[martin14]

sandorski sandorski:

raydan raydan:

If not, then there shouldn't be any restrictions in doing it in a will.

People can be spiteful, true and that's fine, but I have no respect for someone trying to be spiteful from the Grave. They don't have to Live with the consequences of their last stab.

Fail.

[hurley_108]

If I want to give all my estate to Hamas on my death, is that my right?

If I want my estate to be used to buy puppies, all of whom are to be immediately humanely euthanised, is that my right?

If I want my estate to be used to buy wood which is then to be piled and burned, is that my right?

I can come up with ridiculous straw men all day, but the point I'm trying to make is that I'm sure there does exist some line beyond which one is not allowed to go when writing one's will, legally, morally, or rationally.

From the sounds of it, this man was a horrible human being, who lived and died with horrible spite in his heart. This was not your average everyday case of some jilted, greedy would-be heir wanting what they feel entitled to. This doesn't threaten all the otehr wills out there which have been reasonably written. This sounds like a man who terrorised his daughters in life and wanted to terrorise them further from the grave.

I'm having a hard time seeing the threat that this decision poses to the ability of the vast majority of people to have their will respected, and so I'm having a hard time seeing any wrong in this decision.

[wildrosegirl]

Mockingbird Mockingbird:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I think it's disgusting that some pinhead judge can decide where a person's hard-earned money goes when they die when there is a legally binding will that already determines who gets what, if anything.
Quite frankly, no parent owes their kid(s) shit when they die.

Couldn't agree more.

I agree as well. People seem to think that they're owed the rewards that their parent's earned during their lifetime of hard work. Sorry. Bullshit. My father owes me sweet dick all. He's the one that worked his ass off all of his life, made a living, and will look after HIS retirement - not mine. That's my responsibility. He's already done his job. He raised me. He put a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs and food on the table while we were children. We're adults now. We fend for ourselves. It's not up to him to worry if I have enough in my retirement fund. That's my bloody problem.

I can't imagine disputing his wishes for his lifetime earnings. That's his decision. Not mine. It's none of my business whatsoever.

[billypilgrim]

who's to say that his daughters weren't conniving little shits who spread bad lies about their father. it's easy to write the guy off as 'terrible' or 'a real dick' or ' a total douche', or maybe an 'asshat shitface' , but maybe he was just celebrating his right to raise a family the old-fashioned way, or in the vein of his grandfathers, etc..

but honestly, if he was such an asshole and was so evil, they should refuse the money on grounds of strong moral ethic.

**i wonder though: if he excluded his daughters from his will because his religion absolved it, would that be overturned by the court?? i doubt it.**

[Mockingbird]

wildrosegirl wildrosegirl:

Mockingbird Mockingbird:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I think it's disgusting that some pinhead judge can decide where a person's hard-earned money goes when they die when there is a legally binding will that already determines who gets what, if anything.
Quite frankly, no parent owes their kid(s) shit when they die.

Couldn't agree more.

I agree as well. People seem to think that they're owed the rewards that their parent's earned during their lifetime of hard work. Sorry. Bullshit. My father owes me sweet dick all. He's the one that worked his ass off all of his life, made a living, and will look after HIS retirement - not mine. That's my responsibility. He's already done his job. He raised me. He put a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs and food on the table while we were children. We're adults now. We fend for ourselves. It's not up to him to worry if I have enough in my retirement fund. That's my bloody problem.

I can't imagine disputing his wishes for his lifetime earnings. That's his decision. Not mine. It's none of my business whatsoever.

Bravo! Well stated.

[raydan]

sandorski sandorski:

People can be spiteful, true and that's fine, but I have no respect for someone trying to be spiteful from the Grave. They don't have to Live with the consequences of their last stab.

But it's not being spiteful from the grave.
If I got this right, I think you have to make your will BEFORE you die.

[raydan]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

If I want to give all my estate to Hamas on my death, is that my right?

If I want my estate to be used to buy puppies, all of whom are to be immediately humanely euthanised, is that my right?

If I want my estate to be used to buy wood which is then to be piled and burned, is that my right?

I can come up with ridiculous straw men all day, but the point I'm trying to make is that I'm sure there does exist some line beyond which one is not allowed to go when writing one's will, legally, morally, or rationally.

From the sounds of it, this man was a horrible human being, who lived and died with horrible spite in his heart. This was not your average everyday case of some jilted, greedy would-be heir wanting what they feel entitled to. This doesn't threaten all the otehr wills out there which have been reasonably written. This sounds like a man who terrorised his daughters in life and wanted to terrorise them further from the grave.

I'm having a hard time seeing the threat that this decision poses to the ability of the vast majority of people to have their will respected, and so I'm having a hard time seeing any wrong in this decision.

