CONFIDENTIAL · FOR CONGREGATION ELDERS ONLY
LetterFamily Chat

Family Financial Matters and the Question of Trust

Dear Brothers,

I decided to provide this information in more detail because I understand that some of you are already familiar with this situation, while others who may review it may have heard only certain parts of it.

This is a very personal family matter, and I am not at all comfortable with the need to bring such things outside the family.

That is exactly why, in the spring, when the question of possibly recommending Clayton as a ministerial servant was being discussed, I chose not to go into the details. I simply said that there was an unresolved matter between our families involving our parents’ financial affairs and trust, and that under the circumstances as they existed at that time, I could not recommend him.

At that point, I sincerely hoped that we would be able to resolve the matter within the family and that there would never be any need to involve the brothers in the details.

Several months have passed since then. Unfortunately, the situation has not been resolved. On the contrary, additional circumstances have come to light, there have been several attempts to discuss matters in person, there has been extensive written communication, money has been returned, documents have been requested, and in the end the issue of trust has become even more complicated.

For that reason, I believe it is appropriate now to explain more fully what led to my decision in the spring, what has happened since then, and where the situation stands today.

How Mayya’s and Nana’s Parents’ Financial Affairs Were Structured

First, it is important to explain the background. Otherwise, some of the events that followed may appear different from what they actually were.

In our family, it had always been understood that the property and assets of Mayya’s and Nana’s parents would ultimately be intended equally for both daughters.

When their parents began transferring their assets to the United States and acquiring property here, the practical ability to handle their U.S. financial affairs was primarily in the hands of Nana and Clayton.

For that reason, all of the parents’ U.S. assets were formally placed in Nana’s name. This did not mean that the parents had decided to give everything to Nana or to exclude Mayya. It was primarily a practical way of holding and managing the assets in the United States.

This arrangement included:

The family understanding was that Clayton was not to be an owner of these assets.

In January 2026, the parents decided to restructure their assets so that both daughters would be included equally. It was during this process that circumstances began to come to light that ultimately led to the current situation.

Clayton’s Name on the Bank Account

When Mayya was being added to the Chase checking account, we learned — right there during the appointment with the bank clerk — that Nana was not the only owner of the account.

Clayton was also listed as a joint owner.

This came as a surprise to us. Neither the parents nor Mayya knew that Clayton had been added to the account. It had never been discussed or agreed upon with them.

What made this particularly difficult to understand was that only a few months earlier, in November 2025, during a conversation about the parents’ financial affairs, Clayton himself had described the situation differently:

“My name is not on the account, but I'm called a POD, paid on death.”

How did this happen, and why?

We were first told that Clayton’s presence on the account was necessary because of tax reporting requirements. Since the parents’ assets were formally held in Nana’s name and the related income was being reported through Clayton and Nana’s joint tax return, Clayton’s presence on the bank account was presented as an absolute necessity.

The problem was that ownership of a bank account and tax reporting are two separate matters. A husband does not need to become a joint owner of a particular bank account simply in order for income to be included on a joint tax return.

Later, the explanation changed.

We were then told that Clayton was on the account simply for convenience — so that he could use the banking app, handle practical matters, and avoid having to bother Nana.

In other words, the original explanation of:

“It was necessary because of taxes”

effectively became:

“It was more convenient that way.”

There was also uncertainty about when Clayton had actually been added to the account. From the first explanations, one could have understood that he had been connected with the account from the beginning. Later, it sounded as though he had been added sometime afterward.

Eventually, we checked this ourselves with the bank.

That was almost a full year after the account had been opened.

This is important because it means this was not simply a situation in which the bank had originally set up the account in both spouses’ names. Clayton was added through a separate action significantly later.

Later, Clayton and Nana apologized. However, the apology appeared to be more about the way the matter had been handled than about the action itself.

To this day, Clayton does not appear to believe that there was anything wrong with becoming an owner of the parents’ account itself. This is one of the points on which we have never really been able to understand each other.

For me, the issue is not only whether someone was informed afterward. If an asset belongs to other people, and the family arrangement does not contemplate you as an owner, then the decision to become an owner of that asset itself requires an explanation.

The Explanation Changed Again

The situation became much more difficult because it proved so hard to obtain a simple and consistent explanation.

At different times, we heard that:

The most recent explanation is especially significant.

At our meeting on August 20, I again brought up Clayton’s statement from November:

“My name is not on the account, but I'm called a POD.”

Clayton then explained that when he made that statement in November, he had not been referring to the Chase checking account at all.

