Anyone Else Have a Controlling Sibling? - Resolved Post 216

[Imzadi]

He must have called my sister, who immediately called/texted repeatedly, saying this all had to be resolved right away, and instead of answering I texted that I didn't want to talk after my conversation with my brother. Then she immediately got my mother to call & text to really apply the thumbscrews. I ignored those messages, because I am so done with this.

My suggestion is that you should have texted, "This is resolved. I am staying at a B&B and have my own car and driving myself."

By texting, "I didn't want to talk after my conversation with my brother," it may have seemed open ended, that you didn't want to talk NOW. You have a family with enmeshed boundries. Instead of having conversations that begin and end with one family member, talking back & forth directly, and the conversation staying between the two individuals, family members talk to each other and get into each other's business when they shouldn't. Try to end conversations in a way in which firmly ends them. No further discussion about it now or later.

Security expert, Gavin de Becker said, "When a man says 'No' it is the end of a conversation. When a woman says 'No' it is the beginning of a negotiation."

Yet when families have enmeshed boundaries, you may have ended the conversation with one person, but they tell another family member, and that person then thinks they can continue the conversation & negotiation.

 

[barkley]

i apologize if this has already been posted, but it seems pretty clear cut that not all 3 sibs need to go and unless/untill the state of california issues the older sister the appropriate paperwork nothing is leaving that safety deposit box.


California Code, Probate Code - PROB § 331

(a) This section applies only to a safe deposit box in a financial institution held by the decedent in the decedent's sole name, or held by the decedent and others where all are deceased.  Nothing in this section affects the rights of a surviving coholder.

(b) A person who has a key to the safe deposit box may, before letters have been issued, obtain access to the safe deposit box only for the purposes specified in this section by providing the financial institution with both of the following:

(1) Proof of the decedent's death.  Proof shall be provided by a certified copy of the decedent's death certificate or by a written statement of death from the coroner, treating physician, or hospital or institution where the decedent died.

(2) Reasonable proof of the identity of the person seeking access.  Reasonable proof of identity is provided for the purpose of this paragraph if the requirements of Section 13104 are satisfied.

(c) The financial institution has no duty to inquire into the truth of any statement, declaration, certificate, affidavit, or document offered as proof of the decedent's death or proof of identity of the person seeking access.

(d) When the person seeking access has satisfied the requirements of subdivision (b), the financial institution shall do all of the following:

(1) Keep a record of the identity of the person.

(2) Permit the person to open the safe deposit box under the supervision of an officer or employee of the financial institution, and to make an inventory of its contents.

(3) Make a photocopy of all wills and trust instruments removed from the safe deposit box, and keep the photocopy in the safe deposit box until the contents of the box are removed by the personal representative of the estate or other legally authorized person.  The financial institution may charge the person given access a reasonable fee for photocopying.

(4) Permit the person given access to remove instructions for the disposition of the decedent's remains, and, after a photocopy is made, to remove the wills and trust instruments.

(e) The person given access shall deliver all wills found in the safe deposit box to the clerk of the superior court and mail or deliver a copy to the person named in the will as executor or beneficiary as provided in Section 8200 .

(f) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the person given access shall not remove any of the contents of the decedent's safe deposit box.




If the person seeking access does not have a key to the safe deposit box and is not the public administrator, the person must obtain letters testamentary from the court to gain access to the box.

 

[FayeW]

Have you suggested that your sister cancel her hotel reservation, and that she and your brother stay at the B & B you booked (assuming there are available rooms)? Honestly, just respond to your sister's text saying:

"There is nothing to resolve. You and Brother will stay at XXX hotel, and I will stay at B&B. We will each have our own rental car. I will pay for my lodgings and car; your hotel and car will come out of joint inheritance, as previously agreed. I told you before you booked that I wanted input on the accommodations. You chose to book with out discussing it with me. I find the accommodations unsuitable for my needs, so I made other arrangements at my own expense. My car and lodging has absolutely no impact on previously agreed financial arrangements. My accommodations are paid for and non refundable. There will be no further discussion about me cancelling my B & B or otherwise altering my plans " Add your brother and mother to the text so that all will know once and for all that this is not open to any further discussion.

 

[Shanti]

Best of luck OP. It’s going to be a long trip.

At least I'll have my own space...

