Unfair! Over a million dollars of my dad's money will go to his wife's child?

[OksanaMarch]

My father died in 2009. I am his only child.
My stepmother got the house they lived in and about a million dollars of my dad’s money when he died. At that time I consulted with an estate attorney and he said this is basically correct and that’s the law in California.
Ok. However, now this woman is very sick. She has a spinal cord tumor for which the survival rate is very low. She has one adult daughter. If she dies, does everything get passed on to her daughter? If so, that sounds extremely unfair! Shouldn't I get a part of the money that initially came from my father?
Does anyone know how this works? What law governs this scenario in California? Thank you.

 

[curb1]

I have heard this scenario so many times. It is a primary reason for estate planning by everyone, especially in second marriages. If your father's assets were legally transferred to your step mother, she will be able to have control of how her assets are distributed when she dies. Doesn't seem right but the lack of planning by your father is the real problem. My advice is to be very friendly with your step mother because apparently she is holding all of the cards. When you asked your step mother about this, what did she say? Keep in mind she doesn't need to answer that question.

 

[Just Blue]

My father died in 2009. I am his only child.
My stepmother got the house they lived in and about a million dollars of my dad’s money when he died. At that time I consulted with an estate attorney and he said this is basically correct and that’s the law in California.
Ok. However, now this woman is very sick. She has a spinal cord tumor for which the survival rate is very low. She has one adult daughter. If she dies, does everything get passed on to her daughter? If so, that sounds extremely unfair! Shouldn't I get a part of the money that initially came from my father?
Does anyone know how this works? What law governs this scenario in California? Thank you.

If your father wanted you to have a part of his estate he would have left it to you in his will. As he did not...We can only infer that he did so for a reason. The property and monies left now belong to his widow to leave to whom she wishes.

Not "unfair" at all.

 

[commentator]

Your stepmother inherited in 2008. At that time, you no longer had any interest or claim on this money. It went to her. It is hers. End of story. Now she is very sick, and the money SHE has left after dealing with her medical expenses will go to whomever she wishes it to. Two thousand eight was seven years ago. you should've let this money go by now in your own mind. Even if your daddy had been the best "estate planner" in the whole world, he couldn't have set up something whereby his wife got part of his money and then when he died, what was left of that money she got would go back to whomever HE wished it to go to, ( and you're only assuming he would've wanted it to come back to you.) Why would he have thought she wouldn't have spent it by now? She very legally and righteously could've, you know. And of course being able to leave some of her money to her child is probably something that makes her very happy.

 

[kempmaer]

unfair response

I would communicate with your father's second wife about the intentions she has with the money she currently has in her possession that was left by your father, i.e. by letter, personal visit, etc. It is important that your communication with her is in writing and backed up by an attorney or legal mediator. If she is open to sharing with you, great. Either way I would consult another attorney who is willing to represent your interests. Obviously this has been on your mind for awhile and approaching anyone with your thoughts on these matters is a good first step. Any estate planning that excludes you from your father's will is wrong and poor planning is not an excuse. Your father may have been unduly influenced by his second wife to leave all of it to her, who knows. From what I understand, he obviously did not have a reason to exclude you. You have the right to challenge a will in court if you have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that your Father's will was executed in an unreasonable manner. Do not delay with your actions, your Father is gone (and he cannot doing anything with money) and you are still alive, that is what matters most.

 

[Zigner]

I would communicate with your father's second wife about the intentions she has with the money she currently has in her possession that was left by your father, i.e. by letter, personal visit, etc. It is important that your communication with her is in writing and backed up by an attorney or legal mediator. If she is open to sharing with you, great. Either way I would consult another attorney who is willing to represent your interests. Obviously this has been on your mind for awhile and approaching anyone with your thoughts on these matters is a good first step. Any estate planning that excludes you from your father's will is wrong and poor planning is not an excuse. Your father may have been unduly influenced by his second wife to leave all of it to her, who knows. From what I understand, he obviously did not have a reason to exclude you. You have the right to challenge a will in court if you have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that your Father's will was executed in an unreasonable manner. Do not delay with your actions, your Father is gone (and he cannot doing anything with money) and you are still alive, that is what matters most.

Pure and utter hogwash! Really!

 

[Silverplum]

I would communicate with your father's second wife about the intentions she has with the money she currently has in her possession that was left by your father, i.e. by letter, personal visit, etc. It is important that your communication with her is in writing and backed up by an attorney or legal mediator. If she is open to sharing with you, great. Either way I would consult another attorney who is willing to represent your interests. Obviously this has been on your mind for awhile and approaching anyone with your thoughts on these matters is a good first step. Any estate planning that excludes you from your father's will is wrong and poor planning is not an excuse. Your father may have been unduly influenced by his second wife to leave all of it to her, who knows. From what I understand, he obviously did not have a reason to exclude you. You have the right to challenge a will in court if you have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that your Father's will was executed in an unreasonable manner. Do not delay with your actions, your Father is gone (and he cannot doing anything with money) and you are still alive, that is what matters most.

