Is it possible for an extremely wealthy person to formulate a complex estate plan, leaving instructions to take place spanning over a decade after his death? For instance, the will is read, no one is allowed to fight about who gets what, or no one gets anything. Then, ten years after his death a new part of the will is to be disclosed to the family that to get their "real" inheritances they must meet certain parameters. And, the family wouldn't have even known that there was a second part or more money in existence.

Is this possible? If so, how would a lawyer explain to the family that the original will was only part of his wishes?

4 ...

Report Post

Posted by Poodlebrain

Way Right of Rex

Member since Jan 2004

19860 posts

Posted on 11/21/12 at 3:40 am to lsu480

Most very wealthy people are very concerned with controlling how their assets are disposed of and utilized even after they are dead. You can create trusts that accumulate income for a period of time until some specific conditions are met at which time the trust begins making distributions to one or more beneficiaries. I don't know whether you can hide the conditions required for distributions to begin from the potential beneficiaries.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by rmc

Truth or Consequences

Member since Sep 2004

26557 posts

Posted on 11/21/12 at 7:23 am to lsu480

quote:
For instance, the will is read, no one is allowed to fight about who gets what, or no one gets anything.

I'm not sure that wills are 'read' like most TV shows depict. In Louisiana there is no requirement, as I suspect there isn't in most states.

The second matter -- not fighting or no one gets anything -- would be called an in terrorem clause. It's meant to put fear into someone who may inherit under the will to keep them from challenging the will. Again, I can only comment on Louisiana and speculate about other state law. In Louisiana, our case law is just now being developed. The particular clause you mention -- if anyone fights, no one gets anything -- has been held to be invalid here in Louisiana. Just because X challenges it, doesn't mean Y and Z should be left out in the cold. I understand case law here to say that you could say if X challenges it, X is out and his portion goes to Y. In other states, the case law or even codified law may be much better developed and clear. In Louisiana, it just isn't.

This post was edited on 11/21/12 at 7:25 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bayou Tiger

Member since Nov 2003

3659 posts

Posted on 11/21/12 at 1:07 pm to lsu480

My will has a clause where any beneficiary challenging the will gets nothing.

In the event of my early death (and my wife's) separate trusts will be set up for each kid. The stipulations are simple, with certain money being allowed for each kid. On third of the remainder is disbursed at 27 and the remainder at 30.

Now, the stipulations and guidance to a trustee would be interesting. I don't know how much of this must be stipulated in the will versus outside (assuming it would be legally binding). Could the will state that further instructions to the trustee would remained sealed until 10 years afterwards? I don't know.

It is a moot point in my will, which stipulates a corporate trustee of a certain asset base or greater must be used - individuals are merely named as successive trust protectors.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Broke