Estate atty not giving me my inheritance!

[Gettingrippedoff]

I am sorry, but it really is your lazy brother, who instead of doing things himself hired an attorney to do it, who is to blame. He is the person responsible to you. The attorney is responsible to him but he is the person responsible to you. I understand your frustration but the person you should be expressing that frustration to is your brother.

I don't know of anybody who hires someone to do the job and then when the person screws up - sues himself. They ALWAYS sue the person who did not do the job right. If the correct answer is the person who is responsible is the person who hired someone - then that would negate all law suits. Being as lawsuits are a basic of the USA legal system - then it's preposterous to say the client who hires an atty is to blame. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

I am sorry, but it really is your lazy brother, who instead of doing things himself hired an attorney to do it, who is to blame. He is the person responsible to you. The attorney is responsible to him but he is the person responsible to you. I understand your frustration but the person you should be expressing that frustration to is your brother.

So if I hire you to wash my car, and you screw up the paint and scratch it all up - I'M to blame? Really? Why is it NOBODY here can say, "yea - if there were no complications, and an atty that was hired to redeem the money did not even file some of the paperwork after 8 months - that atty would be wrong"????

It's totally ludicrous to suggest otherwise. The only things that are clear here is the atty is negilgent provides horrendous service and other atty's will go through all kinds of lengths to cover for each other and try to sell the notion that up is down and down is up!

 

[LdiJ]

I don't know of anybody who hires someone to do the job and then when the person screws up - sues himself. They ALWAYS sue the person who did not do the job right. If the correct answer is the person who is responsible is the person who hired someone - then that would negate all law suits. Being as lawsuits are a basic of the USA legal system - then it's preposterous to say the client who hires an atty is to blame. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous.

YOU DID NOT HIRE THE ATTORNEY.

If you had hired the attorney then the attorney would be responsible to you. However, you did not do so. Your brother is the executor/trustee and he is responsible to you...and to the government for that matter. He chose to be lazy and hire an attorney to handle basic things that he should have handled himself. Therefore the "employee" he hired is responsible to HIM. HE is responsible to YOU.

Your brother can sue the attorney. You cannot because the attorney is not your attorney. You have to sue your brother as the executor of the estate/trustee of the trust.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

I am sorry, but it really is your lazy brother, who instead of doing things himself hired an attorney to do it, who is to blame. He is the person responsible to you. The attorney is responsible to him but he is the person responsible to you. I understand your frustration but the person you should be expressing that frustration to is your brother.

Nicole Brown Simpson married oj and oj cut her head off. According to YOUR Logic - is Nicole responsible for her own death?

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

YOU DID NOT HIRE THE ATTORNEY.

If you had hired the attorney then the attorney would be responsible to you. However, you did not do so. Your brother is the executor/trustee and he is responsible to you...and to the government for that matter. He chose to be lazy and hire an attorney to handle basic things that he should have handled himself. Therefore the "employee" he hired is responsible to HIM. HE is responsible to YOU.

Your brother can sue the attorney. You cannot because the attorney is not your attorney. You have to sue your brother as the executor of the estate/trustee of the trust.

I UNDERSTAND I DID NOT HIRE THE ATTY. So you admit - my BROTHER CAN SUE THE ATTY! Thank you!

What I can do is file a complaint with the SURROGATE COURT!

 

[LdiJ]

So if I hire you to wash my car, and you screw up the paint and scratch it all up - I'M to blame? Really? Why is it NOBODY here can say, "yea - if there were no complications, and an atty that was hired to redeem the money did not even file some of the paperwork after 8 months - that atty would be wrong"????

It's totally ludicrous to suggest otherwise. The only things that are clear here is the atty is negilgent provides horrendous service and other atty's will go through all kinds of lengths to cover for each other and try to sell the notion that up is down and down is up!

Once again, YOU DID NOT HIRE THE ATTORNEY.

Let me give you another example: You hire a contractor to replace your roof, and he hires a subcontractor to remove the old roof. The subcontractor messes up and damages your yard. If the situation doesn't get resolved in a proper manner you don't sue the subcontractor, because you didn't hire the subcontractor, you sue the contractor that you hired.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

YOU DID NOT HIRE THE ATTORNEY.

If you had hired the attorney then the attorney would be responsible to you. However, you did not do so. Your brother is the executor/trustee and he is responsible to you...and to the government for that matter. He chose to be lazy and hire an attorney to handle basic things that he should have handled himself. Therefore the "employee" he hired is responsible to HIM. HE is responsible to YOU.

Your brother can sue the attorney. You cannot because the attorney is not your attorney. You have to sue your brother as the executor of the estate/trustee of the trust.

I never said "I" was going to sue the atty. MY point that you have now admitted to is if someone is hired to do a job and they screw up - they are liable! OUR ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM IS BASED ON THAT PREMISE - NOT YOUR SILLY PREMISE THAT the person who hires someone to do a job for them is liable!!

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

YOU DID NOT HIRE THE ATTORNEY.

