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.
The article seems to imply we are sure this was all by mistake. I don't share this view.
If the deceased created an account for Murray (ex-girlfriend), and later removed Murray as the second beneficiary from another asset (but kept other ex-girlfriend Sjostedt on the same), then this may be what he intended.
As a single guy, providing part of your assets to two former partners (one might say common law wives, given they cohabited longer-term) that shared in your life or parts of it is reasonable, especially given that there are other assets that went to the brothers, so his funeral was covered and his next of kin can still enjoy the life insurance etc.
Maybe there is a case to be made for 1. not filling in beneficiary forms and 2. leaving behind a will (with a notary public) to remove ambiguity, especially when arrangements are unusual.
I don't understand the viewpoint many people have on these matters. I know someone who has been lying to her elderly mother (now deceased) for years stating she won't contest the will, which names her sister as the owner of the house which is now in a well-to-do area.
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.
TLDR: A person named a girlfriend as a retirement plan beneficiary. They later broke up, he had another girlfriend, they eventually also broke up, and 10 years after the second breakup he died single and childless.
His brothers want money to go to estate (brothers), but the beneficiary form trumped estate (as it should).
It is not clear from reading the post what the account owner wanted. It is possible he just didn't care who gets the money after he died.
The advice makes sense though -- if you want specific beneficiaries, name them on your accounts.
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
This is the entire basis behind the movie "I Care A Lot;" apparently, becoming the LPoA for lonely/forgotten folks on the brink of death and collecting their insurance payouts/assets is big business.
Easy to say when not only is it not happening to you but you haven't spent years engaging with the legal process and waiting for the estate to try and make sure you can't have it. The possibility of winning a jackpot would grow on you, you'd start to imagine what it would be like to keep it and the brothers, being your adversaries, would look less deserving than they do to an outsider.
I think I'd give some back. No way you'd really give $1m back though unless you really didn't need it (possible here). I would say morally nobody is really entitled to inheritance and they clearly don't need the money, so you're doing them a favour by giving it back.
tossandthrow|1 year ago
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.
bnegreve|1 year ago
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.
jll29|1 year ago
If the deceased created an account for Murray (ex-girlfriend), and later removed Murray as the second beneficiary from another asset (but kept other ex-girlfriend Sjostedt on the same), then this may be what he intended.
As a single guy, providing part of your assets to two former partners (one might say common law wives, given they cohabited longer-term) that shared in your life or parts of it is reasonable, especially given that there are other assets that went to the brothers, so his funeral was covered and his next of kin can still enjoy the life insurance etc.
Maybe there is a case to be made for 1. not filling in beneficiary forms and 2. leaving behind a will (with a notary public) to remove ambiguity, especially when arrangements are unusual.
VagabundoP|1 year ago
averageRoyalty|1 year ago
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.
ptero|1 year ago
His brothers want money to go to estate (brothers), but the beneficiary form trumped estate (as it should).
It is not clear from reading the post what the account owner wanted. It is possible he just didn't care who gets the money after he died.
The advice makes sense though -- if you want specific beneficiaries, name them on your accounts.
rkachowski|1 year ago
nuz|1 year ago
austhrow743|1 year ago
prawn|1 year ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/1d8rfzr/aita...
nunez|1 year ago
andrewstuart|1 year ago
EnigmaFlare|1 year ago
IshKebab|1 year ago
rvba|1 year ago
An statement by rich software developer does not extend to a significant part of a population.
MissTake|1 year ago
Sounds like “disclaiming” must take place within 9 months of death.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/refuseinheritance.a...
k__|1 year ago
playingalong|1 year ago
To whom? The deceased person?
aoila|1 year ago
aaron695|1 year ago
[deleted]