. Each time my Dad and Step Mom tell me "oh good, we got this big chunk of money so we can pay off the cards / build an addition to our house / throw a big party / go on nice vacations and now we are all set." Then, less than a year later, the money is gone and they are racking up their cards again and calling their kids literally crying when a totally normal thing happens like routine home or car maintenance is needed. They've done this four times. Seriously.Wow.
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
Post by: saguaro on August 16, 2023, 12:28:44 PM
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
Also will say "wow"
I inherited money 4 years ago from my parents estate that was mostly sale of their home and I still have 100% of that and then some.
One sister did some improvements on her house but other sister's husband bought a vintage Corvette, for which he has to pay for storage and other related costs. This is the guy who wants to retire like right now but spends money like crazy especially when it comes to cars. Sister is annoyed at his constant complaints about still working and wanting to retire (doesn't help that he's younger and still wants HER to work) yet when they got a good financial boost it was spend, spend, spend.
Post by: iris lily on August 16, 2023, 12:31:40 PM
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
Also will say "wow"
I inherited money 4 years ago from my parents estate that was mostly sale of their home and I still have 100% of that and then some.
One sister did some improvements on her house but other sister's husband bought a vintage Corvette, for which he has to pay for storage and other related costs. This is the guy who wants to retire like right now but spends money like crazy especially when it comes to cars. Sister is annoyed at his constant complaints about still working and wanting to retire (doesn't help that he's younger and still wants HER to work) yet when they got a good financial boost it was spend, spend, spend.
* I blew nearly all of the $60,000 I inherited from my mother. And that would’ve been entirely with her blessing because I have plenty of money myself and she was always urging me to “spend some of that money! “ I waltzed around acting like Lady Bountiful with some of it, giving large chunks to organizations I respect.
* I highly approve of buying an antique Corvette.
Just offering alternate point of use here!
Post by: saguaro on August 16, 2023, 12:50:47 PM
It never occurs to them to invest the money from windfalls and earn interest instead of immediately spending it all. I've resigned myself to the fact that they are mentally incapable of being on the winning side of compound interest. It is just how they roll.
Also will say "wow"
I inherited money 4 years ago from my parents estate that was mostly sale of their home and I still have 100% of that and then some.
One sister did some improvements on her house but other sister's husband bought a vintage Corvette, for which he has to pay for storage and other related costs. This is the guy who wants to retire like right now but spends money like crazy especially when it comes to cars. Sister is annoyed at his constant complaints about still working and wanting to retire (doesn't help that he's younger and still wants HER to work) yet when they got a good financial boost it was spend, spend, spend.
* I blew nearly all of the $60,000 I inherited from my mother. And that would’ve been entirely with her blessing because I have plenty of money myself and she was always urging me to “spend some of that money! “ I waltzed around acting like Lady Bountiful with some of it, giving large chunks to organizations I respect.
* I highly approve of buying an antique Corvette.
Just offering alternate point of use here!
No worries here. :)
Full disclosure, DH and I blew (mostly) through a small inheritance left by DH's maternal grandparents years ago. We were young and just starting out, the money made our early years (20s) a bit more fun allowing us to take some travelling vacations, get a car when we needed one but we paid off some debts too. Did take out IRAs which still exist.
Nothing wrong with a Corvette, it's a pretty cool car and hope BIL is enjoying it. It's just interesting in light of that he wants to retire and I understand it's an ongoing argument with sister over affordability and that she is still working and has to.
Post by: ducky19 on August 16, 2023, 01:14:25 PM
Post by: former player on August 16, 2023, 01:41:24 PM
Assets that make money are e.g. equities and rental properties. Assets that cost money are e.g owner-occupied houses, cars, jewellery, art, horses, and so on.
The reason lottery winners and people with inheritances go broke is not entirely that they "waste" money (although some do), it's that they buy the sorts of assets that cost money rather than the sorts of assets that make money.
Post by: merula on August 16, 2023, 03:42:27 PM
Since then, the widower has appeared to be a stay-at-home dad. I figured there was life insurance or maybe he's got a flexible WFH job, don't know, not my place, and he's the kind to keep to himself. The daughter has become close friends with my kids, and a few months back my kid told me that she'd told him that her dad didn't work and they were just spending all the money they had and when it ran out they'd have to move. I told him that I was sure she was mistaken, parents don't always share all the financial details with their kids, etc. etc.
Skip ahead to when I forgot a different neighbor's wife's name so I went to the county property records to look it up... and found out that this neighbor's house is in forfeiture because property taxes haven't been paid for longer than the online records go back, and it's scheduled to be up for auction at some point this year.
I know that people spend money they should save, even when that hurts their kids, but this just floored me. 7.5 years he could have done something, anything, to provide for his daughter and he just.... chose not to?
Post by: economista on August 16, 2023, 03:47:20 PM
Post by: La Bibliotecaria Feroz on August 18, 2023, 12:32:21 PM
She didn't work and sent the kid to private school. Within a few years all the money was gone and they were literally homeless and sleeping on her mother's floor in a one-bedroom senior apartment. I think if you aren't used to having money, you don't really have a concept of it as a thing that can last? She had always worked in low-wage pink-collar jobs and they always lived pretty paycheck-to-paycheck (my ex, who was much older than his sister, remembers periods of hotel-type homelessness).
The daughter hasn't spoken to her mother in years. It's really sad.
Post by: Siebrie on August 21, 2023, 02:26:00 AM
My Mother (87) wants to use this tablet, but is afraid of hackers. Some programmes are still needed, so they can't be removed, and the tablet can't be reset to factory settings.
Many of the emails come from websites he subscribed to, which confuses my Mother no end, so unsubscribing was a hell of a task. She still wanted to see what my Father was interested in, but is also confused if an email invites her to a workshop or reading on a subject my Father was interested in.
I didn't realise on how many places I had to unable the notification emails on Meta, for instance. I don't have Meta, and after seeing this, I definitely don't want it.
Post by: Dicey on August 21, 2023, 06:02:16 AM
Post by: Sibley on August 21, 2023, 11:41:21 AM
Not exactly inheritance drama, but digital clean-up drama: my Father passed away in May; the last 10 years he spent a lot of his time on his tablet. I have been spending hours on this tablet ever since his passing: opening all the apps, checking if it needed a log-in, checking if it was requiring payment, stopping the payment, unsubscribing. Then, I do the same for the websites (because the 'favourite' websites do not match up to the apps). Checking if the websites have actually stopped taking payment, or have reimbursed any moneys paid. Finding passwords, keeping track of log-in details,....
My Mother (87) wants to use this tablet, but is afraid of hackers. Some programmes are still needed, so they can't be removed, and the tablet can't be reset to factory settings.
Many of the emails come from websites he subscribed to, which confuses my Mother no end, so unsubscribing was a hell of a task. She still wanted to see what my Father was interested in, but is also confused if an email invites her to a workshop or reading on a subject my Father was interested in.
I didn't realise on how many places I had to unable the notification emails on Meta, for instance. I don't have Meta, and after seeing this, I definitely don't want it.
It is HARD to turn off the facebook emails. I seem to have mostly accomplished this, but it took multiple attempts.
Given the age, there's no way it's getting updates. If your mother just wants to use it to play a few games, that's probably ok. But for other things a new(er) tablet may be safer.
Post by: Sugaree on September 25, 2023, 08:58:12 AM
Post by: Captain FIRE on September 25, 2023, 09:03:27 AM
Post by: Sugaree on September 25, 2023, 09:35:47 AM
Oof. How close is the mom to reaching the 5 year look back? Would it be possible for her to cover the costs to get to the five year mark? (I don’t know if that’s legal though.)
My understanding is that they are going to have to spend down all of the mom's assets before applying to Medicaid. If there is enough to cover it until the lookback period is up (2.5-ish years or so) then it should be okay. The lookback period starts when you apply for Medicaid and not necessarily when you entered care. However, if there's not enough assets to cover the rest of the lookback and she has to apply for Medicaid that will trigger a penalty period where Medicaid won't cover the expenses anyway. I don't see either of the kids being able to come up with that kind of cash, even for a few months, so it's likely the house would have to be sold.
Post by: Zamboni on September 25, 2023, 07:50:11 PM
In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
Watch and learn, mustachians:
If you elect to give children their "inheritance" early, always give all children the same amount at the same time regardless of their need. Then you may avoid this type of kerfuffle between your children later.
This is, of course, assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances that need to be treated more carefully, such as an adult with a disability who needs more for care, or an adult with a massive substance abuse problem who can't handle having money responsibly.
Post by: Villanelle on September 26, 2023, 09:41:11 AM
In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
That's a tough one. It wasn't handled optimally by mom originally. That's neither child's fault, but now there's a mess where it kind of falls on the children to come to a fair solution.
Does DS have enough money to float medical costs for a year or two, to get mom to the end of the clawback? Would that even work, legally? Heck, even if the DD agreed to pay him back some of that once she got and presumably sold the house (which would eat away at the 50/50 fairness, but be better than nothing for her), that would still leave DD with something instead of nothing.
What a mess. And as Zamboni point out, this demonstrates the need to be do everything evenly up front. Mom could have signed the house over to DD, with a contract that allowed mom to stay in it rent-free until death, for example. It's one thing if it is a small amount compared to the size of the estate (e.g. a $1m estate and someone gets $20k to get them to 20% on a house and avoid PMI). But when it is half or a significant portion of the estate, it sets up so many opportunities for problems.
I think sometimes parents forget that their estate isn't just money that will help their children. It's also something that can dramatically affect the relationship between those children. While she had no ill intent and everyone agreed to this situation, it is likely going to do irreparable damage to the sibling's relationship. And had mom consulted a lawyer and spent a couple hundred dollars, she likely would have been advised against this, or advised to transfer the house to Sister now, not set up the trust immediately. Instead, she has children who are likely going to deeply resent each other, all because of how the estate division happened.
Post by: mm1970 on September 26, 2023, 10:49:54 AM
My stepdad has signed over some land to my sister and her husband, and the will is written such that it comes out of their "third", but there's no knowing if he'll end up in care and end up with nothing.In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
Watch and learn, mustachians:
If you elect to give children their "inheritance" early, always give all children the same amount at the same time regardless of their need. Then you may avoid this type of kerfuffle between your children later.
This is, of course, assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances that need to be treated more carefully, such as an adult with a disability who needs more for care, or an adult with a massive substance abuse problem who can't handle having money responsibly.
It's unlikely, because he has cancer, and every time he goes into the hospital we worry that he won't come out.
But anyway, I don't care at all. My brother probably does, but honestly, my BIL does more for that man than anyone else (except his brothers and sisters who drive him to dr's appts), so they deserve it!
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 26, 2023, 11:33:55 AM
My stepdad has signed over some land to my sister and her husband, and the will is written such that it comes out of their "third", but there's no knowing if he'll end up in care and end up with nothing.In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
Watch and learn, mustachians:
If you elect to give children their "inheritance" early, always give all children the same amount at the same time regardless of their need. Then you may avoid this type of kerfuffle between your children later.
This is, of course, assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances that need to be treated more carefully, such as an adult with a disability who needs more for care, or an adult with a massive substance abuse problem who can't handle having money responsibly.
It's unlikely, because he has cancer, and every time he goes into the hospital we worry that he won't come out.
But anyway, I don't care at all. My brother probably does, but honestly, my BIL does more for that man than anyone else (except his brothers and sisters who drive him to dr's appts), so they deserve it!
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
Post by: Sugaree on September 26, 2023, 11:40:00 AM
In a situation that I really hope my parents are paying attention to, one of mom's cousins failed to get a Medicaid asset protection trust in place before needing to be admitted into long term care. One of her children has already received "his inheritance" via cash gifts to buy a house. The idea was that he would get enough to buy a place in the city he lived in and she would get the family home free and clear, which seemed fair because the family home is worth significantly more than he received. They both supposedly agreed to early and less vs. later and more. These cash gifts took place long enough ago that they fall outside the lookback period, while the trust didn't get set up until 2-3 years ago. At this point, the reality of LTC cost has hit and it appears that the parent will likely burn through all of their cash/savings before it's all said and done (physically doing okay, but needs memory care, so could very well be in the nursing home for years) and will need Medicaid for LTC. Because the trust is less than 5 years old, it will be subject to asset recovery. So, while neither sibling is likely to receive anything from "the estate", one sibling is extra salty and has made some noise about eventually suing her brother for half of what he received from their mom to buy his house. I can understand why she's upset and it's not fair, but it's going to likely get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.
That's a tough one. It wasn't handled optimally by mom originally. That's neither child's fault, but now there's a mess where it kind of falls on the children to come to a fair solution.
Does DS have enough money to float medical costs for a year or two, to get mom to the end of the clawback? Would that even work, legally? Heck, even if the DD agreed to pay him back some of that once she got and presumably sold the house (which would eat away at the 50/50 fairness, but be better than nothing for her), that would still leave DD with something instead of nothing.
What a mess. And as Zamboni point out, this demonstrates the need to be do everything evenly up front. Mom could have signed the house over to DD, with a contract that allowed mom to stay in it rent-free until death, for example. It's one thing if it is a small amount compared to the size of the estate (e.g. a $1m estate and someone gets $20k to get them to 20% on a house and avoid PMI). But when it is half or a significant portion of the estate, it sets up so many opportunities for problems.
I think sometimes parents forget that their estate isn't just money that will help their children. It's also something that can dramatically affect the relationship between those children. While she had no ill intent and everyone agreed to this situation, it is likely going to do irreparable damage to the sibling's relationship. And had mom consulted a lawyer and spent a couple hundred dollars, she likely would have been advised against this, or advised to transfer the house to Sister now, not set up the trust immediately. Instead, she has children who are likely going to deeply resent each other, all because of how the estate division happened.
Good questions. I'm getting a lot of this second and third hand, so I'm not privy to intimate details and I like it that way. My mom (who I'm getting most of my info from) seems to think that there should be enough assets other than the house to pay for a year, maybe two, depending on whether or not her cousin ends up needing higher levels of care between now and then. I highly doubt that either child has the ability to pay for more than a month or two each. That would be the best option for everyone, assuming that the kids can come to an agreement on who pays how much, but the phrase "blood from a turnip" comes to mind. As far as I know, the daughter has no plans of selling the family home and wants to live there permanently. Her moving in and paying "rent" to her mom would help with cashflow and running out the clock. Still not truly fair, but it is what it is. I'm not getting involved other than telling my mom how much of a shame it was that they didn't talk to an estate attorney (hint, hint) and that I could have recommended some very good ones (HUGE hint, hint).
Post by: Zamboni on September 26, 2023, 03:08:33 PM
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 27, 2023, 08:19:15 AM
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
Post by: sonofsven on September 27, 2023, 08:39:41 AM
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
What a terrible story!
When my cousins grandma died they were interested in purchasing the long time home of the grandparents (not my grandparents).
The oldest son, who was always a jerk (he eloped at age 24 with my 16 year old aunt-that marriage lasted about five years) sold the home without giving any of the six grandkids the opportunity to buy it.
It's a very sought after location, waterfront Puget Sound. A few of the grandkids wanted to buy it together so they could all share it as a summer place, as they all spent summers there as kids.
The son had it on the market and sold almost immediately after his mother's passing.
His "reasoning" was that, since some of the grandkids were more successful than the others, there would be resentment between them.
Post by: okits on September 27, 2023, 08:46:44 AM
I had a coworker tell me that she grew up being told her brother would inherit everything, after all he was the boy.
She planned her life and career knowing she had only herself to rely on. When their parents grew infirm and needed daily living assistance, coworker let her brother know it was his job to lead their parents’ care (and pay for it out of the parents’ assets). After all, he was inheriting everything!
It probably goes without saying, I really liked that coworker.
Post by: Villanelle on September 27, 2023, 08:50:46 AM
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
These stories--really most of the stories in this thread--make me sad and a smidge nervous.
Presumably, I'll be privy to 2 estate settlements in my life, my parents and DH's parents. (I'll be somewhat on the sidelines of the latter, but as Team Villanelle Household, I'll be in the thick of it with DH.) Maybe I'm naive, but I expect my sibling, who will be executor, to be entirely reasonable. We may squabble over who gets the best charm on mom's charm bracelet (mom knows I want the bracelet and has made it clear that's what is to happen, but that Sister--S--gets one charm of her choice). Or how long I have to come collect the sentimental items I want, which may be a pain, depending on where I'm living at the time. Or even whether we accept X offer on the house or hold out for more. That kind of thing. But in general, I don't see us fighting over money, I trust her to be reasonable and respectful as executor, and I anticipate no issue. But I wonder if many of the people from the stories in this thread said the same things, up until it happened.
With DH, I fully anticipate his sibling being greedy and presumptuous and even outright absconding with the figurative silverware if he can. That estate should be a fairly small amount, and probably far less than BIL imagines/hopes. I am guessing DH is the executor since BIL is an irresponsible mess at all times, or perhaps MIL's husband. (As I understand it, they have kept almost entirely separate assets, and the house is only in her name and was hers before they married. But he's a lawyer, so I can see him being executor, possibly. Unlike my family, DH's doesn't talk about this stuff so it's just a guess.)
DH and I have talked about it and a very likely outcome of this all is to tell BIL that everything is his except a few sentimental items, but that he then has to take on the work. IOW, DH walks away, not only from any money, but from the tax filings and paperwork to prove death and dealing with realtors (although the house has a reverse mortgage so there may not be a sale) and anything else. We are hopeful that if DH decides that's the best course, it will avoid some of the drama seen in this thread, but who really knows? Even if BIL is reasonable and rational and friendly (which he has never been, on his best day), DH *may* still decide to hand everything over as BIL needs it far, far, far more than we do. He currently lives with his mom and has no job, and no prospects, so when she dies, he will likely be a couple months from being on the streets. So DH may just consider it his gift to BIL, and one last chance for BIL to finally get his life together. OTOH, it's entirely possible--probable, even--that any money would end up in a fancy truck and/or a liquor store till, and in a year, BIL will again be broke. What he really needs is an annuity of some kind, but I'm not sure MIL has enough money for an annuity (or a controlled monthly amount) that someone could live off of , even if she stipulated that was what she wanted to happen.
Anyway, I guess my point is that while I think I have a good idea of how all the involved parties will respond, and that there are rough plans to avoid most drama, I wonder if that's not just wishful thinking. Did most of the people in these stories have good reason to believe everything would be fine, until it wasn't? Or were these relationships already strained? Were there signs that it would devolve into greed, even if the people involved didn't see them? Or were these healthy, stable relationships among healthy, stable, reasonable, honest people that exploded anyway? Were there warning signs, or was it truly a surprise to everyone that this stuff happened?
Post by: SwordGuy on September 27, 2023, 09:04:42 AM
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Post by: sonofsven on September 27, 2023, 09:08:43 AM
Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
These stories--really most of the stories in this thread--make me sad and a smidge nervous.
Presumably, I'll be privy to 2 estate settlements in my life, my parents and DH's parents. (I'll be somewhat on the sidelines of the latter, but as Team Villanelle Household, I'll be in the thick of it with DH.) Maybe I'm naive, but I expect my sibling, who will be executor, to be entirely reasonable. We may squabble over who gets the best charm on mom's charm bracelet (mom knows I want the bracelet and has made it clear that's what is to happen, but that Sister--S--gets one charm of her choice). Or how long I have to come collect the sentimental items I want, which may be a pain, depending on where I'm living at the time. Or even whether we accept X offer on the house or hold out for more. That kind of thing. But in general, I don't see us fighting over money, I trust her to be reasonable and respectful as executor, and I anticipate no issue. But I wonder if many of the people from the stories in this thread said the same things, up until it happened.
With DH, I fully anticipate his sibling being greedy and presumptuous and even outright absconding with the figurative silverware if he can. That estate should be a fairly small amount, and probably far less than BIL imagines/hopes. I am guessing DH is the executor since BIL is an irresponsible mess at all times, or perhaps MIL's husband. (As I understand it, they have kept almost entirely separate assets, and the house is only in her name and was hers before they married. But he's a lawyer, so I can see him being executor, possibly. Unlike my family, DH's doesn't talk about this stuff so it's just a guess.)
DH and I have talked about it and a very likely outcome of this all is to tell BIL that everything is his except a few sentimental items, but that he then has to take on the work. IOW, DH walks away, not only from any money, but from the tax filings and paperwork to prove death and dealing with realtors (although the house has a reverse mortgage so there may not be a sale) and anything else. We are hopeful that if DH decides that's the best course, it will avoid some of the drama seen in this thread, but who really knows? Even if BIL is reasonable and rational and friendly (which he has never been, on his best day), DH *may* still decide to hand everything over as BIL needs it far, far, far more than we do. He currently lives with his mom and has no job, and no prospects, so when she dies, he will likely be a couple months from being on the streets. So DH may just consider it his gift to BIL, and one last chance for BIL to finally get his life together. OTOH, it's entirely possible--probable, even--that any money would end up in a fancy truck and/or a liquor store till, and in a year, BIL will again be broke. What he really needs is an annuity of some kind, but I'm not sure MIL has enough money for an annuity (or a controlled monthly amount) that someone could live off of , even if she stipulated that was what she wanted to happen.
Anyway, I guess my point is that while I think I have a good idea of how all the involved parties will respond, and that there are rough plans to avoid most drama, I wonder if that's not just wishful thinking. Did most of the people in these stories have good reason to believe everything would be fine, until it wasn't? Or were these relationships already strained? Were there signs that it would devolve into greed, even if the people involved didn't see them? Or were these healthy, stable relationships among healthy, stable, reasonable, honest people that exploded anyway? Were there warning signs, or was it truly a surprise to everyone that this stuff happened?
Really, good questions.
My partner has an evangelical maga mom and she legitimately wonders if she'll be cut out of the will. She might. Right now her mother's not speaking to her because mother got called out for her misbehavior.
There's some LDS on that branch, and one of her distant cousins was cut out for "lack of Christianity".
I've reassured my partner that we'll be fine if that happens, but it still bothers her, the idea of being excluded and treated unfairly, since she's been treated unfairly in other situations throughout her family life.
Post by: mm1970 on September 27, 2023, 10:44:46 AM
This sounds a little familiar. In "it's the way things were back then", my grandfather's will was written to give the "big" trust to 2 of the boys (the 3rd boy had gotten his inheritance already as he'd been in business with his dad, so he'd gotten part of the business). The small trust - basically the house (about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the big one) - would go to 3 daughters + a widow of another son. I guess that the daughters were supposed to be taken care of by their husbands? Anyway, the trust was written so that his 2nd wife can live on the interest and principal, and the kids get nothing until she dies. She lived to be 98 - 18 years past when my grandfather died (I know my story is in the early pages here).Wills aren't always enforced. The executor does whatever he or she wants, and can't be stopped. It is possible to sue, but even if the judgement goes in your favor the assets are still gone. The same applies in many cases where a spouse is left the use of your assets. That spouse can decide to override your wishes and even disinherit your kids in favor of the pool boy. Inheritances are never guaranteed.
This is so true. I understand why so many wealthy people have an attorney as the executor rather than a family member. Better to pay the fees than have a fall out between siblings over perceptions of fairness.
My grandparents had 4 children and my grandfather wanted to make sure his kids got equal amounts. So he set it up so everyone gets 25% of particular large pot of money he had. It was all in writing, neat as a pin. Then one of the sons asked for an got 80% of the money that was in his "share" of that pot in advance. So grandfather reduced his share in the documentation, neat as a pin, in writing.
Then grandparents died, and the son who had gotten his money from the pot early lobbied another sibling, the one with the most money of her own, to just ignore grandfather's wishes and divide up the remaining money by splitting it 4 ways. So then it became 2 against 2. In the end grandfather's wishes were honored by the executor, but it was a mess, and it was not a great thing for everyone to be arguing about while riding in a minivan together on the way to grandmother's funeral.
Indeed. I used to know a family where the couple's shared assets were to be divided evenly between all the kids. When the man died after a long illness, their real estate empire (jointly owned by him and his wife, who built it up from scratch) was divided into two. Half went to his sons. The remainder was to be used to support his wife the rest of her life, after which time it would be divided among the daughters, who received nothing at the time of their father's death except some personal effects. The lady lived another decade, while her female offspring mostly struggled and her male offspring did very well because the value of their assets increased as did the ones in her care. But at the end of her life, she decided that it wasn't fair that her remaining assets had appreciated so that they were worth almost double the value of what her sons had received. (There had been a similar appreciation of the assets her sons had received, plus those heirs had received the benefit of ten years of income from those assets, but that didn't factor into the lady's calculations.) She therefore changed her will so that her remaining assets were divided evenly among the boys and girls. The result was that her boys received roughly triple what her girls did. The will allowed any of the children to buy the lady's house at a fraction of its market value, and one of the adult children made arrangements to do that, except the executor brother responded to lobbying from some of the in-laws and cancelled the sale so that the house could be sold at full market value and the proceeds divided. Really it was like something out of a novel.
I mean, by the time she died, my mother and an aunt had already passed, so I ended up with 1/12 of the smaller trust directly (about $10k).
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on September 27, 2023, 01:10:08 PM
Anyway, the trust was written so that his 2nd wife can live on the interest and principal, and the kids get nothing until she dies. She lived to be 98 - 18 years past when my grandfather died (I know my story is in the early pages here).
I mean, by the time she died, my mother and an aunt had already passed, so I ended up with 1/12 of the smaller trust directly (about $10k).
You're lucky it was in a trust. Second spouses are notorious for draining the estate for the benefit of their own bio-kids, their pool boys, or the Johnny-come-lately professional bibble-babblers. There's always a flock of those buzzards circling around the elderly and infirm, if they have anything worth the effort of guilting them out of it. My paternal grandfather encountered some near the end of his life, and he intentionally strung them along because he was concerned that he wouldn't get emergency assistance otherwise when he needed it. Brilliant old man-- I do miss him.
Post by: mm1970 on September 27, 2023, 03:50:31 PM
About half of the sibs were bitter about the 2nd marriage and the "money-grubbing 2nd spouse". Fun fact: she was absolutely lovely, and raised 12 kids basically on her own because her husband was an alcoholic and died young. Also: she worked as a librarian, and had a pension and her own house. So, many years after my grandfather died, she moved back to her own home (near a few of her kids), sold the house to my cousin and his wife. The last time I saw her was at my mother's funeral. Absolutely amazing woman, but the uncles were worried she's spend their inheritance. She didn't.Anyway, the trust was written so that his 2nd wife can live on the interest and principal, and the kids get nothing until she dies. She lived to be 98 - 18 years past when my grandfather died (I know my story is in the early pages here).
I mean, by the time she died, my mother and an aunt had already passed, so I ended up with 1/12 of the smaller trust directly (about $10k).
You're lucky it was in a trust. Second spouses are notorious for draining the estate for the benefit of their own bio-kids, their pool boys, or the Johnny-come-lately professional bibble-babblers. There's always a flock of those buzzards circling around the elderly and infirm, if they have anything worth the effort of guilting them out of it. My paternal grandfather encountered some near the end of his life, and he intentionally strung them along because he was concerned that he wouldn't get emergency assistance otherwise when he needed it. Brilliant old man-- I do miss him.
Post by: Zamboni on September 27, 2023, 03:56:39 PM
Johnny-come-lately professional bibble-babblers
You always find a way to make me laugh, Squeak. Yes, the world is full of those. As I get older I see them sniffing around more and more.
I doubt that most of the well-meaning people who set up their wills are expecting a bunch of bickering from their offspring. Which doesn't make sense to me as so many siblings grow up bickering. I have no patience for it, but it's a fairly normal sibling dynamic.
In the case of my grandfather, he set up the pot of money he intended for his kids in a way that protected it from his two SIL's. He believed, I'm sure quite correctly, that his kind and dear wife would give away all of the money he had saved to her sisters just as soon as he wasn't holding the purse strings. And he was right, of course, every nickel that wasn't nailed down did indeed get funneled to the sisters while grandmother was still alive. Because they "needed it." As far as I could tell, neither sister had ever worked, and one of them had moved in with grandmother and grandfather when my dad was still a kid, so probably they did need it. They grew up in a different time, though, when it was much more difficult for women to find reasonable jobs.
I have a friend as my executor. She agreed to do it and she is efficient, competent, and well-off financially, so I don't expect her to wig out at the amounts of money involved. More importantly, she grew up in a funeral home, so she is very familiar with the sometimes bizarre behavior of the bereaved.
Could one of my adult kids do it? Yes. But my children have very different personalities and very different "negotiating styles." Basically one is 100% extroverted and a thunderous force of nature (ESFP), and the other one is 90% introverted and as calm and quiet as a crystal clear lake on a windless day (INTP). This is just how they are. Years of watching them interact has taught me that the serene one will let the thunderous one have more than his share just to keep the peace and avoid any kerfuffle. Many systems have been put into place by me as they grew up to avoid this dynamic. That's not a ideal situation for either of them to be executor. I don't think of either of them as greedy, but having a third party as executor will hopefully mean they are in it together. My goal is for me to die before they do with little drama afterwards and with each having the perception that they are getting as fair an inheritance as possible . . . at least as far as money goes.
After all, it is impossible to assign value to certain sentimental things, and sometimes the distribution of those causes the biggest rifts. If you've seen Succession, I liked how Connor used the sticker method for people expressing interest in things in their late Dad's house . . . one of the few things that went pretty well in that family (assuming that no one else wanted the war medal collection, which Connor had set aside for himself prior to the opening of the stickerfest.)
Post by: Greystache on September 28, 2023, 09:02:58 AM
Post by: iris lily on October 03, 2023, 08:18:57 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on October 03, 2023, 01:32:03 PM
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
Post by: Catbert on October 05, 2023, 12:27:12 PM
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
It would be rude of us to hope it turns into a shitshow for our enjoyment, right? Okay, I'll try not to wish that.
Post by: Chris Pascale on October 05, 2023, 08:50:45 PM
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
It would be rude of us to hope it turns into a shitshow for our enjoyment, right? Okay, I'll try not to wish that.
It is our right to be entertained.
Post by: Chris Pascale on October 05, 2023, 08:51:50 PM
Any reference to Succession makes me happy!
Five is a nightmare. You can't do anything with five.
Post by: Chris Pascale on October 05, 2023, 08:55:24 PM
.......sibs were bitter about the 2nd marriage and the "money-grubbing 2nd spouse"...........she worked as a librarian, and had a pension.......
Money-grubbing pensioner librarians; you gotta watch out for them.
I think this is one of those cases where you get wrapped up in a combination of maybe what you would do, or what your worst fear of the situation is.
Post by: Zamboni on October 06, 2023, 03:02:22 AM
Any reference to Succession makes me happy!
Five is a nightmare. You can't do anything with five.
Lol, those two were the icing on the cake. We are all Greg, but without the five . . . or 250 . . . or whatever it is.
Post by: iris lily on October 06, 2023, 09:16:14 AM
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
It would be rude of us to hope it turns into a shitshow for our enjoyment, right? Okay, I'll try not to wish that.
It is our right to be entertained.
These family dramas are interesting when they don’t strike close to our heart.
