so split it down the middle. 5K for nothing is better than getting poked in the eye with a sharp stick. Then I would feel entitled to not "spend it wisely," as Cary counsels, but to blow it frivilously. This, in fact, brings us to the real reason for Godmonkey's appearance on this thread: anyone got five bucks I can borrow for lunch, just until Thursday? Oh, come on. I'll pay you back six.

Many condemnation of Cary's advice acts like he isn't taking inheritance law or the wording of the will into account. Cary's reply said: " if the money simply comes to you, in accordance with the instructions in his grandmother's will, then the question is more how to handle the competing emotions you are feeling...If legal questions arise, see a lawyer."

The unspoken and obvious assumption is if the money doesn't "simply come to you" consult a lawyer before taking it.

Obviously the question was - if I get money legally free and clear, should I take it? Cary answered yes. I fail to see how that's blind to the issues at hand.

I also agree with a previous writer that the gender battle trolls are getting tiresome.

It sounds like you've at least earned a vacation out of the shittiness of his behavior...donate most of it to a charity IN HONOR OF YOUR EX, and take a fantastic vacation with the rest.

did not read the entire letter, or did not read it carefully. The grandmother left the LW a bequest IN HER NAME. We don't have to speculate what the grandmother's intentions were because they are irrelevant. By leaving the LW a bequest IN HER NAME, the grandmother ensured that the LW would receive this bequest - period. There are no serious legal issues here.

In addition, the LW and the boyfriend were in a relationship for five years. Grandparents do not always like the people their children and grandchildren become, and they are capable of having a harsh view of their offspring. While speculation has no legal bearing, I'd wager that the grandmother knew her grandson was a cad, and the bequest was to help the LW move on when the inevitable happened.

The LW has every legal and moral right to the money. She has no obligation of ANY kind to the boyfriend. She should do what makes HER feel better.

Many people assume that the Grandmother was a dottering old fool who wasn't competent to execute a will that dictated her wishes. There's no evidence of that.

The LW was the one who characterized the will as "Grandma wanted the money split between her grandsons and her partners". Was that the language of the will? Probably not. The will has to specify exactly to whom and exactly how much.

Granny might have come to love the LW in her own right, maybe because G. knew that the grandson was not such a great person, LW was a saint for sticking with him and providing G. with the hope that she would reform the grandson. Who knows.

In any case: Grandma has made her wishes known. She wanted $10,000 to go to the LW. No further analysis or ponderings are necessary.

Leave your ageism and sexism behind. There's no reason to think she was senile, a fool or so blinded by sentimentality that she didn't know that relationships sometimes go south (i.e., women make bad decisions because they're overly emotional).

I find that older people, having been raised in a different day and age, have better manners and are more considerate than people from subsequent generations (e.g., they hold their tongues instead of calling people out). This seems to be interpreted as inscrutability, making the older person a blank canvas onto which people paint their own attitudes and desires, such as 'grandparents want their grandchildren/descendants to have all of their wealth'.

That's not necessarily true. Older people are complete individuals, with their own wishes of how to dispose of their wealth.

THE POINT: we know what Grandma wanted. She spelled it out in her will. She wasn't stupid or naive; to the contrary, she had been alive a long time and probably has seen it all.

She wanted you to have the money, LW. That's why she gave it to you. Keep it and use it for your own benefit.

I'm quoting the LW here.

I've just discovered that the final will dictates that each brother's inheritance is to be split between them and their partners...

In other words, the LW is stating that she/he was not named as an individual in the will, but that his/her former partner's share was to be split with his partner.

In other words, Grandma (who the LW admits that he/she was not particularly close with) meant for her grandsons to share their inheritances with their partners. But the LW is no longer his partner. So does he/she get any of the money?

Legally this would be very easy for someone to contest. As I stated in a previous response, wills get contested all the time. They are often out of date. I've seen wills where 2nd wives are shut out while ex-wives inherit estates because the will was never updated. I've seen children shut out of wills. There is no indication in the LW's letter that he/she was singled out for an inheritance seperate and indepenantly of the money left to his/her former partner. Without that clear seperation the intent becomes pretty clear. The share for his/her former partner was to be split evenly between them upon the execution of the will. Because they are no longer partners, there is a very clear legal argument to be made that the LW is not entitled to the money.

Realitically, $10,000 is a pretty small amount to begin a legal battle over but I've seen legal battles started over nothing more than worthless knick knacks.

One issue that hasn't come yet is what legal or moral entitlement grandchildren have on a grandparent's estate. None I imagine, or we'd be hearing a lot more from Warren Buffet's grandkids.