All Around Me

As a child I was fortunate enough to never experience death around me. I lost my grandpa when I was six, but he was far away - I wasn't there to watch him die. I lost the odd pet, but people seem to move on from hamsters, birds, fish and rabbits. The past three years, there seems to have been a death. I have come to realize that death itself is not an ugly things. What makes death ugly is the personalities that it brings out in those around the individual who is dying. Suddenly, as the death nears...people start to look at ways to hold onto memories and the dreaded reading of the will. The death of the individual become a battle ground as people fight for what they rightfully believe is theirs or is at the very least what they believed is owed to them.



When a parent is dying - who should come first the current wife or the son? Is there an answer? Both hold a special place in the persons heart. The problem is that when you are looking at land that has been in the family for years (early 1900s), it holds not only sentimental value, but also monetary value. One individual wants to sell it (to pay off debts and continue to be provided for and one wants to preserve it for future generations). Neither is truly in the wrong. From an outsider a fair compromise would be to subdivide the land - both parties win. The problem now becoming one of pride...a decision was made and the conflicting attitudes has put the poor dying individual's back up against the wall. I wouldn't want to be in his position at all.



I of course agree with the son. The land should stay in the family. I know what it means to him and his boys. I've seen how alive and comfortable he is when he's there. While I enjoy going there and I enjoy the memories, I am certainly not as connected at they are. While I would hate to see it being sold and I think it is being done rather underhandedly, is it truly our decision to make. Hence my question of where do the loyalties lie?



Facts (as I've been told):

• The land was original willed to the son when he was a child. Due to fear of the will be contested the will was changed leaving it to the son's father. Some say it was done so with the understanding that it would one day belong to the son. True? No one knows unless they were there and privy to the conversation.


• When the father divorced his first wife, she didn't fight for the farm believing that it would one day go to their youngest son.


• The sister offered to buy the land about five years ago, when there was talk of it being sold. She approached her father and was told that he decided not to sell because he was going to one day leave it to his son.

The son, approached his father stating that he hopes to get the land once he passes. He would hate to see it leave the family and worries about what would happen if it was left to the current wife. He is told that the land will be sold and that it had always been the plan. Talk about slap in the face - total surprise to my husband, who always believed the farm to one day be his. He is suddenly questioning how much his father truly cared for him - thinking about what the farm meant to both of them. Why suddenly the change of heart?

Of course word gets out and the fight begins. Even I play my part. I thought it was VERY important for the father to know what his son was feeling. So, I wrote a letter. I express myself better in writing. I mentioned the original will, the feelings and memories the farm hold and of course how much it was impacting his son - something that the son could never express on his on. He's struggling so much and trying hard not to see his dad in this new light. Instead he is projecting it onto the current wife - not fair either. I also mentioned that it seemed unfair of them to ask the son to help hang new curtains and move things around to make room for new furniture, when they are supposedly in so much debt that they need to sell the land for the wife to survive upon his passes...not to mention the work they expecting him to do around the farm. Of course he wants to help keep it up for them, so they can sell it quickly and get the most money - NOT. I knew full well there would be consequences to my actions, but what shocked me was the lines that were pulled out:

• Who was I to deprive a dying man of a new chair to keep himself comfortable - if he cares more about a chair than his son's feelings, his priorities are way off.


• The son was told that the land would be sold years ago and said he didn't care what happens to it - um not. Plus, things tend to change over the years even if that was the case.


• I am in it for the money and that all I ever think about is myself...true I often think about myself before others, I've never denied that; however, in the case I am looking out for the son, the father and the wife. The selling of the land means the end of any contact once the father passes and I won't be able to do much to change that. If it was about the money, I wouldn't be trying to preserve the land for the son and his boys. I guess according to her it has always only been about the money to me - apparently she's forgotten about my parents and the type of lifestyle that I grew up in...I assure you I didn't need to marry for money. If it was about the money I would want all the land and not just a small section.

To me, so much precious time is being wasted fighting over this land...time that could be spend create more memories and not friction. If the letter hit home that hardly, then you know there is truth to at least some of what I wrote. While what happens to the land is out of our hands at this point...I needed for them to know the consequences it is and would have on the relationships. I needed to plant the seed of compromising. Why not create a win-win? Me, personally...sell the land. Yes I saw years more memories being created there and perhaps the opportunity to live there one day when they boys have moved out...but it doesn't hold the same value to me as it does the son and so many others in that family. Just as she will continue to defend her actions and those of the father, who by the way will only talk to his son about selling the farm when she is in the room - Stalemate: no one can move without someone being put in harms way.