Yesterday DH placed a phone call to his sister, the sister who took us to court twice over family inheritance. He called her because it was her birthday, and it is their family tradition to call each other on their birthdays.
“She picked up the phone! “ he said happily. They talked for 11 minutes. Perhaps that little family rift has lessened, who knows although I think this sister will not speak to the other sister who was the executor of the estate, and a competent one may I add.
Me,I just kind of sat back and enjoyed the drama during it all.mIt was rather fun to have a knock on our front door at 7 o’clock one morning to be served with court papers. I’ve never been summoned to court before. Kind of makes a good story
Post by: iris lily on October 06, 2023, 09:19:11 AM
Any reference to Succession makes me happy!
Five is a nightmare. You can't do anything with five.
Don’t you know it! Maybe a couple of Armanis hanging in your closet. One German car. But that’s about it, no good houses, no private planes, don’t even think about boats.
Post by: markbike528CBX on October 06, 2023, 10:27:34 PM
My mother-in-law passed away last week. One daughter and both sons will be reasonable.
My wife's sister, well, we'll see.
I'm expecting a shit show from her, but maybe she'll just take her 1/4th and call it a day. We can hope.
Well, it's been a week, the funds are beginning to arrive, and so far, not a peep that I'm aware of.
I'm keeping our fingers crossed!
It would be rude of us to hope it turns into a shitshow for our enjoyment, right? Okay, I'll try not to wish that.
It is our right to be entertained.
Quote
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid, and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us. -Teen Spirit , Nirvana
Post by: Turtle on October 23, 2023, 11:35:32 AM
Said surviving step parent doesn't ever read anything in full and apparently is unaware that in their state biological children are entitled to half the deceased parent's assets if there's no will. Children would have been perfectly happy with getting the sentimental family items which they want and not going after their share of the house, car, bank accounts, etc.
But because the step parent is a drama addict, the lawyers will get money and the kids won't be any worse off than they would have been if they hadn't pushed for probate.
Post by: jeninco on October 24, 2023, 02:07:13 PM
Extended family drama brewing here. Someone died without a will and the surviving step parent is being a jerk about family items.
Said surviving step parent doesn't ever read anything in full and apparently is unaware that in their state biological children are entitled to half the deceased parent's assets if there's no will. Children would have been perfectly happy with getting the sentimental family items which they want and not going after their share of the house, car, bank accounts, etc.
But because the step parent is a drama addict, the lawyers will get money and the kids won't be any worse off than they would have been if they hadn't pushed for probate.
Ouch, I'm sorry.
We're also having a low-drama event here: my BIL died, but he was already living in a house my husband owned, and all the bills except internet are in my name (this was a situation we all explicitly agreed to in advance, and continued to be comfortable with). Other than the mortuary insisting that their 86-year-old mother figure out how to e-sign the forms for the cremation (she's 1000 miles away) and the massive, humongous amount of (mostly high-quality) stuff in the house that we're just starting to deal with, NBD (other than someone dying. As MrINCO put it, "even though you knew they were going to die pretty soon, you didn't know it'd be, like, today.")
Now if we can just find out to whom he'd promised the somewhat disassembled 1.5 BMW motorcycles so we can clear that first 16 sf of the garage floor to use as a staging area for the next layer of stuff....
Post by: Dicey on October 24, 2023, 04:00:50 PM
Post by: jeninco on October 24, 2023, 06:56:42 PM
Good for you for doing right by him, in whatever form you were comfortable with. I'm sorry for your loss, but it sounds like it wasn't unexpected (none of us knows exactly what day we'll die, right?). Would it be possible to frame the property cleanout as a treasure hunt? I know it's a metric crap-ton of work, and I wish you the best getting through it.
Oh, it's 100% a treasure hunt: turns out that several decades of working in the trades, plus his personality, means that 80% of the metric crap-ton of stuff is really high quality. IT's just ... a LOT. This is a man who, rather than having one high-quality orbital sander and changing the grit of the sandpaper on it, had ... let's go with "several", each with different sandpaper already on it. And it's that way with about EVERYTHING. He also had a bit of a cast-iron fetish (he sand-blasted or soda-blasted the ones that weren't smooth enough), and there are amazing cast-iron pots and pans all over the place. I'll be thrilled to take, like, three. Perhaps 4: the tiny little ones would be great for heating up spices for indian dishes. But 2 dozen? I probably in whole or in part cook 330 meals/year for us (I make the granola and yogurt, too), but I currently have and use 5 pots and 4 or 5 pans.
The whole first round of work basically consists of "create a little space, then gather all the items of this type, and put them here. Then we can see what's even all over the place."
Of course, there are also several motorcycle wiring harnesses in what normal people would call the "living room", and MrINCO is loathe to move them lest he inadvertently miss some important motorcycle part... (There's also a stereo system in there so nice that we needed to use our kid, who is getting a music degree AND an EE degree, and helped with the setup, to help us identify all the parts and wires and stuff.)
It's a lot. We're planning for it to take on the order of 5 months.
Dragging this back round, perhaps when family comes to visit there will be a bit of drama? Their sister loves selling stuff online (not that she could identify 70% of what's in that house either...)
Post by: Sibley on October 25, 2023, 11:37:01 AM
Post by: ATtiny85 on October 25, 2023, 01:03:51 PM
jeninco, this sounds like you might want to look for an auction house or something that has the contacts to really get the word out for a sale to the people who want to buy this stuff. You might try asking local union halls, etc if you don't have the knowledge yourself.
Yeah, I go with some extended family members to a lot of estate auctions here in the Midwest, and it seems to work. The good auctioneers do a great job of assessing and squeezing value out (then take their % of course, but worth it in most cases). I have found that quality items, when listed on the pre-read flyer, will pull high rollers if in fact there is value.
However, this a required first step is getting MrINCO 'adjusted' to the method...
... MrINCO is loathe to move them lest he inadvertently miss some important motorcycle part...
Post by: jeninco on October 25, 2023, 03:29:24 PM
jeninco, this sounds like you might want to look for an auction house or something that has the contacts to really get the word out for a sale to the people who want to buy this stuff. You might try asking local union halls, etc if you don't have the knowledge yourself.
Yeah, I go with some extended family members to a lot of estate auctions here in the Midwest, and it seems to work. The good auctioneers do a great job of assessing and squeezing value out (then take their % of course, but worth it in most cases). I have found that quality items, when listed on the pre-read flyer, will pull high rollers if in fact there is value.
However, this a required first step is getting MrINCO 'adjusted' to the method...... MrINCO is loathe to move them lest he inadvertently miss some important motorcycle part...
Thanks for the suggestions! He's actually suggested having some kind of sale ... but first we need to get some sense of what's there.
Fortunately, I found a place that will take donations of (still packaged and sealed) medical supplies, so we may be on our way to clearing out a bit of space...
Post by: merula on October 25, 2023, 06:34:52 PM
Post by: jeninco on October 26, 2023, 10:59:44 AM
@jeninco, hugs to you and thanks for the flash into my future if my BIL predeceases us. Although he's now in treatment for various compulsive diagnoses, so maybe things will change.
Thanks, I'll take them!
Things in our favor:
- We live in the next town over, and the neighbors are keeping an eye on the place, so once I finish getting the food out there's really no rush on this (we'll rent it eventually, but can afford to take our time with this)
- We knew this was coming, so were generally mentally prepared
- He knew this was coming, and actually made some efforts to get rid of the worst of the mess (a pile that we thought was old computers, under some sheet metal in the yard, turned out to just be a couple bales of sphagnum moss, for instance)
We're probably headed up this afternoon to spend two hours or so taking more stuff out of the kitchen (I already removed everything that was not 100% sealed and edible by bugs or mice) Small time increments!
Post by: AMandM on October 26, 2023, 11:38:52 AM
Dragging this back round, perhaps when family comes to visit there will be a bit of drama? Their sister loves selling stuff online (not that she could identify 70% of what's in that house either...)
Hey, maybe you can turn this to your advantage and reduce the work of disposing of stuff. Make a pile of "things for Sis to sell on behalf of the estate."
Post by: Siebrie on October 27, 2023, 06:08:44 AM
Post by: AMandM on October 27, 2023, 08:14:05 AM
That's what Mum is doing with Dad's miniature train collection and accessories. My BIL and a nephew with a lot of spare time have offered to sell it for the estate. Nephew went to a proper dealer store, but was offered peanuts, so online selling it is! I told Mum where she could find Dad's catawiki-password (where he bought most of his items) and they will take it there, or at least base their prices on what Dad paid for it.
There's a lesson here for anyone who owns specialized objects of value: either dispose of them before you die, or leave clear information for your heirs about the best way to do so. A cousin of mine was a historian of British military uniforms and had a large collection--thousands of pieces. It took a long time for his widow to find a place that would accept the collection as a gift (he wanted it to stay together and return to England).
Post by: Sibley on October 27, 2023, 08:50:19 AM
That's what Mum is doing with Dad's miniature train collection and accessories. My BIL and a nephew with a lot of spare time have offered to sell it for the estate. Nephew went to a proper dealer store, but was offered peanuts, so online selling it is! I told Mum where she could find Dad's catawiki-password (where he bought most of his items) and they will take it there, or at least base their prices on what Dad paid for it.
The bolded bit - NO. It doesn't matter what he paid for it. What matters is what people will pay for it now. It's a different mindset, and one that a lot of people struggle with. It's easier if you don't know the original purchase price. If this catawiki place sells things, then use that data, preferably actual sold price data, to figure out what to price things at. You can also look at sales on Ebay to see what things sold for.
Post by: iris lily on October 27, 2023, 09:21:11 AM
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
The dealer who offered peanuts for the train pieces has a business operation to maintain, employees to pay, etc. I hope the nephew actually does the work of describing, listing, packing, and mailing the train parts because that is work. Will he be compensated?
When my mother’s house had to be cleaned out my brother said he would ebay her stuff. I told him “fine, it is entirely up to you, do it or don’t, keep ALL of the money you earn from that.” Because my mother had moved a few times in her old age, there wasn’t a hge amount of stuff in her 2 bedroom condo. I had already taken the few things of high value such as 2 sets of family silver, sold them, and split the money with my brother.
My brother’s house is still full of our mom’s crap 15+ years later.
Post by: iris lily on October 27, 2023, 09:29:07 AM
I watched a drama play out over the last year where my childhood home, a wonderful
Victorian house, was the object of fantasy of the deceased owner. The recently dead owner who bought it from my parents 50 years ago said she hoped the city would use it for a history museum.
But oops—she made no legal provision for that to happen. The house was part of her estate and went to her children who predictably wanted $$$ for it, and the city declined to buy it. Just as well because it was 50 years of deferred maintenance. The curtains hanging at the windows in 2023 were curtains my mom had made in 1970. That tells ya how well that old house was cared for.
Post by: former player on October 27, 2023, 10:23:42 AM
Given that everyone is in agreement I think it is mostly easy enough to brush through the legalities of the distribution with documents signed by both Trustees and all the beneficiaries. Except for the part interest in the family house, because if the house is ever to be sold (probably towards the end of my generation's lifespan) then proper title will need to be shown and I'm not sure we can do that without the original executors from the 1980s. If the house title isn't already registered and needs to be because of this transfer then the problem might arise a lot sooner.
On the other hand, maybe no-one else will notice?
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 27, 2023, 01:02:18 PM
Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
There's nothing quite as toxic as "dead hand" behavior wherein a domineering elder tries to dictate and control an heir's behavior from beyond the grave, because the experience of pressuring, manipulating, and controlling that person during one's own lifetime somehow wasn't enough.
What's even worse is the way entire families play into it. "Yabbit, yabbit, Mom or Dad would have wanted it this other way (regardless of the cost and inconvenience to you, and with no cost or inconvenience to us whatsoever)."
Post by: iris lily on October 27, 2023, 01:38:33 PM
I know! It is so damn strange and frankly, unfathomable to me, when someone (I have known at LEAST 2 of these someones) renovated the deceased parent’s house in the way “mom would have wanted” only to sell it.Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
There's nothing quite as toxic as "dead hand" behavior wherein a domineering elder tries to dictate and control an heir's behavior from beyond the grave, because the experience of pressuring, manipulating, and controlling that person during one's own lifetime somehow wasn't enough.
What's even worse is the way entire families play into it. "Yabbit, yabbit, Mom or Dad would have wanted it this other way (regardless of the cost and inconvenience to you, and with no cost or inconvenience to us whatsoever)."
WHY????!!!
Believe me, as a potential buyer of mom’s house, I do not want some granny’s taste dictating the materials of the house I buy. I want to chose materials myself.
Post by: Dicey on October 27, 2023, 01:54:46 PM
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.I know! It is so damn strange and frankly, unfathomable to me, when someone (I have known at LEAST 2 of these someones) renovated the deceased parent’s house in the way “mom would have wanted” only to sell it.Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
There's nothing quite as toxic as "dead hand" behavior wherein a domineering elder tries to dictate and control an heir's behavior from beyond the grave, because the experience of pressuring, manipulating, and controlling that person during one's own lifetime somehow wasn't enough.
What's even worse is the way entire families play into it. "Yabbit, yabbit, Mom or Dad would have wanted it this other way (regardless of the cost and inconvenience to you, and with no cost or inconvenience to us whatsoever)."
WHY????!!!
Believe me, as a potential buyer of mom’s house, I do not want some granny’s taste dictating the materials of the house I buy. I want to chose materials myself.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 27, 2023, 06:32:32 PM
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.
Do it now! I regret so much the times we thought about upgrades, put them off, then did them for selling a house.
I did finally learn my lesson, did upgrades in my last house for me that later helped sell it. But they were not fancy upgrades, they were basics, like a light over the kitchen sink*. If a new owner wanted a different light, at least the wiring was there. I had already done the work of getting the electrician in.
*Snark comment - why do builders think that having a window in front of the kitchen sink plus one overhead light is enough? It gets dark early here in winter and that part of the kitchen gets super dark.
Post by: Fresh Bread on October 28, 2023, 12:58:50 AM
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.
Do it now! I regret so much the times we thought about upgrades, put them off, then did them for selling a house.
I did finally learn my lesson, did upgrades in my last house for me that later helped sell it. But they were not fancy upgrades, they were basics, like a light over the kitchen sink*. If a new owner wanted a different light, at least the wiring was there. I had already done the work of getting the electrician in.
*Snark comment - why do builders think that having a window in front of the kitchen sink plus one overhead light is enough? It gets dark early here in winter and that part of the kitchen gets super dark.
This is all very timely. Today I found out that a guy that lived in the next street died a year or so ago and left his house to a friend. That's incredibly generous in our VHCOL area but not too strange. The odd bit is that he stipulated that the friend must renovate it! And keep it for some short period of time like one or two years.
How would the renovation be enforced? What would happen if he didn't, I don't know. But that is all moot because he has renovated it, added a second dwelling. He'll make a tidy profit whether he sells or rents out two dwellings.
We can't imagine why that was a stipulation, other than maybe he had plans but got sick. So today we were jokingly suggesting random to-do lists for inclusion in our wills for a bit of fun.
Post by: iris lily on October 28, 2023, 10:50:51 AM
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.I know! It is so damn strange and frankly, unfathomable to me, when someone (I have known at LEAST 2 of these someones) renovated the deceased parent’s house in the way “mom would have wanted” only to sell it.Ah, dealing with the stuff of the deceased, when the deceased wanted such and such to happen to the stuff.
I say: dear deceased, you should have taken care of that before you died, then. The burden you place on those left behind to do something complicated with your specialized crap is not cool.
There's nothing quite as toxic as "dead hand" behavior wherein a domineering elder tries to dictate and control an heir's behavior from beyond the grave, because the experience of pressuring, manipulating, and controlling that person during one's own lifetime somehow wasn't enough.
What's even worse is the way entire families play into it. "Yabbit, yabbit, Mom or Dad would have wanted it this other way (regardless of the cost and inconvenience to you, and with no cost or inconvenience to us whatsoever)."
WHY????!!!
Believe me, as a potential buyer of mom’s house, I do not want some granny’s taste dictating the materials of the house I buy. I want to chose materials myself.
When I bought our tiny condo in the city three years ago, I was thrilled that it had an old ugly kitchen. Not only was it old it was ugly. And by “old “I mean maybe early 90s? Not “old “meaning decades old and interesting.
That was just the kitchen I wanted, because I felt no compunction in ripping it out and putting in a new one according to my taste and budget. My budget is higher than what a modest condo like this would normally have.
Post by: AdrianC on October 28, 2023, 11:32:06 AM
His will is simple: 50/50 to my brother and I. Easy. Or not. Did he really want 50/50 with everything? Or did he not think some of it through? Don’t know now. Splitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife. He wouldn’t want that.
I’m a bit like the prodigal son (though I didn’t ask for my inheritance when I left!). Brother stayed and worked for the old man while I went off for adventure and to seek my fortune. I can see some of that older brother/younger brother resentment happening if we’re not careful.
Post by: Zamboni on October 28, 2023, 03:04:32 PM
Quote
Splitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Post by: Villanelle on October 28, 2023, 03:52:33 PM
I figure that will help in case they need direction, but also make it clear that I'm ultimately cool with whatever. (Not that I need to be cool with it, because I will no longer exist.)
Same with my stuff. Some of it goes to specific charities, as outlined in the will. Everything else? Don't care. Sell off every item to get maximum profit, but have it take a year or more? Cool. Donate all the stuff to charity and get nothing for it? Sounds good. Don't care. And I've made this sentiment clear to everyone so no one is left wondering what Villanelle would want done with that signed first edition Vonnegut, or all of her shoes, or whatever. It's one thing not to care, and it's another to let the people who will be making the decisions know you really don't care.
Post by: ATtiny85 on October 28, 2023, 05:27:49 PM
QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Sure, works great for a bottle of scotch, but what does one do with half a watch, or half a stereo?
Post by: Villanelle on October 28, 2023, 05:56:33 PM
QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Sure, works great for a bottle of scotch, but what does one do with half a watch, or half a stereo?
Either come to a distribution that feels fair (you get the watch and they get the stereo), or everything gets sold.
Post by: Gremlin on October 28, 2023, 07:52:18 PM
Not my family, but one I'm quite familiar with. Arrangement was to be 50:50 division of assets between two siblings. In the latter years, Elderly Mother sells her place and buys a home 50:50 as Tenants in Common with her DINK Daughter and her husband so extended family can live together. Both Daughter and Son were fine with the arrangement. Elderly Mother contributes roughly half her net worth to buy her share of the home.
Daughter becomes a SAHM when her daughter is born with special needs. Elderly Mother requires some expensive care later in life and runs down most of her 'other' assets. That's okay, the plan is that Daughter and husband will buy out the Son's share of 'their' house when the time comes.
House rapidly appreciates and Elderly Mother passes. Daughter and husband are knocked back on extending their home loan to 'buy' Son's share due to serviceability, as it's now a much more expensive property and they only have one income. It didn't end up causing family strife (mainly because the Son was very supportive of his sister and came up with a workable alternative), but it could easily have done so.
All intentions were good. Everyone thought they were doing the right thing every step of the way through, but 50:50 in this case still caused a lot of stress. There was never any belief that the Daughter 'deserved more', just an unfortunate series of events that meant there would have been a very significant 'cost' to the Daughter, but not the Son, in directly fulfilling their Mother's wishes.
Post by: ATtiny85 on October 28, 2023, 07:55:50 PM
QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Sure, works great for a bottle of scotch, but what does one do with half a watch, or half a stereo?
Either come to a distribution that feels fair (you get the watch and they get the stereo), or everything gets sold.
I suspect that that word is where things have the potential to go bad. I personally agree with your earlier post. We wrote in our will that 100% goes to a large charity, money, stuff, all of it. If we go early, there will be some ticked family members perhaps, but at least they will all get the same zero. Our executor is an unaffiliated no nonsense friend from grad school. He will knock things out with some paperwork and a check, done.
Post by: Zamboni on October 28, 2023, 09:03:22 PM
My mom has two sisters. Their grandparents were all farmers. Parents were teachers (thanks, GI Bill). No one rich. But there was moderate drama over the stuff. The coin collection. The china, in particular. How do you divide two sets of china between 3 ladies? So much gnashing of teeth over these dishes. Multiple phone calls. Round and round. Who gets what? What is fair?
In the end, my Mom DNGAF and took a set of 6 from the one grandma who happened to have 18 plates, cups, saucers (cause, you know farmer-sized families back in the day.) That meant both of her sisters had "full" sets of 12, which they were adamant about. Uh huh. One sister had 2 kids and the other had one. Why you need 12 plates, cups, and saucers for that I have no idea.
My mom carefully stored the coveted china away and we never used it. Finally she gave it to my daughter, and I promptly accidentally broke one of the tea cups (whoops.) But there's this store called "Replacements." Guess what . . . ta da! Replacements had the pattern.
Did I have to look at a gazillion patterns that were almost-but-not-quite right to find it? Yes. Did I find it exactly? Yes. Do I now have another tea cup AND a matching gravy boat, sugar bowl, creamer, and serving platters? Totally dumb, but you know, it wasn't very much money at all. Turns out farmers in Idaho and Missouri did not exactly have Ming dynasty stuff. Lol, probably her sister, who was so adamant about having the set of 12, gave it to her now adult daughter who promptly sold it to Replacements only for me to buy it years later after it sat quietly in their inventory.
But, yeah, easier to split than a watch. Just let your sibling have the watch. Seriously.
Post by: TomTX on October 29, 2023, 06:39:30 AM
Financial side: Put beneficiaries on all of your accounts!
When my parents sold the house and downsized, they distributed a portion of the stuff (coin collection, some furniture) - which was good. Beneficiaries should all be in place.
Unfortunately, Dad was a pack rat and had been accumulating/hauling around boxes of... stuff... for over 30 years. Literally there were boxes I know were taped up in 1991, some are even older. He promised that in retirement he would sort through the stuff, but he never did. The only organization is the date stuff was packed in a box.
Dad died this spring. I've been primary on helping Mom deal with... everything.
Maybe 5% of stuff in the boxes is really cool/historical/milestone stuff. Maybe 10% is "Eh, okay - I could use it since it's here". Stuff like the blank notebooks. 85% is crap, some of which has PII for other people (name, birth date, SSN, etc) and really should be shredded. Mom is mostly pre-sorting/evaluating, I'm dealing with most of the disposal.
Realistically, I suspect it will be years before we finish going through it all. That's not even considering the boxes and boxes of family slides and photos that he was going to go through and get scanned.
Don't do this to your family. Go through your crap. Here's a method many people have suggested: https://www.thespruce.com/swedish-death-cleaning-4801461
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 29, 2023, 06:45:52 AM
Seriously: If you care about the people who will deal with your detritus once you die - just go through it, winnow it down - and if you feel comfortable, start distributing items.
Just popping in to say I love your use of the word detritus. If only all the belongings we have to deal with when someone dies would decompose as quietly and easily as forest detritus does.
Post by: Omy on October 29, 2023, 07:24:31 AM
Several accounts had lost our beneficiary info. I'm not sure if it was from software issues or from companies merging and that info not getting transferred properly.
Post by: AdrianC on October 29, 2023, 11:38:56 AM
Hypothetical: dad is given an old airplane and starts refurbishing it. Sibling 1 works with dad on this project for years. Making parts at sibling's business, assembly, doing at least half the work. Sibling 2 occasionally visits but has no interest in the plane. Dad gets sick and can’t do much anymore. Sibling 1 continues to work on the plane and finishes it. Dad soon dies and leaves everything 50/50. There’s property, cash, and investments of $1m, and the plane. Plane is valued at $200k.QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Siblings each get $500k (less estate costs) from the property, cash, and investments, that's clear. What about the plane?
Post by: Villanelle on October 29, 2023, 11:57:34 AM
Hypothetical: dad is given an old airplane and starts refurbishing it. Sibling 1 works with dad on this project for years. Making parts at sibling's business, assembly, doing at least half the work. Sibling 2 occasionally visits but has no interest in the plane. Dad gets sick and can’t do much anymore. Sibling 1 continues to work on the plane and finishes it. Dad soon dies and leaves everything 50/50. There’s property, cash, and investments of $1m, and the plane. Plane is valued at $200k.QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Siblings each get $500k (less estate costs) from the property, cash, and investments, that's clear. What about the plane?
Dad and sibling 1 should have worked that out ahead of time. It's not "not spliting 50/50, or unfair" to account for that. "Because Sib1 has put in time, effort, and expense on the plane, that shall be excluded from the 50/50 split. To account for their investment of time, Sib1 will get 75% of the proceeds on the plane if sold, and first right of refusal to buy out Sib2 as FMV before it is sold."
To me, that's not diverging from a 50/50 split any more than would be saying, "Sib2 borrowed $50k from the estate so the even split should take that into account before the split is calculated.
Again, dad should account for this stuff ahead of time and discuss if with both siblings, and record his solution in the will with specifics.
Right now, my sister and I are set to split our parents' estate evenly. However, my parents carry the mortgage on our house. (We pay them monthly, with interest, and there is a lien on the home to make it official.) If the estate is $1m (to include the value of the loan) and I owe them $100k, I don't expect to get $500k. My sister would get half of the non-mortgage assets ($450k), plus half of the mortgage asset ($50k), bringing her total to $500k, which is half of the $1m estate for her, as it should be. I wouldn't walk away with the same $500k, even though it is a 50/50 split, because I have what is in effect a debt against my share.
Thankfully, my sister is aware of the mortgage, my mom keeps meticulous records (recording in her book every month that I have paid, even though the amount is always the same, as is the date of payment. She wants it written down that she got each and every payment. I also pay by paper check--her preference--so there are records of what I paid and of the deposits on her end). And there is the lien. And income tax filings,in which we claim the interest paid and they report the same amount as income. So it is clear to all how this will play out. So my parents have done 3 things that will decrease the likelihood of drama--made everyone aware of the existence of the debt, made the debt official, and informed everyone of how the estate will settle. Of course nothing is totally drama proof and anyone can sue anyone about anything, but this seems pretty rock solid.
And it is still a 50/50 split, even is she gets a larger payment in the end, just as it would be 50/50 if airplane sib 1 walked away with a larger check than sib 2, because they in effect have a credit against the estate, if that's how dad decides to handle it.
Post by: AdrianC on October 30, 2023, 03:50:54 PM
Dad and sibling 1 didn't work it out ahead of time. It wasn't discussed.Hypothetical: dad is given an old airplane and starts refurbishing it. Sibling 1 works with dad on this project for years. Making parts at sibling's business, assembly, doing at least half the work. Sibling 2 occasionally visits but has no interest in the plane. Dad gets sick and can’t do much anymore. Sibling 1 continues to work on the plane and finishes it. Dad soon dies and leaves everything 50/50. There’s property, cash, and investments of $1m, and the plane. Plane is valued at $200k.QuoteSplitting everything 50/50 will cause family strife.
With 2 siblings, splitting everything 50/50 should not cause family strife. If one of the two thinks they "deserve more," then they need to get over themselves. Sheesh.
Siblings each get $500k (less estate costs) from the property, cash, and investments, that's clear. What about the plane?
Dad and sibling 1 should have worked that out ahead of time. It's not "not spliting 50/50, or unfair" to account for that. "Because Sib1 has put in time, effort, and expense on the plane, that shall be excluded from the 50/50 split. To account for their investment of time, Sib1 will get 75% of the proceeds on the plane if sold, and first right of refusal to buy out Sib2 as FMV before it is sold."
To me, that's not diverging from a 50/50 split any more than would be saying, "Sib2 borrowed $50k from the estate so the even split should take that into account before the split is calculated.
Again, dad should account for this stuff ahead of time and discuss if with both siblings, and record his solution in the will with specifics.
So, the sibs have to work it out. Some drama potential there, I believe.
Post by: saguaro on October 30, 2023, 04:34:50 PM
Seriously: If you care about the people who will deal with your detritus once you die - just go through it, winnow it down - and if you feel comfortable, start distributing items.
Financial side: Put beneficiaries on all of your accounts!
When my parents sold the house and downsized, they distributed a portion of the stuff (coin collection, some furniture) - which was good. Beneficiaries should all be in place.
Unfortunately, Dad was a pack rat and had been accumulating/hauling around boxes of... stuff... for over 30 years. Literally there were boxes I know were taped up in 1991, some are even older. He promised that in retirement he would sort through the stuff, but he never did. The only organization is the date stuff was packed in a box.
Dad died this spring. I've been primary on helping Mom deal with... everything.
Maybe 5% of stuff in the boxes is really cool/historical/milestone stuff. Maybe 10% is "Eh, okay - I could use it since it's here". Stuff like the blank notebooks. 85% is crap, some of which has PII for other people (name, birth date, SSN, etc) and really should be shredded. Mom is mostly pre-sorting/evaluating, I'm dealing with most of the disposal.
Realistically, I suspect it will be years before we finish going through it all. That's not even considering the boxes and boxes of family slides and photos that he was going to go through and get scanned.
Don't do this to your family. Go through your crap. Here's a method many people have suggested: https://www.thespruce.com/swedish-death-cleaning-4801461
@TomTX Sorry that you are going through this and I totally agree with getting rid of one's crap rather than leaving it to others (surviving spouse. siblings, kids etc.) to go through it.
My parents left us (myself and 2 siblings) a house full of stuff. They kept not only almost all their things, but my grandparent's things that were that were moved into the house after their passing as well. To be fair they did get rid of the very big items (camper, piano, heavy equipment, extra car that sat in the garage for years) but as age took their toll, they just stopped going through things and other items took up the space that was freed up.
I can't say enough how much of a burden it was to go through it all. Not to mention family members asking about things that were removed from the grandparents' homes. It seems my folks were to sort through things (Dad was executor of his parents' estate and moved their things into the attic in order to sell their house, my mother moved her mother's things into same attic when grandma had to move into a nursing home) and advise other family members about what they had, but it never happened. Now we had family members asking about things that disappeared decades ago and we had no idea where these things were. Some were found and given to whomever asked for them but other items were never found.
It made me even more determined to step up my own decluttering efforts. And not retain any more of my parents' things than absolutely necessary. The "last frontier" of my parents' things that I have to deal with is their film slides. Which I am getting ready to scan (just bought film scanner) and save as digital files. As for the slides themselves, they will be tossed afterward, but you would be surprised how many people think I should hold onto them "just to be sure". For what?
Interestingly enough, I learned from my cousin that my sister had requested return of photo albums after my uncle died last spring. These albums belonged to my grandparents and he asked for them. I figured that since these belonged to his parents, with my father (his brother) gone and my aunt (their sister) recently downsized into assisted living, he was the sole sibling who had the space and the willingness to take them. Once he passed away, my cousins didn't want them and returned to my sister at her request. Which is fine, I guess, but this is the same sister who complained more than any of us about all the stuff, yet moved more of my parents stuff into her home and then complained about about taking it. No one talked her into it. As for me and my other sister, we are just about all done except for the slide scanning which we split up that job.