 

[Shanti]

Security expert, Gavin de Becker said, "When a man says 'No' it is the end of a conversation. When a woman says 'No' it is the beginning of a negotiation."

I was just talking to my significant other about this phenomenon the other day. I said that if I were a man, I doubt this would be happening. He agreed.

 

[quandrea]

My suggestion is that you should have texted, "This is resolved. I am staying at a B&B and have my own car and driving myself."

By texting, "I didn't want to talk after my conversation with my brother," it may have seemed open ended, that you didn't want to talk NOW. You have a family with enmeshed boundries. Instead of having conversations that begin and end with one family member, talking back & forth directly, and the conversation staying between the two individuals, family members talk to each other and get into each other's business when they shouldn't. Try to end conversations in a way in which firmly ends them. No further discussion about it now or later.

Security expert, Gavin de Becker said, "When a man says 'No' it is the end of a conversation. When a woman says 'No' it is the beginning of a negotiation."

Yet when families have enmeshed boundaries, you may have ended the conversation with one person, but they tell another family member, and that person then thinks they can continue the conversation & negotiation.

This is my family dynamic. Defining boundaries usually ends quite badly as the enmeshed family members don’t take well to boundaries being set.

Wanting your own room and your own transportation are entirely reasonable desires for a grown woman. Reasonable people would not question those two desires in the least, regardless of what the original assumption regarding arrangements was.

 

[okeydokey]

If there has not been an actual licensed lawyer involved. That is just incredible.
Any bank should ONLY accept true legal documents.
Something that somebody just typed up??? Really??? Are you kidding????
Is she actually trying to pass off / forge legal documents?

Again, have all of your signatures been notarized?

Shanti...
PLEASE, before the sun even gets high in the sky Monday morning... Seek some reputable legal counsel.

My heart goes out to you as you go thru all of this!

My Mom passed six month ago and there were three retirement or investment accounts that had to be dealt with. My two brothers amd I were beneficiaries. We provided the death certificate to each and then we each filled out paperwork to get our third, one needed to be notarized, one needed a medallion stamp, and one needed nothing besides the form. Believe me, the banks and institutions know what they are doing, and we provided what they required.

I don’t think you need a lawyer to get your share of a death benefit.

 

[jerseygal]

I am just taking a moment to thank the powers that be for my wonderful sister, and the fact that we are very close and respect each other’s space and opinions. We had to go through losing both parents in the space of five months, which was hard enough without any negativity between us. I can’t imagine going through life without her support, and vice versa.

OP, I am sorry you are going through this. I hope things get a lot less stressful for all of you very soon.

FLA4FUN, YOU ARE SO BLESSED, But you obviously know that. My sister and I lost both of our parents within 3 and 1/2 years, Dad very sadly passed away with a brain hematoma after falling down the stairs within 15 hours and Mom passed away in her sleep, never awoken from her afternoon nap. SO BLESSED to have such wonderful, loving parents. My parents would be heartbroken to see what developed after their death. The issue began immediately upon my Dad's 15 hour hospitalization and lasted through beyond my Mom's very sudden and unexpected death and then through the estate process. My sister, older by 2 years, was always controlling growing up, but she became my Mom's POA, medical proxy after Dad passed. My sister "resented" her living 1 hour from Mom versus me living 5 hours from Mom and felt "put upon". I spoke to my parents every day while Dad was alive, twice usually after Dad died, saw her as much as I could, took on the responsibility of phone calls with plumbers, phone companies, etc from our home geographically 5 hours away, obviously was "never enough" in my sisters eyes. My sister was the executrix. The situation between us was so bad that it took a huge emotional toll on me after Moms death. The only "silver lining" is that our sons, 31 and 22, are extremely close, saw the family destruction and will never in a million years treat each other so poorly. Treasure your relationship, as I am certain that you do.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Thank you Barkley!!!!!

To others... The OP has stated that there was no will. And I would very highly doubt that the deceased had listed the sister as sole beneficiary on each and every one of these assets and these accounts. The OP has not stated as such. And, it seems that this is being portrayed that each sibling would get some share. The sister would not have the need to involve either of her siblings if she was listed as sole beneficiary, with no doubts out there.

