 |
Not sure if an accountant is necessary but a lawyer is so that's the path we will probably end up taking. I don't see how paying your rent with money that was not yours justifies being paid for taking care of an elderly parent. If you are a good son or daughter you should take care of your parents and not expect to be paid for it in return. Just my opinion.
Hello again, C:
I HAVE opinions too. But, we hear STORY all the time on these boards, and we DON'T form our opinions on it.Quote:
I don't see how paying your rent with money that was not yours justifies being paid for taking care of an elderly parent.
Look. NOBODY here is defending your sister (I presume that's your relationship). She PROBABLY is a crook. But, you don't KNOW. You DON'T know what arrangement she had with your father. Maybe she paid a bill for him and he agreed to pay her rent for her that month. You DON'T KNOW!!
ScottGem wondered where the siblings WERE when your father needed help. I wonder too. How come you show up when the money is about to be split up? The TRUTH is, IF your father was incompetent, SOMEBODY, maybe YOU, COULD have had him legally declared so, and had somebody the family TRUSTS handle his affairs.. But, that isn't what happened, is it? Yes, I have opinions too.
It's GOOD that you're going to hire a lawyer... But, if you don't know EXACTLY how much she stole, an attorney won't either. That's why HE'S going to HIRE the CPA that you don't want to hire.
If it was ME, I'd hire the CPA FIRST to find out whether she's stolen anything or not...
Excon
First, this is a legal question asked in a legal forum. So our answers need to conform to statutory law.Quote:
Originally Posted by CPropst
As excon said, we DO get it. We understand it's a sad situation. We also understand you have proof. The question is proof of what? What you have proof of may not be proof of malfeasance. That's what the law is concerned with. The executor cannot just withhold from the inheritance because they fell the heir took advantage. A court has to agree with that. That's why the best and legal course of action is to withhold the amount the executor feels justified and keep that money separate until an litigation over it is completed. If the litigation support the executor's claim that the monies withheld were funds gotten by fraud or advances on her inheritance or whatever, then they can be distributed.
Didn't see the post where ScottGem asked about the other siblings helping the father. Everyone took care of my father-in-law and never asked for a dime. They did so because they loved him, not by how much money they could get from him to pay their bills. We are talking thousands of dollars here. We are not in it for the money. We are in a situation now where the money the sister took could have been used for home repairs, taxes, etc. but the other siblings are going to have to start paying for these things out of their pocket. The one sister we are talking about doesn't have any money, hasn't worked for the last 11 years and thinks there is money in the estate so she doesn't have to pay her part. This is what I'm trying to get across. I know an accountant so I will call and talk to him first as you are suggesting and we will go from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Also, what you feel is proof may not be proof in the eyes of the court.
Just be prepared for a shock.
Life isn't always fair.
I took care of both my parents, who died 6 years apart. Fortunately my dad, who died last, was mentally sharp until the last day. Fortunately my siblings had no fears that I would abuse their future inheritance, and they thanked me repeatedly. I never did a tally of what I contributed and what my dad spent. And I didn't think my time needed to be paid for, because I wanted to do it.
I understand about the drugs and use of his account for her own bills. But without his word that the ones that didn't say 'loan' weren't a gift, they are probably going to be considered a gift. Canceled checks that say 'loan' on them need to be digital pictures from the bank, not physical checks. Those are not going to hold up in court for the obvious reason - the word 'loan' could have been written on them at any time.
This isn't something that anyone should be paying for except the estate. That home is to be sold. The only thing is if there are leins on it for taxes that may need to be addressed. Dumping money into the home implies an investment. That is not the job of the Executor. The choice to be made is either to sell the home short (fixer upper) or revamp it by directing the funds from escrow at the time of sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by CPropst
Just remember that all that have a vested interest will share in the profits including the sibling in question. So it might be best to sell "as is" and let this matter be behind you.
It's OK to be concerned about money, especially misuse for one person's gain.
I hope I didn't sound high and mighty. I was just lucky.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:05 AM. |