(Wills) Father states in will, "has no children." But this is false info. How is this legal?

[Taxing Matters]

Those are not my words you quoted. I don’t know why it appears in your post as attributed to me. Please change. Thanks.

Done. Not sure how that happened, but thanks for pointing out the error.

 

[quincy]

Done. Not sure how that happened, but thanks for pointing out the error.

Thank you.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Well...this tells me that you're not a lawyer, and I'm at a loss to understand the value of a non-lawyer's statement about what he/she would do if he/she were a judge based on never having seen the document in question and not knowing anything about what testimony people would give.



For starters, the OP told us that the will says the estate goes to the girlfriend, not the girlfriend's kids. Also, it's not at all uncommon for a person to exclude a 40+ year old child from inheriting.



Translation: you're making stuff up without any factual evidence.



I'm confident that, if I spent more than ten seconds thinking about it, I could think of half a dozen other, plausible explanations.



Subjective and metaphorical red flags don't get anyone anywhere. Undue influence is never assumed. It has to be proven, so, in the absence of evidence beyond what the OP has told us about, the OP has little on which to hand his hat.

How *common* it is to exclude an adult child from inheriting is not relevant.
What *is* relevant is whether it is possible, legally, to exclude an adult child from inheriting (it is), and the best way(s) to do so, legally.

The legal advice I've usually seen is to mention the excluded party explicitly and leave them a token amount, so that the will cannot be contested based on an "accidental" exclusion. OP's father not only did not do this, he boldly stated that OP did not exist. Because of this, it is possible that OP might consider contesting the will based on this exclusion not being explicitly stated, and argue that it was an error of omission.

However, contesting a will can be expensive for all parties involved, and it can create great animosity. If the estate is modest, the money might be better spent on therapy.

 

[zddoodah]

How *common* it is to exclude an adult child from inheriting is not relevant.

As my post subsequent to the one you quoted states expressly, I agree.

What *is* relevant is whether it is possible, legally, to exclude an adult child from inheriting (it is)

Agree.

and the best way(s) to do so, legally.

I don't really agree this is relevant to the OP's inquiry (which, AFAIK, has been handed to his/her satisfaction since he/she has not posted in this thread after Monday evening). All that matters for the OP is whether what happened in his/her situation was or was not in compliance with relevant laws.

The legal advice I've usually seen is to mention the excluded party explicitly and leave them a token amount, so that the will cannot be contested based on an "accidental" exclusion.

With the exception of the "token amount," this has been mentioned multiple times in this thread.

OP's father not only did not do this, he boldly stated that OP did not exist. Because of this, it is possible that OP might consider contesting the will based on this exclusion not being explicitly stated, and argue that it was an error of omission.

I disagree with your use of the adjective "boldly," but it has also been pointed out multiple times in this thread that the language in question is puzzling. However, as "Taxing Matters" pointed out, this mistake of fact, by itself, will not allow the OP to contest the will successfully. Hence, as several of us have already pointed out, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the OP to consult with a probate attorney in the father's state of residence.

 

[TrustUser]

Well...I was 7 and 40 when my parents died, so that's how in the hell old I was (and my best friend was in his late 20s/early 30s when his parents died), but your question is irrelevant and, since I don't have statistics on the subject and I'm sure you don't either, whether it is or isn't "uncommon" is a pointless discussion. Regardless, both of the following are true: (1) what the OP has described is not so uncommon that it necessarily raises suspicion; and (2) suspicion without evidence is useless. And, if you care about anecdotal evidence, I'll tell you that my spouse's mother (who was about the same age as the OP's father when she died) left her entire estate (save for a few trinkets) to her boyfriend instead of her children. While we thought it was a lousy thing of her to do, there was never any suspicion of undue influence or "foul play." The notion that it is so unusual for a 60-plus year old person to leave his/her estate to a girl/boyfriend instead of a child that it warrants suspicion is nothing short of ridiculous.



