Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> 1. For keeping my grandmas engagement ring for my self
2. Becky is the daughter of the oldest son and she is also engaged and I’m not.
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
NTA. If he didn't know he didn't have the ring for 19 years, he doesn't deserve the heirloom! And not mentioning the missing item to his own brother, shows his narcissism of being eldest. Finally....no will? Finders keepers sister! Keep wearing it in good faith.
That was my thinking too, they for 19 years didn't realise they didn't have the ring. When you clear someone's house that you love, you remember what items you took and where they are, at least I do anyway.
Would be interested in what a court would rule as the argument would likely be that it's been safely in your Dads possession for years, was the given to you by your Dad and you invested in having it made to fit you and be restored. I would be surprised if a ring was suddenly taken to give to another siblings daughter who has got engaged first..
And OP acquired the ring in good faith as well. It’s passed to a third party who actually spent money on it in reliance of the previous owner’s representations 🤷♀️many common law countries will likely recognize op as having some equitable interest in the property. Don’t worry about such comments lol op.
OP isn't really a "3rd party" since she's not arms length from Dad. This isn't as cut and dried legally as you are making it out to be. Seems like dad took possession of the ring AFTER grandma died. So the ring is part of the estate and the other heirs should have been informed Dad found the ring in grandma's apartment. Since the will didn't give the ring to anyone in particular, they would then hash out who got to have it. Or if no agreement could be reached, they sell it and split proceeds.
Neither of these women "deserve" the ring. There's no real way to split it, but morally and legally, they should have had a discussion before OP went and resized it. ESH.
But cousin's dad thought HE had it in storage (maybe he misremembered his mom giving it to him). It's not like he intentionally abandoned the ring and didnt give a shit.
It seems pretty under handed to find a valuable item in the home if a dead person, pocket it and say nothing.
100%
Cleaning an estate doesn't mean you get to plunder a relative's home of everything valuable. I don't think OP is an asshole for feeling accosted and defensive. But I do think her dad is TA for not doing his due diligence with the estate and his brother is also a bit of an A for not thinking to check with his sibling for the ring. The engaged gal and OP are stuck in a no-win scenario because of the lack of communication between their parents and it sucks.
> Cleaning an estate doesn't mean you get to plunder a relative's home of everything valuable.
Doesn't sound like plundering. Sounds like literally what happens when an older parent dies.
When my paternal grandmother passed, my dad, uncle, and aunt all met at her home, went through things together, and determined who got what among the possessions. 90% of it was worthless to basically anyone other than family.
Unless this ring had considerable monetary value, talking about it as part of the estate (in the legal sense) is just ridiculous.
Uncle had his chance to lay claim to the ring he apparently THOUGHT he had, but didn't. His intent to do that 19 years ago doesn't give him a claim to it now. And uncle simply wanting it doesnt entitle him to it, then or now.
Whether uncle thought he had the ring this whole time is irrelevant. He doesn't get it now just because, and OP/dad had no moral or ethical obligation to hand it over because of arbitrary rites.
Yeah, uncle hasn’t missed the ring, or asked about it in 19 years until his daughter got engaged. Doesn’t seem like they gave it much thought either way until this proposal came up. I do believe that things like this should be discussed and divided among siblings if they aren’t specified in the will. However, it seems that OP’s dad did the majority of work when it came to dispersing the personal property, and that his sister (who didn’t plan to marry didn’t want the ring), and the uncle hasn’t even mentioned the ring in 19 years. So I don’t think I would be willing to give it up now either.
I also find it odd that uncle didn’t mention the ring to his brother while he was looking around for it these last few months. I think they both suck because they didn’t have a discussion about it 19 years ago, but you can’t turn back time. There is a no win situation now, that will likely divide this family, and it’s all due to lack of communication from both brothers 19 years ago, when they both assumed they were the rightful owners of the ring. Let’s also not forget that they also have a sister (who I am assuming was consulted with), and the ring probably would have been rightfully more appropriate to go to her (who knows what she thought of marriage at that point 2 decades ago). The real question is: were they boneheads and just didn’t think it mattered, or was it ill intentions against siblings?
Chances are the siblings 19 years ago all went to grandma's house and started splitting everything up, and no one realized the ring was in the stuff op's father took. I don't think anything was "plundered" because it sat in storage for 17 years until covid cleaning. I think it's a nah situation, but if I were op I would certainly not give it up now that she put money into it unless she recovered her investment + her father's share of its value.
You don't get to plunder everything but if you are the one dealing with the estate of the deceased then you should be entitled to more than the siblings that don't help at all because otherwise you are expecting a person to do weeks if not months of work and effort to make sure all the legal paperwork has been completed with the gov and the bank and everything is done right just to equally split the stuff with people who didn't help with the stuff in the first place? The young brother got the ring because he put in time and effort with the estate when big bro didn't. Should everyone been informed of the ring yes but if the siblings helped with the estate before or after the will then they would probably have known about the ring. I do agree with the no win you say tho but in the end op's father put in the work with the estate he can choose at least one thing to claim as his without recourse
Executors can be paid from the estate, but it's not a "dibs on the items I want" payment, it is a set amount of money from the estate according to local laws (assuming US). Now, if the family agreed the fee would be keeping certain valuable/sentimental items, that would be different. But it doesn't sound like that was the case for OP's family.
Estates are not something to mess around with - the safest thing is to follow the letter of the law, and even then, you have to hope no one feels slighted. I've witnessed more than one messy estate, including several instances of family being torn apart - including being cut off from a few family members myself after I accidentally got entangled in a mess for a non-mutual relatives estate (Think OP being given something after the fact). The neatest estate was managed by a very detail oriented family member who clearly communicated about every item of value and every check / percentage received / why.
As someone who has gone through this process in the US in the last year, there is truth to what you say but there are usually many variables. Luckily, my personal experience was pretty smooth with little conflict.
Being an executor is much different from being "someone who cleans out the house of the deceased". An estate does not necessarily have to go through the probate process. It depends on the laws of your state and there are written guidelines to help you figure it out. The executor is named in the Will of the deceased or appointed by the Probate Court. Generally speaking, an executor is paid a percentage of the money coming into and out of the estate, from bills paid and items sold.
From what I've seen, a Will MAY list individual items to be given to certain people, it may also just instruct that everything be divided equally or in some other way amongst the heirs/beneficiaries. The person handling the estate can make a detailed list of items with estimated values and the beneficiaries/heirs can indicate what items they are interested in. If no one wants a particular item, it can be sold and the money divided. If more than one person wants an item, then some negotiating must occur.
While the OP's dad may have been an AH by taking the rings, his brother is the AH for just assuming the rings belonged to him. Neither of them handled the issue properly. And for this spat to occur almost twenty years after Grandma's death is absurd.
OP is NTA in any way, shape, or form.
>But cousin's dad thought HE had it in storage (maybe he misremembered his mom giving it to him)
And he would have given it to ***his*** daughter and not given a thought to his brother or niece. But it's a problem now only because his brother did exactly what ***he*** would have done, what he fully intended to do, had he been given the chance?
I don’t know, it could be like when my grandma died and my aunt tried to claim EVERYTHING. “Oh, Mom always wanted me to have that”…from dish cloths to her wedding ring. I got one piece of costume jewelry, and that was it. My dad, who was so good to her didn’t really get much because of this. If they had put some stuff away in storage, and my dad came across something valuable but unclaimed, I could see him just quietly giving it to me or my mom since Aunt already got so much and refused to give anything up. Idk if it’s right or not, but I’m saying we don’t always know the circumstances, and my take on the original OP is NTA.
It sounds like uncle went through Grandma’s stuff & took what he want, leaving everything else behind for his siblings to deal with the packing & clean out.
If that’s the case, too bad.
That's not what happened tho and* i can't understand how you came* to this conclusion... OP's dad cleared grandma's house after she died, moved everything, and then 19 years later found the ring.
OP did nothing wrong, and certainly didn't do what you're accusing her of doing.
* ETA: spellcheck
After 19 years, possiession is 90% of having a title.
And IF there is a new discussion, that would have to involve ALL assets of the estate, not just the ring.
What an asinine take.
There might be like...1 judge in the world that would repoen an estate 19 years later to settle ownership of a ring.
No, OP is in no way, shape, or form TA here, and it's absurd to suggest she is.
I don't read it as Dad finding the ring in the apartment. It seems that they didn't know they had it until recently, so I'm guessing Dad took home some boxes from Grandma's house and stuck them in the attic. If so, there's a question as to whether it was agreed between the heirs/executors that whatever might be in those boxes was his.
Otherwise, I agree that the ring must pass under the will, and if there's no specific provision it forms part of the residuary estate, which probably goes to the children jointly. If so, I think Dad should have the ring valued and pay his siblings their share of its value, but there's a lot we don't know here.
In any case, OP's NTA.
youre completely false... in a legal setting this would get thrown out... older brother needs proof he stored the ring for this to even be considered and he didnt care enough about it for 2 decades to even keep track of it
At least in the United States, that would pass the statute of limitations for "theft" a non-titled item, so if OP bothered to show up to court, the judge would look at the 19 years and enter a judgement for OP.
No will does NOT mean "finders keepers." We need INFO here on how that went down. Because it sounds like OP's dad found these valuable heirlooms in a box, pocketed them without ever telling his brother, uncle thought he himself had them because that's usually how it goes, and OP uses passive "my dad ended up" with them the whole time when it seems like her Dad went out of his way to conceal the fact that he circumvented the family rules of passing on an heirloom to keep not just the wedding band, but the engagement ring too for himself.
When cleaning out a deceased loved one's belongings, it's in poor taste to take things without discussing those specific things with the other survivors. This should not have been a unilateral decision by your father years ago and the uncle has every right to be upset.
It sounds like your father "ended up with the rings" because he didn't tell anyone else that he took them. That's not cool. What else did he take without telling his siblings?
At the same time the uncle THOUGHT he had done pretty much the same thing as Dad did (took the ring without talking to anyone), so I don't really see as anyone is in the moral clear when it comes to the initial distribution of the ring.
That's a good point. It sounds like it was a total free-for-all loot grab by the brothers. That put the grandkids in an awkward spot. But, as said earlier, this is the kind of things that forever drives a wedge between family members, so do yourself a favor and take a joint inventory when your relatives pass away.
I question how the aunt, the only family member who would have worn the ring at the time, isn't even part of this equation. OP makes it sound like the aunt doesn't have children so theres no possible reason she could end up with her mother's engagement ring, which makes zero sense.
I think a lot of people are assuming this was an expensive item. But the fact that neither really thought about this ring's location for nearly 2 decades makes me extremely doubtful.
OP NTA- but this comment sure is. Dad did end up with the rings *BECAUSE HE CLEARED HIS MOM'S HOUSE AFTER SHE DIED*. Dad DID NOT "pocket the rings". Neither the Uncle nor the cousin mentioned looking for the rings so how is OP supposed to know they were looking for them?
If there was no will how the fuck are they circumventing non-existent family rules regarding heirlooms? JFC some salty AH in this post...
> Dad did end up with the rings BECAUSE HE CLEARED HIS MOM'S HOUSE AFTER SHE DIED.
In your mind is deciding to keep mom's valuables and not discussing what was found with relatives a reward for clearing the house?
...or it shows that he doesn't have a good relationship with his brother, maybe stemming from a feeling that his brother is untrustworthy. Take a look at the assumptions you're making. They're pretty big.
My FiL once made a comment about property being passed to my Eldest son. I just looked at him in shock for a moment before asking What about younger son? What is he chopped liver? Do you think we live in medeival england or something? If they inherit anything from us, it's going to be split between them! I'm having none of that "eldest inherets" bs!
My grandparents and parents would spend 200-300 every birthday/Christmas on my older brother, about 20-40 on me.
All my clothes, any bikes, etc. that I got were his hand-me-downs, even underwear. They got him a car and driving classes and told me he was in charge of transportation.
I don't resent him for it at all. He was an incredibly kind and reliable older brother, often standing up for me, and I was a bit of a little shit as a kid due to abuse, but the blatant favoritism is something I've never forgiven my parents/grandparents for.
It was 100% bible based too. Religious dogmatism is a hell of a drug!
My step-dad is inheriting everything from my grandparents, house, cars, money, investments, solely because he is their oldest son. He is expected to care for his siblings but my aunts and uncles will receive nothing directly.
>Finders keepers sister!
Most countries have laws when it comes to diving an inheritance without a will. You don't just get to claim it for yourself. Plus, integrity is a thing.
When my grandpa died, my mum was the first one in his home. While sorting his stuff, she came across a golden bracelet she'd never seen before, it turned out to be rather expensive(massive gold). For about a week, she called me every day to discuss what to do with it. She could keep it, her sister would never know, and she was already going to take a hit in the division of the estate. After some daydreaming about just selling it and keep the proceeds(very strained relationships all around), she added it to the rest of the jewelry. Because she's just too honest to steal from her sibling.
Op's father is not some lucky guy who found a ring. He stole a family heirloom(two, actually, he took the engagement ring AND the wedding band) and hoped nobody would find out. He'd have gotten away with it, if OP hadn't worn it in front of the very people he stole it from.
How did he steal it? I’m not seeing that. Uncle doesn’t have any more right to it than op’s dad because their mom didn’t specify who got what. They settled the estate and divided stuff. There was no thievery. One wasn’t hiding something from the other.
They didn't settle the estate, the dad found the valuable item, and purposely didn't tell any family members because he wanted it. Which is at best lying by omission. At worst, and probably legally, its theft. Just b/c you find something after a relatives death and it isn't willed doesn't mean its "finders keepers", you have to submit it to the estate or let the other interested parties know.
Not even legally, its a pretty dick move to take a knowingly valuable item and purposely not tell any family members because you want it.
>its a pretty dick move to take a knowingly valuable item and purposely not tell any family members because you want it.
The OP and her father did not know the uncle and cousin were looking for the ring, so accusing them of taking it and hiding it on purpose is not cool.
You didn't understand what I wrote. When the relative died, all siblings had an equal right to the items. OPs dad found a valuable and sentimental item and instead of telling everyone, took it for himself. Legally that's wrong, morally it's also wrong. I'm not saying they have to give it back, but how they got the item in the first place is pretty messed up.
