3 ms·

If I was on the receiving end of something like this I’d just give the money back.

by andrewstuart 2y ago

playingalong 2y ago
> back To whom? The deceased person?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- toast0 2y ago
  The deceased person's estate, yeah. Often it's possible to simply disclaim an inheritance and you would therefore never receive the money; but sometimes that means it would go to your heirs. With a $1M account, it's a lot easier to say you would return it than to actually do it though. That's life changing money and it's hard to say no to life changing money.
- scotty79 2y ago
  Yeah. To their "estate". It's mentioned that some of his assets that didn't have a beneficiary named landed there and I think they were to be split according to the will of the deceased.
  - Vvector 2y ago
    There was no will, no spouse, no children. "He died at 59, single and childless, with no will and no guidance on who should inherit his assets."
    - scotty79 2y ago
      Ok, in case when there's no will there's path of inheritance defined by law. It's still the best way to go forward. Parents, siblings, siblings children.
      - Vvector 2y ago
        My understanding is that beneficiary trumps a will, and definitely trumps the default when there is no will. What would be the point of a beneficiary if it gets ignored even without a will?
        scotty79 2y ago
        I think beneficiary trumps everything. But we are talking about what you could do with the money if you were (undeserving) beneficiary. Giving it back to the dead person (precisely donating it to their estate) is the right thing to do although probably imperfect because donations are often taxed.
- Arnt 2y ago
  To the estate, in which case the next beneficiary gets the ducats. After the ones that are named in the testament, the law specifies beneficiaries.
- Joeboy 2y ago
  To whoever legitimately won the inheritance lottery, I guess.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    Well, then ex girlfriend would be the one who legitimately won the lottery.
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      That is literally debatable. The definition of legitimately in this case is literally not clear and quite arguable. You have merely picked a side, not pointed out some obvious definitive truth. The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
      - tossandthrow 2y ago
        Some one challenged the ex getting the money. Until there is a decision, she is the legitimate beneficiary. I can not just challenge something with you to make it not legitimate. This is like not guilty until proven different.
        Brian_K_White 2y ago
        If the process by which one becomes a beneficiary is swiss cheese, that does matter. That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise." In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined. You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
        tossandthrow 2y ago
        Beneficiary until proven otherwise. That sounds precise. If you are in poor belief that you really are not the beneficiary, I would take care spending the money! That is how it always has been. The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling. The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decision has been made. I don't really see other ways it could work? > You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now. You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise.
MissTake 2y ago
May not be that easy. Sounds like “disclaiming” must take place within 9 months of death. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/refuseinheritance.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/refuseinheritance.a...
rvba 2y ago
Many wouldnt though. An statement by rich software developer does not extend to a significant part of a population.
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  Wealth doesn't breed morality. Morality is something that cuts across all wealth lines. Poor people aren't all criminals and rich people aren't all saints.
  - navane 2y ago
    "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral." -Brecht (First food, then moral)
- andrewstuart 2y ago
  If only I was rich. I'm not. As the other commenter says, doing the right thing isn't about money. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no-one is looking.
  - pjerem 2y ago
    It also depends on your political beliefs about inheritance and merit. I don’t think anyone "deserve" to inherit. It’s just money you never worked to get and that you get because your parents had extra money. So, morally, why would the brothers deserve more the money than the ex girlfriend ? Maybe they were still in good terms. Maybe she brought more joy in his life than his brothers. Maybe not but enough for her to get her share. Or just maybe he didn’t care enough about this and should be considered ok with the outcome. You don’t deserve 1 more million on your bank account because you happened the brother of someone. Yes it may happen eventually but that’s just luck. And I’m not taking side for anyone here. I can totally understand why the brothers would be upset and I would probably be if I were in their shoes. But at the same time, as someone who doesn’t count on his brother’s death to become rich, I’ll have a hard time being empathetic. They should at least be upset about the carelessness of your brother rather than the ex girlfriend. tl:dr; You are allowed to think that doing the right thing is not to give the money back because it was never meant to be theirs.
k__ 2y ago
Don't know if I'd give away 1 million.
EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Easy to say when not only is it not happening to you but you haven't spent years engaging with the legal process and waiting for the estate to try and make sure you can't have it. The possibility of winning a jackpot would grow on you, you'd start to imagine what it would be like to keep it and the brothers, being your adversaries, would look less deserving than they do to an outsider.
- andrewstuart 2y ago
  I suppose it depends. If this person had intentionally done this to my benefit over their children and it was current then sure I'd take the money. But if it's a 50 years old out of date commitment to a life long gone and there are other genuinely more deserving in terms of being actually children then yeah I'd give it to them. I'd just see it as a kind of a bank error. If the bank drops 1 million bucks into your account what would you do? I'd give it back. There have been cases reported of this in Australia where people do spend the money that the bank inadvertently puts in their account - I find that hard to understand. Actually I find it easy to understand but disappointing that people are so willing to do the crime just because its offered to them easy. Not suggested that in the case of this will it would be a crime, just suggesting that there's a right thing to do. And I have done stuff like that. About 30 years ago I got paid about $7,000 for a software job by a client then got paid a second time. I just called em up and gave it back.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
    > There have been cases reported of this in Australia where people do spend the money that the bank inadvertently puts in their account - I find that hard to understand. It happened to me once and it never occurred to me I could spend the money just because someone made a mistake. If I was stupid enough to spend it, I would have to give it back anyway, so what's the point?
- krisoft 2y ago
  > but you haven't spent years engaging with the legal process and waiting for the estate to try and make sure you can't have it I mean in the proposed alternative that wouldn't happen because you would tell them "hey I think this is a mistake, i think he just forgot to update the beneficiary". You only have the years of legal process where you decide that you should keep the money.
IshKebab 2y ago
I think I'd give some back. No way you'd really give $1m back though unless you really didn't need it (possible here). I would say morally nobody is really entitled to inheritance and they clearly don't need the money, so you're doing them a favour by giving it back.
aoila 2y ago
Really? I wouldn't. I'd consider it a generous gift from beyond the grave, and use it to help my own family.

