Can bones be willed to a family member after death? Suppose I wish to leave some or all of my bones to a loved one after my demise (properly cleaned and bleached), or have a loved one leave me bones, is that something I am able to legally do (assuming I or my loved ones are interested in receiving them)? For instance, my grandma has the ashes of her father (which I assume are human remains) in an urn above her fireplace. Would you be able to take that one step further and instead have a bone given for display purposes as sort of a family heirloom (think a skull mounted on a plaque with your name and birth-death dates, or your finger bone with a wedding ring around it)? At that point, can it be easily handed down from generation to generation (my grandma is passing the ashes down to her oldest son), or would it be difficult to transfer ownership of the bones after you receive it?
It would be more common to leave a separate direction regarding the disposition of your body in a document other than your will, entrusted with your next of kin. This is because a dead person's body is usually disposed of in less than a week following death, but a determination that a will is valid and effective often has a minimum five day waiting period from death and can take months. Often, this direction regarding your own remains would not be phased in terms of a sale or gift. Instead, it would usually be a "direction" about their disposition. Someone else's remains would be property governed by a will. But, we don't normally think of body parts of a recently deceased person as becoming property, rather than a person, until they are processed in a way that makes them not a biohazard. This would not be the case, obviously, immediately upon your death when the direction regarding your remains is intended to take effect. Also, while selling already processed bones can be permissible, selling organs for transplantation is generally not permissible, although there can be reimbursement for any medical costs or similar out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with that process, again reflecting the distinction between an unprocessed dead body which is often not considered property, and a processed dead body part which often is considered property.
Transfer of title must eventually occur, otherwise the property was never willed to another because the willing of the property is perpetually incomplete. One can place conditions on the transfer of title, but those conditions cannot last forever. They can last quite long, but there is a rule against perpetuities, especially created due to clauses constraining the transfer of of title in wills. This rule applies to a person who is transferring title, with a conditional clause that bars the full use of the property. If such a clause is limited, then it does not exist in perpetuity. The rule specifically addressed the will's call to reassign title if the transfer's clauses were violated. The maximum limitation historically was the lifetime of some person alive when the will was executed, plus 21 years, to permit an unborn grandchild to inherit. The reason this rule came about was due to the will of Henry Frederick Howard, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey. It effectively left the dead Earl managing his estates after his death, shifting properties that were bequeathed, based on the possibility of a &quot;more suitable&quot; heir being born after the Earl's death. This will eventually created the most complicated bit of common law that exists to date. In my totally amatuer attempt to summarize it; it is a combination of at least two ideas: a &quot;dead hand&quot; (deceased person) cannot guide the activities of the living forever transfer of property (title) must eventually be fully transferred Exceptions to the rule exist for conditional transfer of title back to the person who originally owned the property, but these exceptions cannot apply when the transfer is to a third party. This clause in Evan's will, &quot;If the state violates this clause, the property is to return to the heirs of the estate of Evan Carroll.&quot; would only be enforceable for a limited amount of time. First, the Estate of a dead Evan Carroll is not a lasting entity, eventually his estate would be closed. Finally, the transfer to the &quot;heirs&quot; of Evan Carroll would be a transfer to a third party, subject to the rule. Some states interpret their protections against the rule in different ways; but, nearly all states that have revoked the rule have done so by making a new rule (often with easier to manage time limits). A handful claim to have revoked the rule; but, they use other legal approaches to prevent this problem from occurring. Texas has extended the rule to 300 years while New South Wales, puts the limit at 80 years. Texas's extension seemed to be primarily to permit trust funds to operate legally long after the person establishing it had died. Consider what happens if such a rule doesn't exist. The title of the property could never be fully transferred, because the clause could never be proven to not have been violated. This would dramatically devalue the property, and clog the courts with suits claiming property held by one family for 100 years isn't theirs because of some evidence just uncovered about what happened 60 years ago. It also would massively complicate the selling of the property, because a clean title could never be proven. Note that this rule would have no bearing on a covenants not tied to the property's transfer of title. This rule even made it into a recent Disney case, which is explained far better than I can by the Legal Eagle, Devin James Stone
I think it is not possible to answer the question as is, but this document from the Indian courts lays out the relevant legal variables. A major split is between Sharers and Residuaries: a Sharers are all related by blood. A secondary split relates to testate vs. intestate succession (was there a will?). There are also special rules for West Bengal, Chennai and Bombay. A widow is generally entitled to a share of her husband's property, but if the husband dies before his father, the husband does not have his father's property. But then, if a Muslim marries under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, they are not treated legally as Muslim for purposes of inheritance. All told, it is most likely that the widow has no legal claim on the property, but still a person should engage an attorney who can assess the particulars of the case.
