My dad's living will has some rather generic information about what he would want done. Then there's the important stuff. It specifies that my stepmom is to make any decisions for him if he is unable to do so. It then specifies that I am to make the decisions if she is unavailable/unable to do so. If both of us are unavailable, my oldest brother gets to decide. In reality, any decisions would be family decisions, but in case of any conflict or disagreement, there is a legal piece of paper that clearly spells out who he wants having final say. Just assuming your spouse will be able to make decisions for you isn't very reliable. Although it's probably not the most common problem, remember Terri Schiavo had a husband the whole conflict was that the rest of her family disagreed and even though courts ultimately upheld the husband's right to decide on her behalf I'm sure the whole situation was pretty horrible for all. I don't know that having a living will naming her husband (assuming that's who she would have named) would actually have mattered in her case, but it couldn't have hurt. The more likely situation though is an accident that involves both spouses so the spouse is unavailable or incapable of making decisions. If you have one adult child, one parent, one sibling, etc down the line of legal next of kin in the order you'd like people making decisions for you, maybe you're ok, but if you have multiple people with equal rights under the law (or one in there somewhere who you wouldn't trust to be able to make the choices you'd prefer), it would probably be a good idea to decide ahead of time who gets the final say, who comes next, etc, make it legal in a living will, and let the family members know about it. Not only will that make sure you get the people you want making your health care decisions, it could make things easier on your family in a difficult time to have those decisions made ahead of time. Of course you can't predict what you want done in any imaginable situation, but you can predict who might be available and reliable to make those decisions on your behalf. I have no idea what's in their actual will. I'll probably be hobbling around a nursing home in a walker anyway by the time i might inherit anything (my parents were babies when they got married and had me, and my stepmom's a decade younger even than them), so I can't see why i should care.

KK, you know how I feel (it's basically how you feel) but I'm just going to reiterate my $.02 on this subject for the newer posters. Here's my summary of how I feel about this, as to what is fairest: -No one should get thrown out on the street. Surviving spouse should have house free and clear as long as s/he lives there. If s/he decides to move, it then becomes a question of whether parent wants to write will to provide share in profits from sale to children also. If house is the ONLY asset, then no remainder should go to kids since most or all will presumably be needed to purchase comparable new house. If house is one asset among many, there is option for parent to decide that kids should share in all assets, ensuring, of course, that there is enough to provide for spouse remaining in comparable house. -In blended families with more than adequate means, there are enough assets where there is no reason it HAS to be an "all-or-nothing" scenario. In these cases, it's just inviting discontent and trouble to insist that one party has to get ALL of the estate and other parties have to get NONE. -yes, there is a difference between families with means and families without means. In families without means, splitting sale of house may very well mean that spouse is rendered homeless. In families with means, leaving everything to spouse may very well mean plastic surgery, trips to Europe and designer clothes & bathrooms for footloose & fancy-free spouse and decades of bills, dead-end drudgery and debt for hard-working children (and their children). NOT FAIR, I don't care how anyone wants to couch it, and not comparable to a situation with actual hardships. ESPECIALLY if this scenario is not what Dad would have wanted or envisioned when he trusted his spouse to be a fair and reasonable 'steward' of his hard-won assets. -If supposedly it's "all about what Dad wants", then LISTEN to him and ACCEPT it. If he says (when he's in sound body/mind, and especially if he says it numerous times over several years) that he wants everything to go to to wife, kids have to accept that. If he says he wants everything to go to kids, wife has to accept it. -No one should try to change "what Dad wants". Neither kids nor wife have right to TRY to do so. Sometimes wives and/or kids feel like by virtue of their particular place in his life, they are more entitled to try and influence not only his decisions but even his FEELINGS and thus even what he WANTS. This is wrong, not to mention daunting. -But the subject should not be completely taboo. The key difference is *discussion* vs. *demands*. Wife and kids may raise their concerns and hope Dad takes these into consideration. Hopefully one conversation will suffice to lay the concerns on the table (but when another party is relentlessly and repeatedly manipulating the situation from the other side this becomes more challenging). Pushing the issue repeatedly and forcefully becomes manipulation, coersion and soemtimes abuse. It is wrong, no matter who it's coming from: ex-wife, lawyer, kid, current wife. Wrong, wrong, wrong. -Simply put: SM is not Mom. Second marriages, in estate planning, have to be considered differently than first marriages. In first marriage, wife is *MOM*. Mom (if she's like most, good and caring) protects and secures her childrens' future. SM may or may not and most often doesn't after Dad dies. It's a fact. Ask estate lawyers, or go looking up other forums on the internet discussing stepfamilies and inheritance. They're generally not discussing ways to ensure the step-kids get their due. If anyone on here can find me ONE example of a step-parent discussing how they can better ensure their stepchildren's future inheritance, I will send you 20 bucks. -In my opinion, in blended family situations where there are above-adequate means, fairest is to split everything between wife & kids. Perhaps provide proportionately more to spouse, relative to how many years older they are than oldest kid since they will likely have more medical issues and become decreasingly employable after a certain age. First make sure that no one is rendered homeless and that none of the survivors have to pay each other's debts. -if Dad leaves all to wife, hoping wife will leave remainder to kids, it won't happen. (Same might be true if everything is left to kids to distribute to wife.) Could be passed down to surviving wife's existing family, or her new family, or spent on drugs, clothes, QVC, stuff for new babies, plastic surgery, or mismanaged or otherwise G-O-N-E by the time she passes and children (age 70+) need it for their own medical bills, retirement, etc. -Too often kids of divorce get screwed over by the cruel irony of exactly this sort of situation, and here's how: Dad's new wife claims she should get *everything* because in first marriages, that is often how it goes: all to surviving spouse. But fails to remember the next step of that traditional pattern: when surviving PARENT passes, remainder goes to children. The parent's OWN children, that is. Step-parents also often argue that their step-children shouldn't be in their spouse's will because ---PRESUMABLY--- kids will inherit from the other parent. (Or even their grandparents, as some arguments go.) All the while, in the same breath, voicing the mantra of "one shouldn't presume anything" or expect anything from parents as a way to justify THIS parent cutting the kid out. Incidentally, many of these same step-parents can and do expect to receive an inheritance from their own parents, and much sooner than their stepchildren will receive anything from anyone. -If Dad leaves ALL to anybody, he better want it all to stay with that individual forever. In an ideal world, we can trust people with this sort of thing. In the real world, we often can't. There are ways to make it so he doesn't have to CHOOSE one party or the other. In my heart, I feel that unless he hates his wife or kids, if he has to choose in this matter he will be just as torn and not-at-peace as he may have been all his life with other matters he may have been unnaturally and unnecessarily coerced into choosing one-or-the-other about.

