We can take over her finances if she is declared mentally incompetent. She's not mentally incompetent - she understands everything, but she just disagrees with the crucial bit: that the dude doesn't love her and is scamming her. As the judge told us yesterday: we are walking a fine line, taking over another person's autonomy, but it's not illegal to fall in love and do colossally stupid things.
I guess the jurisdiction depends. In the UK you'd stand a very good chance of intervening. Indeed oddly enough there was an article about just this yesterday in the UK, i'll see if I can dig it out
If signed Power of Attorney paperwork exists already, the Court of Protection will grant it unless another family member objects.
You can literally buy the paperwork in supermarkets. Get it signed by the donor and witnessed by anyone at all, and you're set.
If there is no signed Power of Attorney paperwork, you have to persuade the Court that the person is no longer mentally competent to look after their own affairs.
Handing all of their money to a scammer counts as evidence towards that. But it's not absolutely guaranteed. There would probably be lawyers involved, and the Grant of PoA would be subject to messy and potentially expensive oversight by the Court.
Basically it's a good idea to get the paperwork ready well ahead of time, so you're not in a situation where you have to apply for a grant against a very confused person's wishes.
(read to the end, I am not making the analogy you think.)
In the country where I was born, in my personal opinion (so this is not a neutral comment) startups are considered scams. Actually a few people elsewhere have expressed similar opinions. So, when you and an "online friend" get together and spend your own time and money, they consider it a scam. Like, if you are working with/for someone, they should be paying you! No concept of equity etc.
Now as we know, many stqrtups coasted by on "binders full of credit cards", were colossal risks. Adults have the right to do that.
Let's say someone tried to "get through to me" that there is NO SUCH THING AS SUCCESSFULLY RAISING MONEY OR A SUCCESSFUL EXIT. The problem is, they're wrong. There is such a thing.
So when you look at your mother's case - she disagrees with you. You are saying "this man is just lying to her" but she says, "no, no".
Well, ask her: does he talk about meeting her? Does he make plans to meet her? (I hope so.)
Have her plan a surprise trip to see him. It doesn't take much money to fly anywhere in the world.
If he is a scammer he will not want to see her under any circumstances. That will tell her all she needs to know.
What I mean is that you have to make her do something that is a differential between the two possibilities.
I'm not sure about the start-up analogy here, but it seems a good idea to me to encourage your mother-in-law to pay a visit to her supposed romantic interest.
What I mean by the analogy is that people outside of the startup can have the same feeling about the startup entrepreneur (e.g. thinking they've been mired up in a scam.) the difference is there isn't one in the startup case.
So do something - like visit the love interest - that differentiates between these cases.
Scammers can be very persuasive in person, so it's not a given that the scammer will ignore her.
I know someone in a similar situation. She's been abroad to see her "love" in Egypt regularly, and he's very attentive when she's there.
Of course they're planning to get married.
Of course it's love. What else would it be?
Works on guys too. I know someone else who has given rather a lot of money to an East European woman. I don't think they'll ever meet, because most East European women in these scams are actually criminal gangs. But we'll see.
Also, it's worth considering that these scams are marketing funnels designed to select the most gullible people and filter out everyone else. So the victims are self-selecting, because the scams are designed to find people with their particular psychological weaknesses.
But actual love is similar, so where is your differential? I realize you could have a simple answer, "is any money involved", but that would make many very good relationships that work out positively for both partners "scams" at one point. Does it also make every stay at home, or temporarily unemployed person a "scammer", if they are receiving financial help? You need an actual differential on love here. If Hillary starts earning a POTUS salary is her husband a scammer, clearly in it for the long con, since he even cheated on her!
So you need a much better differential when you sarcastically say "of course it's love".
It might be too late now, but I wonder if you could've convinced her to put the money into a trust and have it slowly distributed to her over the remainder of her life.
At the very least, whatever enjoyment she's getting out of helping this person could be stretched out for decades, and it reduces the risk she'll be out on the streets with no options. And if the story is the guy is in debt, usually creditors are willing to negotiate a repayment plan, so it shouldn't be too hard of a sell. You could even say the scammer will benefit, since he won't get taxed as much doing it this way.
Depending on the exact terms, you might be able to fit in a conditional clause on the scammer only receiving money while they're married. Which she shouldn't oppose, since it's the plan; but a scammer would oppose.
> It might be too late now, but I wonder if you could've convinced her to put the money into a trust and have it slowly distributed to her over the remainder of her life.
At which point? Before meeting her paramour, she wouldn't have much incentive to lock her money away from herself. (Would you agree to this?) And afterwards, well, he really needs that money...
Yeah, my dad died in debt (Norway), and we were able to pick any personal effects of minor monetary value without issue, and then make the choice whether to take the rest of his assets and the debts, or neither.
It only really becomes an issue if you have a strong personal attachment to assets that have high monetary value, like e.g. perhaps your childhood home - otherwise it boils down to a financial consideration.
You aren't inheriting the debts - you are inheriting the estate after all debts have been settled. So the estate could be worth 0, but you'll never inherit a negative estate.
That's exactly how this works. Either you take all of it, debts included or nothing. Or in some countries you let lawyers sort it out first, where they make sure all debts are paid off, they take their fee, and then you inherit whatever is left.
I don't think you can inherit cash loan debt. You can inherit property that is still under mortgage (no problem there), but then it's a choice: keep the house and pay the mortgage debt or sell the house/give it to the bank.
