The Aunt's heirs are legally entitled to half because she was alive at the time of death. Any estate lawyer will take this position and any judge will rule this way.

Tell your Dad not to spend it all because he's going to have to give up half of it eventually. It would be nice if he'd stop being a douche before he spends his half on lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:+1
since inheritance happens at death, and aunt was alive then, clearly ½ the money should go to aunt's estate ie your cousins

This. The stock should have been liquidated after grandfather's death but mistakenly wasn't. Aunt was alive at time of grandfather's death. So for purposes of deciding inheritance of the stock account, you go with who was alive at time of GRANDFATHERS death. So aunt still counts. Aunt gets half. Since aunt is NOW dead, AFTER grandfather died, then her share could either go to her husband or her children depending on aunt's will or restate laws in her state.

This is pretty clear cut and standand trust and estate query, this happens a lot. If cousins' father or if cousins themselves contest this, they will win. NOT OP's father.

My question is where did 50,000 forgotten dollars come from years after the reading of the will?!

Anonymous wrote:Money spent on children prior to death should generally be deducted from any estate to avoid this situation. If the other inheritors did in fact benefit unduly from gifts given, then your father has a fair claim to this money.

What?!

Absolutely not.

How a person decided to spend their money while they are alive, is nobody's business. It doesn't matter if someone spends a million dollars on one child, and one dollar on the other - it doesn't matter at all. It's completely separate to how someone decides to divide their assets in a will/estate.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Your father gets it all. He is the only surviving one. Your uncle is wrong.

But he want the only surviving sibling at the time of the death of his parent

Many of you are missing the fact that this was some kind of an investment account. If Grandpa had paperwork on file with the broker that directly named beneficiaries of the account, then the declaration would supersede the will. Just because Grandpa left his estate to both kids doesn't mean the investment account was set up the same way. For example, my dad named me direct beneficiary of his investment account and told me to "do the right thing." It was a horrible estate plan, but it is not uncommon. He thought he was being smart because those assets bypass probate. In reality, it created a colossal mess. OP's situation may be the same. Grandpa might not have intended this money to go to both kids, or maybe he did. Who knows, but in any event, it is not a black and white issue.

If the will was prepared by a competent attorney it will likely include the phrase "per stirpes," which means that the offspring of an heir (your cousins) receive their shares of the heir (your aunt) is deceased.

Money spent on children prior to death should generally be deducted from any estate to avoid this situation. If the other inheritors did in fact benefit unduly from gifts given, then your father has a fair claim to this money.

Firmly on the fence. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:+1
since inheritance happens at death, and aunt was alive then, clearly ½ the money should go to aunt's estate ie your cousins

Agree.

Anonymous wrote:Your grandfather was clear with his instructions, and they should be honored. Your father should keep the money.

This. Your dad is right, but is it worth the fight if your dad doesn't need the money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's very obvious that your dad is wrong on this, OP. Probably legally, but definitely morally.

Depends on the will.

Morally... morality is made up anyway Enjoy the change, OP!

No, doesn't depend on the will. The will was clear, someone messed up and "forgot" about this asset.

Anonymous wrote:Legally more likely than not the aunts kids should get half the money. Your dad is wrong, morally and probably legally as well.

+1

And how freaking petty. Who was the executor who messed this up by the way?

Lawyer should sort this out. Your aunt was alive at the time of her father's death so it seems that lawyers screwed up twice.

Anonymous wrote:1) The aunt was alive when the grandfather passed, so by that measure the asset should be split.

2) Are you sure there was no "per stirpes" clause in the will, meaning aunt's children would get her share if she were deceased?

3) Is your dad okay with ruining your relationship with your cousins over $25k? Because that will be the end result of this.

Relationship that can be ruined over chump change is not worth saving. Not really.