Whether the codicil to the will would be effective depends on exactly how the codicil is written and the applicable state law, and you've not provided either piece of information. However, the condition that someone else never live in it is likely to be a problem since generally she cannot control who lives there once her beneficiary gets title to the property. She'd likely have better success with this by creating a trust for the home instead. She'd really want to consult an estate planning attorney in her state to get this right if it's important to her.
Per their thread down the street the state is New Jersey.
Thank you, I don’t believe it’s actually been written yet, just an idea for now, so I do not have that for you, sorry. And the state is New Jersey.
Yes, sorry for the repeat posts, I did post in a number of places because being new to all of them I didn’t know how quickly I would receive a response, and the question fascinates me. Indeed the state is New Jersey.
It's not illegal. However, once property is transferred in the administration of a decedent's estate, the executor of the estate has no control over what happens to the property. As a practical matter, the only way for the present owner of the property to do something like this in a way that would be enforceable would be to put the property in a trust.
And...the trust would have to be the long term (possibly permanent) owner of the property and the beneficiary would only have the right to live in the property as long as they followed the rules, and the rules and the consequences would have to be clearly spelled out. The trust would also have to spell out alternate beneficiaries should the original one not follow the rules and details surrounding those.
Couldn't agree more (especially since -- and I'm just guessing here -- this is probably motivated by some sort of petty dispute).
That's little different in outcome than putting the same instructions in a will — and in any event wouldn't accomplish the testator's/settlor's desire to give the home to the beneficiary but at the same time keep out the unwanted person.
I was not present for it so I can’t really say, but based on how it was described to me it sure sounds like it was petty, yes.
yes, it was posited as a realistic compromise. the desired beneficiary would get the benefit of the value of the home, without the other person having any benefit from it.