Post by: iluvzbeach on October 30, 2023, 05:33:01 PM
Post by: Dicey on October 30, 2023, 06:14:06 PM
Once my parents died, my brother and I were co-executors. Parent's instructions were to divide the remaining assets evenly among the six of us. Black Sheep Sister (BSS) insisted that she was to get the car before the assets were distributed. She took the car immediately after my parents died, then had the nerve to call the police because other sister had "hidden" other jewelry. Other sister had indeed hidden the jewelry, but only to keep BSS from taking it. ARGH!
BSS hounded the shit out of my brother until he agreed to give her the car off the top. I have spoken to her only when necessary ever since. Mostly because I know she is a mooch and I'm done getting screwed over by her. The car business was the third time in our adult history...and I've learned my hard lessons.
Her last text to me was, "Do you still hate me?" A wee bit manipulative, dontcha think?
Post by: iris lily on October 30, 2023, 07:39:32 PM
So, the splitting of things:
My mom has two sisters. Their grandparents were all farmers. Parents were teachers (thanks, GI Bill). No one rich. But there was moderate drama over the stuff. The coin collection. The china, in particular. How do you divide two sets of china between 3 ladies? So much gnashing of teeth over these dishes. Multiple phone calls. Round and round. Who gets what? What is fair?
In the end, my Mom DNGAF and took a set of 6 from the one grandma who happened to have 18 plates, cups, saucers (cause, you know farmer-sized families back in the day.) That meant both of her sisters had "full" sets of 12, which they were adamant about. Uh huh. One sister had 2 kids and the other had one. Why you need 12 plates, cups, and saucers for that I have no idea.
My mom carefully stored the coveted china away and we never used it. Finally she gave it to my daughter, and I promptly accidentally broke one of the tea cups (whoops.) But there's this store called "Replacements." Guess what . . . ta da! Replacements had the pattern.
Did I have to look at a gazillion patterns that were almost-but-not-quite right to find it? Yes. Did I find it exactly? Yes. Do I now have another tea cup AND a matching gravy boat, sugar bowl, creamer, and serving platters? Totally dumb, but you know, it wasn't very much money at all. Turns out farmers in Idaho and Missouri did not exactly have Ming dynasty stuff. Lol, probably her sister, who was so adamant about having the set of 12, gave it to her now adult daughter who promptly sold it to Replacements only for me to buy it years later after it sat quietly in their inventory.
But, yeah, easier to split than a watch. Just let your sibling have the watch. Seriously.
Funny! And your family are rare birds indeed, to care about sets of China. No one cares about that anymore. I do not understand how Replacements stays in business, but it might well be for the situation you describe, people are trying to complete dead grandma’s sets of China to turn over to younger generations who Don’t give a damn about it.
Post by: Dicey on October 30, 2023, 09:17:59 PM
Touche.So, the splitting of things:
My mom has two sisters. Their grandparents were all farmers. Parents were teachers (thanks, GI Bill). No one rich. But there was moderate drama over the stuff. The coin collection. The china, in particular. How do you divide two sets of china between 3 ladies? So much gnashing of teeth over these dishes. Multiple phone calls. Round and round. Who gets what? What is fair?
In the end, my Mom DNGAF and took a set of 6 from the one grandma who happened to have 18 plates, cups, saucers (cause, you know farmer-sized families back in the day.) That meant both of her sisters had "full" sets of 12, which they were adamant about. Uh huh. One sister had 2 kids and the other had one. Why you need 12 plates, cups, and saucers for that I have no idea.
My mom carefully stored the coveted china away and we never used it. Finally she gave it to my daughter, and I promptly accidentally broke one of the tea cups (whoops.) But there's this store called "Replacements." Guess what . . . ta da! Replacements had the pattern.
Did I have to look at a gazillion patterns that were almost-but-not-quite right to find it? Yes. Did I find it exactly? Yes. Do I now have another tea cup AND a matching gravy boat, sugar bowl, creamer, and serving platters? Totally dumb, but you know, it wasn't very much money at all. Turns out farmers in Idaho and Missouri did not exactly have Ming dynasty stuff. Lol, probably her sister, who was so adamant about having the set of 12, gave it to her now adult daughter who promptly sold it to Replacements only for me to buy it years later after it sat quietly in their inventory.
But, yeah, easier to split than a watch. Just let your sibling have the watch. Seriously.
Funny! And your family are rare birds indeed, to care about sets of China. No one cares about that anymore. I do not understand how Replacements stays in business, but it might well be for the situation you describe, people are trying to complete dead grandma’s sets of China to turn over to younger generations who Don’t give a damn about it.
Post by: Freedomin5 on October 30, 2023, 10:35:48 PM
Related: My mom told us to initial the things we wanted after they were gone. My sister shimmied under the relatively new, paid-for car, and put her initials on it. She made no secret of it, but it was understood to be a joke.
Once my parents died, my brother and I were co-executors. Parent's instructions were to divide the remaining assets evenly among the six of us. Black Sheep Sister (BSS) insisted that she was to get the car before the assets were distributed. She took the car immediately after my parents died, then had the nerve to call the police because other sister had "hidden" other jewelry. Other sister had indeed hidden the jewelry, but only to keep BSS from taking it. ARGH!
BSS hounded the shit out of my brother until he agreed to give her the car off the top. I have spoken to her only when necessary ever since. Mostly because I know she is a mooch and I'm done getting screwed over by her. The car business was the third time in our adult history...and I've learned my hard lessons.
Her last text to me was, "Do you still hate me?" A wee bit manipulative, dontcha think?
Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if you just called her bluff and said, "Yes. You're being annoying."
Post by: Dicey on October 31, 2023, 08:23:02 AM
She doesn't attempt contact often, but keeps tabs on me through the family. The text came after a long silence. The question is very manipulative. It's like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" There is no good answer. BSS merely said something shocking to elicit a response, therefore the only answer is no answer. All she wants from me is money, and that's not happening. BSS has always done exactly what she wants to do, at any cost. While my siblings have reestablished contact with her, only to have been taken advantage of by her yet again, I'm not going down that path.Related: My mom told us to initial the things we wanted after they were gone. My sister shimmied under the relatively new, paid-for car, and put her initials on it. She made no secret of it, but it was understood to be a joke.
Once my parents died, my brother and I were co-executors. Parent's instructions were to divide the remaining assets evenly among the six of us. Black Sheep Sister (BSS) insisted that she was to get the car before the assets were distributed. She took the car immediately after my parents died, then had the nerve to call the police because other sister had "hidden" other jewelry. Other sister had indeed hidden the jewelry, but only to keep BSS from taking it. ARGH!
BSS hounded the shit out of my brother until he agreed to give her the car off the top. I have spoken to her only when necessary ever since. Mostly because I know she is a mooch and I'm done getting screwed over by her. The car business was the third time in our adult history...and I've learned my hard lessons.
Her last text to me was, "Do you still hate me?" A wee bit manipulative, dontcha think?
Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if you just called her bluff and said, "Yes. You're being annoying."
My parent's estate was modest. They lived well because my Dad had a great pension. The value of the car was significant, giving her at least 50% more than the rest of her siblings. That's not counting the ongoing cash infusions from my parents while they were alive, nor the $11k she stole from them to feed her casino habit. And of course, that's only the tip of the iceberg...but hey, this is the inheritance drama thread, right?
I used my share to start a Donor Advised Fund, because my parents were active volunteers. They were generous with their time and money in the community. I can trace my active volunteerism* and philanthropy efforts to what I learned by their example. I have given away almost as much as I received, and there is still almost twice that amount in the account, through the magic of compound interest. Meanwhile, BSS has squandered everything she stole (and Im not referring to the car) and inherited.
BSS is very smart and we had very similar opportunities in life. She always chose to play by her own rules, forever taking the path of least resistance. The state of her life is a direct result of her ongoing string(s) of choices. There are so many more stories I could tell, but I'd rather not keep them fresh in my mind. That, and my alarm just went off.
*I'm volunteering at the library all week, getting ready for one of our quarterly book sales. Gotta run, but thanks for asking.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on October 31, 2023, 08:32:35 AM
Related: My mom told us to initial the things we wanted after they were gone. My sister shimmied under the relatively new, paid-for car, and put her initials on it. She made no secret of it, but it was understood to be a joke.
Once my parents died, my brother and I were co-executors. Parent's instructions were to divide the remaining assets evenly among the six of us. Black Sheep Sister (BSS) insisted that she was to get the car before the assets were distributed. She took the car immediately after my parents died, then had the nerve to call the police because other sister had "hidden" other jewelry. Other sister had indeed hidden the jewelry, but only to keep BSS from taking it. ARGH!
BSS hounded the shit out of my brother until he agreed to give her the car off the top. I have spoken to her only when necessary ever since. Mostly because I know she is a mooch and I'm done getting screwed over by her. The car business was the third time in our adult history...and I've learned my hard lessons.
Her last text to me was, "Do you still hate me?" A wee bit manipulative, dontcha think?
A direct response would be: "Depends. What are you trying to gouge out of me this time?"
Post by: Dicey on October 31, 2023, 08:45:06 AM
Post by: Sandi_k on October 31, 2023, 09:51:22 AM
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
Exactly. My dad was a narcissist, and it drove him absolutely BONKERS that I wouldn't re-engage once I Dear John'd him....
To the point where my started sending postcards instead of letters (can't avoid reading them!). He also once sent a note to DH - urging him to get me back into communication and the dysfunctional dynamic - which just confirmed all the reasons I went No Contact.
Post by: jeninco on October 31, 2023, 11:56:10 AM
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
"Excuse me, who is this? Please remove me from your distribution list."
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2023, 12:58:41 PM
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
I'm so glad you recognize this for what it is.
Post by: Adventine on October 31, 2023, 01:48:34 PM
Post by: Omy on October 31, 2023, 02:07:07 PM
Post by: Freedomin5 on October 31, 2023, 03:51:22 PM
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
Makes sense. If there’s no good answer, then the best answer is no answer.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on October 31, 2023, 04:10:16 PM
AMEN! My mom redecorated her own house to sell. She had OLT (Old Lady Taste). The buyers ripped it all out. Related: I want to do minor updates NOW, so we can enjoy them and the house will be "recently updated" when we sell. DH is digging his heels in. Ugh.
Do it now! I regret so much the times we thought about upgrades, put them off, then did them for selling a house.
I did finally learn my lesson, did upgrades in my last house for me that later helped sell it. But they were not fancy upgrades, they were basics, like a light over the kitchen sink*. If a new owner wanted a different light, at least the wiring was there. I had already done the work of getting the electrician in.
*Snark comment - why do builders think that having a window in front of the kitchen sink plus one overhead light is enough? It gets dark early here in winter and that part of the kitchen gets super dark.
Thankfully dh can put in lights but we had the same predicament when we moved in up here in the frozen north!
Post by: saguaro on November 10, 2023, 03:27:30 PM
Ugh, @saguaro, it sounds like your sister feels there is a family obligation to hang onto that stuff and, since no one else will take it, all that responsibility falls square on her shoulders. Of course, she then feels resentment that it all falls on her shoulders. The obligation is imagined. I think there is a lot more of this out there than we even realize.
The obligation is indeed imagined. When we were going through my parents' house, she kept expressing guilt about donating/giving away/tossing things and anger when family members declined taking things like my grandparents' stuff. I kept telling her over and over, that these are just our parents' things and and not them, that getting rid of their stuff doesn't mean we didn't care about them, but she felt somehow like we shouldn't because she felt it was "erasing" them somehow. And I think that a lot of folks feel that way, my cousin lamented getting rid of her mother's things when my aunt moved into a nursing facility. My aunt agreed to downsize and give things to the family including pieces of furniture but what was not taken was boxed up and sent to cousin's sister because cousin couldn't deal with tossing stuff. Sister did not expect to get these items but now is having to sort through because it was just dumped on her doorstep.
Nope. The response is what she wants. Not giving it to her.
Exactly. My dad was a narcissist, and it drove him absolutely BONKERS that I wouldn't re-engage once I Dear John'd him....
To the point where my started sending postcards instead of letters (can't avoid reading them!). He also once sent a note to DH - urging him to get me back into communication and the dysfunctional dynamic - which just confirmed all the reasons I went No Contact.
Yep, no contact is the way to go every time. Had some family drama over the last year and a half pursuant to a couple of family members still angry (it has been years now) over the inheritance drama that went on between me and my sisters which was detailed in this thread. Which was none of their business, but some people just can't help themselves. Anyhoo, once things died down from the initial surge of outrage (sort of due to Covid and people having other concerns) one of the family busybodies attempted to stir things up again by contacting one of my sisters with a hand-slappy note (included in a Happy Anniversary card wtf) over her refusal to make nice. Sister did not respond. Same busybody relative then went off on me and my response was....zero. There's been other things and every time, I just do and say...nothing.
My sister, the recipient of the nasty note/anniversary card recently told me she regrets not responding because of the later drama and she's understandably pissed off over being excluded to a family wedding because of all this nonsense, but I told her it was best she refrain because I think things have ramped up as an attempt to get a response. IMHO it smacks of desperately trolling for a response, which can be mined for more continued drama and tales of woe and victimhood if you happen to take the bait.
Post by: Capsu78 on November 11, 2023, 09:40:19 AM
As for the slides themselves, they will be tossed afterward, but you would be surprised how many people think I should hold onto them "just to be sure". For what?
Tell those people they are welcome to hold onto them themselves.
When I decluttered for a house move several years ago, I had bins and bins of photo's, negs and slides, with no real filing system. Even though the Kodachrome, negs and slides have a quality above my scanned shots, took the plunge and shreded all of my original photos with few exceptions- already built photo albums, wedding pictures etc. Now the ability quickly locate past images outweighs the source photo's.
Post by: eyesonthehorizon on November 11, 2023, 08:57:32 PM
...there are amazing cast-iron pots and pans all over the place. I'll be thrilled to take, like, three. Perhaps 4: the tiny little ones would be great for heating up spices for indian dishes. ...Slightly off topic but if I understand your intended use properly, the downside with the very tiny pans for that ends up being that they take a good while to heat & cool for the few seconds the spices will be in the oil (this may be a feature rather than a bug somewhere colder than I am, provided you have the patience.) I got in the habit of using a small stainless steel saucepot for this - heats to a sear in less than a minute, very easy to scrape every last drop of spice-oil-paste back out again.
The little pans are, on the other hand, absolutely amazing for tiny pizzas, or tiny pies, or tiny lava cakes....
Post by: Sandi_k on November 11, 2023, 10:02:50 PM
The little pans are, on the other hand, absolutely amazing for tiny pizzas, or tiny pies, or tiny lava cakes....
Having just returned from a trip to Arizona, I suggest cast iron mini skillets and....QUESO FUNDIDO!
https://www.mexicoinmykitchen.com/queso-fundido-with-chorizo-recipe/
Post by: jeninco on November 14, 2023, 08:42:08 PM
...there are amazing cast-iron pots and pans all over the place. I'll be thrilled to take, like, three. Perhaps 4: the tiny little ones would be great for heating up spices for indian dishes. ...Slightly off topic but if I understand your intended use properly, the downside with the very tiny pans for that ends up being that they take a good while to heat & cool for the few seconds the spices will be in the oil (this may be a feature rather than a bug somewhere colder than I am, provided you have the patience.) I got in the habit of using a small stainless steel saucepot for this - heats to a sear in less than a minute, very easy to scrape every last drop of spice-oil-paste back out again.
The little pans are, on the other hand, absolutely amazing for tiny pizzas, or tiny pies, or tiny lava cakes....
Interesting point, and noted. I still haven't really created enough space to put all the cast iron in one place... (I have emptied just about all the food out of the kitchen so bugs and rodents are no longer a concern, and cleaned the bathroom -- which took about 6 hours in a Tyvec suit. Just clean your bathrooms regularly, kids!)
Post by: uniwelder on November 20, 2023, 08:33:28 PM
2 months ago, she delivered her will, medical directive, and power of attorney paperwork to me unannounced. It lists her husband as the executor for everything, and then my brother as secondary. There is a section for a trust in the will, with people I have never heard of before, listed as trustee. The medical directive and POA were created 4 years ago. The will was created 1 year ago.
I read it all over and was surprised she would entrust handling of her affairs, potentially while incapacitated or in a nursing home, to my brother. I finally talked to her about it today and am still quite confused. Its always difficult to have a conversation with her because she never tells the full truth. I can ask the same question a number of different ways and get different answers. Sometimes, after time has gone by, she forgets what lie she told me and accidentally the truth comes out. Here's what I got from the conversation---
1) She says if her husband passes away first, she wants my brother and I to share all decisions and responsibilities 50/50. When creating the will (she lives in New Jersey), the lawyer told her only two people (primary and secondary) can be listed as executors, so she chose her husband and then my brother for everything. Since it isn't allowed in the document prepared by the law office, the lawyer told her she can make her own alterations separately, to then be distributed to my brother and I. Her husband and my brother supposedly know her wishes and necessary information, while I know nothing. In the 4 years (medical and POA) and 1 year (will) since making these original documents, she hasn't updated anything yet to my knowledge, and I'm not sure why she would wait this long to deliver documents to me that she doesn't intend to have followed.
2) A section of her will discusses a trust and then there are two people (not lawyers), listed as trustees, neither of whom I have ever heard before. When I asked about who they were, she said they have nothing to do with her estate and are people listed on her husband's trust to care for any possible inheritance to his granddaughter until she turns 21. When I told her there was no way this paper accidentally got mixed in with her will because her signature is on it and it follows the sequence of numbered pages, she insisted she has no idea what I'm talking about. I told her she needs to reread the will and have it corrected if what she is telling me is true, but she seemed to dismiss the idea.
3) An inheritance from my grandfather, that my mother previously said she was keeping out of her husband's hands (because he's a spendthrift) to pass on to my brother and I, is now apparently going to her husband if she dies first, so she says. My mom insists he will be making us the beneficiaries of the account, through a verbal understanding, so I shouldn't be concerned on losing out. I already assumed I wasn't going to inherit anything, but this really confirmed it.
My main fear is that if control goes to my brother, he'll simply push her off to the cheapest nursing care facility (or a closet) and go on with his life, draining her account as soon as possible. When my grandmother and grandfather were in nursing homes for the last years of their life, he only visited when forced by my parents, and hating every minute of it. I don't see my mother changing her will in any meaningful way, given the way she has been handling things so far. She has insisted her husband and my brother verbally assured her they will carry out her wishes, which is not comforting at all to me.
I'm very disheartened that the relationship with my mom has degraded so much over the past 10 or so years. I feel these documents are the final proof of the disdain my mother has for me. I haven't expressed these feelings to her. Emotional conversations have never gone anywhere productive and she becomes extremely defensive. Most of the times I talk with her, we keep the topics superficial because its impossible to agree that the sky is blue or 2+2=4. The insults she has delivered to my wife (she's Mexican) and her family have been astounding to hear, along with all the other nonsense that spews from her mouth. I'm not really interested in fixing the relationship with my mom, so this post is more of a venting than anything else.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on November 20, 2023, 10:05:01 PM
Post by: Adventine on November 21, 2023, 06:49:34 AM
Post by: Captain FIRE on November 21, 2023, 06:53:21 AM
I'm not really interested in fixing the relationship with my mom, so this post is more of a venting than anything else.
I’m glad to hear that, because as it seems you’re well aware, your chances of changing anything are slim. Vent away, it sounds frustrating that she believes things will happen differently than documented, and for the strained relationship!
Post by: iluvzbeach on November 21, 2023, 08:53:46 AM
I had a very difficult relationship with my father & my spouse has a difficult relationship with his mother, along with “no contact” with his brother. These things are not easy and I’m sorry you have difficult family relationships on your plate.
Post by: Sibley on November 21, 2023, 08:56:40 AM
It sucks. I'm sorry.
Post by: iris lily on November 21, 2023, 10:31:06 AM
Our $340,000 investment ( family farm) is returning $6,000 annually. How about that! Isn’t that 1.76% return great!!!
Not.
When I pointed this out to DH in my ever helpful way, mentioning for the hundredth time what a DUMB idea it is to hang onto this farm, he cheerfully acknowledged it. No problem in his mind.
Sigh.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 21, 2023, 11:04:07 AM
I can add a complaint about inheritance! Just a whine, no solution sought.
Our $340,000 investment ( family farm) is returning $6,000 annually. How about that! Isn’t that 1.76% return great!!!
Not.
When I pointed this out to DH in my ever helpful way, mentioning for the hundredth time what a DUMB idea it is to hang onto this farm, he cheerfully acknowledged it. No problem in his mind.
Sigh.
Well, 1.76% is better than the old farmer joke.
How does a farmer get $1,000,000? He starts out with $2,000,000. ;-)
Post by: iris lily on November 21, 2023, 11:50:25 AM
Your mother is entitled to make her own decisions. Even if they're really bad or nonsensical ones. All you can do is make your peace that it's going to be a shitshow, and decide what level of involvement you're comfortable having in that shitshow.
It sucks. I'm sorry.
This is, unfortunately, the way it is.
uniwelder, I also offer the idea that your brother may not be skating along with tons of your mom’s money (unless she a tually HAS tons). In my Midwestern experience with nursing homes, the not-great ones are not necessarily distinguished from the better ones by cost. And any Medicare bed your mother lands in would mean all of her assets are gone and there is a legally mandated “look back” period of several years to see where those assets went. Bro could owe the gubmnt lotsa money.
Post by: Villanelle on November 21, 2023, 12:30:17 PM
I'm under no illusion that that isn't much easier said than done, but please remember that and hold on to it. You respect her right today to make whatever decisions she wants, and then you respect that she lives with those outcomes.
Still shit-hard to watch it play out, though.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on November 21, 2023, 02:41:12 PM
Post by: Frugal Lizard on November 21, 2023, 03:35:42 PM
Post by: uniwelder on November 21, 2023, 04:44:32 PM
Your mother is entitled to make her own decisions. Even if they're really bad or nonsensical ones. All you can do is make your peace that it's going to be a shitshow, and decide what level of involvement you're comfortable having in that shitshow.
Yes, that's something I've been contemplating quite a bit. Part of me just wants to lose contact and stay away.
uniwelder, I also offer the idea that your brother may not be skating along with tons of your mom’s money (unless she a tually HAS tons). In my Midwestern experience with nursing homes, the not-great ones are not necessarily distinguished from the better ones by cost. And any Medicare bed your mother lands in would mean all of her assets are gone and there is a legally mandated “look back” period of several years to see where those assets went. Bro could owe the gubmnt lotsa money.
Good point that I haven't thought about. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he opts to take care of her at home and she happens to pass away within a month.
Post by: jeninco on November 21, 2023, 04:53:57 PM
Your mother is entitled to make her own decisions. Even if they're really bad or nonsensical ones. All you can do is make your peace that it's going to be a shitshow, and decide what level of involvement you're comfortable having in that shitshow.
Yes, that's something I've been contemplating quite a bit. Part of me just wants to lose contact and stay away.uniwelder, I also offer the idea that your brother may not be skating along with tons of your mom’s money (unless she a tually HAS tons). In my Midwestern experience with nursing homes, the not-great ones are not necessarily distinguished from the better ones by cost. And any Medicare bed your mother lands in would mean all of her assets are gone and there is a legally mandated “look back” period of several years to see where those assets went. Bro could owe the gubmnt lotsa money.
Good point that I haven't thought about. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he opts to take care of her at home and she happens to pass away within a month.
Ouch. But, again, you can't care more than she does.
I mean, assuming you don't think she's being outright abuses (which you might, maybe, be able to report as "abuse of a vulnerable senior" or some such) there's really nothing you can do. As has been said, she's an adult and can make her own decisions.
I'm so sorry. Watching the sort of thing can be brutal.
Post by: Zamboni on November 22, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
It's difficult to have family members who are detached from reality and influenced heavily by people who we can clearly see don't have their best interests in mind. But, as others have said and you seem to already realize, there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.
Post by: Villanelle on November 22, 2023, 03:50:42 PM
uniwelder, it sounds like she's pretty detached from reality, especially since she says she wants you and your brother to make decisions "50/50," but you are not in communication with your brother. Even if that was in the documents, which it isn't, it isn't a viable plan. Like somehow she is going to force that relationship back together by being incapacitated and expecting the two of you to problem solve jointly on her behalf? Makes no sense, as you said.
It's difficult to have family members who are detached from reality and influenced heavily by people who we can clearly see don't have their best interests in mind. But, as others have said and you seem to already realize, there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.
My take away was slightly different. I sort of assumed she doesn't actually want Uni and Bro to make decisions 50/50, just like she doesn't actually think the trust document was simply a misplaced page from her husband's paperwork. She just doesn't have the courage to actually state her wishes and is just avoiding the conflict, pushing it onto her children to sort out when she's gone. It's hard to straight up tell your child, "I am giving control to your brother, not you." That's even more true when the bro has a history of irresponsibility and deep down the mom has some sense it may not be a fantastic idea. So instead of having the hard conversations, she avoids them by playing ignorant.
Maybe that's a misread of the situation, but it was how I read it.
Post by: uniwelder on November 23, 2023, 11:13:03 AM
uniwelder, it sounds like she's pretty detached from reality, especially since she says she wants you and your brother to make decisions "50/50," but you are not in communication with your brother. Even if that was in the documents, which it isn't, it isn't a viable plan. Like somehow she is going to force that relationship back together by being incapacitated and expecting the two of you to problem solve jointly on her behalf? Makes no sense, as you said.
It's difficult to have family members who are detached from reality and influenced heavily by people who we can clearly see don't have their best interests in mind. But, as others have said and you seem to already realize, there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.
My take away was slightly different. I sort of assumed she doesn't actually want Uni and Bro to make decisions 50/50, just like she doesn't actually think the trust document was simply a misplaced page from her husband's paperwork. She just doesn't have the courage to actually state her wishes and is just avoiding the conflict, pushing it onto her children to sort out when she's gone. It's hard to straight up tell your child, "I am giving control to your brother, not you." That's even more true when the bro has a history of irresponsibility and deep down the mom has some sense it may not be a fantastic idea. So instead of having the hard conversations, she avoids them by playing ignorant.
Maybe that's a misread of the situation, but it was how I read it.
Thank you for the insightful responses. Both of these ring true. I think she has both of these ideas in mind, even though they aren't compatible together. As said, she is detached from reality. Plenty of other unrelated conversations with her go the same way.
Post by: Frugal Lizard on November 23, 2023, 11:35:41 AM
Fortunately my youngest brother made our mother add me on as back up. Which was a good idea because he is a pilot and typically does transatlantic flight routes and can be unreachable for 4 day stretches.
Post by: iluvzbeach on November 23, 2023, 12:42:34 PM
There can be many reason why a parent makes the choices they do. My mom picked the least capable of three offspring to handle every part of her advanced care and estate. There are moments when I can tell she regrets her choice. She has twice told me she picked my youngest brother so he can learn about financial matters. Gee Mom, great idea.
Fortunately my youngest brother made our mother add me on as back up. Which was a good idea because he is a pilot and typically does transatlantic flight routes and can be unreachable for 4 day stretches.
If she regrets her choice, is still alive & competent, it’s not too late for her to change it…
Post by: Frugal Lizard on November 23, 2023, 01:10:11 PM
alas she is no longer competent. In hindsight she probably was barely competent when she made the choice. And even now, there are only moments she has regret. Just as many moments that she expresses her satisfaction with her wisdom.There can be many reason why a parent makes the choices they do. My mom picked the least capable of three offspring to handle every part of her advanced care and estate. There are moments when I can tell she regrets her choice. She has twice told me she picked my youngest brother so he can learn about financial matters. Gee Mom, great idea.
Fortunately my youngest brother made our mother add me on as back up. Which was a good idea because he is a pilot and typically does transatlantic flight routes and can be unreachable for 4 day stretches.
If she regrets her choice, is still alive & competent, it’s not too late for her to change it…
Moral of my mother's story: plan early, plan often and plan for the worst.
Post by: Capsu78 on December 07, 2023, 09:24:26 AM
https://www.phillymag.com/be-well-philly/2023/12/05/family-estrangement/
Post by: AdrianC on December 08, 2023, 07:42:40 AM
Probate granted 3 months ago (this is in the UK - probate is required), and nothing since. The solicitor handling it is "gathering the assets", bank, brokerage, mutual funds, bonds, nothing special at all, no property to be sold. The executor (sibling) is reluctant to push the solicitor for information. All I know for the most part is publicly available information. I don't know what went into the probate value.
It's a touchy subject between us. I get short answers if I ask about the solicitor or progress. Must take a softly-softly approach, which isn't my style at all. I'd on the phone to that solicitor asking WTH is going on.
Post by: Sibley on December 08, 2023, 07:51:19 AM
Post by: Dicey on December 08, 2023, 09:05:23 AM
AdrianC, what are the consequences if you don't meet the 3 month deadline (I'm not sure if you're 9 months past that deadline or still within it). Because if you're going to face real consequences, then it's reasonable to push. Even if your sibling doesn't want to.This. Plus, I kind of wonder if the solicitor earns more the longer it drags out.
Post by: AdrianC on December 08, 2023, 03:09:37 PM
AdrianC, what are the consequences if you don't meet the 3 month deadline (I'm not sure if you're 9 months past that deadline or still within it). Because if you're going to face real consequences, then it's reasonable to push. Even if your sibling doesn't want to.Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear. Probate was applied for and then was granted 3 months ago. The grant of probate allows the executor to collect and distribute the assets according to the will, but there is no deadline on when this has to be done. There is the "executor's year" - the executor has a year after the death to distribute the assets - but if I understand correctly, it's more of a guide than a rule. Dragging it out does mean more billable hours for the solicitor, I'm sure.
Post by: Zamboni on December 09, 2023, 06:34:12 AM
Post by: zolotiyeruki on December 09, 2023, 02:33:40 PM
Post by: Sibley on December 09, 2023, 04:28:35 PM
AdrianC, what are the consequences if you don't meet the 3 month deadline (I'm not sure if you're 9 months past that deadline or still within it). Because if you're going to face real consequences, then it's reasonable to push. Even if your sibling doesn't want to.Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear. Probate was applied for and then was granted 3 months ago. The grant of probate allows the executor to collect and distribute the assets according to the will, but there is no deadline on when this has to be done. There is the "executor's year" - the executor has a year after the death to distribute the assets - but if I understand correctly, it's more of a guide than a rule. Dragging it out does mean more billable hours for the solicitor, I'm sure.
Yeah, good luck. I am not ok with people dragging their feet forever on necessary paperwork. If your sibling is just struggling to cope, maybe you could offer to handle it? I don't know the rules obviously, but figuring out what options you have is a good idea.
Post by: nick663 on December 09, 2023, 06:39:40 PM
I can add a complaint about inheritance! Just a whine, no solution sought.This seems to be the way they go. My parents are partners in a family farm (by inheritance) and their portion is worth a similar amount. They received a distribution of $3,800 last year.
Our $340,000 investment ( family farm) is returning $6,000 annually. How about that! Isn’t that 1.76% return great!!!
Not.
When I pointed this out to DH in my ever helpful way, mentioning for the hundredth time what a DUMB idea it is to hang onto this farm, he cheerfully acknowledged it. No problem in his mind.
Sigh.
Post by: uniwelder on December 10, 2023, 10:10:20 AM
I think I've been written out of my mother's will. We have a strained relationship...
