After my mother passed, my brother refused to help out with looking after our father leaving all of the caregiving duties to me. As a result our father reflected on everything he has done for my brother over the years and decided to change his will reducing my brother's share and giving me more. My brother is now contesting the trust and claiming our father suffered from lack of capacity and was the subject of undue influence.
Has anyone else experienced a similar situation?
Thanks,
P
It's probably best (in many ways) for a parent who's being cared for by one of their children more than the rest to just give a pre-determined amount of money each month or year. Write up the agreement formally. There's nothing to argue over once the parent dies. All the siblings share in what's left.
I know this is the exception and not the rule. I always like to share my experience when I can.
Your brother feels aggrieved that he is to inherit a smaller share of any estate than you are. Rather than examine why this might have come about, he is no doubt comforted to attribute your father's change of heart to your undue influence and not to his own failings as a son. Of course I don't know what your brother would have to say for himself, but I'd be surprised if he would even agree that he has fallen short. I would expect him to come up with all kinds of self-justifications; if you're lying awake one night with nothing better to think about, you can even amuse yourself by imagining what these might be.
This states the obvious, I know; but I believe it helps if you understand why a person is behaving as he is. It stops one entering on a spiral of mistrust that can lead to all sorts of destructive, exaggerated perspectives.
If your father wishes you to benefit from a larger inheritance, and not burden you instead with the nightmare of possible litigation and devastated family relationships, then as Pixie outlines above he has got to make things crystal clear and in particular demonstrate to appropriate witnesses that he is making sound decisions with a sound mind. He may feel he doesn't have to explain himself, and legally speaking he doesn't, he can do what he likes with his own money; but if he wishes to avoid trouble down the line for you then that is what he must do.
You can have no part in this. The most assistance you can provide is as a telephonist, arranging for your father at his own request to see independent counsel without you present. You should not comment on his plans, you should not be present at any meetings, you should have no more to do with the drawing up of any will or letter of wishes than your brother has. And I don't just mean for form's sake; I mean to be at ease in your own mind that you have not had any undue influence on your father's wishes. If your father wants to share what he's doing with you, it's difficult, he'll be expecting you to be glad of his loving appreciation; but you could always try explaining that you trust in his appreciation without the need to expect any more than that.
Many people seem to find the issue a no-brainer: that the caregiving child, particularly when others have actively refused to take part in their parents' care, acquires some kind of natural moral right to a greater share in any estate than its siblings. I don't agree. Assuming you care for your parents out of filial duty, without mercenary motives, then by what right do you merit a larger share of the estate?
I speak, by the way, as the youngest child and only caregiver among four siblings. I'm here to look after my mother as well as I can. I am not angling for favours, or entertaining any lively expectations about her jewellery, whatever my sister my suspect me of. And in order not to worry about how it looks to any outside observer, I literally don't want to know what's in my mother's will. I'm not asking, I'm not looking, I do not hear my mother on the odd occasions when she makes reference to it, I do not want to know.
There is of course the other hand. Again, nothing to do with what you want: the other hand is that your father has a right to make his own choices. I personally would find it interesting to know what he most wants to achieve: rewarding you? Punishing your ingrate brother? Two birds with one stone? I wonder how much he wants to punish his son. But it sounds as if he has, as you say, reflected deeply on this and come to his own conclusion. I would comment, if I were his advisor, that he's not allowing his son much wriggle room for redemption; but that really isn't your problem.
Or it's not your problem as long as you're not blocking any possible rapprochement which would benefit your father. Be careful, especially if feelings run high over your brother's current behaviour. Watch yourself, because being objective and fair with someone who's behaving atrociously is terribly difficult.
I'm not suggesting you can engineer some marvellous reconciliation and stand by beaming on the pair of them as they embrace once again, even if you feel the slightest inclination to attempt it. All I'm saying is: stay out of it, make sure you're not in anybody's way.
So, your brother is already contesting the trust. You can't be surprised. You can see why he would. If your father has done everything by the book, your brother cannot possibly succeed in law. So all you have to do is work very hard to let this pass, put it behind you and carry on as if it had never happened. Very stressful, the last thing you need, and pretty despicable on your brother's part; but on the scale of things? Taking care of your father is your infinitely more important goal: keep your eyes on that.
It so happens I'm off to the lawyers in an hour to see about removing financial POA from two of my siblings to someone, anyone, who does not have a vested interest in my mother's estate. I'll let you know if I succeed in sticking to my own advice..! Wish me luck; I wish you all the best.
PS Just an afterthought: did your father, in the past, make any promises to your brother, perhaps ones that you were never previously aware of, or allow him to believe there was some kind of understanding? I'm thinking that, if so, it would also help to explain your brother's sense of grievance. Something to bear in mind as a possibility, maybe.
it should be a reduced share,
because you are doing all the work, like a spouse.
Lets say there are only the two of you,
money left should be carer worked for half
and the rest should then be divided by the two giving you 75% and him 25.
Depends on how long, but at least two years...
The siblings here put on the trust that if someone objects, they forfeit their share?
I do not even know if that is legal, the sentence before but that is what it says...
just because he contests does not mean he'll win...
how is your father's capacity, been declared anything yet...