# Last Will and Testament: restrictions - is this legal and binding?



## iampreis (Mar 23, 2015)

because of medical "discoveries", and my age, and because i have never done it, i must write up a Last Will and Testament. i have placed my my intentions into a text document, and began discussing them with a lawyer. he freaked because some of the things i say/want are complex and do not fall into his "cookie-cutter" reasoning.

these are things like:

(please understand that it is my intention to spend it all and NOT leave anything to anyone, but i do not know when i will die, so i can't go willy-nilly and leave myself with nothing and still alive, so i must plan for a longer life, and pace myself and that means there _will_ be something left to distribute when i do die)

a) i want to have a minimum - i would be embarrassed to leave "$12.34" to someone - i wouldn't want that - i want to have a minimum of $100, or redirect the money elsewhere.

b) i have used fixed amounts to define/prioritize - for example, i have 2 nieces and 2 nephews - they are NOT equal to me, i cannot say "15% to each of..." - i want to say (again, for example): "i want 25% of my residue to go to my nieces and nephews in the following manner: 
AAA gets $4000 plus an equal share of the remainder;
BBB gets $3000 plus an equal share of the remainder; 
CCC gets $3000 plus an equal share of the remainder;
DDD gets $1000 plus an equal share of the remainder

c) i have 3 Charity groups, each with 2 specific charities - again, if the amount in a charity group does NOT exceed $200 i do not want to split it equally so that each charity gets $86.22 - i want to specify that the primary charity of that group should get all $172.44

d) i treat couples as 1 - an amount goes to AAA and BBB. if i am predeceased by AAA *OR* BBB the amount does not change. if i am predeceased by *BOTH* AAA *AND* BBB then the amount does not change and is to be given to their children/dependents. if i am predeceased by *ALL OF* AAA *AND* BBB *AND* their dependents, the amount is to be re-directed to my Charity Category 1: Brain Tumor. 

e) i "cover" family, friends, and work friends (and 1 ex-girlfriend!). if i were to die tomorrow, i am not opposed to the amount designated to family members being large, however, the benefit to long-time friends requires a limit, as does work friends who i want to acknowledge, not supplement their income - i have different maximums.

... and i have more "rules". and they all define me, and how i want to distribute what i have when i die. my lawyer is trying to make me change - i don't want to. i have gone online and tried DIY wills, but they are no different and are just as inflexible.

all of this is background. i'm coming up to the question.

as i was coming up with my "rules", and i should say what i have done, only starts once the residue has been determined (all activity before, like taxes, outstanding debts, funeral expenses, etc will not change weither i leave 100% to 1 person, 10% to 10 people or 1% to a 100 people) - that final figure after all my debt and taxes have been paid, the residue, is my starting point.

i have written an EXCEL spreadsheet that takes EVERY single one of my "rules" or intentions into account. it incorporates my defined minimums and maximums. it includes my logic of fixed amounts and subsequent percentages. and for 3 seconds after entering *one figure*, the residue, at A1 (top-leftmost cell), and that includes the executor taking a sip of coffee, and it will specify:
- AAA gets 999; 
- BBB gets 888; 
- CCC gets 777; 
etc., etc., etc., for every single individual or institution.

this spreadsheet covers, and i am pleased with the disbursement results, if i were to die tomorrow, right through to if i were to live until that residue is reduced down to $100 !!! i do not have to change it for predeceased, that is already covered (the _only_ change required would be if a married family member divorces and i have been told that that can be just an amendment, not a re-write.)

now my question.

because we have such an archaic, inflexible and dumming down of the language that can be used by both my lawyer and online DIY kits, can i say in the official final will:

<all the usual stuff that ends with the residue amount>

I LEAVE TO AAA; BBB; CCC; DDD; EEE; etc. 
THE AMOUNT FROM THE RESIDUE AS DETERMINED 
BY THE ATTACHED SPREADSHEET.

<usual stuff afterwards>

... and will that remain a LEGAL and BINDING, subject to no disputes, LAST WILL of MY intentions ?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I am sorry to hear about your health 'discovery'

I am no expert, but will give you the advice our family lawyer has given us. Don't try and manage from the grave. 

