Child born out of wedlock can not inherit from his grandmother

[NFLDERS]

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sr=1&ct2=ca/0_0_s_5_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNF8HPVIDX4_nAjAdsSDCLao3hdw6w&cid=52779484252001&url=http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/06/born-out-wedlock-man-cant-inherit-from-grandma-because-will-is-from-1977-ontario-court&ei=Ul8OWYCaIZLO3QGi372ADQ&sig2=kjYnGzhQFALKBehNeuchjg&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=6085539963879617253&sid=toptop&ssid=h&st=1&at=dt0

I'm with the lawyer on this one; the social norms of then are not those of today.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Regardless of societal norms, the law at the time the will was written is the law that prevails. I'll give you another example--my FIL had a will, probably from the 1970's. It had 2 signatures on it. When he was diagnosed terminal (1989), his lawyer looked at the will, and said it needed to have 3 signatures to be valid, due to the law at the time it was written and signed. The law in his state had since changed to require two signatures, but that didn't make FIL's will valid. They had to draw up a new one.

In this case, the grandmother should have drawn up a new will if she wanted this man included. It's fairly simple and inexpensive.

 

[NFLDERS]

Regardless of societal norms, the law at the time the will was written is the law that prevails. I'll give you another example--my FIL had a will, probably from the 1970's. It had 2 signatures on it. When he was diagnosed terminal (1989), his lawyer looked at the will, and said it needed to have 3 signatures to be valid, due to the law at the time it was written and signed. The law in his state had since changed to require two signatures, but that didn't make FIL's will valid. They had to draw up a new one.

In this case, the grandmother should have drawn up a new will if she wanted this man included. It's fairly simple and inexpensive.

Her will read Descendants. Is a child out of wedlock still not a Descendant?

 

[NAB]

Funny my dad had this in his will...we were shocked when we read this. That was 20 years ago when he passed. It was also wrote in my mom's will , she died 3 years ago. The money went to the six of us so no problem there. Unless there is another sibling we don't know about which is unlikely since my mom was pregnant when she married my dad. So really this statement made no sense to us they almost had my brother out of wedlock she was 7 months pregnant.

We do have a lot of grandchildren in the family that are born out of wedlock and still are wonder what my dad would have thought about that ...my mom did pester the grandchildren to get married.

 

[low-key]

Your out of order, He is out of order, this Court Room is out of order

 

[QueenIsabella]

Her will read Descendants. Is a child out of wedlock still not a Descendant?

It doesn't matter--the law is the law. Or was, at the time the will was written. Which was my point--the will could have been redone at a future time. In general, wills should be reviewed every 10 years or so, because circumstances can change. A good estate attorney could have brought up this point--they don't just slap together a will, they spend some time asking questions, so they can accommodate your circumstances. For example, our wills are almost 20 years old (I know, I know). We only had two children at the time. The will is written so all our children inherit equally, since we hoped to have more kids (and, eventually, did). We still need to update them, because we had listed friends as guardians for our children if we were to die--the two kids we had then are no longer minors, we have 2 other children who are minors, but we'd likely have our oldest become their guardian at this point.

My point is, circumstances change over time. The grandmother could have worked around this, had she chosen to. She didn't. End of story. There are a lot of estate laws that could be construed as antiquated or unfair--they are what they are.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

That's a horrible law that needs to be changed like many other archaic laws. Where is common sense in cases like this? It wouldn't be the first case where a judge adapted a law that didn't fit the times. If the grandmother didn't update the will to specifically exclude this guy, she obviously thought he would be included. If it was important to her that he be excluded, she would have updated the will to make sure he would be.

 

[here757]

I always thought it was to prevent random folks from contesting the will..
Seen a lot on celebrities wills

 

[mummabear]

I think the ruling was legally correct, unfortunately Grandma didn't update her will.

However it surprises me that the grandchild is having to go through legal measures anyway and that the family hasn't just sorted it themselves.

 

[Grumpy's Gal]

Her will read Descendants. Is a child out of wedlock still not a Descendant?

What about adopted kids? Anyone know if they were " descendants"?

My parents have re written their wIll several times to make sure legally adopted grandchildren were included.

 

[Kaytie]

I think the ruling was legally correct, unfortunately Grandma didn't update her will.

However it surprises me that the grandchild is having to go through legal measures anyway and that the family hasn't just sorted it themselves.

