Contesting a will

[quincy]

And then, there are different situations. Always, we call it like we sees it, as we experience it. I have a friend who works in the final arrangements world. He reports that it is not at all uncommon to find that there are situations in which a parent and child have not spoken to each other in many years.

I know if you have a happy relationship with your family and no step parents, jealous siblings and those types of issues you tend to think in terms of your situation and think it would be dreadful for parents who intentionally "hurt their children." Then there is the rest of the story.

There are several cases of children who have very deliberately hurt and used and taken advantage of their parents through the years. There are adult children out there that you'd perhaps have no problem disinheriting. Perhaps back in the day, you spent untold amounts of your money, time and tears on rehabs or lawyers or bills paid for this child and feel he's already had "his share." Perhaps the parent finding happiness after the mother passed away has really upset the adult child. Maybe he has gone out of his way to let his father know that he still expects to inherit and made it amazingly plain that the reason he wasn't happy with the new relationship is that he doesn't give a rat's behind whether Dad is happy or not, he just wants "his share" of the money he's expecting.

One of my siblings called me, not to congratulate me after my wedding, but to demand I set up some sort of trust so my share of the family land stays in the family and his children inherit it, even if I am married to "this yahoo!" Yes, some family members are easier than others to leave out completely. So many people die intestate. This father went out of his way to clearly make a will and state his wishes. His other children have accepted them. They know the circumstances. I do not have a problem with a person being able to leave his money anywhere he wants to, not necessarily to his adult children. This is not an Anna Nichole Smith situation where this "young vamp" has distorted this man's thinking when he was addled by old age and/or dementia. This is possibly a case of someone who found a happy relationship with a peer after he was widowed. The children who bothered to come around, perhaps get to know her, are all right with the distribution of his wealth.

You are, of course, right. I am very lucky to have come from a long line of close, happy, loving relatives, as has my wife. And I know that colors my perceptions and my opinions.

I know the law. But I don't know the family dynamics here.

 

[commentator]

And I have watched enough CrimeD-TV and have seen these things play out in real life often enough that I'd perhaps be wary of a "married new woman 2 months ago, changed will immediately, left her everything, suddenly became sickly, suddenly was killed by random drive by shooter....children get nothing" situation. That the other children who did meet the new wife are okay with it, are not on board with this one leads me to believe there's more to the story of their relationship.

 

[TrustUser]

Really? Because if I were angry at someone, I could seeing doing exactly that. Let them have a big surprise, it's well deserved.



Really? How odd. Most people I know want to make sure that their spouse is taken care of, at least having the marital home to live in.

And I've known people who haven't left everything to their children - granted, their marriages were over a decade, not months.

i will agree with you that it is possible a parent could do that - he would have to have a lot of hatred for the child. i dont believe this is the case, in this situation. but it could be

and of course they would stay in the same home.

but essentially, once an asset is distributed, it would go to whomever kids, the asset was owned by

i know of many of these sorts of arrangements. it shows that neither spouse is attempting to get something out of the marriage. and of course there are many, MANY instances in which the couple lives happily together without the legal nonsense of getting married

cuz by this time in their life, they have easily separated the concepts of legal marriage and love for each other

 

[Zigner]

And I have watched enough CrimeD-TV and have seen these things play out in real life often enough that I'd perhaps be wary of a "married new woman 2 months ago, changed will immediately, left her everything, suddenly became sickly, suddenly was killed by random drive by shooter....children get nothing" situation. That the other children who did meet the new wife are okay with it, are not on board with this one leads me to believe there's more to the story of their relationship.

You seem to imply that the shooting (in this case) wasn't random. It was - read the news articles.

 

[Zigner]

For those who question the timing in this matter: What if the couple had been married for 10 years after changing the will? How about 20 years? There has been nothing presented here to suggest that anything nefarious occurred.

 

[not2cleverRed]

For those who question the timing in this matter: What if the couple had been married for 10 years after changing the will? How about 20 years? There has been nothing presented here to suggest that anything nefarious occurred.

I can attest that some step children still view the stepmom as an outsider, entitled to nothing after 15, 20 years of marriage.

I know one widow (~20 yr marriage) whose stepdaughter approached her at the funeral and offered to help her pack moving boxes after the service - the stepdaughter had assumed the house would go to the husband's children, not the widow. Ha, ha. The will left the marital home and contents to the widow.

It's not like the dad here was planning on getting shot! Would the attitude be different if the dad were 90, and had been married 15 years?

