Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

What does he think would be equitable?

50% to him and 50% to her and none to grandchildren

That’s typical

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

Yeah, that was a bad idea on their part.

They should have left it fifty fifty to each kid in trust. Then the remaindermen of the trust could be grandchildren. If you don’t have your own kids, when you die whatever is left goes to your siblings kids.

Also could have split it 50/50, then further split the one siblings between him/her and the children.

True

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

What does he think would be equitable?

50% to him and 50% to her and none to grandchildren

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

Yeah, that was a bad idea on their part.

They should have left it fifty fifty to each kid in trust. Then the remaindermen of the trust could be grandchildren. If you don’t have your own kids, when you die whatever is left goes to your siblings kids.

Also could have split it 50/50, then further split the one siblings between him/her and the children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

What does he think would be equitable?

What if he has kids of his own later? Then they get nothing because they weren’t born yet.

What’s equitable is, if you have two kids and one has kids and one doesn’t, you divide the estate into two. Half goes into a trust for one kid. Another half goes into another trust for the other kid. The trusts are written so that whatever is left when the kid dies, goes to HiS kids, the grandkids. If the other kid never has kids, the the trust can have a clause that whatever is left in his trust when he dies goes to his nieces and nephews.

This happened in our family. My maternal grandparents provided $10,000 on marriage. Well, there were many of us who were not married when they both passed. The will granted $10,000 to all the surviving grandchildren, so some got $10K and others had a total of $20K based on their marriage gift. This did not go down well with all the aunts and uncles, but everyone let bygones be bygones.

There were a lot of grandchildren so the $10K gifts in aggregate was a large sum.

I'm the PP who asked what would be equitable. While we are doing fine, I have a couple of siblings who could have used the extra $10K.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

Just wow. What was going on that he would make such move? I'm all for leaving money to charity, but can't imagine I would give nearly all but a fraction to charity.

Kinda agree with that grandparents should provide directly to the grandchildren if that is their wish. DH's grandparents specified verbally to their children that they wanted X given to their grandkids on certain milestones, etc. In a couple of instances, the item is jewelry. My ILs now give the money to their children as if it is theirs rather than what had been specified by the grandparents. They gave a ring to their daughter and made a huge deal how it was their gift for her 35th birthday when really it was the grandmother's gift. Just seemed nuts to me they portrayed it as their gift: they were simply in possession of it. Even DH now sees this as an odd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

What does he think would be equitable?

What if he has kids of his own later? Then they get nothing because they weren’t born yet.

What’s equitable is, if you have two kids and one has kids and one doesn’t, you divide the estate into two. Half goes into a trust for one kid. Another half goes into another trust for the other kid. The trusts are written so that whatever is left when the kid dies, goes to HiS kids, the grandkids. If the other kid never has kids, the the trust can have a clause that whatever is left in his trust when he dies goes to his nieces and nephews.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

Yeah, that was a bad idea on their part.

They should have left it fifty fifty to each kid in trust. Then the remaindermen of the trust could be grandchildren. If you don’t have your own kids, when you die whatever is left goes to your siblings kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

I have a friend whose parents did that and her brother is suing because he has no children. The parents left their estate 50% to their children and 50% to their grandchildren. My friend is extremely upset by it.

What does he think would be equitable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster

Has anyone ever heard of a situation where the deceased changed the will to leave everything to a charity or organization, and nothing to their children? Are there any grounds for the children to contest the will?

My dad left everything to Joel Osteen and have his kids about 10k each. It wouldn’t have been so insane if it hadn’t been a 10m estate. He was left 5m by his parents (he was an only child) with the instructions that he should “provide for his family.” We just laugh about it now. This is why I feel strongly that grandparents should provide for grandchildren and not just their children (at least if their intent is that their money be passed down).

The way to do that is to put the money in a trust for the child, but with the grandchildren as the sole remaindermen. The he could t have given it to anyone but you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"My brother contested our aunt's will. She left everything to me and he got all pissed. He hardly called or visited her in the last 5 years of her life. He did not win. Our parents tried to pressure us to settle, meaning I split half and half with him. I would've done it anyway had he not sued me. So I fought to the end."

Pretty much whenever someone "leaves everything" to one person, it's a messed up situation that will cause conflict and hurt feelings. Hardly calling an aunt for the last 5 of what was probably at least 60 years of life is hardly grounds for cutting someone off. Why couldn't you have just split some of it with him?

Yeah, I pretty much agree. How long passed before the brother contested?

