Fairness and inheritance

Clearly the entire estate should be left to the eldest son. The second son shall become an officer of the military and the third is to be inducted into the church. Any daughters obviously should be wed to young men of appropriate standing and family connections for a dowry.

This as it should be as the families wealth is thus not diluted through the generations.

Things to note: I'm the eldest child in my family, but unfortunately it's 2015 and not 1715.

 

Who are your friends in this scenario - the parents or the siblings? (I assume the latter...?)

 

Hi Terry

My aunt was in the USA. The will was declared valid, it had been changed with a minor ammendment about 3 months prior to her death but this change did not affect any of the family members and was properly executed with signatures, witnesses etc. She was also in sound mind at the time.

The judge apparently said that the exclusion of her niece/nephew was unfair and they had equal claim to the estate in the same way as the nieces that were actually included in the will. This is all second hand though as I wasn't there so I'm not sure exactly how it went down. What I do know is that the lawyer representing her estate as well as the niece/nephew signed a document that amended the will and the estate was distributed as per that document.

As mentioned before it is not a large amount of money we are talking about so it's certainly not worth getting the shackles up, but I'm wondering if this sort of thing can occur in Australia if the departed does not have any close relatives. Doesn't the person have the right to choose to whom they leave their estate of part thereof?

Thank you
vtt

 

Parent should have complete control. People who contest wills are spineless weasels.

 

Nope - not in NSW and off the top of my head I don't think so in other states. However if the will was invalid then it could work out that others could get some of the estate. Others may challenge the will with this in mind - e.g. arguing the will was invalid because of incapacity for example.

 

siblings

 

@ 1.44

 

The case that prompted this post is:
Gary Alan Wright v Kerri Lyn Wright as Executor of the Estate of Leslie Richard Wright [2015] NSWSC 1333
you can read it here

From the judgment is appears that the son was
- had a long criminal record
- was a drug user
- was estranged from his father for a long period - over 14 years
- never provided accommodation or support for his father during the fathers illness or old age
- had previous spent a large inheritance of about $200k without paying his debts
- the son had also threatened to kill his father and sister previously

However he was
- unemployed
- virtually penniless
- had a 17 year old son

The daughter (and her husband) on the otherhand had
- given the father rent free accomodation for over 14 years
- provided day to day assistance
- took him to medical appointments
- given emotional support

Around the time of making his will the dad had drafted a statement to be used as evidence of his reasons for excluding the son from benefiting his will.

The judge, at 53 onwards wrote:

 

Gary needs a paddling.

 

Hopefully for Gary's sake he engaged a 'no win no fee' lawyer.

A good and fair decision in this case imho.

vtt

 

Sounds like he has no assets!

Yes a good decision I think.

 

Is this statement viewable somewhere?

 

No - but it is quoted in the judgment - or parts of it are.

 

Deserve's got nothing to do with it. Agree. We all have to live in this world.
Leslie brought him into the world. I hate the way some people use their money, no matter how much it is, to play favourites. And in this case issue the final sting. Don't sound like no Saint Leslie to me.
Anyway, take it from a goody-goody: we're not always the favourites.

 

Thanks for that case Terry. I've got one on my books at the moment that is somewhat similar (but without the bashing/agro).

 

Clint's always right.

 

When my 37yr old unmarried son died some years ago I, as executor of his will had to endure 18 months of a court battle with his long time on and off girlfriend who claimed to be his de facto and had never lived with him. This was despite him living with me and my husband for over 12 months before he passed away. He had left his entire estate to his daughter, then 6 years of age, the plaintiff was not the mother of the child.

At compulsory mediation the court awarded $10,000 to the plaintiff [she never saw a penny, her solicitors saw to that] and the cost to the estate were $45,000.

The estate consisted of compensation from the Dust & Disease Board and was not huge, so his daughter lost $55,000 of her lump sum.

I will never forget how I felt when this happened and the frustration I felt at the spurious claim and how easily someone can make a claim on an estate.

 

There are certainly leaches everywhere unfortunately.
Terry W ( and others) would you mind posting a few tips and hints that you think fit may help in these circumstances ? Is there anyway we can help protect ourselves and family form preditors just after a buck ? Thank you in advance.