Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my husbands uncles overseas died last year and I asked if he was going to call the widow or his adult cousins. He said no, we don’t talk.

And before that another overseas uncle had sudden onset Alzheimer’s and was going to die. He pulled out of the dying part and is in memory care. We mainly get the updates from my husbands mom, the sibling.

I never thought to call up the surviving spouse to schmooze or ask how I can help from afar. Maybe I’m a cynic as that wouldn’t work well if someone called me to talk like that.

These people aren’t overseas and see each other a few times a year. You think it’s really a big deal to write letters and make phone calls to stay in touch? It’s about the least you can do. The least you can do is what your husband does for his family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be rewritten:

I don't talk to my aunts very much, but my brother and his wife do. His wife has been helping them out in dealing with end of life care. I'm very greedy and better get their money when they die.

yeah, this. the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships. So now, she is actually getting some financial reward as karma for that. I find it entirely believable that the aunts actually grew fond of her, because she reached out and was supportive.


OP sounds confused because she sees every action in terms of the monetary reward and doesn't understand caretaking.

You were doing so well and then you fell into the trap of thinking SAHPs care more and by extension, WOHPs don’t.

DP but often SAHPs are expected to have more free time and to willingly spend it on other people's problems because they're not doing something as important as "working." In this instance, that's evidently what SIL did. She kept in touch with these more distant relatives, for 5 years. She is in their confidence because of that effort. Either she did it because she cares enough about elderly family members to do it (very nice, why be upset that one of the aunts remembered her in her will after this?) or she did it because her time was considered disposable by OP and she was happy to dump the work of checking in on extended family on the SAHM (not nice, nor is it nice to be upset that her time has been ::gasp:: assigned a value by the aunt who made her executor).

If there was some allegation of elder abuse or manipulation I could see the outrage. But two adults making a choice of their own free will to either name this person in their will or trust her to carry out the disposition of their estate does not an abuse case make.

The PP (you?) said, “the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships.” They are saying SAHPs care more about relationships. It’s BS.

No, DP explicitly means not PP. But nevertheless, my post is about that point -- either SIL *did* care more, and that's why she has established a deeper relationship, or SIL's time was assumed to be available for anyone in the extended family and she got stuck with the caretaking *even though she did not care more*. Either way, it's fine that she got remembered in a will. Being upset that someone who was either 1) genuinely closer to this aunt, or 2) assigned the role of "unemployed woman who takes care of everyone" for this aunt is now being named as a beneficiary or executor is petty.

I take your points. My point was that the PP assumes SAHPs care more than WOHPs.

I'm the PP. Let me clarify that I mean "time spent caretaking." That's it -- I don't know what is in people's hearts. But it actually doesn't matter -- time spent caretaking is what we are talking about here.

Right, and a lot of people assume SAHPs can do all the caretaking because they don’t have a “real job” anyway. (Forgetting the fact that if a person got paid to do all the things SAHPs do, it would be considered a -gasp- real job. Only difference is getting money for what is being done.)

The husbands can take care of work, the kids and house whilst they schmooch up the elderly widows and childless relatives!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be rewritten:

I don't talk to my aunts very much, but my brother and his wife do. His wife has been helping them out in dealing with end of life care. I'm very greedy and better get their money when they die.

yeah, this. the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships. So now, she is actually getting some financial reward as karma for that. I find it entirely believable that the aunts actually grew fond of her, because she reached out and was supportive.


OP sounds confused because she sees every action in terms of the monetary reward and doesn't understand caretaking.

You were doing so well and then you fell into the trap of thinking SAHPs care more and by extension, WOHPs don’t.

DP but often SAHPs are expected to have more free time and to willingly spend it on other people's problems because they're not doing something as important as "working." In this instance, that's evidently what SIL did. She kept in touch with these more distant relatives, for 5 years. She is in their confidence because of that effort. Either she did it because she cares enough about elderly family members to do it (very nice, why be upset that one of the aunts remembered her in her will after this?) or she did it because her time was considered disposable by OP and she was happy to dump the work of checking in on extended family on the SAHM (not nice, nor is it nice to be upset that her time has been ::gasp:: assigned a value by the aunt who made her executor).