If I was on the receiving end of something like this I’d just give the money back.

playingalong 2y ago

> back To whom? The deceased person?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
toast0 2y ago
The deceased person's estate, yeah. Often it's possible to simply disclaim an inheritance and you would therefore never receive the money; but sometimes that means it would go to your heirs. With a $1M account, it's a lot easier to say you would return it than to actually do it though. That's life changing money and it's hard to say no to life changing money.
scotty79 2y ago
Yeah. To their "estate". It's mentioned that some of his assets that didn't have a beneficiary named landed there and I think they were to be split according to the will of the deceased.
- Vvector 2y ago
  There was no will, no spouse, no children. "He died at 59, single and childless, with no will and no guidance on who should inherit his assets."
  - scotty79 2y ago
    Ok, in case when there's no will there's path of inheritance defined by law. It's still the best way to go forward. Parents, siblings, siblings children.
    - Vvector 2y ago
      My understanding is that beneficiary trumps a will, and definitely trumps the default when there is no will. What would be the point of a beneficiary if it gets ignored even without a will?
      - scotty79 2y ago
        I think beneficiary trumps everything. But we are talking about what you could do with the money if you were (undeserving) beneficiary. Giving it back to the dead person (precisely donating it to their estate) is the right thing to do although probably imperfect because donations are often taxed.
Arnt 2y ago
To the estate, in which case the next beneficiary gets the ducats. After the ones that are named in the testament, the law specifies beneficiaries.
Joeboy 2y ago
To whoever legitimately won the inheritance lottery, I guess.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  Well, then ex girlfriend would be the one who legitimately won the lottery.
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    That is literally debatable. The definition of legitimately in this case is literally not clear and quite arguable. You have merely picked a side, not pointed out some obvious definitive truth. The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
    - tossandthrow 2y ago
      Some one challenged the ex getting the money. Until there is a decision, she is the legitimate beneficiary. I can not just challenge something with you to make it not legitimate. This is like not guilty until proven different.
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        If the process by which one becomes a beneficiary is swiss cheese, that does matter. That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise." In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined. You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
        tossandthrow 2y ago
        Beneficiary until proven otherwise. That sounds precise. If you are in poor belief that you really are not the beneficiary, I would take care spending the money! That is how it always has been. The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling. The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decision has been made. I don't really see other ways it could work? > You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now. You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise.

