0

In my mother's estate there are 5 beneficiaries. When my mom passed away we were unable to get a check from the bank until her will was probated, so we all put in the money for my mother's burial and now my sister who became executrix will not reimburse the burial money to us.

Hiw can we get our money back from the estate, do we sue her or the estate or both?

  • 5
    Do you mean she is refusing to pay until the estate is settled, or saying that the estate will not repay you at all? And you absolutely need to say what jurisdiction this is in. – Tim Lymington Aug 31 '18 at 13:04
1

You don't sue either. You threaten to sue her and the estate.

There is an estate, and you and the rest of the family should benefit from it. If you sue, no matter what the outcome, the estate will lose money. Which in the end is your money. Whether you win or lose in court, you lose money. So suing would be an absolute desperate measure, only if you have no other choice at all.

If you threaten to sue, your sister will either give you a clear and understandable argument why the estate is not refunding the cost (and you can accept that), or hopefully she will figure out that her decision was wrong and pay you.

  • 1
    I'm not sure this is good advice. Threatening to sue could be viewed as blackmail/extortion. Depending on the jurisdiction (and this could even be a small claims matter), could show you are serious and does not preclude an early settlement. – davidgo Sep 3 '18 at 6:57
  • @davidgo:How could threatening to sue be viewed as extortion? Sueing someone is a legal way to enforce a right. Announcing an obviously unjustified/frivolous lawsuit might be considered extortion, but not for a normal suit. Asking for what you are owed (uncluding suing) is not in itself extortion. – sleske Oct 2 '18 at 7:22
  • @sleske I put to you that threatening to sue - without actually intending to sue - as gnasher729 post can easily be read as advocating - would imply that there is no intention to enforce the right by suing - ie Suing has become more then a statement of fact/intent, its become a coercive threat. IE by my reading gnasher was not advocating to advise the consequence of non-compliance, rather was advocating threatening as a means to coerce compliance. Its the threat to coerce compliance that may overstep the bounds. – davidgo Oct 2 '18 at 8:05
  • 1
    @davidgo: Ok, yes, if it is clear you are not willing to go through with suing, that may constitute coercion (I really can't say). Speaking of which - that might make a good separate question: "When is threatening to sue someone considered coercion?" or something like that. – sleske Oct 2 '18 at 8:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.