SIL plotted to inherit estates from childless aunts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. Unfortunately sometimes people take advantage of the elderly.

Here is what happened to my mom:

-Her (widowed) mother remarried when her 2 children (my mom and her brother) were already adults. The new husband had no children. They had no children together. Were married 20ish years until her death.
-Her mom had a family inheritance from her own parents- after the remarriage.
-A revocable trust was put in place.
-My mom’s brother convinced the “stepdad” to revoke the trust when their mother was on her deathbed.
-My mom’s brother then convinced the stepdad to leave everything to him. Surprisingly easy to do with a sickly man in his 80s. Thus taking 100% for himself (including the family inheritance that had never been touched).

And my mom was the one who took care of her mother! Not the brother. She also blames the brother’s wife deep down. But doesn’t speak to either of them.

People can be very sneaky when $ is involved and the elderly are often easy prey.

Gross and manipulative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recency bias is real OP. Forget the last 50 years, all that matters is the last few.

Unfortunately this ended up as a First Come, First Served situation and the relatives didn’t care that it was a spouse of a relative nor to ask around.

Bear in mind, the executioner of a will can, in reality, do whatever s/he wants with the house, money, art, vehicles, or even body. That’s the prize. That’s why an aunt would want the most truthworthy non-family member following the orders— surely an out of state schmoozing spouse of a nephew…

Sorry Op, you’ve all been had. That’s why it’s a secret.

How can the executor do whatever they want with the house when there are other heirs? I also do not see how an executor could do whatever they want with anything that can be tracked, like money.

How can the executor not do whatever she wants?

Because there are laws governing probate. The executor isn’t always an heir. An executor can charge a fee for performing their duties as executor, but they don’t inherit the estate just because they’re the executor.

The first entities who receive money from the estate are creditors who are owed by the deceased. The deceased’s bills have to be paid off. If the executor is charging a fee, that fee is one of the bills that have to be paid. Then, if the deceased had a legally binding will, the will determines where the remainder of their assets go after creditors have been paid from the estate.

If the deceased did not have a legally binding will, state law determines who inherits and what portions of the estate they get. Surviving spouse is first in line. In some states, everything goes to the surviving spouse. In other states, spouse and children each get shares. If there’s no surviving spouse, the children get equal shares. If there’s no spouse or children, the estate could go to grandchildren in equal shares or if there are none, to the deceased’s surviving parents, and if there’s are none, to surviving siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recency bias is real OP. Forget the last 50 years, all that matters is the last few.

Unfortunately this ended up as a First Come, First Served situation and the relatives didn’t care that it was a spouse of a relative nor to ask around.

Bear in mind, the executioner of a will can, in reality, do whatever s/he wants with the house, money, art, vehicles, or even body. That’s the prize. That’s why an aunt would want the most truthworthy non-family member following the orders— surely an out of state schmoozing spouse of a nephew…

Sorry Op, you’ve all been had. That’s why it’s a secret.

How can the executor do whatever they want with the house when there are other heirs? I also do not see how an executor could do whatever they want with anything that can be tracked, like money.

How can the executor not do whatever she wants?

Because there are laws governing probate. The executor isn’t always an heir. An executor can charge a fee for performing their duties as executor, but they don’t inherit the estate just because they’re the executor.

The first entities who receive money from the estate are creditors who are owed by the deceased. The deceased’s bills have to be paid off. If the executor is charging a fee, that fee is one of the bills that have to be paid. Then, if the deceased had a legally binding will, the will determines where the remainder of their assets go after creditors have been paid from the estate.

If the deceased did not have a legally binding will, state law determines who inherits and what portions of the estate they get. Surviving spouse is first in line. In some states, everything goes to the surviving spouse. In other states, spouse and children each get shares. If there’s no surviving spouse, the children get equal shares. If there’s no spouse or children, the estate could go to grandchildren in equal shares or if there are none, to the deceased’s surviving parents, and if there’s are none, to surviving siblings.

Forgot to mention that the executor needs to maintain meticulous records to account for every penny to the probate court and a judge has to give their blessing for the estate to be settled.

There are strategic ways to keep assets out of probate, but the deceased has to have made these legal and financial arrangements in advance.

[Anonymous]

There was no bmw or big painting!

[Anonymous]

What you call "schmoozing", unmarried aunts might call "company." Being elderly is lonely. Yes, it's nice that you've visited for all these years 1-2x a year, but if SIL calls once or twice a week every week and chats away with them....well, I'd leave her money, too. That's legitimately kind and thoughtful.

Is there a chance that they legitimately feel closer to her than to you or your brother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, ah, how often do you visit these childless aunts, OP? I'm thinking pretty much never?

Op here. No one lives near them. We have a couple kids, bro/SIL have more.

I saw the hometown couple each year 1-5x a year for 25 years and holidays.

As a married adult with kids I saw one set 1-2x a year when in hometown and the other 1-2x a year when in their town during work trips.

My brother never saw the out of town one. He works full time in a senior position with lots of travel.

But his wife did some schmoozing behind the scenes the last 5+ years with each aunt. Most of it not in person, we all live 1000-4000 miles from one another.

I can see why this is a shock then. No one lives in their state, everyone is same busy working or with their K-12 children, everyone is physically seeing each other once or twice a year.... then this reveal. I don't think you'll ever know what the SIL said to each aunt recently - it could be a combo of how much she cares, how she has time to do this all (true or not), how others are not. And the bloodline brother was too busy to think otherwise so just hopes it skates by forever.

I think, given the above, SIL did some deliberate brinksmanship to get in position of power.

Do the aunts get along with their sibling who is your parent? Maybe one way to win over a childless, married aunt is to find a common enemy or common cause.

