What is the name of your state?
Georgia
If a will states there is to be 'equal distribution' of property and nothing is specifically left to any one person, how do you clear up a disagreement?
Brothers (married with children) - we'll say Jim, Joe & John - are the ones who will equally divide property - they each ask for a couple things they want and it's agreed upon. One of the brothers, Jim, asks for & receives a particular item - we'll say a pig. Several years later, after Jim has made a decision that Joe & John don't agree with (completely unrelated to the will or anything that has to do with the family). At that point, Joe & John decide to say that the pig should have gone to someone that Jim isn't willing to give it to; he received it upon mutual agreement at the time and it was his to do with what he wanted. Joe & John have now decided that they want the pig back or they each want 1/3 of the value of the pig; and, they will take him to court to get it.
Will this hold up? If the verbiage states 'equal distribution' (pig never mentioned, Jim, Joe, John never named), then how do you determine who is the rightful owner and what should have happened with what? Joe & John have contacted their attorney, as has Jim, but since the is the initial stages, I'm just curious as to if this is even a viable case?
Thanks!
Georgia
If a will states there is to be 'equal distribution' of property and nothing is specifically left to any one person, how do you clear up a disagreement?
Brothers (married with children) - we'll say Jim, Joe & John - are the ones who will equally divide property - they each ask for a couple things they want and it's agreed upon. One of the brothers, Jim, asks for & receives a particular item - we'll say a pig. Several years later, after Jim has made a decision that Joe & John don't agree with (completely unrelated to the will or anything that has to do with the family). At that point, Joe & John decide to say that the pig should have gone to someone that Jim isn't willing to give it to; he received it upon mutual agreement at the time and it was his to do with what he wanted. Joe & John have now decided that they want the pig back or they each want 1/3 of the value of the pig; and, they will take him to court to get it.
Will this hold up? If the verbiage states 'equal distribution' (pig never mentioned, Jim, Joe, John never named), then how do you determine who is the rightful owner and what should have happened with what? Joe & John have contacted their attorney, as has Jim, but since the is the initial stages, I'm just curious as to if this is even a viable case?
Thanks!