Greedy rich people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

This is my first post in the thread but clearly it was. If it had been a loan the estate would have paid it back before distributing the assets. He just WISHES it were.

I’m certain the siblings have a very different story.

If they had any legitimate basis for it being a loan, it wouldn't be a story, it would be a legal proceeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

This is my first post in the thread but clearly it was. If it had been a loan the estate would have paid it back before distributing the assets. He just WISHES it were.

I’m certain the siblings have a very different story.

X1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting to me that so many people have responded to this thread given how vague and confusing OP’s fist post was. Having worked my way through it, I think the people attacking OP are just triggered by this general topic and rushing to project their own issues into the discussion.

For all the posters saying the rich brothers should be repaid from the estate, why are you saying that? If they had provided money to Grandma (or whomever, OP is not specific) via a formal loan agreement with repayment terms, then yes, they could likely claim the outstanding balance as a debt owed to them by the estate. But nothing OP has said indicates that they provided the funds on a loan basis. Instead, it sounds like at least the 3 better off siblings (OP and the 2 rich brothers) send money to their struggling Grandma just to be good people, while the 4th couldn’t afford to. While it sounds like the rich brothers’ checks to Grandma were a lot bigger than OP’s, she also sent the money she could afford to and contributed 10x the labor of the rich bros.

Now Granny is dead or dying and wants her $80,000 (or whatever) estate to be split evenly among the. 4 kids. The brothers are p*ssed off that OP and the poor sibling could get $20k each, because they think they own all the money in the estate due to their contributions. But they don’t, because whatever money Granny received from these kids over the years was a gift and became hers to do with as she saw fit. They also ignore OP’s contribution of labor. It does make the multimillionaire brothers seem petty, cheap and entitled to be going after their other two siblings for this cash.

At least that’s how I see it, but OP has made us all guess at the blanks in her story.

OP here. Yes, that’s about right (except even less $$!) and additional drama surrounding other aging relatives. Thanks for being patient.

You are right I have been vague and confusing. I guess I really just think making a federal case out of it by posting every detail is not my aim. I wanted to understand why the very wealthy act this way, and I got some good answers. But in retrospect would have been better to post a more general question about the psychology of the very rich Wall Street types. I just felt surprised to be living my own minor chapter of Bonfire of the Vanities.

Anyway, I pledge to love and tolerate my rich bros, since I now understand that wealth is a mental affliction (and that they may be struggling on a 7-figure income).

Drama among rich people over an estate worth less than 80k is a tragedy. Does have some Succession elements to it. Sorry you are dealing with this. Hopefully your brothers will develop some shame in time. I will note that grief can make people act in ways they ordinarily wouldn’t, and deaths in the elder generation can stir up sibling resentments because people feel like kids again. It’s best to not make any final decisions about relationships in this situation.

[Anonymous]

At $1M these things still matter. As income rises considerably from there it matters less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

This is my first post in the thread but clearly it was. If it had been a loan the estate would have paid it back before distributing the assets. He just WISHES it were.

I’m certain the siblings have a very different story.

If they had any legitimate basis for it being a loan, it wouldn't be a story, it would be a legal proceeding.

No, most people wouldn’t sue over this. They’d try to work it out. I thought the person was still alive, anyway. No?

[Anonymous]

I think it's a fascinating question, OP. People here are all caught up in the estate details but that's not really your question. Sounds like you don't really have stake in the game, your are just trying to understand the mentality. Ten thousand dollars to them is just pocket change whereas it is life changing to the poor relation.

I wonder about this myself. I have a sibling who is so fixated on money and how his ex-wife took from him when he completely ignores her unpaid labor in assisting in him succeeding in his career and raising their children. He is so bitter about how he thinks she is undeserving. On the other hand, my poorer sibling would give you his last dollar if you were hungry. He just doesn't care about amassing money, right now he makes enough to live comfortably and that's good enough. Three of the four of us aren't poor or rich and not obsessed and it's hard to figure out how this one brother is so different, so entrenched in this mentality. If you were all raised together, it's likely baffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

This is my first post in the thread but clearly it was. If it had been a loan the estate would have paid it back before distributing the assets. He just WISHES it were.

