Results 11 to 14 of 14
06-17-2008, 09:52 AM
If she had prepared her will 'properly' (just a little online homework, or consulted with a lawyer), she would have specifically named each grandchild and why she did not want to leave them anything - and that will would have been "air tight"/not able to be challenged by the grandchildren.
Here is a very interesting resource for all of us pet folk who are a bit "long in the tooth":
"Perpetual care" » PerPETual care : who will look after your pets if you're not around? / by Lisa Rogak.
Author: Rogak, Lisa, 1962-
Edition: 1st ed.
Length: xvii, 169 p. :
Available at the River Falls, WI, Public Library through InterLibrary Loan or through Amazon."If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." author Will Rogers
06-17-2008, 12:17 PM
It's tough finding a lawyer knowledgable enough to properly draw the will so the intent isn't overturned. There are too many maverick judges out there.
It is a good idea to cover in a will who will take care of pets. Every parent, in my opinion, should put in writing who should be appointed guardians for their children in case of catastrophe. It should also be done for beloved pets.
Care would need to be taken in the "guardianship" of pets if a sizable amount is involved. It would be way too easy for someone taking care of the pets to euthanize them so the remaining funds could be then assumed. Probably the same person shouldn't be both guardian and recipient of the funds, unless other provisions are stipulated as a safeguard.
noonwitchGuest06-17-2008, 02:25 PM
She should have left each of the grandchildren $1-that way it is specific.
My dad had it written in his will that anyone who challenges it after his death will receive exactly $1. It's more difficult to challenge if there is a recognized dollar amount to the person who you want to effectively disinherit.
- Join Date
- May 2008
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|