MONEY MANNERS

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: When our son asked to borrow $5,000 for an engagement ring, we were thrilled, because his girlfriend is wonderful. But after we lent him the money, months went by without any word of the engagement. Finally we asked what was up, and our son said he wasn’t going to propose until his girlfriend proved herself financially responsible by paying off her credit card. More months passed, so we asked again, only to learn that our son had bought a big-screen TV with our money instead of a ring. He assured us that he’d since saved enough to pay for a ring once his girlfriend has paid off her debt. Still, we’re shocked. How to handle this situation constructively?

• Perplexed

DEAR PERPLEXED: You shouldn’t be too shocked. Studies report, and we’re not kidding, that men put wide-screen TVs on their wish lists ahead of sex.

As for your son, if he’s young enough and close enough to you to be borrowing money for an engagement ring, then he’s young enough and close enough for you to put your arm around him and nicely explain that money lent for one purpose is not money that the borrower is free to spend on something else - not when the money is borrowed from a relative interest-free. Obviously the young man made a mistake, and you need to tell him. Then explain that, to correct the mistake, he needs to dip into that money he has saved and repay your loan - now.

Come the day his girlfriend cleans up her credit-card debt and your son decides it’s timeto pop the question, you can always lend him money again for a ring. But until that day, there’s no reason for him to be hanging on to your dough, and a very good reason for him to return it - namely: to practice some financial responsibility himself.

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: We live in a rural area, and we don’t want any bad blood with the couple who will soon be our neighbors. But here’s the problem. The “Clarks” are building a house nearby, and for them to connect to the power line, they have to remove 22 trees from the front of our property (and we have to let them). We’ve asked that after removing so many trees, they restore our land. Specifically, we’ve asked them to remove the stumps and bring in topsoil to level out this portion of the yard for a lawn. But they think we’re trying to get our landscaping done at their expense, and they’re angry. Shouldn’t they have to fixup our property? It’s not as if we ever wanted a lawn; we are very happy with the forested area just the way it is.

• Tree’d Off

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: Regardless of what the law says their obligation is (and you should find that out), the Clarks have an ethical obligation to restore your property. What they don’t have, however, is an obligation to improve it. We understand that’s not your goal. But it sounds as if the Clarks don’t.

So perhaps you’d be better off asking them to remove the stumps and plant replacement trees. That should lay to rest their fears that you’re trying to profit from the situation.

And if it doesn’t? Then you’ll know: The Clarks are operating in bad faith. They should be trying to make you whole for the damage their construction project is about to do to your property, not looking for excuses not to. If they continue to tryto dodge this obligation, you shouldn’t hesitate to use any avenue open under the law to get them to restore your land. And don’t worry about bad blood. The Clarks certainly aren’t.

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: An old friend e-mailed recently to say he was coming to town on business and to suggest that we meet for dinner one night, which I was happy to do. “Mark” said he wanted to try this famous local restaurant, a place much too expensive for my budget. However, since Mark is an executive with a Fortune 500 company, I agreed to go there, assuming he’d put the dinner on his expense account. But he didn’t. When the check came, he put half on his credit card, and I got stuck paying the other $85. I was shocked. If I was going to have to pay, shouldn’t he at least have warned me?

• Brian

DEAR BRIAN: Did you warn him that you weren’t expecting to pay? If Mark invited you out to dinner, he should have paid for it. But proposing a get-together is not the same as issuing an invitation, and we assume that had an invitation been extended, you’d have said so. Otherwise, though, why shouldn’t you pick up your half of the tab? Why should the stockholders of the company where Mark works pay for your dinner?

To be sure, your friend should have asked if there was another place you preferred when he put forward such a pricey restaurant. But since he didn’t, it was up to you to suggest a place within your budget, not take for granted that someone else would be picking up your tab.

DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: I was very close to my grandfather. He was the first person I told when I learned I was pregnant (I was single), and he was always supportive. Though Grandpa died a few years ago, only recently did I learn what happened to his money. Turns out my mother paid a lawyer to draw up a trust for Grandpa, a trust that allows Mom to live off the income from his estate, then gives the principal to my sisters when she dies. When I asked her why I was excluded, Mom claimed Grandpa wanted it that way because he disapproved of my having a child out of wedlock. But I know Grandpa loved me more than that, and ultimately Mom admitted she’d tricked him into signing the trust. She said she did it because I’d been such a disappointment to her. My sisters know that Mom tricked Grandpa, but they refuse to confront her or even to say that I should get a share of his money. I consulted a lawyer, but he says there’s a statute of limitations that prevents me from challenging the trust in court. My mother wants me to ignore what she did, and my sisters say I should forgive her and move on. What do you think I should I do? They all say I need to get over this, but I can’t.

• Marguerite

DEAR MARGUERITE: How confident are you in that lawyer? Because if we were in your shoes, we’d get a second opinion, just to be certain there’s absolutely nothing we could do.

Aside from that, consider taking a few months off from your family to see if you can get over - or even want to get over - what your mother has done and what your sisters are now doing (urging you to forgive and forget when they should be taking your side is shameful).

When a family unites in telling a relative whom they’ve seriously mistreated that the real problem is their victim’s inability to forgive and move on, sometimes the best plan is to move on, all right - move on by having nothing to do with these people. Only you, however, can decide if you’d be happier with your family out of your life, or if it’s worth suppressing your anger to keep these relationships. Take your time, and good luck with your decision.

Jeanne Fleming and Leonard Schwarz are the authors of Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?

Dealing With All of the Trickiest Money Problems Between Family and Friends (Free Press, 2008). E-mail them at

[email protected]