I am guessing based on what I have read, that a will kit will not suffice for you. The things your are asking for are not cut and dry, I had problems following what you wanted. Also, you will have to think about who you are asking to be the executor of your estate. I am the executor of my parents estates and my siblings estates. I know exactly what their wills read, and one of the things they did, was to make it a simple as possbile for me. As, I am doing this as a favor, 

I would suggest a good estate lawyer. If your lawyer is suggesting that you don't do some of these things, you may want to consider why.

The advice our lawyer gave was to name as few people as possible on the will, especially charities. Charities have been known to contest will and some have people on payroll to do so. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I have been told what is to be given to charity and it will be throught the beneficiaries that will do it, not the estate. Yes, there is a risk that the beneficiaries do not want to give yo charity, but the parents have told them their desire, and we have the faith that they will do the right thing. 

My parents have indicated to me that they want specific items given to outside family member, we kids know that and will honour their wishes. They did not want to name these other people because they did not want the chance that someone else would threaten their kids and grandchildrens estates.

I think in your case, talk to a lawyer, and see if the spreadsheet can be legal.


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

I agree with Plugging Along. Not that your estate needs to be cookie cutter, but I think you're overthinking this a bit. A better lawyer should hopefully be able to help you come out with something more concrete out of this.

I can not imagine a spreadsheet being legal. What happens if you have an error in a formula? It would screw up your whole estate.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

I can't advise you on the spreadsheet legality question. 

You are completely entitled to do with your estate what you want - it is your money, so it should be your decision. But you should also keep in mind the risks that Plugging Along identifies - the more complex and the more beneficiairies, the more likely there is to be a dispute over interpretation. And once the dispute begins, the beneficiaries of your estate will not be nieces, nephews, friends and charities, but estate lawyers. Simplifying your will means more money for your intended beneficaries, and less money for the lawyers. 

I would hesitate to accept being an executor of such a complex will. I understand that the spreadsheet should take care of everything (be sure to lock the spreadsheet so no-one can tamper with formulas), but it still sounds like it is ripe for disputes. I definitely would not try this with a DIY will. Recipe for disaster. Your lawyer is most likely providing you the best advice he or she can, based on experience and education. Are you sure you want to ignore that advice?

An alternative to trying to create a permanent, all-possible-circumstances-considered will would be to do up a simpler, more "fixed" will now. Provide a detailed breakdown, and file a new new printout each year as an addendum. So you could take what you think you will be worth at the end of this year, divide it up in fixed amounts, and leave any residue to one or two favourite charities. Repeat this every six months to a year until you expire. That way, you will be able to control almost all of the funds, and revisit your decisions regularly. And go back to having lots of fun so the whole discussion becomes moot, and you leave $5.17 and some pocket lint to a worthy cause. 

If you PM me, I can provide personal details so you can add me to the list of beneficiaries. :eagerness:


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> ... The advice our lawyer gave was to name as few people as possible on the will, especially charities. Charities have been known to contest will and some have people on payroll to do so. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
> 
> I have been told what is to be given to charity and it will be throught the beneficiaries that will do it, not the estate. Yes, there is a risk that the beneficiaries do not want to give yo charity, but the parents have told them their desire, and we have the faith that they will do the right thing.


Hmmm ... won't this mean more taxes for the estate, which the charitable donation credit would have reduced?

Where one is willing to take the risk of a beneficiary not following through ... wouldn't it make more sense to trust one or two executors to follow through?
One is already in theory "trusting" the executors.

... just my two cents.


Cheers


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Hmmm ... won't this mean more taxes for the estate, which the charitable donation credit would have reduced?
> 
> Where one is willing to take the risk of a beneficiary not following through ... wouldn't it make more sense to trust one or two executors to follow through?
> One is already in theory "trusting" the executors.
> ...


I don't have the full details, as this is what worked best for our family under our specific circumstances.

In terms of the charity, my sibling weighed out the amount at stake of the charity decided to contest the will vs how much it meant to them to give to the charity. They would rather have the charity have nothing then a charity contest and take away the amounts intended for their kids. The tax savings is a credit not a deduction, so when the kids make the contribution to the charity it will be no difference between if the estate gets the credit or the kids (I think).

