Daughter wins £127k claim for caring for mum at home

[SerendipityJane]

Interesting ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr93zp78g580o

Pleased to see the court judgement acknowledges the size of commitment that went into her mums care with a reasonable, and certainly not excessive award.

Her family should be ashamed of themselves.

I expect 'the estate' ended up with more money than less, given the cost of a home or a live in carer.
She did them a favour in that regard.
Yes it's likely she didn't take money while mum was alive either because her assets were tied up in the property, or risking depriving mum of assets should the care at home situation become untenable, and money needed for a care home.
I'm very glad the judge awarded this.

Maybe that family can also claim off the estate that the sister freeloaded for years before care was required (maybe it can go both ways)

@PynkPyg i think you nailed it. It seems weird to take the £100k at the end, but it makes sense.

I imagine the siblings have no idea of the energy needed to take on an open-ended responsibility for a loved one with such high needs.

If someone had said to them, would you put you life on hold indefinitely, lose sleep, miss holidays and social life, feel worried constantly and always in alert modes simply for £50 a week and “reasonable expenses” I imagine they’d have said no. It’s too much to ask of someone.

I watched my mum caring for my nan for over 15 years. It was not all terrible - once or twice my mum managed to get her well enough that she could go back to a job but every time my nan relapsed and my mum had to quit work and care for her.

My mum could have put her in a home but she chose not to. Yes, it was a choice - but hardly an easy one. The physical and emotional toll on my mum was enormous. It aged her prematurely. I remember begging her to give herself a break from it, but my nan desperately wanted my mum - and only my mum - to care for her. It is a very hard thing to say No to.

The brother seems quite delusional about how he and the other siblings are coming across.

I imagine the siblings have no idea of the energy needed to take on an open-ended responsibility for a loved one with such high needs.

Or maybe they did, but just had their eyes on the money and so deliberately decided to belittle and minimise all that Bern did for their Mum.

I can't see from the BBC article what sex the other 4 siblings are, although it does say that she wanted to be cared for by 'her daughter' rather than 'one of her daughters'. If the other siblings are all/mostly brothers, maybe they just thought that looking after their parent full-time was a fun little hobby/the natural duty for a woman, whilst the men got on with the serious important stuff and certainly not getting involved in 'women's work'?

"The executor of Sheila's estate is Bern's brother, Andrew Wills. In a statement on behalf of the estate, he said: "The only agreements that we (her siblings) were aware of was for my mother to give Bernadette £50 per week 'keep' and to ensure that Bernadette was not to be out of pocket. "

What an absolute arse. He and his siblings dumped it all on her, agreed in various messages she should be paid, and retroactively says £50 a week should sort it? 24/7 round the clock care? She was even sleeping on the floor in her room to keep her mother safe!

FFS, the siblings should be hanging their heads in shame.

There's a lot missing from this story.

On the one hand the executor saying his mother was going to pay his sibling £50 per week for her keep (even the most clueless would know that amount is laughable) and otoh the daughter taking £100k out of her mother's account after she died.

Two big extremes there and a lot of fuzziness in the middle. I don't think it's even been reported what actually was in the mother's will. A story full of holes and not one that you can draw many conclusions from.

I have absolutely no time for people who will merrily allow one person to take on all of the tremendous burden as a given, but then, at the end, just say "Right, then, so there are 6 of us... so we'll split the money 6 ways."

This is essentially a massively upscaled version of the CF bill-splitting scenario, where they happily consume 5 times as much in value as everybody else, but then when the bill comes, genuinely assume that everybody should just pay the same without the faintest whimper.

doesn’t seem to be that fuzzy - 2 court judgments in favour of the daughter and an even bigger pay award that she’d initially taken from the estate

@WilliamTopazMcGonagallPoorPoetFromDundeeBeItTold I think you are right that there’s still a big element of thinking it’s greedy and “unnatural” for a woman to seek compensation for an act which “should be” freely provided out of love. Because they reason, “how can it be work, when you are caring for a loved one?” But long term care is work. Sure it can be emotionally rewarding at times, but it’s still work.

And yes, an element of misogyny because usually it’s women - being the lower earners and the ones with the experience of caring for children - who end up doing this devalued and difficult work.

