No reason given. Probably some bad blood.
Jerry Lewis cut his kids out too except for 1. The other 6 with his first wife got nothing .
Neither really needs the money - they’re both pretty well-heeled on their own. It might sting emotionally I suppose, but financially it shouldn’t be a particularly crippling blow.
She left her entire estate to her husband, to whom she’s been married since 1989. If I die first, my wife gets my entire estate (no big deal.) I don’t think my children would find that particularly rude.
I don’t see anywhere in that article where it says they were in the will initially, so “cut” is a huge misnomer here.
It is very rare for children to not be recipients of their parent’s estate. Legalities vary etc., but in my jurisdiction children will be in the will first and foremost, by default. Extra steps need be taken for that to not be the case.
Even in preference to a spouse? Especially one of over 30 years? That seems odd to me. Or are you just saying that the default is just division by all of the above, which I guess I might sorta get.
But I’m kinda with Kent_Clark on this one. I’d leave everything or at least the bulk to my spouse, with remainder to the kids after said spouse’s death. That would especially be the case in this situation, where the kids in question are already quite wealthy. I don’t think that would be particularly controversial.
When there’s a spouse? Generally, AFAIK, the default is everything goes to the spouse if someone dies intestate. So this is just that default situation, only with a will backing it up.
I don’t know about the US, but that’s definitely not the default here if there’s a spouse or common-law partner.
Around here:
If there is a living spouse (the living part is kinda important), she gets one half of the assets, and the rest goes to the children. If there is no living spouse, everything goes to the children. Even when there’s a will stating that the spouse (or someone else) gets everything, the children still get one half of what they would’ve gotten by default. There is no situation where the children didn’t get anything.
In other words by law the least the children could get between them would be 1/4 (half of the default half)?
I guess I could see where such a forced division might make sense as a backstop against some situation like an unscrupulous short-term step-parent manipulating a mentally failing parent. Still I’m a little surprised.
Yes, that’s the not-too-complicated math.
Obviously, I checked the facts before posting. Can’t say I’m surprised, but then again, I have little idea of how inheritance goes in the US etc.
ETA: there is a way to leave a child out of inheritance for real, but that is a drastic measure, with a burden of proof on the parent attempting to do so. Leaving the children out of the will doesn’t do it, neither does simply stating that so-and-so gets nothing.
Man, that would really complicate the plots of some TV/movies in the U.S. where the kid(s) must spend at least one night in a haunted mansion or the entire inheritance reverts to the family pet 
.
I guess that’s a great example for the thread “What is extremely common in TV and movies but almost never happens in real life?”
Quite a hijack I suppose, but all this talk of inheritance reminds me of Leona Helmsley, “the Queen of Mean”, who left a $4 billion trust to benefit dogs, $12 million to her pet Maltese, $10 million each to two grandchildren provided they visited their father’s grave once a year and zero to two other grandchildren.
Where you and I are, the Intestate Succession Act provides that if someone dies intestate with both spouse(s) and descendants, the spouse (or each spouse in the case of polygamy) inherits the greater of a child’s share or R250,000. So indeed if the estate is sufficiently large then all spouses and children share equally in the inheritance.
As with so many things, every different state has its own rules about these things.
Thanks for the correction, looks like I was mistaken. From what I can see, you can’t even override that with a will.
I must be misunderstanding this. When my dad died, everything went to my mom. None of the 5 of their offspring got anything, nor did we expect to. Now when Mom dies, I think her estate will be divided among the 5 of us evenly - just my assumption but she’s never hinted otherwise.
If she didn’t have a will, the state has specific guidelines for dividing her assets, but I’m not interested enough to look it up.
There are as mentioned different intestate rules - in my state, the spouse inherits the first $50,000 plus half of the balance. The children inherit everything else. But as always, it depends on the details because depending on the form of ownership some assets will not be part of the estate.
As far as how common it is for children not to be recipients of their parents estate or how they will feel about it , that depends. My husband and I own our house as tenants by the entireties , so if one of us dies the other automatically becomes the owner. We are joint tenants on most of the bank accounts so those will go to the survivor. We are the beneficiaries on each other’s retirement accounts so those will go to the survivor. Even if one of us died without a will, nothing would go to the kids , since neither of us has more than $50K in separate property that would be part of the estate. And my guess is that arrangements where everything goes to the spouse are pretty common where the spouse is either the other parent or the marriage took place when the kids were young.
The Judds’ situation is different. Yes, Naomi and her husband were married for over 30 years - but her daughters were already adults when they married. Which is often a situation where kids may have a problem - because sometimes that situation is a little more complicated. For example, a couple is married and has kids. One (A) dies and leaves everything to the other (B) - often the kids have no problem with that. They have a problem when B remarries and dies leaving everything to C , including whatever B inherited from A, which would also include any property or money A inherited from their parents, so that C ultimately inherits A’s grandmother’s engagement ring or A’s parents’ beach house.
There may not be any issues with the Judds because Naomi was long-divorced from Ashley’s father and presumably didn’t inherit anything from him and because the daughters are wealthy themselves - but even so, it might sting.
Yes, the fact that Naomi’s husband is NOT Wynnona or Ashley’s father has a large impact on intestate laws as well. In Massachusetts for example, if you die without a will, have a spouse, and have children who are not children of your spouse, your spouse would get the first $100,000, then the remainder would be split evenly between the spouse and your children.
(And please, everyone posting what the laws are where you live, give us a hint where that is.)
I don’t think the story is accurate. Yahoos reporting has become just another Opinion based news outlet 25 % truth 75% noise. Today you can wake up and find the News you likes and yearn to hear just like music on the radio.