I personally see nothing wrong them taking the money and not donating any of it to the organizations they find so objectionable.

This first, the dead person bequeathed these two people their estate. Ergo, the money is theirs. Period.

The donations to the disreputable organizations (apparently so disreputable that their dead benefactor simply couldn't leave these organizations his money himself), were a request.

Guess what? You get to say "no" to a request. And the fact that he's dead does not give his requests more force or create more obligation than they would if he were alive.

You do not get to give a gift and dictate how people use it.

Take the money and don't give it to organizations you don't agree with. If an organization exists that both the benefactor and the recipients would agree with, donate to that instead, if you want. But you are not under any obligation to take the money that was given to you, and spend it the way the giver wants you to.

The donations to the disreputable organizations (apparently so disreputable that their dead benefactor simply couldn't leave these organizations his money himself), were a request. -- Patrick at October 6, 2013 12:35 AM

Say I have Colin Powell's Beretta from Desert Storm. To me it is a sentimental item from when I was in service that I have hanging on the wall. It's worth about $20K. I know my family wouldn't want it after my death because they are anti-gunners. So I'm obligated to deprive myself and sell it to make a $1K donation to the NRA myself before I die?

This is pretty much what they are talking about.

And as the Ethicist noted in his column -- there is a difference between sending the money to the <organization> and joining them. So essentially you are saying your principles come above your family obligations.

I love your sense of justice.

Justice has nothing to do with it, Jim. And the fact that you feel the need to harrumph about yours makes me suspect that your sense of ethics just ain't up to par. The smug ones are generally the ones with biggest moral lapses. Look at any televangelist, for instance. Look at any "family values" advocate.

I am saying a gift is a gift. Once you give something, it no longer belongs to you. Period.

As for the Baretta, you could, if you wanted to, enter into a contractual agreement with the purchaser in which he agrees not to take the gift until you die.

Family obligations are your obligations to support and provide for your dependents. The dead person placed no "obligations" on anyone. A request is not an obligation.

If he was on his deathbed, and he asked them to promise that they would give x amount of dollars to x, y and organizations, and they agreed to this, I would absolutely tell them, "Yes, you do have an obligation to do as you promised."

But if I give you a million dollars and say, "By the way, could you give 100,000 to this organization? The million dollars is already yours. I gave it to you. But the fact that I gave it to you gives me no right to suddenly dictate how you spend it.

Under those circumstance, you have every right to say "no."

@Patrick - I agree that what you say is legally valid. But I think the people who received the money are not bothered about the legality of their point of view because they wrote a letter to an "ethicist" and not a "legalist".

What Amy is talking about is not what is legal, but what is ethical. And ethically, I don't think it is right to take someone elses money and then not do what they want with it when they have requested you to do something with it. If you are so bothered about the ethics of what the person wants you to do with it, you have all the freedom to not even take the money in the first place.

"In a letter accompanying the will (but not part of it), he asked us to donate several thousand dollars to certain organizations."

@Patrick - And even legally, probably in this case, probably the heirs do not have a case simply because the letter was accompanying the will. Any person has the right to modify his will as long as he is in sane condition at the time of the modification. So the letter accompanying the will is almost part of an addendum or modification to the will, so it is almost contractual. If the guy and his sister do not want to pay to the organizations, they should probably not even touch that money in the first place.

No it's not, Redrajesh, unless it's been witnessed by a lawyer. My mother left a handwritten letter detailing what she wanted done with her bank accounts. It was different from what was in the will. The letter was deemed not a legal addendum, as no one had witnessed it and her lawyer knew nothing of it.

Legal...ethical...

Look its a dead relative's last wish. It might be 'legal' to ignore it and take the money.

But anyone who says its not a dishonorable dick move is kind of a douchebag themselves.

Presumably he made the request expecting that it would be honored, that honor amongst family, respect amongst family, would trump some transitory political stance and he wouldn't need to make inheritance a condition.

If you can't honor your dead, you have no business accepting their gifts.

Its not a matter of 'legal' its a matter of honor, which is a fuckton more important than anything political.

If it is so goddamn bad that they just can't bring themselves to honor that request...either don't accept the estate at all and let the next in line accept it, or donate it to some neutral charity in his name and keep none of it for yourselves.

Quite frankly, I think the people who are torn about this are ridiculous.

The only "dishonorable dick move" done in the case was done by the deceased. If he wanted to make sure that his "charities" (which, I point out again, are so illicit, that he couldn't leave his money to them directly) got the money, he could have specified in terms of the will. For instance, he could have left x amount of dollars for a charity written as a cashier's check and left in in an envelope.