My father came from a large family and was the eldest. His mother and two of his siblings were cruel to my mother. When we were little one uncle or aunt would say a mean joke about my mom at a holiday dinner table and try to get my little brother to laugh about it because he didn’t know better. It’d be the ultimate FU if they got my brothers wife to join in, ignorantly or typical MIL jokes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you call "schmoozing", unmarried aunts might call "company." Being elderly is lonely. Yes, it's nice that you've visited for all these years 1-2x a year, but if SIL calls once or twice a week every week and chats away with them....well, I'd leave her money, too. That's legitimately kind and thoughtful.

Is there a chance that they legitimately feel closer to her than to you or your brother?

You’d leave her money too or leave her, and only her, all the money?

[Anonymous]

Hard to say whether it is an underhanded move by the brother/SIL or just the fact that they were closer? (Even if only a little)

I have a never married SIL - DH is not at all close with her and we live across the country. She barely knows our kids. She is very close with their sister’s family and kids- lives nearby and seems them weekly or more. We wouldn’t expect her to leave anything to DH our kids, and would expect her to leave all to the sister and/or her kids.

[Anonymous]

Exhibit A on why everyone should keep a very close eye on their parents and childless elderly relatives. Have you visited your aunts more often you would have known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you call "schmoozing", unmarried aunts might call "company." Being elderly is lonely. Yes, it's nice that you've visited for all these years 1-2x a year, but if SIL calls once or twice a week every week and chats away with them....well, I'd leave her money, too. That's legitimately kind and thoughtful.

Is there a chance that they legitimately feel closer to her than to you or your brother?

You’d leave her money too or leave her, and only her, all the money?

One aunt is leaving some money and donating the rest. Seems nobody likes OP and her family here.

[Anonymous]

OP, it sounds like your aunts are still alive. If this bothers you so much, you probably have time to get back in your aunts' good graces and get a piece of that inheritance. Since you work in finance and are familiar with estate planning topics, perhaps you can offer to help them or answer any questions. Since you aren't supposed to know about SIL, you can probably do this without raising any alarms or appearing as though you are seeking to displace her. Just a thought. Wills can be changed. Instead of complaining, it's time to get working. Make the case for why you are a worthy beneficiary or a superior executor. If you've had a good relationship with your aunts over the years, this should be doable. At a minimum, perhaps you can land a spot as a co-executor. Convince your aunts that its a good idea because its a lot of work and co-executors had work together and help each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you call "schmoozing", unmarried aunts might call "company." Being elderly is lonely. Yes, it's nice that you've visited for all these years 1-2x a year, but if SIL calls once or twice a week every week and chats away with them....well, I'd leave her money, too. That's legitimately kind and thoughtful.

Is there a chance that they legitimately feel closer to her than to you or your brother?

You’d leave her money too or leave her, and only her, all the money?

One aunt is leaving some money and donating the rest. Seems nobody likes OP and her family here.

The brother, SIL and two aunts do not like OP or her husband or her kids? Wow.
Who said or claimed that?
Good to know. The SIL’s last man standing estrangement plan worked better than expected. Easy peasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exhibit A on why everyone should keep a very close eye on their parents and childless elderly relatives. Have you visited your aunts more often you would have known.

Known what?

A bad agent snuck around to get power and control? They’re all hoping that truth never comes to light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recency bias is real OP. Forget the last 50 years, all that matters is the last few.

Unfortunately this ended up as a First Come, First Served situation and the relatives didn’t care that it was a spouse of a relative nor to ask around.

Bear in mind, the executioner of a will can, in reality, do whatever s/he wants with the house, money, art, vehicles, or even body. That’s the prize. That’s why an aunt would want the most truthworthy non-family member following the orders— surely an out of state schmoozing spouse of a nephew…

Sorry Op, you’ve all been had. That’s why it’s a secret.

How can the executor do whatever they want with the house when there are other heirs? I also do not see how an executor could do whatever they want with anything that can be tracked, like money.

How can the executor not do whatever she wants?

She drags the mother to her scummy dc lawyer. Her mother sets up trusts and takes good care of daughter who orchestrated this by washing Mom’s panties just so and isolating siblings. She manipulated the situation, kept everyone in the dark, while there were 5 siblings who kept in touch with Mom who was controlled by panty washer. This sister buried Mom without consulting anyone and, just like that, everything is gone.
Yea….its ugly and it happens everyday. Settings up trusts is a good way to hide who gets what. Drag an old confused woman to your lawyer and the magic happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recency bias is real OP. Forget the last 50 years, all that matters is the last few.

Unfortunately this ended up as a First Come, First Served situation and the relatives didn’t care that it was a spouse of a relative nor to ask around.

Bear in mind, the executioner of a will can, in reality, do whatever s/he wants with the house, money, art, vehicles, or even body. That’s the prize. That’s why an aunt would want the most truthworthy non-family member following the orders— surely an out of state schmoozing spouse of a nephew…

Sorry Op, you’ve all been had. That’s why it’s a secret.

How can the executor do whatever they want with the house when there are other heirs? I also do not see how an executor could do whatever they want with anything that can be tracked, like money.

How can the executor not do whatever she wants?

She drags the mother to her scummy dc lawyer. Her mother sets up trusts and takes good care of daughter who orchestrated this by washing Mom’s panties just so and isolating siblings. She manipulated the situation, kept everyone in the dark, while there were 5 siblings who kept in touch with Mom who was controlled by panty washer. This sister buried Mom without consulting anyone and, just like that, everything is gone.
Yea….its ugly and it happens everyday. Settings up trusts is a good way to hide who gets what. Drag an old confused woman to your lawyer and the magic happens.

OP isn’t even bothering to call the aunts once in awhile. This is hardly a similar situation.