That would be the case only if the sister were established as the only living heir to the deceased.
There are joint survivors here. And, without and iron clad will and beneficiary designation.... (which seems to be the case)
This WILL require legal assistance.

The OP had stated that some half baked self-drawn-up affidavits were enough to access some of these accounts already.
THAT is what I am basing my advice on.

My advice continues to be the same.
OP, for your own knowledge, closure, and sanity... I would be seeking some legal information about these kinds of matters, first thing Monday morning.

 

[barkley]

My Mom passed six month ago and there were three retirement or investment accounts that had to be dealt with. My two brothers amd I were beneficiaries. We provided the death certificate to each and then we each filled out paperwork to get our third, one needed to be notarized, one needed a medallion stamp, and one needed nothing besides the form. Believe me, the banks and institutions know what they are doing, and we provided what they required.

I don’t think you need a lawyer to get your share of a death benefit.

a death benefit wherein someone has pre identified beneficiaries to a financial institution is entirely different than a safety deposit box w/no co owner. a couple of states allow the owner to predesignate someone who can 'access' after death (to only get a will/funeral arrangement paperwork) but so far as i'm aware none-and in particular california permit a p.o.d. or 'beneficiary' to be named on a safety deposit box to just get the contents.

california wants to make sure that all potential creditors get their legal opportunity to pursue what is due them-including and especially the state of california. if the op's dad had a safety deposit box that was still active and being paid for in california then he had some kind of ties to that state-ties that may entail potential debt, liens or state taxes. the reason people who live in/do business in california strive to avoid the probate system is because it's time consuming-and no one goes to the front of the line or avoids going through all the hoops just because they live in another state or (as it seems w/the op's sister) is 'controlling' and accustomed to people just rolling over and getting her way.

 

[DVC-Don]

Just because others are family, does not mean they are nice people. I have nothing to do with family members that are just plain not nice people.

 

[ronandannette]

Nothing has been forged, and yes, our affadavits and other documentation were notarized.

This made me laugh! You're on the DIS here Shanti, where wild imaginations often devolve a situation to it's most sinister possible point and then work backwards towards reality again. One interesting thought that was brought up in a post is the idea of the safety deposit box perhaps containing a valid will. It's possible the three of you could be in for a surprise.

I was just talking to my significant other about this phenomenon the other day. I said that if I were a man, I doubt this would be happening. He agreed.

I'm not so sure about that. If you were being compliant (like you were when your brother was being shunned) and your brother was the one digging in his heels, I doubt he'd be escaping some similar kind of manipulation. Of everything you've told us, the most disturbing thing to me is how you all (including your mother ) gang up on the "other" instead of standing together as the voice of reason against your sister. It seems her antics are tolerated and even aided along, except by the one they directly hurt.

 

[barkley]

Just because others are family, does not mean they are nice people. I have nothing to do with family members that are just plain not nice people.

i feel/operate the same way. i've seen generational bullying/wholly inappropriate/mean/nasty behaviors ignored and excused just by virtue of the person being a family member-it wasn't going to continue w/my kids. i've raised them to focus on the behavior not the individual-if they wouldn't tolerate a negative behavior in a friend then apply the same principle to family.

 

[robinb]

I'm sorry but I see as much controlling on your side of this trip as I do on your sister's side. The hotel isn't nice or "homey" enough for you. The car isn't big enough for you. Your brother isn't a good enough driver for you. And so on and so on. Nothing your sister and brother do is good enough for you. Instead of approaching this is a team, you have made yourself the odd woman out. Instead of harmony, YOU have turned this into a big "urinating" contest. And for what? To prove that you can't be pushed around?

Sometimes we, as adults, have to go along to get along. Or at least compromise to keep the peace. This particular trip drama is not the fault of your sister. she was doing her best to not spend down the inheritance and she's doing her best to get things done efficiently. You are bucking both of those attempts by insisting that you do things your way and by doing so you are the conductor of this particular train.

