When my dad was still alive my brother was having some mental health issues and my dad was keeping some of his money. Brother has a note from dad that he had his money. There were a few policies that we split and then one where brother got a significant amount of money more than my sisters and I. Now the house is sold and there are a few more accounts that we will split equally. The lawyer said the IOU wouldn't stand up in the final estate division. One sister and I feel brother deserves his money back. It was in dad's account so now it's getting split 5 ways (nephews get late sister's portion). My other sister thinks he shouldn't get anything else since he got more than us with the one policy. So, the one sister who agrees with me and I are going to give brother our part of his money. We are going to keep it between the three (brother, one sister and I) of us. What would you guys do?
-- Edited by Southern_Belle on Wednesday 1st of June 2016 05:39:17 PM
Its you and your sisters money. You can do whatever you want. If you believe that your brother deserves the money (and from what I read, I agree he does), then you are free to do whatever you want with YOUR money. I commend you.
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
I think what you and your two sisters are doing is commendable, and the right thing to do.
Only one sister agrees and my late sister's kids won't give up a dime.
Funny things happen to peoples thinking when money enters the equation.
To me its all about what your father would have wanted.
But how do they know the insurance policy that the brother got more of wasn't his way of ensuring their brother got his money back?
How do they know that ISN'T what he wanted?
You will LOSE this in court. There is NO POINT in litigating it. If you give your brother his money, the IOU will not stand up in court, and he wont' get his money in the end, anyway, and you'll end up paying a bunch of lawyer's fees in a lost cause.
If your brother doesn't get his money and litigates, he'll lose--and the lawyers will still get paid.
Your father should have spelled this out. The fact he didn't is going to cause a rift in the family. This is why ANYONE and EVERYONE should have a clear estate plan. It might not prevent ALL hard feelings or even litigation--but it will prevent a lot of it.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Its you and your sisters money. You can do whatever you want. If you believe that your brother deserves the money (and from what I read, I agree he does), then you are free to do whatever you want with YOUR money. I commend you.
Of course, they can do whatever they want to with their money--but they can't force their sister or their nieces and nephews to take any out of their share for this.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Its you and your sisters money. You can do whatever you want. If you believe that your brother deserves the money (and from what I read, I agree he does), then you are free to do whatever you want with YOUR money. I commend you.
Of course, they can do whatever they want to with their money--but they can't force their sister or their nieces and nephews to take any out of their share for this.
I didn't say they should force the sister or nephews. No one ever said that. They are doing what they think their dad would have wanted. And thats commendable.
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Its you and your sisters money. You can do whatever you want. If you believe that your brother deserves the money (and from what I read, I agree he does), then you are free to do whatever you want with YOUR money. I commend you.
Of course, they can do whatever they want to with their money--but they can't force their sister or their nieces and nephews to take any out of their share for this.
I didn't say they should force the sister or nephews. No one ever said that. They are doing what they think their dad would have wanted. And thats commendable.
Exactly, this is a situation where one should follow their conscience. Sleep better knowing you did what you believe is the right thing to do.
The lawyer I'm referring to is the estate lawyer. We have no plan on taking this matter any further in the court since she said the IOU wouldn't stand. The extra policy in brother's name is 3X the amount dad was holding. I don't know why he chose to give him that, but he did. Doesn't matter to me. I am giving him the money. He has health issues and can't work full time. My father didn't expect to just die suddenly. He did have everything else planned out pretty well except for this matter. He would have wanted us to be decent and do the right thing, that's what I'm doing.
I think you're doing the right thing. Although I might have assumed your brother getting a larger share for on the insurance might have been his way of giving his money back.
But if in doubt err on the side of fairness 😀
Let me just say this...I KNOW SB. I have seen her heart. I strive to be more like her. And if she feels this is the right thing to do, I support her 100%. I cannot imagine her being unfair to anyone. On the flip side, I cannot imagine her enabling someone that does not deserve it.
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Let me just say this...I KNOW SB. I have seen her heart. I strive to be more like her. And if she feels this is the right thing to do, I support her 100%. I cannot imagine her being unfair to anyone. On the flip side, I cannot imagine her enabling someone that does not deserve it.
The lawyer I'm referring to is the estate lawyer. We have no plan on taking this matter any further in the court since she said the IOU wouldn't stand. The extra policy in brother's name is 3X the amount dad was holding. I don't know why he chose to give him that, but he did. Doesn't matter to me. I am giving him the money. He has health issues and can't work full time. My father didn't expect to just die suddenly. He did have everything else planned out pretty well except for this matter. He would have wanted us to be decent and do the right thing, that's what I'm doing.
Personally, I'd say the policy was there to cover the money and be done. If your brother chooses not to pursue it, that is his decision.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
I think what you and your two sisters are doing is commendable, and the right thing to do.
Only one sister agrees and my late sister's kids won't give up a dime.
Funny things happen to peoples thinking when money enters the equation.
To me its all about what your father would have wanted.
But how do they know the insurance policy that the brother got more of wasn't his way of ensuring their brother got his money back?
How do they know that ISN'T what he wanted?
You will LOSE this in court. There is NO POINT in litigating it. If you give your brother his money, the IOU will not stand up in court, and he wont' get his money in the end, anyway, and you'll end up paying a bunch of lawyer's fees in a lost cause.
