U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Full time in the RV
2,686 posts, read 6,129,355 times
Reputation: 2051

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61 View Post
Here's what I say to the inheritors.


She lived with the man for years. The woman is not unaffected by the death of her life partner! Have a heart! Cool down and don't panic.

You know that your relative hadn't touched his will for decades and would have left something to his partner in gratitude for her love and care. Be reasonable. Your actions so far are just hateful. Shame on you,
He was not her life partner. They were together for 5 years.

His will was revised 8 years ago-that is not decades.

His will specified what he wanted done. Leaving something "for her love and care" is just conjecture and simply was not in the will.


There is too much emotion and drama complicating a business transaction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:47 PM
 
1,778 posts, read 872,964 times
Reputation: 3784
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61 View Post
Here's what I say to the inheritors.

You will a run in with the law. I am not sure if your region has any common-law rights of property. Depending on your laws, a couple that co-habitates at least 6 months continuously has rights of property similar to marriage.

She lived with the man for years. The woman is not unaffected by the death of her life partner! Have a heart! Cool down and don't panic.

You know that your relative hadn't touched his will for decades and would have left something to his partner in gratitude for her love and care. Be reasonable. Your actions so far are just hateful. Shame on you,
Might be helpful if you read through the thread and got your facts straight before calling out the heirs...

I agree with everyone who said that if the deceased wanted granny freeloader to have the house, or a share of the house, he had ample opportunity. The fact that he left her nothing speaks volumes. And the fact that she suddenly decided that she wanted to stay in the house speaks even louder.

These heirs are a lot nicer than I would be. Six months of free rent is nothing to sneeze at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:51 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,380,595 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
It's interesting that after more than a dozen pages here we still have no idea what the dead guy would have wanted. Sure, the legal eagles here affirm that a will written eight years ago, before he even met the woman who would become his companion is all that need be considered. Depending on the state that may very well be correct but what about morally and ethically? That turns on what he would have wanted. There was plenty of time to write a new will but that doesn't mean that by not doing so the deceased was affirming what had earlier been set in stone or if he simply was too lazy to get around to stating his current desires up until the day he kicked off.
Quote:
The terms of the will are what he wanted, barring significant evidence to the contrary.

The OP may not know, the heirs may not know, even the surviving companion may not know but that doesn't change what's right morally and ethically.
Following the terms of the will is the morally and ethically correct decision.

Quote:
I come from a family with what most would consider a large number of siblings, all alive after our first parent died and for a few years after that. One sibling died a few months before our second parent did. According to the terms of my parents' wills the division of assets would exclude the deceased sibling, their spouse and children from any of the proceeds of the estate.

The executor (one of the siblings) polled each of us privately about our feelings and we unanimously determined that our parents would have wanted the deceased sibling's survivors to share as if the last parent was not predeceased by that one child.
The two highlighted sentences are in direct opposition to each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 11:45 PM
 
6,121 posts, read 3,322,602 times
Reputation: 13007
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Following the terms of the will is the morally and ethically correct decision.



The two highlighted sentences are in direct opposition to each other.
That is only if one is narrow minded enough to believe that nothing changes over time and if circumstances do change the first thing on everyone's mind is to dig out that old will that predates today's situation and get it rewritten. That flies in the face of human nature, though probably not the law. In my family's case, all the surviving siblings were sure that neither of our parents would have wanted our deceased sibling's family to be left out of that sibling's share of the estate, save for a legal technicality.

Old people don't always get around to do everything that even they feel needs to be done, like updating a will, but instead rely on the good judgement, morals and ethics that they instilled in their family to carry them forward.

For anyone to even equate "legal" to "moral and ethical," much less override it, is preposterous but it certainly excuses one from making the tough decision of what is right.

"The law is a ass." - C. Dickens
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2018, 12:47 AM
 
Location: Florida Gulf Coast
4,089 posts, read 5,502,748 times
Reputation: 6412
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
That is only if one is narrow minded enough to believe that nothing changes over time and if circumstances do change the first thing on everyone's mind is to dig out that old will that predates today's situation and get it rewritten. That flies in the face of human nature, though probably not the law. In my family's case, all the surviving siblings were sure that neither of our parents would have wanted our deceased sibling's family to be left out of that sibling's share of the estate, save for a legal technicality.

Old people don't always get around to do everything that even they feel needs to be done, like updating a will, but instead rely on the good judgement, morals and ethics that they instilled in their family to carry them forward.

For anyone to even equate "legal" to "moral and ethical," much less override it, is preposterous but it certainly excuses one from making the tough decision of what is right.