I’m certain the siblings have a very different story.

If they had any legitimate basis for it being a loan, it wouldn't be a story, it would be a legal proceeding.

No, most people wouldn’t sue over this. They’d try to work it out. I thought the person was still alive, anyway. No?

You don’t collect loans against the estate from heirs. You collect them from the estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

This is my first post in the thread but clearly it was. If it had been a loan the estate would have paid it back before distributing the assets. He just WISHES it were.

I’m certain the siblings have a very different story.

If they had any legitimate basis for it being a loan, it wouldn't be a story, it would be a legal proceeding.

No, most people wouldn’t sue over this. They’d try to work it out. I thought the person was still alive, anyway. No?

You don’t collect loans against the estate from heirs. You collect them from the estate.

That’s what they are trying to do - repayment before other distributions.

But OP never said the relative is dead. I thought she mentioned that the siblings were badgering the older person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

It's not illegal if OP would just do the right thing to eliminate the family conflict that she claims to be so concerned about. She came up with a plan for her brothers to forfeit the money and claims they're petty if they don't. Here's a great opportunity for OP to forfeit the same amount to ensure family harmony but she refuses to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

This is my first post in the thread but clearly it was. If it had been a loan the estate would have paid it back before distributing the assets. He just WISHES it were.

I’m certain the siblings have a very different story.

If they had any legitimate basis for it being a loan, it wouldn't be a story, it would be a legal proceeding.

No, most people wouldn’t sue over this. They’d try to work it out. I thought the person was still alive, anyway. No?

You don’t collect loans against the estate from heirs. You collect them from the estate.

That’s what they are trying to do - repayment before other distributions.

But OP never said the relative is dead. I thought she mentioned that the siblings were badgering the older person.

OP here. No, that is not what they are trying to do. If you have a loan against an estate, you get paid back by the executor. You don’t go trying to collect from the heirs after they have gotten their inheritances.

There is a different relative that they are structuring their aid as loans, but with a lot of additional drama. I don’t care about that one because I am estranged from them and won’t be contributing to their care. But for that relative, there likely also will be no estate at all (long story but THAT relative took an inheritance from a different relative as a “loan” that should be paid back but probably will not be if brothers get their way) But the amounts are relatively small. So again, it surprises me that such incredibly rich people are acting this way, again trying to deprive someone of their money.

There seems to be something about inheritences that drives everyone absolutely bonkers. Like, this relative apparently disinherited me and bro claims “I got him to put you back in the will.” I’m like WTF I *do not care.* First of all, there will be no estate. Second of all, I do not want their money. Third of all, the initial disinheritance (which was pretty random because we were no really estranged at the time) pretty much told me all I needed to know about my relationship with this relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

It's not illegal if OP would just do the right thing to eliminate the family conflict that she claims to be so concerned about. She came up with a plan for her brothers to forfeit the money and claims they're petty if they don't. Here's a great opportunity for OP to forfeit the same amount to ensure family harmony but she refuses to do it.

They are trying to make my poor sib forfeit the money - I put my foot down.

They are trying to make me forfeit the money on the grounds that “we did more for grandma.” I refused because that was never agreed to, and I also contributed financially and with direct caregiving.

Family conflict is being created exclusively by very rich brothers making a stand over a tiny amount of money. Not $1mil. Not $100k. Not even 10k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

It's not illegal if OP would just do the right thing to eliminate the family conflict that she claims to be so concerned about. She came up with a plan for her brothers to forfeit the money and claims they're petty if they don't. Here's a great opportunity for OP to forfeit the same amount to ensure family harmony but she refuses to do it.

They are trying to make my poor sib forfeit the money - I put my foot down.

They are trying to make me forfeit the money on the grounds that “we did more for grandma.” I refused because that was never agreed to, and I also contributed financially and with direct caregiving.

Family conflict is being created exclusively by very rich brothers making a stand over a tiny amount of money. Not $1mil. Not $100k. Not even 10k.