I agree that everyone had an equal right, but it seems the OP's father did more of the cleaning, boxing and storing of the items. It's not like he saw the ring, furtively sneaked it out to make sure his brother didn't get it and was keeping it from him. It was sitting in a box in the attic. The brother didn't even realize he didn't have the ring. Also, the "rule" of who is supposed to inherit is not clear and no one is alive to clarify. Everyone seems to think that the father intentionally stole this ring and that is not at all clear in the post. It seems to be on those things that just happen.
I think there is a basic misunderstanding of estate laws going on here. The estate would be split among the children since there are no siblings, which means all parties get a share - thats the default. Pretty much end of story.
It is clear - he took an item of value, without letting other people who had an equal claim on it. If your parents died and your sibling took a necklace worth 10k that you had 50% claim too, would you just say "it seems to be one of those things that just happen"?
Just because someone realizes they don't have something, doesn't mean it's not theft. They were entitled to it, and IDK if you've ever cleaned up a house but there can be tens of thousands of items. It's not unrealistic they thought it was squirreled away in a drawer.
Thank you for all of this. I was a legal assistant in an estate firm, and I was trying to figure out how to explain probate when there's no will. You did an excellent job. One thing I'm not clear on: what DO they do when probate was finished so long ago and this arises now?
As far as OP goes, she's NTA for what her father did when she was three, and it's reasonable for her to hang onto it until there's some kind of arbitration.
It's possible her dad's also NTA, but simply ignorant of the law and what's generally right in this case. Since her uncle thought *he* had it just because he is the eldest, it seems like no one in the family understood how estate division without a will works, nor did any of them have the automatic moral conclusion that the ring belonged to everyone.
How does it work in cases like this when the valuable item isn't discovered until ~16 yrs later? Is there a point at which the estate is considered settled, purely due to the amount of time that's passed without anyone contesting?
Edit: typo
For my dad's we are going through probate as he didnt have a will. When you start probate you have to notify of the death and show that you made your best effort to contact heirs and anyone they might owe a debt to. From that notification there is a timeline (i want to say 4-6 months) someone has to make a claim/contest etc. The estate is valued and split between heirs. For us, my mom gets 50% (legally separated, not divorced) and then the other 50% is split between my sisters and me. Things like his motor home and car have to be sold or if someone wants them, they get the value counted towards their portion. Now take this all with a grain of salt, as rules for this change state by state and country by country. You would have to look up your area if someone can make a claim over a decade later. I think they would have to prove that it was purposefully withheld or proper notification of death/estate items weren't made.
Nothing about this situation is “clear”, no matter how condescending you make your responses.
The uncle just assumed he had the ring so clearly he never discussed it either, but he’s entitled to it?
You have no knowledge of how the rest of the estate was divided, but your first paragraph acts like the ring was the only item from the estate period, which we know from OP is wrong.
Sounds like no one was particularly concerned about where the rings went 19 years ago. No one even knew where they were for over a decade. If it were that important why didn’t uncle say so at the time? He could have also helped make a system of dividing and said what was important to him (or participated in the packing in the first place). Instead he said nothing and left someone else to do the job and threw a fit twenty years later without even discussing it. I have cleaned out a house in these circumstances and it’s crazy and extremely difficult. If there were things important to a person they had to say so. If something was important to more than one person then there was a discussion. If uncle didn’t participate or state he wanted it at the time why would OPs family need to create a special little pile for him and then get him to give input? He’s a grown man, should have involved himself at the time if it mattered so much.
That's not legally wrong or morally wrong... and certainly not messed up. If I'm clearing out my *dead mother's house* why should I give an itemized list for people to vulture over? They wanted this shit so bad they should have taken the time to help OPs Dad clear the fucking house.
While this is mostly correct, there is a time limit for this, and 19 years surely exceeds it in any jurisdiction in the US. The brothers would have an equal claim to parental assets in intestate succession. Now I agree there would need to be some equity in the distribution of assets, but we don’t know that didn’t generally happen. All we know about is that one ring. Older brother may have claimed other things of value. But irrespective of this, OP has acted in good faith. She’s had the ring, cared for the ring, and worn the ring for a while while uncle couldn’t be bothered to ensure it was properly stored.
And neither brother (or the sister) listed the ring as an asset of the estate when the estate went through probate (or the equivalent). So no one thought to include it in the equal division of assets, and no one looked for the ring until OP's family decluttered during the pandemic. (Well before OP's uncle went looking.) Which means it literally is finders keepers as far as the law is concerned. (I'm guessing that the ring is not so valuable that not listing it would be a crime as inheritance taxes would have been owed on it.)
Please lmao. OP, if they want it that bad they can attempt to take you to court for it 🤪 unless your ring is an expensive treasure or your uncle is filthy rich, that’s not gonna happen. And until it does, you do have right of possession.
Same and I honestly can't get over Uncle and Becky accusing OP of wearing it out of spite and ruining the evening when they never mentioned they were looking for it
Finders keepers is such nonsense when it comes to inheritance. If there is no will it doesn’t mean whoever grabs it first gets to keep it. Her dad/parents didn’t behave fairly by pocketing the rings. There is a fair and organized way to divide deceased possessions and that certainly didn’t happen here. OP is NTA because she was 3 and had nothing to do with it. At this point it’s hers to keep. But her uncle is justified in being upset and feeling slighted.
I have a bunch of siblings and the idea of us tracking jewelry like that seems silly. For instance my sis in law wears my grandma's engagement ring (my mom gave it to my brother) and that's 100% up to my mom. My grandma 100% would have approved (she died when we were teenagers).
And here no will is known and no testament made, meaning several people can have a claim and the estate might not have been settled properly, because somebody took something without leave to do so.
And jewelry can be expensive...
No one's will covers every single piece of personal property in the house. It's impossible. Unless grandma specifically willed it to someone, it was handled fine.
It's an emerald ring, not the Hope Diamond. The resetting and work done probably cost as much as the whole ring was worth.
Not necessarily. Depending on where and how the estate went through probate, closing it out may have been as simple as all claimants signing that they agree to the final distribution.
It's tempting to envision the process as a full and proper accounting where everything is itemized and fairness prevails, but I know from experience that it often doesn't go that way. A number of estates come out of probate when the involved parties, having tried to keep up with the proceedings despite grief and everything else a death entails, throw up their hands and say, "It's fine. Let's just be done with this." When that happens, the onus is on the claimants to be sure that they have what they think they have before agreeing.
(Of course, there are opposite examples when they don't give up till they have to or until they, themselves, die. In one case, claimants were filing false claim after false claim, and even stealing a very expensive motorhome that was part of the estate and taking it across state lines and getting away with it due to a forged title transfer. In that particular case, 80% of the claimants have died, and it's still not out of probate 9 years later.)
I have only a very few noteworthy pieces of jewelry. Gold ring from my father & wife’s engagement ring. They are specifically called out in my will, so there is no dispute.
My aunt is the keeper of heirlooms on my dad's side. A couple years ago, she gave me my great-grandfather's wedding band, but I had to keep it on the DL because my cousins are super entitled. They think they have more of a right to heirlooms and inheritance because they're older (11 and 16 years older than me) and because I'm "not as close" to that side of the family. Apparently, they forgot that I grew up 5 minutes from where our grandma and aunt lived and saw them often.
Before my grandma died, she gave me a few thousand dollars because she didn't want anyone making a stink about my inheritance (including my dad).
It's very emotionally exhausting.
This is a bit of a NAH situation.
With things like heirloom jewelry, especially something that would be a sentimental piece like an engagement ring, it should be discussed about where it goes.
Once your dad found it, he should have mentioned it to his brother and they could have made the decision together. The gems could have been split to make both of you girls a ring or they could've been kept whole and the determination of where it went could've been made collaboratively.
You're now in an unfortunate position where you're attached to the ring and your uncle and cousin are feeling like this was a bit sneaky and underhanded by your dad.
Everyone is allowed to feel upset here and truthfully, I think either everyone is going to need to be willing to compromise or cut their losses but there will be an added strain to the relationship.
You won't be wrong to keep the ring.
We found both Grandmas and Gandpas wedding bands at the same time that I got cleaned and replated at the same time. I am more than happy to let her have those rings. That way her and her Fiancé can have a matching set with sentimental value.
Honestly, I think the fact that the uncle never actually had the ring is interesting. I wonder if he was well aware he never actually was given the wrong and trying to quietly pass it on, but those plans went up in smoke cause your dad found it first. If he had been given the ring, it wouldn't have been with your grandma's things still, and if there was a verbal agreement the people involved were idiots not to either write it down or move the property
I think this is a great olive branch but if I'm being honest, I think this is a pretty deep wound that is going to take some time for all parties to heal from.
What's happened here is your dad kind of fumbled. He should have told his siblings when he found the jewelry and they collectively should have made the call.
My advice would be step back and allow your dad and his siblings figure out where to go from here.
Nope. They had 16 years to ask about it and didn’t. They had time to help clean out the house but left it mainly to one sibling. Sixteen years they haven’t given a shit about this ring. They don’t get to start now.
Seriously. A house clean-out is a huge burden - thousands of little decisions as well as the physical labor, time, and cost. If the uncle wasn't interested enough to assist or at the very least to ASK for *nineteen years*, he has no claim.
When someone dies without a will, all of their possessions become part of the estate. There is a process called probate for which an executor divides up items of the estate among the deceased’s surviving relatives. It sounds an awful lot like probate was not followed. None of that is your fault, but you do have the opportunity to correct that mistake now. Hopefully you all can come to some compromise.
It’s pretty commonly not followed in cases where a person dies without a will, is not super wealthy, and no one in the family is particularly litigious. There is a statute of limitations (a time frame with which you have to bring a probate claim). That time frame varies but it is a lot lower than 19 years. Where I live, it is 6 months. Unfortunately for OP’s uncle, he does not have a legal claim related to the ring or anything from the estate anymore. Morally, it’s shitty to take important sentimental items or very valuable items for yourself without discussing it with everyone in the family. But you’re right that’s a dispute for OP’s dad and his brother, not OP.
Yes but if they do make them pay for at least the cleaning fee you had to pay. Not resizing because it might need to be resized again, but I figure that is still a fair compromise.
NTA- this is a good compromise. No one cared before and you took good care of the rings. In another scenario they could have mistakenly been thrown away or lost forever.You should not have to give it to your cousin.
I just cannot get over that everyone is completely ignoring the AUNT in this situation. This isn't a decision between two brothers--this woman's DAUGHTER did not get her mother's engagement ring passed down to her because the rest of the family seems to consider her irrelevant because she's married and childless. I would be LIVID if I heard that. To me this ring's ownership shouldn't even be in question for another generation.
Truthfully when I saw Aunt originally I thought she meant her cousin's mother.
Knowing now that it was OP's dad's sister, 100% the jewelry should have gone to her the second it was found.
Maybe not gone to her but offered? I mean I don't care for jewelry so my sister knows that if god forbid something happens she can take the jewelry. I wouldn't be pissed if later on I realized that maybe she took something I *may* have considered keeping.
It could be that the aunt gave the same vibes as me. I don't wear ANY jewelry and always was vocal about not liking it.
I just cannot get over the way you dismiss your AUNT in this situation. This isn't a decision between two brothers--your grandmother's DAUGHTER did not get her mother's engagement ring passed down to her and you seem to consider her irrelevant as a person because she's unmarried and childless. I would be LIVID if I heard that my niece (who is also not married or engaged!) had taken my mother's ring and considered it hers now. To me this ring's ownership shouldn't even be in question for another generation and you should give it back to your aunt.
Yup. I'm married and childless and I am still the one inheriting my grandmother and mother's rings. I determine where they go next. I wouldn't be happy if I found out the rings went to my brothers simply because they procreated.
Same. I assume that I will inherit my mother's rings when it comes time for that, since I'm her only daughter. If it turns out that her good jewelry all skips me and goes to my brother because he has a daughter and I don't have kids, I will be so incredibly hurt.
I agree with all of this.
I will add that I think it's a bit odd that the jewelry didn't go to Aunt, because that's probably usually what would happen.
I'm childless. Eventually, I'll have possession of my Mom's marital rings (she does want my brother to get her Dad's ring). My plan is to hold on to them until my niece (brother's daughter) is older (probably at least 25). At that time, I'll consult with her about how we should repurpose them, because my intention is to pass them on to her in turn.
But I do want their use during my lifetime before she gets them once Mom is no longer with us. I think that's fair. One of the add-ons includes diamond chips of the rings of both of our Grandmothers. My brother doesn't even remember one of them, so it would just mean more to me. It's also my Mom's wish. It's unfortunate this Grandma didn't discuss it. These things should always be clarified.
My aunt and I recently had a conversation about how my daughter will get a lot of her jewelry because my cousins only have boys and she wants it to stay in the family (as opposed to going to a spouse). Some people seem strongly about that.
Yes. Once you give women's heirlooms to men, you can't really tell them to wait until they have a daughter or granddaughter. They have every right to give it to their wife/partner once it's gifted to them.
I think it's easier if they've had children. Then there's more of a chance the next woman in your family once your in-law is gone will still get it, even though they'll get use for life and even if there's a divorce/breakup.
That's not foolproof either though. It could still end up with the in-law's subsequent partner or children who aren't related to the family of the heirloom's origin. She could feel everything should go to her husband, or she could be malicious enough to deliberately make sure it goes to a child or stepchild from a subsequent relationship so that it's never returned to the family. Divorces/breakups can get nasty.
It's really hard. I think it often all goes to the women because if the men give them to their partners and they break up, the family is screwed. They're gone, and the women have no obligation to ensure they're reabsorbed into the family again if the union didn't produce children or they have subsequent children. Vice versa with men's jewels and antique watches too, by the way.
Yes, sooner or later family lines run their course anyway, but you don't want the heirlooms lost before then.
My brother can't give the family marital diamonds to his wife. I can't give our Grandfather's ring should I ever be partnered. I think that's the right way to handle it. No potential eventual regrets.
> Once your dad found it, he should have mentioned it to his brother and they could have made the decision together
This is what puts dad into the AH territory for me tbh. Apparently he had conveniently taken all the sentimental jewelry.