If there was some allegation of elder abuse or manipulation I could see the outrage. But two adults making a choice of their own free will to either name this person in their will or trust her to carry out the disposition of their estate does not an abuse case make.

The PP (you?) said, “the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships.” They are saying SAHPs care more about relationships. It’s BS.

No, DP explicitly means not PP. But nevertheless, my post is about that point -- either SIL *did* care more, and that's why she has established a deeper relationship, or SIL's time was assumed to be available for anyone in the extended family and she got stuck with the caretaking *even though she did not care more*. Either way, it's fine that she got remembered in a will. Being upset that someone who was either 1) genuinely closer to this aunt, or 2) assigned the role of "unemployed woman who takes care of everyone" for this aunt is now being named as a beneficiary or executor is petty.

I take your points. My point was that the PP assumes SAHPs care more than WOHPs.

I'm the PP. Let me clarify that I mean "time spent caretaking." That's it -- I don't know what is in people's hearts. But it actually doesn't matter -- time spent caretaking is what we are talking about here.

Right, and a lot of people assume SAHPs can do all the caretaking because they don’t have a “real job” anyway. (Forgetting the fact that if a person got paid to do all the things SAHPs do, it would be considered a -gasp- real job. Only difference is getting money for what is being done.)

The husbands can take care of work, the kids and house whilst they schmooch up the elderly widows and childless relatives!

Anonymous wrote:My brother and I are each married with kids, to our respective spouses, and live in various states away from our hometown. My spouse and I work, my brother’s wife does not.

I just found out that several years ago my brother’s wife secretly positioned herself as each of my 2 married childless aunt’s estate administrators. In one case she and my brother are now set to inherit 100% of everything. In the other case, she will get a hefty 6 figure “admin fee” and the rest will be donated.

The first set was having health issues and divorced; she swept in with emails, letters and feigned concerned and got an ill aunt to change things. The second set she pitched something and who knows what the will says now.

I guess my brother went along with it and never told anyone, even our parents or me.

The divorced uncle informed me recently as they moved. The other aunt told a family member who told me. Ironically I work in investing and with deal lawyers, estate attorneys and tax attorneys all the time.

I’m really disgusted by this all. The lack of communication, transparency and omissions.

Anonymous wrote:One of my husbands uncles overseas died last year and I asked if he was going to call the widow or his adult cousins. He said no, we don’t talk.

And before that another overseas uncle had sudden onset Alzheimer’s and was going to die. He pulled out of the dying part and is in memory care. We mainly get the updates from my husbands mom, the sibling.

I never thought to call up the surviving spouse to schmooze or ask how I can help from afar. Maybe I’m a cynic as that wouldn’t work well if someone called me to talk like that.

Anonymous wrote:One of my husbands uncles overseas died last year and I asked if he was going to call the widow or his adult cousins. He said no, we don’t talk.

And before that another overseas uncle had sudden onset Alzheimer’s and was going to die. He pulled out of the dying part and is in memory care. We mainly get the updates from my husbands mom, the sibling.

I never thought to call up the surviving spouse to schmooze or ask how I can help from afar. Maybe I’m a cynic as that wouldn’t work well if someone called me to talk like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

schmoozed or stayed in touch?

What’s wrong with schmoozing and writing gushy letters, offering up a listening phone call, inviting everyone to fly over to visit, and sending cute care packages to other people’s aunts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be rewritten:

I don't talk to my aunts very much, but my brother and his wife do. His wife has been helping them out in dealing with end of life care. I'm very greedy and better get their money when they die.

yeah, this. the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships. So now, she is actually getting some financial reward as karma for that. I find it entirely believable that the aunts actually grew fond of her, because she reached out and was supportive.


OP sounds confused because she sees every action in terms of the monetary reward and doesn't understand caretaking.

You were doing so well and then you fell into the trap of thinking SAHPs care more and by extension, WOHPs don’t.

