• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Refusing inheritance

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Notapsycho

New member
What is the name of your state?
New York State

I want to refuse to sign a release of liability in hopes that another beneficiary dies within the next few years.

How long can I refuse to sign?
Will a judge trump my refusal?
Will it cost a significant amount of money to do so?
 


LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state?
New York State

I want to refuse to sign a release of liability in hopes that another beneficiary dies within the next few years.

How long can I refuse to sign?
Will a judge trump my refusal?
Will it cost a significant amount of money to do so?
What is the release of liability for? How does a release of liability have anything to do with another beneficiary dying? If another beneficiary dies, most likely his/her share of whatever you are talking about would go to his/her estate, not to other beneficiaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t74

Just Blue

Senior Member
What is the name of your state?
New York State

I want to refuse to sign a release of liability in hopes that another beneficiary dies within the next few years.

How long can I refuse to sign?
Will a judge trump my refusal?
Will it cost a significant amount of money to do so?
What is the release for?
 

Eekamouse

Senior Member
What is the name of your state?
New York State

I want to refuse to sign a release of liability in hopes that another beneficiary dies within the next few years.

How long can I refuse to sign?
Will a judge trump my refusal?
Will it cost a significant amount of money to do so?
Will it just kill them if you refuse to sign?
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
What is the name of your state?
New York State

I want to refuse to sign a release of liability in hopes that another beneficiary dies within the next few years.
And what do you expect to gain from that? Understand that the inheritance rights of all beneficiaries are fixed at the date of death of the decedent. So lets say Amy dies without a will with two children, Becky and Chuck. Both kids are alive the day Amy dies. Becky and Chuck are then each entitled each to 50% of Amy's estate. If Becky refuses to sign off on distribution of the estate hoping Chuck will die in the next year thinking that by delaying distribution she'd get Chuck's half the inheritance, she's mistaken. When Chuck dies, his share of the inheritance goes to his estate if it hasn't been distributed yet and thus where it goes from there depends on who the beneficiaries of HIS estate are. So delaying distribution of Amy's estate is pointless. It won't increase what Becky gets from Amy's estate if Chuck drops dead later.

How long can I refuse to sign?
Forever. You are never required to sign the consent.

Will a judge trump my refusal?
If you don't sign off to allow the distribution eventually a judge will order the distribution anyway. You can't hold up distribution forever.

Will it cost a significant amount of money to do so?
Typically the cost to get the judge to order the distribution would not be all that much, and the money for that comes from the estate, so you reduce your own inheritance if you force the estate to go to court to do that.

So again, what do you hope to achieve by refusing to sign? Unless you have a good reason for it, you are simply shooting yourself in the wallet by holding things up. As I pointed out above, you can't increase your share of the inheritance from this estate hoping a beneficiary will die later and you'll get his/her share. It doesn't work that way. That beneficiary (or his/her estate) is already entitled to his/her share of the estate. All that the beneficiary had to do was be alive when the decedent died. The beneficiary dying after that will not affect how much you get.
 
Last edited:

commentator

Senior Member
Just for my own information, in the above scenario, what if Amy and Chuck stand to inherit the estate, Chuck dies within the year, and Chuck has no other relatives, heirs, other than his beloved sister Amy? Wouldn't that be a case where she would profit from the estate he'd inherited if he still has any of it left when he goes?

Of course, if Chuck dies, having had to receive any sort of Medicaid assistance, as in having been in any sort of care before his passing that he couldn't pay for himself, that money he inherited from Mom last year isn't going to be around when he passes on anyway. But like, suppose he is healthy for a year (unlikely in the OP's scenario, as they're already anticipating that they will outlive him) and then just suddenly falls over leaving no children, no will. Wouldn't Amy come out of that with something?
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
Just for my own information, in the above scenario, what if Amy and Chuck stand to inherit the estate, Chuck dies within the year, and Chuck has no other relatives, heirs, other than his beloved sister Amy? Wouldn't that be a case where she would profit from the estate he'd inherited if he still has any of it left when he goes?
Well, the sister is Becky, not Amy. Amy is the dear departed mother. :D In the case where Chuck dies and his estate ends up going to his sister Becky then Becky would get whatever part of Amy's estate Chuck still had. The point, though, is that holding up distribution of Amy's estate makes no difference in what Becky gets from Amy's estate. Whether Amy's estate is distributed before or after Chuck dies, the result would be the same. Becky's right to a share of Amy's estate is fixed by who was living the day Amy died, not the day when Amy's estate is distributed.

So if the OP thinks holding up distribution of Amy's estate until Chuck dies would get him/her a bigger share of Amy's estate then the OP is mistaken. The OP's share of Amy's estate is already set. Chuck's later death won't increase it. (Of course, the names involved for the OP are likely different, but using names makes it easier to explain than trying to use generic labels.)
 

not2cleverRed

Obvious Observer
Well, the sister is Becky, not Amy. Amy is the dear departed mother. In the case where Chuck dies and his estate ends up going to his sister Becky then Becky would get whatever part of Amy's estate Chuck still had. The point, though, is that holding up distribution of Amy's estate makes no difference in what Becky gets from Amy's estate. Whether Amy's estate is distributed before or after Chuck dies, the result would be the same. Becky's right to a share of Amy's estate is fixed by who was living the day Amy died, not the day when Amy's estate is distributed.

So if the OP thinks holding up distribution of Amy's estate until Chuck dies would get him/her a bigger share of Amy's estate then the OP is mistaken. The OP's share of Amy's estate is already set. Chuck's later death won't increase it. (Of course, the names involved for the OP are likely different, but using names makes it easier to explain than trying to use generic labels.)
Of course, if Chuck is a spendthrift who would blow all the money on drugs, delaying the distribution of the inheritance until after Chuck dies of an overdose would benefit his estate...

P.S. Yes, there are better ways of handling such a concern...
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
Of course, if Chuck is a spendthrift who would blow all the money on drugs, delaying the distribution of the inheritance until after Chuck dies of an overdose would benefit his estate...
It might also encourage Chuck to write a will to ensure that Becky doesn't see a penny out of resentment that Becky delayed him in getting his inheritance. So it could backfire.

Really, I just see not much upside to dragging out the estate on the hope Chuck dies in the meantime. Maybe there is something unusual here that would make it beneficial for the OP to do it, in which case I hope the OP comes back to answer my question about what he or she hopes to get from this.
 

commentator

Senior Member
I saw a scenario play out where sister Becky scored well because only brother Chuck was a complete druggie wastrel. After the parents were gone, the estate very quickly settled. Within six weeks of having a large chunk of money dropped on him, Chuck had OD'ed and was out of the picture, with no heirs. So Becky got rid of Chuck and the ongoing problem of his care much quicker than if she'd fooled around waiting for him to die before they settled the estate. But of course, somebody quick thinking could've married up with Chuckie boy if they'd gotten wind of the pending inheritance, and that would have caused Becky other problems.
 

Sponsored Ad

Top