Inheriting a fortune

I think...

Aruna, that as he left everything to his wife, your MC, when he died a few years earlier, the relatives would have a difficult time making a claim as they did not contest his will when his will went to probate and so she inherited the lot.

Mind you, with lawyers being what they are, the other rellies could still make, or threaten to make, an expensive legal fuss with the hope of squeezing her into a handout.

There's been a number of high profile cases for celebrities who had died and the will contested. It might be worth digging into the newsstories for those cases to see what led to the case.

I do have a friend who is an estate planning attorney (US), and he says when it comes to money, people get really crazy. A true story from my family background. When my grandmother was growing up, her mother lost everything because of the Great Depression. Another relative loaned them $500 to get by. More than sixty years later, a relative from that family left my grandmother money in their will. Another relative got all bent out of shape because she had been left the money; he felt that since her family had gotten $500 during the Depression, my grandmother didn't deserve the inheritance!

As an alternate suggestion, could some of the relatives already be contesting the will, and it seems on the verge of finally ending when news of the album crops up, and then it starts to get really ugly?

Find a solicitor,

Aruna, and ask.

I really think that as the stamp album was part of his effects and would be covered in the will as 'all my goods and property, personal effects...etc' then the other relatives should have contested the will at the time of his death. I doubt a British judge would look favourably on any case where the fuss only began once something was discovered to be valuable.

However you could have really nasty rellies who insist on a court case to demand a share under the 'just and something or other distribution of family property.' I think that's the term. You need a real solicitor who is good at wills to tell you.

I can only vouch for Scots Law, but here if there is no express provision in the will then that particular part of the estate is considered intestate and is divided up amongst relatives on a strict hierarchy. The wife / widow's part is dealt with first, and is a third of the intestate part of the estate. The next section is called 'legitim' and is the children's rights, which is also a third of the intestate part, divided between any surviving children. The third is 'dead's part' and is the last third of that estate. That can be claimed by other relatives but again there is a strict statutory list of who can claim first, and I believe grandchildren and such come before siblings. I would imagine the book would be part of the estate along with other money and such, so if the wife had taken that as part of her third, then it's hers, I should think. The law of intestacy really only wants to protect the interests of widows and children, going on the assumption that the deceased wouldn't have wanted his wife and children left with nothing. The only thing I'm not sure about is the valuation. If the book is part of the leftover estate, it would have been valued and so in calculating the 'third' then that would have come into it. I really don't know what the position is if, after valuation, it turns out to be more valuable. I'm going to see my Legal History tutor tomorrow and he teaches property law as well, so I'll ask him and get back to you. I'll also double check the position under English Law, to make sure it's similar if not the same.

If, on the other hand, the husband left the book specifically to the wife and so long as he didn't mention the value of it in that legacy (e.g. 'To my wife, X, I bequeath this stamp album, worth £15' as opposed to 'I bequeath the stamp album that I keep in my desk drawer, that she have it valued and dispose of it as she sees fit' or something like that) then that legacy trumps the other legal rights and no one else has a claim on it.

Just as a disclaimer though, although succession is my thing, I am only a third year law student, so I would take what I've said just as an opinion and maybe an idea as to issues you can look into, rather than a definitive answer. I will double check those things tomorrow though as I said.

Relatives would have to prove that the heirloom thing was, in fact, a family heirloom, and then that it had NOT been given or willed to just the one brother.

FIRST: They have to show it was in their parent's possession (insurance policy mention, bill of sale, willed to parents by grandparents, letters, household inventory, photos, etc.).

SECOND: They have to show that it was positively willed to all eight brothers by showing the will or household goods division that mentions it. Often items of sentimental value only are selected by who wants them, with no monetary value attached, in an informal division of property.

If no one (including the parents) recognized its value until years after the parent's estate was settled, that's too bad.

If they didn't contest the brother's will, that's too bad. (that's why there is formal probate!)

*************
I was sued by a tenant who claimed I had wrongly disposed of a valuable pair of heirloom earrings when I cleared her things out (unpaid rent) ... when she couldn't come up with a will, bill of sale, insurance policy mention, or even a photo of anyone in the family wearing the treasures the judge threw out her case because there was no proof the items existed except in her imagination.

aruna said:

Thanks all!
Well, the important thing is that the relatives THINK they have a chance and try to sue; they are destined to lose the case anyway so it's good that it's not in their favour... though I would have wished thattheir chances were a little bit higher thasn they seem to be!
I do have a good friend who isa solicitor though and I wil ask her toi read it when I have finished. Maybe she can help me make their case a little stonger... I don't want it to be too open and shut.

Click to expand...

You could always have the problem being with the will itself. If the other relatives show up with what looks like a later version of the will saying they were meant to have the stamp book, even if it's fake, it'll take a while to get that sorted out?

Just a thought.

Yes, you can have a court case. Remember, pretty much anyone can sue over pretty much anything. A case does not have to have merit to be filed (although it should, see Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13). The degree of merit will determine how quickly the case is disposed of but the initial threshold is pretty low. It's what keeps me in business, I guess.