Posted on 03/17/2023 8:35:35 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
If you want to write that story and submit it as fact in the same way then go for it. But you should not tamper with the stories of others because you do not like the narrative.
That is what liberals do.
Please notice you are fabricating your own story because you do not like the one presented.
If you want to write that story and submit it as fact in the same way then go for it. But you should not tamper with the stories of others because you do not like the narrative.
That is what liberals do.
You don’t know the structure of that money, so maybe you shouldn’t say such definitive things. If you are an accountant then you know what I mean.
First, in the USA it is common that female's family pays for
the wedding, NOT the groom's. Had this been from personal savings
she would have every right to be pissed. That it was not, and her
inheritance has disappeared she should consider it to be a lesson
learned. Perhaps that lesson: her parents think more of their
sons than they do their daughters.
This is like child stars in hollywood where the parents spent the money the kid made and left the kid broke when the kid grew up.
I have relatives who have stolen the life savings of family members. I have talked to others and they have stories of their own. Too common.
_________________________________
Why was the Coogan law created?
The original Bill was passed in 1939 by the State of California in response to the plight of Jackie Coogan, who earned millions of dollars as a successful child actor only to discover, upon reaching adulthood, that his mother and stepfather had spent almost all of his money.
https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/young-performers/coogan-law
Exactly what she’s doing. Sue them. If it’s in writing it’s enforceable. Setting up that kind of trust is an expensive proposition. Depending on how much money the aunt had it might have chewed up too much to send both girls to college to lock it up like that. And if the parents were worth a damn it wouldn’t have been a problem.
Let’s post something that is ambiguous unless you read the article and get people with limited comprehension arguing and calling each other names.
Read the comments following mine, directed to you, that totally destroy your previous claims.......Nice try tho.
If I'm ever in need of a financial lawyer, I ain't looking to you..........LOL!
I missed that it was a White House press release.
Actually, had you read the article, you would find that it was not their money. It was an inheritance for the girl's education from an aunt. Apparently the parents banked it in their own names.
Oh, please. A marriage can be entirely valid and lasting without a big expensive party. But to steal from and deny an education to a sibling because she is a woman is plain wrong.
The immigrant aunt is a "VILLAIN" for not hiring a big American lawyer to make an expensive document instead of relying on their apparently cultural customs of trusting her sibling to do as she asked to benefit his child? A villain who "failed"? It's her fault that her sibling lied and stole from her niece?
Wow.
That is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.
Dear FRiend, I beg to differ. Knowing that the aunt had left her the funds apparently some time ago, she may have planned her life and school preparation around the expectation that she could try for a career instead of her culture's apparent male-domineered housewifery, or retail hell.
The parents were born elsewhere, but she appears to have been born (or grew up as) an American, and has indeed learned an important lesson: if someone steals from you, you can sue them. Even if you are a woman.
I hope she wins. Her parents openly debased her worth in favor of her brother, and for a frivolous, self-serving reason—probably to look good entertaining their friends at their son's wedding. That is not something most people could just brush off, assuming their goal to pursue an education is deep and sincere.
Same here. It's so wicked.
“Where there's a will, there's a relative.”
“So, it is their money.”
Sometimes it’s good to read the article. Just sayin’...
A bit dramatic I’d say.
It’s cheap to set up a trust, that states exactly who and what gets use of the money.
No “big American lawyer” involved, a paralegal can do it.
The parents were given access to the money, by the Aunt’s hand, that’s the law.
If trust was broken, that’s on the parents, I merely pointed out this entire situation could, and should, have been avoided.
Don’t get too excited, it didn’t concern you personally.
How true, how true. And, in many cases more than one!
Midsomer Murders has nothing compared to this family.
:-)
The article certainly paints the parents are villains, but whether they are legally liable or simply morally reprehensible (or perhaps neither) depends on facts not in the article and legal nuances that may or may not be within the writer’s understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.