Did it cost $600?
Yep – my mother has disinherited one of my brothers and my sister, as well as their children (for valid reasons I’m not going to elaborate on), and on the advice of her lawyer, has left them each $1 – and if they attempt to contest the will in any way, they will receive nothing, and will be liable to pay all court costs.
…and, since I’ve been advised by my lawyer to make a point of somehow remembering my no-good, dirty, rotten, abusive, back-biting, jerk of a son in my will:
Hi, Steve!
I remember what a no-good, dirty, rotten, abusive, back-biting, jerk you’ve been ever since you started grade school. And, because I remember, I’m giving you no more than one dollar.
—G!
Jesus. Aren’t you just parent of the year?
If you knew Steve, you’d be astounded at my generosity. 
–G!
Billy: Teacher, I don’t think I deserved this F on my exam.
Teacher: Neither do I Billy, but the computer system doesn’t have a lower rating for your score.
Forgive me if I’m being whooshed here, Grestarian…but is this a child you actually birthed/sired/cared for since infancy? And it’s your contention that he’s been a “no-good, dirty, rotten, abusive, back-biting, jerk of a son” since he was 7 years old? (7 being the typical age an American child starts grade school).
If so, I’ve got to say, right now, my sympathies are with him.
I don’t think any of us are in a position to make any judgments about Grestarian’s relationship with his child, given that none of us know him or the child in question. Perhaps we should drop the matter?
Well, true. I suppose that at the age of seven the kid could have already murdered several people or something. That would justify a parent loathing them at such a young age.
Is that what you think? Well, duly noted, and you’re free to drop the matter all you want. I’m personally fascinated to hear what motivates a parent to use such language about their own child, who they’ve apparently hated the whole of the child’s life.
But there’s nothing in the post that says he’s hated the child the whole of the child’s life. The fact that the child started going wrong at age seven is certainly possible, and if the child never got back on the path, at what point is a parent allowed to say “I give up”?
There are some people who are just born wrong: whether there’s an underlying physical problem (dysfunction in the right hemisphere of the brain is correlated with antisocial behavior, e.g.) or “moral” failings or whatever, there are some people who simply never develop a conscience or an ability to live within societal norms. Sometimes therapy and parenting classes and the like can turn things around; sometimes they can’t. There are seven-year-olds who quite deliberately torture the family pet to death and think it’s pleasurable to do so; not all of these kids come out of bad family situations.
If you have such a child, and you beat your head against a wall for a decade or two trying to “fix” them, do you still have to call the child decent and well-behaved and friendly and nice, or are you allowed to tell the truth?
I have no clue what Grestarian’s kid did to merit the language, but are you sure and certain that the kid did nothing?
Yes, but it’s not just a question of being a child of the deceased. This isn’t a statute regulating intestacy, where it’s just based on being a child of the deceased (and which wouldn’t apply here anyway, since the deceased made a will).
Dependent relief acts are normally based on the child of the deceased being in a position of dependency on the deceased. As AK84 notes, it’s pretty rare for a married middle-aged child, not under any physical or mental disability, to be able to argue that they are a dependent and the deceased owed them a duty of support.
I think the glitch here is that the married middle-aged child is a dependent because she’s on state benefits (the dole). If the animal charities get the mother’s money, then the state (i.e., the taxpayers) have to pick up the tab for the daughter and grandkids. As a matter of public policy, the courts don’t like outcomes where the public has to pick up the tab, if there is any possibility of making a private party pay.
This would seem to be a good argument for setting up trusts versus letting the will handle it all.
Obviously the laws are different in the UK than here in the US, another poster cited a trust being altered to make a museum more accessible. The Milton Hershey Trust (yes, as in Hershey Chocolate) is basically the beneficiary of all of Hershey’s fortune since he and his wife had no children. It is set up to run a boarding school - and was initially explicitly limited to white males. That’s since been overturned - not sure if it was from a lawsuit or via the trustees’ decision - and the school admits girls and boys of all races.
In the case of what was cited in the OP, I would think that a trust made well before the mother died, allowing the mother to benefit until her death, and leaving the charities as the residual beneficiaries (not sure what the legal term is), might have been harder to challenge.
I apologize profusely, particularly to the OP. I thought my use of the smiley icons and such was a sufficient clue that I was joking around. I didn’t expect the post to be taken seriously or to detour this thread.
It looks like it’s back on track now; carry on.
–G!
Yes. That is a very good reason to establish a trust. But even more simple - make your dispositions near the end of your lifetime. A trust can potentially be attacked but not the lifetime spending/gifts of a person who is now deceased.
[QUOTE=Mama Zappa]
The Milton Hershey Trust (yes, as in Hershey Chocolate) is basically the beneficiary of all of Hershey’s fortune since he and his wife had no children. It is set up to run a boarding school - and was initially explicitly limited to white males. That’s since been overturned - not sure if it was from a lawsuit or via the trustees’ decision - and the school admits girls and boys of all races.
In the case of what was cited in the OP, I would think that a trust made well before the mother died, allowing the mother to benefit until her death, and leaving the charities as the residual beneficiaries (not sure what the legal term is), might have been harder to challenge.
[/QUOTE]
American law stems from England so I’d imagine trust law is still similar. It is quite possible for trustees of a charitable trust to seek a Court Order varying the terms of the trust. This can occur when the original terms become contrary to law or public policy (whites only) or unworkable (all meetings to be announced by telegraph).
Why should you have a right to make other people do that for you?
Wills are for deciding who gets what you already have, not for making other people buy stuff for you and do the stuff you were too lazy to do in your life. Fire isn’t a person (natural or otherwise) and has no ability to inherit your stuff.