...was surprised she would entrust handling of her affairs, potentially while incapacitated or in a nursing home, to my brother.
OP here with a small update--- My mom called me the other day in some attempt to instill confidence that everything is fine. It hasn't helped any, but I think rather than conscientious decisions, I'm leaning more toward her being simply clueless.
1) She offered to send me a list of her information for various accounts and beneficiaries with current balances. We both agreed this could be very useful if I should need the info.
2) She still insists she has no trust in her name and further explained how the trust for her husband is set up for his granddaughter, in the event anything should happen to his son before the granddaughter turns 21. The people listed in my mom's will as trustees are friends of the son. She cannot explain why they are listed as trustees in her will, and wouldn't answer my question as to whether she has even read that section of her will. Seems to be a little pesky detail that I keep nagging about for no good reason.
3) Since my brother and I don't talk to each other, he's a financial mess, and completely untrustworthy in my opinion, my mother attempted to give some assurances about him being executor and POA. She told me that everything goes through the lawyer anyway, so executor doesn't have any power to prevent an inheritance from being distributed. I was totally confused and said "the only reason for the lawyer to be involved is if there is a lawsuit", to which my mom insisted lawyers do all the legal account work. When her father died, her and her sister sat in a lawyer's office where he split up the various funds between them, so it would be the same for us. I then explained that would have been because a lawyer was named as executor but my mom just shrugged it off. I then tried asking if she understood what the role of the executor was, the work it entails, and that if she wants everything to go smoothly, why not use the lawyer as the executor of her will? She wouldn't answer and seemed dismissive.
I don't intend to engage further with my mom about this. My aunt is very level headed and the person I have gone to for serious discussions. I wasn't about to involve her originally, but seeing how my mom doesn't understand what's going on, I thought it's worth having a conversation. My aunt can decide whether she wants to bring any of this up with my mom.
Post by: AMandM on December 10, 2023, 10:45:56 AM
I don't intend to engage further with my mom about this. My aunt is very level headed and the person I have gone to for serious discussions. I wasn't about to involve her originally, but seeing how my mom doesn't understand what's going on, I thought it's worth having a conversation. My aunt can decide whether she wants to bring any of this up with my mom.
That sounds like a wise course of action on your part (both not engaging with your mother and giving your aunt a heads-up).
Post by: Sibley on December 10, 2023, 12:24:13 PM
Post by: Dancin'Dog on December 10, 2023, 01:33:34 PM
Post by: Apples on December 10, 2023, 05:45:40 PM
Post by: uniwelder on December 10, 2023, 06:34:04 PM
I agree with the others. In addition, your other next best option might be telling your mom about something your friend is going through. Note that this story is fictional and you can base it on what you're worried about.
This would never work. Maybe if one of her friends described a story like this, she would pay attention, but I'm much too blunt and honest. Also, even in a regular conversation, with actual events, I don't think my mom listens to or believes anything I say if it goes against her preconceived views.
Post by: NorthernIkigai on December 11, 2023, 02:08:50 AM
A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
What the actual fuck?
Post by: AMandM on December 11, 2023, 08:47:35 AM
A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
What the actual fuck?
I hope she kicked those teenage relatives out of her house before dinner was served. Along with any other relatives who objected to the bullies being kicked out.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on December 11, 2023, 03:57:43 PM
A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
What the actual fuck?
I hope she kicked those teenage relatives out of her house before dinner was served. Along with any other relatives who objected to the bullies being kicked out.
If she knew about it at the time. Most likely she found out about it after the fact. Bullies are *very* good at noticing when possible protectors are otherwise occupied. Sending younger kids away "to play together" while the food preparation and cleanup are underway is very common.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on December 11, 2023, 04:53:21 PM
My cousin was a mentally unstable predator. After dinner on every holiday my other cousins, my sisters and myself all had to hang out together with him. We stayed as far away as possible and never let him near any of our children. Parents see what they want to see.A relative of mine hosted a bunch of family for thanksgiving, and is now >||< this close to cutting off a couple of teenage relatives due to their behavior towards her kids. We're talking bullying and sexual harassment to the point the kid hid for most of the day.
What the actual fuck?
I hope she kicked those teenage relatives out of her house before dinner was served. Along with any other relatives who objected to the bullies being kicked out.
If she knew about it at the time. Most likely she found out about it after the fact. Bullies are *very* good at noticing when possible protectors are otherwise occupied. Sending younger kids away "to play together" while the food preparation and cleanup are underway is very common.
Post by: SwordGuy on January 03, 2024, 05:16:20 PM
We all dreaded whether the batshit-cray-cray narcissistic other sister was going to show up for the funeral and pull the drama-queen stunts she did for her father's funeral.
So much so that her 3 siblings seriously debated not telling her about the funeral until after it was over. These are nice people but they've been pushed and pushed into that solid a dislike of their sister over the last 50+ years.
In the end, they told her and, probably not having any money to make the trip, she chose not to come. I'm sure one of them would have paid for her to come if she had asked even vaguely nicely. Can't say they were sad about her absence.
So, we've long expected the sister would be a total horse's ass about the will and the distribution of assets. The first part of the assets were under accounts that had account beneficiaries with set percentages. So the companies just do it, period, with no one really getting much (if any) of a say otherwise.
There's just one investment account remaining that has not yet been distributed. Apparently, it's going by the will, not set beneficiaries. It's supposed to be divided equally into 4 parts. Should be easy, right?
Well, I would like to say the sister has behaved admirably, but it would be more accurate to state she has performed as expected.
This is my 3rd hand understanding of what's going on.
The sister, we'll call her "Judy", is refusing to sign the papers that would cause these funds to be disbursed. First, she explained she had converted to become a Jew and wouldn't sign any papers her rabbi didn't approve of. Now she's saying that she was "dad's favourite" and because of that, she should get 100% of this money. I've suggested we explain to her she might or might not have been "dad's favourite", but dad gave all his money to her mother, his wife, and not her. And clearly, whether or not she was "mom's favourite," mom chose to divide the money equally.
Now, personally, I think that Judaism gets a bad rap by all the bigots out there, so let's be clear the religion we're really discussing is Judyism.
And, to be fair, it's important to know that, as far as we could tell, she used to be a member of some religion of the month club. She would latch onto some religious skeaze who said things she liked and loudly "join" that religion, i.e., spout its BS until she found someone else's BS she liked better. My personal fave was a preacher out in California who preached that if you did something and you felt good about it, that was God's way of telling you it was the right thing to do. Boy, howdy, did "Judy" latch onto that doctrine. Jeffrey Daumer, that serial murderer who killed, dismembered and ate 17 young men (that we know of) could follow that doctrine and like it. But I digress.
Anyway, the funny thing is that of the 4 siblings, she is the only one who's not financially well off. Two of the siblings could hand this money - estimated at $150,000 - to the nearest wino stumbling by and it wouldn't affect their finances one whit. (My wife is one of them.) The other would **wants** the money but doesn't **need** the money. She, on the other hand, does need it, unless she's found a sugar daddy.
Now, I don't know, but I guess that she's already blown thru the sizeable chunk of money that's already been disbursed. Time will tell on that. I would be surprised if she hadn't.
At some point, the executor of the will will get tired of pissing around with her and point out a few obvious points. 1st, the executor gets paid for their time and trouble, and the more trouble she makes, the more they'll end up getting paid. Since the executor is one of the brother's wives, she'll just be transferring more of her share to one of her brothers with her antics. And since they were planning on doing the work without getting paid, as a courtesy to their siblings, it will come with a nice price tag. They can then keep that fee for themselves (the rest of us are JUST FINE with that, or if "Judy" really pisses them off, they'll divide it into 3 parts and divvy it up between "Judy's" two brothers and sister. And take "Judy" to court over it, the judge will divide the assets according to the will, and "Judy" will pay EVERYONE'S legal expenses. Since one of the brothers is a lawyer, he could accept that money (the two reasonable siblings are JUST FINE by that) or he can divvy it up into three parts and give everyone but "Judy" their portion. In other words, THANKS FOR BEING AN ASS THIS TIME, because it's the first time she's ever been an ASS in a way that's benefitted her other family members!
But hey, some people just have to learn the hard way.
It remains to be seen whether she is one of them.
Post by: Blackeagle on January 03, 2024, 05:38:54 PM
But hey, some people just have to learn the hard way.
Some people learn the easy way. Some people learn the hard way. Some people don’t learn at all.
Sorry your wife and her two reasonable siblings have to go through this.
Post by: iluvzbeach on January 03, 2024, 07:23:56 PM
Post by: Catbert on January 04, 2024, 12:59:41 PM
Judyism is right up there with George Santos' jew-ish.
Post by: AdrianC on January 23, 2024, 04:22:45 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel
"Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
- someone is given a clear assurance that they will acquire a right over property,
- they reasonably rely on the assurance,
- they act substantially to their detriment on the strength of the assurance, and
- it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance.
If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances."
Example would be a farmer promises his son "all this will be yours" and son works for starvation wages for decades on that promise. Farmer dies with no will, farm has to be shared amongst the son and siblings. Son may have a claim using "proprietary estoppel".
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 23, 2024, 09:34:10 AM
Here's a UK law concept I just came across: "proprietary estoppel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel
"Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
- someone is given a clear assurance that they will acquire a right over property,
- they reasonably rely on the assurance,
- they act substantially to their detriment on the strength of the assurance, and
- it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance.
If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances."
Example would be a farmer promises his son "all this will be yours" and son works for starvation wages for decades on that promise. Farmer dies with no will, farm has to be shared amongst the son and siblings. Son may have a claim using "proprietary estoppel".
Another example: one of the adult children remains at home with Mom or Dad as they age, providing yard and house care and then caregiving to people whose health and sanity are declining. This adult child foregoes education and career, putting his or her sole effort into caregiving and freeing up all the other adult siblings to have their own lives and to find marriage partners, etc. In exchange the parent(s) promise to leave the adult child the house. Then the last parent dies intestate or writes a will that divides the property evenly among all the siblings.
Post by: eyesonthehorizon on January 27, 2024, 10:25:59 AM
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.Here's a UK law concept I just came across: "proprietary estoppel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel
"Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
- someone is given a clear assurance that they will acquire a right over property,
- they reasonably rely on the assurance,
- they act substantially to their detriment on the strength of the assurance, and
- it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance.
If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances."
Example would be a farmer promises his son "all this will be yours" and son works for starvation wages for decades on that promise. Farmer dies with no will, farm has to be shared amongst the son and siblings. Son may have a claim using "proprietary estoppel".
Another example: one of the adult children remains at home with Mom or Dad as they age, providing yard and house care and then caregiving to people whose health and sanity are declining. This adult child foregoes education and career, putting his or her sole effort into caregiving and freeing up all the other adult siblings to have their own lives and to find marriage partners, etc. In exchange the parent(s) promise to leave the adult child the house. Then the last parent dies intestate or writes a will that divides the property evenly among all the siblings.
Post by: Captain FIRE on January 27, 2024, 01:11:17 PM
*Louisiana is influenced by Napoleonic Code. No idea if they have it.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 29, 2024, 10:26:24 AM
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.Here's a UK law concept I just came across: "proprietary estoppel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel
"Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
- someone is given a clear assurance that they will acquire a right over property,
- they reasonably rely on the assurance,
- they act substantially to their detriment on the strength of the assurance, and
- it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance.
If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances."
Example would be a farmer promises his son "all this will be yours" and son works for starvation wages for decades on that promise. Farmer dies with no will, farm has to be shared amongst the son and siblings. Son may have a claim using "proprietary estoppel".
Another example: one of the adult children remains at home with Mom or Dad as they age, providing yard and house care and then caregiving to people whose health and sanity are declining. This adult child foregoes education and career, putting his or her sole effort into caregiving and freeing up all the other adult siblings to have their own lives and to find marriage partners, etc. In exchange the parent(s) promise to leave the adult child the house. Then the last parent dies intestate or writes a will that divides the property evenly among all the siblings.
In Acoma things are done this way, however disputes tend to be enforced by tribal government.
Post by: AdrianC on January 30, 2024, 05:47:33 AM
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.What Captain Fire wrote is the extent of my US knowledge.
My own case is in the UK and is somewhat similar to the "all this will be yours" scenario, with my younger brother being the son that stayed at home, me being the prodigal child.
We have an agreement in our case, just need the lawyer to actually do their job so we can finally get it done. 13 months and counting.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 30, 2024, 11:03:25 AM
@AdrianC or others - Is there any US equivalent law or precedent to this? I know of a case where rather than being divided among the family, such a property is being claimed by a different relative entirely. Due to being a sole caretaker, forgoing education & career for so long they have no information or any funds to begin to pursue legal defense.What Captain Fire wrote is the extent of my US knowledge.
My own case is in the UK and is somewhat similar to the "all this will be yours" scenario, with my younger brother being the son that stayed at home, me being the prodigal child.
We have an agreement in our case, just need the lawyer to actually do their job so we can finally get it done. 13 months and counting.
Jarndyce 2.0? I'm so sorry.
Post by: AdrianC on January 31, 2024, 07:07:30 AM
Jarndyce 2.0? I'm so sorry.Thanks for that. Had to look it up and I learned something.
We're not there...but I do wonder what the lawyer fees will be in the end. There is no litigation, just normal, everyday probate work. Why it should take so long is a mystery to me.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 07, 2024, 05:06:03 PM
My mother-in-law passed away in the fall. She had 4 children, 2 boys and 2 girls, one of whom is my wife.
We all dreaded whether the batshit-cray-cray narcissistic other sister was going to show up for the funeral and pull the drama-queen stunts she did for her father's funeral.
So much so that her 3 siblings seriously debated not telling her about the funeral until after it was over. These are nice people but they've been pushed and pushed into that solid a dislike of their sister over the last 50+ years.
In the end, they told her and, probably not having any money to make the trip, she chose not to come. I'm sure one of them would have paid for her to come if she had asked even vaguely nicely. Can't say they were sad about her absence.
So, we've long expected the sister would be a total horse's ass about the will and the distribution of assets. The first part of the assets were under accounts that had account beneficiaries with set percentages. So the companies just do it, period, with no one really getting much (if any) of a say otherwise.
There's just one investment account remaining that has not yet been distributed. Apparently, it's going by the will, not set beneficiaries. It's supposed to be divided equally into 4 parts. Should be easy, right?
Well, I would like to say the sister has behaved admirably, but it would be more accurate to state she has performed as expected.
This is my 3rd hand understanding of what's going on.
The sister, we'll call her "Judy", is refusing to sign the papers that would cause these funds to be disbursed. First, she explained she had converted to become a Jew and wouldn't sign any papers her rabbi didn't approve of. Now she's saying that she was "dad's favourite" and because of that, she should get 100% of this money. I've suggested we explain to her she might or might not have been "dad's favourite", but dad gave all his money to her mother, his wife, and not her. And clearly, whether or not she was "mom's favourite," mom chose to divide the money equally.
Now, personally, I think that Judaism gets a bad rap by all the bigots out there, so let's be clear the religion we're really discussing is Judyism.
And, to be fair, it's important to know that, as far as we could tell, she used to be a member of some religion of the month club. She would latch onto some religious skeaze who said things she liked and loudly "join" that religion, i.e., spout its BS until she found someone else's BS she liked better. My personal fave was a preacher out in California who preached that if you did something and you felt good about it, that was God's way of telling you it was the right thing to do. Boy, howdy, did "Judy" latch onto that doctrine. Jeffrey Daumer, that serial murderer who killed, dismembered and ate 17 young men (that we know of) could follow that doctrine and like it. But I digress.
Anyway, the funny thing is that of the 4 siblings, she is the only one who's not financially well off. Two of the siblings could hand this money - estimated at $150,000 - to the nearest wino stumbling by and it wouldn't affect their finances one whit. (My wife is one of them.) The other would **wants** the money but doesn't **need** the money. She, on the other hand, does need it, unless she's found a sugar daddy.
Now, I don't know, but I guess that she's already blown thru the sizeable chunk of money that's already been disbursed. Time will tell on that. I would be surprised if she hadn't.
At some point, the executor of the will will get tired of pissing around with her and point out a few obvious points. 1st, the executor gets paid for their time and trouble, and the more trouble she makes, the more they'll end up getting paid. Since the executor is one of the brother's wives, she'll just be transferring more of her share to one of her brothers with her antics. And since they were planning on doing the work without getting paid, as a courtesy to their siblings, it will come with a nice price tag. They can then keep that fee for themselves (the rest of us are JUST FINE with that, or if "Judy" really pisses them off, they'll divide it into 3 parts and divvy it up between "Judy's" two brothers and sister. And take "Judy" to court over it, the judge will divide the assets according to the will, and "Judy" will pay EVERYONE'S legal expenses. Since one of the brothers is a lawyer, he could accept that money (the two reasonable siblings are JUST FINE by that) or he can divvy it up into three parts and give everyone but "Judy" their portion. In other words, THANKS FOR BEING AN ASS THIS TIME, because it's the first time she's ever been an ASS in a way that's benefitted her other family members!
But hey, some people just have to learn the hard way.
It remains to be seen whether she is one of them.
So, apparently whomever my SIL is trusting to give her advice has convinced her that signing the papers
and splitting everything equally in 4 parts is her best option.
My money is on said advisor being a religious leader who has their eye on a to-be-promptly-received sizeable donation. It would be par for the course.
Of course, we'll probably never know 'cause my wife wants nothing to do with her.
Post by: AMandM on February 07, 2024, 07:10:09 PM
So, apparently whomever my SIL is trusting to give her advice has convinced her that signing the papers
and splitting everything equally in 4 parts is her best option.
My money is on said advisor being a religious leader who has their eye on a to-be-promptly-received sizeable donation. It would be par for the course.
Of course, we'll probably never know 'cause my wife wants nothing to do with her.
To the first sentence: Yay!
To the second sentence: Meh. If Judy's going to blow through the money anyway with nothing to show for it, maybe some of it will go to do good if it gets donated?
To the third sentence: My sympathy to your wife, on this situation and on the deaths of her parents.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 07, 2024, 07:18:02 PM
You bet! Less hassle and more money. I don't wish my SIL ill, I just wish she would either turn into a person worth knowing by her siblings or never deal with her again.So, apparently whomever my SIL is trusting to give her advice has convinced her that signing the papers
and splitting everything equally in 4 parts is her best option.
My money is on said advisor being a religious leader who has their eye on a to-be-promptly-received sizeable donation. It would be par for the course.
Of course, we'll probably never know 'cause my wife wants nothing to do with her.
To the first sentence: Yay!
To the second sentence: Meh. If Judy's going to blow through the money anyway with nothing to show for it, maybe some of it will go to do good if it gets donated?Not likely. My favorite of the preachers she tried to get the family to support was out west. The catch phrase for this sect was on the lines of "If it feels good to you, that's God's way of telling you it's the right thing to do."
Pretty sure Jeffrey Daumer and Adolf Hitler could be happy following that creed.
Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
To the third sentence: My sympathy to your wife, on this situation and on the deaths of her parents.Thanks.
Post by: AMandM on February 08, 2024, 08:48:22 AM
Post by: Dave1442397 on February 09, 2024, 05:45:48 AM
Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
Post by: Catbert on February 09, 2024, 11:04:22 AM
Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Post by: Dicey on February 09, 2024, 12:40:37 PM
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Post by: solon on February 09, 2024, 01:00:16 PM
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
I once heard someone claim drink the kool aid was a racist expression. I was like, oh my god, it's sooooo much worse than that.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 09, 2024, 01:23:15 PM
Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Don't knock Jim Jones!
In addition to being a preacher, he was the world's finest boxer.
He killed 909 people with just one punch.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 09, 2024, 01:27:23 PM
Hey now, the stupid joke thread is thataway (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/tell-me-your-stupid-jokes/)!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Don't knock Jim Jones!
In addition to being a preacher, he was the world's finest boxer.
He killed 909 people with just one punch.
Post by: lhamo on February 09, 2024, 01:32:30 PM
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
It wasn't even Kool=Aid! It was Flavor-Aid (cheaper knock off).
Yes, I may have gone a bit too deep down the rabbit hole of high demand religions in the last few months....
Post by: Chaplin on February 09, 2024, 01:35:26 PM
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
Agreed! But when someone does use it, asking "so they're all dead?" leads to an interesting conversation.
Post by: Capsu78 on February 12, 2024, 05:33:18 PM
[/quote]
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
[/quote]
It wasn't even Kool=Aid! It was Flavor-Aid (cheaper knock off).
Yes, I may have gone a bit too deep down the rabbit hole of high demand religions in the last few months....
[/quote]
Correct- It was Flavor-aid which was cheaper because it didn't contain sugar in the ingredients. Whichever brand owned Kool Aid tried to tamp down the connection but the story itself was too grusome to make the distinction stick. We talked about this case in a Crisis Management exercise I was once involved with in my career.
Post by: ATtiny85 on February 16, 2024, 07:38:14 PM
Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
What’s wrong with the Tom Wolfe book? We might actually be a band of Merry Pranksters right here.
Post by: Dicey on February 16, 2024, 09:34:24 PM
Nothing, but that's not where the reference came from. If you're not sure, Google "Jonestown."Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
What’s wrong with the Tom Wolfe book? We might actually be a band of Merry Pranksters right here.
Post by: MrGreen on February 17, 2024, 12:21:00 AM
Wow. I knew of Jonestown and the origins of the "drank the kool-aid" reference but I never read about the incident itself. 909 people?! How incredibly sad.Regardless, one day said preacher stood up in front of their flock and said, "For years I've been telling you to do what feels right to you. Well, what would feel right to me is to take all the money and move to Hawaii." So they did.
At least they were upfront about it :) Most people would have just taken the money and disappeared without a word.
As a teenager, I thought starting a religion would be a great way to get rich.
You and Jim Jones although it ultimately didn't work out for him.
Don't knock Jim Jones!
In addition to being a preacher, he was the world's finest boxer.
He killed 909 people with just one punch.
Post by: ATtiny85 on February 17, 2024, 09:40:14 AM
Nothing, but that's not where the reference came from. If you're not sure, Google "Jonestown."Sidebar rant. That's why I despiiiise the expression "Drink/drank the Kool-Aid." People have no idea where it came from. Aaack!
What’s wrong with the Tom Wolfe book? We might actually be a band of Merry Pranksters right here.
Language evolves. Tom Wolfe said LSD and Kool Aid, some folks a decade later used it to describe Jonestown and that disaster of gullibility, and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning.
But I get it, you find it bad. But you should also get that not everyone does. Tricky stuff, slang.
Post by: eyesonthehorizon on February 17, 2024, 12:41:25 PM
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
Post by: Fresh Bread on February 17, 2024, 01:32:32 PM
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
I also took it to mean they'd been brainwashed & joined the company cult.
But has anyone got any inheritance stories?
I recently told my dad to give everything to my sister since she could use it more. He's altering his will. No drama.
Post by: Villanelle on February 17, 2024, 03:36:04 PM
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
I never applied it to just a workplace, but always knew the reference and understood the idiom to mean blind adherence and loyalty to leadership or people with authority or influence. (IOW, it doesn't have to be just a boss. Someone could "drink the kool-aid" by following the ridiculous or dangerous guidance of a social media influencer, for example.
While it's a bit dark, it seems entirely in line with the actual incident and makes perfect sense as an expression.
Post by: Dicey on February 18, 2024, 12:53:52 AM
I kept hearing it used in my field as a substitute for "someone's really on board" or "everybody needs to get on board", which totally pissed me off. Reason 9,768 to FIRE....and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
I never applied it to just a workplace, but always knew the reference and understood the idiom to mean blind adherence and loyalty to leadership or people with authority or influence. (IOW, it doesn't have to be just a boss. Someone could "drink the kool-aid" by following the ridiculous or dangerous guidance of a social media influencer, for example.
While it's a bit dark, it seems entirely in line with the actual incident and makes perfect sense as an expression.
Post by: auntie_betty on February 18, 2024, 01:21:08 AM
My husband did a deed of variation (I think????) so that his inheritance passed straight to his brother but in that case there was a will so guessing that was more straightforward?Jarndyce 2.0? I'm so sorry.Thanks for that. Had to look it up and I learned something.
We're not there...but I do wonder what the lawyer fees will be in the end. There is no litigation, just normal, everyday probate work. Why it should take so long is a mystery to me.
Post by: merula on February 19, 2024, 09:37:51 AM
But has anyone got any inheritance stories?
I recently told my dad to give everything to my sister since she could use it more. He's altering his will. No drama.
My grandpa is in his mid-90s, he married again later in life and they have kept their assets fairly separate with the idea that his kids and hers will inherit their parent's assets, not the step-parents. They still live independently, but are looking into nursing homes.
My mother's reading comprehension generally leaves something to be desired, and she apparently is freaking out because Grandpa's will says (1) that my aunt is the executor, but she passed away a few years ago, and (2) that grandpa's assets will be divided among his remaining living children.
I've never seen this will, but I've seen a few other wills, and they always have a provision for what to do if the executor is unavailable, and also something about the shares of children who predecease the parent flowing down to the children's heirs. This happened when my mom's maternal grandmother died; since her mother predeceased her grandma, she and her siblings split their mom's portion. It's not an emergency. My cousins aren't disinherited.
Post by: BlueHouse on February 19, 2024, 09:53:17 AM
...and now in the workplace it has yet another meaning. ...Does it? I was always aware of Jonestown & took it as very grim humor about what submitting to bosses & the workplace does to one's soul, I figured others understood the reference also. But apparently based on this conversation, that's perhaps not the case.
I never applied it to just a workplace, but always knew the reference and understood the idiom to mean blind adherence and loyalty to leadership or people with authority or influence. (IOW, it doesn't have to be just a boss. Someone could "drink the kool-aid" by following the ridiculous or dangerous guidance of a social media influencer, for example.
While it's a bit dark, it seems entirely in line with the actual incident and makes perfect sense as an expression.
Except that many of the people at Jonestown wanted to leave but were afraid for their lives. There were armed guards stopping people from leaving.
If you've seen the documentaries, especially the parts with Jackie Spier, you'll have a whole new appreciation for her. I had seen that documentary just a few months prior to the January 6th insurrection and couldn't help but think about her experiences and what a strong woman she is. Jan 6 would have been a massive PTSD trigger but she was able to speak and be helpful to the nation immediately afterwards. California has some remarkable congresspeople.
Post by: Sandi_k on February 19, 2024, 10:18:18 AM
My mother's reading comprehension generally leaves something to be desired, and she apparently is freaking out because Grandpa's will says (1) that my aunt is the executor, but she passed away a few years ago, and (2) that grandpa's assets will be divided among his remaining living children.
I've never seen this will, but I've seen a few other wills, and they always have a provision for what to do if the executor is unavailable, and also something about the shares of children who predecease the parent flowing down to the children's heirs. This happened when my mom's maternal grandmother died; since her mother predeceased her grandma, she and her siblings split their mom's portion. It's not an emergency. My cousins aren't disinherited.
Or maybe your mom's reading comprehension is just fine, and it's a poorly written will. Many attorneys are bad at this stuff, so they don't take into account the idea that a child can pre-decease their parent.
If your grandfather's will REALLY does pass along his assets to the surviving children, your cousins are screwed. And it's hard for the other kids to pass along assets to your cousins without complications, such as filing gift tax forms, etc.
I am ballsy, so I'd ask to see the will, just to make sure it doesn't need to be updated.
Post by: Captain FIRE on February 19, 2024, 10:34:51 AM
- per stripes (divides at first generation always regardless if everyone there is dead, and deceased share goes to their kids)
- per capita at each generation (split at equal shares for each living generation. If three kids, two deceased, sibling gets 1/3, and kids of deceased siblings split equally regardless of if one sibling had 4 kids and the other 1 kid).
- per capital with representation (divide at first generation with someone living, then down the bloodline sharing the amount their ancestor would have taken). A blend of the above two.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on February 19, 2024, 10:55:35 AM
Or it’s intentional. Common ways to divide an inheritance:
- per stripes (divides at first generation always regardless if everyone there is dead, and deceased share goes to their kids)
- per capita at each generation (split at equal shares for each living generation. If three kids, two deceased, sibling gets 1/3, and kids of deceased siblings split equally regardless of if one sibling had 4 kids and the other 1 kid).
- per capital with representation (divide at first generation with someone living, then down the bloodline sharing the amount their ancestor would have taken). A blend of the above two.
Or there's the Old Family Way: split evenly among adult offspring, and if one of them predeceases the testators, require that the deceased adult kid's share be redistributed among the surviving adult offspring, intentionally disinheriting the adult child's children or heirs. This occurs when the adult child in question is a female (i.e. married into someone else's family) or had children through adoption or any other method besides the traditional straight way.
Post by: merula on February 19, 2024, 11:54:53 AM
Or maybe your mom's reading comprehension is just fine, and it's a poorly written will.
That would be hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras. We're talking about the will of a man whose first wife died at 39, one child died at 33 and another at 61. He was deeply involved in his MIL's will, with per stipes that went down to the third generation due to these deaths. He also has always been extremely technical and detail-oriented.
We are also not talking about an amount that would trigger gift taxes if the surviving siblings were to distribute shares to their niblings even in the worst case scenario.
Post by: ToTheMoon on February 19, 2024, 11:55:52 AM
Or it’s intentional. Common ways to divide an inheritance:
- per stripes (divides at first generation always regardless if everyone there is dead, and deceased share goes to their kids)
- per capita at each generation (split at equal shares for each living generation. If three kids, two deceased, sibling gets 1/3, and kids of deceased siblings split equally regardless of if one sibling had 4 kids and the other 1 kid).
- per capital with representation (divide at first generation with someone living, then down the bloodline sharing the amount their ancestor would have taken). A blend of the above two.
Or there's the Old Family Way: split evenly among adult offspring, and if one of them predeceases the testators, require that the deceased adult kid's share be redistributed among the surviving adult offspring, intentionally disinheriting the adult child's children or heirs. This occurs when the adult child in question is a female (i.e. married into someone else's family) or had children through adoption or any other method besides the traditional straight way.
*Or when the deceased was terrified that some of their money was to end up in the hands of a spouse they were not a fan of.
My grandmother did this, and wound up disinheriting my cousin after cousins father died before his Mum. Siblings and I offered to split our shares to ensure they was covered, but my parent and her other sibling with means decided to cover it out of their shares and never mention it to the disinherited cousin. It would likely break their heart and ruin the memory of our grandmother if they were to find out.
Post by: SwordGuy on February 19, 2024, 12:25:08 PM
Give them a hug for being such wonderfully nice people.
My grandmother did this, and wound up disinheriting my cousin after her father died before his Mum. Siblings and I offered to split our shares to ensure she was covered, but my parent and her other sibling with means decided to cover it out of their shares and never mention it to the disinherited cousin. It would likely break her heart and ruin the memory of our grandmother if she were to find out.
Post by: SwordGuy on March 20, 2024, 05:26:09 PM
My mother-in-law passed away in the fall. She had 4 children, 2 boys and 2 girls, one of whom is my wife.
We all dreaded whether the batshit-cray-cray narcissistic other sister was going to show up for the funeral and pull the drama-queen stunts she did for her father's funeral.
