Letters to the Editor
-
good point
Isn't it likely that the grandmother split the money between the partners for tax reasons? This way, the couple wouldn't have to pay taxes on the gift (if it was less than $11K each, I think). So, she might have wanted to give it all to her grandson, but split it to avoid losing some to taxes. I don't think there's any way you are either entitled to the money or can keep it. It might not have even really been meant for you in the first place.
That's a good point.
If the LW wants to just grab whatever money she can from her ex's family, then fine, keep it. It shows a lack of morals though.
The number of "take the money and run, because you can" type comments, with no thought for ethics, shows a lot of the comments here come from money grubbing types.
If it's about honoring the Grandmother's wishes then give it back to the family, maybe keep a small portion like $1-2K that the grandmother might have left the LW if she'd lived longer, knew they were separating, and had time to alter her will.
But get real, it would be extremely unlikely that a grandmother would leave her grandson's ex the money if she'd lived a short while longer. How often does that happen. If the LW keeps the money, she's just taking advantage of the misfortunate timing of the grandmother's death, which isn't quite as bad as mugging old ladies, but up there.
-
that's really lame
All the women say take the money and run.
Men versus women.
Simple. Choose which side you're on. The men will hate you, and the women will high-five you for screwing the men over.
That's gotta be the lamest post so far.
A lot of posters, including many women, are saying give the money back. They're making ethical arguments and one of the main considerations has been the actual intentions of the grandmother and what she would have willed had she lived longer past the separation.
The people saying keep the money are basically making greed arguments i.e. grab all you can and run.
And though it's obvious, the grandmother is a woman. So any woman making a gender argument for keeping the money, well that person deserves karma for her family and her will to be totally screwed up down the line.
-
Hmm
It really isn't money grubbing. I think anyone who wants to just leave money to their family will make sure it is so. She could have left him all of the 20,000 that way avoiding any issues, and it would be up to his ethical soul to share the money with his partner or not.
The fact that she went out of her way to name her, when there is no other benefit (tax, etc.)says to me that she intended her to have it to do with as she pleased without any need to consult her now ex partner. They are now not together but the intent of the Grandmother remains the same. Therefore LW should accept the money as per the Grandmother's original intent. What would the LW do if they were still together. Give him her share so he can go to school because the money is still not hers. To me that is going against the intent of the Grandmother. The Grandmother gave her that money for her, not for them, not for him. Morals come into play if she was going over to her death bed and campaigning for a little of the cash, or some other crude manipulation, but it's clear that she wasn't since she barely knew her.
Bad morals are more like what happened to my stepfather, who inherited 1/4 of a farm in NY with his 3 other sisters from his mother. His father wanted to sell the farm, so the children gave back the farm to him, with the idea that when he died everything would be split equally. The father sold the farm, moved closer into town, and eventually died. When they read the will his father left him nothing. His sisters got everything, which included the money from the farm, and they didn't share it with him.
My Stepfather's mother's intent was for him to have 1/4 of the farm, because she knew what an ass his father was. My Stepfather was duped, and hasn't spoken to his sisters in at least 20 years.
No one is being duped in the case of the LW. The intent was for her to have the money for whatever reasons. It was meant for her, not anyone else.
-
here it is
So by the logic I've seen here, the only time that she'd need to give the money back is if - as now - they split up in the brief period between the grandmother dying and the will being executed. I don't get it.
This is an interesting moral dilemma, but very clear with a little thought.
The money was for the continuation of grandmother's family welfare, in the future infinitive sense. The money was not as payment for services rendered or number of years together with the grandson. The money allocated to the spouse was predicated on her grandsons' continuing relationships.
The Grandmother made an effort to include the spouses directly by name and thereby include them in her good will, just as names are on holiday cards, but again that is predicated on their relationship with the grandchildren and not really personal. It was a formula, each spouse got the same amount, and there was no personal relationship between the Grandmother and the LW.
Had the grandson separated earlier and remarried, or had the grandmother lived longer, the LW would almost certainly be removed or given a far smaller token sum, perhaps 1/10th at most, with the remainder going to the grandson or other family.
Therefore, since the LW and the grandson are now finished, the LW can't fulfill the grandmother's wishes for the money to benefit her family, and would be accepting the money in bad faith and in disrespect of the deceased.
In regards to timing, had the will been executed and then they stayed together for several years, one could argue the money went towards the grandmother's family welfare for that period, and being justly spent was not the LW's burden to return.
But, with the distribution of the money coming in close proximty to the seperation, there is no justification the money can be spent honoring the Grandmother's intentions for it to benefit her family, and must be returned.
Nor does the LW ethically have the right to donate it to a charity, for it does not ethically belong to the LW but the Grandmother and her family.
I think the LW knows this, but is just tempted to keep the money. But this is a trial of her personal scruples and the worth of her character. If she takes the money she'll be $10K richer but much poorer in terms of personal dignity and character. She'll also take a step towards materialism, self deception, and greed, which is certain to impoverish her in more ways than one later in life.
Would the LW want her future lover to know she'd kept her ex's grandmother's money? Probably not. I wouldn't trust such a person's character. It doesn't sound like the LW is impoverished financially now, so why impoverish her character?
btw, assuming the LW does the right thing and returns the money, hopefully the grandson should also be appreciative and take example from the LW.
Regardless, the LW should know good deeds are their own reward. Yhat sounds pollyanish, but here's a fact: the LW will have bragging rights for her moral character, and such people ultimatly attract more virtuous partners. When the "ex conversation" eventually comes up, what an impressive example of her character it will be