If you had hired the attorney then the attorney would be responsible to you. However, you did not do so. Your brother is the executor/trustee and he is responsible to you...and to the government for that matter. He chose to be lazy and hire an attorney to handle basic things that he should have handled himself. Therefore the "employee" he hired is responsible to HIM. HE is responsible to YOU.

Your brother can sue the attorney. You cannot because the attorney is not your attorney. You have to sue your brother as the executor of the estate/trustee of the trust.

Can you bring yourself to say this or are you going to just keep covering for the atty?

See if you can repeat after me:

"Yes - if there were no extenuating circumstances and no issues that came up and an atty did not file paperwork to redeem accounts for 8 months - that would not be right"

Or are you just going to keep stonewalling the point?

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

Trust me - all of you covering for the atty and unwilling to state that it is not morally right to not disburse the money in an ethically timely manner - would feel the same as me if it was YOUR money!

 

[LdiJ]

I never said "I" was going to sue the atty. MY point that you have now admitted to is if someone is hired to do a job and they screw up - they are liable! OUR ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM IS BASED ON THAT PREMISE - NOT YOUR SILLY PREMISE THAT the person who hires someone to do a job for them is liable!!

Dude, you are seriously not getting it. You are seriously not getting who is liable to whom. That is the entire discussion that has been taking place here. You are upset that you have not received your inheritance. You want to hold someone liable to make sure it happens ASAP. We are telling you that the only person YOU can hold liable is your brother, the executor/trustee. Your brother has other options to hold the attorney liable, but you do not have that option.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

This is the usual garbage you get from atty's. Rigamarol, antics and shenanigans and then cya bs quackimamie reasoning trying to pull the wool over people's eyes because they are too lazy to do their work and took on too many clients and spread themselves to thin and think they can treat people like crap. Most other workers in service like industries would never get away with this. Stockbrokers, Accountants, and other such people would be out of business in no time if they treated their clients equally like crap!

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

Dude, you are seriously not getting it. You are seriously not getting who is liable to whom. That is the entire discussion that has been taking place here. You are upset that you have not received your inheritance. You want to hold someone liable to make sure it happens ASAP. We are telling you that the only person YOU can hold liable is your brother, the executor/trustee. Your brother has other options to hold the attorney liable, but you do not have that option.

"Dude" YOU are seriously not getting it? Are you unable to read? I stated I KNOW THAT IT'S MY BROTHER THAT HAS THE RELATIONSHIP W THE ATTY!!!!!!

That is NOT THE ONLY ISSUE HERE!!! We are also talking about what is MORALLY RIGHT! CAN YOU NOT READ???? HERE LET ME SPELL IT OUT OF YOU ALL OVER AGAIN! REGARDLESS OF WHO CAN SUE IT IS NOT RIGHT FOR A JERK ATTY TO DELAY FOR 8 MONTHS ON FILING PAPERWORK. CAN YOU admit to that?

I might not be able to sue - but I have recourse via the SURROGATE COURT! OK? ? GOT IT ????

 

[LdiJ]

Trust me - all of you covering for the atty and unwilling to state that it is not morally right to not disburse the money in an ethically timely manner - would feel the same as me if it was YOUR money!

Ok, lets clear things up. In y opinion the attorney is one of those asshole attorneys who just aren't interested in doing their job because its not worth enough money to them for the amount of tedious work they have to do. Is that enough information to get you to understand that nobody here is even remotely interested in covering for the freaking attorney????

What we are trying to get you to understand is that the person who is responsible to YOU is your brother. The attorney is HIS employee, not yours.

 

[justalayman]

Are you the guy who keeps saying that if someone hires someone to do a job, and that person does not do the job right - that the person who hired them is to blame? Is that you?

That's a novel idea. The only place I know where the person at fault is not the person who didn't do the job but the person who hired them is on planet mars!

I have no idea what you’re talking about and it really doesn’t even make sense to me.

Now, if you hire a painter to paint your house and you know he is a crappy painter, of course one shouldn’t expect to have a nicely painted house. In that sense the person doing the hiring does bear some responsibility for how things turned out


But to your odd statement all I can say is

HUH?

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

Ok, lets clear things up. In y opinion the attorney is one of those asshole attorneys who just aren't interested in doing their job because its not worth enough money to them for the amount of tedious work they have to do. Is that enough information to get you to understand that nobody here is even remotely interested in covering for the freaking attorney????

What we are trying to get you to understand is that the person who is responsible to YOU is your brother. The attorney is HIS employee, not yours.

OK lets clear things up YOU CAN'T READ!! I STATED SEVERAL TIMES I KNOW IT'S MY BROTHER THAT HAS TO SUE!!!!!

ARE YOU BLIND? THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE! OMG you really have some problems.

The issue is - is it morally and professionally ok for an atty to not file the papers for 8 months??

And you ARE covering for the atty - absolutely - you all have.

and make sure to answer my OJ question!

The clerk of the Surrogate court told me I can file a COMPLAINT. Are you confusing a COMPLAINT with suing???? duh???