My mother was insistant she record her wishes in an INFORMAL type of will. There was no real estate, no money, only one bank account POD to me, and her 5k life insurance. Her belongings furniture etc, actually belongs to me, and has for some 30 years. I was going to move also but changed my mind. After my dad died in 2012 mum became almost crazy with wanting to make sure there wouldn't be any problems, or question as to what belonged to who. Neither mum or I really for a second thought that anyone would fight for something they KNEW already belonged to me. Anyway, 2 yrs ago we sat down and hand wrote her wishes, in which it was clearly stated what she wanted, how the life insurance & any remaining cash was to be spent. I was the sole beneficiary of the life insurance, & her designated representative.
I had to literally force mum to leave something (pictures, wine glasses etc) to my brother. In the end we just stated that I was to decide what was to be given.
Out of the life insurance etc, final expenses to be taken out, the cost of moving items from MO to CA, and repayment of any monies spent to care for her etc.
In the end I ended up with a massive negative cash flow.
I won't bore you with all that happened, but surficed to say, I havent spoken with my brother since leaving.
As I drove through horrible storms in a 16ft truck, he texted me demanding accounting of mums money. (7k was all left including life insurance). & copy of will... which I sent on my return home.
Now he is demanding I pretend he is probate judge, and give account of ANY & ALL accounts open/closed, out standing debt, copy of will, and life insurance, and ANY & ALL documents/expenses pertaining to OUR parents affairs. Remember dad died in 2012 and mum 2014.
What is he entitled to? Other than a copy of her will if you could call it that.
He wasn't on the life insurance, so do I have to provide that?
What the **** would you do???
are definitely the future as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, I googled "peppercorn legacy" and got hits on that term as if applies to woodworking and cooking! What's the story behind this phrase?
As to specific disinheritance, I checked our documentation. The Trust and the Pour-Over Will contain provisions that are very specific:
The individual is mentioned specifically to establish that he/she has not been forgotten and has been purposely excluded from any interest in the Textatrix'/Settlor's estate.
No reason for the exclusion is given, and I think that's wise - there's no need to bring up relationship issues, especially since that might give the excluded person an opportunity to try to challenge that opinion.
It's further stated that he/she has been intentionally omitted, direction is given that under no circumstances can any part, share or interest vest (critical term) in that individual, (and this is also critical), that disinheritance specifically includes his/her descendants either then living or born in the future.
That makes it pretty clear that this person has been disinherited.
I have heard at least leave a dollar to someone. Like the responses about telling why the person isn't getting or not getting as much. I don't feel any will should be contested. That is how the person wanted their assets split up and that is how it should be. Children have to drop the attitude they r entitled to parents assets when they die. The money they put aside was for their care and should be used for that. I plan on using mine.
The solution is to ensure that if there is someone who could have grounds to have certain expectations, but whom you absolutely wish to disinherit, you say so in your will. You don't have to say why, and there's certainly no need to be insulting; but something along the lines of "my adopted daughter Cruella Surname, born Birth Surname, has received my generous financial support throughout her life. I leave her my blessing" should do the trick. It could be that in certain states a 'peppercorn' legacy needs to be attached to that, so you'd have to add "and the sum of one dollar, to be paid in cash."
From my experience, an individual can disinherit heirs if so desired and it's clearly stated in the Will or Trust.
We've done that.
There's also an in terrorem clause which provides that any heir who contests his/her share will be disinherited, or just get $1. I'm wondering if that's what you've heard in terms of adopted children? It's a good clause to stop squabbling heirs.
I can't say often enough that a very good estate planning attorney is worth her or his weight in gold. This is such a complicated area, especially when you factor in the tax implications, that it's just not something for anything but a skilled and qualified attorney.
About this original post. What is he thinking? Does he already have a lawyer wispering in his ear that he can get more i wonder.
So happy to be of help with offerings of expressions of anger on your behalf.
It is like you said, that was not easy to attend to just the accounting/bottom line without nasty comments.
Sincerely, and seriously, hope your brother appreciates your efforts.
OMG that was NOT easy. I did as most advised, & next to Life Insurance Policy, simply said, I was beneficary not subject to probate. Her bank account: POD (me) not subject to probate.
The package arrived yesterday June 22nd at his home, BUT, silly me forgot about the dogs, and the post office probably wouldn't attempt to go to the front door..... which is exactly what happened. As of 5.59pm today, June 23rd, my brother's time, he hadn't picked it up.
Of course this is not the way to move forward if you ever want to have a relationship with your sibling in the future.
My brother sends cash in the mail, and while I very much appreciate the gesture, I would like to see him more than once in 3 years, and have a real sibling loving relationship today, as with all my family, would be nice.
Reminds me of that old country song, "No Charge" - where the little boy gives his mother a bill for cleaning his room, taking out the trash, etc. She turns around and give him a list back saying she carried him for 9 months - no charge. She gave birth to him - no charge. She fed and clothed him - no charge. And so on. Same premise, different situation, but the concept still applies!
I have all the paperwork from 1996 showing what each of us get, but the answers are going to be a help even if only moral support. Thanks.