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.
I read, on another site, that she deeded the house to a trust, retaining a life estate. After her death, the house was supposed to go to both sons 50/50. As trustee of that trust, however, Peter then deeded the house over to a trust of which he and his wife are trustees, giving him ownership of the house.
I thought the trustee could not do anything legally until the grantor passed away? If anything were to be changed, she would have to change it? Sounds like she was bamboozled or cheated outright, along with other members of the family.
I thought the trustee could not do anything legally until the grantor passed away? If anything were to be changed, she would have to change it? Sounds like she was bamboozled or cheated outright, along with other members of the family.
WILSON, where are you?
That is what I was thinking. The reason to have a trust and life time estate is to protect onesself from the exact eviction that is about to happen. There are some missing parts to the story.
I thought the trustee could not do anything legally until the grantor passed away? If anything were to be changed, she would have to change it? Sounds like she was bamboozled or cheated outright, along with other members of the family.
WILSON, where are you?
I was so surprised that the son could legally get away with quit claiming the deed and transferring it to another trust.
That would pretty well negate the reasons for putting her estate in a trust. I know there are different types of trusts, of course, but the article did not explain that detail and so I am really wondering what went wrong here . . .
I have known situations where a life estate worked out very well for the elderly parent, as the kids chipped in to take care of the home and mom was very comfortable and happy to the end of her life. However, life is not predictable and adult children can get divorced, become incapacitated, move far away or - god forbid - die . . . things can and do happen that could affect mom's caretakers . . .
I know one thing: I sure don't want my 71 y/o son determining what will make me happy as long as I am in sound mind, decent health, and can make my own decisions.
I wonder why both brothers werent made trustees of the original trust, with a provision that neither could act independently. That would have prevented Peter from doing what he did. However, the deed into the original trust may have been made many years ago and perhaps Peter had more emotional control over this mother at that time.
Ultimately, the mother will have to be around others in another environment because she can't live in that home forever, especially due to the fact that she lived alone. Granted, it was drastic on the part of her son, but I actually think he did the right thing.
She could die before she needs to go into assisted living.
Why put her through the pain and heartbreak of losing her home, watching almost all of her belongings sold and disposed of, when she could just keel over dead someday, without ever needing to go through the devastating process of being put into an institutional situation?
From my point of view, you don't do this to someone against their will unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Her son violating the original trust that was established to allow her to live in her home until her death sounds outright illegal to me. What is the point of establishing a trust to protect yourself when someone can just change it on you against your will?
I sure hope he is not allowed to get away with it.....and that the court decides in her favor.
Her son violating the original trust that was established to allow her to live in her home until her death sounds outright illegal to me. What is the point of establishing a trust to protect yourself when someone can just change it on you against your will?
I sure hope he is not allowed to get away with it.....and that the court decides in her favor.
It all depends on how the original trust was worded and whether Peter executed the second deed as Attorney-in-Fact for his mother. Unfortunately, illegal and immoral are often worlds apart.
It all depends on how the original trust was worded and whether Peter executed the second deed as Attorney-in-Fact for his mother. Unfortunately, illegal and immoral are often worlds apart.
So true.
Giving this more thought, for all we know, 71 y/o son could have health issues and be concerned that his mother is properly taken care of should he die - and feel that her being in a supportive environment (meals prepared, onsite healthcare) was the best way to assure her welfare. There is nothing in those short articles to indicate this . . . just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and find the only "positive" reason that he may have taken such draconian steps as evicting his 98 y/o mom.
Nevertheless, it seems cruel . .. most of us don't expect to even live to 98 and being uprooted when one is still capable of handling activities of daily living (or could stay in place with some minimal help with meals and household chores) . . . from a home where one has lived for nearly 70 years . . . well, that would totally disorient most folks. Psychologically, the feelings of betrayal and loss could be devastating, I would think.
How many of you think that a 98 year old person can take care of themselves by themselves in their own houses? I have some experience with this (paternal grandfather died at 96 - paternal grandmother at 103 - father is now 93). None of them took care of themselves 100% at ages 90+ (especially in terms of preparing meals and cleaning). FWIW - my father lives in an independent senior living facility. It provides up to 2 meals a day in a communal dining room (he only does dinner). Full maintenance - including light cleaning. Etc. He now has someone coming in 3-4x a week to help him with making lunch - heavier cleaning - etc. (an extra service provided by his facility at additional cost). And how does a 98 year old person get out of the house to do anything without help? Robyn
Yes, and you better be careful that the state does not get wind of an elderly person alone in their own home, because they can FORCE you to put them into care. Elder Abuse is what they call it. I made a simple phone call to get my mom meals on wheels. The case manager who visited her at home decided she was at risk. I was given just 2 weeks to provide full time care for her, somehow. At Christmas, we packed her up and flew her to AZ where I live.
How many of you think that a 98 year old person can take care of themselves by themselves in their own houses? I have some experience with this (paternal grandfather died at 96 - paternal grandmother at 103 - father is now 93). None of them took care of themselves 100% at ages 90+ (especially in terms of preparing meals and cleaning). FWIW - my father lives in an independent senior living facility. It provides up to 2 meals a day in a communal dining room (he only does dinner). Full maintenance - including light cleaning. Etc. He now has someone coming in 3-4x a week to help him with making lunch - heavier cleaning - etc. (an extra service provided by his facility at additional cost). And how does a 98 year old person get out of the house to do anything without help? Robyn
I agree - it is highly doubtful that the lady in this story doesn't need some assistance, but that is the whole point . . . why didn't her son work to get her someone to help with her ADL instead of evicting her at age 98?
I certainly know folks who have live in help . . . I know those who have part time help . . . both also have assistance with transportation for appointments.
My parents already invested in a continuing care facility and have a spot "reserved" for them (priority waiting list) if they choose to take advantage of it later on. So we have discussed these matters. I personally would prefer they come live w/ me as I would rather have them in the family circle and feel certain their needs were being met (and who knows - in years to come- they may decide that is what they prefer, too).
So I do realize that different folks see the prospect of living alone in varying ways. For those who want to continue to live at home and are managing at least to some extent, if finding them daily assistance is what it takes to keep them in their home, then that should at least be explored. If it isn't feasible, then that is another discussion.
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.