In terms of the risk of the kids not doing the right thing. It's pretty low. Our kids and siblings all have done well enough that we never need an inheritance, and actually would have always preferred that our parents spent the money on themselves. There is no gaurentee, but I am confident that my nieces and nephews would do the right thing. We have all been taught to honor our family over money.

Also, I don't believe an executor can just give money to a charity or anyone who is not listed on the will. The executor must execute the will as written. In this case, no charity or outsiders are listed. Only the circle of trust.  Their parents have told my niece and nephew the expectation and why they did that (to protect them). They would have to deal wi the wrath of their aunt and family, and that would not be worth any amount of money. 

I realize that not all families are like this, so it's best to get some legal counsel if the wishes are outside the normal or complex.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

For wills, simpler is better. A lawyer and can help you make it simpler.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> I don't have the full details, as this is what worked best for our family under our specific circumstances.
> 
> In terms of the charity, my sibling weighed out the amount at stake of the charity decided to contest the will vs how much it meant to them to give to the charity.


Fair enough ...



Plugging Along said:


> ... The tax savings is a credit not a deduction, so when the kids make the contribution to the charity it will be no difference between if the estate gets the credit or the kids (I think).


I thought of that after but didn't update the post. 

If it is my estate - I'd rather have more go to a charity versus the gov't.

I'm not sure if an estate ruled as complex so that the final tax return is spread over two years would be enough to make a difference (probably not where there is a lot in the estate).

In terms of the risk of the kids not doing the right thing. It's pretty low. Our kids and siblings all have done well enough that we never need an inheritance, and actually would have always preferred that our parents spent the money on themselves. There is no gaurentee, but I am confident that my nieces and nephews would do the right thing. We have all been taught to honor our family over money.




Plugging Along said:


> ... Also, I don't believe an executor can just give money to a charity or anyone who is not listed on the will. The executor must execute the will as written ...


If there's nothing giving the executor discretion ... then likely this is true. Though if it is clear that the charity is one that was given to while living - I'm not sure that contesting it would be an issue as the executor can argue that it was the charity or taxes so there's limited benefit for anyone to contest.

The way I was thinking was to grant to the executor discretion to keep the income tax paid lower, where one of the examples would be giving to charity. That way the action is written up and possibly a list of candidates but "charity x gets".




Plugging Along said:


> ... I realize that not all families are like this, so it's best to get some legal counsel if the wishes are outside the normal or complex.


+1.


Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

you have an executor, correct ?
i would outline the main beneficiaries in simple terms
and the leave the rest as written instructions (not in the will) for your executor to follow


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Davis said:


> ... I would hesitate to accept being an executor of such a complex will



professional executors & trustees can also renounce their mandate, i believe. In this case the OP mentioned intending to run the assets down to near zero during his lifetime, so that might ensure a renunciation by named executors.

a good lawyer can steer this project in the right direction, or at least attempt each:


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

""(please understand that it is my intention to spend it all and NOT leave anything to anyone, but i do not know when i will die, so i can't go willy-nilly and leave myself with nothing and still alive, so i must plan for a longer life, and pace myself and that means there will be something left to distribute when i do die)""

If the above statement is truly your wish, why not just annuitize everything (no guarantees or other riders) and then you are free to spend your monthly payment however you wish. Just make sure to spend it all every month. Should give you plenty while you are still here and no estate to worry about.

Your medical condition might even result in a larger annuity payout than normal...


----------



## iampreis (Mar 23, 2015)

first of all, i am amazed at the speedy responses - THANK YOU all very much!

second, i'd like to thank you all for your comments and suggestions - ALL are being taken into account.

I've thought about what to do, and a "do-everything spreadsheet that distributes my residue, from now until it dwindles to zero, always in proportions to my liking" is not the answer.

