Heirs blocked from receiving bequests: items stolen or destroyed.

[Settling]

Jurisdiction

Georgia

Is it a crime to refuse heirs access to their bequest? Is it a crime to keep or destroy items, rather than give them to the heirs? Is it a crime to kill pets rather than offer them to the owner's family? I am back again to ask advice for a new but related situation to my post from 12/2019, "Widow disposing of heirs' bequests." Update: Despite her dementia, she kept everything — but it was all still in her house. Now the problem is her monstrous brother with POA. I will call him "John."

John prevented us from receiving a lot of Dad's personal effects. He had a copy of the will and knew what Dad had left to his widow and what was left to us (ALL personal effects).

Six months ago, without informing us, John moved his sister (I'll call her "Jane") into a memory care facility. Then he killed my father's dogs.

It took us a week to find Jane, whom we loved and had a close relationship with. We agree that she needed this service but objected to his attempt to cut contact between us. We confronted the John about this and the horror of the dogs. We demanded access to the house to get Dad's things. We suggested that this be done under the supervision of Jane's accountant (I will call him "Tom"), who is now employed as a local liaison for out-of-state John.

John agreed but didn't contact us for six months. Last week he emailed me that that he, his wife, and Tom had set aside Dad's belongings and that we should remove them ASAP. But when Tom opened the door for me, I became hysterical. Both Dad and Jane seemingly had been erased. The house was virtually empty.

In a corner of Dad and Jane's small office stood a pitiful pile comprised only of things that clearly were Dad's: photos, things with his name on them, the canvases he painted. They had not allowed us in to identify all the rest that was his: his jewelry box with the wedding ring my mother gave him (how was that not obvious?) and 20 years' worth of his purchases and gifts we gave him. Instead, John and Tom ordered a dumpster and threw in it almost everything that Dad and Jane owned. Tom said John allowed him to take whatever he wanted, and Tom invited friends into the house to do the same. All of this happened without our knowledge, before we were contacted or allowed in. Tom knew that we wanted Dad's clothes. I had begged Tom three years ago to please help persuade Jane not to donate Dad's clothes, as she had intended. Jane kept them. Tom threw them in the dumpster.

Tom has agreed to return some of the items he stole, and promised to try to get back things his friends took. That was before we had a heated argument, though, so I suppose that's not likely. John offered a less-than-earnest apology over the phone. That's all.

Surely there must be consequences for this. Theft. Destruction. The murder of pets. Do we have no recourse?

 

[adjusterjack]

Here is your thread from July 2019.

Widow disposing of heirs' bequests · TheLaw.com

And your thread from July 2022.

How to retrieve inherited items from the widow's vacated home? · TheLaw.com

Is it a crime to refuse heirs access to their bequest? Is it a crime to keep or destroy items, rather than give them to the heirs? Is it a crime to kill pets rather than offer them to the owner's family?

No, there's no crime there at all.

I explained in the July 2022 thread:

"Anything in the house is presumed to have been owned jointly with right of survivorship and became her property when your father died, unless you can prove, with documentation, that some items were his sole and separate property."

Including pets. It's no crime for somebody to destroy or dispose of one's own property, including the euthanization of pets, or for a POA to do it on behalf of the owner.

As reprehensibly as those people treated you, I do not believe that you have any legal remedy for what they have done.

 

[Settling]

Thank you. This is horrible news, but I thank you for informing me. I had completely forgotten about the other thread. I was surprised that I had already gone through the situation when we first learned about the nursing home and the dead dogs. This has been so traumatic to me that this new wrinkle makes it all new to me again.

When I said Dad's effects were only of sentimental value, I was forgetting about his wedding ring, and many gifts we had given him. We don't have receipts for the gifts anymore, unfortunately, so that's our tough luck, I guess. I would think the wedding ring should be obviously Dad's. I took a photo of it when he was living. It seems to me John should be liable for it, but I'm sure I am wrong about that, too.