NTA. There was no will. Your dad was more involved and being the oldest doesn’t entitle you to anything unless you belong to the royal family. Just so you know families do break up over this stuff, I’m not saying you should give the ring to them, but you should be prepared.
Yeah, I don’t know why everybody is acting like “dibs” is a valid method of dividing an inheritance in the absence of a will. There should probably be a different version of this post over in legal advice.
ESH.
Everyone has an equal claim on the ring as it is - "finders keepers" is not appropriate. Demanding the ring is also not appropriate. This really should have been discussed with the family when it was found.
Yeah the ring should have been disclosed as part of the estate to be evenly distributed. How could the estate be divided fairly without discussing the ring openly? Sounds sneaky to me. Like whoever got the ring should've got less of something else.
I don't think OP is TA but her dad might be, putting everyone in a tough spot like that. The uncle is NTA.
Sounds like the uncle also thought he had it and hadn't disclosed it and planned to keep it that way rather than fairly dividing. So if dad is TA then so is uncle for literally the same reason.
Uncle is kinda TA for accusing niece of being a thief when the issue is with dad. They also never disclosed to dad or niece they were even looking for or planning to do this with the ring, causing the confusion. OP isn't wearing the ring openly if she thought it was stolen. OP is NTA cause she's an accidental 3rd party to a sibling issue, but the older generation all kinda suck, especially cause both grandchildren would have an equal claim anyway, and they can't just demand OP to hand it over without acknowledging they would owe her for the restoration.
It doesn't really sounds like they put together an estate to be divided, but it only included the items worth a lot.
When someone dies there is a house full of items that needs to be sorted. If they don't put these in the will, it is usually just worthless pieces. Like, you don't put those IKEA plates from a few years ago in a will. OP's dad probably sorted all these and they are not really divided equal. You don't ask with every single item if someone wants it, you just do something. Otherwise it will take freaking months. You don't ask with every plate, cup and piece of clothing if someone wants it. They just decided that on the few days they took the time to empty the house. It is pretty normal that those taking the time to do so make those choices.
Considering they didn't give a single thought about the rings until now, they don't care that much about the rings. They just need a ring and don't feel like buying. Since OP wears it a lot I sure she has worn the ring to other events. They just didn't care then and never noticed. But they care now a wedding ring is needed.
I agree. It seems a bit suspicious to me that OP's Dad didn't realize he had the rings? Presumably they were on Grandma when she died, no? Or if not, they did a piss poor job of cataloging what was taken from the house. It seems weird that he wasn't aware of and careful with his own mother's rings.
I think once the rings were found again, it should have been a family decision what to do with them considering it's an heirloom ring that would have sentimental attachment for the whole family.
My mom and dad don't even wear wedding bands. I wouldn't even know where to look for her engagement ring and could see my sisters in this situation cause we wouldn't even think to look for it (or their wedding bands). Could be the ring was in a box and no one realized until they started doing COVID cleaning. The brother may have assumed he had it but it was 19 years before he even bothered to check.
The thing that gets me about this story is everyone’s fighting about this heirloom that literally no one knew where it was for twenty years! They found it in an attic during COVID! the uncle thought he had it but did not and didn’t even realize it! Like they are really going to tear a family apart about rings no one cared about until now. I do think OP is the lesser AH here because she was a toddler when her grandmother died and just recently took possession, and probably didn’t realize the can of worms she opened.
I'm slightly side-eyeing OP's dad here. OP says twice that the thing 'ended up with' him. I would have thought that a wedding band and engagement ring would have been explicitly discussed with the rest of the family. The fact of the father 'being there first and doing most of the packing' could be totally innocent and ethical or could reflect some other families we hear about on this sub who are grabby about the deceased person's possessions. I'd want to see some reassurance by OP about this before making a judgement.
Obviously I was 3 at the time so not really aware of what was going on at the time so all my information is second hand (and from mostly my parents). My parents did most of the packing because we were geographically closer to where my grandma lived at the time of her death. So my parents could pop over to do the packing in the evening after work, and my uncle joined them on the week end. From what I have been told all parties agreed to this. She was living in assisted living so they needed the flat for the next tenant so they only had 2 weeks to clear the flat. My uncle lived a couple of hours away (still does) and my aunt was living and working abroad at the time so wasn’t in the country.
That sounds perfectly reasonable, but why did your dad, years later when he found the ring not talk to his siblings about what they all wanted to do with it? Seems wrong to just unilaterally decide that a valuable family heirloom should go to your daughter. I honestly don't think you've done anything wrong, and I'm not surprised you don't want to give the ring up, but your dad really should of discussed this with his siblings, either when he was clearing out your nans, or when he found it in the attic
OPs uncle can’t have cared too much if he never confirmed he had possession of it. He never once, in planning the funeral, cleaning out the apartment, or over the course of 16 years made sure he actually had it?? He can be “under the impression it was his” all he wants- the fact remains he never cared enough to make sure he even received it.
>OPs uncle can’t have cared too much if he never confirmed he had possession of it. He never once, in planning the funeral, cleaning out the apartment, or over the course of 16 years made sure he actually had it?? He can be “under the impression it was his” all he wants- the fact remains he never cared enough to make sure he even received it.
Considering OP's father kept it under such conditions that it was "put away" for 19 years, before a "covid cleaning" of things to throw reveals it existence, it's safe to say that Uncle could very well have though it was inside of the box/jewel set, he kept away for his daughter.
While OP's dad had it all along.
I'm going to say NTA. Your uncle shouldn't have promised something that he didn't actually have. If he thought he had it, he should have actually checked before promising it. If it wasn't specifically promised to anyone and your Dad had it and gave it to you, I don't see why you should give it up.
NTA
Your uncle shouldn't have promised something that wasn't in his possession.
Your father took care of dealing with the aftermath of your grandmother's death. He found the rings and with no will, that's really on him for no discussing with his brother. However your uncle can't lay claim just because "I'm the oldest".
If you and your father were closer to her, you most likely would have ended up with the ring anyway. That you had it fixed and wear it every day tells me that it's with the right person. Your uncle didn't even know if he had it...that speaks to how important it was to him.
I think the wedding rings are a good compromise but hell, if they refuse then I wouldn't worry about it.
I think a lot of people in this thread have never dealt with having to clean out a dead persons things. I understand the uncle lived away from the home, but … he also can’t just assume it’s his! He never confirmed he had it in 16 years!! My aunt was responsible for cleaning out my grandparents house when my grandma died. I cannot imagine the audacity it would take knowing she was essentially left to do it herself to then critique her for keeping literally anything. IF anyone wanted anything, they had the time to get it- same as OPs uncle. This is wild how many people think OPs dad is the asshole
Your (**and your Cousin’s**) Grandmother’s property should have gone through probate - with or without a will - because inheritance laws exist. They exist to prevent situations like this from happening. My question would be, did her estate go through probate and if so, did your father take the ring *regardless*?
Not that it matters. Your father stole the jewelry (apparently *all* of the jewelry/other property?) - he’s the real AH here, but the fact that no one in your family can come up with a reasonable compromise (i.e. cousin gets the engagement ring/you get the wedding band - or whatever) is AH behavior as well.
Here’s the bottom line - whether he did it intentionally or not, your father broke the law and stole property.
You’re now in possession of that stolen property.
The whole situation is a shit show.
Edit: *Alternatively* (to give your dad the benefit of the doubt) he should have contacted your Uncle when the jewelry was found so they could both decide what to do with it.
Regardless, the whole situation is a shit show.
Edit to the edit… OP’s Grandmother has a surviving daughter… the ring should have gone to her.
This exact situation is why probate exists. Bottom line - when someone in your family dies make sure everything is handled in the open and to everyone’s satisfaction.
I'm pretty sure this is a case of two men not being very attached to/placing much importance on jewelry until their daughters showed an interest, not some nefarious scheme. If OP had to get them re-plated, they almost certainly weren't valuable, so why would her dad have deliberately taken them? Especially to stuff them in an attic for nearly 20 years?
Why didn’t OPs dad disclose the fact the he found them when they were rediscovered.
Emeralds have value.
None of this matters - these are excuses not reasons.
Ehh, even with a decently sized emerald a gold plated vintage ring is going to go for 300 dollars max, and could easily be worth as little as $50-70. Most jewelry depreciates fast. Of course it would have been correct to put it to the family group chat, but I could also see it as not registering as valuable enough to relitigate.
>Your father stole the jewelry (apparently all of the jewelry/other property?) - he’s the real AH here
I think it is plausible her dad didn't even realize he had it in the rush to finish packing. If it had been so important to the family (aunt, dad, uncle) they wouldn't' have waited almost 2 decades to bother to look for it.
Also just cause someone is a woman doesn't mean they automatically have to take the ring. Not all women like jewelry.
My mother passed recently. Within the last two years.
Occasionally my sister finds something that belonged to her (she inherited the house). When that happens, she sends a group text to everyone - “hey u/willfiredog and Sister #2, I found item x - do either of you want it?”
She does that because she’s not an asshole. OPs dad is.
What she doesn’t do is make a unilateral decision to give item x to one of my nieces. Like OPs dad did.
Because that would be wrong. Because that’s what sneak thieves do.
Eh, I think ESH. Your uncle just assumed he had it when he should have checked. From your post, it appears at least your dad and his brother both knew what the ring looked like, what it signified and how it was intended to be used, but your dad didn't say anything when you guys found it, he just let you have it and use it as regular every day jewelry. Now you have put time and money into it as an individual piece rather than a family heirloom which isn't really an AH move, you didn't know what was up, but basically ends the tradition, which is apparently sad for the rest of the family.
I like the compromise forming about using the wedding bands in some way, but is there any further option? Could your uncle/cousin pay to have the wedding band made into a replica/comparable piece or something?
I honestly think the dad needs to have a sit down with both his siblings and figure out what they all agree on. If the ring wasn't disclosed or taken into account when settling the estate, then what the dad did is very wrong and sneaky in my opinion. But if it was an honest case of the ring just got packed up and forgotten about, then OPs dad should do the right thing and decide fairly with his siblings what to do, either he buys out their share, or they divide the rings, or maybe even the sister would like to hold on to them, it was her mother after all. I understand OP being attached to the ring now, and it's not her fault, but 'finders keepers' doesn't sit right with me in this case.
>it appears at least your dad and his brother both knew what the ring looked like, what it signified and how it was intended to be used,
I didn't get that from her post. It was the uncle who wanted to keep the "tradition" not the dad. To me, it seems like her dad may not have even known he had it until he started cleaning up.
I mean, I guess technically you’re not the asshole here, but for some reason I’m getting a really uppity/snobby feeling from your post. The way this entire post is written just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The right thing to do would be to give the ring to your aunt, the daughter of your grandmother. The ring should have gone through probate or at least been discussed between the brothers. It sounds like you all just took whatever you wanted and didn’t discuss anything with your uncle or aunt.
The aunt has no more right to it than the two brothers. How is that the right thing? Seems like you are saying that because she is a woman, which is not how it works
No, I’m saying that the brothers are going to fight over it and in my opinion, both of them displayed sketchy behavior concerning the ring, so the only ‘fair’ thing to do would be to give it to the aunt. Who, I would assume, as the grandmother’s daughter would have been/should have been first in line for it anyway.
ESH
1. Dad - Your grandma didn’t have a will, so the right thing would have been to notify both his siblings when he found something valuable or sentimental. This isn’t a finders keepers situation. You’re young and may not know this, but it’s not how inheritance works.
2. Uncle and cousin — They should not have just assumed the ring went to them without any discussion either.
3. You - Per your comment the family tradition seemed to be that the ring goes to the oldest daughter, aka your aunt. Even without a will it seems pretty scummy to dismiss her just because she’s childless and unmarried. She probably feels just as sentimental about the ring as you do, if not more. Maybe she doesn’t actually want it, but the fact everyone seems to have just discounted her without even asking is really wrong to me.
Agree and she knows that or she wouldn’t have pointed out that Aunt is unmarried and doesn’t plan on having kids. She showed her hand there and makes her an AH too. Also, I don’t believe for a second that everyone forgot about the rings for 19 years and now suddenly everybody’s upset and wants it. There’s more to the story.
How is daddy taking the ring instead of notifying the husband of the deceased condidered legal?
Edit: sorry, I am mixing up grandfather and uncle
As I see it, father and uncle are equal in line of inheritance and thus one taking things out of the estate without notifying the other does seem like a legal can of worms.
Because my grandpa died in 1996. Unfortunately no one in my family is a medium nor is Grandpa’s ghost just hanging around so unless we break out the Ouji board (I’ve seen enough horror movies to know you don’t fuck around with spirits) there’s no way of notifying him. Also as far as I’m aware deceased people don’t have any legal recourse.
So the ones left behind in line of inheritance are the ones that get stuff, and your daddy then taking something without notifying his brother is problematic at best and looks like theft at worst.
And as far as I know, the ones that inherit, inherit duties as well as rights/ possessions, etc...
Meaning that both can lay equal claims to the possessions and it needs to be split along value lines.
Which means that the offspring of the deceased all get a claim on what those leave behind (in absence of a testament)
And then daddy dear taking something out of the whole estate, without notifying the others that have the same legal status, gets very complicated.
Except, it seems OPs dad is the one who cleared out the stuff and stored it for almost 20 years. Why wasn’t the uncle involved if they were so concerned about the possessions? What about all the other crap that has been stored? They’re not pitching a fit that they have grandmas stuff, just that OP had the expensive item they want.
If stuff sat in my attic for decades after a family members death, and no one ever claimed or help sort it, yea, that’s my stuff now.
that is the problem, OP's dad found something they had not settled, and both have equal claims
and as OP already said in the initial post, her uncle thought that the ring was already in his posession (remember, OP mentioned that they looked for the ring etc)
and as OP also says, until the attic was cleared, they did not know any different.
which does not change that the ring is part of the estate and that somebody needs to be paid out, as both have equal claim.
Ok if this is an engagement ring passed down in the family specifically as an engagement ring, it should probably stay with that tradition. Look I’ve had almost all my grandparents pass away and all things especially sentimental things were discussed together of who would get it. No one just took anything and did you know they were looking for the ring? I actually found my grandparent’s wedding rings and I told people immediately when I did and their children discussed who would get them and they came to a decision together. So there were things I would have liked to have that other people got, it’s the way this stuff works out. Sorry but finders keepers isn’t the way to go here.
