A common trope in TV and movies is an inheritance with strings attached. In order to collect the money, the heir must first get married, or finish college, or scatter the decedent’s ashes in Kathmandu, or something.
In the Mystery genre: The heirs are given clues to a hidden treasure. The first one to solve the puzzle, gets to keep the money.
In the Horror genre: The heirs get a fabulous inheritance . . . if they can survive the perils of the spooky old house.
In the Comedy genre: Collecting the money requires jumping through a number of hoops. Wacky hijinks ensue as the heirs try to sabotage each other.
In an old Playboy cartoon: In the foreground, several couples are going at it like ferrets. In the background, a lawyer is calmly reading the will: “To the first of my children to give me a grandchild, I bequeath my entire estate.”
Does this ever happen in real life? How many demands can you make on your heirs before a judge decides that you were senile, and voids the entire document?
Does anyone know of any entertaining real-world cases?
As long as you have a proper estate made out, you can theoretically put any weird bequest or restriction thereupon you wish.
Edit: However, if the estate is irrational or simply unmanageable, it would be sent to probate and the estate handed out via the usual processes of disposing of estates with no will.
Behold the case of Charles Vance Millar, a childless Canadian tycoon whose will was full of capricious (but carefully worded and completely binding) requirements for his designees to get the money… Most notably the Great Stork Derby, as one of his bequests was paid out to whichever woman in Toronto gave birth to the most children in the ten-year span following his death.
Because he died in 1926, by the time the race came down the stretch, so to speak, the nation was fully in the grip of the Great Depression and there were many people vying for (and watching) the prize. Wikipedia describes the results as:
*
The winning mothers were Annie Katherine Smith, Kathleen Ellen Nagle, Lucy Alice Timleck and Isabel Mary Maclean. Each of them received $125,000 for their nine children. Two others each received $12,500 out of court…*
In 1936, that was some serious scratch (even in Canadian dollars ;)).
My brother-in-law’s mother had her entire estate set up as a trust fund for her children and grandchildren. My BIL’s sister was widowed and the mother’s will specifically stated that if she ever remarried, she’d forfeit her share of the estate.
Not particularly entertaining, but definitely real-world.
I wouldn’t agree that’s the case. The courts frown on testators imposing unreasonable conditions on their bequests, such as a requirement that an heir marry a particular person, or not marry someone else. Exactly where the court would draw the line would depend on the facts of the particular case, but it’s not the case that they will enforce any will that is properly drawn up, no matter the conditions.
My uncle Simon is a complete asshole, but I take care of him because I want to inherit his money. All he ever does is insult me and order me around, and I can’t do anything but wait for him to die. Oh well, it’ll be worth it when I inherit his money and his lovely house. And I’ll finally be able to see what’s in his laboratory downstairs.
There are limitations on what you can do, but you word a will in such a way as to make it so it can’t be changed without voiding the gift. That way the beneficiaries have no reason to challenge it (they can only lose), and are bound to fulfill the terms.
My WAG is that no court would take the time or trouble to enforce any complicated will provisions. Any provisions that prevented the estate from being distributed fairly quickly would probably be ignored.
You would probably have to will your estate to a trust and hire a trustee to distribute the money according to your wishes. If the trustee failed to carry out the terms of the will, some injured party might successfully sue him. Otherwise, the trustee could probably just ignore the will and do what he wanted with the money. I don’t think any court or law-enforcement official would be keeping an eye on the estate to ensure that the will was followed.
This is pretty much what happens anyway. Your estate passes to your executor/admnistrator/legal personal representative who holds it on a trust to distribute in accordance with the will.
If he ignores a “complicated will provision” the person who would have benefitted had he respected it is highly likely to sue, and win, unless the provision is illegal, void for public policy, etc.
And provisions which prevent estates “from being distributed fairly quickly” are common, and commonly respected - e.g. trusts for infant beneficiaries.
If your beneficiaries collectively decide that the whole thing is just too much trouble, they can decide just to divvy up the loot among themselves however they like. But they all have to agree - none of this majority rules nonsense. And if any of them are unable to agree - e.g. they are minors - then they get what they get under the will, however long it takes and however much it inconveniences anyone else.
It’s not the courts that administer a will - it’s the executor, appointed by the will, or an administrator, appointed by the court in default of an executor. That person has the responsibility to administer the will as written, and is under fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. They can’t simply refuse to administer a will because it’s complicated or would take a considerable time to administer.
I remember an old WKRP episode where Jennifer is the executrix of a wealthy man’s estate and his will is on video tape. The man goes through a list of his relatives and says to one, “you have always been an all or nothing type of guy and because you can’t have it all you get nothing” I thought that was funny.
Clauses of wills that run contrary to public policy have routinely been thrown out. Examples of this include if one party disinherits someone if they marry. Another would be requiring them to change their name. Another would be requiring you to have a child or name a child after the person.
These clauses have all been challanged in courts which rule them to be contary to public policy so unenforceable.
It’s the same in Ireland, but you are allowed make provision for someone until they marry.
So you can give someone a house, until they marry, and then they will be supported by the other spouse.
