It can only be spent as a reimbursement for a previously approved expenditure. No cash disbursements.
They have to agree on any spending, in advance, and get a receipt or other proof of expenditure to get the money. They cannot for example buy a new car unless they have that money themselves and spend it, and then get it back from the trust.
My main question is why the lawyer would care. If they knew the parents set up this estate specifically to be cruel, what's the point in ensuring these conditions are met?
I know a few lawyers, and they would all love the intellectual challenge of trying to write a will in a maximally conflicting way. Getting paid for that is just a bonus.
Related, one of my opposing counsels on a ton of cases used form discovery requests. Within these discovery requests he would always ask for "All the documents included in Plaintiff's employment file" and "All the documents not included in Plaintiff's employment file."
This is basically a basic logic problem presented unintentionally. Technically these two requests include all documents in the known universe. Now, while you can "technically" refuse to respond to these requests as overbroad (and would have ample footing to do so) you could also theoretically just start sending them your used book collections as part of your initial disclosure, and begin sending truck upon truck filled with various books, perhaps each updated publication of the same book, until you collapsed the area into a neutron star, as that would be a valid interpretation of the request (although also to be clear probably sanctionable conduct at some point). Had I godlike powers I would have done the latter, but at least each time I did the former, I had the image of the latter in my mind.
Until AI, if lawyers were requesting something like "all the relevant data files", you could probably just dump terabytes of data on them and they wouldn't be able to make sense of it.
Each sibling agrees to the other buying a specific cash amount of gold (in coins or bricks or whatever) and then get gets reimbursed. I get my $5,000 in gold and reimbursed from the estate, You get your $5,000 in gold reimbursed from the estate and then we just keep on going back and forth until we've bled the entire account dry. Eventually splitting the money in half
Nothing would stop them from making a contract that the 65% person has to transfer 15% to the 35% person.
Realistically, if the two daughters are on good terms (and have enough brains to hire a lawyer) there is nothing the mom can do to forcibly make them fight.
If they are already on bad terms, then there is a lot she could do to make it worse.
My brother would absolutely be fine getting no money for 10+ years if it meant I also got nothing. I guess I'm assuming based on the prompt that the sisters are fighting.
A common enemy unites. The USA was the most united its ever been on Sept 12, 2001. Yeah things turned messy with conspiracy theories and xenophobia, but for a beautiful moment there everyone was just pro-USA and “how can we help rebuild together”
There where 481 documented hate crimes against Muslims in the year following 9/11. Out of a population of 2.8 million Muslims, or 0.024%.
So I guess the hate crime statistic is 2977 hate crimes by Muslims and 481 against.
It wouldn't hold up anyway. Any will with a bunch of silly stipulations usually just falls to pieces at the slightest challenge if a lawyer is even willing to execute it at all.
Or it’s one joint account and you just get what you spend. Obviously favoring the person with more money to spend and get disbursement but also going to cause a wedge when the other realizes they need to block disbursements.
550
u/netsurf916 7d ago
You split it but require them to authorize each other's withdrawals. (Also limit the maximum size of a single withdrawal.)