• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Request for thoughts on a sensitive situation.

D

Damn Dirty Ape

Diamond Member
As to-the-point as I can be.

April of 2010 my Uncle passed away. He had 2 siblings, my Mom and another Uncle of mine (he had 6 kids, although he died in 2007).

My Mom is the sole survivor. His estate was probated and she received 50% of the proceeds, a sizeable amount. The 6 children (all adults) of the other brother received the other 50%, split 6 ways.

Fast forward to now, the headstone was paid for, although installation was not covered. The cemetary wants $1200 to install it. It's of course up to us to finance this.

Would it be considered correct to have my Mom pay 50% of the cost and request that the other siblings children collect the same total from amongst themselves?

Been rolling it around for an hour now and thought I'd toss it to the masses before going out with it.
 
Yes. It'd be proper to request the others chip in to pay the other 50%...of course, if she was smart, she'd get each of them to chip in 50%...and profit. 😛

However, if there was any contention over the estate, she'll probably get stuck paying the entire amount.
Nothing causes family troubles like money.
 
I think that would be a totally equitable way of doing it.

I also think your mother could just pay it, assuming the extra $600 isn't much against the backdrop of her 50%.
 
Would it be technically correct? Probably, but if it were me in place of your mother, I'd just pay the whole thing out of my 50%. I see no reason to even risk any kind of conflict over money when there's an easy solution that doesn't impact much.
 
TheVrolok said:
Would it be technically correct? Probably, but if it were me in place of your mother, I'd just pay the whole thing out of my 50%. I see no reason to even risk any kind of conflict over money when there's an easy solution that doesn't impact much.
Click to expand...

This.
 
if i were your mother i would assume i would be paying the whole thing but let the 6 children know that i would be paying for installation of the headstone and that any contributions would be appreciated.
 
If it was going to be contentious at all, I'd say the mother should just pay for the whole thing. Generally, people are closer to their siblings than to their uncles, so even though they are all family, she is probably closest to him.

If it's not going to be contentious, having them each pay based on their share of the will is certainly equitable. It really depends on the family.
 
Shovels are cheap. Do it yourself. Get a few strong guys from home depot to help lift and place the stone.
 
There was no issues with the estate fortunately and we all get along. Admittedly the other 6 were not nearly as close as my Mom was to him, of course.

Since I was appointed the administrator of the estate, I learned a lot of things in the process of 6 months, that is for sure. Some of the responses here have given me some food for thought - I think I will present her with the two main choices here and see what she wants to do.

Most likely if given both she will just pay it herself and never even mention it to them, she's just that way. I'm just looking for the 'fair' thing, of course.

thanks
 
rivan said:
I think that would be a totally equitable way of doing it.

I also think your mother could just pay it, assuming the extra $600 isn't much against the backdrop of her 50%.
Click to expand...
This.

Are there hard feelings that your mother received 50% and each of his kids received less than a 10% share?
 
Legally split it, ethically IMO she should pay all of it.



Technically she "chose" to be with him versus the kids who were brought into the world by him without choice... IMO she should foot the bill for the headstone.





It really sucks that this is causing drama.
 
the 'fair' thing would be if they all pitched in. if i was your mom, i'd also just cover the whole thing and not even mention it. it would be the honorable thing to do
 
I honestly think how much she recieved should be taken into account. If she got like $200,000 then $1200 is not too much for her to cover on her own. BUT, if she got a check for $10,000... then $1200 is a decent chunk out of her share, and it wouldn't be too much to ask that all invloved share the cost. Also, if she struggling financially prior to the passing, this should also be taken into account.

As with what most of the other posters have said, it would be a lot easier for everyone is she just absorbed the cost of planting the headstone, but not if it causes undue financial strain... especially at a time like this in her life. Also OP, it would liekly be easier if YOU approach the other 6 cousins? for the cost and not you mom. Invoices on letterhead always make it official if there were to be any doubts... sucky position for anyone really, but these days, a buck is a buck...
 
Damn Dirty Ape said:
Would it be considered correct to have my Mom pay 50% of the cost and request that the other siblings children collect the same total from amongst themselves?
Click to expand...

I'd say this is "correct". Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily equate to the path of least resistance. Just to avoid drama, as suggested earlier, I'd probably pay the whole thing if it isn't a huge chunk of the original 50%.
 
