Home » News » Family ‘as happy as anything’: granddaughter has to pay back grandma’s wasted money | Money

Family ‘as happy as anything’: granddaughter has to pay back grandma’s wasted money | Money

The granddaughter and her husband, who are said to have eaten up Grandma’s savings from Lunteren, have to pay it back. And also the legal costs incurred by the family. In all, more than 50,000 euros.

The court has declared the appeal of the couple from Ede null and void. This means that the original verdict stands. It reads that granddaughter and her husband have “illegitimately withdrawn” from Grandma’s bank account and the couple must repay her children. Grandma herself passed away in 2015.

The family can’t believe their luck, says son-in-law Ben Rommers. “This feels fantastic. Everyone is happy as hell. Justice at last.” Seven grandma’s children have been litigating for years to get some of the lost savings back.

Acquittal due to procedural errors

The granddaughter had Grandma’s bank card and would have used it for her own family. Her husband and she would have paid for groceries, clothing and also a holiday with this. Grandma died in debt.

Both were initially convicted in the criminal case. However, the appeal was acquitted due to procedural errors. The couple was also initially convicted in the civil case brought by the family. In the appeal, the coin is now falling the other way due to procedural errors.

The court declared this appeal null and void, because the summons reached the family’s lawyer too late. The bailiff gave this to a Mrs. De Vries in the multi-company building where the lawyer has his office. But no one knows who that is. The lawyer didn’t find the subpoena in his mailbox until two weeks later.


Quote

If you look deep into my heart, I would rather have had a statement on substantive grounds

Ben Rommers


“Very disappointing”, lawyer Bas van Riel of the Ede couple reacts to the ruling. “Particularly because the court has not come to the content of the dispute between the parties.”

‘Would rather have substantive statement’

“If you look deep into my heart, I would rather have had a statement on substantive grounds,” says son-in-law Rommers. “But the substantive consideration was of course also made in the first lawsuit and they were convicted on that basis.”

Granddaughter and her husband can appeal the annulment to the Supreme Court, but according to lawyer Van Riel, they do not yet know whether they will do so: “They first want to let this judgment sink in.”

Money to creditors

According to Rommers, the family assumes that everything will be fine now: “The Supreme Court only looks at the procedure followed and I do not know what to criticize.”

If money is repaid, it first goes to the creditors, he says. ,,Then you have to think of the housing association, Menzis, Nuon. Then all kinds of costs have been incurred and perhaps there is something left over at the end of the journey.”

“But that has never been our goal. Our concern is that you don’t steal from your grandmother and if you do, you get punished for it.”


Quote

Our concern is that you don’t steal from your grandma and if you do, you get punished for it

Ben Rommers


Watch all our news videos here:

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.