No. A lawyer's job is to look at facts and evidence and things that can actually be proven and to disregard baseless speculation that isn't supported by any facts.

if you look at the average age of people when they die, and the average age of those children, then those children are over 40 when both parents are dead. you see, i do have the statistics. it took only a little bit of brain power to come up with it. maybe you should use some. it was not a pointless discussion. you made an error in stating that it wasnt uncommon for a parent to exclude a child that was over 40. and i am simply proving to you that most people are over 40 when they inherit. and most people still leave to their kids, if they have any kids. you are so obviously incorrect on this point, that i simply rest my case. if we were in court, your conclusion would be eaten alive !!

and as far as your second point, i never said anything about someone leaving their estate to a girl/boyfriend instead of a child warranted suspicion. that is your own imagination running wild. so if you are gonna quote me, then get your damn facts straight. what i did say, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, is that if the girlfriend died, EVERYTHING WAS given to her child, and nothing to his child.

there is a huge elephant in the room that you are refusing to look at.

i know quite a few couples on "second marriages". quotes are used, cuz some didnt get remarried. but basically their original spouses had died. every single one of them had agreements to give their own assets to their own kids. this is what commonly occurs in "good relationships". by that, i mean where the two people really care about one another, want to be fair, etc.

there are a lot of red flags in this particular case.

 

[Taxing Matters]

what i did say, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, is that if the girlfriend died, EVERYTHING WAS given to her child, and nothing to his child.

And the testator has every right to do that. And may have had any number of reasons for doing that, as I explained earlier. Most significantly, the fact that the will leaves the estate to her child should she predecease the testator tells us nothing about whether the girlfriend used coercion or some kind of overpowering influence to force the testator to do something he did not want to do.

there is a huge elephant in the room that you are refusing to look at.

What you see is that it is odd that he would leave his estate to her kid if she died first. But odd as you may see still doesn't tell us anything about whether that is really what he wanted or whether the girlfriend used undue influence to get him to do it. That is the big legal issue that you are refusing to acknowledge.

 

[TrustUser]

tm,

i am thinking with my head. i am gonna repeat this once more. the father said he had no children. and then if his gf died, everything went to the gf's child. that raises an extreme amount of suspicion. if the father had really desired to omit his son, he made a huge mistake. any lawyer, any web site would have all told him to do the same thing - mention his son, and state that he wasnt getting anything (something along those lines). i dont think even you would disagree with me that "stating he had no children" was counter productive to a goal of "disinheriting" his son.

only the op knows for sure about his relationship with his father. if it was a bad one, then the father merely messed up. if it was a good one, then it raises a lot of suspicion.

 

[TrustUser]

And the testator has every right to do that. And may have had any number of reasons for doing that, as I explained earlier. Most significantly, the fact that the will leaves the estate to her child should she predecease the testator tells us nothing about whether the girlfriend used coercion or some kind of overpowering influence to force the testator to do something he did not want to do.



What you see is that it is odd that he would leave his estate to her kid if she died first. But odd as you may see still doesn't tell us anything about whether that is really what he wanted or whether the girlfriend used undue influence to get him to do it. That is the big legal issue that you are refusing to acknowledge.

this is why i made the comment about lawyers trying to find wiggle room for their clients. this is what you have done on this thread, and continue to do. you point out other possibilities. and i am simply pointing out that your possibilities have low probabilities. my single conclusion has a much higher probability - therefore IT RAISES MY SUSPICION LEVEL

 

[Taxing Matters]

this is why i made the comment about lawyers trying to find wiggle room for their clients. this is what you have done on this thread, and continue to do. you point out other possibilities. and i am simply pointing out that your possibilities have low probabilities. my single conclusion has a much higher probability - therefore IT RAISES MY SUSPICION LEVEL

If a client walks into my office with a problem like this one my job is to evaluate whether he or she has any valid claim to pursue and what the prospects of success would be. And I have explained here the problems with an undue influence case just based on the facts we have.

Whether or not what the testator did is the most common thing people do is not the issue here. As you have yourself acknowledged, the testator had the right to give his stuff to whomever he wanted — including his girlfriend and her son. And the fact is that some people do make those kind of choices. So that fact alone tells you nothing about whether the girlfriend used any undue influence. Once again, if the OP were to contest the will based on your suspicion of undue influence, he/she must be able to present clear and convincing evidence of the undue influence. So let me ask you, what clear and convincing evidence do we have here of what the girlfriend actually did? Not suspicions about what she did, but actual evidence of what she did? As you must know, without evidence you get nowhere. Maybe when the OP lays everything out for a probate attorney they'll find something to work with. But unless the OP comes back and provides more info we have very little to work with here, and nothing that is evidence of undue influence.

You can suspect that the girlfriend did something nefarious all you want. You might even be right. But without evidence to prove it, the OP can't win in court.