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: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.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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: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.

[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: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.

I do not believe this was paid by the siblings without expecting a repayment. But OP fails to state the amount they lent, the amount they want back, what she spent (instead says, “ My fair share was what I could afford, which seems fair to me? Did they want me to stop funding my retirement and repaying my student loans?”), what the will says and what the decedent’s intent was, etc. writing things like it’s a paltry amount - less than they spend at the club or what they earn by 10:00 am. There is absolutely nothing about what she’s written that makes me think the brothers are not owed the money - her other language is pretty clear that she’s blinded to how she’s robbed (not) and they are greedy (also not).

So while she repeatedly says she can’t believe how focused the siblings are on money, she needs to take a good look inward.

[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: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.

I do not believe this was paid by the siblings without expecting a repayment. But OP fails to state the amount they lent, the amount they want back, what she spent (instead says, “ My fair share was what I could afford, which seems fair to me? Did they want me to stop funding my retirement and repaying my student loans?”), what the will says and what the decedent’s intent was, etc. writing things like it’s a paltry amount - less than they spend at the club or what they earn by 10:00 am. There is absolutely nothing about what she’s written that makes me think the brothers are not owed the money - her other language is pretty clear that she’s blinded to how she’s robbed (not) and they are greedy (also not).

So while she repeatedly says she can’t believe how focused the siblings are on money, she needs to take a good look inward.

Why would they be owed, and not me? I don’t know how much they paid anyway. And I didn’t keep records of the hours I spent caretaking. Because it was always obvious the estate would be tiny or nonexistent, and I’m not greedy. My mind was on giving support. If they wanted to make their contributions a loan against the estate they could have pressed aging relative about it. But they didn’t, probably because they didn’t want to look like utter jerks to her.

As for my thoughts about their money - I never thought about it until they started pulling this nonsense about other people’s
money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Bingo

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not believe this was paid by the siblings without expecting a repayment. But OP fails to state the amount they lent, the amount they want back, what she spent (instead says, “ My fair share was what I could afford, which seems fair to me? Did they want me to stop funding my retirement and repaying my student loans?”), what the will says and what the decedent’s intent was, etc. writing things like it’s a paltry amount - less than they spend at the club or what they earn by 10:00 am. There is absolutely nothing about what she’s written that makes me think the brothers are not owed the money - her other language is pretty clear that she’s blinded to how she’s robbed (not) and they are greedy (also not).

So while she repeatedly says she can’t believe how focused the siblings are on money, she needs to take a good look inward.

Why would they be owed, and not me? I don’t know how much they paid anyway. And I didn’t keep records of the hours I spent caretaking. Because it was always obvious the estate would be tiny or nonexistent, and I’m not greedy. My mind was on giving support. If they wanted to make their contributions a loan against the estate they could have pressed aging relative about it. But they didn’t, probably because they didn’t want to look like utter jerks to her.

As for my thoughts about their money - I never thought about it until they started pulling this nonsense about other people’s
money.

You don’t get money for voluntary caretaking.

If your mind was always on caretaking, the estate is tiny, and you’re donating anything you get, your post, comments and anger make no sense. You want your share and feel entitled to it and do not want them to be reimbursed. I’d love to hear the other side of the story.

[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.

I do not believe this was paid by the siblings without expecting a repayment. But OP fails to state the amount they lent, the amount they want back, what she spent (instead says, “ My fair share was what I could afford, which seems fair to me? Did they want me to stop funding my retirement and repaying my student loans?”), what the will says and what the decedent’s intent was, etc. writing things like it’s a paltry amount - less than they spend at the club or what they earn by 10:00 am. There is absolutely nothing about what she’s written that makes me think the brothers are not owed the money - her other language is pretty clear that she’s blinded to how she’s robbed (not) and they are greedy (also not).

So while she repeatedly says she can’t believe how focused the siblings are on money, she needs to take a good look inward.

Why would they be owed, and not me? I don’t know how much they paid anyway. And I didn’t keep records of the hours I spent caretaking. Because it was always obvious the estate would be tiny or nonexistent, and I’m not greedy. My mind was on giving support. If they wanted to make their contributions a loan against the estate they could have pressed aging relative about it. But they didn’t, probably because they didn’t want to look like utter jerks to her.

As for my thoughts about their money - I never thought about it until they started pulling this nonsense about other people’s
money.

You don’t get money for voluntary caretaking.

