An 87-year-old woman from Lemiers in Limburg who owned substantial real estate in nearby Vaals has left most of it to her tenants in her will.

According to the Telegraaf, Anneliese Houppermans, who earned her money from a successful fruit and vegetable business, owned several houses in the community. She never married or had children, and her ties to her family had faded over the years.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        31
        ·
        3 months ago

        Generally decent? I understand that someone can say “ooh she could’ve just gave it to her family to keep generational wealth” but she held housing for ransom for decades until her literal dying breath. I wonder what kind of life was afforded to her through her “substantial real estate.” This is orphan crushing machine at its best

        • ceenote@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Do you think it encourages people to be kind when they do something charitable and get told “Yeah, no, fuck you still”?

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’m not going to praise a landlord or a slaver for their deathbed generosity, even if it does technically make them better than the alternative.

            Do you think she would have done the same thing if she had had children or close family?

            This would have been a good story if she recognized what she was doing while she was alive and willingly stopped feeding the system. As it is it cost her nothing while alive and therefore gains her corpse nothing.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The same one, because a single person doing this due to not having anyone to give an inheritance to is the exception that proves the rule.