marriage of newlyweds, ages 96 and 95, questioned

[sio]

In some ways, Rebecca Wright doesn't understand all the fuss over her 96-year-old mother's recent marriage. After all, she says, "Anybody who wants to get married must have a little dementia

Comments

[darsynia]

I was so outraged when I saw this yesterday, because the article I read had an actual fucking quote where the family of the woman complained that 'now he'll be entitled to some of her estate!!'

EXCUSE ME WAT

Is there supposed to be an age at which people are no longer allowed to create attachments because it might inconvenience their HEIRS??? Step your greedy ass DOWN, and realize that the inheritance is not YOURS until such time that your loved one dies. If you're so concerned about the inheritance BEFORE she dies, then honestly you should be ashamed of yourself. Just wow.

I mean, I get that some family members are worried about whether the whole thing is completely voluntary and such given the power of attorney already in place for Hill, but holy crap talk about greedy jerks!

ps. Christmas icon creep!!!!!

[sio]

jerk, singular. only one daughter is behind the lawsuit. the other one thinks it's great that her mom has found love at 96. but 200% agreed with everything else you said.

also, the lawyer representing the greedy-ass daughter did indeed talk about how he's supposedly entitled to inherit:

Cary Cuccinelli, representing the sister who opposed the marriage, Patricia Barber, said at last month's hearing that the wedding occurred without other family members' knowledge, and that it complicated the matter of how to eventually distribute Hill's estate, which includes property on the edge of Old Town Alexandria, worth about $475,000, according to real estate assessments.

"Legally, Mr. Harrison now has a right to a portion of Ms. Hill's estate," she told the judge

[tabaqui]

What is it with people and their 'inheritances'?? First - you're not fucking entitled to *anything*. If my mom dies tomorrow, i'm not *entitled* to a damn button - if she left it all to a friend or a charity or a cat, it's *her right*.

Second - is that all your parent is worth to you, what you get when they *die*? I have had so many people - mostly people who are 'family' by marriage - go off the deep end when someone dies, swarming into their house and picking through drawers and having hissy fits when some random item doesn't fall to them.... Jayzus, it makes me sick.

How people can be so greedy and disgusting is beyond me.

[nicosian]

That will be my aunts when my Oma passes. She won't be in the ground 20 minutes before they descend to strip the house bare.

Oma's also sitting on around 3mil of land, and while Opa decided it all should be split evenly, Oma re wrote all that, and now? yeah. Looming fricking disaster of a will and it makes me ill to think of what's coming, because where "evenly split" was fairly clear, now its going to be an epic battle.

For some people it really is, ALL they're worth. Its gross beyond words. They already went off the deep end when Opa died.

[blueeowyn]

Can you have Oma talk to a lawyer and have said lawyer read through the will and find ways to make it cleaner? Also see about making sure she is declared competent prior to the will being finalized (and preferably notarized). I'm sorry that your family is doing this.

[nicosian]

Oma now has severe dementia. I forgot that part. She changed stuff, and my mom just found out and I don't think there's much that can be done now.

(the money would be nice, because we could then afford a downpayment for our little family but...even if Oma had left the will as it was, the aunts would be strip mining her assets regardless. So my answer: go to the wake and basically huddle with a bottle of vodka and count the hours to the flight home.)

Once she's gone I'll have no reason to deal with that rat nest of aunts either. So hey, I win?

[bellichka]

. Hill has been declared legally incapacitated for several years.

Can somebody explain to me what this means in legalese?

[shadwing]

It means that she's not 'all there' in the head, either she herself a court has declared that Hill doesn't have enough mental facilities to make decisions on her own behalf, it could be anything from dementia or Alzheimer's, after effects of a stroke or other severe brain injury.

As such they left the management of her health and legal decisions in the hands of a third party, in this case Hill's two daughters have PoA jointly, which technically means any major decisions for their mother, or her fiancés or her health, have to be agreed on by both.

So one daughter doesn't think this is a problem and let her mother get married without the other daughters approval, hence the revoking of the Daughters PoA and placing it in the hands of a neutral 3rd party.

[shadwing]

Judge actually did the smart thing in this case, when you have somebody with mental impairments and others sharing PoA over that person along with disagreement between the parties, best thing to do it not take a side and appoint a neutral 3rd party to look into the situation then make a decision.

The Kasey Kassium nightmare mess comes to my mind

There are just too many cases of elder abuse and PoA abuse out there to take the chance and just dismiss the case outright, now if the decision is favorable to the couple and the money grubbing daughter still pitches a fit any judge after that deserves a side eye.

[maladaptive]

That actually jumped out at me, too, so I am not quite ready to jump on the "evil daughter" bandwagon--I've seen some shady, shady stuff with the elderly and people trying to fleece them. I mean, the daughter could be a greedy jerk AND her mother might be manipulated for the money (both stories are, unfortunately, pretty common), but NGL I think it's natural to be concerned about shifting rights when one property owner is legally incapacitated even if you're a-okay with mom marrying or not inheriting what you thought you'd get. Especially given how expensive elder care can be.

[anolinde]

That caught my eye, too. At first I thought the whole situation was BS, then I saw the part about her being legally incapacitated and thought it made more sense.

[tweedisgood]

Except it seems to me the term "legally incapacitated" is way too broad. The law in England and Wales (Scots law is a bit different) now recognises (Mental Capacity Act 2005) that someone can have the ability to make decisions about some things even if they can't about others. So over here a person with Lasting Power of Attorney can't make decisions over the head of the person they act for if on those specific matters they have been assessed as having capacity to make the decision themselves. If not,a decision has to made in their best interests, although some decisions are excluded and can only be made if the person can make them themselves(e.g. marriage as a matter of fact)

It has to be on a case by case and decision by decision basis and the courts do not necessarily have to be involved. Unsure if this likewise happens in the US.

[dziga123]

And how do you know it's all about the money? During all those years they were together, no problem. Now that someone might not inherit something they thought they were going to get--"She's not competent!"

[moonshaz]

Yeah, that little detail is what raises the most red flags for me.

I'm just glad this is now in the hands of an objective, impartial third party.