P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) and the defendants (=def1, def2) are brothers. The family has a business in Europe. Their mother (=mtr) owns 40% and their deceased father (=ftr), who died recently without a will, owned 30%; def2 bought 30% ownership. According to the country’s laws, a widow inherits a third of the estate, and the children split the rest equally. Pl demands several things: 1. 300-400 euros monthly that pl claims his father promised him. Def claim this was offered to help pl buy an apartment, which he did not do, but they agree to give it to pl if he stops the adjudication. 2. His part in the inheritance – A. 6.6% of the company, which pl claims is worth approximately 600,000 euros; B. His part (2/9) of a bank account with 37,000 euros; C. 2/9 of a stock portfolio; D. His part of the household possessions in the family house: E. His part in money mtr received from her family. 3. Return of pl’s payment toward funeral. 4. 1500 euros to give up rights to a car, which might have been bought with the parents’ money.

Ruling: Monthly stipend: Pl admits that ftr did no more than make an oral pledge to give a present, with no act of kinyan. This is not binding (Bava Metzia 58a). This is strengthened by the (unrefuted) claim that it was conditional on its use by pl for an apartment, which pl admits to have not acted on.
Part of the business: One point of disagreement is whether the value pl ascribes to the business is correct. However, the question is not operative. The entire estate is to be protected to ensure support of mtr (Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 93:3), and therefore, nothing needs to be paid to pl at this point.
Part in the bank account: Ftr set up this bank account to finance medical expenses of his and mtr’s. Since this money is likely earmarked for mtr’s needs, it would not be divided with the general estate. In any case, the resources of the estate must be set aside for possible use for the widow’s medical needs (ibid. 79:1).
Stocks: Pl will get his part, but there is a technical problem taking it out now.

P'ninat Mishpat (812)

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

823 - P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part II

824 - P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive

Household possessions: Mtr’s right to live in the joint house after ftr’s death includes the right to use the household possessions (ibid. 94:1).
Funeral expenses: Pl admits that he took part in financing ftr’s funeral without an explicit stipulation that if he has financial complaints, he can get it back. While things one only thinks of are not halachically significant (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 207:4), the Rama (ad loc.) says that if it involved a present, then thought can make them conditional. However, the Aruch Hashulchan (CM 207:12) says that each case must be considered on its merit. In this case, it is natural that one chip in towards a father’s funeral, and pl cannot come much later and say it was conditional.
Rights in a car: Def2 bought and uses a car but put it in pl’s name (for technical reasons). Since pl admits that he has no direct rights in the car, he cannot demand money for it. It makes no difference if def2 used his own money to buy it or whether his parents decided to pay for some or all of it, as they had the right to use their money as they liked.

P'ninat Mishpat