Then he could have told his heirs, "You will inherit 1 million dollars if you take this envelope to this person (who is the recipient of funds for this "charity").

But instead, what he's doing is nothing short of emotional blackmail from beyond the grave. "Oh, please take part of the money that I gave you and give it to this charity that I know you wouldn't agree with.

If I were on my deathbed, leaving behind a generous estate, my only choices are who gets what. I have no right, neither legally nor ethically, to dictate to someone how they spend it. "Oh, but I'm dead now! You must honor me!"

No, they don't.

We all know Patrick enjoys playing devils advocate here, no need to engage him.

Taking his money and not using some small part of it as he requested isn't just a dick move, it's a shitty greedy one. Their objections smack of northeastern uber-liberal anti-gun fanaticism. I doubt there is anything in the world objectionable or wrong with the groups other than they don't agree with the brother and sisters politics. But it's a great reminder to me to yearly make sure that my will says EXACTLY what I want done with every little thing.

I imagine the uncle thought adding a letter in was a much simple method of informing them of his wishes than paying a lawyer to change the will. he thought they would of course do as he wished. Too bad he didn't know they were assholes that required the force of law to do as their benefactor asked.

The Goddess writes:

I don't think a person worries that they are doing something "illicit" after their death, and I doubt the guy saw the charities that way.

Just because his death makes him immune to prosecution, doesn't mean that he doesn't want to protect these "charities" of his.

There's some reason that he doesn't want his lawyer to know about these charities. If they're so on the up and up, then why didn't he simply mail them a donation while he was alive? Why does this donation have to be handled by a live person, and this live person not be lawyer? Why does his lawyer not even know about the existence of this letter or it's contents, if it's, as you say, merely out of not wishing to spend the extra money to have his lawyer do it?

No it's not, Redrajesh, unless it's been witnessed by a lawyer. My mother left a handwritten letter detailing what she wanted done with her bank accounts. It was different from what was in the will. The letter was deemed not a legal addendum, as no one had witnessed it and her lawyer knew nothing of it.

Posted by: crella at October 6, 2013 3:18 AM

In your state that may be true. In others the letter may have the force of law. Wills and estates are governed by state law. There is no Federal statute governing this and you dont know that the letter from the deceased did not meet the legal requirements as a codicil to the will.

The Goddess writes: We can't know his reasoning. What we do know is that he left HIS money to relatives and asked them to take care of something for him with some of it. Trusted them to do it.

Yes, we can know his reasoning. We can know that for some reason, he can't write a letter with a check to these charities himself, or donate online. We know he's fully capable of writing letters, since he wrote one to his heirs Why does this donation have to be handled by a live person?

There is something seriously not right here. With these charities.

Moreover, I would not consider myself ethical, if I left someone money and then sent them a letter telling them how I want them to spend any portion.

When you give something away, it is no longer yours. That's what's unethical here. Giving someone something and then trying to dictate how they use it.

Once that money left his hands, it's no longer his. He has absolutely no say as to what happens to it. His wishes regarding something that he voluntarily gave away amount to ZIP! NADA! ZILCH! NICHTS!

@Crella - What you say is applicable provided someone challenges it and feels that the letter is not genuine or maybe written under duress or something like that. In this case, it does not even look like anyone is challenging the genuineness of the letter or the circumstances under which it was written. I mean, nobody is saying that we cannot go by the letter because we are not sure that the owner of the estate has written it or that he was forced to write it under some coercion.

Also, how did the heirs get the will and the letter together? Through a lawyer or someone else? If the lawyer did not know of the letter, then how could he send the will and the letter together?

Maybe the man was on his deathbed or in a frail state where he was not too inclined to follow through with a lawyer and maybe he did not want to spend more money on lawyers fees(which itself would have been a few thousands which is the amount he is pledging to the organizations). I mean, if a guy wants to modify the allocation of about $3000 or $5000 from his estate and to make that modification to the will, he has to spend $2000, it is a no-brainer that he would rather just write a note than go through with the process. There are many laws which allow even handwritten notes to be included as modifications to the will or to be considered as a will itself in many parts of the world. Even orally conveying ones will is considered valid in many places.

@Patrick - what you say about applicability of money given is true if the money is given first and the condition substantially later(ie) the will is given today and the letter is given after say 6 months. Both the will and the letter have been given together, so it is pretty much not blackmail from the grave, but probably a condition which the person has a legitimate right to enforce.

Someone has not bothered to note that a death can free up some assets of an estate, and/or trigger an insurance payment.

I have no trouble accepting that Patrick will do as he pleases, wishes of the deceased be damned. If cremation is cheaper, there we go, cash in the deed to the burial plot, ashes can go anywhere, screw that guy, he's dead.

