The person caring for his mother is not financially able to provide for her. His brother is financially capable but does not want to provide care. The mother has stated verbally that she does not want to go to a nursing home. The net worth of the estate would be used to pay for either but the brothers disagree on what to do. After the father passed away, one brother wants to immediately move the mother into a home and sell her house. A petition for guardianship is submitted by the brother who has cared for the mother and wants to continue in the same environment; not moving to a nursing home thinking it would not be the appropriate thing to do. Would a judge view the wealthy son more capable of making decisions about the mother over the son who is not wealthy? The mother cannot make any decisions.

I think the concern may be that "caring" brother wants both him and mom to live off of her money.  That can be particularly problematic if mom needs to go on Medicare in the future.  I suspect that wealthy brother may press this issue, and want to insure that mom's money is spent on mom.
Helpful Answer (0)
Reply to FloridaDD

The mother's means should pay for the mother's care. Not the assets or income of either child.
Helpful Answer (1)
Reply to BarbBrooklyn

I do not think the wealth of either son would matter to a judge. The wealth comes to play when it comes to the cost of the fight in court. He who can hold put the longest may win, and then charge it to mom’s estate. Such a shame and waste of mom’s money.
Helpful Answer (0)
Reply to MammaDrama

If ‘caring’ brother is ‘not financially able’, it would be irresponsible for a court to award him guardianship. Saying what would or would not ‘be the appropriate thing to do’, without the ability to do it, sounds irresponsible anyway. Has ‘caring’ brother actually checked out other options? The court will almost certainly NOT order ‘rich’ brother to subsidise ‘caring’ brother, though that might be a compromise between the two of them. This leaves the court without a good option, and neither brothers may have a choice about what the ‘less than good’ decision will be.
Helpful Answer (0)
Reply to MargaretMcKen

A fight between brothers is honestly more likely to end in the mother being taken from BOTH. The Judge will not play King Solomen by cutting Mom in half for the brothers, and is likely to appoint the state as guardian. When this happens then the brothers will have nothing to say about any placement or finances going forward. So it would be much better to avoid this likely 10,000 fight and get together. I think that while the mother may be thriving now in the care of the brother at home, this may not continue. It is quite grueling. I would suggest the brothers come to an equitable agreement, perhaps negotiation with an elder care attorney on the path forward. Good luck.
Helpful Answer (6)
Reply to AlvaDeer
jacobsonbob Jun 30, 2020
LOL; good analogy! It would appear that the best approach would be to use the mother's estate to help the caring brother meet the mother's needs.
Ask a Question
Subscribe to
Our Newsletter