Family Sucks!!!!

[ScissorMeTimber]

Make sure you have a trust set up to deal with EVERYTHING after you die. Family, friendly or not, suck and will find a way for screw the remaining family when you die.

I am getting everything so locked down that when I go nothing can or will happen against my wishes.

This goes for funeral plans, money, possessions and debt. Take care of your business now so things won't be so messed up later.

Learned from experience more than once.

 

[Tony Montana]

Have you died before?

 

[Eureka Springs Organics]

Typically girlfriends suck, and when you get married they stop sucking. So technically family doesn't suck.

 

[bentom187]

Well you could leave them nothing,that would end the dispute right there.
Set up a inter vivos trust, You can see what happens when your alive, this has other applications im looking into that are far more usefull ,but for your purposes this might work.

Don't have a lawyer do it, just read up on how trusts work and do it your self, the lawyers are untrustworthy people. Attorn; means treason, so you will receive just that. I have never met a honest one.

attorn [əˈtɜːn]
vb (intr)
1. (Law) Law to acknowledge a new owner of land as one's landlord

2. (Historical Terms) Feudal history to transfer allegiance or do homage to a new lord
[from Old French atourner to direct to, from tourner to turn]

inter vivos trust n. a trust created by a writing (declaration of trust) which commences at that time, while the creator (called a trustor or settlor) is alive, sometimes called a "living trust." The property is then placed in trust with a trustee (often the trustor during his/her lifetime) and distribution will take place according to the terms of the trust---possibly both during the trustor's lifetime and then upon the trustor's death. This is different from a testamentary trust which is created by the terms of a will and places some assets from the dead person's estate in a trust to exist from the date of death and until fully distributed. (See: inter vivos, declaration of trust, trust, testamentary trust)

 

[Donald Mallard]

Got one of those insurance calls on the phone ,,
insure yourself and leave your family enough to survive on etc ..

"what are your thoughts sir?" the lady said ,

"fuck em " i said , "ill be dead , what do i care !!!!"

took her a while to get back on the phone from laughter ...

 

[noyd666]

did the same but they hung up,lol.

 

[Tony Montana]

You could make a will?

 

[WelderDan]

You could make a will?

Wills can be contested. And it all has to go through probate court regardless.

As Bentom suggested, a trust is the best option.

My buddy has his entire estate in a trust. When he divorced, his ex expected to get half of the house, his bike, alimony, etc. She was sadly mistaken. She got jack.

Trust me, a trust is where it's at.

 

[paulo73]

I´ll make my best to have nothing that they would fight for.
And even if i have something why am i going to worry about it when i´m gone?
Control is apparent.

 

[LEF]

Wills can be contested. And it all has to go through probate court regardless.

As Bentom suggested, a trust is the best option.

My buddy has his entire estate in a trust. When he divorced, his ex expected to get half of the house, his bike, alimony, etc. She was sadly mistaken. She got jack.

Trust me, a trust is where it's at.

so who did he in entrust it to ?

 

[OrganicBuds]

Is this what they call "rich person problems?" LOL, just playing, I wish you and your family well.

 

[LEF]

it's pretty sad to see kids fighting over their family's stuff instead of being sad that the family is gone

 

[WelderDan]

so who did he in entrust it to ?

It was a living trust. As long as he's alive, nobody can touch it. And if he dies, he has it set up to go to his brother. There are different kinds of trusts. Obviously a living trust isn't any good for an after death situation, but setting up a trust is a lot tighter than just a will. You can have a will as well, but the trust is more secure than a will alone.

 

[LEDfoot]

An elder law attorney is not totally a waste of money.

 

[ScissorMeTimber]

Some replies are quite funny.

My dad passed early this month and it has been pretty interesting watching the shit go down. My family isn't tight but me and my dad are. Lots of resentment towards me from the family for no reason other than envy and maybe guilt Relationships take work and some don't put in much effort.

My wife lost both parents and the same petty shit and some major shit happened with them too. Same with my grandparents years ago. I have decided that the only way to make sure your wishes are followed through on is to protect them with a good trust. Wills are more contestable and probate can drag on and cost money.

I just wanted to let people know ahead of time families change and bad behavior is not out of the question when there is a death in the family. A friendly reminder to take care of your affairs.

 

[BlueBlazer]

Yeah, one time my dad told me that after they died, us kids (5 of us) could get together and pick out what we wanted, sell the rest, and divy up evenly. (no will)

I looked at him in horror. I told him I wanted no part of that bloodbath. I didn't want any of their stuff or money.

I was true to my word.

 

[justpassnthru]

Yeah, one time my dad told me that after they died, us kids (5 of us) could get together and pick out what we wanted, sell the rest, and divy up evenly. (no will)

I looked at him in horror. I told him I wanted no part of that bloodbath. I didn't want any of their stuff or money.

