Letters to the Editor
-
A Will is a pretty clear statement of intent
Maybe part of the problem is the LW suggests payback as one of the reasons she (he?) is considering taking the money. That should have nothing to do with it, and wouldn't be a good reason for taking it.
This conversation reminds me of a couple of things. One is an old Joan Baez essay about what a pacifist should do if a bad guy had a gun to her grandma's head (I can't try and shoot him, cause I'd shoot grandma. No, you're a really good shot. Then I'd shoot the gun out of his hand. No you can't do that.) Here, grandma either knew what she was doing, or she didn't. It's more respectful, not moneygrubbing or soul selling to assume she wrote her will the way she did on purpose. So I find it hard to understand that people are suggesting LW go against concretely, legally attested statements made by the grandmother Out Of Respect For Her Intentions. Unless you assume grandma was like one poster on the "Wedding Invitation" question a couple of weeks ago, who stated some of the people she sent wedding invitations to should know they weren't really wanted, and decline (yikes!)
I am regularly surprised at the high value placed on Family in responses to these posts. What are we, the Mafia? Yes, family relationships and concerns are important, but that is not the only or highest value. And in this case to assume that removing the money "from the family" because grandma only wanted her money to remain there, is reading a lot in.
-
re: ethical fudging
wha....? Wow did you ever prove my point. How does believing people should pay the appropriate inheritance tax make me "Enron-esque?"
And your situation is not comparable. You gave the money back to a trusted partner in a trusted relationship. If we take the LW at her word, she left an abusive relationship. Had the boyfriend been a person of high character such as yourself, no doubt she would be right now be using that money to his benefit. But he's not. And perhaps he's not because he was raised in a family where a)the women in his family don't trust him to manage an entire inheritance and expect his partner to support him with her half, b) the women in his family are in the habit of encouraging him to weasel out of taxes or c) the women in his family are so naive they don't know the difference between a will and a holiday card.
Maybe the experience of losing a woman who does the right thing for herself (just as I'm sure she would have done for him, had he treated her better) is exactly the kind of ethical experience he needs right now. If she gives the money back then she is encouraging him to exploit women and expect them always to do the "right" thing, which coincidentally is the choice that always works in his best interests.
-
Keep it
Somebody steals five years of your life. You have an opportunity to give that consequences even a sociopath would feel. It is your duty to do so even if you burn the money (or better, give it to a battered woman shelter-- infidelity is just emotional battering).
-
Take the money
My interpretation:
The fact that it was seperated into two bequeathments showed that she intended that the money be independent of the will or interests of the other person.
-
This is Both a Legal *and* Ethical Issue
I think what a lot of people are ignoring here is that if the there's both a legal and ethical issue here.
Legally, the LW can refuse the money in the first place, and just not take any part of the grandmother's estate. What will happen to the money depends on how the will is written. If the will specified "$10K to ex and $10K to LW" then the LW's ex won't get an extra penny despite the LW's refusal to accept it. If it specified "$20K to ex and LW, to be split between them" then if LW refuses the inheritance then the ex will receive the extra. In the former case, the $10K will be treated as part of "the remainder of the estate."
The only way to guarantee that the ex specifically will get the money, regardless of the will's language, is for the LW to accept it and then gift it to him. The amount is small enough the LW would not have to pay gift taxes on it, so thankfully there would not be any tax consequences for taking and passing along the money.
So truly, the LW has three choices:
1 - Accept the money the grandmother left her in the will.
2 - Decide that she should not accept the grandmother's money at all, and tell the executor of the estate that news, even though the LW may not know what the ultimate destination will be for that money.
3 - Decide that specifically, this is money that the ex should have, and accept the money but give it to him.
If you don't feel close enough to the family that you think you should have received an inheritance, the most effective way to follow his grandmother's wishes is actually to take action (2). Whether your ex gets the money or not is up to her (or rather, her will).
-
Granny knew they weren't married
and chose to leave LW money anyway. Legally LW entitled to it. Stop trying to guilt her into giving it back.
-
Give it back.
Give it back.
Make a clean break by giving it back.
No need to wrestle with ethics or persuade yourself of anything.
It was given in the context of your partnership with the grandson.
Sever your ties cleanly; otherwise, you risk the weight of the money weighing you down over the years, costing you much more in freedom than you might gain in dollars.
-
Stop reading things into the will
From all of the letters saying LW isn't entitled to the money you'd think this had never happened before. After having sat down with a lawyer to draw up a will, let me tell you that:
1. Wills have been written for quite a long time.
2. Wills say what they mean and nothing else.
The Grandmother's money is hers to do with what she wishes, and its not about what's fair from anyone else's point of view-- its her money, period. People have been writing wills for quite a long time, and it should say what she meant.
Next, any conditions could have been put upon the dispersement, and apparently none were specified. Any requirement of some level of relationship could have been specified, and were not. The telling fact here is the money was left to LW by name, personally, with no strings. It is her money, period, no legal or moral strings.
The idea that morally she'd have to give money to her ex is also insulting to the deceased. Are you trying to argue that the grandmother doesn't have the right to give money to anyone? Are those the kind of restrictions you'd want to put upon yourself?
Of course, without the actual will to read, we're all at the mercy of the description, so who knows?