Upon which state statutes did you base your answer?

 

[Proserpina]

I would communicate with your father's second wife about the intentions she has with the money she currently has in her possession that was left by your father, i.e. by letter, personal visit, etc. It is important that your communication with her is in writing and backed up by an attorney or legal mediator. If she is open to sharing with you, great. Either way I would consult another attorney who is willing to represent your interests. Obviously this has been on your mind for awhile and approaching anyone with your thoughts on these matters is a good first step. Any estate planning that excludes you from your father's will is wrong and poor planning is not an excuse. Your father may have been unduly influenced by his second wife to leave all of it to her, who knows. From what I understand, he obviously did not have a reason to exclude you. You have the right to challenge a will in court if you have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that your Father's will was executed in an unreasonable manner. Do not delay with your actions, your Father is gone (and he cannot doing anything with money) and you are still alive, that is what matters most.

Please show us a California statute which voids a will which explicitly excludes an adult child.


Oh, and would you please share with us how OP will be able to get around those pesky little SOL problems?


We'll wait.

 

[kempmaer]

unfair

My recommendations are meant for the original poster, not the Senior Members. Sadly, I will not expect any useful advice from the Senior Members who choose to use unhelpful language on this forum.

 

[Silverplum]

My recommendations are meant for the original poster, not the Senior Members. Sadly, I will not expect any useful advice from the Senior Members who choose to use unhelpful language on this forum.

You gave useless blather to someone asking for help. When called on your failure, you write this junk.

We're not impressed. We will continue to correct you.

 

[Proserpina]

My recommendations are meant for the original poster, not the Senior Members. Sadly, I will not expect any useful advice from the Senior Members who choose to use unhelpful language on this forum.

What you meant to say is, "I'm sorry, I didn't think, I'll double check my information next time".

Tell you what. I'll write this, instead:

"Kempmaer you are so nice for trying to help this OP and I don't want to criticize or anything or hurt your feelings but you know, your information is just not really helpful. I'm really, really sorry and I feel really mean for having to tell you that but your post just didn't help the OP. I know you mean well and that's just Very Awesome Indeed but your post didn't help the OP because it was so Very Wrong. I'm SOOOOOOOO sorry to have to be the one to tell you and now I feel awful about it. . Forgive me please!"

Better?

 

[justalayman]

My recommendations are meant for the original poster, not the Senior Members. Sadly, I will not expect any useful advice from the Senior Members who choose to use unhelpful language on this forum.

Your "advice" is still junk. The father's estate was dealt with 6-7 years ago. It's done. Op actually consulted an attorney at the time and they (having a lot more info than we do here) told op he is SOL in trying to make sure step mom got nothing.
Op has no claim to stepmothers money what so ever.

Additionally you assume op didn't recieve anything from his father's estate. I suspect that is an incorrect assumption. He complained step mom got money from his father's estate but not all the money (not that it would actually make any difference). The fact op brought in California's community property laws I suspect op is upset because he didn't get all of his father's money.


Seriously dude, if this is typical for you I suggest you stay in the gallery and just watch.

 

[LdiJ]

Ok, I am going to parse this just so you understand just how bad this advice was:

I would communicate with your father's second wife about the intentions she has with the money she currently has in her possession that was left by your father,

Legally, its her money. Its none of his business what she does with it. It could also be viewed as harassing a dying, elderly person.

i.e. by letter, personal visit, etc. It is important that your communication with her is in writing and backed up by an attorney or legal mediator.

No mediator or legal person would ever weigh in on something like that at all, because of the previous answer.

If she is open to sharing with you, great. Either way I would consult another attorney who is willing to represent your interests.

Its 100% her money to do with as she likes. No attorney would be willing to represent his interests at all. He has no interests to represent.

Obviously this has been on your mind for awhile and approaching anyone with your thoughts on these matters is a good first step. Any estate planning that excludes you from your father's will is wrong and poor planning is not an excuse.

Wrong. Dad was perfectly free to leave his money to whomever he wanted. He was completely free to leave his money to his wife.

Your father may have been unduly influenced by his second wife to leave all of it to her, who knows.

Even if a case could be made for that, it would have had to be made before probate on dad's estate completed. Its WAY too late now.

From what I understand, he obviously did not have a reason to exclude you. You have the right to challenge a will in court if you have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that your Father's will was executed in an unreasonable manner. Do not delay with your actions, your Father is gone (and he cannot doing anything with money) and you are still alive, that is what matters most.