According to this new explanation, he had been referring to the certificates of deposit — the CDs — at 3Rivers.

I asked him twice to clarify this because I wanted to make absolutely sure that I understood the new explanation correctly.

So the current explanation is that when Clayton said his name was “not on the account” and that he was only a POD, he was specifically referring to a CD at 3Rivers.

This explanation had never been given before.

And this raises a very simple question, because this is not a matter of memory or interpretation. It is a verifiable fact.

If, at the time of our conversation in November 2025, Clayton really was listed as POD on a particular CD at 3Rivers, there should be a bank document or record confirming that status at that time.

If such a document exists, it would resolve this question.

So far, we have not seen such confirmation.

The repeated appearance of new explanations is what creates the problem of trust. Each time, we are left asking ourselves:

Have we now finally been given the full picture, or have we simply been given another part of it?

Similar Examples Clayton Gave Himself

In our conversations, Clayton has also given examples of having handled the assets of other elderly relatives in a similar way.

In particular, he told us that in the past he had put his name on his mother’s bank account without his sister Elizabeth knowing about it. He also told us that he had put his name on the bank account of his first wife’s mother.

He gave these examples specifically to show that, in his view, this way of handling someone else’s assets is normal and that his intentions have always been to help.

For me, however, these examples have the opposite effect. They suggest that Clayton does not view this kind of involvement in another person’s assets as unusual in the first place.

Excess Amounts Received from the Parents

The second problem arose in the spring.

On April 17, a message appeared in the family chat saying that the parents had withdrawn $1,000.

At first, there did not seem to be anything particularly concerning about this. The parents periodically used cash for their own expenses.

However, after Mayya asked about it, it was explained that the money was needed for car insurance and taxes.

When we began asking what exactly was meant by these “taxes,” the parents explained that for several years they had been giving Clayton and Nana money based on an estimated amount of taxes they themselves would have paid if they had filed their own tax return and if the property had been held directly in their names.

The calculation itself was fairly simple: the total gross income was taken and a certain percentage was applied to it.

We explained to the parents why this method could significantly overstate the actual tax burden.

After that, Lyudmila spoke with Nana.

On May 15, Nana said that the $1,000 had been withdrawn by mistake because only $216 was actually needed for car insurance.

She returned the remaining $784 to the bank.

The sequence here is important: the money was returned only after we asked questions and explained to the parents why the amount did not appear to be correct.

The Questions About Previous Years

On May 21, Mayya and Nana met at Starbucks.

Mayya asked the natural next question: if it had now become clear that the amount had been calculated incorrectly, how had these amounts been calculated in previous years?

And how much money had the parents given them this way overall?

At that point, there was no clear answer.

The responses were along the lines of:

“We need to look at it.”

“Maybe it was calculated incorrectly in earlier years too.”

A few days later, on May 26, Nana wrote that she and Clayton had discovered another mistake and had returned an additional $3,500 to the bank.

The return of another $3,500 did not resolve the issue. Instead, it raised additional questions:

We were given only a partial explanation of how this “tax” had been calculated — specifically, for 2025.

But to this day, we have still not been able to obtain a clear answer as to what method or reasoning had been used to determine the amounts taken from the parents in the earlier years.

Who Was Actually Responsible for the Calculations?

There was another notable feature in the explanations we were given.

At the earlier stages, it was repeatedly presented to us that Clayton was the one handling practically all of these matters: he understood the American system and dealt with the taxes, finances, and documents.

In fact, this was one of the explanations for why his name had been added to the bank account.

But when questions arose specifically about the incorrect tax calculations, the emphasis began to shift.

We were then told that Nana and Lyudmila had done the calculations, that it was their mistake, and that they were the ones dealing with those figures.

As a result, the explanation of who was actually making the decisions and who was responsible for the financial arrangements became much less clear precisely when the question of responsibility for the errors arose.

How We Tried to Resolve the Problem

On our side, we made several attempts to understand the situation and resolve it within the family.

In January, at our initiative, the entire family met at our home to discuss the issue of Clayton’s name being on the bank account.

As a result of that meeting, we believed that we had agreed on more open communication and a better exchange of information regarding the parents’ financial matters.

In June, we sent Clayton and Nana a detailed letter explaining the issues that were troubling us and asking for clear answers.

In July, I repeatedly and firmly asked to meet in person to discuss the remaining disagreements.

The first such meeting with Clayton took place at our home on July 28.