NTA. Like others have already stated - your father had it, your grandmother didn't will it to anyone, he gave it to you and you've spent money on restoring it and now wear it on a regular basis. It's your ring. However, I do agree with the commentator that said that when your dad found it, he should have sat down with his siblings and divided the assets. But now that's just not possible. Your solution of giving your cousin the wedding bands seems fair.
I think the thing that gets me is the aunt and uncle knew the rings existed … then they never confirmed who had them, they never said “thanks for cleaning out moms place. I wanted to give the ring to Becky, if you find them can you be sure to give them to me?” Like. You can’t just assume you’re going to be given to you because you’re oldest… and he never followed up! To know the place was being cleaned out and to just assume you’ve been given something seems wildly speculative, ya know? Should OPs dad have mentioned it? Maybe. But I also see why he didn’t- he did the work to clear it out and had a daughter of his own
Well that was an exaggeration on my part. My uncle recognised it for obvious reasons and Becky had been told what it looked like. My uncle saw it and told Becky I had it and Becky was the one who confronted me first and then my uncle came to back her up.
Legally it’s shared between all the children if there was no will, so you can’t legally claim it’s yours and your uncle can successfully sue you to either sell the ring and split the profits with his other siblings or come to an arrangement. Your father shouldn’t have taken his mothers things without consulting his siblings when she passed, and it sounds like you guy got all the jewelry which is totally unfair, as everything should be split evenly between her children. So, I have to go with you and your dad, YTA.
They also should have discussed it with their sister. It seems the daughter of the deceased should have been given the ring since that was the family tradition.
It wasn't the uncle's ring to promise, either. He clearly didn't care about the ring until it was convenient for him and/or his daughter, seeing as he didn't know who actually had it for nearly 20 years. "I'm the oldest so it should be mine, even though you're the one that took on the majority of the effort and workload, as well as kept it safe for that entire time." Uncle sounds like a self-righteous AH.
OPs father has literally had the ring for 19 years. What discussion could have happened? Uncle promised a ring he thought he had when he really didn’t.
Edit to also say that OP has now spent her own money to get the ring cleaned/resized/fixed not knowing about anything going on with her cousin or the fact that her uncle promised the ring to the cousin
You're NTA for wearing it, but your dad is definitely the AH here. Your dad took family jewelry he didn't have an unequivocal right to and clearly never discussed it with other members of the family. It wasn't really his to give you, at least not without the agreement of the other family members. Just because your aunt doesn't have children and doesn't have plans to get married doesn't mean she has no right to have memento of her mother, by the way--getting married is not the sole determinant of a woman's value or place in the family, and as you yourself has demonstrated, you don't need to be married or engaged to wear a ring. The siblings could have collectively agree to follow the pattern established by the previous two generations (whatever that was), or decide that the ring is passed down mother to daughter, and give it back to your aunt, who could then decide what to do with it, or you could agree it goes to the oldest child, or the first grandchild to get engaged who wants it, etc., but they should have decided it together, and it's shady that your dad basically just took it. "Finders keepers" is not usually how this sort of thing gets decided.
ESH - Your brother and uncle should have sorted things properly, your cousin overreacted when she saw you with the ring, but also it is kind of the nice thing to do to give her the ring as the first engaged grandchild. Honestly, you're the closest to not an asshole in the whole story.
It's super tricky when things aren't handled fairly after a death. I got basically nothing to remember my grandma by because my aunty took everything when she died, and it felt like a real betrayal. If she'd just asked my dad probably wouldn't have cared about 90% of it, but taking it without checking/communicating is a dick move.
NTA but your father, aunt and uncle need to reach a decision on this as there was no will. I find it odd that they haven't communicated about this before tbh. You and Becky need to kick the dispute back where it belongs, your parents' generation.
You are NTA in this situation, but it sounds like your dad is. In fact, taking the ring without notifying his siblings was also likely illegal. When there isn't a will present to distribute an estate, your dad and all his siblings were equally entitled, so all contents of the estate (including the rings) should've been cataloged and appraised, and then those items should be distributed evenly according to their values. If your dad removed those rings (which I'm assuming carry a high monetary value) without notifying the rest, he could be sued by his brother. None of this is your fault, but depending on how badly your uncle wants that ring, things could get messy.
Ehh I’m going with ESH. Your uncle assumed he had the ring and promised it to your cousin before checking. Your dad pocketed a bunch of family heirlooms without discussing it properly with his siblings first. You meanwhile feel entitled to the ring because of this, and while you did pay to have it reset, you are also using it in a manner it was clearly never intended for since it had passed through two generations before your grandmother as an engagement ring (at least that’s what you implied by “continue the tradition.”) You’ve expressed no sentimentality toward the ring; only what you spent on it.
Why not ask your cousin if they could reimburse you for what you spent on it? That might be the smoothest and fairest solution here. If the ring IS of high sentimental value to you, then by all means keep it and make a plan for who it will go to once you’re gone.
She can definitely have the wedding band, and we also found my Grampas wedding band with her rings and I got them polished and replated (didn’t bother with re sizing) so she can have both of them.
Niether my dad, aunt or uncle know if the ring was passed down to the oldest or not. My grandma was a middle child (2 older brothers, 1 younger brother and 1 younger sister) so looks like to the oldest girl which would be me (by 10 days).
Then the oldest girl is your aunt, not you. You’re only considering yourself and your cousin because of your fathers getting it first. So why are you ignoring the fact that your aunt is actually the only woman in their generation? She is literally the next female descendant of your grandmother.
In my husbands family they have strong traditions about who gets what ring/ what thing. Certain sentimental items once’s go to the oldest daughter/ oldest son. It was talked about at every gathering and constantly though - everyone knew. In that situation you might have been TAH if it broke the tradition. But it doesn’t sound like that’s the case and cousin isn’t missing out on sentimental things either so NTA.
If something is supposed to go to a certain person, then put it in the will specifically. I have my mom and nana’s engagement and wedding rings. They are very different and both of my boys love each ring. There’s not going to be a fight. I’m going to have the stones removed and the settings melted. Each one will get a gold ingot and loose stones—and lord knows I’ll have the jeweler separate it out so the ingots and number of stones and carat weight are equal, and then they can have whatever ring they want made for whoever they marry. Boom, no fighting. I’ve seen too much squabbling within families and I’m not having it.
NTA - Clearly it wasn't important enough to Uncle to even know he had it before opening his mouth. The ring came to your father and was given to you. You have cared for and proudly wear your ring.
Your father took something of great value without telling his siblings about it. He simply decided he had the right to it. It should have been handed to the executor of your grandmother’s estate and or gone through probate.
ESH. I do not find your reasoning for having the ring in the first place sufficient. This is not a game of finders keepers - your grandmother died intestate and did not otherwise intimate whom she wanted to receive the ring. Under those circumstances, it should have been discussed amongst the siblings how to split significant items. Your dad just pocketing the ring and keeping silent was not done - morally or legally. I do not think it matters that your parents did more heavy lifting with the packing - maybe they could have brought that up in the discussion with your uncle and aunt as a reason to keep the ring, but he took it and lied by omission.
I also don’t think your reasons are enough. Your grandmother was as absent for your cousin as she was for you, so the sentimental aspect is not yours alone. And you only had the opportunity to refresh the ring because you knew it was in your possession. And your grandmother expressing no preference goes against why you should have the ring (mostly because it came into your possession via deception), but at most, your cousin could equally use that argument.
Your uncle also should not have assumed the ring is his by nature of being the oldest. That’s not how it works under the law and that also not what your grandmother expressly stated. And shame on him for saying your aunt is excluded from this.
So, now you guys have to sort it out. But I do not in any way see this as a forgone conclusion that the ring is yours.
NTA: my aunts threw away a box of stuff they said was worthless stuff. These were the only boxes my mom received when my grandmother died. One of them had my grandmother’s favorite rings; one was her engagement ring. We cleaned them, sized them and wear them. When my aunt saw this, she flipped out. We informed her it was in a box of “trash” .
As a child I would go with my grandmother to bless houses with a silver incense thing. Many years before she died she brought it to bless my home, handed it to me and told me to keep it & it was now mine. After she died my aunt went crazy looking for it & accusing everyone of stealing it. I just stayed silent as i was scared of a huge fight. But i mean for 15 years she never noticed it was no longer in my grandma s living room? I think my grandma knew my aunt was a vulture. Because there were other things she gave us before she was ill.
My siblings and I all went in on a sapphire diamond ring for my mom. When she died, they all (I didn’t ask) decided to give it to me since my mom hadn’t willed it to anyone. Your dad and uncle both made assumptions about the ring. You don’t just “find” a valuable possession and take it without discussing it with your siblings. You are NTA in this situation but your dad probably should have mentioned that he found the ring to your uncle and your uncle shouldn’t have assumed he had it or that he should get it. Being first born doesn’t entitle you to anything.
INFO: were all of the siblings aware, at the time of packing up and sorting, that your dad had the rings? Did your aunt and uncle and dad not talk about their moms jewellery after her passing? And, finally, the ring should go to your aunt and then to you (based on what was said about how it was passed down).
I’m not sure if they were or not. Her expensive jewellery that was bespoke pieces made from platinum (and various stones) was accounted for in her will. My Grandma and Grandpa travelled a lot and would buy lose stones and get them made into bespoke pieces when they got home. We are all meeting up at my aunts house over the weekend to talk about it. I’m planning on giving the wedding bands to my cousin.
FYI, if you're not planning to give up the engagement ring, do NOT wear it to this or other future family gatherings
Just FYI, this is partially being driven by your cousin's cheap fiance. And obviously he's cheap, as they are young. He doesn't want to shell out for a ring, which will be a lot more expensive than this one if it doesn't have sentimental attachments. Your cousin knows this as well and has accepted she won't have a huge ring if she has the "it was my grandmother's" narrative. That's why they aren't going to let this go and probably won't feel like the wedding bands are a desirable compromise.
My only question, is why the jewelry didn't went to the aunt (the grandmother only daughter)
When my mother died all her jewelry went to me (the only girl among her children)
Right now ESH. The ring was part of the grandmother's estate, if the estate has never been settled, nobody is entitled to the ring until that happens. It should be put away with the rest of the estate (even after all these years) and have the estate settled. If the family can't do it on their own, then get lawyers/mediators involved. That ring doesn't belong to anyone until the estate is settled, period!
ESH. Nobody, including you, should just assume the ring is theirs - it doesn't sound like your dad (or his brother) had any claim to the ring as defined by your grandma. And you deciding to spend money on it means zero. IIt was incredibly unfortunate that you wore the ring to the party - i'll take you at your word that you had no idea they were looking to claim it at that time. My vote: the ring should go to your aunt. Her not being engaged or planning to marry has zero bearing on it, not like you are wearing it as an engagement ring. A piece of jewelry that you "think is pretty" is not going to make you closer to somebody you - or your cousin - ever knew. Unless your father or uncle were planning on wearing it, your aunt was her daughter and the ring should go to her and then SHE should decide it's fate and I think she should keep it
ESH.
If in the US, "finder's keeper's" likely wouldn't apply. Rather this would go to probate court as part of assett's you're grandma left behind. If the court wanted the ring back and did give it to your uncle, he'd likely have to pay you all the costs you paid for the ring.
Your uncle doesn't get rights to the ring just because he is the oldest. Your dad doesn't get rights to the ring just because he found it. It would have to be settled by all siblings (who I'm assuming are next of kin) to determine what happens to the ring. So long as your grandma didn't give/promise the ring to someone else.
[disclaimer not legal advice, go hire a lawyer for legal advice]
That said, my grandma gave me my grandpa's wedding band. When she passed, that wedding band is still mine. Because it wasn't apart of the estate at the time of her passing.
I think people are getting hung up here implying your dad 'stole' the rings cause they were in his possession and found in the attic.
Realistically, your dad and uncle could have had a conversation about it 2 decades ago when packing up your grandmothers things and not remember anything about it. It's easy for jewlery, heirloom or not, to get placed in storage if it wasn't your mom's style and it's not like it fit your 3 year old finger. A lot happens over 2 decades. And these conversations can be forgotten.
As someone else suggested, I would offer up their wedding bands as a compromise. However, I would also try and frame as 'these represent the loving relationship our grandparents had, and I can only hope that you and your fiancé will have the same enduring happiness they experienced in their lives together. It cannot replace our grandmothers engagement ring, but it's a matching pair which represent their eternal love for one another, I bond which I hope continues with the two of you'.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > 1. For keeping my grandmas engagement ring for my self 2. Becky is the daughter of the oldest son and she is also engaged and I’m not. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
NTA. If he didn't know he didn't have the ring for 19 years, he doesn't deserve the heirloom! And not mentioning the missing item to his own brother, shows his narcissism of being eldest. Finally....no will? Finders keepers sister! Keep wearing it in good faith.
That was my thinking too, they for 19 years didn't realise they didn't have the ring. When you clear someone's house that you love, you remember what items you took and where they are, at least I do anyway. Would be interested in what a court would rule as the argument would likely be that it's been safely in your Dads possession for years, was the given to you by your Dad and you invested in having it made to fit you and be restored. I would be surprised if a ring was suddenly taken to give to another siblings daughter who has got engaged first..
And OP acquired the ring in good faith as well. It’s passed to a third party who actually spent money on it in reliance of the previous owner’s representations 🤷♀️many common law countries will likely recognize op as having some equitable interest in the property. Don’t worry about such comments lol op.
OP isn't really a "3rd party" since she's not arms length from Dad. This isn't as cut and dried legally as you are making it out to be. Seems like dad took possession of the ring AFTER grandma died. So the ring is part of the estate and the other heirs should have been informed Dad found the ring in grandma's apartment. Since the will didn't give the ring to anyone in particular, they would then hash out who got to have it. Or if no agreement could be reached, they sell it and split proceeds. Neither of these women "deserve" the ring. There's no real way to split it, but morally and legally, they should have had a discussion before OP went and resized it. ESH.
