Readers' Advice
Yours is not an unusual dilemma. You don't want to break up the extended family, yet you don't want to give in to blackmail. Your sister, Kate, says she wants to stay out of it, yet indicates full support for your brother-in-law's threats. She wants to have her cake and eat it. Threatening to deny access to your nieces is cruel, but where family money and property are concerned, rationality goes out the window.
Your mother made the choice which was hers to make and provided what she felt was the best division. Kate and her husband are not denied an inheritance but if you give in to what is blackmail then you can forget any normal relationship with the extended family because it will niggle away every time you see them. Against that, if you hold out for your mother's choice the same situation could occur.
You appear to be in a no-win situation, but to give in on this occasion could lead to future demands, when the inheritance may have ended up fostering your brother-inlaw's gambling habits. You admit that your relationship with Kate has already gone sour due to other factors, so how would it improve by knowing you were blackmailed with Kate's full support? You now have an opportunity to consider another direction in your life and perhaps even a change of career. Don't be put off by threats of court action. Your brother-in-law has much more to lose than you have.
F.L. - Dublin
You take my advice darling and take the money and run. Get the hell out of it. Rotten job, rotten family - what have you got to lose? Your nieces are your nieces, outside your control. Sure, it's hard, it's a tough world. Did anyone ever care about how you felt when you were a kid? Time to look out for number one! Do a bit of living. Lighten up.
There's a whole big world out there to be enjoyed. Time to put the past in its place. Time to move on. Best foot forward. You have, after all, only the one life to live. Make it happen. Get real. Get moving. Sell up that comfortable apartment, give up that dreary job, get rid of all your old clothes. Time for a fresh start.
You take my advice and cash it all in and have a ball. So your sister is squawking, so what? She has her life. You have yours. Sure it's tough being married to him, is it any fault of yours? Why would you give up this one big change just so he can gamble it away? Get real, darling. Get going!
G.B. - Cork
The root of your problem is guilt - guilt that you are the main beneficiary of someone with whom you had one thing in common - a mutual dislike. It was going to be you or the Cats' Home. You did not mention your mother's senility.
Your mother was only partly right about your brother-in-law. As well as being a gambler he is a manipulator, a bully and a blackmailer. And you, who have exercised such control in never revealing your dislike of him, can now "be forced and pushed" into the position of handing over half of the estate to this bounder.
Pack in your unfulfilling job immediately. Invest (of course not in the economic sense) 90 per cent of your inheritance in conferring a totally new direction on your life, actively pursuing satisfaction whether it be altruistic ideals or finishing the mohair jumper that's been on your knitting needles since 1993.
If you must "preserve a sense of family" let Kate know that you have placed an undisclosed sum (10 per cent) in trust for your "two little nieces". Their inheritance should be paid when they reach 30 years of age. By then, either their father will have come to grief with his gambling or Kate, if she has a modicum of intelligence, will have realised which side her bread is buttered on. (A note of pessimism here - if Kate is spineless enough to say that "she wants to keep out of it" it doesn't augur well).
This way you win - you enjoy what is rightfully yours, Kate is overtly, yet grudgingly grateful to you for your bountifulness (obsequiousness is such fun to witness!) your rapacious brother-in-law loses the biggest gamble of his life - and your conscience is salved.
Here! Can I have that stray cat?
R.H. - Derry
What a sad story! A mother who did not love her daughters and created bad feeling between them, leaving an unjust will; Kate living in a very cramped house, with a gambler husband; gambler threatening his sister-in-law; Ann, working in a job that she does not enjoy.
1. Ann should, of course, divide the money evenly between herself and her sister. She knows that as, in her own words, she says that it would be just, equal and, above all, give hope of preserving a sense of family.
2. She does not specify the sum involved. (a) If it is large she should specify that she would like it to be used to provide a larger house for the family. This would solve one of the sister's problems. (b) If it is not large she should ask that it be kept in her sister's own name. Even if this is not legal it would be a slap to the threatening gambler.
3. Using her own inherited money, which she does not apparently need, she should (a) do a business course to enable her to change her job (b) with the balance, give her nieces small but frequent treats.
4. She should think more kindly of her mother who left them money and did not blow it all on herself. As well as solving problems it will create love and save her from an ulcer.
Margery Brady - Kilkenny
If mother hadn't died I'd have had her shot! I feel all estates should be fairly divided and my advice to Ann is - if she wants to enjoy her share of the estate at all put matters right immediately.