Since important questions still remained afterward, a second meeting was held on August 20.

Unfortunately, despite these repeated efforts to discuss the situation directly and find a solution within the family, there was no meaningful improvement, and many of the issues that had led to the loss of trust remained unresolved.

Difficulty Obtaining the Documents

The same problem appeared when we tried to obtain documents related to the rental house.

Before our second in-person meeting, I asked Clayton to bring all documents connected with the property.

By that point, Mayya was already a co-owner of the house together with Nana.

Clayton did bring a fairly thick folder, but I did not go through it in detail during the meeting itself.

Afterward, when I reviewed the contents, I found a rather unusual picture.

The folder contained:

At the same time, several of the documents one would normally expect to find first in a property file were missing:

That led to a separate exchange of messages in which we asked for the missing documents.

Once again, we were given a familiar explanation: the documents were needed by Clayton and Nana for tax reporting purposes, and therefore they could not provide them to us.

To me, this closely resembled the original explanation for Clayton’s presence on the bank account.

Again, “taxes” became the reason given for why an ordinary and reasonable request could not be fulfilled.

Eventually, after the parents became involved, the documents were provided.

So when it is said today:

“But we gave you the documents,”

that is technically true.

But it took weeks and repeated requests to obtain them.

How Incomplete Answers Affected Trust

This, in my view, is one of the main reasons the situation deteriorated so much.

The problem was not only the original actions themselves, but also the way subsequent questions were handled.

Again and again, roughly the same pattern repeated itself:

Question → partial answer → clarification → additional information → another question → action.

We asked about the $1,000 — $784 was returned.

We asked what had happened in previous years — another $3,500 was returned.

We asked for the complete set of property documents — at first we received a folder that did not contain the key documents, and afterward we had to continue asking for the missing papers.

We raised the issue of Clayton’s presence on the bank account — he did not voluntarily remove himself from the account, and eventually Zurab had to personally insist that Clayton be removed as an owner.

What makes this pattern especially difficult is that the information is provided in parts, and each new answer naturally leads to further questions.

At the same time, those follow-up questions are often treated as though we are simply being overly critical, and the situation is presented as though nothing will ever satisfy us, no matter how many explanations are given or what actions are taken.

This combination of incomplete answers and a negative reaction to reasonable follow-up questions makes the situation especially difficult to resolve and further undermines trust.

Why the Positive Changes Did Not Restore Trust

Later, our conversations began to include references to the positive changes that had taken place:

“We returned the money.”

“Mayya is now a co-owner of the house.”

“She is now on the accounts.”

“We provided the documents.”

I do not dispute any of those facts.

It is good that the money was returned, that the property is now structured in accordance with the parents’ decision, and that the necessary documents were eventually provided.

But when evaluating trust, it matters not only what the final result was, but also how that result was reached.

Adding Mayya as a co-owner of the house and as an owner on the accounts was the parents’ decision, not an initiative taken by Clayton and Nana.

The money was returned after we began asking questions.

The additional documents were provided only after repeated requests and the parents’ involvement.

Clayton removed himself as an owner of the bank account only after Zurab directly insisted that he do so.

For that reason, it is difficult for me to view these actions as evidence that the problem was independently recognized and voluntarily corrected.

From our perspective, the main corrective changes came only after questions were raised, persistent requests were made, or other family members intervened.

What would have happened if we had never asked anything at all?

The August 20 Meeting

I arranged two lengthy in-person meetings with Clayton, both at my initiative.

For quite some time, I had been trying to make these meetings happen because I wanted to discuss the issues that were troubling us directly, openly, and without avoiding the difficult points.

The first meeting took place on July 28 and lasted almost three hours.

The second took place on August 20 and lasted about an hour and a half.

Unfortunately, the second meeting ended very badly.

Toward the end of the conversation, Clayton became very upset, raised his voice, gestured forcefully, and, once we were outside on the driveway, struck the car and ended the conversation on his own initiative.

He also made it clear that he was no longer willing to discuss the bank account and did not want to hear any further questions on that subject.

Afterward, there was no separate conversation about the way the meeting had ended.

There was no message along the lines of:

“I lost my temper yesterday. I should not have behaved that way.”

There was also no attempt to explain or reflect on what had happened.

A few days later, at the convention, Clayton approached us in a very friendly way and, from our perspective, seemed to expect the same level of warmth in return, as though the previous incident had not happened.

That was difficult for us.

In my view, it is not realistic to end a conversation with shouting, striking a car, and what amounted to an ultimatum, and then, only a few days later, expect the relationship to return automatically to its previous level of closeness.