(side note: Calgary Potato, i was never worried about a bad formula creeping in, i didn't start with the spreadsheet, it was a worksheet (that looked a lot like an income tax form) that i manually calculated, got tired of doing over and over, moved the calculations to Excel, and (without exaggerating) executed possibly 200 scenarios double checking at least half) - but this is a none issue, the spreadsheet is gone.)

i am not done, but i have reduced the number of charities, as well as individuals, and gone with percentages that "feel good" NOW. 

and i'm determining the point at which they no longer "feel good" at which time i will revisit my Last Will and adjust accordingly. that time will be based on where i estimate the residue is at, not a specific time (i.e. NOT every 3 years). won't be a problem, i look at my finances often, so i'll add a quickie estimate of what i think the residue will be at and act, or not. off hand, i assume 2-3, possibly 4, changes before i die. (more if there is a marriage breakup - family member stays, ex is removed!)

again, thank you all for reminding me of that old adage: KISS ! - somehow i'd forgotten it.


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

Iampreis, if as you say, what you intend is to leave as little as possible, why care about a will at all?

"(please understand that it is my intention to spend it all and NOT leave anything to anyone, but i do not know when i will die, so i can't go willy-nilly and leave myself with nothing and still alive, so i must plan for a longer life, and pace myself and that means there will be something left to distribute when i do die)"

So which is it? You want to spend it all and don't care about leaving anything to anyone or you don't care but want to leave a good impression with them about how you cared to be fair to them all? I'm confused.

I'd say don't make a will at all in your case. That way, they can all fight over it etc. if anything is left to bother fighting over and blame each other for the outcome while still saying, 'iampreis' woudn't have wanted it that way. So you come out blameless.

I find it hilarious that someone would say I want to spend it all and leave as little as possible, then go on to try and plan the most ridiculous convoluted Will ever devised.


----------



## iampreis (Mar 23, 2015)

well, i don't know when i'm going to die, do you? seriously, why are you getting hung on this one point?


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

"Hung on this one point" is hilarious. That is the ONE point. 

Iampreis, read the response by gaspr, it is a perfect solution. Annuitize everything and you will indeed manage to spend your last monthly cheque in your last month and nothing will be left to worry about. No will required.

Gaspr, good point about the larger payments. I had a friend in the UK who had a life insurance policy that allowed him to collect before he died provided he produced the required documentation. ie. a letter from his attending physician saying he was terminal and giving a prognosis of 6 months (they would apparently accept up to a year prognosis). 

So he got the money and went on a hedonistic binge. LOL Left a heck of a lot less to be fought over by relatives that he never saw from one year to the next but who all showed up for the funeral and looking to see what was in it for them.


----------



## gaspr (Mar 24, 2014)

@ OldPro. While I agree with all you say here, I have trouble with your deeming anything as "hilarious". I'm hoping that the OP will come to see the simple solution for what it is, after some time and thought.

Cheers


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

While I enjoy most of OldPro's posts, I find his judgementalism and tone here not to be constructive. Annuitization is a great solution - I wish I had thought of that. A Charitable Remainder Trust is a variation on that. Any large charity would be happy to set you up with one that would give you guaranteed income for life, a charitable donation tax receipt, and the knowledge that anything left over would support the charity. 

I don't know what to do about the family though. Maybe give them each year whatever you don't use of the annuity/CRT payment to help them now rather than only after you depart for the big discussion forum in the sky.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

iampreis said:


> well, i don't know when i'm going to die, do you? seriously, why are you getting hung on this one point?


Though I don't find your landing 'hilarious' , I think what Oldroe was trying to get at is if your goal is to leave people with nothing, you are doing an awful lot of planning. I don't agree with his advice of letting people just fight it out, I think a will shows that you cared enough about them to not let them fight it out. However, as I had said be before I do think that you are making things complicated which could just leave people to 'fight it out' which goes against the purpose of a will.

Could I ask for your reasoning of wanting to include so many people and charities in the first place, and also all the constraints and rules you were thinking of? If yu share this, there may be a better solution that doesn't involve a lawyer to draft up a will. 

In my family, it is to protect our loved ones, especially the minors. I would like them to be charitable, but will not risk their estate on doing so.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> Though I don't find your landing 'hilarious' , I think what Oldroe was trying to get at is if your goal is to leave people with nothing, you are doing an awful lot of planning...


What makes it interesting for me is the goal is to leave nothing but the planning/will/spreadsheet is all about the opposite situation, where there is money left. It strikes me as similar to "I want a fuel efficient small car but am gathering info on SUVs and trucks".


I'm not saying it's good or bad or anything in between ... just that it's an interesting focus.