Meanwhile, about the "other guys are biased idiots": I find it amazing how many today will NOT read anything about the Affordable Care Act, or compare what their favorite celebrity said about it. On Facebook - the new AOL - it's positively painful how many comment from ignorance demonstrable to any third party.

I am imagining how different some of the responses here might be if the requested donee organizations were left-leaning in nature. It is an amusing exercise to do so.

Amy:

"I think it's a shame that the hammer of the law must be required for people to follow through on a request by a relative of what to do with his money after his death"

Exactly, unless they are asking me to break a law or otherwise hurt someone; I, for one, would try to do whatever a loved one asked me to do with their estate; whether it was "legally" declared or not.

And if they weren't clear I would try to think of what they would have wanted; even if that means giving to a charity (or another family member) that I cannot stand. Afterall, it really isn't MY money.

P.S. Gotta love your title "Only the Other Guys Are Biased Idiots" as so many people do think exactly like this!

We can know that for some reason, he can't write a letter with a check to these charities himself, or donate online.

You keep saying this, Patrick, in spite of the complete lack of evidence that he failed to support these groups when he was alive. My MIL gives money to our alma mater and has also set up a bequest to them upon her death. This is common behavior. Sheesh.

Astra, with your infinite capacity to misunderstand...I'm talking about doing it when he knows he's dying.

We know he's capable of writing letters because he did write one to his heirs.

Instead of taking the time to write a letter to his heirs, asking them to donate for him, why doesn't he simply writes letters to his charities and enclose his own checks?

I have to agree with Patrick, why couldnt this guy leave them money directly?

Also how ethical is it to ask someone to give money to a group they find ethically dubious?

That sound like something I'd do to a family member I wanted to screw with.

Also, how do inheritance taxes work there? Will they pay on the lump sum before donation? After donation, or would the donation offset the tax burden?

I'm not an expert on tax law, but yes doing it this way could offset the tax burden.

...I'm talking about doing it when he knows he's dying.

You're just making stuff up now, Patrick. Nowhere in the column does it say he knows he's dying, only that he died. Unless you want to argue that he knew he was dying in the same sense that we all know we're dying, in which case you're really being nonsensical.

Instead of taking the time to write a letter to his heirs, asking them to donate for him, why doesn't he simply writes letters to his charities and enclose his own checks?

Unfortunately, you don't get to question his motives because he's not here to answer for them, and your assumption that he could've had only the worst possible motives for doing things as he did is doing, well, exactly what Chuck said. Impugning his motives while whitewashing your own.

Also how ethical is it to ask someone to give money to a group they find ethically dubious?

Who says he even knew they found them ethically dubious to begin with?

We've got more talking to the dead here than The Long Island Medium.

Joe J: I'm not an expert on tax law, but yes doing it this way could offset the tax burden.

Or increase it to his heirs. What if these donations are not tax deductible? Then his heirs are paying the full tax burden for something they didn't get in full.

So, I would have more questions. Are these donations tax-deductible? What percentage are these people being asked to donate? Is it possible that they'll be paying more in taxes than they're actually left with?

Moral of the story is, if you want something specific done with your cash, write it into your will. Not as a request, but as a "I'm leaving 10k to Stormfront" or "I'm leaving 40k to the Weathermen".

Then no one else needs to worry about it.

Much as Patrick's comments usually grate on me, I have to agree with him here. I just hope his view would be the same if the charities had been described as "extreme left."

Then no one else needs to worry about it.

But of course, why should anyone have to worry about honoring their family? Such outmoded nonsense.

FWIW it's nice to see that *somebody* at the NYT still has some common sense and decency. Kudos to Klosterman for his sensible response.

Ironically, I myself *would* give the heirs two outs. I'd draw a "bright line" at donating to groups that promote violence for any reason, whether they're right-wing, left-wing, anarchist, whatever. I'd also draw the line at leaving money to known cults, such as Scientology. Otherwise of course, as odious as the groups may be (John Birch Society, etc.), I'd say the right-- oops, make that correct thing, is to follow through.

Of course this will immediately lead to a looong drawn out discussion: "What do you mean by 'violence' qdpsteve?" "Who gets to decide what's a cult and what's not? My Catholic grandma thinks the Lutheran church is a cult."

Sigh.

I have a ridiculous amount of money that my sister will receive in term life insurance upon my death. She also gets my house, free and clear. But I don't have access to a dime of it now.

She and I have a different ideological bents that we basically ignore between us.