Like I said before, if you can do this (legally) before you die, you should be able to have it done after.

[Mockingbird]

sandorski sandorski:

Mockingbird Mockingbird:

sandorski sandorski:

See, this is exactly why they shouldn't be Sacred. They're Dead. Why should the Living be held Ransom by a Dead Person?

Now in most Families everyone will respect the Dead persons wishes, because those Wishes will be well thought out, but every so often they are not well thought out and are indeed spiteful causing division amongst the Living. Screw that.

I don't see it as the living being held ransom, I see it as respecting the deceased person's wishes, guess that's where we differ. Imagine how courts would be tied up if wills were indeed obsolete? I get that some leave wills that are seen as spiteful but for the most part they are well thought out as you said. My Mom recently passed and her will was clear and precise in her wishes, and as the executor of her estate I am thankful it was done as it was, as I have siblings who would have made the proccess impossible.

It wouldn't be much different than now, since Wills indeed can be over turned. My position is the Status Quo, pretty much.

Disagree, it would be a logistical court nightmare if there was no such animal as wills. Not many are litigated as the norm, but I could surely see a sharp increase in that if wills weren't made at all.

[hurley_108]

raydan raydan:

Like I said before, if you can do this (legally) before you die, you should be able to have it done after.

That's the big "if," isn't it? There are things you're not allowed to do in life. There are also things which, if you did them in life, might get your mental competence questioned and your ability to keep doing them taken away.

Would this man have been able to give all his estate to his son while he was alive? Would the daughters have had the ability to contest such actions if he'd done them in life? I don't know. I'm not a real-estate lawyer, but I know that there has to be some "consideration" in any tranfer of property. And there are potential tax implications in transfers of real-estate between living persons which may or may not apply if done through a will. It's not as simple as "if I can do it in life, I can do it in death." The two are different cases.

[wildrosegirl]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

raydan raydan:

Like I said before, if you can do this (legally) before you die, you should be able to have it done after.

That's the big "if," isn't it? There are things you're not allowed to do in life. There are also things which, if you did them in life, might get your mental competence questioned and your ability to keep doing them taken away.

Would this man have been able to give all his estate to his son while he was alive? Would the daughters have had the ability to contest such actions if he'd done them in life? I don't know. I'm not a real-estate lawyer, but I know that there has to be some "consideration" in any tranfer of property. And there are potential tax implications in transfers of real-estate between living persons which may or may not apply if done through a will. It's not as simple as "if I can do it in life, I can do it in death." The two are different cases.

I do believe you can.

The other way around it would have been for him to sell the estate to his son for..... $500. (Pick a number). As long as a legal bill of sale is drafted up, who's to say what you have to sell your assets for?

If I want to sell you a car (which is paid for, of course) valued at $10,000.00 for $50, who's to stop me?

[Brenda]

wildrosegirl wildrosegirl:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

raydan raydan:

Like I said before, if you can do this (legally) before you die, you should be able to have it done after.

That's the big "if," isn't it? There are things you're not allowed to do in life. There are also things which, if you did them in life, might get your mental competence questioned and your ability to keep doing them taken away.

Would this man have been able to give all his estate to his son while he was alive? Would the daughters have had the ability to contest such actions if he'd done them in life? I don't know. I'm not a real-estate lawyer, but I know that there has to be some "consideration" in any tranfer of property. And there are potential tax implications in transfers of real-estate between living persons which may or may not apply if done through a will. It's not as simple as "if I can do it in life, I can do it in death." The two are different cases.

I do believe you can.

The other way around it would have been for him to sell the estate to his son for..... $500. (Pick a number). As long as a legal bill of sale is drafted up, who's to say what you have to sell your assets for?

If I want to sell you a car (which is paid for, of course) valued at $10,000.00 for $50, who's to stop me?

In BC, ICBC, because they will still tax you for the $10k

[Brenda]

Mockingbird Mockingbird:

Disagree, it would be a logistical court nightmare if there was no such animal as wills. Not many are litigated as the norm, but I could surely see a sharp increase in that if wills weren't made at all.

And that is when you standardize that the one who lives longest will get everything, and if they die, the children will. If you do not want that, you make a will. Problem solved.

[KorbenDeck]

I don't agree with the judges decision. It is for the person to decide who gets their stuff after they die not the government.

[BartSimpson]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

I don't agree with the judges decision. It is for the person to decide who gets their stuff after they die not the government.

The judge thought otherwise and now there will be a rush of new business for the lawyers to make sure that any wills they draft can't be overturned so easily. Were this the USA I'd expect the legislatures to run in laws to correct the problem but Canada's legislatures seem not to care about this kind of thing.

[wildrosegirl]

Brenda Brenda:

In BC, ICBC, because they will still tax you for the $10k

True story!