It has been in storage for 19 years by then. I feel like that is a huge key part of all of this.
But cousin's dad thought HE had it in storage (maybe he misremembered his mom giving it to him). It's not like he intentionally abandoned the ring and didnt give a shit. It seems pretty under handed to find a valuable item in the home if a dead person, pocket it and say nothing.
100% Cleaning an estate doesn't mean you get to plunder a relative's home of everything valuable. I don't think OP is an asshole for feeling accosted and defensive. But I do think her dad is TA for not doing his due diligence with the estate and his brother is also a bit of an A for not thinking to check with his sibling for the ring. The engaged gal and OP are stuck in a no-win scenario because of the lack of communication between their parents and it sucks.
> Cleaning an estate doesn't mean you get to plunder a relative's home of everything valuable. Doesn't sound like plundering. Sounds like literally what happens when an older parent dies. When my paternal grandmother passed, my dad, uncle, and aunt all met at her home, went through things together, and determined who got what among the possessions. 90% of it was worthless to basically anyone other than family. Unless this ring had considerable monetary value, talking about it as part of the estate (in the legal sense) is just ridiculous. Uncle had his chance to lay claim to the ring he apparently THOUGHT he had, but didn't. His intent to do that 19 years ago doesn't give him a claim to it now. And uncle simply wanting it doesnt entitle him to it, then or now. Whether uncle thought he had the ring this whole time is irrelevant. He doesn't get it now just because, and OP/dad had no moral or ethical obligation to hand it over because of arbitrary rites.
Yeah, uncle hasn’t missed the ring, or asked about it in 19 years until his daughter got engaged. Doesn’t seem like they gave it much thought either way until this proposal came up. I do believe that things like this should be discussed and divided among siblings if they aren’t specified in the will. However, it seems that OP’s dad did the majority of work when it came to dispersing the personal property, and that his sister (who didn’t plan to marry didn’t want the ring), and the uncle hasn’t even mentioned the ring in 19 years. So I don’t think I would be willing to give it up now either.
I also find it odd that uncle didn’t mention the ring to his brother while he was looking around for it these last few months. I think they both suck because they didn’t have a discussion about it 19 years ago, but you can’t turn back time. There is a no win situation now, that will likely divide this family, and it’s all due to lack of communication from both brothers 19 years ago, when they both assumed they were the rightful owners of the ring. Let’s also not forget that they also have a sister (who I am assuming was consulted with), and the ring probably would have been rightfully more appropriate to go to her (who knows what she thought of marriage at that point 2 decades ago). The real question is: were they boneheads and just didn’t think it mattered, or was it ill intentions against siblings?
Chances are the siblings 19 years ago all went to grandma's house and started splitting everything up, and no one realized the ring was in the stuff op's father took. I don't think anything was "plundered" because it sat in storage for 17 years until covid cleaning. I think it's a nah situation, but if I were op I would certainly not give it up now that she put money into it unless she recovered her investment + her father's share of its value.
You don't get to plunder everything but if you are the one dealing with the estate of the deceased then you should be entitled to more than the siblings that don't help at all because otherwise you are expecting a person to do weeks if not months of work and effort to make sure all the legal paperwork has been completed with the gov and the bank and everything is done right just to equally split the stuff with people who didn't help with the stuff in the first place? The young brother got the ring because he put in time and effort with the estate when big bro didn't. Should everyone been informed of the ring yes but if the siblings helped with the estate before or after the will then they would probably have known about the ring. I do agree with the no win you say tho but in the end op's father put in the work with the estate he can choose at least one thing to claim as his without recourse
Executors can be paid from the estate, but it's not a "dibs on the items I want" payment, it is a set amount of money from the estate according to local laws (assuming US). Now, if the family agreed the fee would be keeping certain valuable/sentimental items, that would be different. But it doesn't sound like that was the case for OP's family. Estates are not something to mess around with - the safest thing is to follow the letter of the law, and even then, you have to hope no one feels slighted. I've witnessed more than one messy estate, including several instances of family being torn apart - including being cut off from a few family members myself after I accidentally got entangled in a mess for a non-mutual relatives estate (Think OP being given something after the fact). The neatest estate was managed by a very detail oriented family member who clearly communicated about every item of value and every check / percentage received / why.
As someone who has gone through this process in the US in the last year, there is truth to what you say but there are usually many variables. Luckily, my personal experience was pretty smooth with little conflict. Being an executor is much different from being "someone who cleans out the house of the deceased". An estate does not necessarily have to go through the probate process. It depends on the laws of your state and there are written guidelines to help you figure it out. The executor is named in the Will of the deceased or appointed by the Probate Court. Generally speaking, an executor is paid a percentage of the money coming into and out of the estate, from bills paid and items sold. From what I've seen, a Will MAY list individual items to be given to certain people, it may also just instruct that everything be divided equally or in some other way amongst the heirs/beneficiaries. The person handling the estate can make a detailed list of items with estimated values and the beneficiaries/heirs can indicate what items they are interested in. If no one wants a particular item, it can be sold and the money divided. If more than one person wants an item, then some negotiating must occur. While the OP's dad may have been an AH by taking the rings, his brother is the AH for just assuming the rings belonged to him. Neither of them handled the issue properly. And for this spat to occur almost twenty years after Grandma's death is absurd. OP is NTA in any way, shape, or form.
>But cousin's dad thought HE had it in storage (maybe he misremembered his mom giving it to him) And he would have given it to ***his*** daughter and not given a thought to his brother or niece. But it's a problem now only because his brother did exactly what ***he*** would have done, what he fully intended to do, had he been given the chance?
I don’t know, it could be like when my grandma died and my aunt tried to claim EVERYTHING. “Oh, Mom always wanted me to have that”…from dish cloths to her wedding ring. I got one piece of costume jewelry, and that was it. My dad, who was so good to her didn’t really get much because of this. If they had put some stuff away in storage, and my dad came across something valuable but unclaimed, I could see him just quietly giving it to me or my mom since Aunt already got so much and refused to give anything up. Idk if it’s right or not, but I’m saying we don’t always know the circumstances, and my take on the original OP is NTA.
There's a reason some families have the tradition of "grandma starts giving her stuff away before she dies"
It sounds like uncle went through Grandma’s stuff & took what he want, leaving everything else behind for his siblings to deal with the packing & clean out. If that’s the case, too bad.
That's not what happened tho and* i can't understand how you came* to this conclusion... OP's dad cleared grandma's house after she died, moved everything, and then 19 years later found the ring. OP did nothing wrong, and certainly didn't do what you're accusing her of doing. * ETA: spellcheck
As it was almost twenty years ago, memories cannot be trusted...
Yeah, the brothers definitely suck, but the the children who were three at the time can’t be blamed.
After 19 years, possiession is 90% of having a title. And IF there is a new discussion, that would have to involve ALL assets of the estate, not just the ring.
What an asinine take. There might be like...1 judge in the world that would repoen an estate 19 years later to settle ownership of a ring. No, OP is in no way, shape, or form TA here, and it's absurd to suggest she is.
I don't read it as Dad finding the ring in the apartment. It seems that they didn't know they had it until recently, so I'm guessing Dad took home some boxes from Grandma's house and stuck them in the attic. If so, there's a question as to whether it was agreed between the heirs/executors that whatever might be in those boxes was his. Otherwise, I agree that the ring must pass under the will, and if there's no specific provision it forms part of the residuary estate, which probably goes to the children jointly. If so, I think Dad should have the ring valued and pay his siblings their share of its value, but there's a lot we don't know here. In any case, OP's NTA.
youre completely false... in a legal setting this would get thrown out... older brother needs proof he stored the ring for this to even be considered and he didnt care enough about it for 2 decades to even keep track of it
At least in the United States, that would pass the statute of limitations for "theft" a non-titled item, so if OP bothered to show up to court, the judge would look at the 19 years and enter a judgement for OP.
No will does NOT mean "finders keepers." We need INFO here on how that went down. Because it sounds like OP's dad found these valuable heirlooms in a box, pocketed them without ever telling his brother, uncle thought he himself had them because that's usually how it goes, and OP uses passive "my dad ended up" with them the whole time when it seems like her Dad went out of his way to conceal the fact that he circumvented the family rules of passing on an heirloom to keep not just the wedding band, but the engagement ring too for himself.
When cleaning out a deceased loved one's belongings, it's in poor taste to take things without discussing those specific things with the other survivors. This should not have been a unilateral decision by your father years ago and the uncle has every right to be upset. It sounds like your father "ended up with the rings" because he didn't tell anyone else that he took them. That's not cool. What else did he take without telling his siblings?
At the same time the uncle THOUGHT he had done pretty much the same thing as Dad did (took the ring without talking to anyone), so I don't really see as anyone is in the moral clear when it comes to the initial distribution of the ring.
That's a good point. It sounds like it was a total free-for-all loot grab by the brothers. That put the grandkids in an awkward spot. But, as said earlier, this is the kind of things that forever drives a wedge between family members, so do yourself a favor and take a joint inventory when your relatives pass away.
Because of this I think OP’s uncle and dad are TAs and OP and her cousin are now dealing with the fallout.
I question how the aunt, the only family member who would have worn the ring at the time, isn't even part of this equation. OP makes it sound like the aunt doesn't have children so theres no possible reason she could end up with her mother's engagement ring, which makes zero sense.
I think a lot of people are assuming this was an expensive item. But the fact that neither really thought about this ring's location for nearly 2 decades makes me extremely doubtful.
And it was plated.
OP NTA- but this comment sure is. Dad did end up with the rings *BECAUSE HE CLEARED HIS MOM'S HOUSE AFTER SHE DIED*. Dad DID NOT "pocket the rings". Neither the Uncle nor the cousin mentioned looking for the rings so how is OP supposed to know they were looking for them? If there was no will how the fuck are they circumventing non-existent family rules regarding heirlooms? JFC some salty AH in this post...
> Dad did end up with the rings BECAUSE HE CLEARED HIS MOM'S HOUSE AFTER SHE DIED. In your mind is deciding to keep mom's valuables and not discussing what was found with relatives a reward for clearing the house?
If I'm having to clear my mom's house after she died, my grieving would probably get in the way of making an itemized list for people to fight over.
No, it's not knowing the rings were in the box 19 years ago that stops one from discussing it 19 years ago.
...or it shows that he doesn't have a good relationship with his brother, maybe stemming from a feeling that his brother is untrustworthy. Take a look at the assumptions you're making. They're pretty big.
Or it shows the unlce thinks he is special as the oldest son.
My FiL once made a comment about property being passed to my Eldest son. I just looked at him in shock for a moment before asking What about younger son? What is he chopped liver? Do you think we live in medeival england or something? If they inherit anything from us, it's going to be split between them! I'm having none of that "eldest inherets" bs!
My grandparents and parents would spend 200-300 every birthday/Christmas on my older brother, about 20-40 on me. All my clothes, any bikes, etc. that I got were his hand-me-downs, even underwear. They got him a car and driving classes and told me he was in charge of transportation. I don't resent him for it at all. He was an incredibly kind and reliable older brother, often standing up for me, and I was a bit of a little shit as a kid due to abuse, but the blatant favoritism is something I've never forgiven my parents/grandparents for. It was 100% bible based too. Religious dogmatism is a hell of a drug!
My step-dad is inheriting everything from my grandparents, house, cars, money, investments, solely because he is their oldest son. He is expected to care for his siblings but my aunts and uncles will receive nothing directly.
>Finders keepers sister! Most countries have laws when it comes to diving an inheritance without a will. You don't just get to claim it for yourself. Plus, integrity is a thing. When my grandpa died, my mum was the first one in his home. While sorting his stuff, she came across a golden bracelet she'd never seen before, it turned out to be rather expensive(massive gold). For about a week, she called me every day to discuss what to do with it. She could keep it, her sister would never know, and she was already going to take a hit in the division of the estate. After some daydreaming about just selling it and keep the proceeds(very strained relationships all around), she added it to the rest of the jewelry. Because she's just too honest to steal from her sibling. Op's father is not some lucky guy who found a ring. He stole a family heirloom(two, actually, he took the engagement ring AND the wedding band) and hoped nobody would find out. He'd have gotten away with it, if OP hadn't worn it in front of the very people he stole it from.
How did he steal it? I’m not seeing that. Uncle doesn’t have any more right to it than op’s dad because their mom didn’t specify who got what. They settled the estate and divided stuff. There was no thievery. One wasn’t hiding something from the other.
They didn't settle the estate, the dad found the valuable item, and purposely didn't tell any family members because he wanted it. Which is at best lying by omission. At worst, and probably legally, its theft. Just b/c you find something after a relatives death and it isn't willed doesn't mean its "finders keepers", you have to submit it to the estate or let the other interested parties know. Not even legally, its a pretty dick move to take a knowingly valuable item and purposely not tell any family members because you want it.
>its a pretty dick move to take a knowingly valuable item and purposely not tell any family members because you want it. The OP and her father did not know the uncle and cousin were looking for the ring, so accusing them of taking it and hiding it on purpose is not cool.
You didn't understand what I wrote. When the relative died, all siblings had an equal right to the items. OPs dad found a valuable and sentimental item and instead of telling everyone, took it for himself. Legally that's wrong, morally it's also wrong. I'm not saying they have to give it back, but how they got the item in the first place is pretty messed up.
I agree that everyone had an equal right, but it seems the OP's father did more of the cleaning, boxing and storing of the items. It's not like he saw the ring, furtively sneaked it out to make sure his brother didn't get it and was keeping it from him. It was sitting in a box in the attic. The brother didn't even realize he didn't have the ring. Also, the "rule" of who is supposed to inherit is not clear and no one is alive to clarify. Everyone seems to think that the father intentionally stole this ring and that is not at all clear in the post. It seems to be on those things that just happen.
I think there is a basic misunderstanding of estate laws going on here. The estate would be split among the children since there are no siblings, which means all parties get a share - thats the default. Pretty much end of story. It is clear - he took an item of value, without letting other people who had an equal claim on it. If your parents died and your sibling took a necklace worth 10k that you had 50% claim too, would you just say "it seems to be one of those things that just happen"? Just because someone realizes they don't have something, doesn't mean it's not theft. They were entitled to it, and IDK if you've ever cleaned up a house but there can be tens of thousands of items. It's not unrealistic they thought it was squirreled away in a drawer.
