For those who have read the "inheritance debacle" thread... What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem in the other thread is that it is not clear that the will is actually a good one- there's some questions about the circumstances of the writing of the will.

A number if posts have suggested to the OP of that thread that she and the daughter and son of the deceased should all see lawyers to discuss the will and what should happen next.

Nothing that was said by the OP of the thread gave any credence to the suggestion that there was an issue with the will. That was just other posters stirring shit because they couldn't imagine that someone would leave their house to their God daughter instead of their own children.

Agree here. We're not talking about an unrelated person who manipulated the deceased woman into willing her her estate.

The daughter's circumstance is irrelevant to whether the will was valid.

OP of that thread was in the right to claim that house as hers; it is hers. She's free to sell it, occupy it, or gift to whoever she may choose.

[Anonymous]

Here are a few options:

1. Sell the house. Invest the proceeds.
2. Sell the house. Buy another house that both relatives can live in. The DD of the deceased can pay rent - amount to be determined by the inheritor of the house.
3. Keep the house and rent out the whole house to the DD of the deceased. Amount of rent to be determined by the inheritor of the house.
4. Keep the house and rent out one room to the DD and other rooms to other roommates to generate a higher monthly income stream.
5. Keep the house and have the inheritor of the house move in with the DD of the deceased.
6. Keep the house, use money from the DD of the deceased to renovate the house, and then sell house at a premium.
7. Keep the house, use money from the DD of the deceased to renovate the house, and then rent house at a premium to generate monthly cash flow.

You have two fundamental assets - land/property and money - that can be combined in so many different ways to reach whatever objective you want. Tons of options for two willing parties but I'm assuming that these two people (inheritor of the house and DD of the deceased) would work with each other to maximize the value of both people's assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem in the other thread is that it is not clear that the will is actually a good one- there's some questions about the circumstances of the writing of the will.

A number if posts have suggested to the OP of that thread that she and the daughter and son of the deceased should all see lawyers to discuss the will and what should happen next.

Nothing that was said by the OP of the thread gave any credence to the suggestion that there was an issue with the will. That was just other posters stirring shit because they couldn't imagine that someone would leave their house to their God daughter instead of their own children.

Agree here. We're not talking about an unrelated person who manipulated the deceased woman into willing her her estate.

The daughter's circumstance is irrelevant to whether the will was valid.

OP of that thread was in the right to claim that house as hers; it is hers. She's free to sell it, occupy it, or gift to whoever she may choose.

People have been known to manipulate relatives to write their wills a certain way; a related person can exert undue influence just as well as a related one can. So ideally, Mary and Roy should at least consult with an estates and trusts lawyer to get some advice.

[Anonymous]

Is the deed actually in Larla's name at this point? If not, how much longer does the lawyer say it will take? She really can't do anything until the house is transferred to her and she is the legal owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem in the other thread is that it is not clear that the will is actually a good one- there's some questions about the circumstances of the writing of the will.

A number if posts have suggested to the OP of that thread that she and the daughter and son of the deceased should all see lawyers to discuss the will and what should happen next.

Nothing that was said by the OP of the thread gave any credence to the suggestion that there was an issue with the will. That was just other posters stirring shit because they couldn't imagine that someone would leave their house to their God daughter instead of their own children.

Agree here. We're not talking about an unrelated person who manipulated the deceased woman into willing her her estate.

The daughter's circumstance is irrelevant to whether the will was valid.

OP of that thread was in the right to claim that house as hers; it is hers. She's free to sell it, occupy it, or gift to whoever she may choose.

NP here and I also thought it was weird that someone in that thread kept raising the issue of the validity of the will over and over.

From a financial standpoint, I agree with the other posters that she should sell the house and use the proceeds to complete her education. I would either invest whatever is left or use it as a downpayment on a house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sell the house and buy another. Daughter obviously moves somewhere else.

This. Can't keep the house. Too emotional. Much easier to tell cousin that she has to move out by x date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem in the other thread is that it is not clear that the will is actually a good one- there's some questions about the circumstances of the writing of the will.

A number if posts have suggested to the OP of that thread that she and the daughter and son of the deceased should all see lawyers to discuss the will and what should happen next.

Nothing that was said by the OP of the thread gave any credence to the suggestion that there was an issue with the will. That was just other posters stirring shit because they couldn't imagine that someone would leave their house to their God daughter instead of their own children.

Agree here. We're not talking about an unrelated person who manipulated the deceased woman into willing her her estate.

The daughter's circumstance is irrelevant to whether the will was valid.

OP of that thread was in the right to claim that house as hers; it is hers. She's free to sell it, occupy it, or gift to whoever she may choose.

NP here and I also thought it was weird that someone in that thread kept raising the issue of the validity of the will over and over.

From a financial standpoint, I agree with the other posters that she should sell the house and use the proceeds to complete her education. I would either invest whatever is left or use it as a downpayment on a house.

I didn't think it was weird to question the validity of the will under the circumstances presented, but I have a background that involved reading a lot of wills at one point, so the idea makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem in the other thread is that it is not clear that the will is actually a good one- there's some questions about the circumstances of the writing of the will.

A number if posts have suggested to the OP of that thread that she and the daughter and son of the deceased should all see lawyers to discuss the will and what should happen next.

Nothing that was said by the OP of the thread gave any credence to the suggestion that there was an issue with the will. That was just other posters stirring shit because they couldn't imagine that someone would leave their house to their God daughter instead of their own children.