Also I am not trying to make my brothers “forfeit” anything. The estate was distributed evenly per the will. Now they claim that we should voluntarily give our shares to them. If they want to claim they actually have loans on the estate they would have done that already - but they won’t b/c they know they would lose AND the attorneys fees for the first 3 hrs would exceed the amount at stake.

There is no “forefeiting.” The will was carried out as per the law and now rich bros claim they “deserve” the money.

[Anonymous]

They are okay supporting an elderly parent, but don't want their money to create an inheritance for deadbeat sibling.

[Anonymous]

Why did you only just find out what your brothers make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

Amount of money should not make any difference. If it is fair to reimburse $100,000 or $600,000 from the estate to the siblilng who contributed, then it should be fair to reimburse $100 to the same contributing sibling, regardless of their financial status.

Ok that’s where I have to part ways. If you earn 7 figures but are pressuring a poor sib about $100, there is something wrong with you. At a minimum it suggests the decedent didn’t actually want the estate distributed equally.

Why is it wrong to want your own money back? And in which world $250,000 income is "poor"?

I’m not the poor one. That’s a different one.

I see. You just like to be in everyone’s business!

Arguably the person trying to take another person’s inheritance is the one in everyone’s business…

Having the estate repay a debt is normal. I am sorry this is hard for you to understand.

I’m sorry you cannot read. There is no debt to this estate. We all paid what we could.

You make over $200k and paid nothing. You all did not pay what you could. You really should seek help. You are hyper focused on this and you’re in the wrong. If it’s such a paltry sum, why the obsession? Oh, and it doesn’t matter it is $300k or a $100 dinner. They should be repaid. The fact that they have more than you is not the determining factor that they are wrong. Maybe talk to someone to find a way to move on.

+1 OP is the greedy one here. OP's brothers each contributed more to the relative's care than OP. OP doesn't want them to be paid back before splitting what's left. OP just wants an even split, which would essentially give her some of her bothers' money.

OP reminds me of a former friend. She would gladly accept people buying her rounds of drinks when we went out in groups, but she wouldn't ever buy rounds herself. Her excuse was that "it was just drinks" so it was no big deal when people bought them for her, but she didn't earn enough money to pay for drinks. She called us petty for even pointing it out because OMG it's just drinks! Same as OP's excuse that her brothers are petty for wanting their "small" sum of money back, but it's apparently not small enough for OP to stop being petty and just give it back.

People are petty if they don't give OP their money, but OP isn't petty for not just giving it back. That's the hallmark of a greedy cheapskate.

Funny because I thought DCUM was pretty universally against people complaining about the terms of a will. (Also I did contribute.)

And yes, I will go to my grave thinking that it is petty and sad to create familial strive over an amount of money they likely earn before 10am most days.

OP, you're the one creating familial strife over the amount of money that you deem small. Just pay them back what they gave your relative, pay back yourself what you gave your relative, then divide the rest amongst the four of you.

Stop contorting yourself to come up with flimsy reasons why you're entitled to keep their money. Their income is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is that you're trying to keep their money for yourself and your other sibling. Even hearing only your side of the story, you're clearly in the wrong.

This would literally be illegal. The estate cannot be used to claw back gifts!

It's not illegal if OP would just do the right thing to eliminate the family conflict that she claims to be so concerned about. She came up with a plan for her brothers to forfeit the money and claims they're petty if they don't. Here's a great opportunity for OP to forfeit the same amount to ensure family harmony but she refuses to do it.

They are trying to make my poor sib forfeit the money - I put my foot down.

They are trying to make me forfeit the money on the grounds that “we did more for grandma.” I refused because that was never agreed to, and I also contributed financially and with direct caregiving.

Family conflict is being created exclusively by very rich brothers making a stand over a tiny amount of money. Not $1mil. Not $100k. Not even 10k.

You’re estranged from or arguing with many family members, the latest over a few thousand dollars. It will always continue to pointing to you and you needing to look inward. Once again for those in the back: I’m sure the brothers have a very different story.