https://www.washingtonpost.com/advice/2023/08/16/ask-amy-tik-tok-arguments-date/

Dear Amy: "After the pandemic, I made a decision about who would benefit from my trust. For many years, there have been family members who have reached out, remembered me in their events, and acknowledged cards and gifts. There are others who have not.

"For years, everyone in the family was going to benefit equally in the proceeds from my estate. That has changed.

"The pandemic has put behavior into perspective, and now those who have remained silent when, for example, a gift has been given, will not be given a gift from my estate. No one will know of this decision while I am alive.

"My question for you is whether I should put an explanation into the trust, so everyone will understand why some people have received life-changing amounts of money, while some have received nothing.

"I actually like all of my family members, but their behavior has made a difference in terms of how generous I want to be toward them.

"— Should I Explain?"

Amy says: "I do love the idea of a 'Knives Out' reading of the will, and picture all of your family members circled around a large wooden desk, leaning forward with anticipation as your lawyer reads it aloud.

"I don’t suggest inserting this specific language regarding family members into your will, but discussing with your lawyer the idea of attaching a letter of explanation as a codicil. This gives you the opportunity to write the letter, then make a decision later about the specific language, or whether you want to attach it at all.

"In my opinion, you should keep the language positive, noting that you’ve decided to reward those family members whose relationships and behavior most rewarded you during life. Do not deride specific family members."

Comments:

"LW2, I'd never dream of doing what you're contemplating: not the money part; do whatever you want with that. The lesson from the grave part is gross and won't do them or anyone else any good. It will also cement their negative memories of you."
________________________________________

"The LW's attorney probably told them they should specifically write the relatives they don't wish to remember out so the will can't be contested. They might feel the need to explain.

"I have a similar problem, as in a healthy, educated nephew who is a nice guy but has never had a job because he doesn't like work. Who wants someone like that spending their savings?"
__________________________________________

"This is what I was thinking - that putting in writing a reasonable explanation for leaving people out will cut out their ability to contest the will or make the claim even to the beneficiaries that they were accidentally forgotten and should get something."
___________________________________________

"It's almost impossible to contest a will successfully unless you can prove improper influence (as in cases where the person is incompetent) or forgery or some similar legal issue. Just saying 'Mary promised she would leave me $10,000' isn't enough, and 'I always assumed . . . ' is even worse.

"The only reason to write this letter is LW2's spite towards the people she's decided not to favor in her will."
__________________________________________

"Often the advice is to explicitly disinherit the individuals who could make a claim or provide them nominal amounts but not to provide too many details in explanation that could be ammunition in some kind of will challenge. ('Since I have provided all the gifts I intended to provide for X during my life, I do not leave them any further consideration in the will.') Then go on and parcel out the estate with positive reasons for the recipient. Whether or not there will be a guilt tripping of heirs later, the explicit desire to leave nothing for some are clear without going into details that will feed resentment."
________________________________________________

"It’s the LW’s money. They state they don’t dislike the members they won’t leave a portion of their estate to, rather they prefer others to receive some share of their estate instead. I don’t think they are vindictive or want to be hurtful. They are simply using their experiences with different people to make decisions about their estate.

"I have some bequests in my will for people who are not related to me. While I have a number of people in my life who I have good relationships with, the bequests are for a handful who are special to me. One such recipient is my long time gardener who will be very surprised. I am not bludgeoning others by not including them."

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/advice/2023/08/16/ask-amy-tik-tok-arguments-date/

>. . .

I was just reading this in the Trib. It's nice that a few people
acknowledged his kindness over the years. Maybe give them gifts while
still alive rather than from the estate?

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>https://www.washingtonpost.com/advice/2023/08/16/ask-amy-tik-tok-arguments-date/
>
>>. . .
>
> I was just reading this in the Trib. It's nice that a few people
> acknowledged his kindness over the years. Maybe give them gifts while
> still alive rather than from the estate?

....leaving no one who the testator thinks worthy of inheriting?

Best to keep what you might need until you are beyond needing it.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>https://www.washingtonpost.com/advice/2023/08/16/ask-amy-tik-tok-arguments-date/

>>>. . .

>>I was just reading this in the Trib. It's nice that a few people
>>acknowledged his kindness over the years. Maybe give them gifts while
>>still alive rather than from the estate?

>...leaving no one who the testator thinks worthy of inheriting?

>Best to keep what you might need until you are beyond needing it.

Cash and stock, sure. Personal property can be given away during one's
lifetime.