Bickering over a will - who's wrong, and how wrong?

It’s time for everyone’s favorite game, “Relatives fighting about money and a will!” Today’s contestants are four of siblings (for convenience, we’ll say they are my cousins): Alex, Bertha, Chuck, and Diane.

Their mother, Ethel, is still alive. She’s long since divorced from their father, Franklin, who doesn’t figure in this story.

Alex died fairly young, unmarried, with no kids. His will specified that his estate should be divided equally among his surviving siblings. He didn’t leave behind any goods or investments worth fighting over or liquidating, but he did have some money in the bank. There’s some question about just how much money there was, but everyone agrees it wasn’t a lot - maybe $10,000 in all.

Bertha, the oldest surviving sibling, was named executor. She divided the money into equal shares for each sibling, but didn’t distribute it to Chuck, Diane, and herself. Instead, she created a trust for the children of each surviving sibling (her kids, Chuck’s kids, and Diane’s kids) and deposited each sibling’s share into one of the trust funds. Bertha justified this by saying, “Chuck and Diane are spendthrifts who will just piss the money away, and their kids will need it for college.”

Chuck and Diane weren’t happy with this. Ethel wasn’t pleased, either. The will said the money should go to Alex’s siblings, and Bertha didn’t do this. Chuck and Diane, regardless of their financial skills, are neither incapacitated nor legally prohibited from receiving the money. Chuck, Diane, and Ethel aren’t talking to Bertha anymore.

My feeling is that Bertha meant well, but overstepped her authority. Some of the other family members don’t agree with me, though. They feel that Ethel is being especially obnoxious by allowing an argument over money to separate her from Bertha. Chuck sides with Ethel, while Diane has her own gripes with Ethel and isn’t talking to her mother, either.

Weigh in, please.

Bertha’s actions could and would be struck down by a probate judge, as she didn’t follow the directions given to her.

What’s most important here, is what Alex directed.

"
All this drama over $10,000?
Split between 2 adults, that isn’t worth a family feud.

But split between 6 grandkids?
Did Bertha the executor think it was enough to have any effect whatsoever on paying for college?

There’s a serious problem in this family but it ain’t got nothin’ to do with money

Bertha definitely overstepped. But Chuck and Diane should probably have let be if they didn’t have a clear need for the money more important than the college fund. My $0.02…

Just curious; who is the trustee?

3 adults

Pissing away the college money is one of the things you get to do as a parent.

From a legal perspective, Bertha screwed up big time. She didn’t have the authority to create trust funds. What she was supposed to do was distribute the estate to the beneficiaries.

She could only do such a thing if the beneficiary was in agreement, and you would need something in writing signed by the beneficiary to that effect.

She needs to follow the instructions of the will - or can be sued!

I would suggest small claims court - do-it-yourself.

Bertha was wrong, very wrong. This seems like it will lead to endless squabbles and headaches. Who is controlling the trust and how the money is disbursed? I hope it’s not Bertha. Does she get to say if the college is worthy or not when the kids want the money?

What kind of trust is this and how much work is it to get the money out now?

The vote is closer than I would have thought! :smiley:

Bertha is being a bossy cow, regardless of whether she’s right. Unless I’m wrong about what an executor is, or unless there was some specific wording in the will about how the money should be used, making decisions about what should be done with it was never her job.

I definitely wouldn’t cut off one of my kids for pulling this crap on the other one, but I might possibly stop speaking to my brother for a while if he thought he had the right to pull this crap on me. The problem here isn’t the amount of money, or whether the other siblings actually need it or not; it’s that one sibling is taking advantage of an opportunity (and not even a legit opportunity, apparently) to force her decisions onto the others’ lives. Not cool.

Meta-observation: anyone who has never been party to a family will or probate and thinks situations like this are unusual has some unpleasant education in their future.

Yes, close families with no overt disputes do split and often remain split over $10k… or $1k, or just treasured and disputed knickknacks. Been there, seen it, lost the t-shirt in the court decision.

We’re running into a similar (but backwards) situation with my MIL’s will.

She told the kids (my husband and his two sisters) that any estate money would go to grandchildren, minus one (she got a car.) There’s not much to split up, maybe $25,000 among the five kids who are owed. She “took care” of Ivylad and his sisters before she passed.

However, that’s not what the will states. She must not have updated it, because my SIL, who is the executor, got a check for $8000. Ivylad will be getting a similar check, once he sends in the paperwork.

We’ve agreed that although Mum didn’t update her will, she made her wishes known several times, so once all the funds are distributed we will give the grandkids what’s owed them.

I shudder to think what would happen in a more dysfunctional family. :eek:

Bertha can have her pants sued off. I’m stunned she did this unilaterally. If one of the other kids decide to go after her for this she could be in very serious trouble. I’m surprised no one has explained this this to her. This is some serious shit.

Bertha has said 'Screw what Alex wanted. I know better."

Control freak.

She basically disinherited her siblings. She doesn’t get to do that.

“…will specified that his estate should be divided equally among his surviving siblings.”

That’s it. Period.

Bertha was wrong.

I remember a People’s Court (or maybe it was Judge Judy) from years ago in which brothers were fighting over a pair of matching lamps that cost maybe $200 apiece. The concept of each brother just taking one seemed completely off the table. My mother said, “They’re not really fighting over the lamps.”

And I agree, Bertha should have split the money and given half to each sibling, gone home, and rolled her eyes.

Wonder how the kids feel about this? They might think it wasn’t enough money to justify infuriating a parent.

Sometimes disputes are more bitter because the amounts are small. Bertha is wrong, legally and IMO morally. But things like this are not about money.

A lawsuit would make everything worse.

And it really sucks, because usually, nobody volunteers.

Regards,
Shodan