So much so that her 3 siblings seriously debated not telling her about the funeral until after it was over. These are nice people but they've been pushed and pushed into that solid a dislike of their sister over the last 50+ years.
In the end, they told her and, probably not having any money to make the trip, she chose not to come. I'm sure one of them would have paid for her to come if she had asked even vaguely nicely. Can't say they were sad about her absence.
So, we've long expected the sister would be a total horse's ass about the will and the distribution of assets. The first part of the assets were under accounts that had account beneficiaries with set percentages. So the companies just do it, period, with no one really getting much (if any) of a say otherwise.
There's just one investment account remaining that has not yet been distributed. Apparently, it's going by the will, not set beneficiaries. It's supposed to be divided equally into 4 parts. Should be easy, right?
Well, I would like to say the sister has behaved admirably, but it would be more accurate to state she has performed as expected.
This is my 3rd hand understanding of what's going on.
The sister, we'll call her "Judy", is refusing to sign the papers that would cause these funds to be disbursed. First, she explained she had converted to become a Jew and wouldn't sign any papers her rabbi didn't approve of. Now she's saying that she was "dad's favourite" and because of that, she should get 100% of this money. I've suggested we explain to her she might or might not have been "dad's favourite", but dad gave all his money to her mother, his wife, and not her. And clearly, whether or not she was "mom's favourite," mom chose to divide the money equally.
Now, personally, I think that Judaism gets a bad rap by all the bigots out there, so let's be clear the religion we're really discussing is Judyism.
And, to be fair, it's important to know that, as far as we could tell, she used to be a member of some religion of the month club. She would latch onto some religious skeaze who said things she liked and loudly "join" that religion, i.e., spout its BS until she found someone else's BS she liked better. My personal fave was a preacher out in California who preached that if you did something and you felt good about it, that was God's way of telling you it was the right thing to do. Boy, howdy, did "Judy" latch onto that doctrine. Jeffrey Daumer, that serial murderer who killed, dismembered and ate 17 young men (that we know of) could follow that doctrine and like it. But I digress.
Anyway, the funny thing is that of the 4 siblings, she is the only one who's not financially well off. Two of the siblings could hand this money - estimated at $150,000 - to the nearest wino stumbling by and it wouldn't affect their finances one whit. (My wife is one of them.) The other **wants** the money but doesn't **need** the money. She, on the other hand, does need it, unless she's found a sugar daddy.
Now, I don't know, but I guess that she's already blown thru the sizeable chunk of money that's already been disbursed. Time will tell on that. I would be surprised if she hadn't.
At some point, the executor of the will will get tired of pissing around with her and point out a few obvious points. 1st, the executor gets paid for their time and trouble, and the more trouble she makes, the more they'll end up getting paid. Since the executor is one of the brother's wives, she'll just be transferring more of her share to one of her brothers with her antics. And since they were planning on doing the work without getting paid, as a courtesy to their siblings, it will come with a nice price tag. They can then keep that fee for themselves (the rest of us are JUST FINE with that, or if "Judy" really pisses them off, they'll divide it into 3 parts and divvy it up between "Judy's" two brothers and sister. And take "Judy" to court over it, the judge will divide the assets according to the will, and "Judy" will pay EVERYONE'S legal expenses. Since one of the brothers is a lawyer, he could accept that money (the two reasonable siblings are JUST FINE by that) or he can divvy it up into three parts and give everyone but "Judy" their portion. In other words, THANKS FOR BEING AN ASS THIS TIME, because it's the first time she's ever been an ASS in a way that's benefitted her other family members!
But hey, some people just have to learn the hard way.
It remains to be seen whether she is one of them.
So, apparently whomever my SIL is trusting to give her advice has convinced her that signing the papers
and splitting everything equally in 4 parts is her best option.
My money is on said advisor being a religious leader who has their eye on a to-be-promptly-received sizeable donation. It would be par for the course.
Of course, we'll probably never know 'cause my wife wants nothing to do with her.
Well, my lovely bride received her portion of the proceeds from the account today. And the proceeds came at the top of the market, too! :)
There's no need to deal with her sister anymore. :)
But maybe her brother will find out how quickly she pisses away the funds and pass the story on. I'll let y'all know if I find out.
My bet remains on "Getting scammed out of the money by a shyster religious figure."
Post by: iluvzbeach on March 20, 2024, 06:05:17 PM
Post by: sonofsven on March 21, 2024, 06:01:42 AM
Post by: Purple_Crayon on March 21, 2024, 08:45:59 AM
About 20 years ago, the house he lived in burned down, and he received a very large insurance payout for the SF home. He talked about how grateful he was to be alive, reveling in the attention, and about how he had "luckily" removed everything of value just days before and had boarded his animals when it happened. The majority of the family still thinks it was intentional.
About 10 years ago, he started a nonprofit dedicated to equal rights for a particular cross-section of marginalized peoples. He went on a slew of speaking engagements, often making the conversation about himself, and receiving numerous donations (including a rather large one from the founder of ebay). After winning "person of the year" from organizations that also support this movement, he was promptly removed as the leader of the non-profit because $50k had seemingly disappeared and he was the only person with access to it.
In the time since, he has entered into multiple frivolous lawsuits, typically suing the city in which he lives, seeking millions of dollars in damages. He tried unsuccessfully to get ppp loans during COVID for a business that has never made any money and only employs him. He constantly tried to pull me into his business ideas, which I won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago, when DW's grandma passed away (after three months in hospice at the age of 93). As the family has been going through the estate (that has almost nothing in it), they have found so far that:
- Uncle is an authorized user on all of her accounts, and has sent transfers to his accounts over a dozen times
- Uncle is on the title of her car, and is currently using it as collateral on a loan he has
- Uncle called DW's mom the day Grandma died to ask if Mom wanted to go to dinner because he "found $80 in their mom's wallet"
- Uncle had already removed countless items from the house without speaking to anyone
- Uncle wrote and published an obituary, about which he spoke with no one, and the whole thing is about him (and how he cared for her throughout her late struggles) -- he moved into her basement and lived there for free over the past decade or so while he took advantage of her
- Uncle suddenly found her will, for which he is the executor
As an outsider, I have found the entire thing fairly amusing, because I've known the man for 13 years, and predicted something like this was likely to happen. I've told DW multiple times over the past two weeks that it baffles me that people will fight over almost nothing (there's no house, no financial assets, one car, and a few things in the house). I witnessed a fight over a set of cups, about which Uncle said over and over: "these are collector's items; they're going for $40 apiece right now."
Shit be crazy, as they say.
Post by: Villanelle on March 21, 2024, 11:52:21 AM
DW's uncle is a character who has consistently shown his ego and his willingness to do anything for attention and resources.
About 20 years ago, the house he lived in burned down, and he received a very large insurance payout for the SF home. He talked about how grateful he was to be alive, reveling in the attention, and about how he had "luckily" removed everything of value just days before and had boarded his animals when it happened. The majority of the family still thinks it was intentional.
About 10 years ago, he started a nonprofit dedicated to equal rights for a particular cross-section of marginalized peoples. He went on a slew of speaking engagements, often making the conversation about himself, and receiving numerous donations (including a rather large one from the founder of ebay). After winning "person of the year" from organizations that also support this movement, he was promptly removed as the leader of the non-profit because $50k had seemingly disappeared and he was the only person with access to it.
In the time since, he has entered into multiple frivolous lawsuits, typically suing the city in which he lives, seeking millions of dollars in damages. He tried unsuccessfully to get ppp loans during COVID for a business that has never made any money and only employs him. He constantly tried to pull me into his business ideas, which I won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago, when DW's grandma passed away (after three months in hospice at the age of 93). As the family has been going through the estate (that has almost nothing in it), they have found so far that:
- Uncle is an authorized user on all of her accounts, and has sent transfers to his accounts over a dozen times
- Uncle is on the title of her car, and is currently using it as collateral on a loan he has
- Uncle called DW's mom the day Grandma died to ask if Mom wanted to go to dinner because he "found $80 in their mom's wallet"
- Uncle had already removed countless items from the house without speaking to anyone
- Uncle wrote and published an obituary, about which he spoke with no one, and the whole thing is about him (and how he cared for her throughout her late struggles) -- he moved into her basement and lived there for free over the past decade or so while he took advantage of her
- Uncle suddenly found her will, for which he is the executor
As an outsider, I have found the entire thing fairly amusing, because I've known the man for 13 years, and predicted something like this was likely to happen. I've told DW multiple times over the past two weeks that it baffles me that people will fight over almost nothing (there's no house, no financial assets, one car, and a few things in the house). I witnessed a fight over a set of cups, about which Uncle said over and over: "these are collector's items; they're going for $40 apiece right now."
Shit be crazy, as they say.
There's one of these in my life. 40-something unemployed alcoholic living in mom's guest room and presumably paying nothing at all (because other than a few stints working a few weeks or a couple days before getting let go, he has not job). But to hear him tell it, he's a martyr who lived there to help mom and stepdad because they wouldn't manage without him.
As far as we can tell, the mom's estate will be worth very little (she has a reverse mortgage, which doesn't exactly scream "I have a large estate"), and will likely be split in half. I think this guy expects to coast as a freeloader until his mom dies, and then live off the inheritance. I doubt the inheritance will be enough to fund one year of life for him, especially because when he did have his life somewhat together, it was all new gas-guzzling trucks and home remodels and he-can't-be-expected-to-live-in-anything-that-isn't-a-single-family-home mindsets.
I also expect that he will be pillage the possessions within 2 hours of finding out she has passed (which could certainly be a decade or more from now, and hopefully is).
Post by: SwordGuy on March 21, 2024, 02:17:13 PM
That's a lot of debt that could be paid down or a lot of savings that could be set aside! Or a down-payment for a house in my area.
It's so sad that some folks don't take advantage of the opportunity, they just take advantage of their host.
Post by: sonofsven on March 21, 2024, 04:24:14 PM
DW's uncle is a character who has consistently shown his ego and his willingness to do anything for attention and resources.
About 20 years ago, the house he lived in burned down, and he received a very large insurance payout for the SF home. He talked about how grateful he was to be alive, reveling in the attention, and about how he had "luckily" removed everything of value just days before and had boarded his animals when it happened. The majority of the family still thinks it was intentional.
About 10 years ago, he started a nonprofit dedicated to equal rights for a particular cross-section of marginalized peoples. He went on a slew of speaking engagements, often making the conversation about himself, and receiving numerous donations (including a rather large one from the founder of ebay). After winning "person of the year" from organizations that also support this movement, he was promptly removed as the leader of the non-profit because $50k had seemingly disappeared and he was the only person with access to it.
In the time since, he has entered into multiple frivolous lawsuits, typically suing the city in which he lives, seeking millions of dollars in damages. He tried unsuccessfully to get ppp loans during COVID for a business that has never made any money and only employs him. He constantly tried to pull me into his business ideas, which I won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago, when DW's grandma passed away (after three months in hospice at the age of 93). As the family has been going through the estate (that has almost nothing in it), they have found so far that:
- Uncle is an authorized user on all of her accounts, and has sent transfers to his accounts over a dozen times
- Uncle is on the title of her car, and is currently using it as collateral on a loan he has
- Uncle called DW's mom the day Grandma died to ask if Mom wanted to go to dinner because he "found $80 in their mom's wallet"
- Uncle had already removed countless items from the house without speaking to anyone
- Uncle wrote and published an obituary, about which he spoke with no one, and the whole thing is about him (and how he cared for her throughout her late struggles) -- he moved into her basement and lived there for free over the past decade or so while he took advantage of her
- Uncle suddenly found her will, for which he is the executor
As an outsider, I have found the entire thing fairly amusing, because I've known the man for 13 years, and predicted something like this was likely to happen. I've told DW multiple times over the past two weeks that it baffles me that people will fight over almost nothing (there's no house, no financial assets, one car, and a few things in the house). I witnessed a fight over a set of cups, about which Uncle said over and over: "these are collector's items; they're going for $40 apiece right now."
Shit be crazy, as they say.
My uncle, who is passed now, pulled similar stunts. He also moved in with his mother near her end and was a little loose with her money. My father was the executor so of course he reduced his brother's share accordingly, after going through the records.
A few years later my father received a tearful phone call from a woman none of us knew, asking very pointed questions about his brother and what property he owned (he didn't own any property).
Turns out she had a whirlwind affair with my uncle and got married, but he had told her a complete set of fabrications about his life; one, that he was a retired race car driver, two that he owned a lot of valuable waterfront property, and others, too, I'm sure.
He even drove her to the property and showed it to her. It wasn't far from the family waterfront property, which my dad bought.
She learned that everything he told her was a lie, and the marriage was annulled.
Post by: Capsu78 on March 23, 2024, 04:29:21 PM
Post by: Dicey on March 23, 2024, 06:36:18 PM
For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "
Post by: iris lily on March 24, 2024, 10:53:57 AM
Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
Post by: Dicey on March 24, 2024, 11:11:22 PM
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
Post by: iris lily on March 25, 2024, 07:35:23 AM
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
Oh, ok. I didnt find the film you watched but there are several on Prime with the words “Holiday, Christmas, Vintage, Winery” so that must be a sub genre of romance films.
I do not recommend the one shot in my home town. Not watchable, really.
Post by: iluvzbeach on March 25, 2024, 01:13:23 PM
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
Oh, ok. I didnt find the film you watched but there are several on Prime with the words “Holiday, Christmas, Vintage, Winery” so that must be a sub genre of romance films.
I do not recommend the one shot in my home town. Not watchable, really.
iris lily, I tried to watch "A Christmas Vintage" over the weekend after seeing the comments here. Tried is the key word. After about 10 minutes, I turned it off and removed it from my watchlist. I'm sure the scenary was nice but since I live in a victorian town in the middle of wine country, it isn't anything I don't see on a regular basis.
Post by: By the River on March 25, 2024, 08:50:52 PM
Post by: iris lily on March 26, 2024, 07:24:35 AM
It was called "Holiday in the Vineyards. It sure looked like California to me. Not a Victorian in sight.Are you talking about “a Christmas vintage? “ That was shot in my hometown. It is available on Prime.For those that can't get enough inheritance storys, there is a new series on Netflix called "The Gentleman" that plot sets up in E1 t the reading of a will in a dysfunctional family. Its a Guy Richie work so fair warning - ITS VIOLENT- but I found the story line to be a very clever one involving gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious types.I almost watched it today, but I really wanted to take a nap, so I watched a Christmas Romance instead, thinking I'd fall asleep. Alas, it was surprisingly entertaining, so no nap. I figured I'd have to be on my toes to follow a Guy Ritchie plot. Thanks for the confirmation.
P.S. I'm no pro at these holiday romances. I think it was called "Christmas in the Vineyards" or some such.
DH watched it in our Old downtown movie theater when they showed it to us locals. There was audience participation with everyone saying out loud things like “ oh, there’s my house! “Or “there’s Sarah standing in that crowd “and etc.
I watched it on streaming so that I can fast-forward through most of it. I only wanted to see the scenery. My hometown has 13 wineries and so old Victorian winery buildings are a prominent part of our architecture.
Oh, ok. I didnt find the film you watched but there are several on Prime with the words “Holiday, Christmas, Vintage, Winery” so that must be a sub genre of romance films.
I do not recommend the one shot in my home town. Not watchable, really.
iris lily, I tried to watch "A Christmas Vintage" over the weekend after seeing the comments here. Tried is the key word. After about 10 minutes, I turned it off and removed it from my watchlist. I'm sure the scenary was nice but since I live in a victorian town in the middle of wine country, it isn't anything I don't see on a regular basis.
Haha, thanks for trying!
Post by: partgypsy on March 27, 2024, 11:26:24 AM
Post by: Tasse on March 27, 2024, 11:28:28 AM
Post by: partgypsy on March 27, 2024, 11:36:31 AM
Congratulations on not getting yourself into the mess your brother is currently in.. My sister complained that, she can't leave mom bc she might fall. So I got a guardian alert thing, paid for a year up front. No change to sisters work habits. Even mom says she can be left alone...I also find it extremely frustrating, that much if not all of Mom's medical issues are from, poor diet (she basically wants to live off desserts) no exercise, and taking her medications apparently at random. It is not my sister's fault (she is more patient than I). Just that, sister also not working just puts more stress on my brother, and guilt on my mom for no benefit other than sister being able to claim martyr status. I don't care if I get a cut. But I feel that my brother has been screwed in this situation.
Post by: Villanelle on March 27, 2024, 12:16:26 PM
Congratulations on not getting yourself into the mess your brother is currently in.. My sister complained that, she can't leave mom bc she might fall. So I got a guardian alert thing, paid for a year up front. No change to sisters work habits. Even mom says she can be left alone...I also find it extremely frustrating, that much if not all of Mom's medical issues are from, poor diet (she basically wants to live off desserts) no exercise, and taking her medications apparently at random. It is not my sister's fault (she is more patient than I). Just that, sister also not working just puts more stress on my brother, and guilt on my mom for no benefit other than sister being able to claim martyr status. I don't care if I get a cut. But I feel that my brother has been screwed in this situation.
It does sound like he's currently getting screwed, and if your mom leaves everything to the freeloading sister, that seems even more unfair to me. (Yes, I know that no one is entitled to an inheritance, of course.) But the other side of this is that your brother continues to sing on for the current situation. He could ask your sister to leave, insist she find a way to contribute if she stays, or set some other boundary and he decides not to. While I know "throw your sister out" is easier said than done, he choice continues to enable her refusal to find a job, so it may not be the favor to her or good deed that it feels like. So he's not exactly a victim in all this, either.
But I say roughly the same things about MIL, who continues to let BIL freeload (and claim the same martyr status, though in his case, MIL is perfectly able-bodied and quite healthy for someone in her 70s). I have strong feelings about BIL's willingness to continue the arrangement, but I also recognize that MIL clearly gets something out of it or she wouldn't allow it to continue. Even if the "something" is avoiding a hard conversation with BIL, and possibly seeing him struggle (or even fail) to stand on his own two feet, she has decided that the juice isn't worth the squeeze and therefore allows the status quo. I have some sympathy for her because I'm sure having a failure-to-launch (or launched-briefly-then-divorced-and-returned-to-the-launch-pad-and-never-took-flight-again) son is painful and disappointing and sad. But she makes her choices and then lives in them.
Post by: NorthernIkigai on March 28, 2024, 01:41:08 AM
Thanks for sharing the posts. Don't really have anything to add. My situation is, my brother (who is the homeowner) has my sister and Mom living there for free. Basically, he is supporting them. My mom pays for groceries for her and my sister, maybe a couple bills? Sis works limited hours that is pocket change and contributes 0 money to household, for years. She does help mom with groc shopping and meals (but again is paid that way including cig purchases) mom has needed increased help in past year and a half, but sisters lack of work and financial dep very much predates that. My sister now says, when mom dies she should get 100% of inheritance. She works extremely limited hours. I am unclear whether she is even eligible for social sec, and if so how much, due to work history. I feel and have told her, she should really focus on working more so she is eligible for social sec. My brother is also fed up w the situation.
My feelings about this depend a bit on what size inheritance we are talking about. If large, I'd be pissed (being you or your brother). If not, meh. Except I might still require your sister to pay a bit of rent, if I were your brother (necessitating her to work more), and also possibly make it clear that the arrangement of her living there will not continue once your mother is gone (if that's the case).
Post by: partgypsy on April 02, 2024, 11:04:11 AM
Post by: Taran Wanderer on July 13, 2024, 01:11:37 PM
The drama part (and it’s not really that dramatic) is that they’re probably going to hand the money to their obnoxious (we went to school together) financial advisor who will make a pretty penny off of it with no value-added. They could start thinking about gifting to the grandkids, for example into their 529 accounts. This would be nice for us and super super nice for SIL and her family. Instead, DW and I expect they’ll sit on it and end up splitting it between DW and SIL in 20-25 years rather than get some joy out of helping build their grandkids’ futures, and taking family vacations, or something else meaningful to them while they are alive.
In the end, it’s none of my business, and I’ll keep my mouth shut, but it’s a good reminder to me to not be a miser. Resources like these are something to do good with, whatever that good is to you and the people closest to you.
Post by: SwordGuy on July 13, 2024, 11:08:28 PM
In the end, it’s none of my business, and I’ll keep my mouth shut, but it’s a good reminder to me to not be a miser. Resources like these are something to do good with, whatever that good is to you and the people closest to you.
Money doesn't change people, it just enables them to be more of what they truly are.
Good job, you, for getting it right!
Post by: partgypsy on July 14, 2024, 12:44:06 PM
DW’s grandmother passed away recently at 99, almost 100. Grandpa died several years ago. After lifetime of careful saving and low consumption, she is leaving a sizeable chunk of the money. It looks like it will be split 50/50 between FIL and his brother, avoiding drama that we thought might happen there. FIL and MIL have also been careful savers and consumers, so this money will bump up their net worth, but not change their lives - they don’t even spend what they could now.
The drama part (and it’s not really that dramatic) is that they’re probably going to hand the money to their obnoxious (we went to school together) financial advisor who will make a pretty penny off of it with no value-added. They could start thinking about gifting to the grandkids, for example into their 529 accounts. This would be nice for us and super super nice for SIL and her family. Instead, DW and I expect they’ll sit on it and end up splitting it between DW and SIL in 20-25 years rather than get some joy out of helping build their grandkids’ futures, and taking family vacations, or something else meaningful to them while they are alive.
In the end, it’s none of my business, and I’ll keep my mouth shut, but it’s a good reminder to me to not be a miser. Resources like these are something to do good with, whatever that good is to you and the people closest to you.
It's not your place to say anything. But your spouse can certainly talk to her parents about the situation. at the very least say if giving gifts to kids here is info to college savings accounts. And that it is now possible to have a nice family vacation, with the inheritance, and be good to do before got too old to enjoy it.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on July 14, 2024, 10:01:07 PM
Post by: Siebrie on July 15, 2024, 02:58:31 AM
my parents changed their Wills about 7 years ago, leaving everything to each other, making me executor of the Will of the last person to pass away. I have a sister, who went no-contact about 10 years ago; contact between sister and parents has tentatively been re-established about 4 year ago. My parents like to be completely open about such things, so they informed my sister about 3 years ago of the new Wills and that I am executor. Sister was decidedly unhappy, and even offered to pay for new Wills. Parents declined, and said that as it was sister's decision to go no-contact, they did not think it was wise to give her any final say in the distribution of the inheritance.
My Father passed away in May 2023. Everything was inherited by our Mother, no problems there. But: sister has again put pressure on our Mother to change her Will. She is accusing our Mother of favouritism, and is so jealous/mistrustful that she has hacked our Mother's telephone and tablet (with the help of a cousin). I expect arguments and maybe even a lawsuit when the time comes.....
Post by: lhamo on July 15, 2024, 07:16:36 AM
Future inheritance drama:
my parents changed their Wills about 7 years ago, leaving everything to each other, making me executor of the Will of the last person to pass away. I have a sister, who went no-contact about 10 years ago; contact between sister and parents has tentatively been re-established about 4 year ago. My parents like to be completely open about such things, so they informed my sister about 3 years ago of the new Wills and that I am executor. Sister was decidedly unhappy, and even offered to pay for new Wills. Parents declined, and said that as it was sister's decision to go no-contact, they did not think it was wise to give her any final say in the distribution of the inheritance.
My Father passed away in May 2023. Everything was inherited by our Mother, no problems there. But: sister has again put pressure on our Mother to change her Will. She is accusing our Mother of favouritism, and is so jealous/mistrustful that she has hacked our Mother's telephone and tablet (with the help of a cousin). I expect arguments and maybe even a lawsuit when the time comes.....
This doesn't quite make sense -- the executor role is administrative, implementing the wishes of the deceased according to the will or trust. The executor does not usually have any say in where the assets go, just the responsibility of making sure they go where they are supposed to and that all the taxes are paid, etc. So your sister should be happy you are doing all the paperwork!
Do you mean that they designated you sole beneficiary of all their assets? And wrote her out?
I understand you want your parents' wishes to be respected, but it might be wise to advise your mom to at least leave SOMETHING to the sister now that contact has been resumed. It will save you time/money/headaches/further angst down the road if she isn't written out entirely. Or, if the size of the estate allows for it, you could just gift her something down the road.
Post by: Siebrie on July 15, 2024, 07:32:46 AM
The problems were always there, but smaller, until I met my now-husband when I was 35, got married and had 2 children, which my parents then helped babysit. Before, they were always available to babysit her 3 children, and now they sometimes had to decline. Sister was no longer the middle point of our family life and she took it hard.
My parents have always been strictly financially equal to both of us; if they helped one of us out, it came with either a contract to pay it back, or a donation to the other child of the same amount.
Post by: lhamo on July 15, 2024, 07:48:34 AM
Post by: Sibley on July 15, 2024, 08:15:33 AM
Post by: SwordGuy on July 15, 2024, 08:37:54 AM
Wait, your sister hacked into your mother's phone and tablet?!? That is not ok, and your sister can cause serious problems for your mom by doing that sort of thing. That's very close to criminal territory.
Which means that she should NEVER EVER be trusted as an executor. Period.
Or, frankly, be trusted at all.
Post by: AdrianC on July 15, 2024, 08:57:55 AM
No, you're correct, it's an admin role; the inheritance will be divided 50/50.
Our dad named my brother as sole executor, with inheritance divided 50/50. It made sense due to where we all live(d). In your case it makes sense due to sister's past behavior. It will all work out, I think. My advice, from my experience being on the other side, is when the time comes to keep your sister well informed. Send her copies of any documents, keep her in the loop. It's stressful. More information is better.
Post by: Sandi_k on July 15, 2024, 09:06:32 AM
Maybe ask your mom to consider making her executrix? Less work for you, same money, she gets her feathers stroked....
Nope, nope, nope. There is no one keeping up with the estate distribution to make sure it goes as directed, and wills + cash + jewelry can disappear easily.
@Siebrie - make sure you have the original copy of the will and trust. Do not leave it at your parents' place, If she's already hacked this stuff, she can forge emails to attorneys and create all kinds of mischief. IIWY, I would reset all passwords, and set up new accounts to which she doesn't have access - and which has your phone number as the 2FA link.
Post by: iluvzbeach on July 15, 2024, 09:43:57 AM
Post by: Laura33 on July 15, 2024, 01:59:32 PM
Future inheritance drama:
I'm hoping I avoided future inheritance drama, but we'll see. My mom and stepdad had a deal: his two kids got his retirement savings; I got my mom's retirement savings; and then we all split the remainder 3 ways.
I am already getting a lot more, because (1) there's only 1 of me, (2) she was the saver, and (3) my stepdad died over a decade ago, whereas my mom's savings not only continue to grow, she continues to work and contribute to her retirement account.
She recently had a health scare and so dove in and made lists of the different accounts and such and came over to talk to me. And she immediately says, "I was trying to think of ways to give you more." And I just cut her off flat -- NO. You are not going to do that.
It's a total eye-roll. I mean, she adores her stepkids (they've been part of the family since they were teeny), thinks of their kids as her grandkids, etc. But she has this freaking blind spot about leaving her money to me. And I don't even need it!
Luckily, I'm also the executor (and trustee for the grandkids' educational trust), so if she goes and does something stupid, I will find a way to even it out. But sheesh.
Post by: Siebrie on July 16, 2024, 01:35:12 AM
I plan to be completely open, just as my Mum is now. Sister is not getting any final say, because she is very streetwise and not trusted to divide the inheritance 50/50, nor to actually sign off on anything with or without extortion ('I'll only sign off if you [X]').
The Will is filed at the Notary's.
10 years ago, my parents had started clearing the house they have lived in for 50 years. Nothing major, but a drawer or cupboard a week or month. My Dad passed away in May 2023 and Mum has just continued; every time we visit there is a box of items for us (both of us: Sis and I, but not at the same time) to look through, that she then takes to the local thrift shop. Most of Dad's hobby items have been sold by Sis' husband together with a nephew and the money returned to Mum (that she then split and gave to the 5 grandchildren). She regularly asks if there is anything in the house we would like to receive 'after'. She is 87 and has 3 forms of cancer, but does not let those facts rule her life; her social calendar is very full. She misses my Dad, but is very calm about it; his passing at 80 is a fact of life; they discussed regularly that they have had a good life and if it's time to go, that's fine.
I'll bring up PoA (medical and legal) sometime this summer.
Post by: Zamboni on August 04, 2024, 11:15:21 PM
Even before my Mom died my SIL started hauling important stuff out of her home. The lockbox with the will and a couple thousand dollars of cash, for example. Firearms. You get the idea. I haven't even seen the will . . . because she has taken it. But everyone seems to know I'm executor.
Her reasoning out loud has been that "hooligans will break in and take things." Mmmkay.
How do I tactfully let her know that I would like to have those items put back in the home while I grieve and have time to start sorting out what I am supposed to do as executor? Siblings and I get along well and I trust them and I'm going to need their help to keep sorting through all this, but SIL removing things is definitely bothering me. Probably need to have a heart-to-heart with my brother (her spouse) about this.
Post by: okits on August 04, 2024, 11:44:59 PM
I hope someone experienced has some useful advice for you. I haven't dealt with a similar situation, but I do know parental death didn't bring out the best in my family members. I hope your family can behave better towards each other.
Again, my sympathies. You have been through so much and I'm sorry that is the case.
Post by: iluvzbeach on August 04, 2024, 11:55:17 PM
Post by: NorthernIkigai on August 05, 2024, 12:51:13 AM
Her reasoning out loud has been that "hooligans will break in and take things." Mmmkay.
I guess she was right...
Yes, do talk your brother.
Post by: former player on August 05, 2024, 01:20:35 AM
So sorry for your loss!Hooigans committing burglary is a serious criminal matter, perhaps your SIL should be taking her evidence of this to the police.Her reasoning out loud has been that "hooligans will break in and take things." Mmmkay.
I guess she was right...
Yes, do talk your brother.
Post by: DeniseNJ on August 05, 2024, 09:54:52 AM
Help. My Mom died yesterday, and I am the executor.
Even before my Mom died my SIL started hauling important stuff out of her home. The lockbox with the will and a couple thousand dollars of cash, for example. Firearms. You get the idea. I haven't even seen the will . . . because she has taken it. But everyone seems to know I'm executor.
Her reasoning out loud has been that "hooligans will break in and take things." Mmmkay.
How do I tactfully let her know that I would like to have those items put back in the home while I grieve and have time to start sorting out what I am supposed to do as executor? Siblings and I get along well and I trust them and I'm going to need their help to keep sorting through all this, but SIL removing things is definitely bothering me. Probably need to have a heart-to-heart with my brother (her spouse) about this.
I'm so sorry. Call your brother and tell him you are coming over this afternoon to pick up the things your SIL took out of the house. Then text everyone and say, "Please don't remove anything from the home until we have discussed it and I have had time to review the will. Thank you."
Post by: Villanelle on August 05, 2024, 03:53:11 PM
If you are in the area, you might consider putting padlocks on all the entries, if it's worth it to you to fully stop this.