Cheers


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

I see where he's coming from. He would like to spend everything if he lives long enough, but if he dies early, he'd rather the people he loves gets it, than have it go away.

Isn't an annuity the opposite of that. He'll get limited money every month and if he dies tomorrow no one gets anything. Worst of both worlds.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> What makes it interesting for me is the goal is to leave nothing but the planning/will/spreadsheet is all about the opposite situation, where there is money left. It strikes me as similar to "I want a fuel efficient small car but am gathering info on SUVs and trucks".
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's good or bad or anything in between ... just that it's an interesting focus.
> ...


I agree that the requirements seem to conflict. It would be more conflicting if OP said, I want to spend all my money, AND leave as much of it as possbile to people. This was not said, he said, I want to spend all of it, but if I can't then I would like to give it away in the way I see fit. 

I think calling it hilarious could be construed as mocking. His approach may be over complicated but that's why he is posted here to look for some other ideas, not to be mocked. 

Just as a side note, when we locked for our SUV and our truck, we did look at what had the best fuel economy out of the features that we wanted. We already knew were were getting and SUV and truck, but figured that we wanted better fuel economy (relatively speaking). Why didn't I get a smart car, or a hybrid, because it didn't meet my other criteria which was higher on the list than fuel economy. 

It would be more conflicting,


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Plugging Along said:


> I agree that the requirements seem to conflict. It would be more conflicting if OP said, I want to spend all my money, AND leave as much of it as possbile to people. This was not said, he said, I want to spend all of it, but if I can't then I would like to give it away in the way I see fit.
> 
> I think calling it hilarious could be construed as mocking. *His approach may be over complicated but that's why he is posted here to look for some other ideas, not to be mocked. *


...+1 ... glad he was brave enough to post the question(s). The responses gave food for thought.


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

It seems that my choice of the word hilarious was mis-interpreted by some. Communication is a very interesting subject. You can think you are communicating one message but the only thing that really matters is what message the other person 'hears'. 

The OP makes a statement that is very clear. "it is my intention to spend it all and NOT leave anything to anyone" and then goes on to detail all kinds of bequests and a complicated formula for calculating them. The one is contradictory to the other. When that is pointed out, the response is 'why are you getting hung up on the one point'. As far as I can see, that contradiction is the ONLY point. To then ask me why I am 'hung up on it' is what in anyone's opinion? If not hilarious, what would you call it? Using the word 'interesting' certainly does not fit.

'You are contradicting yourself' says s/he. 'Why are you hung up on that' s/he replies. 'That's an interesting response' says s/he. Nope, 'interesting' doesn't fit. That sounds like a comedy sketch to me. 

Let's start over by defining the problem for which a solution is desired.

I want to spend all my money and leave nothing behind but I don't know when I will die. So far, so good?

Ideas:
A. I will come up with a complictated Will. 
B. I will look for a way to spend it all before I die.

Is A an answer to the problem at all?  It cetainly doesn't look like it to me. The solution seems to be in idea B. So far gaspr has given the best answer to the problem as stated. If he had said, or you interpreted him as trying to say, what Plugging Along suggests(but was NOT said by the OP), "he said, I want to spend all of it, but if I can't then I would like to give it away in the way I see fit.", then responses would differ obviously.

But that was not said, what was said was quite clear. 'I want to spend it all and leave nothing.' Either that is the goal or it is not. Either the OP communicated the goal or he did not. Which is it?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I think it was the choice of the word "hilarious". I think muddled thinking might be more appropriate.

I would say that the OP meant to say:
"I am not trying to leave any legacy but in case I do I want to be fair.
Help with how to make it fair!"

BTW I wonder why people think so much of what the survivors will think of them? Having lived through many wills, I believe the survivors will think what they are going to think regardless of what you do! So you might as well make your life easy. We are leaving half to charity and the other half divided equally to the heirs or their survivors. What could be simpler? If it is too complex, everyone will be suspicious. If they end up with a dollar, that would be a good outcome!


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

That may be what the OP intended to say but did not kcowan. I don't know and I don't assume things.

But let's go with it and say you have figured out what he wanted to say but didn't. In that case my answer would be why are you spending time and effort on what you DON'T want to happen? ie leaving any money behind. Why aren't you spending your time and effort on an answer to what you DO want to happen. ie. spending it all before you die.

