Does Invalid Antenuptial Allow widow extension to Contest Will?

[[email protected]]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MO

If a couple has a lawyer prepare an antenuptial agreement wherein the widow gives up her rights to contest the will for other considerations(life estate, lake membership..) , and three years after spouse's death, the widow wants the antenuptuil thrown out, will her time to contest the will begin again? It looks like in Missouri, you have only a specific amount of time to contest the will, and then it is considered closed. In this case the death was in April 2006 and now the widow wants: "to take against the claim". Will the clock start over with (and if) the antenuptil is declared invalid? A little confusing for someone as limited as myself.

Thanks!


Our judge said he would need some research......

 

[xylene]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MO

If a couple has a lawyer prepare an antenuptial agreement wherein the widow gives up her rights to contest the will for other considerations(life estate, lake membership..) , and three years after spouse's death, the widow wants the antenuptuil thrown out, will her time to contest the will begin again? It looks like in Missouri, you have only a specific amount of time to contest the will, and then it is considered closed. In this case the death was in April 2006 and now the widow wants: "to take against the claim". Will the clock start over with (and if) the antenuptil is declared invalid? A little confusing for someone as limited as myself.

Thanks!


Our judge said he would need some research......

"If" questions are hard.

Who are you asking for?

The disinherited widow or a party who received or will receive distributions from the estate?

Was there a valid will and did it too disinherit the widow lawfully?

What is the widows contention as to the invalidity of the will?

Has the pre-nup been ruled invalid? or is that only a threat.

What is the legal basis for it to be thrown out?

Also

Was the couple married at the time of death?

 

[[email protected]]

Challenge to Will After Antenuptial

"If" questions are hard.

Who are you asking for?
I am not petitioning. The widow has a court date to throw out an antenuptual that was written 21 years ago. It give her two years residence in the house (if she remains single and unmarried) and lets her keep her inherited real estate out of the marital property. She was provided for very well.

The disinherited widow or a party who received or will receive distributions from the estate?

She got all of the cash. A goodly portion of Regions Bank stock was jointly owned and title, so she got that. She got the Lake House and lot. She got the Ameren Stock, the AB (now InBev stock). She got all of the vehicles; cars, motorcycles and even the ATV's.

Was there a valid will and did it too disinherit the widow lawfully?
She was not disinherited. She kept the property that was acquired jointly during the marriage. The house is to pass to the two children (both adults) after she agreed to move out in the antenuptual.


What is the widows contention as to the invalidity of the will?

She claims she has a life estate and was taken advantage of by her husband and her lawyer. She was hoodwinked by the husband's lawyer. That is what she has a court date and wants a jury trial. November 30, 2009

Has the pre-nup been ruled invalid? or is that only a threat.

Threat now, but who knows after the trial.

What is the legal basis for it to be thrown out?

Also

Was the couple married at the time of death?
Yes, they were married.

Two children from husband's first marriage. This was the widow's third marriage. Both of o the ther other husbands died prematurely.
__________________

 

[ShyCat]

This was the widow's third marriage. Both of o the ther other husbands died prematurely.

Such unnecessary innuendo is quite unbecoming.

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks so mcuh Shycat!

Shycat,

Thanks so much for trying to help me. When I look at Wikipedia for innuendo, I find: An innuendo is a baseless invention of thoughts or ideas.

When I pointed out that fact that this person has buried three husbands, it was not a baseless invention of thoughts or ideas. In fact, all three dead husbands are buried in the same National Cemetery (Jefferson Barracks) as all three were veterans.One was USAF, the other two were USARMY. They are quite dead, not an invention of thought nor idea.

I really admire someone like you who is so smart that you are able to reduce a request for help to some trite little joke.

So, thanks again and I really hope that you get your own Fox News show.

Thanks for befriending Michael Jackson. (That last sentence was an innuendo, if you missed it.)

###

 

[xylene]

Why are you not telling the real story? Why write this as a gripe? Who are you?

It sound like a fortune is on the line so, don't bother, you really need a lawyer.

 

[[email protected]]

Antenuptiual

Thanks so much! Actually, the parties are ALL represented by attorneys. Secondly, the judge when addressing the parties ans their attorneys indicated that even he did not know the answer himself. The judge has about 10 years on the bench and his father retired from the bench a while back. Not a ton of money, but if the judge puts the house back in the estate, the current market value is around $240,000, so the money at stake would 50% for the widow ($120,000) and the rest to the remaindermen (2) $60,000 a piece.

Thanks again for all of your clever observations, it really helped me.

 

[anteater]

Actually, the parties are ALL represented by attorneys. Secondly, the judge when addressing the parties ans their attorneys indicated that even he did not know the answer himself.

So, what exactly is the point in posting all this here? Do you think the judge is going to take into consideration responses from an internet discussion forum?

The judge will figure it out. That's what he is paid to do. And, once he does, someone will appeal... And, if successful, the other side will appeal.

And, at the end of the day, Seniorjudge will re-appear to give the final ruling!

 

[[email protected]]

Why do I post?

Actaully. I had hoped to get some help or information instead of snide commentary. Maybe, someday, I will be lucky enough to offer advice just so I can abuse some moron who is stupid enough to post and ask for help!

Have a great day!

 

[thedoctorisin]

If the widow is arguing that the time limit to contest the will was tolled for some reason, isn't it incumbent on her to provide that reason? When does she claim that the tolling ended, and for what reason? Does she believe that she could have waited and still contested the will twenty or thirty years in the future?