What I'm thinking is, turning your cabinet right side up. In each corner, a 2x4 vertically from floor (and under toe kick) to the countertop. Since yours looks like it's 3 cabinets, I'd also put one where the fake stiles are, Front and back. I'd then pocket screw or bracket each one to a horizontal piece. I'm not so certain I'd go with 1s or 2s, since we both know they're only 3/4" or 1.5" It'd cost nothing but time to use more serious support. I'm also thinking that the back wall horizontal support will be the most important, nailed into the studs, because that will be the most important if that particle board fails. Can you please post a pic of it right side up? I'd like to see this cabinet, since you searched forever for the perfect one. Just for the record, my 36" sink base is retrofitted to my farm sink. (Which weights 150lbs, BTW.) I have a 2x8" running horizontally underneath the apron, angle screwed into the plywood sides. I have that rear, horizontal 2x4 I mentioned, because other than the sides, this whole cabinet is 1950's fiber/particle crap. The cabinet can dissolve, but my framing and my sink will remain in place.

"“There are no bad guys in all this,” Goldman said of Carlyle and Plaza del Rey. “When I see people saying ‘It’s really expensive for me,’ I say if you’re not working in high tech, which requires you to be here, why are you here? If you’re here, you’re making a decision every minute you’re here that the cost of being here is worth it.” what an incredible idiotic thing to say. what if you feed the ones who work in high tech, teach their kids, nurse the sick and the elderly? A city can't exist if it's populated only by X people. It needs the whole alphabet array of folks functioning properly you know the numerous strikes of different unions in Jerusalem where I lived for many years showed me who's the really more important to the infrastructure-and you'd never tell. teachers-can go on strikes until everybody's blue( which they do. lol). nurses..reach agreements a bit faster. still might take a couple of weeks. i remember them being on strike even longer once. doctors-goes faster with them than with nurses city bus drivers-couple days and their requirements are met waste management? all it took was several hours of not picking the trash ..in 35 C heat. they were all set by the evening of that very day lol thank you for sharing that article..and I read each and every response with great interest here in Southern OC young families can be outbid for months in a row on the most affordable homes in 400s-500s and such..usually these will be small attached condos in okay parts of the cities with okay schools, nothing remotely fab. New construction-no lot, stupid layout, probably costs like our remodeled fixer upper( maybe including the cost of remodel)..tons of association fees, and I'm not even sure what these associations do Our condo we sold-yeah they were PITA sometimes with their constant repairs maintenance and beautifying..but on the other hand they did repair maintained and beautified:) (except for a big miss when they decided to paint exteriors a new color. without consulting me ahahaa. or anybody for that matter) The rental for my MIL is already approaching 2K for a tiny one bedroom apartment, built in 60s, nothing to look at, the complex looks like my life lol, maintained but not updated in any way, very basic, laundry outside(and you need to pay for it. the nerve of these people)..the only good thing about it is its location-close proximity to us, to shops, library, parks..especially to one of the parks that she loves that's several steps away. Gives her some independence, us-some peace of mind knowing that we can be there in 2 min pick her up for whatever, and she has her room in our place if needed. Still I remember coming here from Stamford CT where we lived, on and off, for seven years altogether, and being somewhat pleasantly surprised by the prices:) It was 2010. (some cities in CT are very upscale and look that part but Stamford even though it's right there surrounded by them, could use..I don't know..could use something LOL. Some revolutionary thought. Like, clean the damn ice in the winter?)