Again, even if any of those points were valid its totally too late now to do anything about it.

 

[flybuy22]

Cali law

I think the poster you are ripping with your asinine comments is onto something, check this out:

A Will Contest is a type of Court legal action designed to invalidate all or part of a Will. Will contents often involve the allegation that the person who made the will, often termed the decedent or Testator, was senile, had delusions, or was of unsound mind at the time the documents were created, or was subjected to fraud, coercion [/I]or undue influence during its creation and implementation, or that there are ambiguities in the document, or the Will is a forgery or does not conform to legal requirements as to the number and nature of the witnesses.

If the Will Contest is successful, the Court can rule that all or part of the Will is invalid and can distribute property owned by the Testator as if the Will did not exist, or use the last previous Will, depending on the specific facts and circumstances.

A Will Contest is started when an "interested person" files a written objection to some aspect of a Will. An "interested person" is rather loosely defined to include anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the Will.-the OP

A Child left out of a Will may bring a Will Contest, but must show by valid evidence that the Will or a provision in the Will is invalid. The mere fact that a Child has been omitted from a Will does not alone justify a Will Contest-again the OP

In order to contest a will, a person must have "standing." A party has standing to contest a will only if the contestant is an "interested person." Probate Code §§ 1043, 8250; In re Collins' Estate (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 86. An interested person is defined under Probate Code § 48(a) as: (1) an heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary, and any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding. the OP

Often times one of the legal requirements for contesting a will or trust is that the instrument gives an "Undue Profit" to a beneficiary. Undue profit refers to something unwarranted, excessive, inappropriate, unjustifiable or improper. The concept consists of both quantitative and qualitative aspects allowing the trier of fact to evaluate the relationship between the decedent on the one hand and the beneficiary and others on the other hand to determine whether the beneficiary is the more obvious object of the decedent's testamentary disposition. [Estate of Sarabia (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 599-the mother in law

Ok, I am going to parse this just so you understand just how bad this advice was:







Legally, its her money. Its none of his business what she does with it. It could also be viewed as harassing a dying, elderly person.



No mediator or legal person would ever weigh in on something like that at all, because of the previous answer.



Its 100% her money to do with as she likes. No attorney would be willing to represent his interests at all. He has no interests to represent.



Wrong. Dad was perfectly free to leave his money to whomever he wanted. He was completely free to leave his money to his wife.



Even if a case could be made for that, it would have had to be made before probate on dad's estate completed. Its WAY too late now.



Again, even if any of those points were valid its totally too late now to do anything about it.

 

[justalayman]

I think the poster you are ripping with your asinine comments is onto something, check this out:

A Will Contest is a type of Court legal action designed to invalidate all or part of a Will. Will contents often involve the allegation that the person who made the will, often termed the decedent or Testator, was senile, had delusions, or was of unsound mind at the time the documents were created, or was subjected to fraud, coercion [/I]or undue influence during its creation and implementation, or that there are ambiguities in the document, or the Will is a forgery or does not conform to legal requirements as to the number and nature of the witnesses.

If the Will Contest is successful, the Court can rule that all or part of the Will is invalid and can distribute property owned by the Testator as if the Will did not exist, or use the last previous Will, depending on the specific facts and circumstances.

A Will Contest is started when an "interested person" files a written objection to some aspect of a Will. An "interested person" is rather loosely defined to include anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the Will.-the OP

A Child left out of a Will may bring a Will Contest, but must show by valid evidence that the Will or a provision in the Will is invalid. The mere fact that a Child has been omitted from a Will does not alone justify a Will Contest-again the OP

In order to contest a will, a person must have "standing." A party has standing to contest a will only if the contestant is an "interested person." Probate Code §§ 1043, 8250; In re Collins' Estate (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 86. An interested person is defined under Probate Code § 48(a) as: (1) an heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary, and any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding. the OP

Often times one of the legal requirements for contesting a will or trust is that the instrument gives an "Undue Profit" to a beneficiary. Undue profit refers to something unwarranted, excessive, inappropriate, unjustifiable or improper. The concept consists of both quantitative and qualitative aspects allowing the trier of fact to evaluate the relationship between the decedent on the one hand and the beneficiary and others on the other hand to determine whether the beneficiary is the more obvious object of the decedent's testamentary disposition. [Estate of Sarabia (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 599-the mother in law

Seriously dude you are just as, um, lacking in insight as the other guy.

The op spoke with a lawyer at the time the estate was probated.

Hell, we don't even know if there was a will let alone if the guy had any basis to contest it several years ago when the estate was dealt with in the courts. On top of that there is nothing to suggest op was cut out of a will if there was one. He was simply upset step mom got anything.