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.

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.

+1

You are nothing but a thief OP, and worse than that - your relationship with your sibling/s is/are less important to you than your hoarding money.

You sound like a horrible, greedy person. What other people have is absolutely NONE of your business.

Favoritism among the children or grandchildren will only leave an ugly legacy for you - your name will be nothing more than crap, and you really don't seem to care, so that is your legacy.

Congratulations!!!

I think extreme wealth sometimes causes a kind of psychosis. Really. I have known enough wealthy people who are just very paranoid (especially about the idea of someone taking their money away somehow, but also about safety and security) to feel like there is something about being very rich that impacts your brain function. I also look at certain rich celebrities or someone like Elon Musk, and I feel convinced that their wealth has contributed to their poor mental health. Donald Trump is another example -- he seems mentally unstable and his wealth seems to exacerbate this issue.

I don't think ever rich person is crazy, but I think wealth negatively impacts people who may also have other risk factors for mental problems. I think it has to do with feeling separate from everyone else, and becoming accustomed to being treated better. Someone with a very good head on their shoulders will see that for what it is -- the reality of wealth, the result of power dynamics in a capitalist society. The way things are, but not a reflection on who they are fundamentally. A circumstance.

But some people are gullible, naive, insecure, etc. And these people easily convince themselves that their wealth is a sign of their specialness and superiority, that everyone is out to get them because they want to take it away, that they are inherently better than others and they are justified in treating others poorly because of this superiority. And so on. These are delusions, and in a person with a middling income, they would quickly be identified as delusions. But wealth isolates you from that criticism, so it becomes entrenched belief.

So yes, I think extreme wealth makes people nuts. It should be considered a risk factor in the DSM!

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.

But it isn’t a debt. It was a gift given by the sibling.

Apparently not. A gift involves a donative intent. Sounds like siblings did not have that.

Lol yeah I’d like to see my bros retain counsel to make that case. “Your honor, this was a verbal agreement to make a loan, not a gift to Grandma.” The amount of money they are trying to get would not even be enough for that lawyer’s retainer.

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.

But it isn’t a debt. It was a gift given by the sibling.

Apparently not. A gift involves a donative intent. Sounds like siblings did not have that.

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.

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.

But it isn’t a debt. It was a gift given by the sibling.

Anonymous wrote:I understand how you feel, OP. But, it’s their right to be repaid. And you said they make 7 figures a year. But are they fully set for retirement? College funded? No kids with special needs? We may still have another child and are saving for college for our first. We are very lucky and help family when needed. But if there is an opportunity to be paid back, I would take that! We are “rich” but far from the place where we don’t need to work or save for the future.

If they earn 7 figures and are not set for retirement and college then I would really worry about what they were doing with their money.

And the point is in that there was no agreement to be paid back. It’s not that kind of money. For the other relative, they are trying to get paid back but yeah, I find the chest-puffing about how “We must be made whole! Nobody must cheat us!” to be distasteful and gross … because there *is not going to be an estate.* It’s like they gain psychic satisfaction at proclaiming that they are rich and can give the money but will always ensure they get the upside if possible.
Just write your freakin’ checks, get whatever paperwork you want, leave me alone. Hopefully they feel really happy when the relative dies and they are safe in their security that they got every cent possible from the 5-figure inheritance.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Why are some rich people so incredibly greedy? It’s like money means something other than money to them. I am in the midst of an incredibly petty squabble over an extremely small inheritance - like literally, an amount that my brothers probably blow in one weekend at their “clubs.” It just came out that they are incredibly wealthy (talking 7-figures annually) when I just assumed they were “normal” high HHI like 500k. Yet, they have spent YEARS engaged in strenuous efforts to ensure nobody “freeloads” when it comes to supporting aging relatives, they are obsessed with making sure wills are changed to reflect their monetary support (nevermind that there is almost certainly not actually going to be any money in those estates).

Before I found out how ungodly rich they are I didn’t really care. Now I find the drama frankly bizarre.

Normal isn't $500K. Normal is $150K around here.

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…

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.

I understand how you feel, OP. But, it’s their right to be repaid. And you said they make 7 figures a year. But are they fully set for retirement? College funded? No kids with special needs? We may still have another child and are saving for college for our first. We are very lucky and help family when needed. But if there is an opportunity to be paid back, I would take that! We are “rich” but far from the place where we don’t need to work or save for the future.

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.

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!