''One sister had the capacity to raid our mothers accumulated bank savings from over 50 years, and even succeeded in getting our mother to pay for the cost of building a separate residence on that sisters land so she could 'look after mum...'. Naturally soon after mum was shuffled to 'her' new residence, her pets were no longer wanted, her capacity for her own TV was taken away, and she was quite quickly driven into what was billed as an aged care facility, where the same sister succeeded in depriving out mother any access to her own money, and, with the aged pension and some other funds that came to our mother, did not even bother to pay the aged care facility where she had installed mum their fees, but had converted them to her own use. When the estate came to be distributed no trace could be found of any of the 15 years of bank documents that the sister had retained, and no records could be recovered by the lawyers acting for the estate. To make a bad situation even worse, a few of the siblings had borrowed money from a woman who lacked any legal capacity to lend (she had either Dementia or Alzheimer's disease) and refused to admit how much had been borrowed of what had been paid back, leaving the executors with the usual dilemma: did they use their own funds to try and recover the money misappropriated from the estate (and if, they failed, they would be liable for adverse costs orders since the majority of the siblings were against any attempt to recover the money, or obtain a declaration that the misappropriating sibling held the land, or part of it, in trust for the family, probably worth around $250,000). So the greedy sister succeeded in keeping her hands on probably 70% of the estate when she had an entitlement to one 7th only. Very sad, and it destroyed any kind of relationship between the majority of the remaining siblings.''
I did not understand the relation between the incident that ''made the situation even worse'' ( a few of the siblings had borrowed money from a woman who lacked any legal capacity to lend ............. probably worth around $250,000 ) and the greedy sister's succeeding ''in keeping her hands on probably 70% of the estate''.
Could anybody help me understand the case please?
What is this case about? watch
- Thread Starter
- 29-03-2013 13:01