Letters to the Editor
-
No moral obligation to the unknown motives of the dead
I'd argue that except in extreme circumstance, the unknown motives of the dead are beyond legal and moral consideration.
A will is like any legal investment - it takes a risk on an unknown future. This is why the law allows for conditional bequests and explanations of reasons in wills. If one foregoes this, the risk of being misunderstood is accepted.
Not everyone views a will the same way; some feel the status of a beneficiary upon inclusion is more important than later circumstances. Thus the symbolic power of removing someone from a will - it is an official repudiation of past goodwill.
Unless the will states the money was meant to be shared with the ex, she has no legal or moral obligation to speculate.
She should walk away if there's a legal challenge, however, because she already has mixed feelings, wasn't expecting it anyway and the emotional and financial cost isn't worth the amount.
-
Keep the money. It's what grandma wanted.
The LW just wrote that:
a) LW and the ex were never married.
b) grandma left the money to LW specifically, and not for any tax benefit purposes.
How much clearer does it have to be? Grandma wasn't an idiot; she knew that LW and the ex might not stay together forever and ever. Her intent was to give LW a gift, by name, free and clear.
LW, if this is the situation, and your gut confirms it, ignore the other letters screaming "immoral!" Only you are in this position and can make your best, well-considered guess at grandma's intentions.
-
No legal right to the money...
And definately not a moral one. Carey can be pretty smart about some things, but it's clear that he doesn't have much knowledge of the law.
The LW is no longer in the relationship with the deceased woman's grandson, so her rights to the money are pretty tricky. Had they recieved the money before they actually split, the argument could be made that the LW had a right to the money as part of an equitable division of property. But they broke up before getting the money, so the picture then gets a lot murkier.
The will might seem straight forward, but any lawyer can tell you, wills are often not worth the paper they were written on. They are often outdated and do not reflect changing family dynamics. They are often contested and when non-blood relations end their links to the family, their rights to monies willed to them as a result of their relationship to a member of the family usually don't hold up in court. The will states that the money is to be devided between the heirs on their partners, not their former partners. The LW's legal ground is pretty shaky at best.
The LW has to ask some pretty tough questions. If the grandmother knew that the relationship had ended, would the LW still have been given a portion of the money? This isn't a question of what the LW feels they are owed from the pain of a bad relationship. Unless there is some proof that they are owed something financially by their former partner, the rights to actually claim a portion of the money are all but non-existant. When wills are contested, the court has to look into what was the intent of the deceased. If the LW was not specified by name as a seperate inheritance from her former partner, then the argument for keeping the money falls apart.
-
Do The Right Thing
Which is, of course, the eternal struggle.
Did your ex's grandmother know of your shared plans to use the combined money as a deposit on a house? If so, she might have left each of you a specific amount of money so that you might both feel each is "invested" in the house/relationship, it's an equal partnership.
But of course, I could be wrong. And you could be wrong about her intentions no matter what, and even if you did know what her intentions were/are: Does that change how you think about things? That is, you feel a certain way about your ex based on his behavior, not on his intentions. Who knows what anybody's intentions are, anyway?
Bottom line: If his grandmother were alive right now and wanted to give you $10,000 as a gift, under the idea that this was a gift from her as something of an apology for her grandson's behavior ... would you take it? Would you take it if she said, if you don't accept it, I'll give the money to him, instead?
You need to do what's right for you. Nobody else here, no mater how well meaning, can answer this question for you. And when you make the right choice, whatever it is, you'll know that you made the right choice. Good luck!
-
How Intriguing....
Perhaps I missed it, but I read and re-read the LW's story. Nowhere in the letter is there any refrence to the LW's gender. Sure, we know LW had a boyfriend, and we can safely assume his grandmother was a woman. Yet, without any reference at all to LW's gender, a lot of respondents are assuming LW is a woman.
-
"Ethical" my eye
The whole reason for last wills and testaments is to avoid wrangling over inheritance after someone has died. Don't as the surviving family for advice -- it's the grandmother's decision, not theirs. (An honorable family member would refuse to advise you anyway, since they're an interested party.)
A nice old lady who knew you in passing liked you enough to leave you money in her will. This happens in life. Provided she did so freely, no custom or moral law binds you aside from accepting graciously.
In fact the one thing that is immoral is dickering and arguing over who "ought" to get the money in the shadow of her passing. After I'm gone, if my grandchildren spend a single breath second-guessing my intentions in writing my will, I swear I will return from beyond the grave and torment them.
As for those who assert that giving away money is the only ethical choice, why not give the letter writer ten grand yourselves? What's that? You laugh at the very idea? You ask what she's done to earn it? You ask why you should be involved in a mess that someone else has brought on themselves? You say you have other things to consider, other obligations, plans and a life of your own?
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, screw you and your "ethics," then.