Post by: SunnyDays on August 05, 2024, 04:35:26 PM
Also, what Villanelle said.
Post by: Zamboni on August 05, 2024, 05:30:03 PM
I talked to my brother and SIL is getting on his nerves with all of this also. Her parents are alive and well and it's clear she has no idea what we are going through. To date she has suggested that pretty much every item of value be given to her kids. She even called a moving company this morning and got a quote to have one of the biggest ticket items moved to her house. I was open to her having this item eventually (she had the nerve to ask me about it in the last few days of my Mom's life), but it is quite valuable, the value needs to be assessed, and her rushing to take things is getting old really, really fast.
I've asked her to stop and I will ask her to stop again if needed and eventually I will stop being nice about it. I don't want to have to change the locks because the house is a mess and we are trying to clean out expired food (it's pretty much all expired), garbage, mountains of old magazines etc. I hope it doesn't come to changing the locks.
The lock box has been brought back, but I haven't even had time to look in it . . . . because we are planning the funeral today.
Post by: MaybeBabyMustache on August 05, 2024, 05:47:53 PM
Post by: reeshau on August 05, 2024, 05:52:27 PM
Ar least your brother isn't simply defending SIL. (Although, why didn't he stop her...?)
Hopefully, she will calm down with some expectations set, with rough timing. You are certainly entitled to grieve first. Also, talking to everyone is a good idea tomshow this isn't just about her.
I have not gone through this yet, but I am preparing to. I found the Nolo Executor's Guide (https://www.amazon.com/Executors-Guide-Settling-Loved-Estate/dp/1413331742/ref=sr_1_1) did a good job laying out the process, and pointing out State-specifoc things.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on August 05, 2024, 07:14:28 PM
Post by: Dicey on August 05, 2024, 09:28:53 PM
It's not unheard of for relatives to raid the decedent's house during the funeral or when the responsible parties are distracted. I'm not sure how a lockbox will help unless she doesn't have a key, which seems highly unlikely. I'd strongly and kindly suggest re-keying the locks asap. Also have a trusted person monitor the house as much as possible.
Short snippet: good sister hid a piece of mom's jewelry for safekeeping from bad sister. When bad sister couldn't find it (because, you know, she wanted it), she called the police, who came to my parent's house. Good sister produced the item and police left. It was a shitshow.
Post by: Sandi_k on August 05, 2024, 10:50:04 PM
Your SIL has shown you quite clearly who she is. I would change the locks; it's the only way to ensure that you can carry out your mom's wishes without the BS that your SIL brings. I'm so sorry. :(
Post by: Zamboni on August 05, 2024, 11:28:11 PM
At least your brother isn't simply defending SIL. (Although, why didn't he stop her...?)
Hopefully, she will calm down with some expectations set, with rough timing. You are certainly entitled to grieve first. Also, talking to everyone is a good idea tomshow this isn't just about her.
I have not gone through this yet, but I am preparing to. I found the Nolo Executor's Guide (https://www.amazon.com/Executors-Guide-Settling-Loved-Estate/dp/1413331742/ref=sr_1_1) did a good job laying out the process, and pointing out State-specifoc things.
Brother had actually told his wife to dial it back. He's wrecked, though. He bore the brunt of caring for our Mom the last couple of months when she refused to leave her home. We loved her but she was a difficult person and she basically dragged him to hell and back. We need to grieve.
Thank you for suggesting that guide book. Finally saw the will this evening. I am the executor (Mom had told everyone I was so this is no surprise). I do need to get something like that book to guide me.
Post by: Laura33 on August 06, 2024, 08:34:28 AM
I'm concerned about the extra burden SIL is placing on your in your role as executor. You're going to be the one responsible for making sure that the right "things"/money go to the right people. So if she's taking things that aren't supposed to go to her family, she's putting you in a really difficult situation.
Once you're through the funeral, one of the first things I'd recommend is that you ask all of the siblings for a list of everything they've taken from the house (for "safekeeping" or not). You can make it one list for all siblings, so she doesn't feel targeted, if you need to. But you want to know what she has so you can account for it, before she has time to "forget" that she took it -- and then if you find out she took something else that she didn't mention, you've got whatever proof you need to protect yourself.
That role also gives you every right to tell everyone that nothing else can be taken until further notice, because you need to make sure everything is distributed in compliance with the will, and as everyone understands, this is a really emotional time right now, and you need a little time before you'll be able to deal with those decisions.
Post by: mm1970 on August 06, 2024, 02:50:49 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful words and helpful suggestions, everyone. I really appreciate it.I would recommend changing the locks anyway. My stepfather died in May, and my sister immediately changed the locks on the house, after taking out some of the valuables (she was the executor).
I talked to my brother and SIL is getting on his nerves with all of this also. Her parents are alive and well and it's clear she has no idea what we are going through. To date she has suggested that pretty much every item of value be given to her kids. She even called a moving company this morning and got a quote to have one of the biggest ticket items moved to her house. I was open to her having this item eventually (she had the nerve to ask me about it in the last few days of my Mom's life), but it is quite valuable, the value needs to be assessed, and her rushing to take things is getting old really, really fast.
I've asked her to stop and I will ask her to stop again if needed and eventually I will stop being nice about it. I don't want to have to change the locks because the house is a mess and we are trying to clean out expired food (it's pretty much all expired), garbage, mountains of old magazines etc. I hope it doesn't come to changing the locks.
The lock box has been brought back, but I haven't even had time to look in it . . . . because we are planning the funeral today.
BC hooligans will break in.
Post by: NorthernIkigai on August 06, 2024, 10:00:46 PM
Post by: oneday on August 06, 2024, 10:21:06 PM
How do (actual, non-relative) hooligans know that the house is empty? And if they are going to break in, I assume they don’t care about whether the locks are old or new. Not trying to be snarky here, I’m honestly confused by this.
As I understand it, actual, non-relative hooligans are just the imaginary boogeyman that SIL was using as a pretext for taking the items. There was never any danger of real hooligans. SIL actually fulfilled the role of hooligan, and then used a psychological phenomenon known as projecting in an attempt to cover her tracks.
Changing the locks protects from the real/likely culprits (eg, SIL).
Post by: SwordGuy on August 06, 2024, 10:22:24 PM
How do (actual, non-relative) hooligans know that the house is empty? And if they are going to break in, I assume they don’t care about whether the locks are old or new. Not trying to be snarky here, I’m honestly confused by this.
Three points:
1) SIL has keys. She's already confiscated stuff she's not supposed to. Change the locks. If she breaks in after that, it's a felony, not a "family misunderstanding."
2) Neighbors might have keys. Locks keep relatively honest people honest. Same reason, it becomes a felony to enter and that will deter people who aren't hardened criminals.
3) Professional thieves will look at the obituaries in the paper. They are a variety of web-based services that enable one to locate a person's address given a name and city. It costs a few dollars. If they are a home-owner, the county registrar of deeds will show the houses they own. Most people only own one in a given county. If the obituary has the time and date of the service, they'll know when the family won't be there.
And, so will thieving relatives. They'll take stuff from the house whilst other relatives are at the funeral. In a similar case, a good friend's step-dad died. He and his mom were at the hospital staying with him till the end. His daughter was at the bank emptying out her dad's bank accounts because she was a signatory on them.
Post by: NorthernIkigai on August 06, 2024, 11:50:17 PM
Are obituaries really published that fast in the US? Where I am, obituaries tend to be published after a couple of weeks, sometimes even just with a mention of the funeral having been held with the immediate family (typically when the deceased was old enough not to have any close friends left who could have attended). In another European country I know, everything else in life moves slowly but obituaries will be published the same week the death has occurred, complete with a photo of the deceased, a poem, etc. Somehow the strong commercial instincts of the funeral homes make everything happen fast and decisions “having to be” taken quickly…
Post by: Smokystache on August 07, 2024, 06:58:49 AM
Right, thanks oneday and SwordGuy, now I’m back on track with who the real and who the imagined hooligans are.Yes, in the US the obituary also serves as the death notice and notification of any public services (funeral or memorial service and/or if there is a public service at the cemetery (e.g., "graveside service")
Are obituaries really published that fast in the US?
Post by: Sugaree on August 07, 2024, 09:06:14 AM
Right, thanks oneday and SwordGuy, now I’m back on track with who the real and who the imagined hooligans are.
Are obituaries really published that fast in the US? Where I am, obituaries tend to be published after a couple of weeks, sometimes even just with a mention of the funeral having been held with the immediate family (typically when the deceased was old enough not to have any close friends left who could have attended). In another European country I know, everything else in life moves slowly but obituaries will be published the same week the death has occurred, complete with a photo of the deceased, a poem, etc. Somehow the strong commercial instincts of the funeral homes make everything happen fast and decisions “having to be” taken quickly…
Yes, in certain areas, it's common to have someone stay at the deceased's house during the funeral because the date and time announcement are part of the obit.
Post by: mm1970 on August 07, 2024, 12:07:04 PM
How do (actual, non-relative) hooligans know that the house is empty? And if they are going to break in, I assume they don’t care about whether the locks are old or new. Not trying to be snarky here, I’m honestly confused by this.Oh, well in my home town, small town, literally people at the bank or at Walmart told my SIL and my nephew that my stepfather was in hospice before the FAMILY could tell him.
So, you've got people in town who watch the obituaries. And they may easily just go look for the spare key, assuming there is one.
So, less "breaking in" than "people who know he's dead and may have a spare key or know where to find one." BC my stepdad lived in the same house for 34 years.
Post by: Zamboni on August 08, 2024, 06:30:26 PM
My mom was not a wealthy woman. Quite the contrary.
She did own her little house free and clear and she had one fairly sizable physical asset (the one SIL wants). I just search the serial number on it and it was easy to find several comps . . . all listed at $50K-$100K. So that's going to be pulling teeth because SIL really wants it, brother doesn't actually seem to want it, so they'll have to work that out between themselves. And while I'm not an appraiser, my Mom did keep this item in superb condition, there are plenty of likely accurate comps I can see online, so I suspect the realistic value is more than double what they want others to agree upon.
And then there's the house. By far the cleanest thing to do would be just clear it out, clean it up, and sell it. Basically all it needs is new flooring to put on the market in good condition, and as I said it is modest. So a fairly small amount of new flooring. It has a nice little grassy yard and is in a very great location, less than 50 yards in various directions to a giant park with a big pool, public library, post office, and medical clinic. And here's where it gets complicated again. SIL actually said in the past week that she might want to move there. Brother was surprised and told her no way. They both then pivoted that they want it for one of their children. They pointed out none of their adult children can afford it. So they want to work out some sort of deal. I don't know. What are even the options? Sigh.
Basically I'm feeling pressured to let brother & SIL have assets for less than they are actually worth. It's family, I don't want these things (or anything she has, frankly), and I don't personally need the money. But I do want to be fair to everyone involved and the pushiness of it all is rubbing me the wrong way . . . my Mom hasn't even been dead a week, after all.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 08, 2024, 07:07:14 PM
Basically I'm feeling pressured to let brother & SIL have assets for less than they are actually worth. It's family, I don't want these things (or anything she has, frankly), and I don't personally need the money. But I do want to be fair to everyone involved and the pushiness of it all is rubbing me the wrong way . . . my Mom hasn't even been dead a week, after all.
I ran across a quote awhile back that really stayed with me.
Getting money doesn't change people, it just makes it easier for them to be what they already are.
In this case, it looks like merely the hope of getting money has revealed people for what they really are.
It's sad. I feel for you.
Post by: iluvzbeach on August 08, 2024, 09:30:07 PM
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
Post by: hooplady on August 08, 2024, 10:37:24 PM
It's called a "Will" because it's literally the WILL - the wishes and decree - of the decedent. The executor is expected to carry out those instructions, whether convenient or expected or desired by the remaining heirs. It takes some strength to do this, I hope you can find it. {{{Hugs}}}
This reminds me, I need to thank the sibling who handled the estate for my mom. It's been many years, we didn't have much drama and that's due to their deft handling. I'm sure it was hard, and I should thank them again.
Post by: NorthernIkigai on August 09, 2024, 12:01:03 AM
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
Yes! Also keep in mind that none of this is any of your SIL’s business. At all.
Post by: LaineyAZ on August 09, 2024, 07:49:08 AM
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
I agree with this but in reality, many families have become permanently estranged over distribution disputes from relatively small amounts of assets in an estate.
IMO, I'd consider what my personal relationships with SIL and brother would look like under different scenarios.
You can be strict about your executor duties and receive the most $ for these assets and distribute that per the will, or you can be less strict and allow brother and SIL some family discount.
If you don't need the money and there's no other heirs who would be affected, and you want to have a continuing drama-free relationship with them, then the latter is the way to go.
I'm sorry you're being put in the middle of this.
Post by: uniwelder on August 09, 2024, 07:57:43 AM
Post by: ATtiny85 on August 10, 2024, 05:32:18 PM
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
Yes! Also keep in mind that none of this is any of your SIL’s business. At all.
I’ll pile on and quote this. I also feel bad for Zamboni's brother, this is likely illuminating for him. Illumination of darkness.
Post by: JAYSLOL on August 10, 2024, 06:26:44 PM
Zamboni, so very sorry you are having to deal with this drama.
Insist on getting professional appraisals and divide equitably amongst the heirs. Keep in mind, SIL can be mad at you or you can be made at her. Don’t make decisions just to avoid having her be upset with you.
+1 to professional appraiser coming in for the house and assets so it’s not you vs them, it’s the appraisal vs their demands
Post by: Villanelle on August 10, 2024, 06:53:31 PM
But if there are other people, as executor, he's obligated to distribute things fairly and evenly (according to the will). So he can't just say, "sure, take the house, which is worth $150k, for your kid, and Asset, which is worth $75k, and everyone else can split the remaining $150k." It's not only morally wrong, it's likely legally wrong, too.
Thankfully, that gives an easy out. "the estate must be distributed evenly among the X parties named in the will [assuming that's what the will stipulates]. We will have the house, and Assest-SIL-Wants, and anything else of value, professionally appriased, which will be paid for out of the estate. Then I will add up the value of everything and divide by X, and that's what each person gets. If someone wants to keep a specific asset or the house, they can buy out the other parties by paying 2/3 of the value (or taking that amount less from everything else). If not, then we will have to sell everything. Once we have the values of house and asset, we will see if you are interested in buying everyone out, before I arrange to sell them."
Keep it business like. If SIL and Bro want to try to make plans to have some other beneficiary carry the loan on the house, they can arrange that privately. That's separate from everything else and shouldn't even be discussed in the same conversations. It should be, Okay, house is worth $125k and Thingy is worth $75k. If you want to buy out everyone for $50k each (or whatever it works out to based on number of parties), you can do so. Otherwise, I will arrange the sale."
If she then goes to sibling A and asks them to carry a $50k loan for her, and makes the same arrangement with sibling B and Zamboni, cool. Or if she gets A and B to let her owe them $50k, and lend her an additional $25k each to buy out Zamboni, great. Otherwise, it must be sold.
Post by: chrisgermany on August 11, 2024, 12:22:27 AM
That can be applied to more than one party, too: The first person makes as many lots of equal value as there are recipients. Then each of them gets a chance to exchange peaces between the lots as they see fair. Than a draw will be made who chooses among the lots first, second etc
I once shared a large amount of real jewelry and costume jewelry, with each heir taking a piece of their choice one by one. It saved appraisal cost and everybody got some pieces they really appreciated.
Post by: Zamboni on August 11, 2024, 01:17:49 PM
It's clear that my Mom tried to distribute her little bit of non-costume jewelry herself prior to her death. I highly recommend that everyone do that if you are lucky enough to become elderly: give tangible objects away while you are still alive if you care what happens to it or if you want to avoid drama.
I had several realtors come look at the house this morning and they brought market comps. Even the lowest recent sale market comp out of a dozen that have now been submitted is 20% higher than Zillow. Which is also, of course, quite a bit higher than the tax assessment valuation. I will simply supply the data to the interested parties. Brother and SIL probably won't be happy because would like to keep the home and it means more capital is needed to buy other parties out, but I guess we'll see how they react.
One of the difficult things is that I have always had a philosophy against loaning family money. And, of course, that idea has already come up. "Please loan the value of your share to us so we can have it now and pay later." Sigh. I don't want to argue over this crap.
Post by: Zamboni on August 11, 2024, 02:02:59 PM
The deceased did gift some of their things before their death, as I'm sure is often the case. As far as I know this started when my children were born and so it has been going on for a couple of decades at least. When she previously gave me or my children something, I never advertised it to others. How do I prevent family members from just thinking that I am unfairly keeping an item for myself?
Mom did definitely have a small number of semi-valuable things that seem to be gone. She could have sold them herself, she could have given those things away, they could be hidden somewhere and will be discovered eventually, or they could have been removed without her permission (this seems least likely, and I would never accuse someone of this.)
Post by: Villanelle on August 11, 2024, 02:48:16 PM
^This was done with the jewelry at the end of the week. There was one "not costume" piece that was mixed in there by accident, so one of my nieces got it and that is fine. SIL was included in that and had her turns to choose. It pretty quickly dwindled down to a pile of remainders that no one wanted, so that went to the donate pile and this will be the fate of the vast majority of Mom's stuff that isn't just thrown away.
It's clear that my Mom tried to distribute her little bit of non-costume jewelry herself prior to her death. I highly recommend that everyone do that if you are lucky enough to become elderly: give tangible objects away while you are still alive if you care what happens to it or if you want to avoid drama.
I had several realtors come look at the house this morning and they brought market comps. Even the lowest recent sale market comp out of a dozen that have now been submitted is 20% higher than Zillow. Which is also, of course, quite a bit higher than the tax assessment valuation. I will simply supply the data to the interested parties. Brother and SIL probably won't be happy because would like to keep the home and it means more capital is needed to buy other parties out, but I guess we'll see how they react.
One of the difficult things is that I have always had a philosophy against loaning family money. And, of course, that idea has already come up. "Please loan the value of your share to us so we can have it now and pay later." Sigh. I don't want to argue over this crap.
Another option could be to list the house for sale and give B and SIL first right of refusal. If someone else agrees to buy for $150k, at that point BIL and SIL know that $150k is market value. They can either buy it at that rate, or let it go to the outside buyer. Just make sure you discuss with your real estage agent and figure out what happens to their commission in that case.
Speaking of commission, you could also use the comps and realtor conversations to determine FMV and offer it to B and SIL at 5% less than that (assuming 5% would be what you paid in commission). This is how DH and I bought my grandmother's condo from her estate. The beneficiaries got the same amount in their pockets (if not slightly more since it was fast since there were no carrying costs as it waited to be sold, they had no expenses associated with preparing it for sale, and we even agreed to deal with emptying it out). We got a house for about 5% less than we'd have had to pay on the open market, but not at anyone's expense. Of course, this requires everyone to agree on a fair price/value.
As for the loan, "I'm not comfortable with the idea of loaning money to family so you will need to find another way to make this work if you want to keep the house." Repeat as needed. Don't let them pull you into arguing details about that or anything else. Just parrot back that same statement, no matter what they say. "But our kids need a home!" "For me, lending money and family is never a good idea, so that's not going to work for me." Etc. Then as some point if they keep it up, "I've given you my answer. If you have something else to discuss, great. If not, I think we've reached the end of this conversation."
Post by: SwordGuy on August 11, 2024, 04:16:05 PM
As for the loan, "I'm not comfortable with the idea of loaning money to family so you will need to find another way to make this work if you want to keep the house." Repeat as needed. Don't let them pull you into arguing details about that or anything else. Just parrot back that same statement, no matter what they say. "But our kids need a home!" "For me, lending money and family is never a good idea, so that's not going to work for me." Etc. Then as some point if they keep it up, "I've given you my answer. If you have something else to discuss, great. If not, I think we've reached the end of this conversation."
"No." is a complete answer. It requires no elaboration. But if one simply must elaborate, then "No, that won't work or us," is a sufficient response. You are not obligated to explain why and should refuse to. If they piss you off, ask them if they will loan you the money to buy it for yourself. The odds are they can't or wouldn't. And they won't like explaining why, either. Before they do, just say, "No, it's none of my business why. Your answer of 'No' is good enough for me." But if they do make the offer, give them a lowball offer and see how they like it. They won't, of course, because then they'll be cheated out of the full value of the house.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 11, 2024, 04:16:52 PM
Just imagine you're Mr. Rogers as you say all that. It will help keep the peace. :)
As for the loan, "I'm not comfortable with the idea of loaning money to family so you will need to find another way to make this work if you want to keep the house." Repeat as needed. Don't let them pull you into arguing details about that or anything else. Just parrot back that same statement, no matter what they say. "But our kids need a home!" "For me, lending money and family is never a good idea, so that's not going to work for me." Etc. Then as some point if they keep it up, "I've given you my answer. If you have something else to discuss, great. If not, I think we've reached the end of this conversation."
"No." is a complete answer. It requires no elaboration. But if one simply must elaborate, then "No, that won't work or us," is a sufficient response. You are not obligated to explain why and should refuse to. If they piss you off, ask them if they will loan you the money to buy it for yourself. The odds are they can't or wouldn't. And they won't like explaining why, either. Before they do, just say, "No, it's none of my business why. Your answer of 'No' is good enough for me." But if they do make the offer, give them a lowball offer and see how they like it. They won't, of course, because then they'll be cheated out of the full value of the house.
Post by: reeshau on August 11, 2024, 04:34:58 PM
Another option could be to list the house for sale and give B and SIL first right of refusal. If someone else agrees to buy for $150k, at that point BIL and SIL know that $150k is market value. They can either buy it at that rate, or let it go to the outside buyer. Just make sure you discuss with your real estage agent and figure out what happens to their commission in that case.
This sounds quite fair to me, particularly if they choke on realtor comps vs. Zillow or whatever. It will put a real cash offer in front of them. It also puts them under pressure to line up an alternative: get mortgage approved, etc.
Include some timeframe for them, that fits within typical timing for valid offers.
Post by: iluvzbeach on August 11, 2024, 04:56:36 PM
Your mother made a will or had a trust that outlined how she wanted her estate divvied up. Your job is to abide by her wishes, not your brother & SIL’s wishes. She set you up in this role because she knew you could be counted on to follow her wishes.
Post by: iris lily on August 12, 2024, 10:02:42 AM
Meanwhile, she’s looking at downsizing into newer construction so that she’ll have something nice to leave tomher children because she wants them to have joint ownership of this property she’ll be leaving them.
I do not understand why she can’t see the problems she is leaving for her children as a repetition of the problems she has now.
Post by: SwordGuy on August 12, 2024, 11:02:01 AM
My friend wants to sell her house which is jointly owned with a sibling. For reasons I don’t understand, she’s having trouble getting the sibling to agree, or to pay out some sort of agreement, or etc. in other words she cannot act without agreement from sibling.
Is the one who doesn't want to sell or buy benefitting from the use of the property? That'll do it every time.
ESPECIALLY if the other parties are doing the work and paying the expenses to keep the property in working order.
Post by: iris lily on August 12, 2024, 11:42:51 AM
My friend wants to sell her house which is jointly owned with a sibling. For reasons I don’t understand, she’s having trouble getting the sibling to agree, or to pay out some sort of agreement, or etc. in other words she cannot act without agreement from sibling.
Is the one who doesn't want to sell or buy benefitting from the use of the property? That'll do it every time.
ESPECIALLY if the other parties are doing the work and paying the expenses to keep the property in working order.
My friend lives in the house. I do not understand her dilemma because I dont have all of the info and I won’t ask. But this just points out: owning property with someone you aren’t married to can turn bad.
Post by: Villanelle on August 12, 2024, 01:49:40 PM
I don't think people should necessarily sell these assets ahead of time. But certainly don't decide to buy something for the sole purpose of leaving it to your adult children. And don't decide not to sell if you otherwise would, based on wanting to leave it to the kids.
Post by: Laura33 on August 12, 2024, 02:11:36 PM
It sounds like there are other heirs, based on the comment about wanting to be fair to everyone. If not, then yeah, Zamboni might want to decide how much of a fight--and strained relationships--this is worth to him.
But if there are other people, as executor, he's obligated to distribute things fairly and evenly (according to the will). So he can't just say, "sure, take the house, which is worth $150k, for your kid, and Asset, which is worth $75k, and everyone else can split the remaining $150k." It's not only morally wrong, it's likely legally wrong, too.
Zamboni, please, please listen to this. If you are executor, and you allow one beneficiary to take an unfair share, you are opening yourself up to claims by the other beneficiaries. You are not making a problem go away by giving in -- you are just turning SIL's general whining into your legal liability.
One of the difficult things is that I have always had a philosophy against loaning family money. And, of course, that idea has already come up. "Please loan the value of your share to us so we can have it now and pay later." Sigh. I don't want to argue over this crap.
Then don't. Takes 2 to argue. You are 100% in control of how much you argue over this.
How do I prevent family members from just thinking that I am unfairly keeping an item for myself?
I think this is the real crux of the problem. It's not that you don't want to argue -- it's that you don't want to be forced to say no and be the bad guy, or be vulnerable to criticism, or be portrayed as the problem.
Answer: you can't control what others think of you. So stop trying. It only makes your life harder. Your SIL is currently causing all sorts of drama and angst by taking things she's not entitled to and guilting you into giving even more. IOW, she is being a total asshole to you, at the absolute worst possible time to make you deal with an asshole. So why does her opinion of you matter one teensy little whit? Why reward the worst-behaved beneficiary by trying to accommodate her requests to grab way more than your brother's fair share?
The only way to deal with this is to disengage entirely. Give everyone the same answer: I am simply the executor. All I can do is execute my mother's will. I am grieving and cannot even begin to think about other things right now. I'll deal with XYZ when we get to that point. Etc.
If you have to, hire a lawyer to be executor to get yourself out of the middle. I know your mom doesn't have a lot of assets, and you don't want to blow them on a lawyer. But if the idea of a straightforward "no" to grasping, asshole in-laws is causing you so much extra pain and strife and overwhelming you, it's worth the money. And you can blame them for the extra cost -- you were getting so many individual requests that you weren't sure what you could do without breaking the law, so you brought in a lawyer to decide those things.
Your only responsibility right now is to your mother -- and your own mental health. You do not need to find a way to make everyone happy (and, really, given what you've said about your SIL, that's an impossible bar under any circumstances). You do not need to accommodate everyone's requests/demands/complaints. You do not even need to listen to them! All you need to do is divide the assets like your mother said to. Period. Done. End of discussion. If SIL wants the "thing," SIL can come up with the money to pay the estate for it. If B/SIL want the house, they can get a mortgage like everyone else and pay the estate for it. Etc. etc. etc.
Post by: sonofsven on August 12, 2024, 03:06:08 PM
"I want my kids to inherit this house" is a lot like, "my kids are going to be so thrilled with all of the furniture and knickknacks I've accumulated through the years." They don't want it. Unless they have expressed a clear, enthusiastic desire for the house, they will likely sell it when you are gone. And yes, this goes for vacation houses or lake cabins or similar. Yes, you made happy memories there, and yes you'd love to have your grandkids and great grandkids make more of those. But they probably don't want to. And the more divided it gets across generations, the more of a nightmare it becomes logisistically. When the doc needs to be rebuild and there are 12 parties involved, some with 1/4 share and some with 1/8 share, and everyone has to agree on when to replace, what material to use, which company/bid to use, etc.--no thank you.For tax reasons it's better for the heirs to inherit the house and then sell it, rather than the parent selling it and the heirs receiving the proceeds, due to the step up in basis after the parent is deceased
I don't think people should necessarily sell these assets ahead of time. But certainly don't decide to buy something for the sole purpose of leaving it to your adult children. And don't decide not to sell if you otherwise would, based on wanting to leave it to the kids.
Post by: Villanelle on August 12, 2024, 05:55:47 PM
"I want my kids to inherit this house" is a lot like, "my kids are going to be so thrilled with all of the furniture and knickknacks I've accumulated through the years." They don't want it. Unless they have expressed a clear, enthusiastic desire for the house, they will likely sell it when you are gone. And yes, this goes for vacation houses or lake cabins or similar. Yes, you made happy memories there, and yes you'd love to have your grandkids and great grandkids make more of those. But they probably don't want to. And the more divided it gets across generations, the more of a nightmare it becomes logisistically. When the doc needs to be rebuild and there are 12 parties involved, some with 1/4 share and some with 1/8 share, and everyone has to agree on when to replace, what material to use, which company/bid to use, etc.--no thank you.For tax reasons it's better for the heirs to inherit the house and then sell it, rather than the parent selling it and the heirs receiving the proceeds, due to the step up in basis after the parent is deceased
I don't think people should necessarily sell these assets ahead of time. But certainly don't decide to buy something for the sole purpose of leaving it to your adult children. And don't decide not to sell if you otherwise would, based on wanting to leave it to the kids.
Sure, but are those tax reasons worth more than the value of sparing your kids from arguing when one wants to seel for the $125k offer on the table, and another wants to wait and try for $150k.
But, as I said, it may not make sense to sell now in order to simplify for the kids, but it certainly doesn't make much sense to buy now in order to leave something to the kids. (Iris mentioned downsizing to leave to the kids.)
Post by: iris lily on August 13, 2024, 09:45:50 AM
"I want my kids to inherit this house" is a lot like, "my kids are going to be so thrilled with all of the furniture and knickknacks I've accumulated through the years." They don't want it. Unless they have expressed a clear, enthusiastic desire for the house, they will likely sell it when you are gone. And yes, this goes for vacation houses or lake cabins or similar. Yes, you made happy memories there, and yes you'd love to have your grandkids and great grandkids make more of those. But they probably don't want to. And the more divided it gets across generations, the more of a nightmare it becomes logisistically. When the doc needs to be rebuild and there are 12 parties involved, some with 1/4 share and some with 1/8 share, and everyone has to agree on when to replace, what material to use, which company/bid to use, etc.--no thank you.
I don't think people should necessarily sell these assets ahead of time. But certainly don't decide to buy something for the sole purpose of leaving it to your adult children. And don't decide not to sell if you otherwise would, based on wanting to leave it to the kids.
Yes, so much all of this.
Post by: nereo on August 13, 2024, 10:12:00 AM
primogenitus: the first born. In cultural usage: pertaining to the first born son (e.g. inheritance and/or hereditary titles).
Situation: my uncle passed recently, never married and no children. His will split his estate between my father (his older brother) and the male primogenitus blood relative (my older brother). Which excluded me, my older sister and his two grand-niece (who were not even alive when the will was drafted).
Was really expecting $0 from him, as he’s been very charity oriented and we just assumed it would all go there, but it irks me that my brother will inherent somewhere in the low 6-figures simply because he was the first born male to carry the family name (note: my sister is the oldest).
My brother did NOT have any more meaningful of a relationship with my uncle than we did, and he isn’t even listed by name in the will specifically.
For further context, he and my father are immigrants from Eastern Europe (naturalized US citizens for 50+ years).
Post by: uniwelder on August 13, 2024, 11:02:19 AM
Here’s a fun Latin phrase that relates to the thread subject and me:
primogenitus: the first born. In cultural usage: pertaining to the first born son (e.g. inheritance and/or hereditary titles).
