Greedy rich people

[Anonymous]

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

I don't know my brothers' salaries and hope I never do.

[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!

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.

I gotta say 8 pages in and this is the clearest presentation of what actually happened and should have been in the OP. Anyways, the time for them to make a claim was before the estate was distributed and they did not. I agree it is improper for them to ask for reimbursement at this point, esp from you who also contributed financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich people often use money as a way to keep score. I think many rich people are at least slightly sociopathic. There are studies that wealth correlates to sociopathic traits (and causation goes both ways). And even if that weren't true, having money doesn't mean you can't have exactly the same bad traits as anyone else. Having lots of money doesn't make you kinder, or more generous, or more humble, or anything else. If you weren't already a good person, money won't make you one. If you were a miserly bean-counter with less money, you'll be one with more.

Also, $500K HHI is rich. Not normal. Rich.

OP her. Lol yes, $500k HHI is rich. In fact I think I am rich with my $220k HHI. I was just shocked that they had the kind of money that they could literally buy houses for these relatives without noticing it.

Mario spending other people’s money. I could afford to buy a poor relative a house. Why should I? They made choices that made them (and keep them) poor.

+1. IME, poor people are bas at making decisions and worse at delaying gratification. It’s not my job to bail them out. I have my family and my problems to worry about.

[Anonymous]

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.

What you misunderstand is that the “estate” is what is left over after the debt is paid. You want the persons who are owed the debt to write it off and artificially inflate the value of the estate. If they hadn’t contributed, how much would be left? That’s the real value of 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: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.

Why would you not mention this from the. beginning? I feel like your story is changing the more people criticize your behavior.

[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!

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.

Why would you not mention this from the. beginning? I feel like your story is changing the more people criticize your behavior.

This x1000. A person with over $200,000 in income is so upset and severing more sibling ties over a few thousand dollars (which she says she will be donating anyway but only after someone else says just donate it) and she calls them greedy…and the story is changing.

OP: let this go and try to work on healing, forgiveness and full disclosure.

[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!

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.

Why would you not mention this from the. beginning? I feel like your story is changing the more people criticize your behavior.

I never saw the OP change anything about her story. She just writes in a vague, meandering way. A lot of people just made assumptions. I don’t see how a reasonable person who has the patience to read through this whole thread would disagree that the OP’s brothers are behaving appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Sorry—should have written that it’s clear that the brothers are behaving inappropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry—should have written that it’s clear that the brothers are behaving inappropriately.

Not clear at all. It’s clear that this is OP’s perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry—should have written that it’s clear that the brothers are behaving inappropriately.

Not clear at all. It’s clear that this is OP’s perception.

Yes, for toddlers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are some rich people so incredibly greedy? It’s like money means something other than money to them. I am in the midst of an incredibly petty squabble over an extremely small inheritance - like literally, an amount that my brothers probably blow in one weekend at their “clubs.” It just came out that they are incredibly wealthy (talking 7-figures annually) when I just assumed they were “normal” high HHI like 500k. Yet, they have spent YEARS engaged in strenuous efforts to ensure nobody “freeloads” when it comes to supporting aging relatives, they are obsessed with making sure wills are changed to reflect their monetary support (nevermind that there is almost certainly not actually going to be any money in those estates).

Before I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care. Now I find the drama frankly bizarre.

Bizarre indeed that you don't realize who's the money-obsessed drama queen in the family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are some rich people so incredibly greedy? It’s like money means something other than money to them. I am in the midst of an incredibly petty squabble over an extremely small inheritance - like literally, an amount that my brothers probably blow in one weekend at their “clubs.” It just came out that they are incredibly wealthy (talking 7-figures annually) when I just assumed they were “normal” high HHI like 500k. Yet, they have spent YEARS engaged in strenuous efforts to ensure nobody “freeloads” when it comes to supporting aging relatives, they are obsessed with making sure wills are changed to reflect their monetary support (nevermind that there is almost certainly not actually going to be any money in those estates).

Before I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care. Now I find the drama frankly bizarre.

Bizarre indeed that you don't realize who's the money-obsessed drama queen in the family

x10000000

[Anonymous]

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

I would never ask! I assumed they were very well off just due to external stuff, but I had no idea of the extent of 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: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.

I could tell you stories, pp. Some families just suck. I’m trying to keep my distance from it.

[Anonymous]

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.

What you misunderstand is that the “estate” is what is left over after the debt is paid. You want the persons who are owed the debt to write it off and artificially inflate the value of the estate. If they hadn’t contributed, how much would be left? That’s the real value of the estate.

what you misunderstand is that there *was no debt.*