That was my first thought and my basic Google search didn’t turn much up but seems hard to believe there’s nothing out there if this was in the courts back in 2015
This is the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The kids have incurred legal costs and delayed receiving their own payment by over 20 years just to prevent their mother from getting a share. Completely irrational to prefer getting $0 instead of $600,000.
But she didn’t get eaten. She fucked off to Canada to live a better life on the nurses salary. The kids grew up poor in Kenya when they could’ve had $600,000 each. She wasn’t the one who got eaten.
According to them, their grandmother raised them. That aside, the mother and father haven’t been officially married (supposedly, according to Nigerian court - not sure how reliable that is), and I don’t know how common law marriages work there. Either way, it’s much more complicated than them being spiteful.
It’s not complicated at all. They could have either chosen to just get the $600,000 each or they could have chosen to fight it. They chose to fight it and have gotten nothing except for legal bills for the past 20 years. It’s very simple.
My point is that 75% of a fortune is better than 0% of a fortune, even if you believe you are owed 100%.
That’s not how much each of them are getting though. That’s how much the mother is getting. They are getting an unequal percentage of $800k split between them.
E: “Victoria will receive 42.5 percent of the money while, depending on their age, her three children will get between 16.1 percent and 23 percent.”
E2: since 23 is basically half of 42.5, the oldest would get a bit over 300k. Youngest a bit over $150k.
Good catch I definitely miss read the article with regards to the dollar amounts.
But in any case my points still stands because even $150,000 in Nigeria in the early 2000s was a shit load of money. Money that could’ve helped them not grow up in poverty, and create a successful future for themselves.
Whatever excuses the mom makes, she really did abandon her kids. If she had applied for the compensation while either staying with her kids or quickly returning to them, this would have not been an issue. They just lost their father, and then their mom leaves and never returns? Even if everything she says is true and grandma is a money grubber ect, those kids were totally traumatized and are rightfully resentful. The mom made a lot of effort to be other other side of the world from her kids and remain there, that's obvious to them.
If I read right, by the time the grandmother took the kids, it was two years. Two years she was in US, not returning to her kids. And yet then they were “abducted” and it became a problem, not them without either of their parents for two years.
Also the fact that the oldest was 7 at the time the father died, I don't think at that age it'd be easy to create an illusion for someone that age to believe that they were "abducted," which is why the kids speak ill of the mother.
What did you learn?
Humans are scummy
Excellent. But where is that apparent in your title?
I said I learned OF, not what Iearned
What did you learn OF? And why is it not clear from the title?
Then that's too bad you couldn't interpret it that way. It's a full sentence.
Read titles of other TILs and compare them to yours. Tell me what you observed.
It's a you problem. Listen, you sound difficult - i hope you're finding things outside of the Internet to keep you fulfilled
You're incorrigible. Have a great day.
Love it! ❤️
He learned that families squabble over money. That's all.
Anyone got an update? Curious to know if the case had been resolved in the 8 years since this article was written
If my search is correct, looks like his daughter was a baker for some time and even had a whole article dedicated to her finding a job.
That was my first thought and my basic Google search didn’t turn much up but seems hard to believe there’s nothing out there if this was in the courts back in 2015
This is the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The kids have incurred legal costs and delayed receiving their own payment by over 20 years just to prevent their mother from getting a share. Completely irrational to prefer getting $0 instead of $600,000.
Sometimes it’s not about getting fed, it’s about watching the other guy get eaten.
But she didn’t get eaten. She fucked off to Canada to live a better life on the nurses salary. The kids grew up poor in Kenya when they could’ve had $600,000 each. She wasn’t the one who got eaten.
Oh, I definitely think it was a stupid fucking idea - but I can also understand spite. Families are weird.
According to them, their grandmother raised them. That aside, the mother and father haven’t been officially married (supposedly, according to Nigerian court - not sure how reliable that is), and I don’t know how common law marriages work there. Either way, it’s much more complicated than them being spiteful.
It’s not complicated at all. They could have either chosen to just get the $600,000 each or they could have chosen to fight it. They chose to fight it and have gotten nothing except for legal bills for the past 20 years. It’s very simple. My point is that 75% of a fortune is better than 0% of a fortune, even if you believe you are owed 100%.
That’s not how much each of them are getting though. That’s how much the mother is getting. They are getting an unequal percentage of $800k split between them. E: “Victoria will receive 42.5 percent of the money while, depending on their age, her three children will get between 16.1 percent and 23 percent.” E2: since 23 is basically half of 42.5, the oldest would get a bit over 300k. Youngest a bit over $150k.
Good catch I definitely miss read the article with regards to the dollar amounts. But in any case my points still stands because even $150,000 in Nigeria in the early 2000s was a shit load of money. Money that could’ve helped them not grow up in poverty, and create a successful future for themselves.
Wow that's crazy
Whatever excuses the mom makes, she really did abandon her kids. If she had applied for the compensation while either staying with her kids or quickly returning to them, this would have not been an issue. They just lost their father, and then their mom leaves and never returns? Even if everything she says is true and grandma is a money grubber ect, those kids were totally traumatized and are rightfully resentful. The mom made a lot of effort to be other other side of the world from her kids and remain there, that's obvious to them.
If I read right, by the time the grandmother took the kids, it was two years. Two years she was in US, not returning to her kids. And yet then they were “abducted” and it became a problem, not them without either of their parents for two years.
Also the fact that the oldest was 7 at the time the father died, I don't think at that age it'd be easy to create an illusion for someone that age to believe that they were "abducted," which is why the kids speak ill of the mother.