Sibling Stole Life Insurance Money from Other Sibling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there something wrong with middle brother? How was he so easily taken advantage of?

He just isn’t sophisticated. He trusts easily. He spent time with and cared for my mom, which was always his strongest talent. My oldest brother made up some story about how it would be a loan etc. It’s not a loan. He spent all of it and had no plans to pay him back.

HUH?
What do you mean he made up a story about it being a loan? If he said loan then it’s a loan, one he refuses to repay.
Sue him.
Are you a troll?

No, I’m not a troll. This is very much real life. Sadly. Yes, the oldest brother (let’s call him
Mike) told the younger brother (let’s call him John) that he needed the money, that the money was never John’s to begin with, and that it would be like a loan where he would pay John back. The problem is that Mike spent the money and has told me after I confronted him about all of this that he doesn’t owe John anything and won’t be giving back any of the money.

I actually did have Brother 2 attempt this. But Brother 1 now says he doesn’t owe anything and that it wasn’t a loan. That’s when I got involved. I’ll review the messages Brother 2 has on his phone and email and see if there’s something there. He has the financial records, but not much else.
OP, I responded above and just read this. You know your brothers so why you confronted the older one without making sure to get evidence of the loan down first…like a recording… I have no idea. My above ideas probably won’t work now that older brother already knows you are involved!

[Anonymous]

I would make sure everyone in older bro's circle, extended family, etc knows what a pile of doodoo this guy is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would intervene. I don't give a F if people say MYOB. I would defend my younger brother to an a** of a brother.

Take older brother to task.

Or to court.

With no written agreement between the brothers about any "loan" and the fact the younger brother gave the money willingly to the older one, there may not be any legal leg to stand on for a lawsuit. I also think maybe the older brother doesn't have the money to repay. What are the odds he owed money somewhere himself and that's why he was going after the brother's inheritance?

But the threat of a lawsuit might be enough to scare him into coughing up something if he's afraid of word getting out. If he's into appearances and playing the noble veteran etc., he might balk at being sued. Not a good look. Lawsuits are mostly public documents, right?

NP and while the lawsuit will be public so will the fact that the case was dismissed and most people are not going to go down to the courthouse to pull the complaint and read through it. Easy to chalk it up as a family dispute and since the case was dismissed he can say that he was the party in the right.

PP to whom you're responding. It doesn't take going down to a courthouse and pulling documents for word to get around in someone's social circle. And even if the suit gets dismissed, that does not mean folks won't speculate about why it was filed in the first place. Most people who've watched any TV or read any courtroom novels are smart enough to know that a dismissal does not necessarily mean the defendant was "in the right," only that the legalities didn't line up for the case to go forward. OP says the older brother wants to keep up a certain reputation. He should know that even a dismissed lawsuit against him would gin up talk and speculation about him, not just about his hapless brother. And older brother deserves all the talk, speculation, gossip and side-eye he gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe older brother thought it was unfair unequal treatment that middle brother was the sole beneficiary. Isn't that what many are saying in the other inheritance thread? It doesn't bode well for sibling relationships that things be split so unequally. So maybe he did feel entitled to some of the money. Did he ever agree with how things were split?

There was agreement because Brother 2 spent so many years acting as our mom’s primary caregiver. And at the end of the day, $50K just wasn’t a lot of money. But it would have helped Brother 2 get on his feet. Brother 1 was the one who got upset when I tried to control the funds, which, in hindsight makes so much sense. Brother 1 was adamant about it being Brother 2’s money and that I shouldn’t play any part in managing it. Of course he had his own plan to take the money, which is why he didn’t need his pesky sister in the way.

This is why parents shouldn't treat siblings so unequally.

New poster. NONSENSE, PP. The mother intended the money to go to the one of her three children who had cared for her for years. It was not a huge amount. The older brother and our OP, the sister, were and are both financially fine and did not need this money. The mother expected she was rewarding the son who devoted so much time to her care, and OP as the sister and daughter was fine with that. The older brother is scum.

