41–50 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To whoever legitimately won the inheritance lottery, I guess.
Well, then ex girlfriend would be the one who legitimately won the lottery.
The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. To their "estate". It's mentioned that some of his assets that didn't have a beneficiary named landed there and I think they were to be split according to the will of the deceased.
There was no will, no spouse, no children. "He died at 59, single and childless, with no will and no guidance on who should inherit his assets."
Parents, siblings, siblings children.
It is super difficult to ask deceased people what they actually wanted. In respect for the dead person, we absolutely have to carry out their will. It might be there there is a brother somewhere that feels hurt. But we really don't know if the deceased one really wished that his early crush should have the money. What we can do, however, is to make sure we update our wills.
> In respect for the dead person, we absolutely have to carry out their will. We trust judges when they decide to send people to prison for decades, so I don't see why we shouldn't trust them if they decide that this will is probably a mistake.
Also, IMHO judging a person for something they did not do is amongst the worst things that can happen in a society. This is also why there is a principle of rather letting 10 guilty people go free rather than convicting a single innocent person.
(i am speaking from a Scandinavian juris system)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, then ex girlfriend would be the one who legitimately won the lottery.
That is literally debatable. The definition of legitimately in this case is literally not clear and quite arguable. You have merely picked a side, not pointed out some obvious definitive truth. The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
I can not just challenge something with you to make it not legitimate.
This is like not guilty until proven different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only I was rich. I'm not. As the other commenter says, doing the right thing isn't about money. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no-one is looking.
It also depends on your political beliefs about inheritance and merit. I don’t think anyone "deserve" to inherit. It’s just money you never worked to get and that you get because your parents had extra money. So, morally, why would the brothers deserve more the money than the ex girlfriend ? Maybe they were still in good terms. Maybe she brought more joy in his life than his brothers. Maybe not but enough for her to…
In this case, as you say, the guy didn't put much care into the issue, so we don't have to worry too much about if our decisions are what he would have chosen. What he chose was to barely consider the matter and mostly leave it up to others to figure out.
The fact he did remove the 2nd gf is interesting but probably has 2 arguments that cancel out. A, he removed the 2nd ex from insurance as soon as she was an ex, so in general he doesn't intent for exes to still be beneficiaries. B, he removed the 2nd and only didn't remove the 1st, so keeping the 1st on was intentional.
I do not think the 1st was intentional, but not taking care of this stuff in general was intentional, so he gets what he gets.
The brothers, well it's unfortunate that unfortunately they had a careless brother. If the court gives it to the ex, no great travesty has happened. The state is only deciding because the guy largely didn't bother deciding for himself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is literally debatable. The definition of legitimately in this case is literally not clear and quite arguable. You have merely picked a side, not pointed out some obvious definitive truth. The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
Some one challenged the ex getting the money. Until there is a decision, she is the legitimate beneficiary. I can not just challenge something with you to make it not legitimate. This is like not guilty until proven different.
That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise."
In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined.
You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some one challenged the ex getting the money. Until there is a decision, she is the legitimate beneficiary. I can not just challenge something with you to make it not legitimate. This is like not guilty until proven different.
If the process by which one becomes a beneficiary is swiss cheese, that does matter. That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise." In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined. You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
That is how it always has been.
The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling.
The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decision has been made.
I don't really see other ways it could work?
> You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise.
The article seems to suggest that this is a bad thing. But what's the alternative? That it just gets soaked up by the bank or the state or whatever happens when there's no will? Better it go to a person even semi by mistake like in this case in my opinion
People updating their wills is the good alternative they're advocating.
The funeral had only finished a day before when she started contesting it.
If I die from something with a few days warning, I'll transfer everything I can to a trust administered by someone I can trust whilst I'm still alive to remove this option. Although I'm sure that'll be contested too.
Just follow peoples wishes. You don't have to like them and you can speculate as much as you want, but what they put on paper is what goes. It's disrespectful and grubby to go chasing money that wasn't intended for you (or in theory may have been but you're not sure so you'd best grab it anyway, right?). Whoevers assets they were, they weren't yours.