late brother's wife and kid, and a trust

[jadelennox]

Dear Pay Dirt,

My late parents started a trust meant for their grandchildren. My brother was married to “Sara,” and she had a daughter, “Emma.” A year later we lost our parents, and I was put in charge of the trust. I also added to it, since I don’t have children myself. A few years later, Sara had an affair and got pregnant. In the middle of the divorce, my brother had a heart attack. Sara automatically inherited all his assets, but her greed had no ends. My brother had changed the beneficiary of all his life insurance to me and updated his will so family heirlooms would stay with us, so Sara took my family to court but didn’t win. The last conversation I had with Sara was her calling me “cruel” for not letting her go to the wake with Emma. I told Sara that I know it was difficult since she was a greedy whore, but did she really have to flaunt the fact at my brother’s funeral? She was six months pregnant with her little bastard. My family never heard from Sara again.

Recently, Emma contacted me out of the blue. She is 20 and had to drop out of college after her mother and new stepfather cut her off for coming out as an atheist. (Apparently, Sara found God a few years back.) Emma said she felt abandoned by us but realizes her mother left us no choice. She still considers my late brother and parents to be her family, and she hoped we would do the same for her. I wired Emma a few thousand dollars as a financial cushion and told her to call me if she had other expenses. She sounded very small on the phone. I honestly don’t know what to do. Right now, the trust is extremely large and will be split between my sister’s three boys. My sister and brother-in-law would riot if I suggested the trust be spilt four ways instead of three. What are my obligations here?

—Family Money

Dear Family Money,

First, I understand your anger here, but I also think you need to think about both Sara and Emma from a position of generosity and take into to consideration what you may not know about what happened. People have affairs for all kinds of reasons, and it’s understandable that you are protective of your brother, but you never really know what’s going on in someone else’s marriage.

Secondly, Emma is your niece. It’s not clear from your letter whether Emma was in the original trust, but no affair or bad behavior on her mother’s part changes the fact that until the divorce, you considered Emma family. It really isn’t fair to punish her for what you perceive as a betrayal by her mother. You are not necessarily obligated to help Emma considering that you don’t seem to have much of a relationship, but you shouldn’t be conflating your feelings about her with your feelings about her mother, either. Your brother was divorcing your sister-in-law, not Emma.

I would also refrain from referring to the mother of your niece as a “greedy whore,” since, again, you aren’t necessarily privy to what happened there, and your niece, who is your brother’s only living heir and you may want a relationship with at some point, will notice when you say that. And even if she’s on the outs with Mom, it doesn’t mean that she’s going to take sides in a family dispute that has nothing to do with her. She shouldn’t be asked to.

Lastly, and I say this with a personal bias: Do not hold what you perceive as Sara’s sins against her child. Your columnist is an adoptee who doesn’t know who her biological father is and has biological family members who don’t engage with her for exactly the reasons you describe. I did nothing to deserve that, and neither does the child you refer to as “her little bastard.” I don’t object to the term, funnily—there’s an adoptee rights organization called Bastard Nation—but I don’t think you can take your anger at Sara out on children who have no choice in this situation and still claim the moral high ground. You can say no to helping Emma, but you should examine why you’re doing it.

Comments

[conuly]

LW sounds charming.

[laurajv]

it's not clear to me from the letter if Emma was the late brother's child or not? The LW refers to her as Sara's daughter only, but her venom for Sara is so intense that I cannot tell if it's just that or if it is that Emma was the late brother's stepdaughter.

I suspect that Emma is the late brother's stepdaughter, and therefore not his legal heir, thus the LW's conflict. Or if Emma was included in the original trust by the grandparents and afterward cut out?

Also the LW should get some therapy for how angry they still are at Sara. That is abnormal and super toxic.

[green_grrl]

Yeah, my reading was that Emma was the stepchild. If brother adopted her she would legally be entitled to 1/4 of the trust, so I’m guessing he didn’t—it’s just that Emma was emotionally granddaughter/niece until the divorce/brother’s death. It sounds like LW wants to do the right thing, but it’s a question for a lawyer, not a columnist.

[minoanmiss]

Oh dear God this one. I cringed ALL OVER reading it. I hope some kind family adopts Emma and gets her far away from all these people.

[azurelunatic]

The brother and sister-in-law sound approximately as charming as LW.

[rmc28]

Yes, clearly their greed also "has no end" if they really would be angry about splitting "an extremely large" trust four ways rather than three.

[melannen]

Yeah.

I feel like this is another one where they give a pretty good answer but it's not to the question LW is asking? LW doesn't exactly sound like a peach, but she seems pretty solid that Emma is part of the family if she wants to be and she that should help Emma out as much as she can, the actual question is: as the trustee, is it acceptable for me to add Emma to the trust against my sister's wishes (because Emma needs it, even though she hasn't asked?) Especially given precedence in this family, it might lead to a court case, and the fact the trust was set up for the grandkids and Sister wasn't given any control at all implies that the grandparents didn't trust her with the money.

I would probably say it depends on the way the trust is set up and how badly you want to stay in contact with Sister, but it seems like at the very least, if LW has added significant amounts to the trust, she ought to both morally and legally be able to designate that part to Emma.

ETA: Wow, I just read the rest of the column, and "reasonable answers that miss the point of the letter" seems to be their thing.

[cimorene]

Into the sea with LW is my gut reaction.

[minoanmiss]

Tie LW to Sara and chuck them both in.

(Sara does NOT deserve LW's misogyny but I am SEVERELY unimpressed with her for cutting Emma off because Emma left Christianity.)

[cimorene]

True, there are few reasons that are legitimate for doing that to one's children and that isn't in the same universe as them.

[mommy]

I'm glad that LW wired a few thousand dollars to her niece. That's the main positive thing I can say about this letter due to the amount of outrage it contains for the niece's mother. LW went so far out of their way to insult Sara that they ended up depicting themselves terribly in the process.

As for the actual question of the letter ("What are my obligations here?"), my answer is Ask Your Lawyer. LW's parents started the trust for their grandchildren, and Emma qualifies. The lawyer is there to cover LW's behind when the sister and BIL throw down over the trust being used for its intended purpose.

[mirlacca]

All this is lovely advice, but what it comes down to is very simple: What are the terms of the trust? LW is legally bound to fulfill those terms. Period.

It's not clear whether Emma is a daughter of the marriage, one that Sara came into the marriage with, or if she's the product of the affair. If the brother filed for divorce because of the affair, it's pretty clear that he didn't consider the child of the affair to be his. LW can contribute to Emma's welfare if he wants to, but it should be out of his OWN funds, not those of the trust.