Awkward family situation

[Savvy Simon]

I met Jackie nine years ago. In our first five years together, we made $450,000 in real estate. Then sadly, she was diagnosed with a terminal illness. She is still alive but not doing so well. I have learned in a discussion with her today, that various family have brought up the subject of her impending death and what she has decided to do about her last will and testament. We have already spent over $100,000 these last few years on unsuccessful treatments for her, leaving us with a mortgage free $350,000 home but little else. Family members have suggested to her, without my knowledge, that she should consider amending her current will which identifies me as being the sole beneficiary. These family members have suggested that it might not be appropriate for me to be left with all of our joint assets and that it might be nice to include them to some degree. Her death and a will that gives money to her nieces and nephews would mean that I would quite suddenly be burdened with a potentially large mortgage or debt. I understand that this is not so much a legal question as it is a moral question. Jackie has not made a decision because she is confused by the issue herself. We would both like to know what would be appropriate in a situation like this. Of course it would be nice to leave something to her few nieces and nephews but even ten dollars means I would have to be responsible for coming up with it. I am just a little concerned about a potential disagreement with these family members about deservability. Any help or suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[curb1]

Are you married to Jackie? How is the home titled? How many siblings does she have? Remember she has known her family longer than she has known you.

You said, "Of course it would be nice to leave something to her few nieces and nephews but even ten dollars means I would have to be responsible for coming up with it."

That sounds really tacky on your part. You seem to be saying that you are not willing to give up ten dollars of Jackie's money for anyone in her family. Yes, that is tacky. So I can understand why there might be "a potential disagreement" with her family (and rightfully so).

 

[TrustUser]

it might be nice ? what a bunch of baloney. these family members have no entitlement to any of jackie's possessions. and to think that they would even bring it up ?

did they come up with any of the $100,000 to pay for her treatments ?

if you 2 have been together for 9 years, and have made your money together, it seems more appropriate to me that each of you would be your sole beneficiary, which is what you have at the moment.

as anteater has said before, this site sure brings to light the money grabbers.

 

[TrustUser]

hi curb,

i started my reply before your post was up for display.

while we do share different opinions, my post was in no way meant as a rebuttal to yours. i just posted what i felt after reading the op.

it will be interesting to see what others think ?

 

[curb1]

No problem. I think the OP comes off as entirely self centered.

 

[GotSmart]

What is the state? In some, a common law marriage would be in effect. (Are you married?)

Facts.

You and Jackie made $450,000. All of which was spent on a home and medical treatment. (you mentioned mortgage?)

9 years of living expenses are not included.

It might be necessary to sell the home and pay for more care. (upside down in this market?)

The family did not pay anything towards either the living expenses or medical costs over the last 9 years.

They deserve nothing, as they did not contribute. Hitting someone up that is dying for an inheritance is extremely tacky, cold, callous, and selfish. (Did I forget anything?)

 

[curb1]

GotSmart,

You said, "The family did not pay anything towards either the living expenses or medical costs over the last 9 years. They deserve nothing, as they did not contribute".

How would you know that? I didn't see anything in the OP statement that would validate what you said. Maybe I missed it.

 

[GotSmart]

That is an assumption from the wording. I expect to be corrected by the OP if wrong.

I work with seniors that are in the final stage. (ALF) It is a rarity for family to visit. If you have someone in a care home, or is terminally ill, go see them. Dont worry about what to say. Bring some old photos, and you will cause great joy.

 

[curb1]

GotSmart,

You said it was a "fact" that "The family did not pay anything toward either the living expenses or medical costs over the last 9 years".

Then you make the conclusion that "They deserve nothing, as they did not contribute. Hitting someone up that is dying for an inheritance is extremely tacky, cold, callous, and selfish. (Did I forget anything?)"

You may, or may not, be correct, but what you state certainly isn't a "fact" at this point. Are you suggesting that there should be a direct correlation between amount spent on medical costs and inheritance? It appears from OP that "Jackie" had assets enough to pay for her own medical expenses. None is from OP.

 

[GotSmart]

Now who is jumping?

Let the OP respond and then take it from there. Have fun answering this one yourself. You chased me off.

(Kicked to the curb)

 

[Savvy Simon]

A genuine thanks for the comments and suggestions to my thread... my problem. I will be more careful in any future posts to detail all the pertinent data and to word things so there is no confusion. Hopefully, I can clear things up with this addition.

