You can't put that in a will (tv & movies)

[Markxxx]

While watching "Everybody Loves Raymond" [actually in this episode his mother didn't -- well she did but she was displeased with him]

Anyway he made a joke that they should put in the will the wife coulnd't marry another guy named Raymond as he didn't want to be known as dead Raymond...[pause for laughs]

How about claues in wills like that. Whereas the wife can't remarry. I can't imagine that could be enforced, or could it?

What about the movies you see where the guy has to spend one night in a haunted house to get the $$$$, would that be enforcable?

Or is this just another example of TV / Movie bunk?

[jbird3000]

Sounds like when you must spend a night in a spooky mansion to claim the prize. I'm sure there's a Spooky Mansion clause somewhere in the law, just like there's a Don't Marry Someone Who Has The Same Name As Your Dead Husband clause.

[Northern Piper]

The exact approach in the law would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the general principle in commmon law jurisdictions is that unreasonable bequests that unduly attempt to restrict the liberty of the recipient are vulnerable to challenge. Would depend a lot on the facts, but I would doubt very much that an attempt to govern who the surviving spouse can marry would hold up.

Not my area of law, though - just running on vapours from long ago law school.

[BiblioCat]

You can't put in a will that your surviving spouse can't remarry. There is something about not imposing "lifestyle changes" on survivors or beneficiaries.
You can however, set up your life insurance proceeds to go into a trust fund, so the new spouse can't get at the money.

My ex-husband tried this with me. His grandmother died while we were divorcing and he told me she left us $100,000, with the stipulation that we get back together. I knew it wasn't true (I also knew she didn't have $100,000, either), but it was very satisfying to say, "I wouldn't get back with you for $100 MILLION!!

[Lumpy]

While it's impossible to take back bequeathed money, can't wills specify that an inheritance be put into a trust, and then specify that the trust will only pay out if certain conditions are met?

[C K Dexter Haven]

I'm not a lawyer, but my wife's sister married one.

The will can SAY anything the person writing it damn well pleases. The will can put a bundle of money in trust, "to be paid to my worthless nephew when it can reliably be shown that hell has frozen over." The question is whether the terms would stand up against a challenge.

A will can be challenged on lots of grounds, including that the person wasn't of sound mind when he/she wrote it... and evidence of the absence of sound mind is the unreasonableness of the terms or conditions.

An astute lawyer ("Hey! Who you calling a stute?") will try to protect the will against many types of potential challenge, of course. But there's no guarantee that ever a very reasonable will won't crumble under challenge, and there's no guarantee that unreasonable provisions won't withstand challenge.

[BiblioCat]

Originally posted by Lumpy
While it's impossible to take back bequeathed money, can't wills specify that an inheritance be put into a trust, and then specify that the trust will only pay out if certain conditions are met?


You can impose certain conditions, but you couldn't (for example) require your daughter divorce her lazy husband to get the money or that your son move back to your hometown to get the money; things like that just wouldn't hold up.
As CKDextHvn said, the will can say SAY anything you want it to; whether or not it will hold up in a challenge is another story.
We really need a lawyer who handles wills to give a definitive answer.

[Yarster]

Sounds like standard contract law to me. That is, it has to be legally proven that there was a 'meeting of the minds' and that usually involves 3 things:

1) an offer (that the wife gets the money if Raymond dies and she does not re-marry someone else named Raymond)
2) an acceptance (the wife takes the money assuming she satisfies #1)
3) consideration (what each party gives up as part of the good faith of the contract. The mother gives up the money through her will, and the wife gives up the ability to ever marry another person named Raymond)

If the wife chooses to re-marry someone named Raymond she has not satisfied the 'consideration' portion of the contract which is now void. We presume, of course, that she already accepted the money but then may have to give it back and provide some other agreeable restitution if she spent the money. THAT'S actually the legal question I'd like answered.

That is, with Kinsey's scenario above, what would have happened if you agreed to stay together for the $100,000 then immediately blew it on stupid crap, and then dumped the douchebag guy anyway?

[Max Torque]

As luck would have it, I'm two weeks into Wills & Trusts class right now....

Provisions like those you list are occasionally enforceable, depending on your jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions frown upon "ruling by the dead hand" (jerkin' your relatives around from beyond the grave), but restrictions that aren't unreasonable and don't impose an undue burden on the living are usually followed.

One interesting case: Shapira v. Union National Bank, 315 N.E.2d 825. The will mandated that the deceased's son marry a Jewish girl in order to receive his portion of the estate. If he did not marry a Jewish girl within seven years, his portion would go to the State of Israel. The court found that this was not an undue restriction on marriage. Total restrictions on marriage, said the court, are contrary to public policy and void, but a partial restraint is (generally) just fine. Important quote: "...it is the duty of this court to honor the testator's intention within the limitations of the law and of public policy."

Example of an invalid condition: Maddox v. Maddox, a Virginia case. The will mandated that the beneficiary remain a member of the Society of Friends to receive her inheritance. When she reached marrying age, there were only 5 or 6 men in the Society, so she married outside the Society, losing her membership. The court held that such a restraint on marriage was unreasonable.

Odds are, the "you can't marry anyone named Raymond" provision would be OK, since that still leaves a mighty large pool of marriageable men for the widow to choose from. Again I quote Shapira: "A partial restraint of marriage which imposes only reasonable restrictions is valid, and not contrary to public policy." Shapira cites a case I have not read, In re Clayton's Estate, in which a Pennsylvania court upheld a testamentary gift granted on condition that the man not marry a Catholic. Common sense tells me that that would reduce the potential marriage pool far more than a restriction by the marriage partner's name, so, odds are, the less-restrictive condition would be just fine.