 

[TrustUser]

i dont think my feelings would change much, if the people had been married longer

i dont think either person should allow the other spouse to determine where all the wealth is going

why should one set of children get all the benefit ?

people tend to favor their own

this "argument" from me is not based upon a child being disinherited - that is a completely different issue

i am just talking about it from a general sense, in which both people love their own children

like i said, i think it is highly normal that both people agree to give to their own - i see this all the time

 

[Zigner]

i dont think my feelings would change much, if the people had been married longer

i dont think either person should allow the other spouse to determine where all the wealth is going

Spouses talk. Absent some sort of coercion (legally speaking), it's the person who made the determination, not the spouse.

why should one set of children get all the benefit ?

people tend to favor their own

this "argument" from me is not based upon a child being disinherited - that is a completely different issue

i am just talking about it from a general sense, in which both people love their own children

like i said, i think it is highly normal that both people agree to give to their own - i see this all the time

Huh? How do you know that the wife (in this case) even has children?

 

[TrustUser]

it does not matter whether the 2 spouses talk or not

she is gonna be the sole decision maker about where all the assets go - whether she gives it to her children, a charity, or a pet dog

if you asked the average person what a trust is for - the overwhelming response would be to avoid probate

to the small percentage who knows what an a/b trust is - they would have responded "to allow each person their full exclusion"

well there are many reasons for a trust. but certainly one of the more important ones is for each spouse to be able to decide where there half goes

so typically, a family trust and a survivor trust is set up with equal amounts of assets. the survivor can do anything they want with the survivor trust. and typically gets all income from the family trust.

but when the survivor dies, the assets in the family trust are distributed based upon the wishes of the "deceased spouse".

while the survivor makes his/her own wishes when he/she dies.

so you see, my argument is not based upon a necessarily 2nd marriage for both people

it is just as true for a first time marriage. the survivor may choose to remarry, etc.

the deceased spouse would not have any knowledge of these people

and again, this is not meant to be any sort of legal discussion. it is about allowing each person a say as to where their half ends up.

and a fairness to what may be multiple sets of beneficiaries.

 

[Taxing Matters]

it is about allowing each person a say as to where their half ends up.

and a fairness to what may be multiple sets of beneficiaries.

The thing is, there a lot of people who see giving their stuff to their spouse if they die first as being the more important thing to ensure that the spouse has what he/she needs to live comfortably for whatever time he/she has left. That might result in the kids of the first to die getting nothing in the case where the survivor is not also the parent of those kids. And that's fine for a number of people. I see that with a good number of clients with second marriages. I explain to them what can happen when they do that and they are fine with it because their kids don't need anything from them. Of course for those that want to ensure their kids get something there are a variety of ways to that, including the trust arrangements that you mentioned. Point is, each person has different goals and priorities, and there are a number of people out there that do not share your particular view of how it should be done.

 

[Dandy Don]

Have you seen the newer will (or a copy of it if it is being probated in court)?

Is there language in it that specifically disinherits the children?

If the will is signed by witnesses, do you recognize the names of the witnesses (do you know them or not)?

 

[LdiJ]

You seem to imply that the shooting (in this case) wasn't random. It was - read the news articles.

I have to admit that the same thing popped into my head reading the thread. And if she hired someone to make the hit, it would appear totally random. I do agree that its unlikely, but its not unheard of.

 

[quincy]

I have to admit that the same thing popped into my head reading the thread. And if she hired someone to make the hit, it would appear totally random. I do agree that its unlikely, but its not unheard of.

If you read the news articles, it is clear the drunken shooter was shooting people at random. The shooting was not orchestrated by the wife.

 

[Just Blue]

If you read the news articles, it is clear the drunken shooter was shooting people at random. The shooting was not orchestrated by the wife.

It's not unusual for LD to disregard facts.

 

[TrustUser]

The thing is, there a lot of people who see giving their stuff to their spouse if they die first as being the more important thing to ensure that the spouse has what he/she needs to live comfortably for whatever time he/she has left. That might result in the kids of the first to die getting nothing in the case where the survivor is not also the parent of those kids. And that's fine for a number of people. I see that with a good number of clients with second marriages. I explain to them what can happen when they do that and they are fine with it because their kids don't need anything from them. Of course for those that want to ensure their kids get something there are a variety of ways to that, including the trust arrangements that you mentioned. Point is, each person has different goals and priorities, and there are a number of people out there that do not share your particular view of how it should be done.

i dont disagree with the statement about taking care of the spouse, first. however, that could include spending all the survivor trust, first - before dipping into the family trust.

i agree that there are many ways to do it. and while there may be a number of clients who would not agree with what i am saying. i think it pales in comparison to the ones who would agree to what i am saying.

if i was preparing a trust for a couple who wanted the survivor to make all the final decisions, i would include a paragraph in the trust, to specifically address those points. so there was no question that both spouses were aware. and then there would be a place for both spouses to place signatures below that paragraph.

something like "i want to give all my belongings to my spouse, should i die first. i realize that this means i have no say in who the actual beneficiaries will be when my spouse dies. including children that i dont know from someone my spouse may marry. etc.

but make it very clear that the things that you explain out loud to your clients is actually placed in the trust document. then there would be no reason for you and i to discuss it - LOL.