So saying in a side letter that I'd appreciate if she would give $$$$ to this tax deductible right wing fund is possible. Doing it as part of the will is not really possible as some of the insurance is based off of my current job.

I hope she would have enough ethics or morality to appreciate my request.

Patrick, that you call yourself ethical is the loosest use of the word I've heard in a week at least.

It was his money, he left it to his heirs and asked that they do something specific with a part of it. Sure they could legally ignore it, but if you think that isn't a shit thing to do, you haven't a scrap of honor to your name.

I don't know what charities these are, neither do you, we do know that the heirs disagreed with those causes, whatever they are, but there doesn't need to be anything 'up' with them. It might just be that these are some smarmy little brats hoping someone will give them permission to ignore his final wishes and keep the whole pot to themselves.

It might be that they do disagree with his beliefs, but never mentioned it to him for fear they'd be disinherited (that seems a lot more likely) and he had no idea they'd be such trash as to disregard his wishes so they could keep the estate. I'm sure if he knew they'd be so ethically deficient, if he knew they might ignore his last request, he might have made formal arrangements.

But if familial trust can't exist without the force of law, the problem does not lie with the dead who are kind enough to bequeth something to their relations, but with the ethical jellyfish that would rather keep the whole shebang than respect the wishes of the ones who built that shebang in the first place.

Rex Little: Much as Patrick's comments usually grate on me, I have to agree with him here. I just hope his view would be the same if the charities had been described as "extreme left."

People will believe of me (or anyone else on this blog) what they will.

But to answer your question, I don't think the ideological bent of the proposed recipients matters. And I think it's kind of low-class to leave money to someone, then ask them to bequeath part of it to charities you know they'd be against. And then take advantage of the reverence people normally have for their dead relatives to pressure them into something wouldn't otherwise do.

As I have said, if I give someone money then I have given it. It's no longer mine. I don't get to place conditions, restrictions or pressure on someone for it. Or else it's just not a gift. It's a bribe.

Also, there's the distinct possibility that these "charities" that this dead man thought he knew something about could have been nothing but con-artists. If the man was elderly, there's a whole contingent of phony charities designed to separate them from their money.

Jim P., your example is possibly valid here. But I also have a life insurance policy, and I don't need a will. My beneficiary gets it, regardless of what my will says. Are you certain that in your case, you need a will to bequeath your insurance policy to your sister? The house, yes.

Eric Evans, I'm not making things up. I figured that if he had time to write a letter to his heirs asking them to leave x amount of dollars to charities x, y, and z, then apparently, he knew he was dying. Perhaps he should write them a check while he's living. I assume he has assets because he has a will. You don't need a will for an insurance policy. You name the beneficiary when you get the policy.

Jim P., your example is possibly valid here. But I also have a life insurance policy, and I don't need a will. My beneficiary gets it, regardless of what my will says. Are you certain that in your case, you need a will to bequeath your insurance policy to your sister? The house, yes. -- Patrick at October 6, 2013 2:22 PM

I know I don't need and can't bequeath the life insurance policies via the will. The house has a mortgage with a life insurance policy attached to it as well. So the house pays off on my death.

Then I have a nice term life policy on my own. Then I have another nice term policy from my current company.

But there is no real way to say I want to dump a portion of the insurance policies to <unnamed charity> but still give the rest to my sister. So I would have to ask her to do it for me.

And as The Ethicist noted what is a militant political organizations? I have a feeling that a militant organization running around the U.S. countryside killing and injuring would have attracted the attention of the six o'clock news.

I do have to thank you for reminding me of something. My lady and I were both fans of Highlander. One of the movie's scenes was this:

Heather: I don't want to die. I want to stay with you... forever.

Connor: I want that too.

Heather: Will you do something for me, Connor?

Connor: What, blossom?

Heather: In the years to come, will you light a candle and remember me on my birthday?

Connor: Aye, love. I will.

That reminded me today was her birthday, so I lit a candle in her memory. It has been more than seven years since her passing. She is still with me, in a little way, every single day.

If you refuse to think of a special people in your life that way, good for you. I hope everyone else considers you the same way.

Jim P. That reminded me today was her birthday, so I lit a candle in her memory. It has been more than seven years since her passing. She is still with me, in a little way, every single day.

Very sorry for your loss, and it's a very sweet tribute you have for her.

Jim P. If you refuse to think of a special people in your life that way, good for you. I hope everyone else considers you the same way.

Actually, I hope they consider me that way, too.

"And as The Ethicist noted what is a militant political organizations? I have a feeling that a militant organization running around the U.S. countryside killing and injuring would have attracted the attention of the six o'clock news"

I'm betting it is the dangerous wacko NRA...... The only "militant organization" with several million members including many democrats in the Senate.