DP but often SAHPs are expected to have more free time and to willingly spend it on other people's problems because they're not doing something as important as "working." In this instance, that's evidently what SIL did. She kept in touch with these more distant relatives, for 5 years. She is in their confidence because of that effort. Either she did it because she cares enough about elderly family members to do it (very nice, why be upset that one of the aunts remembered her in her will after this?) or she did it because her time was considered disposable by OP and she was happy to dump the work of checking in on extended family on the SAHM (not nice, nor is it nice to be upset that her time has been ::gasp:: assigned a value by the aunt who made her executor).

If there was some allegation of elder abuse or manipulation I could see the outrage. But two adults making a choice of their own free will to either name this person in their will or trust her to carry out the disposition of their estate does not an abuse case make.

The PP (you?) said, “the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships.” They are saying SAHPs care more about relationships. It’s BS.

No, DP explicitly means not PP. But nevertheless, my post is about that point -- either SIL *did* care more, and that's why she has established a deeper relationship, or SIL's time was assumed to be available for anyone in the extended family and she got stuck with the caretaking *even though she did not care more*. Either way, it's fine that she got remembered in a will. Being upset that someone who was either 1) genuinely closer to this aunt, or 2) assigned the role of "unemployed woman who takes care of everyone" for this aunt is now being named as a beneficiary or executor is petty.

I take your points. My point was that the PP assumes SAHPs care more than WOHPs.

I'm the PP. Let me clarify that I mean "time spent caretaking." That's it -- I don't know what is in people's hearts. But it actually doesn't matter -- time spent caretaking is what we are talking about here.

Right, and a lot of people assume SAHPs can do all the caretaking because they don’t have a “real job” anyway. (Forgetting the fact that if a person got paid to do all the things SAHPs do, it would be considered a -gasp- real job. Only difference is getting money for what is being done.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could be rewritten:

I don't talk to my aunts very much, but my brother and his wife do. His wife has been helping them out in dealing with end of life care. I'm very greedy and better get their money when they die.

yeah, this. the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships. So now, she is actually getting some financial reward as karma for that. I find it entirely believable that the aunts actually grew fond of her, because she reached out and was supportive.


OP sounds confused because she sees every action in terms of the monetary reward and doesn't understand caretaking.

You were doing so well and then you fell into the trap of thinking SAHPs care more and by extension, WOHPs don’t.

DP but often SAHPs are expected to have more free time and to willingly spend it on other people's problems because they're not doing something as important as "working." In this instance, that's evidently what SIL did. She kept in touch with these more distant relatives, for 5 years. She is in their confidence because of that effort. Either she did it because she cares enough about elderly family members to do it (very nice, why be upset that one of the aunts remembered her in her will after this?) or she did it because her time was considered disposable by OP and she was happy to dump the work of checking in on extended family on the SAHM (not nice, nor is it nice to be upset that her time has been ::gasp:: assigned a value by the aunt who made her executor).

If there was some allegation of elder abuse or manipulation I could see the outrage. But two adults making a choice of their own free will to either name this person in their will or trust her to carry out the disposition of their estate does not an abuse case make.

The PP (you?) said, “the SIL being a SAHM also seems to indicate that she's someone who cares about caretaking and relationships.” They are saying SAHPs care more about relationships. It’s BS.

No, DP explicitly means not PP. But nevertheless, my post is about that point -- either SIL *did* care more, and that's why she has established a deeper relationship, or SIL's time was assumed to be available for anyone in the extended family and she got stuck with the caretaking *even though she did not care more*. Either way, it's fine that she got remembered in a will. Being upset that someone who was either 1) genuinely closer to this aunt, or 2) assigned the role of "unemployed woman who takes care of everyone" for this aunt is now being named as a beneficiary or executor is petty.

I take your points. My point was that the PP assumes SAHPs care more than WOHPs.

I'm the PP. Let me clarify that I mean "time spent caretaking." That's it -- I don't know what is in people's hearts. But it actually doesn't matter -- time spent caretaking is what we are talking about here.

Anonymous wrote:What kind of caretaking are we talking about when everyone lives 1000+ miles away?