If you are the administrator of the estate, then items such as burial costs, attorneys' fees, etc. should be paid out of the estate prior to distribution, meaning that from a technical position the uncle's children should be contributing to the extent they already received their contributions. A portion of the money they already received should have gone to paying estate fees, so it is only fair that they now contribute.

That's the "legal" answer and technically, if this thing was contentious, requiring your mother to foot the entire bill could actually be a breach of your fiduciary duty to the estate, but that doesn't seem all that likely based on the facts you provided.
 
I'd just have her pay for it, and then casually mention it to the others. Have her say that any donations are appreciated, but not necessary if they don't want to. I know if I was one of the kids and I received some money from the estate, I would at least want to help pay for any final costs.
 
How come it took so long for this bill to roll in? This is something you (as Administrator) should have paid out of the estate before any distribution made.

The plan you proposed (mom pays half, the other six jointly pay half) is the fairest and how it should have been done in the beginning but if anyone balks you are SOL (I'm assuming the estate has been approved and closed by the probate court).
 
Damn Dirty Ape said:
There was no issues with the estate fortunately and we all get along. Admittedly the other 6 were not nearly as close as my Mom was to him, of course.

Since I was appointed the administrator of the estate, I learned a lot of things in the process of 6 months, that is for sure. Some of the responses here have given me some food for thought - I think I will present her with the two main choices here and see what she wants to do.

Most likely if given both she will just pay it herself and never even mention it to them, she's just that way. I'm just looking for the 'fair' thing, of course.

thanks
Click to expand...

The correct way to deal with an estate is to pay all bills and funeral costs prior to distribution as I'm sure others have already or will point out. Generally speaking, there are two ways of splitting up an intestate (no will) estate and the correct way varies depending on where the deceased lived. The way you split up the estate is commonly referred to a per stirpes (by the stocks) and it dictates that shares be split based on the oldest generation with at least one surviving member, generally starting with your spouse, then children, then parents, then siblings. In the event that one member of the group is already deceased, that persons heirs would split their share. So assuming your uncle's estate was in a per stirpes state, you've at least done the split properly and assuming that, it would be correct to say that your mother and your other uncles children would each be on the hook for 50%.

If on the other hand, your uncles estate was governed under the rules of a jurisdiction following per capita distribution, the estate would be split evenly between all surviving heirs.

I'd say that you just have to confirm that you followed the proper sort of distribution, and if so 50% for your mother and 50% split between your cousins is the correct way to split these (and any other) costs. If you're in a per capita jurisdiction, good luck sorting that out.

Just as a side note: per stirpes can actually vary a bit more in some places, but in your situation even the modified rules would lead to the same result.
 
Let me clarify: the headstone was paid for, as was the burial. At the time he made his final expense plans, he wanted the headstone chosen from a monument company and had paid for it. Now, the cemetary is the one that is wanting the $1200 for an 'offsite monument'. That wasn't covered in the preplanned final expenses nor anticipated.

See they sell their own monuments and would install theirs for free.

That is where this expense is coming from, no one thought of nor anticipated it, and everyone I have spoken with about my duties said I was a very fair and attentive administrator.
 
Taughnter said:
The correct way to deal with an estate is to pay all bills and funeral costs prior to distribution as I'm sure others have already or will point out. Generally speaking, there are two ways of splitting up an intestate (no will) estate and the correct way varies depending on where the deceased lived. The way you split up the estate is commonly referred to a per stirpes (by the stocks) and it dictates that shares be split based on the oldest generation with at least one surviving member, generally starting with your spouse, then children, then parents, then siblings. In the event that one member of the group is already deceased, that persons heirs would split their share. So assuming your uncle's estate was in a per stirpes state, you've at least done the split properly and assuming that, it would be correct to say that your mother and your other uncles children would each be on the hook for 50%.

If on the other hand, your uncles estate was governed under the rules of a jurisdiction following per capita distribution, the estate would be split evenly between all surviving heirs.

I'd say that you just have to confirm that you followed the proper sort of distribution, and if so 50% for your mother and 50% split between your cousins is the correct way to split these (and any other) costs. If you're in a per capita jurisdiction, good luck sorting that out.

Just as a side note: per stirpes can actually vary a bit more in some places, but in your situation even the modified rules would lead to the same result.
Click to expand...

This is in Illinois and the final papers and docs were reviewed by the court before closing, and no it was not a per capita situation thankfully. My Uncle had no children and his wife passed before him as well. But I digress from my original posting. Anyway....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top