On Jul 27, 6:55 am, George <gbecc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that a beneficiary must have an absolute right _not_ to
> accept something, if they don't want it. Otherwise, you could will
> someone your collection of junk cars.
I'll agree to that premise.
> And, if they have right to
> refuse, it seems like they should have a right to take some time to
> decide.
Also a reasonable premise. But it's just as reasonable for the executor to give the proposed beneficiary a time limit for that decision, after which the "default" result (if beneficiary fails to make a conscious choice by that deadline) should be that the terms of the Will get carried out exactly.
And neither of your premises address the issue I mentioned earlier, of whether the rejecting beneficiary is entitled to any other compensation if he rejects the specific gift that was offered. Generally, the default position is that he doesn't. However, that depends on the exact terms of Mom's Will. If Bro is also one of the residual beneficiaries, share and share alike with his siblings, then when Bro rejects the specific bequest of the house, the value of the house gets put back into the residual estate for executor to do whatever he feels appropriate by way of selling it, deeding it to a different beneficiary who wants it as part of that other beneficiary's share, etc. But the value the house represents will then be split equally among all the siblings. If Mom's Will provided that this was to be the result even while specifically bequeathing the house to Bro (i.e. if it said that the value of the house was to be taken into account as part of Bro's share of the residuary estate) then your decision seems a lot easier. You haven't, to date, told us anything about the other provisions of Mom's Will, so it's kind of hard to tell.
> Assuming those statements are true, I don't understand how the estate
> goes about forcing the issue. People (here) are saying that the
> executor can just 'do it', and that's that.
No we're not. Have you been paying attention? Several posters, myself included, suggested you send a "fish or cut bait" letter to your Bro if that has not already been done. If it has been done, I presume with your lawyer's advice, why are you still dickering around about it if your lawyer tells you it is now time to cut an executor's deed and deed the house to Bro? Fulfill your duties as executor which you owe to both your late Mom and to the Court, which appointed you to that position to carry out faithfully.
> I still find it hard to
> believe that this can be done, absent the beneficiary's consent, without
> an additional action by the court.
The beneficiary's consent is one factor, but not the only one. There is also the need for prompt and efficient administration of estates. You don't want Mom's Will to be clogging up the courts for decades, in Dickensian fashion, do you? The only thing that will happen that way is, all the money will go to the lawyers and other functionaries who endlessly dispute the issues, instead of to the foax Mom wanted it to go to.
George, YOU are an officer of the court. YOU were appointed by the Court to carry out the terms of Mom's Will. Your actions in that regard are legally binding on the third parties they may affect, subject of course to ultimate court approval of your final distribution and accounting. If you're not comfortable with that amount of responsibility, maybe you shouldn't have agreed to act as her executor. That, too, is an honor that the recipient is absolutely entitled to turn down.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment