Destroying a will and ganging up with relatives not included in that will I've seen and read about lots of relatives of deceased wealthy individuals disputing the dead person's will and I've always been curious about this: Suppose I'm a lawyer (who I'm not) and I'm holding the will of a dead multi-billionaire. In his will, the dead guy insists that his wealth must go to many people other than his family. Now, let's suppose that I also happen to be an unscrupulous lawyer. At this point, I have only two options, the first one being that I can release the will and gain nothing but the fees for my services. On the other hand, because they are all excluded from the will, the guy's family might be disgusted by his betrayal. My second option will thus entail teaming up with the family to make the will disappear, provided that they can guarantee me a fraction of the fortune. The logic being that when there's no will, property gets divided up among the dead person's immediate relatives. At this point, I can see only three problems. The first problem being that his family might actually be in agreement with his will and there's the possibility that they mutually agreed to be excluded from it. The second problem being that his family are not in agreement with being excluded from his will but the people included in the will are aware of the existence of that will, and are also aware that they are mentioned as beneficiaries of the estate. The third problem being the matter of witnesses. Solving the first problem will be dead simple. I'll simply drop by their house, show them the will, and observe their reaction. If his family is shocked that their names are nowhere in or near the document, I'm in luck. Admittedly, the second problem will require much more work. All I'll have to do is find a way to completely ascertain that there is no copy of the will that I'm holding. Last, the witnesses. If the dead guy was a shrewd man, he'd have brought along people wealthier than him to witness his signing of his will, as they won't need any of his money. But let's just assume that all the witnesses are the kind of people who can be bought for a few million dollars. The way forward then becomes clear -- gang up with the family and make a lot more money than I'd otherwise make if I just handed over the will to the courts. Okay, since I don't know anything about law, I realize I might have made lots of naive assumptions but you get the whole drift. So what's to stop a rogue lawyer from pulling off something like this? EDIT: In retrospect, my question sounds highly unethical. But its purely an intellectual itch that keeps coming back to taunt me every time I come across property disputes. For my age, I can be considered a fairly wealthy guy whose wealth will only increase with time. While I don't have a wife and kids yet, I can't help wondering if scenarios like those actually happen in real life.
Exactly the same thing that stops the same rogue lawyer from putting on a mask and robbing a bank. One is the crime of fraud and the other the crime of armed robbery but they are both crimes. People commit crimes all the time; that is why nearly 1 million people in the U.S. are in jail right now - some of them may even be in there for crimes they actually committed! Were your lawyer to commit this crime he may get caught or he may not; if he does he's going away for a long time and can never work as a lawyer again. So it's simply a matter of risk assessment; oh, and ethics
There is no public place to “file” that. When privilege is claimed and the other side challenges it then the person claiming privilege needs to establish somehow that the attorney client relationship exists and is pertinent to the question. In the normal course of things there would be an engagement agreement in the attorneys files. And not everything communicated between a client and attorney is protected by the privilege. It only covers legal advice and specifically does not cover discussions planning criminal activity.
I assume that the loan was legal, in light of rule changes pertaining to non-borrowing spouses. If so, there is really no recourse other than to repay the loan. This article explains the current options / restrictions in an understandable manner, but of course it is too late to do anything about it. If there was actually fraud or coercion in the loan, or if the elder party was mentally incompetent, there might be some legal recourse, but we don't have any evidence of fraud, coercion or incompetence here.
There is no requirement that a will, or a trust created by a will, be "fair". The will could have left $500,000 in trust for one set of siblings, and $5,000 to another set. It could specifically exclude one beneficiary from some of the benefits, or specify an unequal division. That is all the choice of the testator. As described in the question, the trust does seem likely to give greater benefits to one set of children than to their cousins. Unless there are grounds to upset the will, that is just how it is. However, the wide "absolute" discretion granted to the trustee might allow the trustee to modify this outcome, but the trustee is not allowed to simply rewrite the trust. How much the payments can be varied will depend on the exact terms of the trust. It does sound as if this trust was not worded as carefully as it might be, since it does not specify a ration when the trust is to be split. The designated relative can decline to serve as trustee, then any specified alternate would serve, or if there is none, or none who will serve, the court would appoint a trustee.
If a line in your will bequeaths something that you don't have the power to give (e.g. you bequeath something that you don't own at the time of your death), that line has no legal effect. If I died and left you the house at 10 Downing Street in London, for example, you wouldn't actually be getting it. If your will contains enough of those lines and/or they seem excessively unreasonable, it may cause the validity of the will to be challenged on the basis that you weren't competent to prepare and sign it. If the people reading it think it's reasonable, it may have a social effect based on what it conveys to them, which could lead to voluntary compliance with your wish (especially if the main obstacle to that being realized is a mistaken understanding of and desire to respect your wishes). That could help make peace, for example, if a surviving parent's remarriage would otherwise be opposed by children (or the surviving partner) or others based solely on a mistaken understanding of the wishes of the deceased. It could also make for a really awkward moment, depending on the views of and relationships between survivors. Addressing user662852's comment on the question: You can also use a will to name a guardian for anyone you have guardianship over, which is usually more important for children (e.g. see "Why Every Parent Needs a Will.").
