Feud Over Bequest

* The article “Bitter Bequest” (Aug. 24) is a bitter pill indeed. According to the article, charities were to receive a bequest with the remainder of the trust going to heirs. With the trust short of funds, the charities chose to stand their distance so as not to become tainted by a pending lawsuit involving a piece of undeveloped land of that trust.

When the piece of land turned to gold and the lawsuit ended, these valiant charities, not satisfied with the bequest plus interest, chose instead to scrounge and gouge the family heirs out of their remaining share of the estate. Such conduct can only be described as reprehensible and unconscionable.

As to the three charities--Guide Dogs for the Blind, Masonic Homes of California for the aged and the Masonic Homes for children--I have never donated nor do I intend to in the future. However, the Salvation Army, often the recipient of my generosity, can consider my participation at an end.

ROGER NICODEMUS

Simi Valley

* Creative notions of entitlement abound in this society and the account of Corinne Reisinger’s relatives’ raid on the amplified coffers of her estate stacks up with plenty of those.

As a contributor to some of the named charities, I absolutely endorse their going to court to obtain proceeds of any delay (i.e., 20 years) in distribution. Clearly the charities were to be key beneficiaries and the family was only incidentally and, as an aside, considered for a token of what might remain.

LAURA McGINLEY

La Crescenta