If your brother doesn't get his money and litigates, he'll lose--and the lawyers will still get paid.
Your father should have spelled this out. The fact he didn't is going to cause a rift in the family. This is why ANYONE and EVERYONE should have a clear estate plan. It might not prevent ALL hard feelings or even litigation--but it will prevent a lot of it.
This was my thought too. Dad's way of giving bro his money. Leave it at that and split everything else. And for all of you saying family are "insert bad name here" splitting up an estate is difficult so just go away if you can't be helpful.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
One of my coworkers just lost her Uncle. His wife passed before him and they had no children. He left his estate to 42 family member. Everyone got an equal share. They each got $80,000!
As sweet as SB is to offer it, he should NOT take it. If he does, he is worse than the other siblings who won't allow it out of the estate. Besides - SB is VERY sweet and money means less to her than making others happy. The other siblings could easily be right. I'm not going to advise someone to allow themselves to be taken advantage of because they are nice.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Sometimes estate issues aren't cut and dried. When my mom passed away, she had an IRA and I was the only beneficiary. For some reason, she didn't put my sister on that one. And when it came time to split her assets, there were tax implications of having the IRA passed on to me so if we did a 50/50 split, i would have incurred those tax implications. I can't really explain it now cuz i don't know that i understand it, lol. Anyway my sis and i chatted and then we talked to the financial advisor who figured out what an approximate tax burden that would have for me so we split with me getting slightly more to compensate for that.
As for your situation, if your brother benefitted from only one policy, then i would say that can be an argument that he was paid back. I don't think there is any clear right or wrong in this case. And, i don't think your other sister is wrong to disagree with you either. I think that you should do what you believe your heart is telling you to do. And, if 2 of the 3 of you decide to give him that money then that is great. If the other sis doesn't, then i don't think that is necessarily unfair either. And, i hope that either way, you don't let this become a wedge between the siblings. I have seen that happen to people. If one sis doesn't want to, then she doesn't want to. You want to so give happily and then let the matter be settled.
Whatever you do, don't take this as instance where, sis is selfish to not pay. Or brother is selfish if he accepts or any of that. Just settle it in your own heart and you can all agree to disagree. You all received money that you didn't expect or plan for and just accept that as such.
Personally, I would consider Dad's "extra" policy for brother as Dad's intent to ensure brother got the money he withheld in the event of his demise. If you and sis chose to further add to brother's windfall, whether it be from guilt or just a desire to maintain the appearance of fairness, is up to you. But really, you have no obligation, nor does your sister, to reduce your portion(s) for your brother's benefit.
My uncle "borrowed" money from my grandparents. To the tune of something like $50k or $60k. A loan that dear uncle never repaid. So after my grandmother's death, her will was probated, where it was learned that the amount of his "loan" would be deducted from his share and given to the remaining unencumbered siblings. Dear uncle was hurt, upset, how could they do this to me, yadda yadda. Dad's sister asked Dad if he would agree to help him out and give up some to give to dear uncle. No friggin way, Dad said. 40 years ago when he borrowed $50k or $60k, that money had a much higher value in the present if one was to consider the interest that would have accrued if the money had remained, so in reality, unencumbered siblings still got screwed, whereas borrowing uncle benefited. He was not about to permit dear uncle to benefit, yet again, over and above the siblings. THAT would not be fair or reasonable.
The relationship between Dad and my uncle was not affected by Dad's decision either, nor was his relationship with sister. Once the basis for Dad's decision was made clear and firm, they had no right to be upset with him. And they knew it.
On the flip side, my dear friend's in-laws disinherited siblings, leaving all to dear friend's husband. After the estate was closed, he shared the proceeds equally. My mother was the sole beneficiary as well. She split it three ways with her sisters. But these situations were different in that there was no special policy or bank account, property, etc., set aside for the other siblings. The intent of the deceased was to be mean, and Mom and dear friend's husband wanted no part of that.
Personally, I would consider Dad's "extra" policy for brother as Dad's intent to ensure brother got the money he withheld in the event of his demise. If you and sis chose to further add to brother's windfall, whether it be from guilt or just a desire to maintain the appearance of fairness, is up to you. But really, you have no obligation, nor does your sister, to reduce your portion(s) for your brother's benefit.
My uncle "borrowed" money from my grandparents. To the tune of something like $50k or $60k. A loan that dear uncle never repaid. So after my grandmother's death, her will was probated, where it was learned that the amount of his "loan" would be deducted from his share and given to the remaining unencumbered siblings. Dear uncle was hurt, upset, how could they do this to me, yadda yadda. Dad's sister asked Dad if he would agree to help him out and give up some to give to dear uncle. No friggin way, Dad said. 40 years ago when he borrowed $50k or $60k, that money had a much higher value in the present if one was to consider the interest that would have accrued if the money had remained, so in reality, unencumbered siblings still got screwed, whereas borrowing uncle benefited. He was not about to permit dear uncle to benefit, yet again, over and above the siblings. THAT would not be fair or reasonable.
The relationship between Dad and my uncle was not affected by Dad's decision either, nor was his relationship with sister. Once the basis for Dad's decision was made clear and firm, they had no right to be upset with him. And they knew it.
This is what I think as well. I'd be interested in knowing the amount of the policy vs. the amount "owed".
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
