Legal question

[champak97]

My mom bought a land few years ago, and because she fell short of the total quoted price by a certain amount, one of my siblings loaned her that amount. Now, when the land is to be shared equally between us, the sibling who loaned money is asking for a share equivalent to the loaned amount, and the rest to be equally shared amongst us. I think this is unfair, because a loan is only that and my mom has already returned to my sibling the amount loaned in a different form (jewelry). Any thoughts on this matter?

[falcon9]

My mom bought a land few years ago, and because she fell short of the total quoted price by a certain amount, one of my siblings loaned her that amount. Now, when the land is to be shared equally between us, the sibling who loaned money is asking for a share equivalent to the loaned amount, and the rest to be equally shared amongst us. I think this is unfair, because a loan is only that and my mom has already returned to my sibling the amount loaned in a different form (jewelry). Any thoughts on this matter?

I'd recommend checking with an attorney to verify anything offered as 'legal advise' here, (including what a first year law student has to say).  An informal opinion would be that, unless there is a documented tort, (signed/notorized contract specifying terms of an agreement), the informal loan had no previous stipulations concerning being recouped by the equivalent value in land, (or property, such as jewelry), correct?  If so, your mom gets to decide what's fair in that regard.  If not, the sibling could litigate the matter however, I could find no parallel precedent to support handing over an equivalent value in land when the equivalent value in property (the jewelry) was accepted as repayment for the loan. 

A lawyer for that sibling making a claim might argue that either the jewelry's value was not equivalent to the portioned land value at the time it was used as a loan repayment or, that the sibling did not accept such jewelry specifically as repayment for the loan.  Either of those assertions would require evidence to support them, (not just 'testimony').  Whereas your mom, (or her attorney), could simply counter-argue that the loaning sibling did accept jewelry in exchange as repayment of the loan and that no further debt ensues.

Try a free consultation with an attorney and use this extrapolation only as a basis for questions to him, if at all.

[champak97]

Thanks for your opinion falcon9. There was no documented tort, and the informal loan did not have any stipulations regarding retrieval of equivalent land. My mom passed away five years ago (two years after the land was bought). Even the amount loaned according to my sibling's statement lacks any kind of documentation. I was never informed about this by my mother. After my mom's demise, my sibling appropriated most of my mom's jewelry, stating that it was 'gifted' to her by my mom, for which again there was no proof.  So, without any proof of documentation, I think it is only fair that the land is equally shared amongst us. Any way, I will try discussing this with an attorney as you suggested.

[falcon9]

Thanks for your opinion falcon9.

You're welcome, and as long as you're keeping in mind that it's an informal legal opinion, it's good that you'll check with an attorney who specializes in property law too.

There was no documented tort, and the informal loan did not have any stipulations regarding retrieval of equivalent land. My mom passed away five years ago (two years after the land was bought). Even the amount loaned according to my sibling's statement lacks any kind of documentation. I was never informed about this by my mother. After my mom's demise, my sibling appropriated most of my mom's jewelry, stating that it was 'gifted' to her by my mom, for which again there was no proof.  So, without any proof of documentation, I think it is only fair that the land is equally shared amongst us. Any way, I will try discussing this with an attorney as you suggested.

This situation must come up more often than I'd assumed since it parallels something that happened years ago, (pre-law days), in my family as well.  In that instance, there was an older sister who circumvented a will to "appropriate" several items of value from a probated estate, (things which were not mentioned by stipulation in said will - including some land parcels).  The remaining beneficiaries to the estate took exception to such "appropriations" and hauled the sister off to probate court.  Copies of the will were entered into evidence.  The sister's testimony of a 'verbal amendment/codice' to that will was rejected by the probate judge as 'self-serving bias'.  That judge ordered that all "appropriated property" to be returned the the probated estate and be apportioned by the executor according to the legally-binding stipulations in the will.  At that point, the appropriating sister declared that she'd sold-off almost all of the property, (including the land parcels), and had spent the proceeds.  After glaring at her momentarily, the probate judge the ordered that liens in the amount equivalent to the value of the appropriated properties to placed against that sister's property and to garnish her wages until such time as the monetary value misappropriated from the probated estate is returned to the estate's escrow account.  Further, the judge ruled that this was to occur after deducting any proceeds as stipulated in the will which were to go to the sister and that those stipulated proceeds were to be apportioned equally among the remaining beneficiaries of the will.

Although there was a will/tort or an executor in your case, we did ascertain, (through a probate attorney), that even those beneficiaries mentioned in a will cannot just fabricate codices to it, (verbal changes).  Without a will, there is no legal document to base claims upon and such claims are usually adjudicated.