No one has to "treat siblings equally" in a will. This case is crystal clear about why the mother left the money only to the one son and not the other two siblings. Do you really think that somehow the older brother is right on any level for duping his brother out of even a penny of this inheritance? Because, what, the older brother felt he...should have been treated "equally"? Bull. Total bull.

If you don't want to tear your family apart, please do decide what each child deserves based on their earning potential and what assets they already have to come up with the perfectly fair but not equal division. Or please to read the other thread here about unequal inheritance if you can't imagine what can go wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe older brother thought it was unfair unequal treatment that middle brother was the sole beneficiary. Isn't that what many are saying in the other inheritance thread? It doesn't bode well for sibling relationships that things be split so unequally. So maybe he did feel entitled to some of the money. Did he ever agree with how things were split?

There was agreement because Brother 2 spent so many years acting as our mom’s primary caregiver. And at the end of the day, $50K just wasn’t a lot of money. But it would have helped Brother 2 get on his feet. Brother 1 was the one who got upset when I tried to control the funds, which, in hindsight makes so much sense. Brother 1 was adamant about it being Brother 2’s money and that I shouldn’t play any part in managing it. Of course he had his own plan to take the money, which is why he didn’t need his pesky sister in the way.

This is why parents shouldn't treat siblings so unequally.

New poster. NONSENSE, PP. The mother intended the money to go to the one of her three children who had cared for her for years. It was not a huge amount. The older brother and our OP, the sister, were and are both financially fine and did not need this money. The mother expected she was rewarding the son who devoted so much time to her care, and OP as the sister and daughter was fine with that. The older brother is scum.

No one has to "treat siblings equally" in a will. This case is crystal clear about why the mother left the money only to the one son and not the other two siblings. Do you really think that somehow the older brother is right on any level for duping his brother out of even a penny of this inheritance? Because, what, the older brother felt he...should have been treated "equally"? Bull. Total bull.

If you don't want to tear your family apart, please do decide what each child deserves based on their earning potential and what assets they already have to come up with the perfectly fair but not equal division. Or please to read the other thread here about unequal inheritance if you can't imagine what can go wrong.

^ I mean if you "DO" want to tear the family apart, then divide things unequally. If that's the legacy you want to leave behind, bitter, squabbling siblings who may never talk to each other again, then by all means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe older brother thought it was unfair unequal treatment that middle brother was the sole beneficiary. Isn't that what many are saying in the other inheritance thread? It doesn't bode well for sibling relationships that things be split so unequally. So maybe he did feel entitled to some of the money. Did he ever agree with how things were split?

There was agreement because Brother 2 spent so many years acting as our mom’s primary caregiver. And at the end of the day, $50K just wasn’t a lot of money. But it would have helped Brother 2 get on his feet. Brother 1 was the one who got upset when I tried to control the funds, which, in hindsight makes so much sense. Brother 1 was adamant about it being Brother 2’s money and that I shouldn’t play any part in managing it. Of course he had his own plan to take the money, which is why he didn’t need his pesky sister in the way.

This is why parents shouldn't treat siblings so unequally.

New poster. NONSENSE, PP. The mother intended the money to go to the one of her three children who had cared for her for years. It was not a huge amount. The older brother and our OP, the sister, were and are both financially fine and did not need this money. The mother expected she was rewarding the son who devoted so much time to her care, and OP as the sister and daughter was fine with that. The older brother is scum.

No one has to "treat siblings equally" in a will. This case is crystal clear about why the mother left the money only to the one son and not the other two siblings. Do you really think that somehow the older brother is right on any level for duping his brother out of even a penny of this inheritance? Because, what, the older brother felt he...should have been treated "equally"? Bull. Total bull.

If you don't want to tear your family apart, please do decide what each child deserves based on their earning potential and what assets they already have to come up with the perfectly fair but not equal division. Or please to read the other thread here about unequal inheritance if you can't imagine what can go wrong.

^ I mean if you "DO" want to tear the family apart, then divide things unequally. If that's the legacy you want to leave behind, bitter, squabbling siblings who may never talk to each other again, then by all means.