Since then, there has been no meaningful continuation of the discussion on these issues.

In substance, the situation has remained where it was when we parted on August 20.

Shifting the Focus from the Cause to the Consequences

Here, in my view, another important difference became apparent — a difference in how the problem itself is understood.

For us, the problem originally consisted of specific actions and circumstances:

Over time, however, the focus began to shift away from those questions and toward our subsequent behavior:

For us, this reverses cause and effect.

We did not live for years in normal, trusting relationships and then suddenly decide, without reason, to distance ourselves and stop trusting Clayton and Nana.

On the contrary, for a long time our trust was almost unconditional.

That is precisely why so little was ever checked.

Then facts began to emerge.

Questions arose.

The answers were incomplete or changed over time.

Money was returned only after further questions were asked.

Obtaining the documents required persistence.

And an attempt at a direct personal discussion ended in shouting.

After All of That, the Distance Appeared

That is why it is difficult for us to agree that the distance itself should now be treated as the main problem.

From our perspective, what is being discussed is not the cause of the distance, but the distance itself.

Yet it did not arise on its own.

It became a consequence of what happened earlier and of issues that, in our view, still have not been fully clarified or resolved.

Why This Has Been So Painful for Mayya

There is also a very personal side of this situation that is important to understand. For Mayya, everything that has happened — together with how difficult it has been to obtain clear answers afterward — has created a painful sense that she was being pushed aside in matters involving her parents’ assets and what was ultimately intended for both daughters. Important financial decisions were made without her knowledge, Clayton became an owner of an account connected with the parents’ money, and clear explanations have been difficult to obtain. Taken together, these circumstances naturally led her to feel that she was being excluded.

What makes this especially painful is that Mayya has not been looking simply for documents or technical corrections. She has been hoping for an open and sincere conversation — an explanation of what happened, an acknowledgment of why it affected her so deeply, and some genuine expression of regret and desire to repair the relationship. That kind of conversation could help remove many of the doubts that remain. But so far, she does not feel that anyone has really tried to reassure her in that way.

For Mayya, this is not a conflict with a distant relative. Nana is her only sister — someone Mayya loved deeply, helped care for while growing up, and trusted almost without reservation. That is why Mayya experiences what happened not only as a financial disagreement, but as a sense of betrayal, deception, and exclusion by someone from whom she expected the opposite.

More than anything, Mayya would like an honest conversation in which the whole situation could finally be explained openly, genuine regret could be expressed, and the tangled issues between them could begin to be untangled. Only after that, in her view, would it be realistic to begin rebuilding the relationship, to whatever extent may still be possible.

When Good Intentions Become the Answer

In conversations with Clayton, the subject of his good intentions comes up again and again.

He reminds us of how much he has done for the parents and for our family, and I do not deny that.

But at times I get the impression that good intentions are being offered as an answer to almost every specific question:

“You know me.”

“You know how much I have done.”

“I had no bad intentions.”

I hear that, and I understand that intentions do matter.

But when someone else’s money, bank accounts, and property are involved, an explanation based on intentions alone is not enough.

What matters is not only what a person intended to do, but also:

For me, this is not an accusation of stealing or a claim of bad motives.

But even with good intentions, a person can act in ways that seriously damage trust.

Where Things Stand Today

If I try to reduce the entire history to a few main conclusions, this is how the situation looks to me today.

The Bank Account

Clayton essentially does not view the fact that he became a joint owner of an account connected to the parents’ money as a mistake.

His regret relates primarily to the fact that others were not informed about it in advance.

His explanation of what he said in November about being a POD has changed over time and is now connected to a CD at 3Rivers — something that can be objectively verified through bank records.

The Money

Significant amounts were returned only after we began asking questions about whether the previous calculations were correct.

At the same time, we still have not been able to get a simple and clear answer to two basic questions:

  1. How much money in total was received from the parents over all those years?
  2. On what basis were those amounts calculated?

The Documents

A substantial part of the necessary information was obtained only after repeated requests and the parents’ intervention.

The Personal Discussion

The last attempt to discuss the situation in person ended very badly, and the way that meeting ended was never separately acknowledged, explained, or discussed afterward.

The Overall Pattern

As far as we can tell from the sequence of events, none of the main corrections directly related to the issues we raised were initiated by Clayton and Nana on their own before those issues were brought up.

Each of those changes came only after questions were asked, repeated requests were made, or direct demands came from other family members.