Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mom told me that she didn't have a Will. She just had the Irrevocable Trust. I haven't heard anything about any probate and yes, my brother is the only executor. I have no idea what he's doing about any of it. He doesn't communicate with me unless he wants money from me. Got a note left on my car windshield that he wants $400 ASAP. When Hell freezes over.
There is no "share" for me or my other siblings. It's ALL my brothers. Although I'm sure all of our names are in the Trust. Maybe just to say that we are SOL. But, NONE of us want any money out ofthe Trust. Since none of us have ever seen a copy we have no idea but I think we are entitled to read the dang thing. I called an attorney this morning but they want $225 hour for a consultation and I can't afford that. I need to cover my butt with him about other things that have little to do with money.
I am NOT a lawyer, but if there is no will, then you, as next of kin, are likely to have a claim against the estate under the idea that, with no will, the estate is divided amongst the immediate family.
You are living in the 'carriage house' IIRC, non? You fear losing your home, or being forced to pay rent, non? What is that worth, aside from the money which you seem to not care about? One month's rent is going to cost you a LOT more than $1000 to kick it around with a lawyer. On top of that, the costs to settle the estate are borne by the estate, not by you.
So, if you know who the lawyer was that wrote the will (you say there is none, but there must be (how do things get into the Trust--it just doesn't "happen") , or my advice above applies about "immediate family"), or the lawyer is that wrote the Trust Document, have a sit down with them and figure out where you go from here. You are being taken advantage of and that is not right. Simply not having cash in hand is not a reason why you should give up hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate value just because your brother is being selfish. One way or the other, unless one of those documents specifically excludes you, you are entitled to a LOT more than you think (or perhaps want).
Don't be a wuss. Got get what is rightfully yours.
Agree that the $36 belongs to the estate, and it should have then been split 3 ways, so Joe is owed $12K back, to keep things even. If your parents wanted everything to be split evenly among all 3 of you, this is what will honor their wishes.
The fact that he borrowed money and you didn't is between him and your parents, and you and your parents. It sounds like they would have also lent your money if you had asked. Your choice.
As far as whether your sister should get more, that's a conversation you should have with Joe, once the other money gets sorted out. Explain that you feel Sis is entitled to a bit extra given how much more she did. Whether that's cash or first choice of personal property like furniture, jewelry, etc. depends on all of your personal circumstances and preferences. But it would be a nice way to acknowledge that she did more than her fair share.
Brother borrowed $36,000 and everyone agrees that it the amount that was borrowed. Brother owes mom and dad the $36,000. He does not owe the sibs the $36,000.
Mom and dad died meaning that brother owes the estate $36,000. The estate would have paid brother $12,000 from the $36,000. To satisfy the estate Brother needs to give the other 2 sibs $12,000 each. That would be $12,000 X 3 = $36,000
As far as sister helping with parents, it is nice to know that mom and dad had a child that would take on that kind of work. She agreed to that on her own. Unless a contract can be shown that states that sister would be compensated for her help, then nothing else will be offered. She gets a better view in Heaven when she meets up with mom and dad.
Not only is Joe owed his portion, he is well within his rights to collect an executor's fee. He certainly could have forgotten the debt altogether and left both sisters out of it, so now he is being criticized despite doing the right thing. I would not rock the boat, executor's fees can be significant. He is further being generous if he does not collect that fee.
Be nice and apologize to your brother, as the math is correct in splitting the 36K three ways.
As to the debt it is about $36K. So, he paid half of this to me and half to sister and all other funds were split 3 ways.
To the OP, can you clarify the above for us? Did brother pay $36K of his own outside money into the estate? Or did he attempt to "make it all right" from the money in the estate, without actually putting $36K of his own money into the estate?
It's not clear from your post and folks are doubling down on positions without really knowing all the facts.
While the parents were alive, they can do anything they want with their money, even if one sibling gets more than another. Is it fair? Doesn't matter - it's the parent's money to do with as they please.
Entitled to? Again, parents can do with their money as they see fit. If Joe got more while parents were alive, so what? Apparently, that is what the parents wanted to do with THEIR money.
Sorry, but you're just wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Your Brother's tax guy is correct.
Think of it this way. The debt that your brother had was to your parents, and to the estate after they died. He properly should have repaid the estate. Had he done that, and then the estate was divided three ways, you, your brother and sister would each get $12,000. Since you and your sister each got $18,000, you both got $6,000 too much, and your brother got $12,000 too little.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that he can legally compel you and your sister to make that restitution. But it shouldn't come to that. Do the right thing.
Edited to add: Joe is not the bad guy here. I don't think you and your sister are either (as I believe it was all unintentional), but under the original distribution, Joe got the short end of the stick unfairly.
^^These. My sister has asked my dad for "loans" and we know my dad won't take the money back. When I bought my house he gifted me money that I originally asked to borrow. When I went to repay him, he wouldn't take the money and said it was a gift (since he had done the same for my siblings when they bought their homes). What he did/does with that money is entirely his business. When my parents bought their house, my brother loaned them some money. We know that when my dad passes, we are to give my brother first whatever he loaned my dad (why my dad doesn't just pay him back now is beyond me), pay any expenses, etc. Whatever is then left of the estate gets divided equally.
The corrected distribution is correct. If the OP believes that her sister, the caregiver, deserves a larger share of the estate, there is nothing that precludes her and "Joe" from giving her more and there is no need for them to do so equally. Perhaps putting one's money where one's mouth is would be a liberating experience.
Interestingly enough thats what occurred with my family. The youngest of my sisters stayed with my mom and helped her through her death from cancer, REALLY went out of her way to take care of my mom. Me and my other sister agreed to take a couple things, and let my sister have the rest.
So no, not all families have these sorts of issues.
On the other hand im the executor for my dad and step mom, and I fully expect horrific legal wrangling form my step brother and sisters. I hope my dad and step mom live forever.
Think of it this way. The debt that your brother had was to your parents, and to the estate after they died. He properly should have repaid the estate. Had he done that, and then the estate was divided three ways, you, your brother and sister would each get $12,000. Since you and your sister each got $18,000, you both got $6,000 too much, and your brother got $12,000 too little.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that he can legally compel you and your sister to make that restitution. But it shouldn't come to that. Do the right thing.
Edited to add: Joe is not the bad guy here. I don't think you and your sister are either (as I believe it was all unintentional), but under the original distribution, Joe got the short end of the stick unfairly.
Agree with this 100%
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