I really think you did not fully read, or if you did, you refuse to understand, the exact circumstances OP described.

But even if you did, you sound as if you might be projecting your own issues with being "equal" onto OP's family's situation. "Fair" and "equal" are not the same thing. And every circumstance is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe older brother thought it was unfair unequal treatment that middle brother was the sole beneficiary. Isn't that what many are saying in the other inheritance thread? It doesn't bode well for sibling relationships that things be split so unequally. So maybe he did feel entitled to some of the money. Did he ever agree with how things were split?

There was agreement because Brother 2 spent so many years acting as our mom’s primary caregiver. And at the end of the day, $50K just wasn’t a lot of money. But it would have helped Brother 2 get on his feet. Brother 1 was the one who got upset when I tried to control the funds, which, in hindsight makes so much sense. Brother 1 was adamant about it being Brother 2’s money and that I shouldn’t play any part in managing it. Of course he had his own plan to take the money, which is why he didn’t need his pesky sister in the way.

This is why parents shouldn't treat siblings so unequally.

New poster. NONSENSE, PP. The mother intended the money to go to the one of her three children who had cared for her for years. It was not a huge amount. The older brother and our OP, the sister, were and are both financially fine and did not need this money. The mother expected she was rewarding the son who devoted so much time to her care, and OP as the sister and daughter was fine with that. The older brother is scum.

No one has to "treat siblings equally" in a will. This case is crystal clear about why the mother left the money only to the one son and not the other two siblings. Do you really think that somehow the older brother is right on any level for duping his brother out of even a penny of this inheritance? Because, what, the older brother felt he...should have been treated "equally"? Bull. Total bull.

If you don't want to tear your family apart, please do decide what each child deserves based on their earning potential and what assets they already have to come up with the perfectly fair but not equal division. Or please to read the other thread here about unequal inheritance if you can't imagine what can go wrong.

^ I mean if you "DO" want to tear the family apart, then divide things unequally. If that's the legacy you want to leave behind, bitter, squabbling siblings who may never talk to each other again, then by all means.

I really think you did not fully read, or if you did, you refuse to understand, the exact circumstances OP described.

But even if you did, you sound as if you might be projecting your own issues with being "equal" onto OP's family's situation. "Fair" and "equal" are not the same thing. And every circumstance is different.

OP made no mention if everyone agreed to the arrangement the mother made. At least 2 out of 3 apparently agreed, but did the older brother? Apparently not. And look what happened. My parents are alive and kicking and I have no idea what their plan is when they pass, so, you're wrong, again. We can read the same OP and come to a different conclusion. But we do know that the sibling relationship is probably over. So in pursuit of fairness I wonder if OP's mother would really think it was worth it if she knew what would happen after she passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, all. I appreciate the kind comments. To the posters who think I’m a troll, well, I don’t know what to say — do people really create fake posts about their mother’s death? I certainly would not. I am a lawyer. Have been for 17 years. I don’t think a lawsuit would likely prevail as I’ve said before b/c there was no formal agreement, but, stranger things have happened in Texas, so it’s not off the table. Mostly, it could be enough to scare Brother 1 into a payment plan at minimum. He is absolutely the kind of person who cares about his reputation and public persona. I haven’t been close to him in years and all the more reason to keep my distance now. I’m helping Brother 2 and we’ll figure it out. My Brother 2 sacrificed a lot for my mom and he deserved every dime of that money. I always helped her financially, but his other support for her was unmatched.

Did you skip Rule 11 in law school? This comes dangerously close to sanctionable conduct.

NP and probably not sanctionable as OP is going to argue there was an oral agreement to pay the money back. They will probably lose but probably won't be sanctioned for it esp. since they will be in state court where your case has to be really frivolous for someone to be sanctioned.

Oral agreements can be enforceable. If it the word of one person against another, proving it may be a problem, but it's not frivolous.

OP, if your brother is over 60, look into elder abuse statutes. This probably fits the scenarios that most of them were written to address.