Jackie and I are Canadians actually, living in British Columbia. We are not legally married but that is a non-issue here. The same rules apply to common law relationships. Your assumption that the family did not contribute anything to our living or medical expenses was correct 'GotSmart'. We have been on our own financially. Fortunately, we were able to afford it because of our success in the real estate market. I didn't include living expenses in the figures I included with my original post because I was working as well until a year and a half ago (at which time it became necessary for me to remain home as a full time caregiver). Living expenses were easily covered by that income. Our home is titled in both Jackie's and my name. She has two sisters and five nieces and nephews. None of her family is suffering financially by any means.

My original post was partially misunderstood by 'curb1' I see. Sorry about that. I only made the comment that even ten dollars given to her nieces and nephews would mean I would be responsible for coming up with it, to illustrate a point. That point being that as a result of pursuing treatment these last five years we no longer have any liquid cash. I would have no choice but to mortgage the house to free up money. Jackie and I talked at length about this last night, and are still unsure of what to do. We both agree that we should give her nieces and nephews something of her portion. The important question is however... just how much is appropriate, keeping in mind that even ten dollars means I would have to mortgage the house? Again, I am only using the value of ten dollars to illustrate the point.

I learned in my discussion with Jackie last night that certain family members have suggested to her that she will away her entire portion of our joint assets. I felt sick inside upon hearing this because it told me that they do not assign any deservability to me at all, despite the fact that our assets were mutually earned and despite the fact that I have stuck by her and supported her fully in her pursuit of treatments these past five years.

It is also worth mentioning that she has not even heard from two of her five nieces and nephews even once in over three years and that the other three make a fleeting appearance once in a blue moon. They're all teenagers now. As far as I know at this point, it was only suggested that money be given to the nieces and nephews. Her parents are older and have no financial hardship and the same goes for her two sisters.

Thanks again for your interest and your comments. It is appreciated.

 

[curb1]

1) I am not familiar with the laws in British Columbia, but the way the house is titled could determine the outcome of this, most likely. Her "will" could be totally irrelevant if she has no assets outside of the house. She probably has nothing to will so the discussion could be mute.

2) What does this say about the Canadian health-care if you have spent $100,000 of your own money for health-care in "the last few years"?

 

[GotSmart]

Marriage Law Canada | Same Sex Marriage, Custody & Child, Spousal Support | MacLean Family Law Group

Since Curb backed out,

Here is the basic law in BC.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Both names are on the title.

No extra cash.

Jackie has no obligation to her sisters kids. If she wants to leave them something, she should leave something personal. A painting, family jewelry, ect. The kids deserve nothing from her. If she wants to give something, that is entirely up to her. She has no obligation to give something to those kids because their parents asked her to.

I have had 15 aunts and uncles pass away, and what I received was hand made quilts. Those are treasured, and will be passed along to my children. Even though I visited them, and occasionally help them out, I had no designes on their estates. An estate should go to those that care for you.

I am sorry to hear of what is happening, and even sorrier that you might have to liquidate the house to pay for further quality care. I just hope that we all find someone that loves them enough to go the extra miles such as you seem to have.

May I make a personal suggestion. Get married. At this point it might be the best thing you can give Jackie to help her through the days to come.

Money is a tool, and has no meaning in life. Love does.

 

[Savvy Simon]

You have been very helpful and supportive, both of you. Thanks. I'm not sure about the law in BC regarding a house that is a mutual asset insofar as wills are concerned. I will look into that.

The health care in Canada works for a lot of people, but the trouble in our case was that health care only covers traditional allopathic treatment. Jackie, being who she is, opted from the beginning to pursue only alternative treatments. The diagnosing neurologist five years ago told us there was nothing they could do for her. Alternative treatments are at the expense of the people seeking it.

I have indeed thought about the marriage thing. It is good advice, and I will think of a creative way to make it happen. You're right about the value of providing as much comfort and compassion and love as possible at this stage of her life.

Thanks again.

 

[GotSmart]

I work in a home with 7 clients. It is a hardship to me, as I have 2 1/2 hours commute every working day, as well as the cost of gas alone is 1/4 my income. But the love I get from those people is worth every second of my time. Three of them may not last 6 months, but every day is a treasure.

One client spends his time thinking of ways to "pick on me." This is one of the chronic cases, so every chance I have to make him smile is another victory. telling him "You got me again" just makes his day. One client is constantly asking about dinner. If the answer is "Chicken feathers and toes" he is happy. He does not care what he is fed, as long as someone gives him a loving touch and helps him with his basic needs. Alzheimer will soon take this client, and he has forgotten how to even sit down. I am one of the few that can make him happy. My secret is to constantly touch him. I help him sit up straight about 3 times an hour. Every time I put my hand on his back and assist him. That makes all the difference with this client.

You understand that the whole thing boils down to the three things you mentioned in your last sentence.

the value of providing as much comfort and compassion and love as possible at this stage of her life.

You guys will be fine. You love each other. That is more than a lot of people have.