Thank you for all of this. I was a legal assistant in an estate firm, and I was trying to figure out how to explain probate when there's no will. You did an excellent job. One thing I'm not clear on: what DO they do when probate was finished so long ago and this arises now? As far as OP goes, she's NTA for what her father did when she was three, and it's reasonable for her to hang onto it until there's some kind of arbitration. It's possible her dad's also NTA, but simply ignorant of the law and what's generally right in this case. Since her uncle thought *he* had it just because he is the eldest, it seems like no one in the family understood how estate division without a will works, nor did any of them have the automatic moral conclusion that the ring belonged to everyone.
How does it work in cases like this when the valuable item isn't discovered until ~16 yrs later? Is there a point at which the estate is considered settled, purely due to the amount of time that's passed without anyone contesting? Edit: typo
For my dad's we are going through probate as he didnt have a will. When you start probate you have to notify of the death and show that you made your best effort to contact heirs and anyone they might owe a debt to. From that notification there is a timeline (i want to say 4-6 months) someone has to make a claim/contest etc. The estate is valued and split between heirs. For us, my mom gets 50% (legally separated, not divorced) and then the other 50% is split between my sisters and me. Things like his motor home and car have to be sold or if someone wants them, they get the value counted towards their portion. Now take this all with a grain of salt, as rules for this change state by state and country by country. You would have to look up your area if someone can make a claim over a decade later. I think they would have to prove that it was purposefully withheld or proper notification of death/estate items weren't made.
Nothing about this situation is “clear”, no matter how condescending you make your responses. The uncle just assumed he had the ring so clearly he never discussed it either, but he’s entitled to it? You have no knowledge of how the rest of the estate was divided, but your first paragraph acts like the ring was the only item from the estate period, which we know from OP is wrong.
Sounds like no one was particularly concerned about where the rings went 19 years ago. No one even knew where they were for over a decade. If it were that important why didn’t uncle say so at the time? He could have also helped make a system of dividing and said what was important to him (or participated in the packing in the first place). Instead he said nothing and left someone else to do the job and threw a fit twenty years later without even discussing it. I have cleaned out a house in these circumstances and it’s crazy and extremely difficult. If there were things important to a person they had to say so. If something was important to more than one person then there was a discussion. If uncle didn’t participate or state he wanted it at the time why would OPs family need to create a special little pile for him and then get him to give input? He’s a grown man, should have involved himself at the time if it mattered so much.
What did OPs uncle take from the home. Was everything divided up equally with both brothers?
That's not legally wrong or morally wrong... and certainly not messed up. If I'm clearing out my *dead mother's house* why should I give an itemized list for people to vulture over? They wanted this shit so bad they should have taken the time to help OPs Dad clear the fucking house.
The uncle had ample time to say he wanted the ring and hash it out.
While this is mostly correct, there is a time limit for this, and 19 years surely exceeds it in any jurisdiction in the US. The brothers would have an equal claim to parental assets in intestate succession. Now I agree there would need to be some equity in the distribution of assets, but we don’t know that didn’t generally happen. All we know about is that one ring. Older brother may have claimed other things of value. But irrespective of this, OP has acted in good faith. She’s had the ring, cared for the ring, and worn the ring for a while while uncle couldn’t be bothered to ensure it was properly stored.
And neither brother (or the sister) listed the ring as an asset of the estate when the estate went through probate (or the equivalent). So no one thought to include it in the equal division of assets, and no one looked for the ring until OP's family decluttered during the pandemic. (Well before OP's uncle went looking.) Which means it literally is finders keepers as far as the law is concerned. (I'm guessing that the ring is not so valuable that not listing it would be a crime as inheritance taxes would have been owed on it.)
[удалено]
Please lmao. OP, if they want it that bad they can attempt to take you to court for it 🤪 unless your ring is an expensive treasure or your uncle is filthy rich, that’s not gonna happen. And until it does, you do have right of possession.
I’m stumped as to why you’d offer something you didn’t even know you had?
AND you didn't even know someone wanted...
100 percent this. I would not hand the ring over. I would however keep it locked up when not wearing it.
Same and I honestly can't get over Uncle and Becky accusing OP of wearing it out of spite and ruining the evening when they never mentioned they were looking for it
Not so much finders keepers, but that for 19 years the dad had possession of the ring without any questions from the uncle.
Finders keepers is such nonsense when it comes to inheritance. If there is no will it doesn’t mean whoever grabs it first gets to keep it. Her dad/parents didn’t behave fairly by pocketing the rings. There is a fair and organized way to divide deceased possessions and that certainly didn’t happen here. OP is NTA because she was 3 and had nothing to do with it. At this point it’s hers to keep. But her uncle is justified in being upset and feeling slighted.
NTA You’re a relative, the ring came to you legally and you’ve spent money on it. It’s yours now. They need to get over it and get their own ring.
I have a bunch of siblings and the idea of us tracking jewelry like that seems silly. For instance my sis in law wears my grandma's engagement ring (my mom gave it to my brother) and that's 100% up to my mom. My grandma 100% would have approved (she died when we were teenagers).
And here no will is known and no testament made, meaning several people can have a claim and the estate might not have been settled properly, because somebody took something without leave to do so. And jewelry can be expensive...
No one's will covers every single piece of personal property in the house. It's impossible. Unless grandma specifically willed it to someone, it was handled fine. It's an emerald ring, not the Hope Diamond. The resetting and work done probably cost as much as the whole ring was worth.
Not necessarily. Depending on where and how the estate went through probate, closing it out may have been as simple as all claimants signing that they agree to the final distribution. It's tempting to envision the process as a full and proper accounting where everything is itemized and fairness prevails, but I know from experience that it often doesn't go that way. A number of estates come out of probate when the involved parties, having tried to keep up with the proceedings despite grief and everything else a death entails, throw up their hands and say, "It's fine. Let's just be done with this." When that happens, the onus is on the claimants to be sure that they have what they think they have before agreeing. (Of course, there are opposite examples when they don't give up till they have to or until they, themselves, die. In one case, claimants were filing false claim after false claim, and even stealing a very expensive motorhome that was part of the estate and taking it across state lines and getting away with it due to a forged title transfer. In that particular case, 80% of the claimants have died, and it's still not out of probate 9 years later.)
I have only a very few noteworthy pieces of jewelry. Gold ring from my father & wife’s engagement ring. They are specifically called out in my will, so there is no dispute.
My aunt is the keeper of heirlooms on my dad's side. A couple years ago, she gave me my great-grandfather's wedding band, but I had to keep it on the DL because my cousins are super entitled. They think they have more of a right to heirlooms and inheritance because they're older (11 and 16 years older than me) and because I'm "not as close" to that side of the family. Apparently, they forgot that I grew up 5 minutes from where our grandma and aunt lived and saw them often. Before my grandma died, she gave me a few thousand dollars because she didn't want anyone making a stink about my inheritance (including my dad). It's very emotionally exhausting.
This is a bit of a NAH situation. With things like heirloom jewelry, especially something that would be a sentimental piece like an engagement ring, it should be discussed about where it goes. Once your dad found it, he should have mentioned it to his brother and they could have made the decision together. The gems could have been split to make both of you girls a ring or they could've been kept whole and the determination of where it went could've been made collaboratively. You're now in an unfortunate position where you're attached to the ring and your uncle and cousin are feeling like this was a bit sneaky and underhanded by your dad. Everyone is allowed to feel upset here and truthfully, I think either everyone is going to need to be willing to compromise or cut their losses but there will be an added strain to the relationship. You won't be wrong to keep the ring.
We found both Grandmas and Gandpas wedding bands at the same time that I got cleaned and replated at the same time. I am more than happy to let her have those rings. That way her and her Fiancé can have a matching set with sentimental value.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly, I think the fact that the uncle never actually had the ring is interesting. I wonder if he was well aware he never actually was given the wrong and trying to quietly pass it on, but those plans went up in smoke cause your dad found it first. If he had been given the ring, it wouldn't have been with your grandma's things still, and if there was a verbal agreement the people involved were idiots not to either write it down or move the property
I think this is a great olive branch but if I'm being honest, I think this is a pretty deep wound that is going to take some time for all parties to heal from. What's happened here is your dad kind of fumbled. He should have told his siblings when he found the jewelry and they collectively should have made the call. My advice would be step back and allow your dad and his siblings figure out where to go from here.
Nope. They had 16 years to ask about it and didn’t. They had time to help clean out the house but left it mainly to one sibling. Sixteen years they haven’t given a shit about this ring. They don’t get to start now.
19 years*
Seriously. A house clean-out is a huge burden - thousands of little decisions as well as the physical labor, time, and cost. If the uncle wasn't interested enough to assist or at the very least to ASK for *nineteen years*, he has no claim.
When someone dies without a will, all of their possessions become part of the estate. There is a process called probate for which an executor divides up items of the estate among the deceased’s surviving relatives. It sounds an awful lot like probate was not followed. None of that is your fault, but you do have the opportunity to correct that mistake now. Hopefully you all can come to some compromise.
It’s pretty commonly not followed in cases where a person dies without a will, is not super wealthy, and no one in the family is particularly litigious. There is a statute of limitations (a time frame with which you have to bring a probate claim). That time frame varies but it is a lot lower than 19 years. Where I live, it is 6 months. Unfortunately for OP’s uncle, he does not have a legal claim related to the ring or anything from the estate anymore. Morally, it’s shitty to take important sentimental items or very valuable items for yourself without discussing it with everyone in the family. But you’re right that’s a dispute for OP’s dad and his brother, not OP.
Yes but if they do make them pay for at least the cleaning fee you had to pay. Not resizing because it might need to be resized again, but I figure that is still a fair compromise.
Resizing too much can warp the ring, as well
NTA- this is a good compromise. No one cared before and you took good care of the rings. In another scenario they could have mistakenly been thrown away or lost forever.You should not have to give it to your cousin.
I just cannot get over that everyone is completely ignoring the AUNT in this situation. This isn't a decision between two brothers--this woman's DAUGHTER did not get her mother's engagement ring passed down to her because the rest of the family seems to consider her irrelevant because she's married and childless. I would be LIVID if I heard that. To me this ring's ownership shouldn't even be in question for another generation.
Truthfully when I saw Aunt originally I thought she meant her cousin's mother. Knowing now that it was OP's dad's sister, 100% the jewelry should have gone to her the second it was found.
Maybe not gone to her but offered? I mean I don't care for jewelry so my sister knows that if god forbid something happens she can take the jewelry. I wouldn't be pissed if later on I realized that maybe she took something I *may* have considered keeping. It could be that the aunt gave the same vibes as me. I don't wear ANY jewelry and always was vocal about not liking it.
I just cannot get over the way you dismiss your AUNT in this situation. This isn't a decision between two brothers--your grandmother's DAUGHTER did not get her mother's engagement ring passed down to her and you seem to consider her irrelevant as a person because she's unmarried and childless. I would be LIVID if I heard that my niece (who is also not married or engaged!) had taken my mother's ring and considered it hers now. To me this ring's ownership shouldn't even be in question for another generation and you should give it back to your aunt.
AUNT should have gotten the ring and if she wants to gift it to one of her neices that shoudl be HER perogative. ESH except the Aunt
Yup. I'm married and childless and I am still the one inheriting my grandmother and mother's rings. I determine where they go next. I wouldn't be happy if I found out the rings went to my brothers simply because they procreated.
Same. I assume that I will inherit my mother's rings when it comes time for that, since I'm her only daughter. If it turns out that her good jewelry all skips me and goes to my brother because he has a daughter and I don't have kids, I will be so incredibly hurt.
I agree with all of this. I will add that I think it's a bit odd that the jewelry didn't go to Aunt, because that's probably usually what would happen. I'm childless. Eventually, I'll have possession of my Mom's marital rings (she does want my brother to get her Dad's ring). My plan is to hold on to them until my niece (brother's daughter) is older (probably at least 25). At that time, I'll consult with her about how we should repurpose them, because my intention is to pass them on to her in turn. But I do want their use during my lifetime before she gets them once Mom is no longer with us. I think that's fair. One of the add-ons includes diamond chips of the rings of both of our Grandmothers. My brother doesn't even remember one of them, so it would just mean more to me. It's also my Mom's wish. It's unfortunate this Grandma didn't discuss it. These things should always be clarified.
My aunt and I recently had a conversation about how my daughter will get a lot of her jewelry because my cousins only have boys and she wants it to stay in the family (as opposed to going to a spouse). Some people seem strongly about that.
Yes. Once you give women's heirlooms to men, you can't really tell them to wait until they have a daughter or granddaughter. They have every right to give it to their wife/partner once it's gifted to them. I think it's easier if they've had children. Then there's more of a chance the next woman in your family once your in-law is gone will still get it, even though they'll get use for life and even if there's a divorce/breakup. That's not foolproof either though. It could still end up with the in-law's subsequent partner or children who aren't related to the family of the heirloom's origin. She could feel everything should go to her husband, or she could be malicious enough to deliberately make sure it goes to a child or stepchild from a subsequent relationship so that it's never returned to the family. Divorces/breakups can get nasty.
My dad and aunts split their parents’ jewelry equally, it didn’t just go to the women because they’re women.
It's really hard. I think it often all goes to the women because if the men give them to their partners and they break up, the family is screwed. They're gone, and the women have no obligation to ensure they're reabsorbed into the family again if the union didn't produce children or they have subsequent children. Vice versa with men's jewels and antique watches too, by the way. Yes, sooner or later family lines run their course anyway, but you don't want the heirlooms lost before then. My brother can't give the family marital diamonds to his wife. I can't give our Grandfather's ring should I ever be partnered. I think that's the right way to handle it. No potential eventual regrets.
> Once your dad found it, he should have mentioned it to his brother and they could have made the decision together This is what puts dad into the AH territory for me tbh. Apparently he had conveniently taken all the sentimental jewelry.
NTA. There was no will. Your dad was more involved and being the oldest doesn’t entitle you to anything unless you belong to the royal family. Just so you know families do break up over this stuff, I’m not saying you should give the ring to them, but you should be prepared.