I did call John to confront him. I taped the call. Both he and I are in one-party states so far as recordings go. He acknowledged Dad's ownership of some of the things he destroyed. Would that stand as proof? Would he have any liability? We can't prove what the items were worth, so I guess we can't ask for reimbursement. There's no consequence at all?

New question: If we can find photos or videos of Dad receiving gifts from us, would that stand up as proof of his ownership? I would think that would help if John were withholding those things, but he destroyed them. Would he have any liability?

 

[adjusterjack]

I was forgetting about his wedding ring, and many gifts we had given him. We don't have receipts for the gifts anymore, unfortunately, so that's our tough luck, I guess. I would think the wedding ring should be obviously Dad's. I took a photo of it when he was living. It seems to me John should be liable for it, but I'm sure I am wrong about that, too.

Unfortunately, you are wrong about that. It's a fine line but, without the receipts naming the owner, a ring is just a ring and jewelry is just jewelry.

He acknowledged Dad's ownership of some of the things he destroyed. Would that stand as proof? Would he have any liability? We can't prove what the items were worth, so I guess we can't ask for reimbursement. There's no consequence at all?

Probably not.

New question: If we can find photos or videos of Dad receiving gifts from us, would that stand up as proof of his ownership? I would think that would help if John were withholding those things, but he destroyed them. Would he have any liability?

Again, probably not.

This has been going on for at least 3 12 years. There may be a statute of limitation on any lawsuit you can bring against the spouse and her brother.

Even if there isn't, how much do you want to spend litigating? $5000? $10,000? $20,000? Litigation is expensive.

In the past you mentioned talking to lawyers on two occasions but there is no mention of you ever hiring one to file suit for what you wanted.

As the risk of being blunt, bad people do bad things to other people every day of the week and often get away with it because the victims just agonize over it without taking appropriate action through the courts.

Even if you sued these people now, and even if you were successful (doubtful), all of those things are gone and all you would likely get is enough money to cover your lawyer fees, if that much.

I suggest you find yourself an estate/probate attorney. Only, this time, write him a nice big check so he can do a thorough review of everything that's happened and advise you appropriately.

If he says give it up, then give it up and get on with your life.

 

[Settling]

With the items destroyed anyway, I guess the only possible path is to get on with my life.

I don't think it's reimbursement that I wanted. I think I wanted revenge in any possible manner. An arrest would have been ideal, even if charges didn't stick. I'm joking. Sort of.

Thank you for your advice. I think we better get what we can, while we can, and just be rid of him forever.

I am sad for us but sadder for his sister. On his orders, she had no family contact at Thanksgiving and won't at Christmas. I will say the bright side for us is that we never have to deal with him again, but she is completely dependent on him to manage her estate and pay the nursing home. He hates her, by the way, even more than he hates us. Poor woman.

 

[adjusterjack]

I think I wanted revenge in any possible manner.

Normal reaction. Same as I had after my two-year hostile and bitter divorce. I got over it. Now, if I have any consolation at all, I have outlived her by almost 5 years.

 

[army judge]

With the items destroyed anyway, I guess the only possible path is to get on with my life.

Bingo!!!!

Jackpot winner!!!

Life doesn't suck, unless you permit others to distress, trouble, harass, or harangue you.

Time to live your best life, mate, seeking and/or making your joy!!!

 

[Settling]

Ok, one more question before I go forth and live my life.

My sister is executor of my Dad's will. Because we could not access my father's personal effects from the widow's private property, an estate distribution could not be performed. The estate is still open.
When I stayed with Jane after my father died, I did not take his jewelry box because to do so before distribution would have been theft. Why would this not apply to the things Tom took and John destroyed? Theft is theft, is it not?

 

[Settling]

While we cannot establish ownership of all of his things, John and Tom admitted Dad's ownership of at least some of the things they took or destroyed. Maybe restitution is not possible, but isn't it at minimum petty theft?