MissTake 2y ago

May not be that easy. Sounds like “disclaiming” must take place within 9 months of death. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/refuseinheritance.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/refuseinheritance.a...

rvba 2y ago

Many wouldnt though. An statement by rich software developer does not extend to a significant part of a population.

ThunderSizzle 2y ago
Wealth doesn't breed morality. Morality is something that cuts across all wealth lines. Poor people aren't all criminals and rich people aren't all saints.
- navane 2y ago
  "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral." -Brecht (First food, then moral)
andrewstuart 2y ago
If only I was rich. I'm not. As the other commenter says, doing the right thing isn't about money. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no-one is looking.
- pjerem 2y ago
  It also depends on your political beliefs about inheritance and merit. I don’t think anyone "deserve" to inherit. It’s just money you never worked to get and that you get because your parents had extra money. So, morally, why would the brothers deserve more the money than the ex girlfriend ? Maybe they were still in good terms. Maybe she brought more joy in his life than his brothers. Maybe not but enough for her to get her share. Or just maybe he didn’t care enough about this and should be considered ok with the outcome. You don’t deserve 1 more million on your bank account because you happened the brother of someone. Yes it may happen eventually but that’s just luck. And I’m not taking side for anyone here. I can totally understand why the brothers would be upset and I would probably be if I were in their shoes. But at the same time, as someone who doesn’t count on his brother’s death to become rich, I’ll have a hard time being empathetic. They should at least be upset about the carelessness of your brother rather than the ex girlfriend. tl:dr; You are allowed to think that doing the right thing is not to give the money back because it was never meant to be theirs.

k__ 2y ago

Don't know if I'd give away 1 million.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago

Easy to say when not only is it not happening to you but you haven't spent years engaging with the legal process and waiting for the estate to try and make sure you can't have it. The possibility of winning a jackpot would grow on you, you'd start to imagine what it would be like to keep it and the brothers, being your adversaries, would look less deserving than they do to an outsider.

andrewstuart 2y ago
I suppose it depends. If this person had intentionally done this to my benefit over their children and it was current then sure I'd take the money. But if it's a 50 years old out of date commitment to a life long gone and there are other genuinely more deserving in terms of being actually children then yeah I'd give it to them. I'd just see it as a kind of a bank error. If the bank drops 1 million bucks into your account what would you do? I'd give it back. There have been cases reported of this in Australia where people do spend the money that the bank inadvertently puts in their account - I find that hard to understand. Actually I find it easy to understand but disappointing that people are so willing to do the crime just because its offered to them easy. Not suggested that in the case of this will it would be a crime, just suggesting that there's a right thing to do. And I have done stuff like that. About 30 years ago I got paid about $7,000 for a software job by a client then got paid a second time. I just called em up and gave it back.
- dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
  > There have been cases reported of this in Australia where people do spend the money that the bank inadvertently puts in their account - I find that hard to understand. It happened to me once and it never occurred to me I could spend the money just because someone made a mistake. If I was stupid enough to spend it, I would have to give it back anyway, so what's the point?
krisoft 2y ago
> but you haven't spent years engaging with the legal process and waiting for the estate to try and make sure you can't have it I mean in the proposed alternative that wouldn't happen because you would tell them "hey I think this is a mistake, i think he just forgot to update the beneficiary". You only have the years of legal process where you decide that you should keep the money.

IshKebab 2y ago

I think I'd give some back. No way you'd really give $1m back though unless you really didn't need it (possible here). I would say morally nobody is really entitled to inheritance and they clearly don't need the money, so you're doing them a favour by giving it back.

aoila 2y ago

Really? I wouldn't. I'd consider it a generous gift from beyond the grave, and use it to help my own family.