Devious Auntie influencing elderly Grandfather

HeatherintheHills

philipswoox wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. It's knowing what to do next which is the tough bit.

To be honest, if he has gotten to the state of vulnerability required for Aunty to be exploiting him, he is no longer really able to live alone. Having someone move in with him or him moving in with relatives able to take proper care of him is probably the only way to break this woman's influence.

Or, if he is open to the suggestion, sell his home to fund a really good nursing home?

euronorris

philipswoox wrote: »

Fair thoughts - cheers!
Again, maybe I've not explained clearly enough - other family members are continuing to spend time with Gramps and as always, and are intentionally NOT letting things get in the way. They have no interest is anything else. After all, it's family. As a slightly further removed relative, I merely posted my thoughts as I'm frustrated by the actions of one family member, who is clearly trying to influence an unwell old chap. I'd feel exactly the same if I learnt of a similar tale of the old lady who lives next door to me. Surely most people with an ounce of morals would feel the same?

I'm not exactly sure what she's supposed to have done wrong here?

From your OP she is helping Gramps out, doing tasks for him like grocery shopping (among other things), spending time with him and buying him little gifts. These are all nice things.

Why aren't the other siblings (was it? I'm not sure) doing that? If they were doing it before, why did they let her take over these duties if they weren't happy for her to do it? And if they are happy for her to do it, then what is the issue?

If Gramps has changed his will, or is about to (hence the paper with the notes on it), then it might just genuinely be because he wants to. Because she is the one taking the time to be with him and look after him when the others are not (heck it could even go deeper than that for all we know).

I see nothing, from your posts so far, to suggest that foul play or manipulation is at work here. Or am I missing something?

At the moment, it seems like a case of 'we can't be bothered with him, but we don't want her to benefit because she can and is'. And to that I say, tough! Either spend some time with the man, and help him out or suck it up!

HeatherintheHills

gingin wrote: »

Of course alarm bells would ring but how can you be sure, unless you have explored every avenue. Discuss it with them, before deciding to cut them out of everyone's lives.

Gingin, I didn't say everyone's lives, just the life of the vulnerable elderly person. I also didn't mean to imply a complete non contact situation either, but this Aunty's influence on the OP's grandfather does need to be reigned in.

If Aunty is snubbing the rest of the family and pushing them out of Grandfather's life what would discussing it with her achieve? She hasn't chosen to discuss things with the rest of the family, has she? She has embarked on a course of action of her own choosing and without consultation with the rest of the family.

I have no doubt that Aunty thinks what she is doing is absolutely the right thing to do and has convinced herself that it is in Grandfather's best interests. She will have persuaded herself that if she benefits in his will then it is no less than she is entitled to. But is she the best judge of what is in his best interests? Not if she is so focused on his will she isn't and the evidence of that has already begun to manifest itself.

What really matters is the well-being of the Grandfather, nothing else.

euronorris

Wow! There are a lot of assumptions being made by some people here.

We have so, so little to go on.

princeofpounds

Nobody has the right

It was just a potential list of why a material inheritance could matter for reasons that are NOT material. And even material reasons are not necessarily evil, even though there is a social taboo to even countenance the thought that such a filthy thing as estate planning should ever be openly discussed.

No-one was talking about rights, unless that is the right for an elderly person not to suffer undue influence, when they are potentially not of sound mind, that may taint their legacy in the eyes of the whole family.

I am willing to bet that most people on this thread would be quick to deem it inappropriate if a 'trophy girlfriend' 30 years younger appeared on the scene and started trying to make amendments to the will of a semi-senile old man through a combination of pressure and deception. The fact that the aunty has a familial relationship rather than a romantic one does not change the morality of the situation, but it is remarkable how much it changes people's emotional reactions to dealing with it.

Nothing has been 'taken' because it wasn't given and it wasn't earned. Why does grandparents money need to be invested in grandchildren? Why can't grandchildren make their own way in life, or the parents invest in their own children? Why can't grandparents invest in their grandchildren during their lifetime instead of in the will? Are you intimating children who are parents should inherit more than children who are barren or child free by choice?

The fact that you used this language of 'rights' in reference to my post means that either you have not taken the time to actually understand it, or perhaps that it was not that well-explained. So be it.

All these questions derive from a total misunderstanding of what I wrote. The use of 'parent' and 'child' are pretty arbitrary and just to indicate an inheritance relationship. I would have made similar points about wives, cousins, siblings, charities, any potential inheritor.


I will just take a quote from another poster to make a supplemental point.

I'm not exactly sure what she's supposed to have done wrong here?

