I suspect I’m not alone in my belief that when I die, I can exercise a final act of authority over my worldly possessions and direct, even from the grave so to speak, who does, and does not, receive them. I mean, isn’t that what a last will and testament is all about? Isn’t it?
If you have a will, or are thinking of making one, you may find this article of considerable interest (warning NSFTWWS*). It’s a short piece but can be summarized even further as saying,'Who cares what you want done with your assets and possessions; the courts will decide what’s best." That is to say, a Canadian man, a lout and boor to be sure, specified in his will that he wanted all his things - cash, property, valuables, etc. - to go to his son, and nothing to any of his four daughters. The latter appealed and, for reasons that would seem to defy both common sense and justice, the presiding judge ordered that the daughters be included as equal recipients in the divvying up of their late father’s assets, i.e. who cares what the deceased wanted, I know better!
As I understand it, the judge felt that Dad was behaving towards his daughters in a manner inappropriate for the 21st century with respect to both his premorbid behaviour and in his last will and testament. Well, it’s good to know that there’s a least one judge out there who will make law instead of confining himself to interpreting it.
So, one more victory for the state over the individual. I can only pray that the judge’s decision is appealed and reversed. I can hope.
It’s not unusual for certain aspects of a will to fall foul of the courts - freedom of testimentary disposition is not unlimited - but it certainly seems like a weird ruling.
In Ireland, a child can apply for a fair share of their parents estate, but are not necessarily entitled to anything.
To divide the entire estate between the five children seems incredibly invasive.
The same thing can happen in the US, depending on how the will is written. If the will leaves everything to the son, and doesn’t even mention the daughters, they can successfully contest the will on the basis of oversight (depending on the state law). But if the will lists all the children, and specifically says that each of the girls is to receive nothing, then it is more likely to withstand challenge. The recommended practice is to leave the each of the girls a pittance rather than nothing at all.
But ‘oversight’ isn’t the issue here. The girls argued, and the judge agreed, that their father was being ‘unfair’ and “inappropriate for the 21st century” in only willing his things to his son.
In some countries (like my home country), you can dispose off only a certain fraction of your fortune as you wish. There are rules for minimum inheritance to your closest relatives like children and spouse. IIRC, over here you’re free to do what you like with roughly one third of what you have when you die.
I don’t know how this works for the really stinking filthy rich, though. I guess they manage to circumvent the system somehow if they really want to.
Same here. There’s no way to leave nothing to one of your children. If you have one child, he must get at least half of inheritance, if you have two children, each must get at least one third, etc… (So you can leave 2/3 to your son and 1/3 to your daughter/lover/a crook… but leaving nothing to her is out of question. As I understand it, it has been this way since the revolution, so that children would all get an equitable share contrarily to the previous custom of willing about everything to your eldest son, for instance).
The only exception AFAIK being if your child attempted to murder you (or suceeded in doing so).
Yea, it’s the way in Puerto Rico too. IIRC, and lawyers would probably know this, it has to do with the civil/Napoleonic code vs some other code I can’t remember (common law?). At least, that’s what I remember my parents (both lawyers) telling me. The inheritance is divided in different parts, and one part is solely to be divided equally among established heirs (through blood or adoption). Only when there are no established heirs can those rules be altered (for example, a childless widow whose parents, grandparents, siblings, uncles, and aunts have died).
Which is why public cases (in the US) where the wife gets everything from the husband always puzzle me. That wouldn’t happen in my homeland.
I think the OP is a fan of Testimentary Disposition - it’s my stuff, I can do with it what I like, and the courts should not get to rewrite my will because they don’t approve.
Why should a judge decide that you have to give some of your stuff to a kid that never loved you, and you feel would have just blown it on drugs, or a degree in Literature?
As am I. As long as your kids have reached adulthood, it should be completely up to you what happens with your stuff, just like it would be if you were still alive.
I don’t think that was the case in this family; it sounds like the daughters were fine, the father was just a misogynistic asshole. Apparently your will in socialist BC has to pass the Asshole test.
Old bastards should do their bequeathing while they’re still alive and competent if they don’t want a judge to step in and inject some common-sense/sanity. Once you’re dead your wishes can be set aside at the wisdom of the courts; the public trusts the courts more then some dead asshole.
