• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

if your sister dies is her husband still your brother-in-law?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

R

robert spencer

Guest
if my sister dies is she still my sister?

What is the name of your state? kentucky
 
Last edited:


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
robert spencer said:
What is the name of your state? kentucky

My response:

No. When a party to a marriage dies, so goes the marriage, and so goes the "title" of brother-in-law. It would be the same affect if your sister and her husband had divorced.

In layman's terms, the "ties that bind" are broken.

IAAL

(Edited to correct a grammatical error - substance unchanged)
 
Last edited:
C

craftymom

Guest
stephenk said:
but in Kentucky, if i divorce my wife is she still my sister?

No.

But she would still be the aunt of your young'uns.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
Kentucky Family Introduction

Kentucky Man - - "Hi, I'd like you to meet my wife, my sister, my mother, and my Aunt."

California Man - - "But, there's only one woman standing there."

Kentucky Man - - "I know."
 

JETX

Senior Member
Kentucky Man - - "Hi, I'd like you to meet my wife, my sister, my mother, and my Aunt."

California Man - - "But, there's only a woman standing there."

Kentucky Man - - "I know."

California Man - - "I was expecting a man."
 
Last edited:

nextwife

Senior Member
My mom came from 8 kids, and we lost a couple of her siblings in middle age. We always treated our COUSIN'S surviving parent as the aunt or uncle they were to us. Their child was still our cousin, and we continued, and continue to this day to include them, their kids, and their kid's kids and spouses in all family gatherings. Their spouse died, but out of respect to the fact that they were the spouse of a sibling, we still treated them as an aunt or uncle. It would have horribly disrespected the relationship to our relative to treat them as no longer family. THey did NOT dissolve their relationship, they lost their spouse.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
nextwife said:
My mom came from 8 kids, and we lost a couple of her siblings in middle age. We always treated our COUSIN'S surviving parent as the aunt or uncle they were to us. Their child was still our cousin, and we continued, and continue to this day to include them, their kids, and their kid's kids and spouses in all family gatherings. Their spouse died, but out of respect to the fact that they were the spouse of a sibling, we still treated them as an aunt or uncle. It would have horribly disrespected the relationship to our relative to treat them as no longer family. THey did NOT dissolve their relationship, they lost their spouse.

My response:

I think you're confusing the issue, somewhat. While you're talking about an "emotional" attachment to "family", I'm talking about a literal "bloodline" attachment.

I would always consider my brother-in-law my brother-in-law, even if my sister were to pass. That's the "emotional", or "familial", tie that binds.

But, the reality from a "lineage" standpoint is that there is no "bloodline" between me and my brother-in-law and, from a legal standpoint, my brother-in-law has no more claim or right to, for example, my Estate than any other stranger off the street.

Cousins, or nieces and nephews, on the other hand, have an actual, traceable, bloodline due to my sister having "birthed" children of the marriage - - making them legally recognized lineage of the family. But, my brother-in-law was never "blood" to my family.

There is a difference from what you're saying now, than what we were answering to the original poster's question (see my initial response for his "original" question - - he changed it later).

So, follow the bloodline.

IAAL


P.S. For some reason, our original writer came down with the "terminal stupids" when he edited his original question to, "If my sister dies, is she still my sister." He changed his question to a "bloodline" question concerning his "sister", when his original question was about his "brother-in-law" - - a non-bloodline question.
 
Last edited:

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
My vivid imagination is picturing poster's wife having died and him having the hots for her sister. Who is resistant because she thinks of him as her brother-in-law (aka family), so he wants to convince her that he really isn't anymore so it's okay to know one another Biblically. All a figment of my imagination, of course.

edit - poster - no disrespect intended... it's just a rather.... odd question.
 
Last edited:

nextwife

Senior Member
Yes, I undewrstand what you are saying, but to the rest of the family, the SIL is still family.

Can't help but think of the scumbag who claimed that fooling around with his wife's (adopted) sister wasn't so bad because it wasn't as if it was her "real" sister because they didn't share a bloodline. Or, well. as an adopted parent, other thoughts about how it would be if only bloodline is relevant in maintaining and respecting familial relationships established by law, rather than bloodline. Get my drift?

And momma_tiger, I pictured exactly the same motivation in the question. Because, as to inheritance, etc, one is free to leave their stuff to anyone they wish, and they need not be related by blood or law to choose to provide for them in their will. Heck, people leave stuff to their cats all the time, and they sure don't share a bloodline!
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top