 

[Cubbiecakes]

a death benefit wherein someone has pre identified beneficiaries to a financial institution is entirely different than a safety deposit box w/no co owner. a couple of states allow the owner to predesignate someone who can 'access' after death (to only get a will/funeral arrangement paperwork) but so far as i'm aware none-and in particular california permit a p.o.d. or 'beneficiary' to be named on a safety deposit box to just get the contents.

california wants to make sure that all potential creditors get their legal opportunity to pursue what is due them-including and especially the state of california. if the op's dad had a safety deposit box that was still active and being paid for in california then he had some kind of ties to that state-ties that may entail potential debt, liens or state taxes. the reason people who live in/do business in california strive to avoid the probate system is because it's time consuming-and no one goes to the front of the line or avoids going through all the hoops just because they live in another state or (as it seems w/the op's sister) is 'controlling' and accustomed to people just rolling over and getting her way.

I truly wish no ill on Shanti, as this has obviously been a complete PITA for a year+, and dealing with a parent's death and difficult family is gut-wrenching...

But part of me would love for the controlling sister to meet a brick wall of "NO" at the bank/institution, have a meltdown, and get escorted out and told not to return.

 

[quandrea]

I'm sorry but I see as much controlling on your side of this trip as I do on your sister's side. The hotel isn't nice or "homey" enough for you. The car isn't big enough for you. Your brother isn't a good enough driver for you. And so on and so on. Nothing your sister and brother do is good enough for you. Instead of approaching this is a team, you have made yourself the odd woman out. Instead of harmony, YOU have turned this into a big "urinating" contest. And for what? To prove that you can't be pushed around?

Sometimes we, as adults, have to go along to get along. Or at least compromise to keep the peace. This particular trip drama is not the fault of your sister. she was doing her best to not spend down the inheritance and she's doing her best to get things done efficiently. You are bucking both of those attempts by insisting that you do things your way and by doing so you are the conductor of this particular train.

Completely disagree. @Shanti isn’t dictating where others stay. She is merely suiting herself, which she has every right to do. Controlling would be insisting everyone stay where she wants them to. She doesn’t care for their arrangement, like an adult she sought out something more suitable for her.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I totally agree, Barkley.
And, this is why I continue to question the sisters actions, and ability to access anything.
If she is trying to pass off self-written affidavits that have not been drafted and certified by a true practicing legal professional, that, to me, yes, IS fraud.

And, this is NOT just about wanting one's own hotel room. (which is totally understandable and reasonable)
There is a lot going on here....
A lot.

IMHO, any, ANY, suggestion that the OP is doing anything wrong (by wanting her own accommodations) is totally unfounded and yes, coming pretty darn close to a personal attack.

 

[robinb]

IMHO, any, ANY, suggestion that the OP is doing anything wrong (by wanting her own accommodations) is totally unfounded and yes, coming pretty darn close to a personal attack.

OP, again, as I had already posted... I might compromise on the hotel, but would simply not share a room, or not have my own transportation, if I thought I might need or want it.

I never said that she shouldn't want her own accommodations. I said that she should compromise which is exactly what you said she should do .

 

[luvsJack]

I'm sorry but I see as much controlling on your side of this trip as I do on your sister's side. The hotel isn't nice or "homey" enough for you. The car isn't big enough for you. Your brother isn't a good enough driver for you. And so on and so on. Nothing your sister and brother do is good enough for you. Instead of approaching this is a team, you have made yourself the odd woman out. Instead of harmony, YOU have turned this into a big "urinating" contest. And for what? To prove that you can't be pushed around?

Sometimes we, as adults, have to go along to get along. Or at least compromise to keep the peace. This particular trip drama is not the fault of your sister. she was doing her best to not spend down the inheritance and she's doing her best to get things done efficiently. You are bucking both of those attempts by insisting that you do things your way and by doing so you are the conductor of this particular train.

This is exactly what I see here! Very much agree.

On one hand we have a sister that wants to decide where they all stay together, what they ride in and probably how they get there. On the other side we have a sister digging in her heels because none of it is good enough for her. So she is making mountains out of mole hills over a hotel room for one night.

I would just about bet that somewhere there is a sister giving her side of the story and saying “I tried doing it this way so there would be no confusion on what is paid out of the inheritance and I just know she is going to come back later and say that she HAD to pay her own way when we went with inheritance money”.

And then you have the brother who is a bit controlling by demanding that the op do certain things. Even the whole posting the pictures of the baby was maybe not controlling but a little selfish.

There is definitely more than one villain here.

 

[Shanti]

I am permanently exiting this thread as it is becoming hostile towards me. Thanks those of you who offered support and advice. Goodbye.