In general, remember that the property left by the deceased was HIS, and, for the most part, he can do with it whatever he wishes.

[Dinsdale]

Poor Max. Two weeks into Stiffs and Gifts. Aren't you in for a thrilling fall!

[Guinastasia]

What about leaving all my worldly posessions to my cats?
(not that they deserve it, the little ingrates...)

[JeffB]

Originally posted by Yarster
Sounds like standard contract law to me.

I know only a little about contract law and almost nothing about estate law, but I don't think a will falls under contract law. Money bequeathed is normally treated as a gift, is it not? It's subject to taxation laws like gifts are, not like income.

[JeffB]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
What about leaving all my worldly posessions to my cats?
(not that they deserve it, the little ingrates...)

As to this (see disclaimer above), I would doubt that you could leave your possessions to your cats, but you could probable set up a trust from your estate to take care of your cats in a proscribed manner.

And if people only left money to those who deserve it, the whole issues of estate tax would be moot.

[PatrickM]

Contract law and estate law are separate legal animals. Contracts law usually only enters into probate estate will matters in situations when old geezer D says to his girlfriend, "Take care of me and I'll leave you something in my will." Girlfriend takes care of D for a number of years, then D dies without a will, or with a will that leaves his estate to someone else. Then the girlfriend sues D's estate for D's breach of contract, for quasi-contract, promissory estopppel and stuff like that there.

[AETBOND417]

Originally posted by Kinsey
There is something about not imposing "lifestyle changes" on survivors or beneficiaries.

::AETBOND417 recalls Brewster's Millions::

Classic movies never lie.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I can't imagine that there could be a "return" provision.

The will says that you will receive the money if you do X or don't do X ("not marry someone named Raymond.") There would have to be a time limit; a will that tried to be indefinite, such as "for the rest of your life", would almost certainly be overturned as unreasonable.

The idea is that when you fulfil the condition, you get the money. It's not contract law, but it is an inheritence provision that is conditional. However, once you've got the money, I doubt that they could force you to return it (unless you got the money under fraudulent pretense, say).

That is, if the will stipulated that she not marry someone named Raymond within five years blah blah... So, if at the end of five years, she had not married anyone named Raymond, she would get the money. The will could not reasonably stipulate that she NEVER marry anyone named Raymond, nor (IMHO) could she be forced to give it back if she much later DID marry someone named Raymond.

My head is starting to spin.

[BiblioCat]

Originally posted by Yarster

That is, with Kinsey's scenario above, what would have happened if you agreed to stay together for the $100,000 then immediately blew it on stupid crap, and then dumped the douchebag guy anyway?

Just for the record, I knew the grandmother didn't have any money left. She died of cancer, and spent everything on every known cure and had been relieved of all her cash by unscrupulous quacks before she bought the farm.
And as I said, no amount of money would have enticed me to go back to him.

But for the sake of arguement, what would have happened if I had gone back to him, pissed away all the money and then dumped him? Or if Debra blew all her insurance money and then went ahead and did marry another Raymond? Could she (or I) be held liable to pay it back to his estate?

[Drum God]

Originally posted by Max Torque

In general, remember that the property left by the deceased was HIS, and, for the most part, he can do with it whatever he wishes.

If Raymond and Debra lived in Texas, it's all hers anyway. What's mine is hers, what's hers is --well-- hers too.

Texas is community property. All of my assets (and debts) belong to my wife, even if I acquired those assets (or debts) prior to my marriage to her. The same is true of her assets and debts. This is the price we in Texas pay for not having alimony (in most cases).

[Markxxx]

What about stipulations in the will that say John gets $2000 but if he challanges this will he gets nothing.

Would that hold?

[Robot Arm]

How about a boot to the head?

"Next, to my know-it-all nephew, Ralston, I leave... a boot to the head." -- The Frantics

[Zebra]

It seems to me that the problem with Ray's will is that it forced his wife to remarry. The will imposes two conditions.

One That she remarry.

Two That the person she marries is not named Raymond.


It seems that she couldn't get anything until she remarried someone and that someone can not be named Raymond. Realisticly how could you give her the money? When would you know that she had fullfilled the conditions? Couldn't she marry several more times after Ray's death? What about her fifth husband could he be named Raymond? When would you know that she would never marry someone named Raymond?

[Tinker Grey]

I started thread a long time ago called Last Will and Testatment (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=11368).

It was a similar question. On Cheers, Diane had to marry by such and such a time or her mother would lose the fortune (left by Diane's father).

I restate the description since I apparently originally posted the thread in the wrong place and the original question is buried.

The resident lawyers quickly got technical. You may wish to check it out.

Tinker

[Max Torque]

Originally posted by Markxxx
What about stipulations in the will that say John gets $2000 but if he challanges this will he gets nothing.

Would that hold?

Generally, yep. That's a "no-contest clause" and it's permitted in most jurisdictions unless there is probable cause for the contest (probable cause would be evidence of fraud, forgery, undue influence, stuff like that). Some jurisdictions are undecided on the issue (i.e., Texas).

A note on estate planning: if you're going to include a no-contest clause, have the sense to include some kind of gift to the people you plan to disinherit. Otherwise, they have nothing to lose by contesting the will, so they might as well contest it.

I ain't a lawyer, this ain't legal advice, blah blah blah.