Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[Lanthiriel]

My mom had a pretty rough childhood. Neither of her parents were particularly interested in being parents, and she only really made it through life because my horrible grandmother managed to marry an absolutely wonderful man the second time around. My uncle is a mooch who will tell anyone who will listen how hard his life is. He did retail jobs and largely lived off of the good will of others (I don't want to think about how much money he siphoned off my great grandparents) into his late 40s.

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.

[Papa Mustache]

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!

[Astatine]

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.

[PAstash]

My grand father and his brother were both heirs to a small family fortune. Nothing crazy as I understand it. Small but successful business. A nice collection of rare jewels. A fair sized chunk of cash. Thinking high six figures that's cash not including the business jewels and paid off four bedroom/2ba home in a niceish area.

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?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

This thread is kind of like every soap opera or telenovela in the world, at the same time, but without the commercials.

[Papa Mustache]

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.

[LeRainDrop]

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!

[BlueHouse]

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. 

[Dicey]

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.

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.

[paddedhat]

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.

[Spork]

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.

[paddedhat]

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.

[TomTX]

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.

[BlueHouse]

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".  ;)

[TheGrimSqueaker]

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.

[kayvent]

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.

[kayvent]

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.

[Inaya]

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.

[paddedhat]

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........................................

[Paul der Krake]

Did Spork single-handedly ratcheted-up

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.

Right? Not sure if Spork is the ultimate skilled troll or a astute scholar of highly uncomfortable truths.

*storms out to interrogate relatives*

[TomTX]

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!

[elaine amj]

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.

[Inaya]

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!

[G-dog]

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!

[K-ice]

So as far as I can tell my cousin was the only one who was given a cheque at my Gramdma's celebration of life.

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.

[TravelJunkyQC]

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?

[Goldielocks]

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. 

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.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

When somebody diddles with an inheritance or gift meant for someone else, they very seldom do it in order to be "bad" or to deliberately screw someone over. They invariably see what they do as fair, reasonable, and justified given their perspective and circumstance.

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.

[PencilThinStash]

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.

[Wilson Hall]

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.

[With This Herring]

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.

[Frankies Girl]

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?


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.

[SwordGuy]

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?


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.   

[With This Herring]

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?


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 in some "Best of Reddit" post.

[geekette]

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?

[secondcor521]

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.

[TomTX]

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.

[DeepEllumStache]

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.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

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.

[lemanfan]

DBF found this one in some "Best of Reddit" post.

Oh my god.  And the same person posted this just a few days ago...

[Playing with Fire UK]

DBF found this one in some "Best of Reddit" post.

Oh my god.  And the same person posted this just a few days ago...

Wow, that is horrifying.

[Pooperman]

DBF found this one in some "Best of Reddit" post.

Oh my god.  And the same person posted this just a few days ago...

Wow, that is horrifying.

TIL: /r/shoplisting exists.

[LeRainDrop]

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

[Paul der Krake]

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.

[With This Herring]

DBF found this one in some "Best of Reddit" post.

Oh my god.  And the same person posted this 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/

[paddedhat]

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.

[Kitsune]

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."

[Papa Mustache]

Oh man, cut your loses and just bail on those old catalogs and possibly even the property in NC. What's his share? $3K?

Might be worth $3K not to get dragged into a headache deal that could last years.

[Cressida]

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.

[AlanStache]

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/