Actually, I hope they consider me that way, too. -- Patrick at October 6, 2013 6:27 PM

I'm more than willing to forget you.

" what is a militant political organizations?"

My guess the Boy Scouts.

"a militant political organization"?

Where do I sign up?

Jim P. I'm more than willing to forget you.

Thank you. Life is for the alive, not for revering the dead.

Although once I'm dead, I'll be in no position to care whether I'm remembered or not.

I have to jump in here on Patrick's side - completely on the ethics of the matter, and not the legality, I think that the shitty act was on the part of the decedent, not the heirs and I think the Ethicist got it wrong.

I think it is shitty to give someone a gift with strings attached - like "Here is your birthday check - now be sure to share it with your brother."

It is also shitty to try to control people from beyond the grave, or to send a message with a bequest.

It is shitty to try to involve people in supporting causes they oppose - and the heirs would be directly involved in this donation, even if it is only as the instrument of the decedent.

Conversely, I do not think It is shitty or unethical to decide that you don't want to abide by the decedent's wishes regarding the gift that they gave you - especially if those wishes were not expressed to you directly, but only after the death, so you don't have a chance to have a discussion about it, like "I feel uncomfortable with that request - why don't you do this yourself before you die? Or maybe find someone else to carry this out?"

Let's put this in a different light - what if the dead person left a letter saying he wants the heir to use the money for college. I don't think the heir would be unethical if they decide to do something else with it, and I do think the decedent would be unethical as well as unfair in trying to dictate the use.

Let's put this in a different light - what if the dead person left a letter saying he wants the heir to use the money for college. I don't think the heir would be unethical if they decide to do something else with it, and I do think the decedent would be unethical as well as unfair in trying to dictate the use.
Posted by: Melissa W at October 7, 2013 12:18 PM

If you do this, I will give you money to make it happen" is a pretty standard type of social contract that has gone on between parents and children, and will makers and will beneficiaries for a couple of thousand years.

If you are suggesting that this is somehow unjust or unfair I would like to suggest that you are probably a member of the "entitlement" generation or a long term welfare recipient.

Under what social theory does anyone "owe" you or anyone else, an unconditional gift?

If you have no intention of fulfilling your side of the bargain, the ethical thing to do, is to refuse, the bequest not badmouth the offeror dead or alive, as a manipulator.

For once, the ethicist got it right.

Isab, I disagree - there's no bargain here.

The money was left to the heirs and the deceased made some non-binding requests.

If it was really important, the deceased would have left the appropriate codicils to the will, granting the distributions to the various groups.

It's not like they're the trustees given a legal duty, they're heirs being asked to give what is now their own money away.

When you keep money that wasn't meant for you, you are a thief plain and simple. All other discussion is just an elaborate attempt to justify your theft.

Isab, I disagree - there's no bargain here.

"The money was left to the heirs and the deceased made some non-binding requests. "

(You are making an assumption here, that the letter was both legally and ethically non binding. This is an assumption I do not share)

"If it was really important, the deceased would have left the appropriate codicils to the will, granting the distributions to the various groups."

(Jim gave several examples of how that is not always possible)

"It's not like they're the trustees given a legal duty, they're heirs being asked to give what is now their own money away."

(You don't know that either, and you and I disagree on that point. Sounds like they might be not only heirs but executors based on their question. Also remember that their objection in their question to the ethicist, was not giving the money away, it was WHO they were asked to give it to.)

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 7, 2013 3:25 PM

Looking for legal technicalities to try and justify not doing what you were clearly asked to do in a letter, that apparently accompanied the will is called quibbeling.

Sheep mommy is entirely correct, it is theft, plain and simple.

Hehe, I like when a thread is hot like that.

sheep mommy: a thief is a thief +1.

Now, many hypothesis have been uncovered here, and it is hard to make an opinion. We do not have the details on why and how the situation happened.
I can imagine that it can be really hard to write a check on your deathbed (my granddad would not have managed, I know I was there, the last three months were horrible. I wish euthanasie to be legal by my time to go).

And I am with lujip and melissa I have the feeling/intuition/suspicion that the deceased did that to F**k with the youngsters.

But it might be also that the youngsters are just trying to find a "justification" to skip their duties (as in: I cannot give the money to the catholic church, they are responsible for the spanish inquisition).

BUT NO PROOF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!

So everybody that was ready to jump at each other throat (easy on internet), why don't you sleuth-er to uncover the final story? Do your homework first. I haven't seen one link from the discussion, or new information!

And now for a good GOODWIN'law example: what if the organizations are: KKK or the greek New Dawn ?