[WSBAPT] Against Public Policy?

[jeffrey winter]

Thank you -- unfortunately, it does appear that the client does not like or trust the son-in-law...


Jeff Winter


________________________________
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Setareh Mahmoodi <mahmoodi.setareh at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 3:16 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Against Public Policy?

Jeffrey,

I think in this instance, PC is not forcing or "bribing" daughter to divorce or marry a specific person. It simply allows her to inherit the assets in case she becomes a widow. One could argue that is the PC's way of taking care of her daughter's financial needs and in a way providing support and a better living condition for the grandchildren if they no longer have a father at home or father's financial help due to his death or divorce.

Does the daughter work? Is there bad blood? How old are the grandchildren? Does PC and the current son-in-law get a long? I think the provision is fine so long as it is not encouraging daughter to obtain a divorce in order to inherit.

If there is bad blood, I would have concerns. For example, if PC dislikes the current son-in-law and this is her way of encouraging her daughter to obtain a divorce that could raise issues later on.

My .2 cents.

Setareh

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:29 PM, jeffrey winter <jdwinter at hotmail.com<mailto:jdwinter at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Listmates,


A client would like to change her living trust so that upon her death, her assets would be held in trust for her grandchildren by her sole child (daughter). So far, so good.  However, she also wants to provide that if the daughter ever divorces (or current spouse dies), then all assets go directly to the daughter.


I seem to recall issues of public policy coming into play where a testator specified that the child would only inherit if she married a certain person...is the reverse also true?  Would public policy render enforcement of the desired provision problematic?


Thank you, in advance, for your thoughts.


Jeffrey D. Winter


Law Office of Jeffrey D. Winter, P.S.

604 North Main Street

Ellensburg, WA 98926

(509) 925-9600<tel:(509)%20925-9600>

_______________________________________________
WSBAPT mailing list
WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt



--

Please always call 206-683-1006 or email before dropping by the office as I could be in court or meetings. Thanks!

Best regards,


Setareh Mahmoodi

Attorney at Law

18222 104th Ave NE, Suite 103

Bothell, WA 98011

Phone: 425-806-1500

Cell: 206-683-1006

Fax: 425-489-4142 (Please email documents if at all possible)

Website: http://www.lawofficesofsm.com/


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments is a transmission from the law firm and is intended for the recipient only.  It may contain information that is confidential and legally protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or other privileges.  If you are not the designated or intended recipient, please destroy the message without disclosing any of its contents and notify us immediately by reply email or by calling (425) 806-1500.

Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170113/a169fde9/attachment.html>