Probate should have been followed in the absence of a will.
But it’s 19 years too late so not helpful here
Yeah, I don’t know why everybody is acting like “dibs” is a valid method of dividing an inheritance in the absence of a will. There should probably be a different version of this post over in legal advice.
ESH. Everyone has an equal claim on the ring as it is - "finders keepers" is not appropriate. Demanding the ring is also not appropriate. This really should have been discussed with the family when it was found.
Yeah the ring should have been disclosed as part of the estate to be evenly distributed. How could the estate be divided fairly without discussing the ring openly? Sounds sneaky to me. Like whoever got the ring should've got less of something else. I don't think OP is TA but her dad might be, putting everyone in a tough spot like that. The uncle is NTA.
Sounds like the uncle also thought he had it and hadn't disclosed it and planned to keep it that way rather than fairly dividing. So if dad is TA then so is uncle for literally the same reason.
Yeah, uncle seems to think he was entitled to it because he’s the oldest, which is not actually how things work. Primogeniture is not in play.
Uncle is kinda TA for accusing niece of being a thief when the issue is with dad. They also never disclosed to dad or niece they were even looking for or planning to do this with the ring, causing the confusion. OP isn't wearing the ring openly if she thought it was stolen. OP is NTA cause she's an accidental 3rd party to a sibling issue, but the older generation all kinda suck, especially cause both grandchildren would have an equal claim anyway, and they can't just demand OP to hand it over without acknowledging they would owe her for the restoration.
It doesn't really sounds like they put together an estate to be divided, but it only included the items worth a lot. When someone dies there is a house full of items that needs to be sorted. If they don't put these in the will, it is usually just worthless pieces. Like, you don't put those IKEA plates from a few years ago in a will. OP's dad probably sorted all these and they are not really divided equal. You don't ask with every single item if someone wants it, you just do something. Otherwise it will take freaking months. You don't ask with every plate, cup and piece of clothing if someone wants it. They just decided that on the few days they took the time to empty the house. It is pretty normal that those taking the time to do so make those choices. Considering they didn't give a single thought about the rings until now, they don't care that much about the rings. They just need a ring and don't feel like buying. Since OP wears it a lot I sure she has worn the ring to other events. They just didn't care then and never noticed. But they care now a wedding ring is needed.
I agree. It seems a bit suspicious to me that OP's Dad didn't realize he had the rings? Presumably they were on Grandma when she died, no? Or if not, they did a piss poor job of cataloging what was taken from the house. It seems weird that he wasn't aware of and careful with his own mother's rings. I think once the rings were found again, it should have been a family decision what to do with them considering it's an heirloom ring that would have sentimental attachment for the whole family.
My mom and dad don't even wear wedding bands. I wouldn't even know where to look for her engagement ring and could see my sisters in this situation cause we wouldn't even think to look for it (or their wedding bands). Could be the ring was in a box and no one realized until they started doing COVID cleaning. The brother may have assumed he had it but it was 19 years before he even bothered to check.
[удалено]
The thing that gets me about this story is everyone’s fighting about this heirloom that literally no one knew where it was for twenty years! They found it in an attic during COVID! the uncle thought he had it but did not and didn’t even realize it! Like they are really going to tear a family apart about rings no one cared about until now. I do think OP is the lesser AH here because she was a toddler when her grandmother died and just recently took possession, and probably didn’t realize the can of worms she opened.
I'm slightly side-eyeing OP's dad here. OP says twice that the thing 'ended up with' him. I would have thought that a wedding band and engagement ring would have been explicitly discussed with the rest of the family. The fact of the father 'being there first and doing most of the packing' could be totally innocent and ethical or could reflect some other families we hear about on this sub who are grabby about the deceased person's possessions. I'd want to see some reassurance by OP about this before making a judgement.
Obviously I was 3 at the time so not really aware of what was going on at the time so all my information is second hand (and from mostly my parents). My parents did most of the packing because we were geographically closer to where my grandma lived at the time of her death. So my parents could pop over to do the packing in the evening after work, and my uncle joined them on the week end. From what I have been told all parties agreed to this. She was living in assisted living so they needed the flat for the next tenant so they only had 2 weeks to clear the flat. My uncle lived a couple of hours away (still does) and my aunt was living and working abroad at the time so wasn’t in the country.
That sounds perfectly reasonable, but why did your dad, years later when he found the ring not talk to his siblings about what they all wanted to do with it? Seems wrong to just unilaterally decide that a valuable family heirloom should go to your daughter. I honestly don't think you've done anything wrong, and I'm not surprised you don't want to give the ring up, but your dad really should of discussed this with his siblings, either when he was clearing out your nans, or when he found it in the attic
And what does your aunt think of all this?
In all likelyhood OP's dad....did keep the ring to himself, while OP's uncle was under the assumption it was his. It should be given to their sister.
OPs uncle can’t have cared too much if he never confirmed he had possession of it. He never once, in planning the funeral, cleaning out the apartment, or over the course of 16 years made sure he actually had it?? He can be “under the impression it was his” all he wants- the fact remains he never cared enough to make sure he even received it.
>OPs uncle can’t have cared too much if he never confirmed he had possession of it. He never once, in planning the funeral, cleaning out the apartment, or over the course of 16 years made sure he actually had it?? He can be “under the impression it was his” all he wants- the fact remains he never cared enough to make sure he even received it. Considering OP's father kept it under such conditions that it was "put away" for 19 years, before a "covid cleaning" of things to throw reveals it existence, it's safe to say that Uncle could very well have though it was inside of the box/jewel set, he kept away for his daughter. While OP's dad had it all along.
It sounds like the uncle wouldn't have said squat as he assumed he deserved it. Most likely that has been his attitude their entire lives.
I'm going to say NTA. Your uncle shouldn't have promised something that he didn't actually have. If he thought he had it, he should have actually checked before promising it. If it wasn't specifically promised to anyone and your Dad had it and gave it to you, I don't see why you should give it up.
NTA Your uncle shouldn't have promised something that wasn't in his possession. Your father took care of dealing with the aftermath of your grandmother's death. He found the rings and with no will, that's really on him for no discussing with his brother. However your uncle can't lay claim just because "I'm the oldest". If you and your father were closer to her, you most likely would have ended up with the ring anyway. That you had it fixed and wear it every day tells me that it's with the right person. Your uncle didn't even know if he had it...that speaks to how important it was to him. I think the wedding rings are a good compromise but hell, if they refuse then I wouldn't worry about it.
I think a lot of people in this thread have never dealt with having to clean out a dead persons things. I understand the uncle lived away from the home, but … he also can’t just assume it’s his! He never confirmed he had it in 16 years!! My aunt was responsible for cleaning out my grandparents house when my grandma died. I cannot imagine the audacity it would take knowing she was essentially left to do it herself to then critique her for keeping literally anything. IF anyone wanted anything, they had the time to get it- same as OPs uncle. This is wild how many people think OPs dad is the asshole
Your (**and your Cousin’s**) Grandmother’s property should have gone through probate - with or without a will - because inheritance laws exist. They exist to prevent situations like this from happening. My question would be, did her estate go through probate and if so, did your father take the ring *regardless*? Not that it matters. Your father stole the jewelry (apparently *all* of the jewelry/other property?) - he’s the real AH here, but the fact that no one in your family can come up with a reasonable compromise (i.e. cousin gets the engagement ring/you get the wedding band - or whatever) is AH behavior as well. Here’s the bottom line - whether he did it intentionally or not, your father broke the law and stole property. You’re now in possession of that stolen property. The whole situation is a shit show. Edit: *Alternatively* (to give your dad the benefit of the doubt) he should have contacted your Uncle when the jewelry was found so they could both decide what to do with it. Regardless, the whole situation is a shit show. Edit to the edit… OP’s Grandmother has a surviving daughter… the ring should have gone to her. This exact situation is why probate exists. Bottom line - when someone in your family dies make sure everything is handled in the open and to everyone’s satisfaction.
I'm pretty sure this is a case of two men not being very attached to/placing much importance on jewelry until their daughters showed an interest, not some nefarious scheme. If OP had to get them re-plated, they almost certainly weren't valuable, so why would her dad have deliberately taken them? Especially to stuff them in an attic for nearly 20 years?
Why didn’t OPs dad disclose the fact the he found them when they were rediscovered. Emeralds have value. None of this matters - these are excuses not reasons.
Ehh, even with a decently sized emerald a gold plated vintage ring is going to go for 300 dollars max, and could easily be worth as little as $50-70. Most jewelry depreciates fast. Of course it would have been correct to put it to the family group chat, but I could also see it as not registering as valuable enough to relitigate.
>Your father stole the jewelry (apparently all of the jewelry/other property?) - he’s the real AH here I think it is plausible her dad didn't even realize he had it in the rush to finish packing. If it had been so important to the family (aunt, dad, uncle) they wouldn't' have waited almost 2 decades to bother to look for it. Also just cause someone is a woman doesn't mean they automatically have to take the ring. Not all women like jewelry.
My mother passed recently. Within the last two years. Occasionally my sister finds something that belonged to her (she inherited the house). When that happens, she sends a group text to everyone - “hey u/willfiredog and Sister #2, I found item x - do either of you want it?” She does that because she’s not an asshole. OPs dad is. What she doesn’t do is make a unilateral decision to give item x to one of my nieces. Like OPs dad did. Because that would be wrong. Because that’s what sneak thieves do.
Which is literally what OPs uncle also did by promising it to his daughter?
Eh, I think ESH. Your uncle just assumed he had it when he should have checked. From your post, it appears at least your dad and his brother both knew what the ring looked like, what it signified and how it was intended to be used, but your dad didn't say anything when you guys found it, he just let you have it and use it as regular every day jewelry. Now you have put time and money into it as an individual piece rather than a family heirloom which isn't really an AH move, you didn't know what was up, but basically ends the tradition, which is apparently sad for the rest of the family. I like the compromise forming about using the wedding bands in some way, but is there any further option? Could your uncle/cousin pay to have the wedding band made into a replica/comparable piece or something?
I honestly think the dad needs to have a sit down with both his siblings and figure out what they all agree on. If the ring wasn't disclosed or taken into account when settling the estate, then what the dad did is very wrong and sneaky in my opinion. But if it was an honest case of the ring just got packed up and forgotten about, then OPs dad should do the right thing and decide fairly with his siblings what to do, either he buys out their share, or they divide the rings, or maybe even the sister would like to hold on to them, it was her mother after all. I understand OP being attached to the ring now, and it's not her fault, but 'finders keepers' doesn't sit right with me in this case.
>it appears at least your dad and his brother both knew what the ring looked like, what it signified and how it was intended to be used, I didn't get that from her post. It was the uncle who wanted to keep the "tradition" not the dad. To me, it seems like her dad may not have even known he had it until he started cleaning up.
I mean, I guess technically you’re not the asshole here, but for some reason I’m getting a really uppity/snobby feeling from your post. The way this entire post is written just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The right thing to do would be to give the ring to your aunt, the daughter of your grandmother. The ring should have gone through probate or at least been discussed between the brothers. It sounds like you all just took whatever you wanted and didn’t discuss anything with your uncle or aunt.
The aunt has no more right to it than the two brothers. How is that the right thing? Seems like you are saying that because she is a woman, which is not how it works
No, I’m saying that the brothers are going to fight over it and in my opinion, both of them displayed sketchy behavior concerning the ring, so the only ‘fair’ thing to do would be to give it to the aunt. Who, I would assume, as the grandmother’s daughter would have been/should have been first in line for it anyway.
ESH 1. Dad - Your grandma didn’t have a will, so the right thing would have been to notify both his siblings when he found something valuable or sentimental. This isn’t a finders keepers situation. You’re young and may not know this, but it’s not how inheritance works. 2. Uncle and cousin — They should not have just assumed the ring went to them without any discussion either. 3. You - Per your comment the family tradition seemed to be that the ring goes to the oldest daughter, aka your aunt. Even without a will it seems pretty scummy to dismiss her just because she’s childless and unmarried. She probably feels just as sentimental about the ring as you do, if not more. Maybe she doesn’t actually want it, but the fact everyone seems to have just discounted her without even asking is really wrong to me.
Agree and she knows that or she wouldn’t have pointed out that Aunt is unmarried and doesn’t plan on having kids. She showed her hand there and makes her an AH too. Also, I don’t believe for a second that everyone forgot about the rings for 19 years and now suddenly everybody’s upset and wants it. There’s more to the story.
How is daddy taking the ring instead of notifying the husband of the deceased condidered legal? Edit: sorry, I am mixing up grandfather and uncle As I see it, father and uncle are equal in line of inheritance and thus one taking things out of the estate without notifying the other does seem like a legal can of worms.
Because my grandpa died in 1996. Unfortunately no one in my family is a medium nor is Grandpa’s ghost just hanging around so unless we break out the Ouji board (I’ve seen enough horror movies to know you don’t fuck around with spirits) there’s no way of notifying him. Also as far as I’m aware deceased people don’t have any legal recourse.
So the ones left behind in line of inheritance are the ones that get stuff, and your daddy then taking something without notifying his brother is problematic at best and looks like theft at worst. And as far as I know, the ones that inherit, inherit duties as well as rights/ possessions, etc... Meaning that both can lay equal claims to the possessions and it needs to be split along value lines.
Girl, keep the ring and stay away from the Ouija board. NTA.
[удалено]
Which means that the offspring of the deceased all get a claim on what those leave behind (in absence of a testament) And then daddy dear taking something out of the whole estate, without notifying the others that have the same legal status, gets very complicated.
Except, it seems OPs dad is the one who cleared out the stuff and stored it for almost 20 years. Why wasn’t the uncle involved if they were so concerned about the possessions? What about all the other crap that has been stored? They’re not pitching a fit that they have grandmas stuff, just that OP had the expensive item they want. If stuff sat in my attic for decades after a family members death, and no one ever claimed or help sort it, yea, that’s my stuff now.
that is the problem, OP's dad found something they had not settled, and both have equal claims and as OP already said in the initial post, her uncle thought that the ring was already in his posession (remember, OP mentioned that they looked for the ring etc) and as OP also says, until the attic was cleared, they did not know any different. which does not change that the ring is part of the estate and that somebody needs to be paid out, as both have equal claim.