I was true to my word.

Same here; I sat back and watched a bloodbath over pennies!
I don't expect to need any material things...ultimately, can't take it with you; Good memories and good times last much longer. jpt

 

[LEF]

It was a living trust. As long as he's alive, nobody can touch it. And if he dies, he has it set up to go to his brother. There are different kinds of trusts. Obviously a living trust isn't any good for an after death situation, but setting up a trust is a lot tighter than just a will. You can have a will as well, but the trust is more secure than a will alone.

okay and if he would like to take back his trust ? as in he decides that he doesn't want to get rid of the stuff ?

I mean, he can still take the stuff he wants ?

Also, I have a hard time understanding how your friend's ex-wife couldn't get a hold of at least 50% of his stuff

it somehow doesn't make sense to me, are you in the us ?

women usually get -at least- half of your stuff

 

[supermanlives]

everything goes to my son everyone else can kiss my dead ass, everything gets sold and he gets a briefcase of cash. fuck uncle sam and taxes

 

[bentom187]

It also matters who owns the real property in this country and how, it is simply by force.Being governed means exactly that ,we own nothing and have to work for it.

Perhaps filling your families in, that they don't own anything anyway would be one way to resolve this dispute.

Trust Law

In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship whereby property is held by one party for the benefit of another. A trust is created by a settlor, who transfers some or all of his or her property to a trustee. The trustee holds that property for the trust's beneficiaries. Trusts have developed since Roman times and have become one of the most important innovations in property law.

An owner placing property into trust turns over part of his or her bundle of rights to the trustee, separating the property's legal ownership and control from its equitable ownership and benefits. This may be done for tax reasons or to control the property and its benefits if the settlor is absent, incapacitated, or dead. Trusts are frequently created in wills, defining how money and property will be handled for children or other beneficiaries.

The trustee is given legal title to the trust property, but is obligated to act for the good of the beneficiaries. The trustee may be compensated and have expenses reimbursed, but otherwise must turn over all profits from the trust properties. Trustees who violate this fiduciary duty are self dealing. Courts can reverse self dealing actions, order profits returned, and impose other sanctions.

The trustee may be either an individual, a company, or a public body. There may be a single trustee or multiple co-trustees.

The trust is governed by the terms under which it was created. In most jurisdictions, this requires a contractual trust agreement or deed.

Roman law had a well-developed concept of the trust (fideicommissum) in terms of "testamentary trusts" created by wills but never developed the concept of the inter vivos (living) trusts which apply while the creator lives. This was created by later common law jurisdictions. The waqf is a similar institution in Islamic law, restricted to charitable trusts. Personal trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries.[citation needed] In medieval English trust law, the settlor was known as the feoffor to uses while the trustee was known as the feoffee to uses and the beneficiary was known as the cestui que use, or cestui que trust.

At the time, land ownership in England was based on the feudal system. When a landowner left England to fight in the Crusades, he conveyed ownership of his lands in his absence to manage the estate and pay and receive feudal dues, on the understanding that the ownership would be conveyed back on his return. However, Crusaders often encountered refusal to hand over the property upon their return. Unfortunately for the Crusader, English common law did not recognize his claim. As far as the King's courts were concerned, the land belonged to the trustee, who was under no obligation to return it. The Crusader had no legal claim. The disgruntled Crusader would then petition the king, who would refer the matter to his Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor could decide a case according to his conscience. At this time, the principle of equity was born.

The Lord Chancellor would consider it "unconscionable" that the legal owner could go back on his word and deny the claims of the Crusader (the "true" owner). Therefore, he would find in favor of the returning Crusader. Over time, it became known that the Lord Chancellor's court (the Court of Chancery) would continually recognize the claim of a returning Crusader. The legal owner would hold the land for the benefit of the original owner, and would be compelled to convey it back to him when requested. The Crusader was the "beneficiary" and the acquaintance the "trustee". The term "use of land" was coined, and in time developed into what we now know as a trust.

"Antitrust law" emerged in the 19th century when industries created monopolistic trusts by entrusting their shares to a board of trustees in exchange for shares of equal value with dividend rights; these boards could then enforce a monopoly. However, trusts were used in this case because a corporation could not own other companies' stock[1]:447 and thereby become a holding company without a "special act of the legislature".[2] Holding companies were used after the restriction on owning other companies' shares was lifted.[1]:447

Creation[edit]

Trusts may be created by the expressed intentions of the settlor (express trusts) or they may be created by operation of law known as implied trusts. An implied trust is one created by a court of equity because of acts or situations of the parties. Implied trusts are divided into two categories: resulting and constructive. A resulting trust is implied by the law to work out the presumed intentions of the parties, but it does not take into consideration their expressed intent. A constructive trust is a trust implied by law to work out justice between the parties, regardless of their intentions.