My posting in support of confronting the issue does not mean she necessarily is doing anything wrong. But there are enough warning signs to suspect that it is a serious possibility.

euronorris

From what the OP has posted, there are *possibly* a few warning signs that warrant further investigation/checking out. However, the OP has also ommitted many important facts that may well put these 'warning signs' into context. OP has either done that because he/she doesn't have the info (a lot of this seems to be what others have told him and they could well have been selective in what they told him), or he's purposely left it out to try and make her look worse than she is.

The whole will note thing, for example. That could've come about at Gramps request. He may have said he wants to change the will and asked her to draw up a list to clearly identify which parts need to be changed. Now, it's true that she could've unduly influenced him, but it's also true that she may not have. There could've been a feud between Gramps and the other siblings, for all we know. Or they could've done something that he strongly disagrees with and has decided to cut them out as a result.

We just don't know. There isn't anywhere near enough info to go on here.

gingin_2

euronorris wrote: »

Wow! There are a lot of assumptions being made by some people here.

We have so, so little to go on.

I agree.

Heather, yes, you didn't say everyone in the family but I would assume after the family ensuring contact was stopped between the Aunt and Grandfather, other relationships would be irreparable. That wasn't my main point really. What I was trying to say was that giving such strong advice as yours, as in cutting a grandfather off from contact with his granddaughter, based on a couple of posts from only one person involved, on an internet forum, is pretty extreme.

Edwardia

It's really obvious what is going on here. The siblings didn't get any money from their own father and they are worrying that they won't get much/anything from their grandfather despite not being the ones spending the time with him.

All this stuff would be avoided if people made wills earlier and lodged them with bank, solicitor etc and told relies it's my money, my house and I'll do what the Hell I like with it.

mrcow

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Please read my posts instead of making erroneous inferences. I said "... care that much about the unfairness of the financial distribution of money they didn't actually earn ..."

Most people don't have valuable items that have been in the family for generations anyway and how do you know auntie wouldn't keep them in the family when she passes? In my family there are few valuable possessions: I'd want photos, a few low value ornaments, the pearl ring my student father gave my mother for her 21st. My sibling could have my grandmother's gold charm bracelet (even tho it is technically mine) and the sapphire/ diamond ring since it was worn at my sibling's wedding. I'd want my parents back far more than a few £K of gold.

As per my post, I am not talking about valuable possessions or money.

Possessions d not have be valuable to be important. Your original post implied that all that was at risk here was money, when in many caes, that is very far from the case.

Will people really care that much about the 'unfairness' of the financial
distribution of money they didn't actually earn when they have lost their
father/ grandfather/ other relative? If so what a sad indictment of your family.
Nobody is stopping all the other relatives buttering up gramps are they?

There is so much more to this than money. Most treasures are hardly valuable at all at face value.

HeatherintheHills

There are a few things in the OP that seem to have been overlooked, especially these

philipswoox wrote: »

She's increasingly made him dependent upon her for groceries/cards/general running around, where other close family (namely her 3siblings) were previously helping instead.

One of the family recently finds a piece of paper (in complete innocence, when searching for a shoppinglist) in Grandfather's kitchen, written in Auntie's handwriting with 'before 'and 'after' columns with edited versions of will and monies distribution. 'After' column favours Auntie massively (suggesting she will gain the house in its entirety).

Grandfather now 'jumpy' about people going out of his sitting room into the hallway to hang up coats (well known fact that his will is stored in cupboard in hallway). He's never been like this before and always been relaxed about family visiting and strolling around.

Auntie is now snubbing close family. One close family member wishes to have a frank discussion with Grandfather about what is clearly unfolding and how he is being brainwashed,but decides not to, as the concensus is it is potentially going to upset an unwell elderly man, and provide Auntie with fuel to raise her own profile as a 'good guy', which she's clearly trying to achieve.

As offspring of one of the close family, I'm increasingly concerned that the Auntie involved clearly has intentions of influencing the Grandfather's decisions and continuing to do so until she has the lot signed over to her. I'm also concerned that her direct family are aware it's happening but are too afraid to broach the subject with either her or said Grandfather for fear of upsetting the Grandfather and giving the Auntie fuel to turn the Grandfather against said family (which she already seems to have started).

So: -
1. Grandfather had already made a will.
2. Close family were ALREADY looking after Grandfather but Auntie arrived on the scene and has pushed them out.
3. Aunty has redrafted his will in her favour, possibly there is a new will already.
4. Family are worried, realise something is amiss but don't want to upset Grandfather.
5. Auntie has already begun to turn Grandfather against her own siblings.
6. Given that Aunty was the only one of 4 siblings to benefit from her Father's estate, she may have done this sort of thing before. Most people will give the benefit of the doubt to the Aunty the first time. But should she be allowed to manipulate an elderly relative for her own benefit a second time?

In all honesty, until I'd seen a situation like this with my own eyes I'd never have believed that someone could be so greedy that they would sour a dying relative's relationship with their family.

There is real cause for concern here.