To me, either the OP actually stated what the problem was, 'to spend it all' or if I go with your interpretation of asking for help in how to make it fair, doesn't actually see he is looking at the wrong question.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Davis said:


> ...
> 
> I would hesitate to accept being an executor of such a complex will. ...


I wouldn't hesitate - I'd outright refuse. And I'm not surprised the lawyer freaked. (But it sounds like he did a poor job of explaining to OP why such a will is problematic - or else OP didn't want to hear the explanation.) 

And don't forget the estate has to pay all the debts, taxes, funeral costs, probate & legal costs, and other legal obligations before calculating distributions to the heirs.

Under Ontario law, the executor customarily has to notify each beneficiary of their entitlement under the will. How the heck would you write the letters in this case?


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Dear Family Member/Friend of _______: I am sorry for your loss. I am writing to inform you that you may have inherited a small but undetermined share of ________'s estate. Unless it is too small. Then you won't get anything.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

OldPro said:


> To me, either the OP actually stated what the problem was, 'to spend it all' or if I go with your interpretation of asking for help in how to make it fair, doesn't actually see he is looking at the wrong question.


I agree. I think he just does not know when he will die. If he dies earlier than he plans, then he thinks he will have a problem with his estate. I also believe in Occam's Razor. It should be as simple as possible (but no simpler).


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Davis said:


> Dear Family Member/Friend of _______: I am sorry for your loss. I am writing to inform you that you may have inherited a small but undetermined share of ________'s estate. Unless it is too small. Then you won't get anything.


LOL! Short and sweet. Let's not forget that the executor can claim up to 5% of the net proceeds of the estate too.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> I wouldn't hesitate - I'd outright refuse. And I'm not surprised the lawyer freaked. And don't forget the estate has to pay all the debts, taxes, funeral costs, probate & legal costs, and other legal obligations before calculating distributions to the heirs



private executors would likely decline, but i believe professional executors have the right to decline as well? there would be no reason to spend professional time looking after so many details, only to wind up with a non-residue.

not just for this OP but i am thinking to be careful myself about lopsided bequests. Using the OP's example, favourite niece/nephew was to receive something like $4k or $3k, while least-liked niece/nephew was to receive $1k.

it's possible L-L N/N will renounce to the bequest, might not even attend the funeral either. Surely it's better to omit least-liked heirs entirely? they won't be invited to the will reading, they won't be given copies of the will, surely that's better than a niggling little legacy that says ineverreallylikedyousothat'swhyyou'renumber4


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> LOL! Short and sweet. Let's not forget that the executor can claim up to 5% of the net proceeds of the estate too.


Lets see ... two or more years of work with lots of meetings, dealing with financial institutions that insisted they had to send a cheque to a closed bank account, insurance companies wanting extra documentation before cutting a cheque, sorting through forty or fifty years of paper to keep what was needed and stopping the relatives who were not in the will from loading up all the home contents to their rental truck as they "deserved it". 

I'm pretty sure it was more like five years before all the tasks stopped but it's easily two years (two tax returns were filed).


I'm not so sure the executor is getting that much out of the deal but YMMV.


Cheers

*PS*

Oh yes ... my aunt didn't care as she was executor for an old friend ... in her case, her friend plus the lawyer missed that the her friend's attempt to ensure that as executor she received a necklace she had admired. The problem was the wording mean that the necklace was all she was allowed as an executor's fee. It ended up with three years worth of work for a $200 necklace.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

My brother started giving things away about 16 months before he died of cancer , he still had a will when he died but there was only one beneficiary who then had the job to pay any income tax ,funeral and other expenses. The more you settle before you die easier it will be in the end.I wanted to specify in my own will which jewelry went to my kids and my lawyer asked that we sort that out personally .


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> I wanted to specify in my own will which jewelry went to my kids and my lawyer asked that we sort that out personally .


Ya, I have the same problem with my guitars. I really want to take them with me, but not sure if I'll be able to play them
where I'm going...:biggrin:
Then there is the selection of songs that will depend on....

This is Hell (Elvis Costello)

or

Heaven, (Bryan Adams)


----------