Typically a trust can be created in the following ways:
1.a written trust instrument created by the settlor and signed by both the settlor and the trustees (often referred to as an inter vivos or "living trust");
2.an oral declaration;[7]
3.the will of a decedent, usually called a testamentary trust; or
4.a court order (for example in family proceedings).

In some jurisdictions certain types of assets may not be the subject of a trust without a written document.[8]

Formalities[edit]

Generally, a trust requires three certainties, as determined in Knight v Knight:
1.Intention. There must be a clear intention to create a trust (Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry)
2.Subject Matter. The property subject to the trust must be clearly identified (Palmer v Simmonds). One may not, for example state, settle "the majority of my estate", as the precise extent cannot be ascertained. Trust property may be any form of specific property, be it real or personal, tangible or intangible. It is often, for example, real estate, shares or cash.
3.Objects. The beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identified, or at least be ascertainable (Re Hain's Settlement). In the case of discretionary trusts, where the trustees have power to decide who the beneficiaries will be, the settlor must have described a clear class of beneficiaries (McPhail v Doulton). Beneficiaries may include people not born at the date of the trust (for example, "my future grandchildren"). Alternatively, the object of a trust could be a charitable purpose rather than specific beneficiaries.

Use

Use, as a term in real property law of common law countries, amounts to a recognition of the duty of a person, to whom property has been conveyed for certain purposes, to carry out those purposes.

Uses were equitable or beneficial interests in land. In early law a man could not dispose of his estate by will nor could religious houses acquire it. As a method of evading the common law, the practice arose of making feoffments to the use of, or upon trust for, persons other than those to whom the seisin or legal possession was delivered, to which the equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor gave effect. To remedy the abuses which it was said were occasioned by this evasion of the law the Statute of Uses of 1536 was passed. However it failed to accomplish its purpose. Out of this failure of the Statute of Uses arose the modern law of trusts (see that article for further details).

Statute of Uses

The Statute of Uses (27 Hen 8 c 10) was an Act of the Parliament of England that restricted the application of uses in English property law. The Statute was originally conceived by Henry VIII of England as a way to rectify his financial problems by simplifying the law of uses, which moved land outside the royal tax revenue, traditionally gathered through seisin. His initial efforts, which would remove uses almost completely, were stymied at the 1529 Parliament by members of the House of Commons, many of whom were landowners (who would lose money) and lawyers (who benefited in fees from the confusing law on uses). Academics disagree on how the Commons were brought around, but an eventual set of bills introduced in 1535 was passed by both the Lords and Commons in 1536.

The eventual bills invalidated all uses that did not impose an active duty on trustees, with the beneficiaries of the use being held as the legal owners of the land, meaning they had to pay tax. The Statute partially led to the Pilgrimage of Grace, and more importantly the development of trusts, but academics disagree as to its effectiveness. While most agree that it was important, with Eric Ives writing that "the effect which its provisions had upon the development of English land law was revolutionary",[2] some say that by allowing uses and devises in certain areas it not only failed to remove the fraudulent element from land law but actively encouraged it.

Fee simple

In English law, a fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is the highest ownership interest possible that can be had in real property. Allodial title is reserved to governments under a civil law structure. Fee simple ownership represents an ownership interest in real property, though it is limited by government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited further by certain encumbrances or conditions in the deed, such as, for example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversion interest in the grantor if the condition fail; this is a fee simple conditional.[1]

In English common law, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land. However, the Crown can grant ownership in an abstract entity—called an estate in land—which is what is owned rather than the land it represents. The fee simple estate is also called "estate in fee simple" or "fee-simple title", and sometimes simply "freehold" in England and Wales. From the start of the Norman period, when feudalism was introduced to England, the tenant or "holder" of a fief could not alienate (sell) it from the possession of his overlord. However, a tenant could separate a parcel of the land and grant it as a subordinate fief to his own sub-tenant, a process known as sub-enfeoffing or "subinfeudation". The 1290 Statute of Quia Emptores abolished subinfeudation and instead allowed the sale of fee simple estates.[2]

The concept of a "fee" has its origins in feudalism. William Blackstone defined fee simple as the estate in land that a person has when the lands are given to him and his heirs absolutely, without any end or limit put to his estate. Land held in fee simple can be conveyed to whomsoever its owner pleases; it can also be mortgaged or put up as security.[3] Owners of real property in fee simple have the privilege of interest in the property during their lifetime and typically have a say in determining who gets to own an interest in the property after their death.

civil law structure

Fideicommissum
The fideicommissum was one of the most popular legal institutions in Roman Law for several centuries. It translates from the Latin word fides (trust) and committere (to commit), meaning that something is committed to one's trust.