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:

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.

OP. Yes, I fess up to being vague and meandering. I have not changed any details. When you have a large, dysfunctional family, now apparently with the added factor of “new money,” and throw in inheritances, there are a million stories to tell. This is one quite ugly chapter I hope to emotionally close soon. I’m not willing to let it create a rift, so I’ll throw a bone to my bros about a “misunderstanding” (but still doing what I want with the money). My dearest hope is to be left out of all future discussions of money and estates, but for some reason, it’s hard to get them to respect that boundary.

[Anonymous]

OP you can claim your Bros are the obsessed ones but look at your language:

“rich people”
“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.”
“I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you can claim your Bros are the obsessed ones but look at your language:

“rich people”
“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.”
“I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care.”

“New money” can be added now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you can claim your Bros are the obsessed ones but look at your language:

“rich people”
“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.”
“I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care.”

I mean, I posted because I was shocked and upset over a money issue, guilty as charged. But not going to apologize about ensuring that poor bro got his share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you can claim your Bros are the obsessed ones but look at your language:

“rich people”
“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.”
“I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care.”

I mean, I posted because I was shocked and upset over a money issue, guilty as charged. But not going to apologize about ensuring that poor bro got his share.

You’re shocked and upset and using obsessively jealous type language about your siblings…over a tiny amount of money you claim you were going to donate anyway. But your second sentence says it all: you think you’re innocent. MOVE ON.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you can claim your Bros are the obsessed ones but look at your language:

“rich people”
“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.”
“I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care.”

I mean, I posted because I was shocked and upset over a money issue, guilty as charged. But not going to apologize about ensuring that poor bro got his share.

You’re shocked and upset and using obsessively jealous type language about your siblings…over a tiny amount of money you claim you were going to donate anyway. But your second sentence says it all: you think you’re innocent. MOVE ON.

Yes, I am mad that my extremely wealthy brothers tried to take away my poor brother’s small inheritance. Your point of view seems to be the same as theirs: they are rich and therefore deserve every penny and must be vigilant about every cent.

[Anonymous]

Haven’t read the whole thread but based on the first couple of pages it sounds equivalent to a few well-off couples going out to dinner and one couple wanting to itemize the receipts instead of splitting the check evenly, even though they all partook roughly equally of appetizers, drinks, etc. In fact, DH and I usually end up subsidizing others because we are light eaters and don’t drink alcohol. But we’re not going to act cheap to save $50 from our $600k HHI (especially if we are out with people who have less).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you can claim your Bros are the obsessed ones but look at your language:

“rich people”
“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.”
“I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care.”

I mean, I posted because I was shocked and upset over a money issue, guilty as charged. But not going to apologize about ensuring that poor bro got his share.

You’re shocked and upset and using obsessively jealous type language about your siblings…over a tiny amount of money you claim you were going to donate anyway. But your second sentence says it all: you think you’re innocent. MOVE ON.

Yes, I am mad that my extremely wealthy brothers tried to take away my poor brother’s small inheritance. Your point of view seems to be the same as theirs: they are rich and therefore deserve every penny and must be vigilant about every cent.

Oh we know…I mean, it’s what they spend at the club in a week!!

[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!

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

So then there are written contracts signed by Grandma indicating that this is a loan and terms of repayment? OK, then. Problem solved.

Except there aren’t.

[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.

You are impressively wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read the whole thread but based on the first couple of pages it sounds equivalent to a few well-off couples going out to dinner and one couple wanting to itemize the receipts instead of splitting the check evenly, even though they all partook roughly equally of appetizers, drinks, etc. In fact, DH and I usually end up subsidizing others because we are light eaters and don’t drink alcohol. But we’re not going to act cheap to save $50 from our $600k HHI (especially if we are out with people who have less).

I don't know any servers/bartenders who would not subsidize a check or ask for separate check, and they don't have your income. You have to make $600k not to be cheap, others don't.

[Anonymous]

OP is a troll. Bad one at that.

In any other Estate case with a written will, the brothers would be secured creditors of the parents/estate and would get paid out first (along with any other creditors of the estate, eg mortgage or credit card balances). Anything remaining is split three ways among the heirs. Illiquid assets are sold and split.

Where things get sketchy are if brothers are claiming they made a loan without any documentation. They can’t get your share of the estate, they can only pressure you to give it up. The executor has to distribute in the manner prescribed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You nailed it OP. It is about status, power, who knows what - something beyond security/freedom that most of us think about when we think about whey we want money. I have dealt with lots of rich wall street people ,and in general, they would knife their own mother for another nickel. They just want more and more and more.

Or "fairness"
Inheritance is about more than money. If distributed anything less than completely equally, regardless of one sibling's income vs. another's, it is parental favortism.

We ALL know that parental favortism is the #1 way to ensure siblings do not have a positive relationship.

the inheritence was distributed equally. they think that is “unfair.”

Equal and fair are not the same thing. I tried (unsuccessfully) to put the cartoon here.

Inheritance must be equal, because emotions are involved and perceived favoritism is so deeply scarring. It doesn't matter how wealthy or poor the siblings, assets should be divided equally. If they helped the aging parents then they should get no more than "that was so kind/generous/loving of you" or "everyone appreciates your kindness".

[Anonymous]

I agree with you OP that they are being ridiculous and petty. We are the “wealthy” ones on both sides of our family. On my spouse’s side, there is a sibling who pays for nothing and actually gets subsided often by my ILs. We pay for dinners, vacation houses, household appliances/repairs that are needed… never in a million years would we demand to get repayment of this crap out of the “estate” before it is split evenly between all the siblings (which is how we understand it to be set up). We contribute TO OUR PARENTS to make their lives (not their estate, or their bank account) easier. To help them enjoy life. I can’t even imagine them dead and gone and demanding my poor BIL not get anything so that we can get “paid back.” Disgusting.