In the UK Bertha can only do that by varying the will and as the executor is personally liable.
For $10,000, they can only afford to sue Bertha’s belt off.
You follow the will, no matter how stupid. My father’s trust says we can’t terminate it and take the money until our evil step mother dies. Stupid, but that is what it says so that is what we do. Luckily my brother and I never argued about this.
Bertha can put her own share into a trust for her kids if she likes.
The shares left to her two siblings are not her money, and absent some unusual clause in the Will that is not mentioned in the OP she does not get to decide how they are dealt with. She gets to administer the Will, period.
Of course they aren’t fighting over the money, it’s a symbolic battle over a number of disagreements which isn’t limited to Bertha’s belief that she get’s to pass and execute moral judgments against her younger siblings when it’s obviously none of her business.
As far as the not talking to each other, there were obviously lots of tension before this happened so this would have just been the straw that broke the camel’s back. Hence, as you pointed out, it’s not the amount that mattered.
When my grandfather died, my mother’s family got into huge fights over trivial possessions. Again, it was because of long-standing feelings of not getting enough love from him and other dysfunctional components.
My grandmother did precisely this when her mother died. She got away with it, too, because the will didn’t go through probate, and no one knew that she had not distributed the money the way her mother specified. My mother and her sister found out about it when they were cleaning out the house after my grandmother died, probably 30 years after the estate was distributed - way too late to do anything about it (especially because they were estranged from their brother by that point). Not only did Grandma take it upon herself to give the money to the deceased’s great-grandkids instead of the grandkids, the grandkids didn’t all have the same number of kids, and the money was evenly split between the kids of my generation, so my aunt got doubly screwed.
Rare unanimity in the Dope (at least so far).
Well, I voted for Bertha being wrong, and now I regret it.
Because in actual fact, I DON’T have a dog in the fight, and I could really use a slice of pie.
Are there plans to contest this? I can’t imagine they’d lose if they tried. (How old are the grandkids, and how do they feel about it?)
How much are they willing to pay in attorney’s fees to recover $3,333? If it drags out, the lawyer could easily end up with the entire $10,000 plus some.
Legally, Bertha is clearly wrong.
Morally, it depends. If Chuck and Diane will waste the windfall, or potentially even be harmed by the windfall (via an addiction or the like), I could see it being the right thing to get it to the grandkids.
Morally there are very, very few instances where denying an adult their own property is the right thing to do. There’s nothing in the OP that makes me think this is one of those cases. Certainly “wasting” the windfall as you put it is never one of those cases either.
Bertha has no defense. It’s clearly writ in the poll, not one vote for Bertha. Might as well simplify the OP and say and say Bertha stole money from her brother and sister, right or wrong?
Indeed. When my father died, the three heirs (myself, my sister, and our mom) all agreed that there was nothing there worth fighting over, so there was no conflict between us. But none of us, nor the executor named in the will, had any particular interest in the job, so we agreed when my uncle volunteered to do it. And that’s when we learned that the interests of the estate do not always coincide with the interests of the heirs.
I was the executor of my mother’s estate, and before I agreed to so it, made her tell all my sibs exactly what the will contained. I told her she may be gone, but they’re be my brothers and sisters for the rest of my life.
StG
Morally, it’s still wrong. If Chuck and Diane will waste the windfall, that’s that.
Imagine if Bertha said, “Chuck and Diane will waste their inheritance, so I’m donating their share to the Red Cross instead.” Essentially the same principle.
What kind of trust is the money in?
IANAL: What legal consequences would Bertha suffer if sued? Have to pay damages on top of the $3,333 repaid?
I don’t get the impression that spendthrifts Chuck and Diane are drug addicts or child abusers or something. To answer the OP, Bertha was very wrong. I can understand why everyone’s pissed at her.
Depends on the jurisdiction. They could also sue her for attorneys’ fees.
118 to zero right now.
Even months ago, when there was a “Would you rather watch Palin’s new TV show, or Cupcake Wars” poll, there was at least one Doper who voted to watch Palin’s show.
Anyway, the OP should let us know the updates on the situation, unless it’s more or less settled.