She should give her sister half and tell her how bad she feels about the whole thing but, specify that her rat of a husband is not to have direct access to the money as she feels that would have been their mother's wish. He will, if course, benefit indirectly as his children will be clothed and his living conditions might improve and they could have fish fingers day a week instead of seven and so on.
If that doesn't work and there's any more bad feeling she should just sit back and enjoy what she has. She has done her best.
J. McN - Dublin 9
I've been there - my widowed mother died and left the most part of her estate to me. I was unaware that I would be the main beneficiary of her will; we are all married with families. My initial reaction was to divide the estate equally but my solicitor advised waiting and I am glad that I did.
I asked myself why did she do it - I believe it was because I looked after her and kept in contact. The rest of the family didn't bother too much. I am sure the other members of my family also asked themselves why? I feel sympathy for them as, along with their grievances, there must be some guilt. I am greatly resented and 15 years down the line, experience mental cruelty from one family member and one in-law on behalf of the spouse. My advice is: Let the nasty brother-in-law invoke Section 117. My family considered it but were advised by their solicitor that they had no case. Give the sister the maximum allowed as a gift from one sibling to another without incurring tax. Give the niece and nephew cheques as well. Look forward with pleasure to giving them all more largesse on special occasions - academic success if it occurs, first job, marriage, birth of grandnieces/nephews etc. My mother selected one daughter as her favourite; it was her right and it is written forever. No amount of cash payment will erase that. If the lot were signed over to Kate, she would still resent her sister.
My Mother did me no favours. In favouring me, she alienated me from my brothers and sisters. Over the years, invitations from me to them were rebuffed, ignored or at best tolerated. I have come to terms with that now but a part of me will always be sad.
K.G.C. - Co Dublin
Control seems to be the root of this problem - both in the present as well as in the past. Ann's mother, operating the divide-and-conquer principle - even in her will, controlled her two daughters and even left a legacy of dissension, which can only be resolved by them if both are prepared to acknowledge it and work on it. Kate's husband seems to see nothing inappropriate in his attempts to control his sister-in-law by threats - threats to take legal action and even to damage her relationship with her young nieces unless she agrees to his demands. This attitude suggests that concerns about his gambling may indeed be well-founded. Many who are anxious to control others lack the ability to control themselves and their behaviour. Ann should absolutely refuse to discuss what are her affairs with his man and, instead, arrange a private meeting with her sister when the two women could have an opportunity to discuss the problem calmly.
My impression is that "justice, equality and above all the hope of preserving a sense of family" mean more to Ann than does strict adherence to the terms of her mother's will. Perhaps, therefore, they might discuss the possibility of using the disputed sum of money for the benefit of Kate's two daughters - either for their education or as an investment for them until they are of an age when their father could not misappropriate it. Such a meeting might also prove an opportunity for the sisters to heal old wounds inflicted by the behaviour of their mother.
N.D. - Dublin 4
I was really sorry to hear about the dilemma your mother's inheritance placed you in. First, can I suggest that you look after yourself? So make a start by going to a good counsellor to help you sort out your own feelings of anger towards your mother.
As you are unhappy in your job take this opportunity to look around and see what you might prefer to do with your life. After all, you can now afford to do this.
Second, how about setting up a trust fund for each of your two nieces which will mature when they are 21. This will ensure that you will be their favourite aunt. Kate must surely be happy to know her girls will come in for a nice little nest-egg some day.
Last, get your solicitor to write a curt note to your brother-in-law advising him that you will report him to the Gardai if he threatens you again. He is a nasty piece of goods and undoubtedly Kate will realise this in time. At this stage you can be ready to offer her moral support.
S.R. - Dublin 16
Kate's husband's behaviour is threatening and bullying. It is understandable that Ann wants to continue to have a sense of family, but to give in to the demands of her brother-in-law who, judging by the letter, seems indeed to have a gambling problem, would not guarantee a solution to the present problem.
The lack of courage shown by Kate in wanting to continue a relationship with her sister, or at least avoid a "confrontation" and yet support her husband's threat, could be fear-based. Ann should sit down with Kate and explain that, above all, she wants to be fair to her sister. As the family are living in cramped conditions, Ann could, depending on the size of her share of the estate, offer to help buy a bigger house for them - in Kate's name if possible (many a gambling addict - but this is a presumption - has left his family homeless).
Money could be put in trust for the education of her two nieces. Call the brother-in-law's bluff. In the light of the offer of a bigger home and/or a trust fund for his children, the Section 117 application threat may expose his motives.
Catherine Bennett - Dublin 9