Situation: my uncle passed recently, never married and no children. His will split his estate between my father (his older brother) and the male primogenitus blood relative (my older brother). Which excluded me, my older sister and his two grand-niece (who were not even alive when the will was drafted).
Was really expecting $0 from him, as he’s been very charity oriented and we just assumed it would all go there, but it irks me that my brother will inherent somewhere in the low 6-figures simply because he was the first born male to carry the family name (note: my sister is the oldest).
My brother did NOT have any more meaningful of a relationship with my uncle than we did, and he isn’t even listed by name in the will specifically.
For further context, he and my father are immigrants from Eastern Europe (naturalized US citizens for 50+ years).
Are you on good terms with your siblings? Maybe your brother will recognize the weirdness of the wording in the will and split it three ways?
Post by: sonofsven on August 13, 2024, 11:35:51 AM
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/
The protagonist finds he is a very distant heir to a dukedom, and slowly kills everyone in front of him, making each murder look like an accident.
"He chopped down the family tree"
Note: It's just a film, YMMV
Post by: Sibley on August 13, 2024, 12:14:27 PM
This thread reminds me of a very old film (1949!) that I watched years ago, that is one of my father's favorites, starring Alec Guinness, called Kind Hearts And Coronets
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/
The protagonist finds he is a very distant heir to a dukedom, and slowly kills everyone in front of him, making each murder look like an accident.
"He chopped down the family tree"
Note: It's just a film, YMMV
Awesome film. I especially love that Alec Guinness played all/large number of the family members.
Re primogeniture: that got ditched for very good reasons. Also for some very self serving reasons. Overall however, it got ditched. Anyone still following that system is hopelessly antiquated.
Post by: BabyShark on August 13, 2024, 12:50:55 PM
This thread reminds me of a very old film (1949!) that I watched years ago, that is one of my father's favorites, starring Alec Guinness, called Kind Hearts And Coronets
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/
The protagonist finds he is a very distant heir to a dukedom, and slowly kills everyone in front of him, making each murder look like an accident.
"He chopped down the family tree"
Note: It's just a film, YMMV
Awesome film. I especially love that Alec Guinness played all/large number of the family members.
Re primogeniture: that got ditched for very good reasons. Also for some very self serving reasons. Overall however, it got ditched. Anyone still following that system is hopelessly antiquated.
Also the inspiration for an excellent Broadway musical A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder. Similar concept with one actor playing the family members to be bumped off.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on August 13, 2024, 12:56:05 PM
For further context, he and my father are immigrants from Eastern Europe (naturalized US citizens for 50+ years).
Yep. That'll do it. There's not a more misogynistic, reactionary, anti-gay, antisemitic, controlling, hierarchical, and artificially aggrieved culture on this planet. You can always find individuals who don't share those toxic values, but as a group? There's no such thing as an amount of time that can cause them to stop kicking their families around for no reason.
Post by: eyesonthehorizon on August 15, 2024, 06:21:00 AM
... a fun Latin phrase that relates to the thread subject and me: ...Primogeniture was, & apparently remains, an evil. As familiar as I am with it - responsible for many atrocities of history - I can’t believe anyone would choose to do that in the modern day. No one’s experiences with it should go beyond history books & fiction, that’s a terrible thing to do to your own brother’s children.
Post by: nereo on August 15, 2024, 06:26:41 AM
Post by: Catbert on August 15, 2024, 03:43:55 PM
Post by: Captain FIRE on August 15, 2024, 04:01:59 PM
It's certainly not "fair" (by our modern definition) but I'm choosing to take the optimistic outlook: we are no worse off than before and now I'm less concerned about needing to financially support my older brother should an emergency strike. My personal position is the same as if my uncle had just donated it all to charity, which is what we initially assumed would happen. My uncle didn't owe me anything.
Optimistically, maybe your dad will see the unjust nature of this and decide to make his will out so you inherit his portion? Or does he also subscribe to the theory women are worth less/somehow need to fund retirements less because they should be dependent on men?
I wouldn't be too relieved by this just yet. Your brother may be apt to go through his portion rapidly, in the nature of many with an unexpected windfall.
Post by: Fi(re) on the Farm on August 15, 2024, 06:28:34 PM
My mother thinks she has it all straighten out but two more accounts show up in the last 6 months. One is pretty clear cut, his kids are the beneficiaries but the other is a disaster. My Sdad put my mom as beneficiary on an account that has $200,000 in it. My mom wants to stick to their original agreement and give his kids the money but the account is tax deferred so there will be taxes if she pulls it out and gives it to them. my step-sister constantly calls the lawyer and wants to know where the money is. Mind you, she's already got $250,000 but she wants the other 1/4 of what was in the account.
My stepbrother (who is everything I dislike in a person) has turned out to be my mother's supporter within family, he informed his greedy sister that legally the money was my mom's and she had no claim to it. He's told mom that she needs to keep back 25% to cover the taxes.
I'm concerned that she'll still have to pay gift taxes if she hands each of them $40,000 but her lawyer told her that it didn't matter if it was less than $100,000 to each beneficiary but I think that's wrong. Mom is 85 and I'm really worried about how much she's stressing about this.
Post by: Dave1442397 on August 15, 2024, 06:54:02 PM
My stepbrother (who is everything I dislike in a person) has turned out to be my mother's supporter within family, he informed his greedy sister that legally the money was my mom's and she had no claim to it. He's told mom that she needs to keep back 25% to cover the taxes.
I'm concerned that she'll still have to pay gift taxes if she hands each of them $40,000 but her lawyer told her that it didn't matter if it was less than $100,000 to each beneficiary but I think that's wrong. Mom is 85 and I'm really worried about how much she's stressing about this.
It's already August, so your Mom could just give each beneficiary $18,000 this year (the IRS gift limit), put the rest in a money market account, gift the same on Jan 1st (may go up to $19,000 for next year). That would only leave $3 or $4k to be passed along in 2026, plus (interest - taxes on the interest).
Post by: exterous on August 15, 2024, 08:06:36 PM
Step MIL recently passed away after a very extended battle with Alzheimer's. There's a pretty complicated and decent sized family tree involved but its a pretty amicable group except for one person. My SIL. If you talked to her you'd hear about how life is very unfair and no one can possibly understand how hard it is to be a single mom of one kid. This is despite her ex being an active parent (~33% custody) and paying child support like clockwork. She's even told other single mothers with more kids to care for and completely absent fathers that they don't understand how hard it is for her. Its so hard she can't possibly work full time. She couldn't even manage 20 hours a week at a bank and is now on unemployment. If there is a social program loophole she's used it. Its actually pretty impressive the amount of work she puts in to not working. And whatever money she gets never stays around. Right around April new furniture suddenly appears or a trip to Vegas happens. Then by December she "doesn't have enough money for Christmas presents, gas, or groceries." I'm sitting here trying to think about the last time she had a full time job and it's got to be at least 15 years now.
So the inheritance drama itself: She convinced the Trustee for the Step MIL's trust that, via the hardship provision in the trust, she needed financial help. I mean she's got the sob story down so you really have to get to know her to understand the gap between the story and reality. Anyway, while Step MIL needed expensive memory care, SIL was given a sizeable distribution. The same SIL who never visited Step MIL while she was in memory care. Not even when it was just a regular retirement home. Well she burned through that distribution pretty quickly. So she needed another and got it for a last and final time.
Now that the trust assets and distributions have been shared everyone learned that those didn't come out of 'her' portion of the inheritance. Everyone's distribution is reduced to cover what she got earlier so she's getting $90,000 more than anyone else. This is in addition to other free things and money the family has given her over the years. No thanks or gratitude just a lot of lies. It wouldn't surprise me if someone formally objects to the distribution proposal and the whole process becomes a lot more complicated.
The family is split on wanting her at the funeral with some wanting the family to be together at a time like this while most don't want her there at all and have told her that. I've kept my opinion to myself when there were broader family discussions despite being with my wife for over 20 years. The closest I came to giving an answer when asked if I think she should be invited was to ask a question: "Well she lived 1 hour away from Step MIL. How many times did she visit Step MIL over the past 8 years of her life while working part time or less?"
Zero. The answer is zero times. I don't know her motivation for showing up now but it sure seems suspicious to me. SIL says she's coming despite people telling her they don't want her there. So I'm sure this won't be awkward or tense at all....
Post by: RWD on August 15, 2024, 10:51:54 PM
My stepbrother (who is everything I dislike in a person) has turned out to be my mother's supporter within family, he informed his greedy sister that legally the money was my mom's and she had no claim to it. He's told mom that she needs to keep back 25% to cover the taxes.
I'm concerned that she'll still have to pay gift taxes if she hands each of them $40,000 but her lawyer told her that it didn't matter if it was less than $100,000 to each beneficiary but I think that's wrong. Mom is 85 and I'm really worried about how much she's stressing about this.
It's already August, so your Mom could just give each beneficiary $18,000 this year (the IRS gift limit), put the rest in a money market account, gift the same on Jan 1st (may go up to $19,000 for next year). That would only leave $3 or $4k to be passed along in 2026, plus (interest - taxes on the interest).
I believe that is the limit for reporting. Even if you gift more you will not be taxed on it (up to a lifetime limit of $13.6 million or something).
Post by: reeshau on August 16, 2024, 11:38:35 AM
Its actually pretty impressive the amount of work she puts in to not working.
I've known a handful of people like this over my life. The most pronounced, at work. If only they could see their scheming from the outside, and realize they themselves would be so much better off to just get on with it. Not to mention, the rest of the world.
Post by: Psychstache on August 16, 2024, 12:30:16 PM
Its actually pretty impressive the amount of work she puts in to not working.
I've known a handful of people like this over my life. The most pronounced, at work. If only they could see their scheming from the outside, and realize they themselves would be so much better off to just get on with it. Not to mention, the rest of the world.
Frankly, this is one of the reasons I like the theory of UBI. There's nothing worse than working with/supervising people who do not want to work.
Post by: nereo on August 16, 2024, 01:15:18 PM
Frankly, this is one of the reasons I like the theory of UBI. There's nothing worse than working with/supervising people who do not want to work.
Not to sound brash, but I simply will not work with people who don't want to work. It's one of the key metrics I use to evaluate an employer (I ask fellow employees about their jobs - they're usually very transparent about whether they want to be there). If even one seems to not want to be there that's a huge red flag to me. If people who I supervise don't want to work they aren't retained for very long.
...cause that is completely toxic to everyone else there.
Post by: ATtiny85 on August 16, 2024, 02:00:32 PM
My stepbrother (who is everything I dislike in a person) has turned out to be my mother's supporter within family, he informed his greedy sister that legally the money was my mom's and she had no claim to it. He's told mom that she needs to keep back 25% to cover the taxes.
I'm concerned that she'll still have to pay gift taxes if she hands each of them $40,000 but her lawyer told her that it didn't matter if it was less than $100,000 to each beneficiary but I think that's wrong. Mom is 85 and I'm really worried about how much she's stressing about this.
It's already August, so your Mom could just give each beneficiary $18,000 this year (the IRS gift limit), put the rest in a money market account, gift the same on Jan 1st (may go up to $19,000 for next year). That would only leave $3 or $4k to be passed along in 2026, plus (interest - taxes on the interest).
I believe that is the limit for reporting. Even if you gift more you will not be taxed on it (up to a lifetime limit of $13.6 million or something).
Some states have much lower levels, but with the numbers being tossed around, it seems very unlikely that mom would be anywhere close to even the lowest state level (a million bucks I think for a couple states).
So much ignorance on gifts and taxes out there.
Post by: crocheted_stache on September 23, 2024, 11:06:13 AM
So far, at least the parts I know of my immediate family have been pretty drama-free, although a great-grandparent's New England farmhouse was eventually let go for taxes, deliberately, after a whole herd of cousins my parents' generation couldn't all agree to sell or maintain it. It was not quite old or special enough to be put on the historic register there. Nobody's lived in it for at least 40 years, because it never got indoor plumbing, and the central heating was the 1865 wood stove (also for cooking and baking) that was surely only still there because it was too big and heavy to move.
My parents are both still alive, and their siblings and spouses all seem to be/have been responsible, respectful adults. My dad and his sister have one semi-valuable decorative item they pass back and forth between them, alternating years at Christmas.
I'm in no rush to inherit anything. I don't need more, and my parents are both packrats, especially my mom. The stuff is mostly interesting-but-not-valuable. There are, to my knowledge, no major hygiene issues, no festering seas of empty bottles and cans like in some of the shows. The empty yogurt tubs that "might come in handy someday" (even if they haven't yet) have been washed and neatly stacked, and I won't feel the need to keep them or even account for them, when he time comes. I suspect I may need to comb through pockets, jars, and luggage before donating stuff. That bag of toys I decided I'd outgrown in 4th grade went into the attic and not to the thrift store. And so forth. I'll either be FIRE by then or the need to clean out their house will become the impetus.
I'm probably going to inherit the care of my brother, too. He has the kind of autism that is mild enough that our health care establishments hesitate to diagnose, possibly because the things they might be able to do about it are expensive and ineffective. It's definitely preventing him from holding a good job, whether anyone wants to admit that that's why. Dad still clings to notions of personal responsibility and prods Brother about applying for low-end work that would only frustrate and exhaust him. (Brother has done some driving and data entry work, but isn't cut out for the people parts of anything, and prodding from Dad only ever makes Brother upset, without actually being motivating or helpful.) Dad also thinks Brother is "bad with money," which may be partly true, but also, Brother has never generated enough income to pay the rent and still have much left over to manage.
Brother does tend to come up with a Big Idea that he thinks will be the next great thing, but he seems to lack the wherewithal to either execute on these Big Ideas himself or communicate to anyone else what would need to happen and why—which is endlessly frustrating to Brother and to those of us who occasionally attempt to listen to him.
Brother is getting economic inpatient care from parents, after a landlord closed up shop on a relatively affordable room in a rental house he used to share. Living there puts Brother in range for Dad's opinions and advice, and nobody is very happy about it, but a separate dwelling would cost money that Brother doesn't have and Dad doesn't wish to contribute.
I, meanwhile, got the kind of autism that I've never attempted to get formally diagnosed, because I'm pretty sure that's what it is, and I can mostly mask well enough to hold down a tech job that pays well. I'm the responsible one, and my parents noticed from long ago that I was the cautious tightwad, while my brother only saved his allowance if it was going towards a larger purchase later.
It's likely going to be up to me to negotiate where Brother will live and persuade him to inherit an (existing) annuity as at least part of his portion. I hope he'll let me help organize and automate his finances enough to prevent overdrafts and late fees.
Irritating hassles? Quite possibly. Drama? I'm cautiously optimistic that I might avoid the worst of it.
I'm in no rush to find out.
Post by: AMandM on September 24, 2024, 11:38:36 AM
Irritating hassles? Quite possibly. Drama? I'm cautiously optimistic that I might avoid the worst of it.
I'm in no rush to find out.
This is my generation of my family, too. My father has a simple will and assets, but he is years behind on his taxes. My sisters and I are working to get those sorted out for him while he is still alive. His sister has extensive property full of four generations' worth of things, ranging from valuable heirlooms to sentimental ephemera. It will be a headache for my cousins to deal with, but I don't expect drama. Certainly none of us is going to fight anyone for any of it.
Post by: shelivesthedream on September 24, 2024, 01:37:09 PM
My grandmother died last Christmas. My uncle predeceased her so my mother was left the sole executor. The financial assets have been distributed fairly and appropriately (between my mother, my late uncle's wife (they were childless), my brother, and me). Most of the "stuff" has been dealt with pretty amicably.
Except...
Before my grandmother died, she was going to move in with me. It was all arranged for a few months down the line because we were delayed moving into our new house and we didn't want to move her twice. Then she had two strokes and needed round-the-clock care. So all her possessions moved into "her room" in our house and she moved into a care home down the road to "help her recover" enough to come and live with us. Except she didn't get better and died.
My mother and I spent weeks sorting through all the random and sentimental and occasionally valuable possessions which took up an entire room in my house. Bear in mind this was happening in the first few months of this year.
My brother wanted certain items and we were able to agree pretty amicably on who really wanted what. I was inclined to let him have whatever he wanted for the most part and not argue. But then he just... didn't come and get any of it. (He lives half an hour's drive from me. This was not some epic undertaking.)
I reminded him several times. I pre-packed the smaller items into boxes and physically put them in his car one time. I told him he needed to make a firm date to come and pick up any furniture he wanted or to arrange a man with a van to come and pick it up. (To be fair, his car is pretty small.) My parents took away a few of "his" things to "temporarily" keep them in "his bedroom" at their house. (He is thirty, gainfully employed, living in a different city, with a wife and two children. But "his bedroom" is still apparently his to store stuff in indefinitely. My parents cannot use it because it is full of his stuff.)
And still the furniture was in my house.
Well, they were some nice and useful pieces of furniture so I decided that as they had been hanging out there for six months with apparently no plan for them to leave, they were mine now.
My parents WILL NOT STOP ASKING ME when my brother is going to come and collect "his" furniture. I point out that I am not a self storage facility, he has my phone number, and he has had plenty of opportunity to make arrangements. "Oh, well, he really wanted such-and-such a thing, he just needs to clear such-and-such a space in his [small, cluttered, already adequately furnished] house to make room for it." Reader, he is NEVER going to clear the space. Maybe if he moves to a different house one day he will suddenly make his claim on "his" furniture. But as I keep saying to them, if he wants it so bad, he can speak to ME about collecting it.
But he never will.
Because he knows I will make him do some actual work to get what he wants and not enable him by allowing him to use MY house as HIS personal storage facility. (That furniture my parents took for him "temporarily" because his MEAN MEAN SISTER wanted to actually get the use of an entire room of her house back? Obviously it's still at their house.) But apparently I am the unreasonable one by "taking over" the use of "his" furniture? Unclear when they will shut up about it. Maybe this Christmas? Maybe never?
But wait. There's one more thing.
My parents are still trying to sell my grandmother's flat and have left some suggestive bits of furniture there to stage it a bit. We've sort of agreed amongst ourselves who would like what of that furniture. My parents suggested... that they should get a removals company to deliver it ALL to my house whence it can be distributed to its end destination. HA HA HA NO. I would rather not have ANY of it than go through this nonsense again!
Post by: Tasse on September 24, 2024, 02:42:23 PM
Post by: SwordGuy on September 24, 2024, 02:48:15 PM
Am I understanding correctly that your family (just your parents?) are angry with you for using some furniture for its intended use, instead of leaving it unused in a corner of a specific room? And that either way it is in your house, still hypothetically available to be retrieved with adequate warning?
That's what I got out of it. People can be crazy sometimes.
And @shelivesthedream, you are a great grandkid. It was kind of you to offer to take care of your grandma. Go you!
Post by: shelivesthedream on September 24, 2024, 03:25:58 PM
Am I understanding correctly that your family (just your parents?) are angry with you for using some furniture for its intended use, instead of leaving it unused in a corner of a specific room? And that either way it is in your house, still hypothetically available to be retrieved with adequate warning?
The first sentence, 100%, except I would say irritated rather than angry. And I think my mother specifically is creating drama around this that doesn't need to exist. If my brother really wanted it, he could have talked to me. He didn't, ergo he doesn't. But she loves to stir the pot and put herself in the middle of everything and pass exaggerated messages. I never act on anything she says someone else says or feels or did because she is an unreliable narrator. She doesn't make things up out of whole cloth, but she projects herself into whatever the situation is. So I guess my parents (mother, mainly) are irritated that I am using some furniture for its intended use, instead of leaving it unused in a corner of a specific room... when the alleged recipient of said furniture isn't even that bothered about it.
(I should add that no specific item bequests appeared in my grandmother's will except for two rings to my mother and aunt. This is fully from post-death negotiations/agreements. So I certainly cannot be accused of holding hostage anything that is "rightfully" anyone else's.)
The second sentence no, because it is MINE NOW and full of MY THINGS and ain't nobody gonna get it. *I* am perfectly capable of saying no to my brother... which presumably he knows and is why he hasn't bothered to ask for it now that such a lot of time has passed.
@SwordGuy Thanks. It was really sad that the timings worked out as they did, especially as we all felt the strokes were partly caused by her not eating and drinking and taking her pills properly (she had a carer but only once a day) and I feel that one of the main reasons for her to move in with us was to participate in family meals as part of her routine so she couldn't forget stuff like that. So if she'd just not had the stroke for another two months maybe she'd still be alive today. But she was really really old, nearly 100, and had felt "ready to go" for years, especially when her son died in early 2023. I have a lot of peace that we all really did everything we could for her, and she died knowing that I had made the invitation in total seriousness and we were working towards making it happen. I was sad when she died, but OK with it too. It was a good death in the end, and the immediate family were able to be with her in the hospital for the final hours. I remember hugging my mother right after she died and saying, "We did a good job" and her just kind of nodding and saying it back to me. You can't live in the land of might-have-been.
Post by: AMandM on September 24, 2024, 05:53:44 PM
Post by: Miss Piggy on September 24, 2024, 08:45:40 PM
@SwordGuy Thanks. It was really sad that the timings worked out as they did, especially as we all felt the strokes were partly caused by her not eating and drinking and taking her pills properly (she had a carer but only once a day) and I feel that one of the main reasons for her to move in with us was to participate in family meals as part of her routine so she couldn't forget stuff like that. So if she'd just not had the stroke for another two months maybe she'd still be alive today. But she was really really old, nearly 100, and had felt "ready to go" for years, especially when her son died in early 2023. I have a lot of peace that we all really did everything we could for her, and she died knowing that I had made the invitation in total seriousness and we were working towards making it happen. I was sad when she died, but OK with it too. It was a good death in the end, and the immediate family were able to be with her in the hospital for the final hours. I remember hugging my mother right after she died and saying, "We did a good job" and her just kind of nodding and saying it back to me. You can't live in the land of might-have-been.
Post by: NorthernIkigai on September 25, 2024, 12:48:53 AM
Post by: shelivesthedream on September 25, 2024, 04:25:07 AM
I'm sure you have tried everything with you mother (not just in this situation but since you said this is part of who she is), but what does/would she say if you simply reply with "Why are you saying this to me and not to [brother]?", and then say nothing else? I'm curious, although it is of course none of my business.
She gets very very passive aggressively hurt if I ever ask her why she is saying X to me and not to Y. Or, "What did Y say when you asked them about it?" Like I'm doing it on purpose to get at her. (Which... I think a little part of me sort of is because I know she has no good answer. So I try not to.)
I'm just going for the blandest possible relationship with her at the moment, to give my children a chance for a good relationship with their grandparents. I know that she didn't really like her mother for some reason (maybe because my grandmother was different as a mother and as a grandmother, or maaaaaaybe the common denominator here is my mother), but I really loved my grandmother, and I appreciate that my parents facilitated my relationship with her.
My standard line is, "Well, he knows how to get in touch with me if he wants to make arrangements." Then either silence or change the subject. And... she doesn't really have anything to say! Because it's true! She just sort of huffs and says, "Oh, well, I'm only trying to help." And I say, "OK." And there is further silence or a subject change.
Like, it's fine. We're not having prolonged arguments or even discussions about it. That's the sum total of it every time these days. If I have to spend the rest of my life saying the same thing every time it's brought up, I can live with that. I just wonder when she/they are EVER going to mentally let go of the idea that it's still "his" furniture and isn't now "my" furniture, at least on a sort of "possession is nine tenths of the law" basis.
Maybe I'll try to remember to come and check in here in a year's time to give an update!
Post by: NorthernIkigai on September 25, 2024, 05:44:35 AM
Post by: SunnyDays on September 25, 2024, 05:24:05 PM
Post by: Captain FIRE on September 25, 2024, 08:18:03 PM
@shelivesthedream, why don't you send an email or text (something in writing) to your brother saying that if items aren't picked up by such and such a date, he will have forfeited all claim on them and you will do whatever you see fit with it all. Then you will have a rock solid response to your mom. "Brother didn't pick things up/respond by [date], as I told him to. so it's mine now." Case closed.
And copy your mom!
Post by: NorthernIkigai on September 26, 2024, 01:09:45 AM
If she has decided that oh poor brother is so busy or whatever, no logic will sway her. I wonder if shelivesthedream's excellent relationship with her grandmother, and potential jealousy from the mother's side, was and is a source of this unequal treatment of the siblings.
Post by: Weisass on September 26, 2024, 06:31:08 AM
I think a person who thinks like shelivesthedream's mom would see this as A) subjecting the brother to undue pressure and simultaneously B) just a scheming way of shelivesthedream to get the furniture for herself, which she probably wanted all along.
If she has decided that oh poor brother is so busy or whatever, no logic will sway her. I wonder if shelivesthedream's excellent relationship with her grandmother, and potential jealousy from the mother's side, was and is a source of this unequal treatment of the siblings.
Or maaayyyyyyybe parents are just strange, human creatures who screw up things and have different relationships (not always fair or healthy) with their adult kids?
@shelivesthedream it sounds like the status quo isn’t too frustrating….and you have some lovely furniture full of your things! Keep on being well boundaried and healthy!
Post by: NorthernIkigai on September 26, 2024, 06:45:47 AM
I think a person who thinks like shelivesthedream's mom would see this as A) subjecting the brother to undue pressure and simultaneously B) just a scheming way of shelivesthedream to get the furniture for herself, which she probably wanted all along.
If she has decided that oh poor brother is so busy or whatever, no logic will sway her. I wonder if shelivesthedream's excellent relationship with her grandmother, and potential jealousy from the mother's side, was and is a source of this unequal treatment of the siblings.
Or maaayyyyyyybe parents are just strange, human creatures who screw up things and have different relationships (not always fair or healthy) with their adult kids?
@shelivesthedream it sounds like the status quo isn’t too frustrating….and you have some lovely furniture full of your things! Keep on being well boundaried and healthy!
I don't think what you wrote in any way excludes or contradicts what I wrote :-)
Post by: shelivesthedream on September 26, 2024, 11:43:35 AM
@shelivesthedream, why don't you send an email or text (something in writing) to your brother saying that if items aren't picked up by such and such a date, he will have forfeited all claim on them and you will do whatever you see fit with it all. Then you will have a rock solid response to your mom. "Brother didn't pick things up/respond by [date], as I told him to. so it's mine now." Case closed.
Quote
I told him he needed to make a firm date to come and pick up any furniture he wanted or to arrange a man with a van to come and pick it up.
^^ That's what this was about. His wife was going through some health stuff at the time and I didn't want to be ACTUALLY unfair and say he had two weeks or something when she was basically bedridden. So I told him he had to tell me a firm time when he WOULD be able to come. I fully expected it to be in several months time but... crickets.
@Captain FIRE : Lol, as if I would encourage my mother to think she needs to be part of this conversation between me and my brother!
@NorthernIkigai : Nah, my brother also had a good relationship with my grandmother. I don't know if it would quite have extended to having her move in, but in any case we had plenty of space at the time and he would have had nowhere to put her, and my husband was very willing and I suspect his wife wouldn't have been quite as happy because she would have been the one taking on the "caregiver"* role as both men work and neither women do.
*Had she needed "personal care" then she would have employed paid carers to come to our house. I was signing up for companionship, meals, admin and a sort of general oversight of how she was doing. But I wouldn't be too keen to do that for someone else's grandma!
But can confirm 100% that I have apparently been subjecting my brother to "undue pressure". And that this is part of a pattern of on-paper-equal (like, financially and so on) but in-actual-fact-unequal (leeway given, energy expended) treatment between the siblings. I used to think that because of the on-paper stuff, I was the one with the problem. But I met my husband when I was 18/19 and he was shocked by the blatant in-practice favouritism and confirmed that I am completely accurate in my perception that I am the less favoured sibling. I honestly think my mother (mostly, though my father enables) has no conscious idea that she is doing it and thinks she is scrupulously fair.
Thankfully I am now at a more mature stage where I can just laugh at how totally bizarre it all is, supported by my husband's confirmation that I am not the crazy one here.
It's even more amusing that my brother has turned out to be the one who achieved all the parental expectations on paper (excellent degree, high-flying career, earns loads of money) and yet is the one who is evidently more disappointing in practice (never replies to texts, consumerist lifestyle, probable debt, they don't agree with how he is parenting his children, they don't like his wife as much as my husband (I think)).......... and yet he's still the golden child. Go figure.
Post by: Zamboni on September 28, 2024, 02:05:30 PM
Quote
It's even more amusing that my brother has turned out to be the one who achieved all the parental expectations on paper (excellent degree, high-flying career, earns loads of money) and yet is the one who is evidently more disappointing in practice (never replies to texts, consumerist lifestyle, probable debt, they don't agree with how he is parenting his children, they don't like his wife as much as my husband (I think)).......... and yet he's still the golden child. Go figure.
My guess is that he gets a pass from your Mom on basic things like replying to texts because in her head he is "too busy with work," but mostly because he is simply male.
It is a fact of our society that women are usually expected to be "kinkeepers" and take care of all tasks such as family communication, planning family gatherings, providing emotional and physical caregiving, etc. Even if you both had 100% equal paid employment, then he still basically gets a pass, and you don't, solely based upon your Mom's gender expectations. I'm definitely not at all saying this is okay, but it is a dynamic that goes on much of the time.
In too many families women are even expected to pick out gifts for their in-laws, while men are often not really expected to come up with thoughtful gifts for anyone, even their wives, which is total BS and a guy who can't handle buying the birthday and Christmas gifts for the one single person who should absolutely be on his shopping list deserves divorce. Mom's pathetic half filled stocking has been made a joke by Dad on many a TikTok . . . by men who should have filled that sucker up, but who accept absolutely no responsibility for holiday magic and seem to find it amusing that she got less than everyone else . . . again.
That tangent aside, I am worn out. I'm getting pestered a bit by siblings who don't seem to understand that estates take time. Mom has been dead less than two months, so please leave me alone already. The first thing I did was take care of getting documents submitted for her life insurance, so that has already paid out to everyone and now it is time to just chill and let me sift through the rest of the legal process. Legally I don't think I can even distribute any of her money until after the state-mandated 4 month window that creditors have to make a claim to her estate about a debt she owes. That notice to creditors did get posted ASAP, but there is a waiting period.
Everyone has just pilfered through her "stuff" and taken whatever they wanted . . . and there didn't seem to be any way to stop that without a massive family blow out (there actually was an eruption over the mere suggestion that it should stop or at least slow down, and at that point I threw my hands up in the air about it because I just don't care about all that.) I did my best to make a physical inventory ASAP and I did make a note of who took a couple of things of definite significant value, and that will be accounted for in the end whether she likes it or not. On the bright side, letting people take whatever they wanted was helpful in getting family to clean out the house, so the things no one wanted are also gone now and the house is on the market. But selling a house takes time, so y'all need to relax. I'm quite tired of talking about it and hearing people's opinions about it all. I guess I'll just have to start saying "I really don't want to talk about it, thanks."
Post by: SwordGuy on September 28, 2024, 04:11:50 PM
But, for perspective, given the horror stories on this thread, so do you. So relax. :)
And if they want you to do it faster, ask if they want to pony up the money to pay you full time at your current (or last) salary. Or if they want the estate to pay you to work on it full time, which means it comes out of their share.
