Inheritance of rubbish !!

vaio

shellsuit wrote: »

…….. everything has been left to her, so it's her stuff now. If she wants some of it moving/disposing of, then it is upto her to sort it/pay for it…….

Pee wrote: »

It is her responsibility to take it all, as you can't renounce part of a gift............

Sums it up nicely I think

Penny-Pincher!!

madeinchina wrote: »

O dear, I pushed the thanks button by mistake

From your answer, I really dont think you've read all the thread.

HE does agree with the will. He just doesn't want to pay half removal costs for all the possessions, which have all been given to her in the will, that she doesn't want to keep. Some of them have little value, some have very big value. She is welcome to it all.

Turning in the grave? That's definately in your imagination. I only asked a question. I cant vouch for some of the replies though.




This is starting to become quite amusing, as your assumption is wrong. Why do you naturally assume the worst?

I'm sorry to hear that you have had a bad day, honestly.

Please accept my apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick.

I am not generally like this and like I said, I have had a real sh*t day today. I will not make excuses though.

Sorry

PP
xx

Newly_retired

I think this is the correct conclusion, that SIL has inherited all the contents of the house and can keep or dispose of them as she wishes and at HER expense ( if any). I hope there is some cash left in the estate as your OH is entitled to half the residue.
I think some of us are just a bit curious as to why SIL gets so much in comparison - but it is none of our business of course.

madeinchina

Penny-Pincher!! wrote: »

Please accept my apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick.

I am not generally like this and like I said, I have had a real sh*t day today. I will not make excuses though.

Sorry

PP
xx

I am touched by your statement. Best wishes.

madeinchina

Newly_retired wrote: »

I think this is the correct conclusion, that SIL has inherited all the contents of the house and can keep or dispose of them as she wishes and at HER expense ( if any). I hope there is some cash left in the estate as your OH is entitled to half the residue.
I think some of us are just a bit curious as to why SIL gets so much in comparison - but it is none of our business of course.

I don't know. I think its a mother/daughter thing; alike in many ways.
To be honest, we find possessions are a burden, so I think both son and daughter are happy with the outcome, except for the cost of disposal issue.

floss2

madeinchina wrote: »

........To be honest, we find possessions are a burden, so I think both son and daughter are happy with the outcome, except for the cost of disposal issue.

Can I just ask - is it your OH who has the problem with this or yourself?

And is the residual sum that your OH can expect to receive so small that this cost will make such a difference - i.e. the figures that you quoted in an early post? After all, most people (including myself) will take a view that they would rather have the person than the inheritance, no matter what the size, and that the actual amount is immaterial compared to their loss.

And surely, if you find possessions a burden then why quibble over the fact that his sister has been tasked with sorting everything out (yes, I know, at a cost to the estate) and not him?

madeinchina

Floss2:

I did answer your question, but I'm just so fed up with the whole issue, I cant bear to read about it anymore ! SO I edited it out. Sorry!

No offence to you or your question.

They can sort it out. I'm sure it will all be fine.

Enterprise_1701C

Definition of Chattel:

chattel n. an item of personal property which is movable, as distinguished from real property (land and improvements).

I think this includes the "rubbish"

Good luck and hope it all gets sorted out!

esmerelda98

floss2, madeinchina has been very polite in replying to you, but truly I think you have missed the whole point of her post. Paragraph 2 of your last post is especially irrelevant.

floss2

esmerelda98 wrote: »

floss2, madeinchina has been very polite in replying to you, but truly I think you have missed the whole point of her post. Paragraph 2 of your last post is especially irrelevant.

You are entitled to your opinion. However the OP initially brought up the issue of cost and in my opinion I don't think it was irrelevant.

Occasionally posting on an open forum may result in replies that a person may not like - it is a chance that has to be taken when canvassing for opinions.