If your mind was always on caretaking, the estate is tiny, and you’re donating anything you get, your post, comments and anger make no sense. You want your share and feel entitled to it and do not want them to be reimbursed. I’d love to hear the other side of the story.

then they don’t get money for voluntary gifts. there is no “reimbursement.” nobody ever agreed to that. we all gave gifts (of time and money) and now they unilaterally declare they deserve to be repaid, the relative’s will nonwithstanding.

you know who wants to have it both ways? my brothers. to be seen as the generous, powerful men while relative is alive; then grasp every penny after; and not be perceived as greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Bingo

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not believe this was paid by the siblings without expecting a repayment. But OP fails to state the amount they lent, the amount they want back, what she spent (instead says, “ My fair share was what I could afford, which seems fair to me? Did they want me to stop funding my retirement and repaying my student loans?”), what the will says and what the decedent’s intent was, etc. writing things like it’s a paltry amount - less than they spend at the club or what they earn by 10:00 am. There is absolutely nothing about what she’s written that makes me think the brothers are not owed the money - her other language is pretty clear that she’s blinded to how she’s robbed (not) and they are greedy (also not).

So while she repeatedly says she can’t believe how focused the siblings are on money, she needs to take a good look inward.

Why would they be owed, and not me? I don’t know how much they paid anyway. And I didn’t keep records of the hours I spent caretaking. Because it was always obvious the estate would be tiny or nonexistent, and I’m not greedy. My mind was on giving support. If they wanted to make their contributions a loan against the estate they could have pressed aging relative about it. But they didn’t, probably because they didn’t want to look like utter jerks to her.

As for my thoughts about their money - I never thought about it until they started pulling this nonsense about other people’s
money.

You don’t get money for voluntary caretaking.

If your mind was always on caretaking, the estate is tiny, and you’re donating anything you get, your post, comments and anger make no sense. You want your share and feel entitled to it and do not want them to be reimbursed. I’d love to hear the other side of the story.

then they don’t get money for voluntary gifts. there is no “reimbursement.” nobody ever agreed to that. we all gave gifts (of time and money) and now they unilaterally declare they deserve to be repaid, the relative’s will nonwithstanding.

you know who wants to have it both ways? my brothers. to be seen as the generous, powerful men while relative is alive; then grasp every penny after; and not be perceived as greedy.

Your brothers were generous to your relative; they just never intended their money to go to you and your other sibling.

[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: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.

[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: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!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your view, if they chose to help relatives out and now want to be reimbursed for the expenditures, which must be allowed somehow (will, declaration, promissory note, etc.), you interpret this as stealing:

Estate net value is $300,000. Brothers fronted/loaned $200,000 to parents ($100,000 each). Brothers want net estate to go:
$100k repay bro 1
$100k relay bro 2
Remaining $100k divided equally among the three kids.

So instead of each kid getting $33,333, you want each to get $100,000 and your siblings to forget the money they loaned so the decedent had a better life while alive).

You interpret this as stealing your inheritance. You’re in the wrong. You will never see that.

for the 18 millionth time, we are not talking about that kind of money. it is MUCH less. hence my head-scratching at the motivation. It’s on the level of refusing to split the bill equally at dinner because your friend had the $15 appetizer and yours was $10. If it was even $100,000 I would understand, although I would still question why they think they are entitled to other people’s inheritance when there was no agreement on that.

Why don't you just outline everything then? You are being too vague to have people get on your side

Actually I think rich people are just being triggered at being called “greedy” and cannot read.

You've never metioned dollar values

If it truly is tiny ($100k or less split 3 ways) just donate it to an org in your parents name and be done.

It’s even smaller than that. And yes, for my own portion, that’s what I am doing pretty much.

Just because someone has money doesn't need they should spend that money. A dollar is a dollar...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Bingo

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your view, if they chose to help relatives out and now want to be reimbursed for the expenditures, which must be allowed somehow (will, declaration, promissory note, etc.), you interpret this as stealing:

Estate net value is $300,000. Brothers fronted/loaned $200,000 to parents ($100,000 each). Brothers want net estate to go:
$100k repay bro 1
$100k relay bro 2
Remaining $100k divided equally among the three kids.

So instead of each kid getting $33,333, you want each to get $100,000 and your siblings to forget the money they loaned so the decedent had a better life while alive).

You interpret this as stealing your inheritance. You’re in the wrong. You will never see that.

for the 18 millionth time, we are not talking about that kind of money. it is MUCH less. hence my head-scratching at the motivation. It’s on the level of refusing to split the bill equally at dinner because your friend had the $15 appetizer and yours was $10. If it was even $100,000 I would understand, although I would still question why they think they are entitled to other people’s inheritance when there was no agreement on that.

Why don't you just outline everything then? You are being too vague to have people get on your side

Actually I think rich people are just being triggered at being called “greedy” and cannot read.

You've never metioned dollar values

If it truly is tiny ($100k or less split 3 ways) just donate it to an org in your parents name and be done.

It’s even smaller than that. And yes, for my own portion, that’s what I am doing pretty much.

Just because someone has money doesn't need they should spend that money. A dollar is a dollar...

It seems like OP's brother has buyer's remorse. He now regrets giving monetary support. Well, too bad. He can't now claim that the gift was a loan that requires reimbursement from the estate. I get it, he's mad. He didn't think through that a gift to grandma would end up having the effect of being a gift to the siblings. But too bad.

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Bingo

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only one claiming they were gifts if you.

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

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