Celeste Holm could lose her home.

Very sad.


The stately apartment, where Ms. Holm has lived since 1953, reflects a full and fruitful life: mementos from her films “All About Eve” and “Gentleman’s Agreement”; sheet music on the grand piano for songs she and her husband still sing together. But it is now at the center of a bitter family battle that has poisoned her relationships with her two sons and exhausted all her other assets, including the trust fund that was supposed to pay her living expenses.

The couple have had to borrow money to stay in the apartment. They no longer have a housekeeper or a home health aide. Even now, Mr. Basile said, there is a very real chance that they could lose their home, or that Ms. Holm’s sons could force them to sell it.

“There is?” Ms. Holm said, staring at him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/nyregion/love-and-inheritance-celeste-holms-family-feud.html?_r=2

---

That whole article was sad. Everyone in it seems to agree that she wasn't a great mother who clearly didn't give much time to her kids, and yet the kids seemed to be being blamed for resenting that. And it's hard for me to believe that a 41 year old man married an 87 year old woman out of true love.

I dunno who to believe here, though.

Yeah, I didn't get that from the article. I actually kind of took away that he is standing in the way of her getting the care she needs. He reads to me like a golddigger who is helping to drive a wedge where there was already a wedge.

The article seems to want the reader to believe in the transmutative power of their May - March of the Following Year romance, but I don't buy it.

Updated On: 7/3/11 at 01:44 PM

I suppose any "poor" person who marries a "rich" person faces that kind of scrutiny.

Well, maybe I'm just a cynic, but when there's a forty-six year age difference and the older party is almost 90 when they marry, I think a little scrutiny is in order. And yeah, when there's money involved, I think even MORE scrutiny is order. It's just hard for me to see that this about love and the kindness of his heart, despite the article's mention of their "romantic" relationship.

Which is worse? The young vulturous husband helping to feed her through a stomach tube and dress her? Or the uncaring vulturous sons offering no help other than to find a nursing home for her?

I don't think see how it had to be one or the other. I don't see that the sons were uncaring and offered no help but a nursing home. What about the trusts that the husband rejected (even though the sons claim his cut got bigger in each)? What about the claims they are living too extravagantly?

I think the article is attempting to paint the kids as villains and I just don't see it. The kids are called resentful and entitled (which is a really strange word to use about how they felt about not getting their mother's attention)but what about the claims that Basile won't let her see the family? There's the mention of the fax (did the lawyer really put "Mom's F*cking Boyfriend" in there or is that parenthetical thought an invention of MFB himself? The son is being painted as trying to steal her autonomy with the trust, and in the same article it's implied she's feeble and that her mind is going. Even the claim that she might lose her house seems a little off. The co-op says they won't throw her out and nowhere in there does it say the kids actually said they'd make her sell.

I guess I just read the comment from the friend who said Basile turned Holm on her friends and find that seems more likely.

And these two sentences

Over four long interviews, Mr. Basile talked animatedly and at great length, even in response to questions directed at his wife. Ms. Holm, who has been treated for memory loss since 2002, appeared to agree with her husband, though she often could not remember the events described.

seem to say it all.

Updated On: 7/3/11 at 02:44 PM

I didn't mean legal scrutiny. I used that word because you did, but I didn't think you meant legal scrutiny, either.

You're putting a LOT of words in my mouth. I never said anything about denying her rights or that they shouldn't have been allowed to be married. Nothing like that at all. I don't even know where you're getting that.

I confess not to know much about trusts and whatnot, so I'm not sure which husbandly rights of his are being infringed. I don't even see that mentioned in the article.

But yeah, I was judging their relationship. As were you, I think. We just both rendered different judgments.

EDIT: Never mind. Clearly you've got insight into their relationship I don't have.

Updated On: 7/3/11 at 04:02 PM

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not saying I "morally approve" of their marriage. I'm only saying it shouldn't matter what I think.

A moral judgment is beside the point.

I had a relative marry very late in life (not a close relative, but close enough). He was ill at the time and quickly became terminally ill. Unfortunately, he made a decision to leave the majority of his estate to his new wife, and he left a simple monetary sum to each of this three children from his first (long) marriage. When he died, the new wife walked away with just about everything, and it was a lot (especially property). His kids were shocked (because he hadn't told them he was doing it), crushed, and it soured them on the memory of their wonderful father. All because he made a judgment call in the final chapter of life. He wasn't incompetent though. He was in love, and he trusted and hoped for the best. Young people do that every day.

So it happens to a lot of people. It happened in my family. Was it a foolish decision?

Does my answer to that question even matter? He did what he did, and his loved ones have to live with it now.

---

Updated On: 7/3/11 at 04:18 PM

He should at least consider it. It sounds like he's going to need to get one after she passes away.

You're the one passing judgment on the relationship, not me.

No, you are, too. It's just that my judgments are negative towards the husband and the relationship. Yours are positive towards him and the relationship, but negative towards the children.

Updated On: 7/3/11 at 04:24 PM

This is indeed very sad. It's amazing how money can break up a family. Her marriage reminds me of when Martha Raye married that much younger man- who appeared to be gay to me.

Thrre are many sad aspects to this story.

But to me, the saddest and most depressing thing of all is not about the money or the family acrimony, it's the prospect of illness and infirmity that await if you live long enough. Our Ado Annie, forever young and full of life in our memory, now infirm and being fed through a stomach tube.

It's not right, dammit.

Whether star or everyday Joe, life really makes you pay.

If that happens, would she be Celeste Holm-less?

---

Sad, terribly sad, as Dollypop might say.

Personally, I side with the sons. I imagine their actions are driven out of concerns for their mother, whereas the husband is only out for himself. If he truly loved her, at some point he would have called a halt to proceedings, even if he believed he was in the right - principle alone is not worth it. If it had been me and I had married for love, I happily would've signed a pre-nup to avoid all this ugliness.

As it stands, the only ones happy are the lawyers.

---

I didn't know anything about this till I read the article, which pretty much presents only the husband's side.

But just judging from the few "facts" that are presented, it seems like the sons, though long neglected by their mother, are in fact trying to take care of her. There is a mention of a loan at some point, but other than that I don't see evidence that they were trying to get her money--merely keep the husband from going through it. And if once they got together they were suddenly exceeding her usual $300,000 a year expenses, there's good reason to worry about that.

And as for Phyllis's point (and Besty's rebuttal) about getting a job: yes, he's her sole caretaker now, but that needn't have been the case. I don't see why he shouldn't have been working to help care for his wife earlier.

They keep trying to present it as Ms. Holm wanting to regain control of her life, but if he's not even letting her answer questions put to her, it's hard to see him as an aid to her autonomy.

Updated On: 7/4/11 at 10:38 AM