"The law is a ass." - C. Dickens
That's interesting. My uncle (who had no children) did the opposite: He gave a $5K lump-sum bequest to each of his siblings or, if they were not alive, their "issue". So my Dad is not alive and I received his $5K, as his only child. Another deceased uncle's $5K would have gone to his two adult children. I'm no lawyer, but don't you think your parents' attorney would have presented the scenario ("What if one of the children is deceased at the time of your death?) and the choices ("Split among the surviving children, or pass the deceased sibling(s)' share to his "issue" or wife or whoever"), and asked for their wishes before writing their will? Maybe if there's an estate attorney here, he or she can tell us whether that's a decision that would have been specifically asked of the parents or is it just boilerplate language that the parents may have overlooked?

However, it was super-magnanimous of you siblings to want to share part of YOUR inheritance with the sibling's family....even if it was, uh, not technically what your parents wanted, apparently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2018, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
7,100 posts, read 2,215,712 times
Reputation: 9653
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke View Post
By the way, if she was there for several years and her income went to support the house, she might possibly have a legal claim to a portion of the value.

You're the first poster who addressed this situation, with the rights of the live-in partner of the deceased, being given the proper legal consideration. If she was a romantic/sexual partner of the deceased, her presence there for several years, could be considered as a contribution To him. She may have provided care for him, in his waning years. I think she's entitled to some share of the estate, even if she wasn't mentioned in the will.

If she is hustled out of the house against her wishes, that could count in her favor in a legal claim she might make. Those responding up to this point seem to think that the sooner she is given the boot, the better the situation with be for the deceased's heirs, who were given the property in the will. I have no more sympathy for them, than for the deceased's partner, but would hope that everyone involved, gets a fair share.

The best course would be for the heirs named in the will, to make the deceased's partner a good enough offer, that she will voluntarily leave and agree to make no legal claims against the estate. If they try to shut her out completely, it's possible that in a court case, she could end up with everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2018, 09:43 AM
 
4,855 posts, read 2,152,571 times
Reputation: 12348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
You're the first poster who addressed this situation, with the rights of the live-in partner of the deceased, being given the proper legal consideration. If she was a romantic/sexual partner of the deceased, her presence there for several years, could be considered as a contribution To him. She may have provided care for him, in his waning years. I think she's entitled to some share of the estate, even if she wasn't mentioned in the will.

If she is hustled out of the house against her wishes, that could count in her favor in a legal claim she might make. Those responding up to this point seem to think that the sooner she is given the boot, the better the situation with be for the deceased's heirs, who were given the property in the will. I have no more sympathy for them, than for the deceased's partner, but would hope that everyone involved, gets a fair share.

The best course would be for the heirs named in the will, to make the deceased's partner a good enough offer, that she will voluntarily leave and agree to make no legal claims against the estate. If they try to shut her out completely, it's possible that in a court case, she could end up with everything.
Nope. Her contribution does not equate to title of property or any reimbursement.
The will excluded her. Ergo,no challenge thru the courts would benefit her.
What you think is moral consideration does not supersede estate law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2018, 09:49 AM
 
6,014 posts, read 2,700,501 times
Reputation: 5215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3 View Post
Nope. Her contribution does not equate to title of property or any reimbursement.
The will excluded her. Ergo,no challenge thru the courts would benefit her.
What you think is moral consideration does not supersede estate law.
Agreed.

Its pretty difficult to get a will overturned in most places. Usually, the only grounds considered are whether or not the person making the will had the mental capacity to do so, whether or not there was undue influence by someone, or some kind of fraud/forgery.

None of that applies in this case from the sound of things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2018, 10:01 AM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,380,595 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
That is only if one is narrow minded enough to believe that nothing changes over time and if circumstances do change the first thing on everyone's mind is to dig out that old will that predates today's situation and get it rewritten. That flies in the face of human nature, though probably not the law. In my family's case, all the surviving siblings were sure that neither of our parents would have wanted our deceased sibling's family to be left out of that sibling's share of the estate, save for a legal technicality.

Old people don't always get around to do everything that even they feel needs to be done, like updating a will, but instead rely on the good judgement, morals and ethics that they instilled in their family to carry them forward.

For anyone to even equate "legal" to "moral and ethical," much less override it, is preposterous but it certainly excuses one from making the tough decision of what is right.

"The law is a ass." - C. Dickens

To believe that you know better than the deceased what the deceased actually wants is the height of arrogance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2018, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Cochise county, AZ
4,544 posts, read 3,010,212 times
Reputation: 9433
I hope the op comes back with an update.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top