This is going to depend very much on exactly what is in writing. Note that your father could, if he chose, directly leave both the house and the IRA to his partner. If you become the homeowner after your father's death, and the "3-year right to use" and the cost sharing provisions are not in writing, then neither is legally binding. You and the partner may choose to honor your father's wishes, but if he does not put them in the will or another legal document, neither of you is bound. The question says: I cannot evict her if needed, as she is a senior citizen, living in my home, with no lease. I do not know of any jurisdiction in which there is a general ban on evicting a senior citizen in all cases. There will be some restrictions no doubt, but they will depend on the local laws. And of course you may not wish to exercise all the legal rights you may have. You would ultimately, have the right as homeowner to evict the partner. I don't what procedures would need to be followed legally -- that will depend on the specific jurisdiction, which the question does not list. As the homeowner, you would be legally responsible for maintaining and paying taxes and other expenses on the house. The partner would be either your tenant or your guest. Once you have title (and that will take some time after your father's death, in all probability) if the "right to use" was never put in writing, you could ask the partner to sign a lease. The terms could be whatever the two of you choose to agree on. If she becomes a tenant under such a lease, she has both legal rights and legal responsibilities, and each of you has the protection of a clear agreement. You would be wise to consult a lawyer to learn exactly what the local law does and does not permit. Your father might well be wise to put his wishes more clearly in writing while he still can.
This is complicated. This is state dependent, and as of time of writing, you haven't disclosed what is the relevant state. This is something you should hire/retain a (divorce) lawyer, and discuss with them. The law can be messy; divorces are always messy. The answer is the most common answer in law: it depends, on specific facts. See above, get a lawyer. The first question is &quot;is the money in this investment account a shared asset that I have any claim to&quot;. The answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. What state are you in, and where did this money come from? Depending on various factors, the answer might very well be &quot;no&quot;, in which case, this money (and it's loss) may not affect you at all. If you do have some claim to this money, then it gets even more complicated. &quot;Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding and say that he was squandering money?&quot; Maybe, kinda. Technically no (because of the way you phrased that). I'll explain. In a divorce, &quot;shared&quot; assets are divided equitably (Note &quot;equitably&quot; does NOT mean &quot;equally&quot;) based on numerous factors, often on a case-by-case basis, and which factors depend on the state. (Therefore, the lawyer you retain should be licensed in the state you/your husband are filing for divorce in). Before your divorce, both sides have (in general) the right to use shared property. They do not have the right to intentionally damage or destroy said property. One complication/grey area is normal use that degrades or damages the value of said property. For example, imagine a classic sports car. Many people drive them for fun; this is normal use. On the other hand, using a classic sports car decreases the value. Is using the sports car unreasonable damage? This is a fact based determination to be made based on specifics. Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding [if I] say that he was squandering money? (correction to what I think think you meant). Maybe, but probably not. You can say whatever you want in court, but what matters is what you can prove, as you are the bearing the burden of proof due to making the accusation (and you must prove it to the standard required by the court in your case for your particular motion/accusation, which might be the standard of &quot;the balance of probabilities/more likely than not&quot; or &quot;clear and convincing evidence&quot;, or something else; it's complicated, fact dependent and state dependent, so get a lawyer). You don't need to prove that he lost money. If he was day trading before, the fact that he was day trading after the separation is not held against him; day trading is risky, therefore you have to prove that he intentionally lost money (and, potentially, that he intentionally lost money to deny money to you in the divorce, as opposed to e.g. tax loss harvesting). I would recommend hiring a divorce lawyer and discussing it with them.
The official judgements do not reveal the funding for these lawyers; so where can I find this information? Nowhere. The commercial arrangements between lawyers and their clients are private and confidential like any other business transactions. You have no more right to know this then you do to know how your neighbour pays their mortgage. how could she have funded litigation in the EWHC and then EWCA before the UKSC? She may have rich parents or another benefactor who has in interest in her or the outcome of the case. She may have won the lottery. She may be the heiress of a dead rich uncle. By the way, "having" student loans does not mean you "need" student loans. Interest rates on student loans are cheap - if I need to pay $10,000 for a course and have $10,000 earning 5%, I would be nuts to use that if I could take out a loan at 3%.