When I hear these scenarios, I just don't understand why the recipient just doesn't make an offer to the sibling(s). Heck, I tried to save the remaining portion of the original family homestead from having to be sold off for Medicaid reasons as neither of my surviving siblings stand to inherit anything. DH and I have plenty of money, but I tried to keep something for them.

The last two sentences of the post say if the brother hadn’t sued her she would’ve split it. It sounds like he jumped the gun and went straight for the throat instead of discussing the situation with her and letting her make an offer.

PP here - i'm just curious in how much time passed from the reading of the will to the suit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"My brother contested our aunt's will. She left everything to me and he got all pissed. He hardly called or visited her in the last 5 years of her life. He did not win. Our parents tried to pressure us to settle, meaning I split half and half with him. I would've done it anyway had he not sued me. So I fought to the end."

Pretty much whenever someone "leaves everything" to one person, it's a messed up situation that will cause conflict and hurt feelings. Hardly calling an aunt for the last 5 of what was probably at least 60 years of life is hardly grounds for cutting someone off. Why couldn't you have just split some of it with him?

Yeah, I pretty much agree. How long passed before the brother contested?

When I hear these scenarios, I just don't understand why the recipient just doesn't make an offer to the sibling(s). Heck, I tried to save the remaining portion of the original family homestead from having to be sold off for Medicaid reasons as neither of my surviving siblings stand to inherit anything. DH and I have plenty of money, but I tried to keep something for them.

Both of you are missing the point. In most of the cases where someone has been disinherited, the hurt has little to do with the money itself. It’s the emotional rejection. Sharing the money doesn’t change that.

Sharing the money doesn't change the hurt, but the sibling may not feel as if the grudge has been passed from the aunt to the sister. Again, seems like the sister should have made some move towards the brother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We settled an estate via probate (DH was executor, although I handled a lot of the grunt work). Probate demands a lot of accountability from the executor. At the same time, if you need a little hand holding, they're there to help you out.

I don't know why people opt for trusts. Trusts make it so easy to steal money, they're a recipe for permanent family rifts. Nothing will cause a rift faster than siblings forced to take legal action against a family member - or watch that family member steal the trust blind.

Because lawyers make money setting up trusts and convince people that probate is some terrible process. There are states where probate courts are so messed up that a trust is the preferable path, but in many cases the protections provided by the probate process absolutely have value.

I don’t hate lawyers, I am one, but trusts are on of those areas where many lawyers absolutely do not serve their clients’ best interests. I go by the fact that I am a lawyer and every single well-regarded estate lawyer I’ve talked to has said a revocable trust is not only not necessary, but not recommended. I also blame the fact having a trust seems like something that “rich” people have and also makes people feel like they’ve circumvented the system, somehow. So it’s an easy sell.

I hear you. Lawyers who set up these trusts should be mindful of the catastrophic damage when abused - which is all too often. The lawyers make a lousy few thousand dollars on the sell, not caring what happens to families. What do you think happens to children when a family abruptly falls apart, but nobody will tell them why? Nieces and nephews want to know why the family no longer gets together for Christmas and other holidays, and nobody will give them a straight answer. Cousins no longer have a relationship, and never will again. No family at weddings, or any other major event. This is what happens when a trust is abused. Was it really worth that lousy few thousand?

Anonymous wrote:We settled an estate via probate (DH was executor, although I handled a lot of the grunt work). Probate demands a lot of accountability from the executor. At the same time, if you need a little hand holding, they're there to help you out.

I don't know why people opt for trusts. Trusts make it so easy to steal money, they're a recipe for permanent family rifts. Nothing will cause a rift faster than siblings forced to take legal action against a family member - or watch that family member steal the trust blind.

Because lawyers make money setting up trusts and convince people that probate is some terrible process. There are states where probate courts are so messed up that a trust is the preferable path, but in many cases the protections provided by the probate process absolutely have value.

I don’t hate lawyers, I am one, but trusts are on of those areas where many lawyers absolutely do not serve their clients’ best interests. I go by the fact that I am a lawyer and every single well-regarded estate lawyer I’ve talked to has said a revocable trust is not only not necessary, but not recommended. I also blame the fact having a trust seems like something that “rich” people have and also makes people feel like they’ve circumvented the system, somehow. So it’s an easy sell.

Anonymous wrote:If you have, or no of anyone who has, been involved with a contested will, what are the circumstances? Did you/they win?

Are you or your son looking to buy some cheap diamonds?