Or they can just chill and you'll get it done in a reasonable time within the law. :)
Post by: iluvzbeach on September 28, 2024, 04:30:43 PM
I, too, am an only child and while it's great from the perspective of no fighting with other heirs over potential inheritance or who helps take care of the parents and how much each person does or doesn't do, it's challenging having all of the responsibility fall on the one person. I'm an only child of divorced parents. Dad is now deceased, but stepmom is still alive and has no other living relatives, so I'm her relative. Then, there's my mom. Plus, DH's mom. We don't have kids, so at least that's one less responsibility we have to focus on.
I'm also the executor for my step-grandfather's estate, when the time comes. He's been around since before I was born, so I consider him my grandfather but legally he is a step-grandfather. There are six heirs between my mom & her siblings/stepsiblings, so I imagine I'll have my hands full dealing with the type of drama Zamboni describes when the time comes. Grandfather is old but in overall good shape, especially for his age. He could still be around for another 10-12 years. Who knows, he could end up being one of those who lives to spend every last cent (but hopefully never ends up on Medicaid.)
Post by: Zamboni on September 29, 2024, 02:30:06 PM
@Zamboni , it's stories like yours that make me glad I was an only child, I was the executor, and everything was left to me. I had it easy!
But, for perspective, given the horror stories on this thread, so do you. So relax. :)
Yes, it could definitely be way, way worse. Mom collected certain things and had waaay too much stuff, but she would not have qualified for an episode of Hoarders or anything like that, thankfully.
My family seem honest for the most part, which is probably more than half the battle. The heavy lifting has been spread over a very large number of people, literally, which is very lucky.
And if they want you to do it faster, ask if they want to pony up the money to pay you full time at your current (or last) salary. Or if they want the estate to pay you to work on it full time, which means it comes out of their share.
Or they can just chill and you'll get it done in a reasonable time within the law. :)
Hahaha, that would be hilarious. I'm pretty sure that the court would not consider my "hourly" pay to be in the realm of reasonable.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 29, 2024, 02:38:31 PM
Hahaha, that would be hilarious. I'm pretty sure that the court would not consider my "hourly" pay to be in the realm of reasonable.
Same as you make at work would be perfectly reasonable (to me, maybe not the courts). Plus incurred expenses. It's work. Just because it's family doesn't mean it isn't work.
Post by: SwordGuy on September 29, 2024, 03:01:31 PM
Hahaha, that would be hilarious. I'm pretty sure that the court would not consider my "hourly" pay to be in the realm of reasonable.
Same as you make at work would be perfectly reasonable (to me, maybe not the courts). Plus incurred expenses. It's work. Just because it's family doesn't mean it isn't work.
For the record, in the US, the various states have limits on how much an executor can charge.
But I wasn't recommending that you charge your relatives more than that, I was recommending you ask them to pony up the cost of your time to deal with it and watch them quickly scuttle away like cockroaches when a light is turned on. :)
Post by: Taran Wanderer on September 29, 2024, 05:42:50 PM
… and watch them quickly scuttle away like cockroaches when a light is turned on. :)
Nice analogy.
Post by: PhilB on November 16, 2024, 11:23:00 PM
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Post by: zolotiyeruki on November 17, 2024, 05:56:03 AM
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...Am I understanding this correctly, that each of you is attempting to make the other take a larger cut of the inheritance? That's a rather wholesome subversion of expectations!
Post by: nereo on November 17, 2024, 06:08:11 AM
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Well it’s refreshing to hear about siblings that are concerned with getting *more* than they think they should.
It seems he’s concerned with what others might think. So my question is - how will other people know (and will they genuinely care?). Sure, the house is obvious to external observers, but not the liquid assets. If you are as outwardly supportive of the inheritance as you’ve been here who’s out there talking?
Can you both say that your Dad split his estate “equitably” between his sons and leave the details between the two of you?
Post by: PhilB on November 17, 2024, 06:43:18 AM
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Well it’s refreshing to hear about siblings that are concerned with getting *more* than they think they should.
It seems he’s concerned with what others might think. So my question is - how will other people know (and will they genuinely care?). Sure, the house is obvious to external observers, but not the liquid assets. If you are as outwardly supportive of the inheritance as you’ve been here who’s out there talking?
Can you both say that your Dad split his estate “equitably” between his sons and leave the details between the two of you?
I think the 'anyone' in this case is just him and me in terms of thinking he looked after them for money. As I know he didn't, that probably narrows it down to him. Dad's wishes aren't something either of us really care about as he was a miserable old miser. When Mom died one of his biggest concerns was losing her tiny state pension. This from a man who was still earning £60k pa and spending £11k. The only reason for the gift was that he couldn't bare the thought of paying higher rate tax on the rent. He did ask at the time if he had to make an equivalent gift to me to avoid friction between me and D. Note the 'had to'. I told him no as D deserved it for everything he'd done for them. I'm still holding to that. I'm also changing the will so that my half goes straight to my kids as I don't want it.
Post by: reeshau on November 17, 2024, 07:50:05 AM
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Well it’s refreshing to hear about siblings that are concerned with getting *more* than they think they should.
It seems he’s concerned with what others might think. So my question is - how will other people know (and will they genuinely care?). Sure, the house is obvious to external observers, but not the liquid assets. If you are as outwardly supportive of the inheritance as you’ve been here who’s out there talking?
Can you both say that your Dad split his estate “equitably” between his sons and leave the details between the two of you?
I think the 'anyone' in this case is just him and me in terms of thinking he looked after them for money. As I know he didn't, that probably narrows it down to him. Dad's wishes aren't something either of us really care about as he was a miserable old miser. When Mom died one of his biggest concerns was losing her tiny state pension. This from a man who was still earning £60k pa and spending £11k. The only reason for the gift was that he couldn't bare the thought of paying higher rate tax on the rent. He did ask at the time if he had to make an equivalent gift to me to avoid friction between me and D. Note the 'had to'. I told him no as D deserved it for everything he'd done for them. I'm still holding to that. I'm also changing the will so that my half goes straight to my kids as I don't want it.
That brings up a thought. Does your brother have kids? Maybe he could do the same with his "surplus."
Post by: SwordGuy on November 17, 2024, 08:50:41 AM
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
If neither of you need the money in question, there are people in western NC (and elsewhere) who lost everything to weather events...
Post by: PhilB on November 17, 2024, 03:51:39 PM
Post by: Dollar Slice on November 17, 2024, 06:08:07 PM
I don't need the money, but my kids are just starting out in life and it will make a big difference to them. D has three kids, at least one of which is struggling financially raising his first grandkid, plus D himself is not exactly flush with cash. The cash will definitely be going to places where it will help. You are right though SwordGuy that I should think about making some charitable donations.
What if you offer to do it 60/40 to make it (eventually) balance out for the grandkids instead of 50/50 for you and your brother? I'm not sure what percentage of the estate the house is, or if that would make it more or less uneven... just something to think about.
Post by: Zamboni on November 17, 2024, 06:39:34 PM
Also, does the executor not need to give an accounting of the dispersal of funds to the courts where you live? Where I live, you are supposed to show the court that the stipulations of the will were followed in honor of the wishes of the deceased. Sure, you can immediately gift your interest in the house to your brother, but technically it sounds like you own half of it until you do that . . . where I live the house would now be owned by the Estate, and then you'd need to sign a quitclaim deed in order for the home to be your brother's free and clear. Perhaps the laws where you are differ, but I think you should spend a little money and consult legal advice on these matters to avoid potential problems later.
Post by: PhilB on November 17, 2024, 10:32:13 PM
@PhilB I don't understand how you can change someone else's will. I do understand that you could gift your inheritance to your children immediately after you receive it, but they don't magically become the heirs in the will . . . the executor cannot change the will, at least not where I live.
I'll be changing it in my capacity as beneficiary, rather than executor. Here in the UK, the beneficiaries can change the will by something called a Deed of Variation - basically just a letter that says how you are changing it, with a few specific things that have to be mentioned about tax. The only stipulation is that it has to be made and signed by any and every beneficiary that is disadvantaged by it - so I can redirect my 50% share anywhere I want, just so long as I don't leave D with less than he would have had.
I will be using one to send my half to my kids as it is more tax efficient than me receiving it and gifting it, just in case I die within the following seven years. I would not be surprised if D did something similar with part of his half once I explain it to him, although I would expect him to retain much of it. I'm already in a position where my estate will be big enough to have to pay inheritance tax. I suspect he's quite a way under that.
Quote
Also, does the executor not need to give an accounting of the dispersal of funds to the courts where you live? Where I live, you are supposed to show the court that the stipulations of the will were followed in honor of the wishes of the deceased.
Here in the UK there is no requirement to give an accounting to the courts. The executor has to keep an account, but the only people who have a right to see it are the residuary beneficiaries. And the taxman if they challenge anything.
Quote
Sure, you can immediately gift your interest in the house to your brother, but technically it sounds like you own half of it until you do that . . . where I live the house would now be owned by the Estate, and then you'd need to sign a quitclaim deed in order for the home to be your brother's free and clear. Perhaps the laws where you are differ, but I think you should spend a little money and consult legal advice on these matters to avoid potential problems later.
The house is not part of the estate. From the moment it was gifted it became the property of D and his wife. Under UK law, the failure to live for seven years after the gift doesn't make it part of the estate again. It just means that the gift uses up part (or all) of the testator's nil rate band for inheritance tax. So the amount of the actual estate which is above the nil rate band, and therefore liable to a 40% tax, increases by the value of the previous gift. The recipient keeps the gift, all the tax is paid by the estate and borne by the residuary beneficiaries - unless the value of the gift was more than the total of the nil rate band, in which case the recipient is liable for the tax on the excess.
Post by: PhilB on November 17, 2024, 10:46:26 PM
I don't need the money, but my kids are just starting out in life and it will make a big difference to them. D has three kids, at least one of which is struggling financially raising his first grandkid, plus D himself is not exactly flush with cash. The cash will definitely be going to places where it will help. You are right though SwordGuy that I should think about making some charitable donations.
What if you offer to do it 60/40 to make it (eventually) balance out for the grandkids instead of 50/50 for you and your brother? I'm not sure what percentage of the estate the house is, or if that would make it more or less uneven... just something to think about.
That's a tricky one, as the end result might be similar, but it feels very different. If Dad had decided to structure the will that way, then I would have fully understood and supported that. As it is, changing the will like that would effectively be me offering to take money from my kids and give it to D's kids. That feels different to me refusing an offer from D to give my kids some of his share because he'd already had a (well deserved) gift.
Post by: thrifted on January 10, 2025, 12:36:05 AM
My evil step-mother sincerely believes that everything my grandparents left/have should go to her and her kids because she is married to the first born son (my dad) and her/my dad's kids are his only sons.
A little bit about my dad... He sadly lived most of his life an addict. In the 90's, after my parents divorced, he left his first family (me and my sisters) in the US for the Philippines. He started his second family (my half-brothers) but before my baby half-brother turned 1, he came back to the US. He had better work prospects as a US Citizen and intended to support both families. At first, he worked hard and sent money home to PI. But child support for his first family never happened. (I remember him taking me to the grocery story when he was cashing his check and saying, "Get anything you want." I got Pepperidge Farm Mint Milanos and he smiled and said I was high class, lol.)
My mom was very forgiving because she's a good person and he'd never been particularly stable anyway. They haven't seen or spoken to each other since the divorce and that's all my mom asks for.
My step-mom, on the other hand, is either screaming at him or not speaking to him. She had married him not for love but because he was a US citizen. She had high hopes that she and her kids would live a good life from his remittance and that he'd eventually return. He still lives in the US and tells us he wants to the return to the Philippines so he can die. Since my dad didn't keep his promises, she crafted a web of lies... a very detailed, 30 year saga of just how evil and selfish my older sister is.
Lie # 1 My sister is hiding money
Many years after my paternal grandfather passed, we learned that he had left $20k in a bank account in the States. He had moved back to the PI, passed before settling his finances, and my grandma wasn't of sound mind to claim the funds. It took decades to set up a power of attorney Thankfully my cousin did a bunch of research, set up a POA, opened a bank account for her, and wired the funds. Grandma was well taken care of at home. The same cousin and her husband (a nurse) cared for my grandma 24/7 in her dying days.
Lie # 2 My sister secretly owns a plot at the cemetery
Grandpa also left a fully paid double plot at a graveyard not far from me. He had purchased it for $3k. I had the paperwork at some point but couldn't for the life of me find it. It didn't matter. The cemetery was really difficult to work with and messed up the transfer of ownership anyway. Eventually, I found a family service advisor at the cemetery who could help. My little sister and I sent $5k to my grandma and now own the plot.
Lie # 3 My sister demanded grandma's urn to be opened so that she could have some ashes
My sister asked if any ashes had been put aside before it was sealed into the urn. Of course a few of the loved ones we've lost have ashes traditionally in an urn at the cemetery. But on more than one occasion ashes were given to family members before the official urn was sealed. My cousin's ashes were scattered at his favorite fishing spot. I have a necklace that contains that cousin's ashes. And I have a tiny tiny urn that contains my sister.
I knew my step-mom never liked my sister but I only learned these stories when family immigrated here last year. I have lost all respect for her and her kids.
The thing that kills me the most is that my step-mom never visited my grandma, even when grandma was on her deathbed. She didn't go to her funeral either. She encouraged my half-brothers do the same. And they did! Our culture centers around respecting your elders, especially the dead.
My grandma has struggled with depression and dementia for some time. It seems her memory stopped at 1980, before I was born. My older sister is the only one of our generation that she recalls. She doesn't remember or recognize any of the rest of us - me, my 4 siblings, my 10 cousins. Even though she lived with 3 of my cousins the last 20 odd years of her life. She has no recollection that my dad divorced, remarried and had 2 more kids. She also doesn't remember that her golden child married, had 5 kids, and passed
I no longer speak to my step-mom and I now think that she'll come after the house my grandpa built. My uncle owns it and he has no intention of giving it to her. My other uncle and his family of 9 have lived there for over 40 years. And my dad won't be going home.
Post by: Frugal Lizard on January 10, 2025, 08:31:42 AM
Post by: Sugaree on February 13, 2025, 06:24:58 AM
Post by: AMandM on February 15, 2025, 03:27:11 PM
Post by: Dave1442397 on February 15, 2025, 06:08:21 PM
The funny part is that my sister-in-law (who was never officially adopted - long story, we're talking The Philippines in the '60s) found out about it last year and has basically stopped talking to us, and calls my mother-in-law on a regular basis trying to get her to change her mind.
We're applying for a handicapped placard for my wife's car to make it easier to park at Doctor's appointments, etc; and they asked for a copy of her birth certificate. My wife went looking for it at the condo last weekend and brought home a folder of documents.
We were reading through them and found two previous wills, one from the early '90s and one from 2005. In both wills, everything was left to their immediate family, and the sister-in-law in question would only inherit if no other family members survived.
When we took my MIL to the lawyer's office five years ago to make her new will, she didn't want to leave anything to SIL, but we told her she probably should, so she ended up including her. We thought maybe she was just mad at her at the time, having no idea that SIL had been excluded from previous wills.
It's not as if we're talking big money here. MIL is 95, and has around $45k in brokerage accounts, which is being depleted at the rate of $5k per year or so. After funeral expenses, there won't be much left anyway. Even if the condo had been divvied up it would have come out to maybe $20k per person.
The best part of the whole thing is that SIL is no longer talking to us :) Just to give a glimpse of her personality type, she was told at work that she wouldn't get promoted to supervisor level because no one wants to work with her, and of course, according to SIL, everyone else is the problem.
Post by: Sugaree on February 16, 2025, 07:33:52 AM
Yikes, sugaree, I can see how that could get ugly. Can they at least quit-claim it to him now, or retitle it with him as TOD beneficiary? Then hope/pray/help them stay fit for another 5 years....
It's not paid off (they've treated it like an ATM for years doing cash out refis), so I'm not sure that quit claiming it would be a viable option. But, I haven't looked I to the specifics of that. The TOD thing might work. I really need to sit down and have a conversation with them soon. That's never gone super well in the past. Maybe bringing them a copy of my estate plans "so they know in case I get hit by a bus" would be a good way to spur that on.
On a side note, my MIL is in the hospital battling cancer and someone tried to commit title fraud on FIL's family property in Texas. Talk about a nightmare.
Post by: Chris Pascale on April 05, 2025, 09:48:48 AM
This is all hypothetical so far, but I'm a bit concerned about my parents' estate is going to play out. The backstory here is that my mom inherited the house I live in from my grandparents. Four years ago, she quit claimed it to me, so we're getting pretty close to being out of the Mesicaid lookback period. The deal at the time was that I would have this house at that time in exchange for my brother getting their house (worth 2x this one) when they pass. Morbid, but it was the closest they've ever come to actually talking about it. Until yesterday. Due to a situation with my in-laws, mom and I had a short conversation about it where I found out that not only have they not done anything to protect the house from Medicaid recovery, they don't even have a will. She said that they were looking at an online template for that. The thing is that I don't need anything else. But I'm afraid that my brother is going to get left out if either of them ends up in LTC. And that could definitely cause some drama and hard feelings. There was a very, very similar situation with some cousins a couple of years ago and I thought my parents had taken notes
Have they done this yet?
Post by: Chris Pascale on April 05, 2025, 09:50:42 AM
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Hopefully this played out as it should with your brother accepting that it's not about money; it's about him keeping his house.
Post by: PhilB on April 05, 2025, 04:50:52 PM
My inheritance drama is playing out exactly as I predicted on here a while ago.
My father, who died last week, gifted the old family house to my brother D five years ago. D kept it on as a rental. As Dad didn't survive seven years, the gift gets counted into the estate for calculating inheritance tax.
As expected, D and I are now arguing about whether or not the gift of that house should be taken into account when calculating his share of the estate. He thinks it should be. I think he should keep it, free and clear, and still get 50% of what's left. He deserves it because he, living locally, provided most of the care to my parents. He's affronted at this suggestion because he doesn't want anyone thinking he looked after them for money. This could get tricky...
Hopefully this played out as it should with your brother accepting that it's not about money; it's about him keeping his house.
I think he's accepted it but, if he hasn't, there won't be much he can do about it. I'm handling the estate. I have his bank details. He doesn't have mine. Short of driving down and stuffing cash through my letterbox, there won't be any way for him to make me take the money back. Mwahahaha!
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 06, 2025, 03:37:46 AM
Mostly posting to follow, having finally finished back-reading this thread.
So far, at least the parts I know of my immediate family have been pretty drama-free, although a great-grandparent's New England farmhouse was eventually let go for taxes, deliberately, after a whole herd of cousins my parents' generation couldn't all agree to sell or maintain it. It was not quite old or special enough to be put on the historic register there. Nobody's lived in it for at least 40 years, because it never got indoor plumbing, and the central heating was the 1865 wood stove (also for cooking and baking) that was surely only still there because it was too big and heavy to move.
My parents are both still alive, and their siblings and spouses all seem to be/have been responsible, respectful adults. My dad and his sister have one semi-valuable decorative item they pass back and forth between them, alternating years at Christmas.
I'm in no rush to inherit anything. I don't need more, and my parents are both packrats, especially my mom. The stuff is mostly interesting-but-not-valuable. There are, to my knowledge, no major hygiene issues, no festering seas of empty bottles and cans like in some of the shows. The empty yogurt tubs that "might come in handy someday" (even if they haven't yet) have been washed and neatly stacked, and I won't feel the need to keep them or even account for them, when he time comes. I suspect I may need to comb through pockets, jars, and luggage before donating stuff. That bag of toys I decided I'd outgrown in 4th grade went into the attic and not to the thrift store. And so forth. I'll either be FIRE by then or the need to clean out their house will become the impetus.
I'm probably going to inherit the care of my brother, too. He has the kind of autism that is mild enough that our health care establishments hesitate to diagnose, possibly because the things they might be able to do about it are expensive and ineffective. It's definitely preventing him from holding a good job, whether anyone wants to admit that that's why. Dad still clings to notions of personal responsibility and prods Brother about applying for low-end work that would only frustrate and exhaust him. (Brother has done some driving and data entry work, but isn't cut out for the people parts of anything, and prodding from Dad only ever makes Brother upset, without actually being motivating or helpful.) Dad also thinks Brother is "bad with money," which may be partly true, but also, Brother has never generated enough income to pay the rent and still have much left over to manage.
Brother does tend to come up with a Big Idea that he thinks will be the next great thing, but he seems to lack the wherewithal to either execute on these Big Ideas himself or communicate to anyone else what would need to happen and why—which is endlessly frustrating to Brother and to those of us who occasionally attempt to listen to him.
Brother is getting economic inpatient care from parents, after a landlord closed up shop on a relatively affordable room in a rental house he used to share. Living there puts Brother in range for Dad's opinions and advice, and nobody is very happy about it, but a separate dwelling would cost money that Brother doesn't have and Dad doesn't wish to contribute.
I, meanwhile, got the kind of autism that I've never attempted to get formally diagnosed, because I'm pretty sure that's what it is, and I can mostly mask well enough to hold down a tech job that pays well. I'm the responsible one, and my parents noticed from long ago that I was the cautious tightwad, while my brother only saved his allowance if it was going towards a larger purchase later.
It's likely going to be up to me to negotiate where Brother will live and persuade him to inherit an (existing) annuity as at least part of his portion. I hope he'll let me help organize and automate his finances enough to prevent overdrafts and late fees.
Irritating hassles? Quite possibly. Drama? I'm cautiously optimistic that I might avoid the worst of it.
I'm in no rush to find out.
I see that you're located in the US and I'm not sure how things work there re autism diagnoses - however, what I've seen is that here in Italy at least autism diagnosis has changed a ton in recent years so that people who are relatively low support needs can still be diagnosed in the public health system. Not sure if that would help the situation at all but here someone like your brother would be eligible for certain job programs and benefits if they were diagnosed. Not perfect but something at least.
Also I have a relative who is an adult with what used to be called "Aspergers" - now just Autism level 1 and he's thrived as a fork lift driver. He got his fork lift license a few years ago and works part time and gets decent money. The # of pallets of whatever type that he has to move in the warehouse arrives digitally so there's no human interaction except during breaks and he just goes around on his forklift while listening to music on his headphones. He's a very intelligent guy but can't deal with human interactions especially after being severaly bullied at school (he's in his 50s) so this works for him.
Post by: crocheted_stache on April 07, 2025, 12:27:40 AM
I've watched a different autistic friend struggle mightily with getting diagnosed, and then convincing every successive caregiver that it's (still) true. I've also watched her struggle to get and keep various benefits. I'm pretty well convinced that, other than health care, it's going to be easier on all concerned if my brother stays out of The System.
At this point, that means that I set things up so rent, utilities, and whatnot are getting auto-paid out of the annuity income, and he gets some monthly amount for food, transportation, and whatever else. Either that, or the girlfriend who has recently entered the picture sticks around and this out to have the wherewithal to keep him on track for the basics. I think he and I would both be just as happy without me being in charge.
He may not even still be the spendthrift my dad thinks he is. When he was earning money, it wasn't that much. It's possible that rent, food, operable car, and decent, recent gadgets are enough to keep him going, and he reaches his own equilibrium.
Time will tell.
Post by: Sugaree on April 07, 2025, 07:52:36 AM
This is all hypothetical so far, but I'm a bit concerned about my parents' estate is going to play out. The backstory here is that my mom inherited the house I live in from my grandparents. Four years ago, she quit claimed it to me, so we're getting pretty close to being out of the Mesicaid lookback period. The deal at the time was that I would have this house at that time in exchange for my brother getting their house (worth 2x this one) when they pass. Morbid, but it was the closest they've ever come to actually talking about it. Until yesterday. Due to a situation with my in-laws, mom and I had a short conversation about it where I found out that not only have they not done anything to protect the house from Medicaid recovery, they don't even have a will. She said that they were looking at an online template for that. The thing is that I don't need anything else. But I'm afraid that my brother is going to get left out if either of them ends up in LTC. And that could definitely cause some drama and hard feelings. There was a very, very similar situation with some cousins a couple of years ago and I thought my parents had taken notes
Have they done this yet?
They actually met with an actual estate attorney and had wills, POAs, and medical proxies drawn up. It's not going to help if either of them need LTC in the next 5 years, but it's better than the alternative.
Post by: partgypsy on April 07, 2025, 09:38:01 AM
Knew this was going to happen bc that has been the refrain from sis, all she's been talking about for a few months. Also pushing mom to write a will to that effect. This is after mom already helps her with money every month, gave her a car, and paid a 25k bill for her. While the 2 sibs that are responsible and busting their butts, get nothing. The three things are. I dk by the time mom dies there will be anything left. She may be counting on something that won't be there. Rather than focusing on that she needs to focus on, how to take care of herself like an adult and means of employment. I am mad on behalf of my brother. Otherwise than mom paying a 100-200 bill each month, brother has been hosting both of them, at his expense. He could use the help! Finally, it hurts my feelings. It's irrational but it's true. I feel like I'm the invisible one. This is the latest in a long line of incidences. I still remember a family outing when I was a little kid. We stopped at a rest area. My family took off without me. I dk how long it was. But it was long enough I saw new families arrive, eat their lunches, and leave, until they realized I wasn't in the car and came back for me.
Post by: Sibley on April 07, 2025, 11:37:10 AM
I do think, and hope, that you have access to a therapist, or have in the past, that can help you process and come to terms with what is a lifetime of very hurtful behaviors from the people who should love and care for you. You can't change them but you can come to peace within yourself. And it totally sucks that its necessary.
Post by: partgypsy on April 07, 2025, 12:34:55 PM
Post by: Frugal Lizard on April 07, 2025, 12:40:34 PM
Yes. I do have baggage and I do have a therapist. I feel like I have healed and gotten better. But this re opens old wounds.Being able to articulate the hurt as you have does seem to me to like a whole lot of healing has happened. And that is a whole lot of pressure on the scar tissue.
Post by: Sibley on April 07, 2025, 01:43:07 PM
Yes. I do have baggage and I do have a therapist. I feel like I have healed and gotten better. But this re opens old wounds.Being able to articulate the hurt as you have does seem to me to like a whole lot of healing has happened. And that is a whole lot of pressure on the scar tissue.
This, exactly. There's no shame in being human.
Post by: Hula Hoop on April 07, 2025, 01:55:34 PM
So my inheritance news is mom told us her intentions last night. She had a bad emmeshed relationship with oldest son where both her and father spent all their resources on him till he died. The weird relationship in lesser form continues with sis. Last night she told me she intends on sis 100% beneficiary of all her assets. I
Knew this was going to happen bc that has been the refrain from sis, all she's been talking about for a few months. Also pushing mom to write a will to that effect. This is after mom already helps her with money every month, gave her a car, and paid a 25k bill for her. While the 2 sibs that are responsible and busting their butts, get nothing. The three things are. I dk by the time mom dies there will be anything left. She may be counting on something that won't be there. Rather than focusing on that she needs to focus on, how to take care of herself like an adult and means of employment. I am mad on behalf of my brother. Otherwise than mom paying a 100-200 bill each month, brother has been hosting both of them, at his expense. He could use the help! Finally, it hurts my feelings. It's irrational but it's true. I feel like I'm the invisible one. This is the latest in a long line of incidences. I still remember a family outing when I was a little kid. We stopped at a rest area. My family took off without me. I dk how long it was. But it was long enough I saw new families arrive, eat their lunches, and leave, until they realized I wasn't in the car and came back for me.
I'm so sorry @partgypsy that must really hurt.
Post by: Zamboni on April 07, 2025, 03:18:24 PM
So my inheritance news is mom told us her intentions last night. She had a bad emmeshed relationship with oldest son where both her and father spent all their resources on him till he died. The weird relationship in lesser form continues with sis. Last night she told me she intends on sis 100% beneficiary of all her assets. I
Knew this was going to happen bc that has been the refrain from sis, all she's been talking about for a few months. Also pushing mom to write a will to that effect. This is after mom already helps her with money every month, gave her a car, and paid a 25k bill for her. While the 2 sibs that are responsible and busting their butts, get nothing. The three things are. I dk by the time mom dies there will be anything left. She may be counting on something that won't be there. Rather than focusing on that she needs to focus on, how to take care of herself like an adult and means of employment. I am mad on behalf of my brother. Otherwise than mom paying a 100-200 bill each month, brother has been hosting both of them, at his expense. He could use the help! Finally, it hurts my feelings. It's irrational but it's true. I feel like I'm the invisible one. This is the latest in a long line of incidences. I still remember a family outing when I was a little kid. We stopped at a rest area. My family took off without me. I dk how long it was. But it was long enough I saw new families arrive, eat their lunches, and leave, until they realized I wasn't in the car and came back for me.
It's not irrational at all. In fact, it is totally understandable that you feel the way you do. Your are being treated badly, and you have a right to be (insert any adjective you feel here: sad, angry, annoyed, disappointed, unloved, etc.) I'm sorry you are going through this. (Hugs)
Hopefully I have talked one of my friends out of doing this to her sons: rewarding bad behavior by their very irresponsible son by favoring him in the asset distribution. It's bad enough that he is draining so many of their resources from his parents while they are alive . . . it would be adding insult to injury to their other two sons to give him more than an equal share in the will. I hope she sticks to it as he lives with them even though he is middle aged and not disabled. Due to being with them every day, it seems like he is constantly manipulating them into doing what he wants.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on April 07, 2025, 06:50:14 PM
So my inheritance news is mom told us her intentions last night. She had a bad emmeshed relationship with oldest son where both her and father spent all their resources on him till he died. The weird relationship in lesser form continues with sis. Last night she told me she intends on sis 100% beneficiary of all her assets. I
Knew this was going to happen bc that has been the refrain from sis, all she's been talking about for a few months. Also pushing mom to write a will to that effect. This is after mom already helps her with money every month, gave her a car, and paid a 25k bill for her. While the 2 sibs that are responsible and busting their butts, get nothing. The three things are. I dk by the time mom dies there will be anything left. She may be counting on something that won't be there. Rather than focusing on that she needs to focus on, how to take care of herself like an adult and means of employment. I am mad on behalf of my brother. Otherwise than mom paying a 100-200 bill each month, brother has been hosting both of them, at his expense. He could use the help! Finally, it hurts my feelings. It's irrational but it's true. I feel like I'm the invisible one. This is the latest in a long line of incidences. I still remember a family outing when I was a little kid. We stopped at a rest area. My family took off without me. I dk how long it was. But it was long enough I saw new families arrive, eat their lunches, and leave, until they realized I wasn't in the car and came back for me.
I appreciate your honesty and transparency. I've read many stories on this thread and on the forum. People often say that it's their parents' money, and they can do whatever want with it. Intellectually I agree with this. If my sibling needed medical care or something of that sort, that would completely make sense. If my parent's decided to give all their money away to charity, I would completely understand. However, if my parent's just chose to give a sibling all of the inheritance and me nothing or substantially less...I mean, I can't picture how it wouldn't make you feel a little hurt at least to begin with.
Post by: partgypsy on April 08, 2025, 07:44:21 AM