It appears the plaintiff's father,George, had no other children.
George predeceased his mother, so ordinarily his descendant(s) would get a share of the inheritance.
George's brother Henry is still alive and seems less than willing to share the inheritance with his brother's son.
The mother's will was written a year before the law changed.

 

[mummabear]

George's brother Henry is still alive and seems less than willing to share the inheritance with his brother's son.

I am surprised and not at the same time, surely you would have to know you were being a greedy jerk doing this right, is there not other family saying hey Henry don't be such a insert did unfriendly word.?

 

[NFLDERS]

If his thread doesn't serve to be of any interest other than that people discuss, and update their Wills than I'm good.
I have one friend who does happen to have a grandchild born out of wedlock, and we are here in Ontario.

 

[SirDuff]

It appears the plaintiff's father,George, had no other children.
George predeceased his mother, so ordinarily his descendant(s) would get a share of the inheritance.
George's brother Henry is still alive and seems less than willing to share the inheritance with his brother's son.
The mother's will was written a year before the law changed.

Actually, that isn't correct.

Court documents show Koziarski, who died in February of last year at 94, had two sons with her husband. Their son Henry had two children, as did their son George, though one was born from a relationship that predated his marriage.

George had two children. So, Henry doesn't benefit from this ruling, Jesse's brother does.

 

[CarolAnn856]

I think the ruling, although resulting in an unfortunate situation for the young man, is correct. The laws that were in place at the time a will was written should be followed. It is the individual's job to update their will to make sure their wishes are carried out as intended.

Right now, many people seem to be looking at it only from the viewpoint of this scenario, which is that, since current thinking is more open, the previous law should be discarded in favor of the newer interpretation. But people don't always realize that it could go the other way. There could be a law in the future that limits a certain aspect of distribution of assets. Should a will from before that time have to follow a newer, stricter law that was not in place when the original was made?

 

[Green Tea]

I'm learning, right now, people's wishes and even notarized documents are not always recognized as legal in estates.

Get your documents done well, folks.

 

[tvguy]

I guess the lesson is, have your will and estate plan reviewed on a regular basis so that your wishes are conveyed in a manor that complies with current law.

My mom had her will and estate planning done in 1975, the year I turned 18.

First issue I ran into was using her long term care insurance. The company she bought it from said they needed me to have a Power of Attorney to pay her claims. I did have a Durable Power of Attorney for Medical, but not a POA. Estate planning attorney contacted them and told them a POA is not needed for long term care insurance. Their response was that this was not insurance, but an investment product. Fortunately, mom was mentally and physically able to sign a POA, otherwise, I was looking at the expense of going to court to get an order forcing them to make the payments without a POA.

After she passed, and I sold her house, which was in a trust, the Escrow officer balked at the trust. It was 3 paragraphs on 1 page, notorized, and recorded with the county. He said trusts are typically dozens of pages, if not more. He faxed it to his legal department. Fortunately one of the lawyers was an old timer, and recognized it was what the county used to have at the recorders office for people wanting to just put real estate in a trust. It was legal, and it was free. They stopped using the form when the Estate Planning attorneys put up a stink. They charge about $1,000 for putting together a trust, and felt the free form was costing them money!

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Her will read Descendants. Is a child out of wedlock still not a Descendant?

Will's are a person's wishes. They are followed loosely to begin with or not at all if the will does not match the deceased person's financial makeup.

IF someone wants something to go to someone, name the PEOPLE, update your will as your financial situation changes, the end.

 

[pryncess527]

I think the ruling, although resulting in an unfortunate situation for the young man, is correct. The laws that were in place at the time a will was written should be followed. It is the individual's job to update their will to make sure their wishes are carried out as intended.

Right now, many people seem to be looking at it only from the viewpoint of this scenario, which is that, since current thinking is more open, the previous law should be discarded in favor of the newer interpretation. But people don't always realize that it could go the other way. There could be a law in the future that limits a certain aspect of distribution of assets. Should a will from before that time have to follow a newer, stricter law that was not in place when the original was made?

Agreed.

Furthermore, since it was law when the will was written, one might assume that the person in question knew her out of wedlock decedents were excluded. When the law changed a year later, her failure to update the will could be seen as desire to leave things the way they were. Distasteful as I might consider it, some people do hold grudges against out of wedlock children, and when it comes to who they leave their money too, that's their right. I haven't seen any evidence that the old law was also in conflict with her wishes.