Assuming that the age of criminal responsibility in your jurisdiction is more than five (I don't know any jurisdictions where it isn't), then you can't be arrested for this. It is possible that the therapist will have to report the information, and it will appear on your record if you apply to work with vulnerable people. On the other hand, if your parents put you up for adoption aged five (but kept a sister), they will have had to explain why - and that is likely to have been recorded (unless this is so long ago that record keeping was much more lax in those days). I would recommend finding a different therapist that is more comfortable being told about these things. You might also need to consult a lawyer for a short while (they will often offer a 30 minute free consultation).
My interpretation would be: As related to the parents... Immediate family (e.g., brothers, sisters, etc.) First and second cousins, aunts and uncles Any direct ancestors (i.e., parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents, etc.) Any direct decendants (i.e., children, grandchildren, etc.) Any extended family members who have a close emotional relationship or frequent day-to-day interactions. Unfortunately, the vagueness of the requirement leaves the interpretation subjective — as you have noted. The interpretation of this requirement might be the reasonable person standard — i.e., what a reasonable person would consider related to to mean. However, IMHO, any future challenge would have a higher likelihood of success if any of the above family members were used as witnesses. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. So don't follow my advice. Hire a real attorney if you need one.
Living Wills A "living will" which is a "pull the plug" document that isn't customized to an individual's preferences (probably 95%+ done by lawyers are not customized anyway) through a service like LegalZoom is probably fine, although doing it yourself you don't get the same guidance about how to use it in practice and are more likely to screw up the formal execution of the document (e.g. not having the proper witnesses and notary observe the execution, or signing in the wrong place, etc.). But this document is usually prepared by a lawyer at little or no extra cost when you have your last will and testament done, so the cost of not screwing up the execution of it isn't great. And, lawyer drafted documents are less likely to be contested in practice, even when a non-lawyer on paper does everything right. Someone who does their own living will also often doesn't realize the important of also having medical powers of attorney and durable powers of attorney for property which are also necessary. Simple Wills A "simple will" is quite another matter. First, I've never met a layperson who doesn't think that they need no more than a "simple will" when in fact they often do, either because they are affluent, or have a blended family, or need testamentary trusts to manage property for children or young adults or black sheep or for tax purposes or because some family members are non-citizens. In general, a lot of the value of having a lawyer do the work comes from the lawyer's ability to spot issues that are exceptional and take you out of the "simple will" solution by itself. Often an issue spotted can result in larger monetary savings or a much smoother probate process. For example, a lawyer can identify cases where a probate proceeding in more than one state is likely to be required and suggest steps to avoid that expensive result. Second, many non-lawyers have a very hard time thinking about all possibilities. They do fine thinking about what rules make sense if everybody alive today is still alive when you die and you own what you own now when you die, but have a very hard time thinking about what would be appropriate if people predecease them or if their assets change substantially. Lawyers are much better at working through what is sensible in all of these possibilities, many of which won't happen, but some of which will happen. This matters because a will never expires unless it is expressly revoked. I've probated wills drafted during WWII in basic training (as required) before the decedent went off to war and never amended over the next 60 years, and it is very hard to be that thoughtful when you are doing it yourself. Third, it is very common for non-lawyers to use language that isn't obviously ambiguous or otherwise problematic until you are forced to apply it in practice. Estate planning lawyers are much more aware of these traps in the "moving parts" of an estate plan and of the possibilities that need to be provided for. To give one example, suppose that you leave your second wife your house, and leave the remainder of your estate to your children (her stepchildren). It is very easy to say this in a way that does not make clear whether she takes the house subject to the mortgage, or if the mortgage is a debt to be paid before the remainder of the estate is distributed to the children. Similar issues often come up in relation to tax elections and allocation of tax debts among heirs. Providing for the disposition of pets is another thing that few non-lawyers manage to do well. Lawyers, in contrast, generally draft in a manner that avoids these ambiguities and sets forth rules that are sensible, fair and will work in practice. The issues are even more fraught if businesses or investment real estate is involved. And, non-lawyers (even sophisticated, affluent business people) routinely fail to grasp that a Will only governs assets which don't have beneficiary designations and is subject to forced marital share and minimum family inheritance laws that act by operation of law as well as other "gap filling" presumptions that modify the literal meaning of certain kinds of language in a Will. Finally, screwing up the execution of a Will is very common, while lawyer drafted wills are much less likely to be contested. In my twenty years of experience as a lawyer who does estate planning as part of his practice and teaches lawyers, financial planners and paralegals about the topic, I find that the increased litigation costs associated with a do it yourself will (on average) is about ten times as large as the savings associated with doing it yourself. Sure, one time in three or four or five, somebody does their own will and doesn't screw it up and it all goes fine, but a majority of the time, do it yourself will drafters do something that would be considered malpractice if a lawyer did it. Pay lawyers now, or pay lawyers more later. Honestly, if all you need is a "simple will" and you are not willing to spend the $500-$2,000 to have a lawyer draft appropriate documents, and help you execute them, you are probably better off doing nothing at all and dying intestate (i.e. without a will so that the default provisions of the law apply), which often isn't a horrible result in a plain vanilla, unblended nuclear family that isn't particularly affluent.