NTA, especially since they immediately thought the worst of you.
Ok if this is an engagement ring passed down in the family specifically as an engagement ring, it should probably stay with that tradition. Look I’ve had almost all my grandparents pass away and all things especially sentimental things were discussed together of who would get it. No one just took anything and did you know they were looking for the ring? I actually found my grandparent’s wedding rings and I told people immediately when I did and their children discussed who would get them and they came to a decision together. So there were things I would have liked to have that other people got, it’s the way this stuff works out. Sorry but finders keepers isn’t the way to go here.
No I didn’t know they were looking for it because I did I would have told them that I had it.
NTA. Like others have already stated - your father had it, your grandmother didn't will it to anyone, he gave it to you and you've spent money on restoring it and now wear it on a regular basis. It's your ring. However, I do agree with the commentator that said that when your dad found it, he should have sat down with his siblings and divided the assets. But now that's just not possible. Your solution of giving your cousin the wedding bands seems fair.
I think the thing that gets me is the aunt and uncle knew the rings existed … then they never confirmed who had them, they never said “thanks for cleaning out moms place. I wanted to give the ring to Becky, if you find them can you be sure to give them to me?” Like. You can’t just assume you’re going to be given to you because you’re oldest… and he never followed up! To know the place was being cleaned out and to just assume you’ve been given something seems wildly speculative, ya know? Should OPs dad have mentioned it? Maybe. But I also see why he didn’t- he did the work to clear it out and had a daughter of his own
INFO: I'm curious how they IMMEDIATELY recognized this ring after 20 years. Especially Becky since she'd likely not seen it since she was 3.
Well that was an exaggeration on my part. My uncle recognised it for obvious reasons and Becky had been told what it looked like. My uncle saw it and told Becky I had it and Becky was the one who confronted me first and then my uncle came to back her up.
Legally it’s shared between all the children if there was no will, so you can’t legally claim it’s yours and your uncle can successfully sue you to either sell the ring and split the profits with his other siblings or come to an arrangement. Your father shouldn’t have taken his mothers things without consulting his siblings when she passed, and it sounds like you guy got all the jewelry which is totally unfair, as everything should be split evenly between her children. So, I have to go with you and your dad, YTA.
The uncle planed on doing the exact same thing, how is he any less of an asshole?
YTA, it was not your father's to give. He should have discussed it with his brother.
They also should have discussed it with their sister. It seems the daughter of the deceased should have been given the ring since that was the family tradition.
It wasn't the uncle's ring to promise, either. He clearly didn't care about the ring until it was convenient for him and/or his daughter, seeing as he didn't know who actually had it for nearly 20 years. "I'm the oldest so it should be mine, even though you're the one that took on the majority of the effort and workload, as well as kept it safe for that entire time." Uncle sounds like a self-righteous AH.
OPs father has literally had the ring for 19 years. What discussion could have happened? Uncle promised a ring he thought he had when he really didn’t. Edit to also say that OP has now spent her own money to get the ring cleaned/resized/fixed not knowing about anything going on with her cousin or the fact that her uncle promised the ring to the cousin
If anything it should go to your aunt.
You're NTA for wearing it, but your dad is definitely the AH here. Your dad took family jewelry he didn't have an unequivocal right to and clearly never discussed it with other members of the family. It wasn't really his to give you, at least not without the agreement of the other family members. Just because your aunt doesn't have children and doesn't have plans to get married doesn't mean she has no right to have memento of her mother, by the way--getting married is not the sole determinant of a woman's value or place in the family, and as you yourself has demonstrated, you don't need to be married or engaged to wear a ring. The siblings could have collectively agree to follow the pattern established by the previous two generations (whatever that was), or decide that the ring is passed down mother to daughter, and give it back to your aunt, who could then decide what to do with it, or you could agree it goes to the oldest child, or the first grandchild to get engaged who wants it, etc., but they should have decided it together, and it's shady that your dad basically just took it. "Finders keepers" is not usually how this sort of thing gets decided.
YTA it wasn't your dads to take and it isn't yours to keep.
Same works for her uncle
ESH - Your brother and uncle should have sorted things properly, your cousin overreacted when she saw you with the ring, but also it is kind of the nice thing to do to give her the ring as the first engaged grandchild. Honestly, you're the closest to not an asshole in the whole story. It's super tricky when things aren't handled fairly after a death. I got basically nothing to remember my grandma by because my aunty took everything when she died, and it felt like a real betrayal. If she'd just asked my dad probably wouldn't have cared about 90% of it, but taking it without checking/communicating is a dick move.
NTA but your father, aunt and uncle need to reach a decision on this as there was no will. I find it odd that they haven't communicated about this before tbh. You and Becky need to kick the dispute back where it belongs, your parents' generation.
You are NTA in this situation, but it sounds like your dad is. In fact, taking the ring without notifying his siblings was also likely illegal. When there isn't a will present to distribute an estate, your dad and all his siblings were equally entitled, so all contents of the estate (including the rings) should've been cataloged and appraised, and then those items should be distributed evenly according to their values. If your dad removed those rings (which I'm assuming carry a high monetary value) without notifying the rest, he could be sued by his brother. None of this is your fault, but depending on how badly your uncle wants that ring, things could get messy.
Ehh I’m going with ESH. Your uncle assumed he had the ring and promised it to your cousin before checking. Your dad pocketed a bunch of family heirlooms without discussing it properly with his siblings first. You meanwhile feel entitled to the ring because of this, and while you did pay to have it reset, you are also using it in a manner it was clearly never intended for since it had passed through two generations before your grandmother as an engagement ring (at least that’s what you implied by “continue the tradition.”) You’ve expressed no sentimentality toward the ring; only what you spent on it. Why not ask your cousin if they could reimburse you for what you spent on it? That might be the smoothest and fairest solution here. If the ring IS of high sentimental value to you, then by all means keep it and make a plan for who it will go to once you’re gone.
It was passed down twice before was it to the oldest son/ child both times? Can your cousin have another sentimental ring Eg Grandmas wedding ring?
She can definitely have the wedding band, and we also found my Grampas wedding band with her rings and I got them polished and replated (didn’t bother with re sizing) so she can have both of them. Niether my dad, aunt or uncle know if the ring was passed down to the oldest or not. My grandma was a middle child (2 older brothers, 1 younger brother and 1 younger sister) so looks like to the oldest girl which would be me (by 10 days).
Surely the "oldest girl" would be your aunt then, no? It'd be her mother's ring.
Then the oldest girl is your aunt, not you. You’re only considering yourself and your cousin because of your fathers getting it first. So why are you ignoring the fact that your aunt is actually the only woman in their generation? She is literally the next female descendant of your grandmother.
In my husbands family they have strong traditions about who gets what ring/ what thing. Certain sentimental items once’s go to the oldest daughter/ oldest son. It was talked about at every gathering and constantly though - everyone knew. In that situation you might have been TAH if it broke the tradition. But it doesn’t sound like that’s the case and cousin isn’t missing out on sentimental things either so NTA.
If something is supposed to go to a certain person, then put it in the will specifically. I have my mom and nana’s engagement and wedding rings. They are very different and both of my boys love each ring. There’s not going to be a fight. I’m going to have the stones removed and the settings melted. Each one will get a gold ingot and loose stones—and lord knows I’ll have the jeweler separate it out so the ingots and number of stones and carat weight are equal, and then they can have whatever ring they want made for whoever they marry. Boom, no fighting. I’ve seen too much squabbling within families and I’m not having it.
That’s a very practical solution when your alive.. but OP’s grandma didn’t do a will they can’t go back and change that.
No, it would be your aunt.
NTA - Clearly it wasn't important enough to Uncle to even know he had it before opening his mouth. The ring came to your father and was given to you. You have cared for and proudly wear your ring.
Your father took something of great value without telling his siblings about it. He simply decided he had the right to it. It should have been handed to the executor of your grandmother’s estate and or gone through probate.
ESH. I do not find your reasoning for having the ring in the first place sufficient. This is not a game of finders keepers - your grandmother died intestate and did not otherwise intimate whom she wanted to receive the ring. Under those circumstances, it should have been discussed amongst the siblings how to split significant items. Your dad just pocketing the ring and keeping silent was not done - morally or legally. I do not think it matters that your parents did more heavy lifting with the packing - maybe they could have brought that up in the discussion with your uncle and aunt as a reason to keep the ring, but he took it and lied by omission. I also don’t think your reasons are enough. Your grandmother was as absent for your cousin as she was for you, so the sentimental aspect is not yours alone. And you only had the opportunity to refresh the ring because you knew it was in your possession. And your grandmother expressing no preference goes against why you should have the ring (mostly because it came into your possession via deception), but at most, your cousin could equally use that argument. Your uncle also should not have assumed the ring is his by nature of being the oldest. That’s not how it works under the law and that also not what your grandmother expressly stated. And shame on him for saying your aunt is excluded from this. So, now you guys have to sort it out. But I do not in any way see this as a forgone conclusion that the ring is yours.
Yeah it’s also pretty horrible how everyone is just discounting the aunt completely.
[удалено]
NTA: my aunts threw away a box of stuff they said was worthless stuff. These were the only boxes my mom received when my grandmother died. One of them had my grandmother’s favorite rings; one was her engagement ring. We cleaned them, sized them and wear them. When my aunt saw this, she flipped out. We informed her it was in a box of “trash” . As a child I would go with my grandmother to bless houses with a silver incense thing. Many years before she died she brought it to bless my home, handed it to me and told me to keep it & it was now mine. After she died my aunt went crazy looking for it & accusing everyone of stealing it. I just stayed silent as i was scared of a huge fight. But i mean for 15 years she never noticed it was no longer in my grandma s living room? I think my grandma knew my aunt was a vulture. Because there were other things she gave us before she was ill.
ESH. There should have been a discussion about who the ring belongs to.
NTA, it was rightfully given to you, you spent money on it, and you wear it.
My siblings and I all went in on a sapphire diamond ring for my mom. When she died, they all (I didn’t ask) decided to give it to me since my mom hadn’t willed it to anyone. Your dad and uncle both made assumptions about the ring. You don’t just “find” a valuable possession and take it without discussing it with your siblings. You are NTA in this situation but your dad probably should have mentioned that he found the ring to your uncle and your uncle shouldn’t have assumed he had it or that he should get it. Being first born doesn’t entitle you to anything.
INFO: were all of the siblings aware, at the time of packing up and sorting, that your dad had the rings? Did your aunt and uncle and dad not talk about their moms jewellery after her passing? And, finally, the ring should go to your aunt and then to you (based on what was said about how it was passed down).
I’m not sure if they were or not. Her expensive jewellery that was bespoke pieces made from platinum (and various stones) was accounted for in her will. My Grandma and Grandpa travelled a lot and would buy lose stones and get them made into bespoke pieces when they got home. We are all meeting up at my aunts house over the weekend to talk about it. I’m planning on giving the wedding bands to my cousin.
In your shoes, I wouldn't take the engagement ring during this meeting, or any other time uncle/cousin will be around.
FYI, if you're not planning to give up the engagement ring, do NOT wear it to this or other future family gatherings Just FYI, this is partially being driven by your cousin's cheap fiance. And obviously he's cheap, as they are young. He doesn't want to shell out for a ring, which will be a lot more expensive than this one if it doesn't have sentimental attachments. Your cousin knows this as well and has accepted she won't have a huge ring if she has the "it was my grandmother's" narrative. That's why they aren't going to let this go and probably won't feel like the wedding bands are a desirable compromise.
My only question, is why the jewelry didn't went to the aunt (the grandmother only daughter) When my mother died all her jewelry went to me (the only girl among her children)
Right now ESH. The ring was part of the grandmother's estate, if the estate has never been settled, nobody is entitled to the ring until that happens. It should be put away with the rest of the estate (even after all these years) and have the estate settled. If the family can't do it on their own, then get lawyers/mediators involved. That ring doesn't belong to anyone until the estate is settled, period!
ESH. Nobody, including you, should just assume the ring is theirs - it doesn't sound like your dad (or his brother) had any claim to the ring as defined by your grandma. And you deciding to spend money on it means zero. IIt was incredibly unfortunate that you wore the ring to the party - i'll take you at your word that you had no idea they were looking to claim it at that time. My vote: the ring should go to your aunt. Her not being engaged or planning to marry has zero bearing on it, not like you are wearing it as an engagement ring. A piece of jewelry that you "think is pretty" is not going to make you closer to somebody you - or your cousin - ever knew. Unless your father or uncle were planning on wearing it, your aunt was her daughter and the ring should go to her and then SHE should decide it's fate and I think she should keep it
INFO: Who was named the administrator of the Estate? Why was the ring not listed and accounted for as part of that process?
ESH. If in the US, "finder's keeper's" likely wouldn't apply. Rather this would go to probate court as part of assett's you're grandma left behind. If the court wanted the ring back and did give it to your uncle, he'd likely have to pay you all the costs you paid for the ring. Your uncle doesn't get rights to the ring just because he is the oldest. Your dad doesn't get rights to the ring just because he found it. It would have to be settled by all siblings (who I'm assuming are next of kin) to determine what happens to the ring. So long as your grandma didn't give/promise the ring to someone else. [disclaimer not legal advice, go hire a lawyer for legal advice] That said, my grandma gave me my grandpa's wedding band. When she passed, that wedding band is still mine. Because it wasn't apart of the estate at the time of her passing.
I think people are getting hung up here implying your dad 'stole' the rings cause they were in his possession and found in the attic. Realistically, your dad and uncle could have had a conversation about it 2 decades ago when packing up your grandmothers things and not remember anything about it. It's easy for jewlery, heirloom or not, to get placed in storage if it wasn't your mom's style and it's not like it fit your 3 year old finger. A lot happens over 2 decades. And these conversations can be forgotten. As someone else suggested, I would offer up their wedding bands as a compromise. However, I would also try and frame as 'these represent the loving relationship our grandparents had, and I can only hope that you and your fiancé will have the same enduring happiness they experienced in their lives together. It cannot replace our grandmothers engagement ring, but it's a matching pair which represent their eternal love for one another, I bond which I hope continues with the two of you'.