I don’t even blame Bern for not being transparent about the expectation that she’d be recompensed beyond the £50 + expenses a week her siblings “offered”. Imagine being offered £50 a week for round the clock care - no wonder she didn’t stand for it! It’s not even enough to have a cleaner and get a takeaway once a week.

I wonder if she took it because she knew the siblings wouldn't pay her otherwise. Not sayings it's right, but I can understand why she might have thought that way. Anyway I'm glad her contribution has been recognised. Dare say they'd have a lot less to fight over if their mum had been in a care home.

I imagine so. It seems to have been about half of what a care home would have cost, so if that wont come out of the estate then thats effectively still saved them £100K

For a woman to have £100K cash in her account I imagine that there is a house as well to be sold and split, unless of course she sold the house before she moved ijn with the daughter. But either way, she has saved them about the same amount as she took - I think thats a reasonable amount for 24 hour care.

I can't presume to speak for Bern in any way, of course, but I wonder if she thought that they might be reasonable and see her right, but once she realised that her brother/the others wanted to screw her over, she added up all of the costs that she'd incurred (including lost earnings) and saw it as her chance to get that repaid, or lose it forever.

The brother is quoted as saying "The only agreements that we (her siblings) were aware of was for my mother to give Bernadette £50 per week 'keep' and to ensure that Bernadette was not to be out of pocket." - so maybe this was actually her just taking him at his word and reimburse herself for all of her very substantial costs.

Also, when you house and care for somebody, it involves a huge amount of costs that can't be easily isolated and receipts provided for. How many times do you hear of deadbeat dads who complain that "She just spends the money I give her paying HER bills, and not on the kids" - expecting her to use it to buy 'nice things' for the children, rather than actually providing them with a warm home and food in their bellies?

The insulting £50 a week reminds me of a post in a CF thread once, where somebody had stayed with the poster for weeks and had full board, meals, been driven around and more... and then, when they were due to leave, they mentioned that they'd bought a pizza for a snack, but wouldn't have time to eat it before they went home; and it cost them £3 and was in their freezer, so they actually expected their host to pay them £3 for it, whether they wanted it or not!

I don't disagree that she should have received something but it's not fair to the brother just to call him 'tight'.

As executor your responsibility is to ensure the will is distributed as specified. You can't just say 'here have 100k' even if that's what you think is morally right.

And you can't help yourself to money once someone dies. It has to go through probate before anything can be distributed. Even if the will specified she could have it (which it didn't) you don't get it until an estate is settled.

As executor you are legally responsible and taking that money put her brother in a nightmare position.

This just shows the value in ensuring these decisions are considered and put in writing. And the need to follow appropriate processes regardless of whether you feel you deserve something.

Most of that estate has probably gone in legal costs.

The moral of the story is, agree everything in writing with your family first. I can't understand why she took £100k out of her mother's account after she had died. It is illegal.

Good for her. That's £150/day. If they'd been paying for 24hr care it would have been double that.

Yes, it's theft. Even if she was entitled to a larger percentage of the inheritance than her siblings, it's still stealing from the estate of a dead person.

Honestly, I don't think it's fair.

And I am the sibling currently providing daily care for my elderly dad with dementia.

I do not expect to be paid for the caring that I do. However, if I did agree with my dad at any point in the future that I should receive payment for the care that I provide, I would make absolutely certain that this was properly documented in advance and made completely transparent to my sibling and any other interested parties. I find it astonishing that someone would take nothing for 2.5 years and then take a lump sum £100k from the estate on her mother's death without any clear contract having been drawn up and without any apparent consultation with the executors.

I appreciate that the court has found in her favour, but on the face of it, it seems to be a poor decision that opens the door to abuse.

She moved in with the daughter when she had dementia, it was possibly too late to change the will but she told all of them the DD had to be paid.

And note none of the siblings seemed to chip in any care over the 2.5 years

I obviously meant fuzzy in terms of the reporting.

Once the mum had dementia, a solicitor couldn't alter her will even in her lucid moments. I guess the daughter saw it as her only chance for appropriate pay - even if only half of what a care home would charge - and took it, knowing her brother was there (and the other siblings) thinking £50 a week would do.

How did she take the money after her mother had died?

The bank account should be frozen. No one should be able to operate it.

I assume she took it before the bank was notified, assuming she had POA

I'm not quite sure she should have taken £100k from her mum's bank account. The whole thing sounds a complete mess.