I wonder if you could get around some of these restrictions by incorporating one’s possession and then distributing stock to those heirs one wants to have the most.
From what I remember from property law, in most American jurisdictions, there are heirs only when a person dies intestate (without a will). Those designated to inherit by a will are not heirs; they are devisees or beneficiaries.
acsenray, she was talking, IIRC, of Puerto Rico, which has a civil code and does not follow the same laws in other states regarding things like wills (which is what is being discussed here).
And in PR, if my dad where to die tomorrow (knocks wood, shouldn’t happen in a while), my mom would not receive a penny from his estate (whatever that may be), unless my dad has previously written a will declaring that mom will inherit X amount from him.
His life insurance goes to the beneficiary of record. Regardless of what papers she and he may have signed, he needed to change the beneficiary. (Signing the papers may have been a legal prerequisite to that change, especially if they were still married at the time, but he still needed to actually make the change.)
I’ll admit to surprise that the company is paying a widow’s pension to an ex-wife, but unless you and your brother are still minors, you wouldn’t be getting any benefit from that anyway.
In general, neither life insurance nor a pension are part of an estate–they are seperate benefits under separate rules.
“Don’t actually have any property” works, too.
To address this point, life insurance policies often are not included as part of a testator’s estate. They have a designated beneficiary (which can be the estate, which is how they can form part of it); who receives the proceeds of the policy when the policyholder dies. The beneficiary of the policy is not named in the will, but he or she must be named on the policy.
As for “signing papers,” I’d be curious to know just what kind of papers were signed. The reason is that generally, only the policyholder can change the designated beneficiary–or, in other words, the beneficiary has no say in whether they continue to be the beneficiary. I’ve changed the beneficiary on the life policies I hold–the insurance company supplied me with the forms they required, I filled them out and signed them, and mailed them back. I needed no signature or other agreement from the former beneficiary: my ex-wife.
I am, however, working on a matter where a handwritten, home-drafted “agreement” is key to a matter in issue. Is this “signed paper” enforceable to the degree required to relinquish the wife’s claim to her husband’s property in case of breakup, or his estate in case of his death? I don’t think so. It goes against various statutes ranging from the Insurance Act through the Wills Act to the Marital Property Act (plus a few others), is not in the prescribed form for exceptions to the rules in the Acts, and lacks a number of other elements that might make it valid. I’ll add that the facts of the matter make it appear that this document was signed under duress, which is yet another point not in the husband’s favour. Anyway, the point is that here is a “signed paper” that is possibly much like a_a is describing: utterly unenforceable, despite the parties thinking that having a “signed paper” magically makes the agreement valid.
Good information, Spoons, and (I think) re-inforcing my opinion that a_a needs to be complaining to an actual estate lawyer rather than an internet message board. 
Well, a lawyer of some sort, certainly. Given that insurance and pensions (the subjects of a_a’s complaint) involve contracts more than estates do, a lawyer more experienced in contract law may be better. Regardless, a_a should consult a lawyer anyway–no doubt such a professional could at least examine the “signed papers” and explain why they were invalid to do what they purported to.