I came across a post where a family proudly shared their seven-figure estate plan, which left everything to their daughter and a mere $1 to their estranged son. Their assumption that their daughter wouldn’t face a legal battle due to this arrangement is far from accurate.
By naming the son in the will and allocating him a dollar, it doesn’t shield the daughter from potential legal conflicts. In fact, such a will could invite a contest and create unnecessary complications. To begin with, the son becomes a beneficiary of the estate.
Even before he receives the dollar (which the personal representative cannot provide until certain legal formalities are completed), he gains entitlement to receive a copy of the will, an inventory of estate assets, financial records, and other relevant documents. He also gains the right to raise objections. When the distribution time arrives, the personal representative will need his written acknowledgment, adding an additional layer of complexity for the daughter to navigate.
Leaving the son a dollar does not act as a deterrent against challenging the will based on grounds like improper execution, incompetency, fraud, duress, or undue influence. Even incorporating a “no contest” clause doesn’t offer protection.
Should the son challenge and succeed, the entire will, including the “no contest” clause, collapses, and he stands to inherit either his intestate share or what the last valid will provided for him. The effectiveness of a “no contest” clause only arises if the son contests and loses, leading to a consideration of whether he can retain what the will granted. Notably, in California, a “no contest” clause lacks enforceability if the person had valid reasons to initiate the contest.
Determining the amount necessary to discourage a contest is a challenging endeavor. A case in 2016 from San Francisco illustrates this uncertainty. In this instance, a child was bequeathed $5 million under a “no contest” clause. Seeking more, he contested the will, lost the case, was deemed lacking in probable cause, and forfeited the $5 million.
Crucially, it’s vital to comprehend that while a parent typically possesses the right to disinherit a child, such a decision should only be taken in extraordinary circumstances. Doing so significantly elevates the risk of a legal dispute, consequently prolonging the estate settlement process and increasing associated expenses.
Furthermore, such a choice is likely to inflict irreversible damage on the child’s perception of their parent and irreparably strain any existing relationships with siblings. The same principles extend to revocable trusts, which, contrary to perception, can also face contests.