Since Probate had already closed (12/20), is it legal for the Probate court to, in essence, change the terms of the will? I have several witnesses willing to provide affidavits to the effect that my mother, the deceased, made it clear that I would get the real-estate and that the grandson in question would get nothing. Often, for a relatively short period of time after an estate is closed, it can be reopened and the judgment closing the estate can be set aside for good cause. This is also true in most other kinds of lawsuits. if I cannot beat this challenge, can I remove myself as beneficiary and have the Probate court declare that all 5 blood-related grandchildren will get equal shares? Removing yourself as a beneficiary is called filing a &quot;disclaimer&quot; in legalese. It means to refuse to accept a gift or inheritance. But you can't do that if you have already received any personal benefit from the estate and there are other statutory restrictions. For tax purposes, the deadline to do is nine months after the date of death, but the state law deadline could be different. What would happen if you do so depends upon the language of the will. Usually, gifts to a group of people are made &quot;per stirpes&quot; (also called &quot;by representation&quot;) which means that if a child predeceases or makes a timely disclaimer that their children share in the share that their parent would have received only. It is possible that it says something different, but that would be by far the most common provision. Under the original Probate interpretation, when the real-estate sold, I invested the proceeds in the stock market and there have been losses. If the challenge wins, will I have to come up with the delta--since the investment losses occurred under the original interpretation? If you had the authority to sell the real estate (which you probably did if a third-party title company went through with the transaction), then their claim would almost surely be limited to the proceeds of the real estate and not &quot;the delta&quot; unless the person entitled to take could show that you breached your fiduciary duties in the manner in which you invested the proceeds, for example, by investing all of it in a small number of penny stocks, rather than a diversified portfolio suitable for the purposes of the estate. Also, there is a question over whether the stock investment was made by you as the executor, and was subject to fiduciary standards, or was instead made after it was distributed to you outright. Further, there is the question of whether the estate can actually be opened if you gave notice of the closing of the estate to everyone who was entitled to it, including the grandchild, and whether the grandchild was entitled to it. You really need to hire a WV lawyer who handles probate cases at this point and would be doing yourself great harm by trying to represent yourself. Probate procedures are too arcane for you to reasonably have faith that you are doing it right for yourself.
No, the first mate does not inherit If the first mate is an employee then his employment contract is terminated by the death of the principal and he would be entitled to be paid his accrued wages and entitlements only. If the Falcon was Han's only asset, the estate would have to liquidate (sell) it to meet this obligation. In most jurisdictions there would be legal and administrative costs to be settled too. Even if there was a legal partnership between the captain and the first mate that included ownership of the ship; the captain's share would pass through normal inheritance rules. The same would apply to shares in any holding company interposed between the captain/first mate and the ship. In either case Chewie would have a new partner. Where the ship is registered is irrelevant; the law governing the inheritance would be that of where the estate is domiciled. For a person of no fixed address like Han this would probably be based on his citizenship; AFAIK Corillian. If their laws are the same as NSW Australia see http://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/guides/wills_estates/inheritance.html. On this basis the ship passes to his spouse Leia Organa or spouses if Chewie is a de-facto spouse (there's a lot of down time in space travel).