 

[Settling]

Also, John took and disposed of the vehicle my father left Jane, without contacting the executor for permission. I don't think he could have sold it; he could not have gotten a bill of sale because Jane's name isn't on it. Just as my taking Dad's jewelry box before distribution would have been theft, would this not be as well? The vehicle was specifically named in the Will and was part of his estate.
This doesn't count?

 

[Zigner]

Also, John took and disposed of the vehicle my father left Jane, without contacting the executor for permission.

Depending on how the vehicle was titled, it's entirely possible that John was well within his rights to do so.

I don't think he could have sold it; he could not have gotten a bill of sale because Jane's name isn't on it.

How do you know how the vehicle was titled?

Just as my taking Dad's jewelry box before distribution would have been theft, would this not be as well? The vehicle was specifically named in the Will and was part of his estate.

Being named in the will doesn't automatically make it part of his estate.

This doesn't count?

Maybe...maybe not.

 

[Settling]

Dad and Jane kept their finances separate. His name is not on her vehicle, and her name is not on his. Yes, I have seen the title.

similarly, my name is not on my husbands car and his is not on mine. Once he asked me to go to the courthouse and renew his tag for him, they would not allow me to because my name is not on it. How could her brother have taken dad's vehicle without leave by the executor?

I do not understand how items owned by my father and named in his will, might not be part of his estate? I thought that was the definition of an estate.

This makes me wonder about the value of a will.

 

[Settling]

(I have no idea why my phone randomly stopped capitalizing things in the above post.)

 

[Zigner]

I do not understand how items owned by my father and named in his will, might not be part of his estate? I thought that was the definition of an estate.

Depending on how the vehicle was actually titled, it's possible that the vehicle, by function of law, ceased being "his" upon his death. You are convinced that the title was solely in his name, and if that is the case, then you are correct in your belief that it should be part of his estate. If you are not correct in your belief (which is possible), then it might not be a part of his estate once he passed.

This makes me wonder about the value of a will.

Speak to an estate attorney for further explanation.

 

[adjusterjack]

When I stayed with Jane after my father died, I did not take his jewelry box because to do so before distribution would have been theft.

I don't know where you got that idea. Estate items can be distributed prior to filing in court provided that records are kept and an accounting is made and the value of those items applied to debts. Not theft by any stretch of the imagination.

John and Tom admitted Dad's ownership of at least some of the things they took or destroyed. Maybe restitution is not possible, but isn't it at minimum petty theft?

Again, not theft. Period. You have to get off that kick. It's likely that everything in the house belonged to the spouse at the moment of your Dad's death in the absence of documentation to the contrary. That he admitted "Oh yeah, some of that stuff was your Dad's" did not change the legal status of the items.

Also, John took and disposed of the vehicle my father left Jane, without contacting the executor for permission. I don't think he could have sold it; he could not have gotten a bill of sale because Jane's name isn't on it. Just as my taking Dad's jewelry box before distribution would have been theft, would this not be as well? The vehicle was specifically named in the Will and was part of his estate.
This doesn't count?

Reality check. After 3 and 1/2 years, no, it doesn't count. There may (or may not) have been some irregularity in transferring the title, or there may have been a process at the DMV that allowed the transfer but the worst that could have happened would have been paying extra fees to recover the title had you properly addressed when it happened.

I do not understand how items owned by my father and named in his will, might not be part of his estate? I thought that was the definition of an estate.

This makes me wonder about the value of a will.

Right of survivorship between a husband and wife trumps the terms of a will unless property can be proved, with documentary evidence, to be the sole and separate property of the deceased.

I don't know how the transfer of the vehicle title was accomplished.

Nobody was going to jail for anything that happened at the time, and certainly not after 3 and 1/2 years.

One more time - I suggest you find yourself an estate/probate attorney. Only, this time, write him a nice big check so he can do a thorough review of everything that's happened and advise you appropriately.

If he says give it up, then give it up and get on with your life.

Now it's time to write -30- on this thread.

That means discussion over. No more posts.