Agree here. We're not talking about an unrelated person who manipulated the deceased woman into willing her her estate.

The daughter's circumstance is irrelevant to whether the will was valid.

OP of that thread was in the right to claim that house as hers; it is hers. She's free to sell it, occupy it, or gift to whoever she may choose.

NP here and I also thought it was weird that someone in that thread kept raising the issue of the validity of the will over and over.

From a financial standpoint, I agree with the other posters that she should sell the house and use the proceeds to complete her education. I would either invest whatever is left or use it as a downpayment on a house.

I didn't think it was weird to question the validity of the will under the circumstances presented, but I have a background that involved reading a lot of wills at one point, so the idea makes sense to me.

It's not weird that it happened once. It's weird that (presumably) one person kept bringing it up over and over.

[Anonymous]

It's not weird that it happened once. It's weird that (presumably) one person kept bringing it up over and over.

It's presumptuous to assume that it's one person who keeps bringing up the will. It is an unusual will and people are going to comment on it and question its validity, as they always do in the cases of unusual wills. Very few people leave the bulk of their estate to a distant family member rather than the direct descendants, which is why the other thread attracted a lot of attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not weird that it happened once. It's weird that (presumably) one person kept bringing it up over and over.

It's presumptuous to assume that it's one person who keeps bringing up the will. It is an unusual will and people are going to comment on it and question its validity, as they always do in the cases of unusual wills. Very few people leave the bulk of their estate to a distant family member rather than the direct descendants, which is why the other thread attracted a lot of attention.


It's well known that Warren Buffet doesn't plan to leave the bulk of his wealth to his own kids. Maybe Thelma thought the same way. At least she left generous amounts to each child -- more than many are left with even when everything goes to the kids.

Lawyer's fees are not insignificant, and people of limited means to begin with have to carefully consider whether fighting over the will makes financial sense, especially if there is a good possiblity they may lose. The possibly $400K to gain split two or possibly three ways minus lawyers fees, minus renovation costs in order to sell the house, minus realtor's fees, and all the emotional angst and familial discord -- the net gain may may make less difference in their lives than the hassle of contesting the will.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-the-very-rich-arent-giving-much-of-their-fortunes-to-their-kids/2014/08/10/4a9551b4-1ccc-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html?utm_term=.8f5790597c52

[Anonymous]

^ correction: Lawyers'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not weird that it happened once. It's weird that (presumably) one person kept bringing it up over and over.

It's presumptuous to assume that it's one person who keeps bringing up the will. It is an unusual will and people are going to comment on it and question its validity, as they always do in the cases of unusual wills. Very few people leave the bulk of their estate to a distant family member rather than the direct descendants, which is why the other thread attracted a lot of attention.

It's well known that Warren Buffet doesn't plan to leave the bulk of his wealth to his own kids. Maybe Thelma thought the same way. At least she left generous amounts to each child -- more than many are left with even when everything goes to the kids.

Lawyer's fees are not insignificant, and people of limited means to begin with have to carefully consider whether fighting over the will makes financial sense, especially if there is a good possiblity they may lose. The possibly $400K to gain split two or possibly three ways minus lawyers fees, minus renovation costs in order to sell the house, minus realtor's fees, and all the emotional angst and familial discord -- the net gain may may make less difference in their lives than the hassle of contesting the will.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-the-very-rich-arent-giving-much-of-their-fortunes-to-their-kids/2014/08/10/4a9551b4-1ccc-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html?utm_term=.8f5790597c52

Most of us are not in the Warren Buffet category in terms of wealth, and neither was Thelma. It would be expensive to contest the will, so it would be worth it for Larla, Mary, and Roy, to sit down with their lawyers and come up with a way to split up the estate without going to court if the lawyers see grounds for Mary and Roy to contest the will. It would save them all the expenses of court proceedings (so they could avoid the result in Bleak House!) and Larla will still end up with more than she would if the will ends up being found to be no good. Selling the house and splitting the proceeds three ways would work out better for all of them.

[Anonymous]

The comment about Warren Buffet is not about the amount of wealth. It's that there are respected people that think it's reasonable to not leave the bulk of their wealth to family. So I think that the point that this is unusual in a will is questionable, and can be disputed.

Assuming she is going to "lose" a challenge to the will and offering part of her inheritance to the siblings is not necessarily a smart move for Larla. She needs to see a good lawyer on her own.

[Anonymous]

The comment about Warren Buffet actually does have to do with wealth. Very wealthy people have so many advantages anyway that they don't need to be left the bulk of their parents' estates. They are doing quite fine without the addition of many millions. The rest of us who are of much more modest means generally choose to leave what is left when we go to our own children, particularly when there is a family home.

She doesn't have to assume that she will "lose" the challenge to the will, but she can assume that she would have to spend a lot of money to fight it if a suit were brought. If she loses the challenge, she will get nothing because she is too distant a relative; if she negotiates and enters into a compromise, she can get more than she would have had Thelma left most of her estate to her own children. If Thelma is declared to be intestate, everything will go to her own children.

[Anonymous]

Larla should just wait and see and not negotiate anything unless a lawsuit is actually filed. Even then, her lawyer should advise her.

It sounds like Roy doesn't need the money. It's only Mary who possibly does, and she has to decide whether she wants to challenge the will and if Roy will be supportive, or if a lawsuit will be all on her. Mary also has to seriously consider that she may be unsuccessful and whether she will regret the legal bills if that's the outcome.