Conditions in wills

[mollykins]

I know that people can can say in their will that they'll only leave money to a certain person if they do/ don't do something in particular,but legally, where is the line drawn? For example if they have to murder someone to get the money, which is illegal, is the will void? or does the person get the money anyway? Or if not, what would happen?

Just curoius by the way, i haven't been told to assasinate someone before I get money from a will.

[ummmm]

They wouldn't be allowed to put that in their will.

[mollykins]

So no illegal conditions. What would happen to the money allocated to the person then?

[mollykins]

Would they jsut be given the money then, or not at all?

[ummmm]

Your scenario is never going to happen.

[redcrx]

if the deceased was never allowed to write into the will, the will would be worded differently!

[dzug2]

Just how is anybody going to prevent that wording appearing in a will? After all no one but the deceased has a right to see it until after his death.

I don't know if the bequest would be declared void (and the person gates nothing) or the condition (and the person gets it regardless). It might take an interesting court case to find out

[mollykins]

Would only a psycopath be mad enough to do that though? i which case courts could say they weren't in a fit enough state to decide who should get their money and it might all go to the next of kin . . . perhaps.

[dzug2]

http://www.howto.co.u...n_drafting_your_will/

has a long discussion on the subject

[mollykins]

Thanks dzug, theres a bit about provisions for illegal conditions, but i can't copy it!

[Barmaid]

Very interesting question Molly. I'll give you chapter and verse later, but generally clauses which offend against public policy are void. Nothing to stop it being put in the will but it would generally be redacted by the Probate Registry.

[cassa333]

Good point.

If that part of the will becomes void would the person still get the bequest? Otherwise to be able to claim your inheritance you would have to prove the illegal act and therefore open yourself up to procecution.

[mollykins]

Which you wouldn't do cassa. Would the police have to be involved if it was on the will in the first place? even if the person it was to eb given to hadn't commited the crime yet?

[Barmaid]

This is a particular interest of mine. I said I would give chapter and verse later. Unfortunately for "later" read "sometime in the next few days" - today is a special day, I am slightly drunk and I am going to enjoy myself!!!!

[mollykins]

Thanks for the effort barmaid (eventually when you do get round to it) :)

[Barmaid]

Glad to see you are interested though Molly. We need people "interested" in this area of the law its a dying art (no pun intended).

[mollykins]

Even though i don't want to be a lawyer etc, this discussion came up and noone knew the answer.

[mollykins]

Even tohugh I've usually always wanted to be a scientist of some kind or another, when i was about 10 or 11 there was a point when i wanted to be barrister, but one of my cousins told me law was realy boring at uni and she'd dropped out plus my friend pointed out that it meant standing up infront of a lot of people and making speaches, and at that point I hated doing that kind of stuff. Although I'm getting better and even went up at the cadets award night to present the best instructors award and had to make a little speach up, on my way there, in which I roughly said, 'The winner of this trophy is voted for, by the cadets, and is awarded to the instructor who we feel helped us the msot throughout this year <peeled sticker off the bit with the name on> <pause for dramatic effect> and the award goes to PO . . . . , smile, shake hands with PO . . . . and give ehr the award and have a photo together.

[dzug2]

The link I posted earlier does give some generalised guidance on what restrictions would totally void a bequest and what would allow the restriction to be ignored and the bequest paid

Though it doesn't seem to be working at the moment.....

[M4pk]

I studied this last semester...
On a hunch (haven't reviewed my notes in a while - at the end of a massive to-do list) I'd say the provision would be void and therefore no money would go to that person because it's an (legal) impossible condition to impose and that person's claim to the money would be entirely dependent on that condition.
However - this clause would most likely never happen in real life, the money would just stay in the pot and either go to others on the will or to whomever the remainder has been designated.