Can somebody dictate your ownership in their Will/ Testament?

[UTUSN]

Let's say your relative leaves you some family heirloom type property. Can they attach a condition to it in their Will regarding whom YOU can leave it to?

If so, then it seems like it's not really yours outright, so what's the point?


My thought would be to tell them ahead of time, don't even bother, just skip me.

[Sanity Claws]

1. Life estate

It sounds like the deceased gave you a life estate in property and that after your death, the property goes to someone else whom the deceased has designated.
It's not uncommon with real estate. I don't know how common it is with non-realty.

[UTUSN]

2. Yeah, I'd heard of that, like, with a house, living in it until death, but

I didn't know this applies to, like, furniture, personal items?

[trof]

4. Courts tend to honor conditions set forth in wills.

Unless a provision violates the law, judges generally try and go along with whatever the deceased wishes were.

However, heirs don't necessarily have to obey the conditions, as long as no one contests in court what they do with the property.

Do you find yourself in this situation?

[Denninmi]

6. Yes, therein lies the rub.

The testator/testatrix (will) or grantor (trust) can specify what are known as "conditions precedent" and "conditions subsequent" in a document, which set up pre- or post-conditions that must be met in order for a devise to occur or to be retained, BUT enforcement is the issue.

Does the other party involved even know of the condition? If so, do they care? How far would they be willing to go to fight over the object in question? How much expense would it be worth to them?

How exactly was the provision written? Does it specify that the primary devisee/beneficiary can't dispose of the object in ANY manner, or just that, upon death, the object goes to a secondary devisee/beneficiary? For example, "I hereby leave my purple widget to my daughter, Mary, subject to the condition that, upon Mary's death, this devise shall lapse and the purple widget shall then become the property of my daughter Jane" does not in any ways state that Mary isn't free to sell, donate, or trash the thing, just that, when she dies, it goes to Jane instead of to Mary's estate/heirs. That sort of thing is actually sloppy legal drafting, because it is vague, but really common, and sometimes I tend to believe intentional from the standpoint that it DOES leave people an "out" -- just get rid of the thing in question, and no one can do diddly squat about it.

In theory what the OP asks about can happen, but in practice it's hard to make it stick. Not that people haven't argued beyond all reason about things -- when I took estate planning in my paralegal program, the attorney who taught the course said he had some wealthy clients who had spent over $50,000 in legal fees and court costs litigating a will in which a lot of the dispute involved arguing over a $5000 table that was essentially a stand-in for the emotional issues between the client wife and her sister. But that is an extreme example -- in real life, mostly these disputes just come down to harsh words, idle threats, and damaged relationships, nothing ever really happens.

[UTUSN]

7. Yip, it's in the universe of the "purple widget" and "$5000 table".

But to complicate it a bit:

"A" left the widget (from her own parents) to children "B" and "C" and "D" together, but chief caregiver "C" always had physical possession and "B" is now deceased.

The only future heirs are the children of "B" who have little emotional investment, but "C" tends to favor them. "D" still has more emotional (and legal?) attachment. Since "D" technically has part ownership, can "C" dictate that "D" Will the widget to HER favored ones?

[Denninmi]

9. You know, I honestly don't know the answer to this.

The current ownership is one of "constructive possession" -- despite "D" not having physical possession of the widget, "D" still has a stake in it.

What I don't know about is how an undivided interest in tangible personal property passes upon death, or if it even can.

[trof]

13. You obviously know a lot more about the law than I do, but yeah...

Undivided interest is usually in real estate.
I can't imagine how it would work with a family heirloom.

Miz t. has an undivided 1/32nd interest some land parcels in southern Louisiana.
It's a goddam mess.
All because her Cajun ancestors were too dumb/hard-headed/penny-pinching/whatever to ever make wills.
NONE of them, from her great grandfather right on down.

Bless her heart, Miz t.'s mom did have a will, but the spread of undivided interest heirs was already out of control.

We have only one heir, so our 'estate' pass along is pretty simple.

[Chan790]

5. It can.

My mother's family has a very-old well-seasoned cast-iron frying pan (I dunno. I love my cast-iron but I don't want a 100-something year old skillet that has never been cleaned in my lifetime) that is the cause of much argumentation that has been dealt with in this way.

Is it normal? No, but it happens.

[HopeHoops]

3. Yes. It's common with real estate.

For example, in the midst of the cancer that is called "Columbia, MD", there is a vast open field that can't be developed. The person who owned it had a clause in his/her will that stated it could not be developed for any purpose for 99 years (maximum allowed). That's going to be one REALLY valuable tract of land by then. Hopefully the heirs will pass on the tradition and keep it an island of sanity for all of time.

[treestar]

8. Tradtionally they can

Though check state statutes for modifications

There was the life estate and the di-vestable estates, like the fee on condition subsequent and the fee simple determinable. Things could be restricted so long as they did to violate certain rules, like the rule against perpetuities (designed so that a will could only function for a couple of generations - we would not still want to be probating George Washington's will for example).

[hunter]

10. I wouldn't accept anything with strings attached.

I'd pass it on to the next person in line like a hot potato.

If it was something very valuable, I might hope that person would kick something back in fond appreciation and without any strings attached, but if they didn't, then that's a very clear indication I'd have been screwed in the long run by the cursed object anyways.

Who needs that crap?

It's like lending money to friends or family: Consider the money gone forever, then, if it comes back to you it's a wonderful gift that you can pass on to others.

[UTUSN]

12. Yip, "strings attached" = "just skip me"

I would just say so before the intentions get written and let my feelings/thoughts be known.

[BiggJawn]

11. My girlfriend left her house to a charity

With the stipulation that I be allowed to live there as long as I want or am able. I don't live there now.

[Turbineguy]

14. If I were a Lawyer

and my child was looking to take over my practice in the fullness of time, I would insist on including such provisions in all the wills I wrote.

[trof]

15. Here's a 'no good deed goes unpunished' tale re inheritances:

My grandmother had gone to live with her son (my uncle) following grandpa's death.
He and his family of 4 were renting a house.
He was an attorney in a small Kentucky town.

The house really wasn't suitable for another occupant, so granny bought them all a larger house.
Grandpa left her pretty well fixed.

When granny died she left her estate equally divided between me and my uncle.
My mother, her only other child, had died at age 50.
I guess granny thought I deserved her daughter's share of the estate.
Of course this included the house.

My uncle offered to sell it.
At the time I couldn't imagine that an attorney had been living in a rented house and only had a home because of his mother's needs and ability to pay..

My family and I were in our second home at the time.
The first was pretty much a 'honeymoon cottage', but now we had a 3 BR/2 Bth home.
Sure, there was a mortgage, but we were building equity back in the late 70s.

Anyway, I felt sorry for him.
I told him this was his family's home and I wanted him to keep it.
I signed a quitclaim deed.
I felt good about that.

Many years later he died.
I wondered about his will and if he'd remembered the huge favor I'd done for him.
No.
The bastard left an unsigned will.
I never saw it, but it doesn't matter.
An unsigned will means nothing.
Thanks, uncle.


His two children split the proceeds from the sale of the house, north of $70,000.
I never told them about this and never will.
But it still pisses me off and changed forever the way I remember him.