There was a huge rift in the family over my grandmother's estate; it literally tore the family apart.
There was not a hint of discord when my parents died. I figure I got what I got and my siblings evidently felt the same. I can't imagine a protracted battle over someone else's stuff.
I didn’t expect DH’s siblings to have discord. But there is and has been an outlier who sees only “unfair” treatment. The other siblings want to “do what dad wanted” which isn’t entirely equitable when it comes to disbursing assets. And yet, curiously, the group is ignoring ...something which I won’t reveal, too much detail, but documents dad’s later intentions that pretty much screws most of them.Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
The old man made it more complicated than it needs to be. Their mother who died first would have made it straightforward by selling everything and dividing the money equally.
Last edited by iris lilies; 3-27-21 at 12:06pm.
I think you are being wisely cryptic, so it's a little hard to tell what is happening, but I did want to weigh in with respect to what you are saying and what Jane said about not imagining how people can fight over other people's stuff.
Were it that simple! I think part of the problem lies in how the law and how our culture (whatever culture that is) sees estates--so in many cultures, there are set expectations of what children need to do to take care of parents at end of life. There are also set expectations about what happens to family property--see all Victorian literature about primogeniture, estates, entailments, etc.
However, these old English ways are not our modern American ways, even if the cultural baggage has been inherited, as it has in family. In modern American families, so expectations and viewpoints are wildly different. So one sibling thinks a parent's estate is "their inheritance", even prior to their death. It kind of sounds like the judge is in that school, which really, really surprises me, unless your fil was mentally incompetent at the end. And 10 years prior? My goodness! Another sibling thinks it's all his until the last breath (that is the way I tend to think, which is like Jane thinks, I think.) They also think it is okay for the parent to give their stuff to whomever they want to, as it is theirs, and not an entailed estate.
I think, from what I am seeing of probate court, it's kind of the Wild West out there.
I think perhaps there is not clear and compelling evidence that dead Father in law gave the gift to one sibling. That must be operating here, otherwise I can’t see why the judge would act the way he did.
With so many older adults unwilling to face and plan for after their demise, so many younger family unwilling to accept that what the parents own is not theirs, ie., the kids, automatically by default; add in the human manipulations over money in general plus recriminations, regrets for past behaviour and retribution for the past, it seems a miracle when all unfolds in harmony.
As Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”
Agree 100% Razz. Where we used to live, there was this great billboard:
We remind ourselves of that daily.
Tammy that is exactly what I did for my dad. He was in memory care at the end but I was able to start liquidating things eight years prior to his death. During the last years everything was sold and all money was there for his care however much he should need or desire. He got to live like a king. Our attorney said it was the easiest trust to administer because after he died we just split the cash that was left three ways. Easy peasy.
I hope to have something very close to that for our kids.
DH's family situation may be sticky when his mom finally passes. She went to assisted living over two years ago and left an empty house. Rather than sell the house, DH's brother promptly moved his grown, somewhat derelict daughter into it at greatly reduced rent and all utilities paid. There is no lease and if she doesn't make enough money one month, she doesn't pay anything. Her boyfriend has now moved in. If MIL lives a long while longer, the house will need to be sold but her grand-daughter is now firmly entrenched in the house. I can just imagine it will not be an easy family matter since there is sibling anger over the house situation.
Who created this situation by not calling all the siblings together as soon as your mother moved out to decide how decisions regarding the house would be made, how expenses would be paid, who could live in the house and under what circumstances, and all the other issues that were likely to come up? Who has legal authority and legal responsibility for maintaining the house and making sure expenses get paid? Why is there no written consensus among the siblings? Why have the siblings not been called together to resolve the obvious disagreements regarding the house and to put whatever agreement is worked out in writing? Why is everyone, or anyone, letting this situation fester, knowing it will be a much bigger personal, emotional, and legal mess if it isn't resolved in some manner before MIL dies? The time to work all this out was three years ago. Why is no one willing to do what needs to be done now, before it all gets worse and explodes?
GeorgeP - the sibs did confer initially and agree that the grand-daughter could live in the house until repairs were made - a year at most we were told. We are out of state and living our retirement lives so DH did not want to deal with it. I have always told him that there should have been a lease and agreement but I am just the daughter in law. He no longer has POA so it is what it is. A potential mess.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote