Question About Bequest In A Will

[qhong61]

Yes, because CDC vouchers are from the government

But what if your father was the one to give u the vouchers and his dying wish was for u to use them only for your own benefit and to give the remainder to charity? Would you really defy his dying wish?

Cannot defy

 

[yoongf]

Based on the scenario, will need to find an Executor that:

Is competent,
Will outlive everyone,
Is willing at the proposed fee.
You trust.

Can try asking ard first.

 

[electrum]

Based on the scenario, will need to find an Executor that:

Is competent,
Will outlive everyone,
Is willing at the proposed fee.
You trust.

Can try asking ard first.

Actually, for the given scenario, no Executor is required for the Property or the Jt Ac because both assets would no longer belong to Mr X and would fall outside the Will

 

[BBCWatcher]

The key to remember is that Mr X and Mrs X are childless and both have their own siblings - plse refer Scenario that I posted in post #1.

I don't think I've written anything inconsistent with that reality.

Perhaps yr outlook might be different but just as Mr X does not expect any bequests from any of Mrs X's siblings, neither does he feel obliged to leave bequests to any of Mrs X's siblings.

OK, but I haven't assumed either way.

What Mr. X definitely doesn't get to decide is how Mrs. X distributes her estate upon her passing.

Bearing in mind too, that Mrs X has assets of her own and Mr X fully expects that some if not the majority of these assets will be bequeathed to Mrs X's siblings in her Will

That's solely her decision. She's an equal person under the law — and hopefully otherwise, too.

Mr X loves his wife and does not mind if Mrs X uses all that he possesses while she lives but he would want any unused assets to revert to his own siblings. Without a crystal ball, Mr X does not know how long Mrs X will live after he is gone. To ensure she has sufficient funds to cover any contingency, let's say Mr X bequeaths his wife a lump sum of $2mm. But due to unforseen circumstances, let’s imagine Mrs X passes on just 1 month after Mr X. In such circumstances, if there had been no prior discussions, the $2mm would be distributed according to Mrs X's Will and presumably to her siblings. This is the situation that Mr X wishes to avoid

First of all, why would he want to avoid that? Isn't part of genuinely loving your wife also not even attempting to control how she distributes her estate?

But I think we've been through this many times, and I'll repeat: the answer to uncertainty about longevity is longevity insurance, i.e. a life annuity (preferably escalating) from a reliable, high quality payor. Then there's no material risk she will outlive her inheritance and wealth. And that, it turn, means Mr. X can assure his wife will live comfortably for all the rest of her days (even VERY comfortably) and he can share some of his wealth with his siblings, now if he wishes.

On yr questions:
1. Why the need for Mrs X to keep monies separate if there is no Jt Ac? Answer is that Mrs X has her own assets (incl monies)

Yeah, and if/when she inherits anything — from Mr. X or anyone else — those assets are hers, too. If she wants to donate or bequeath her wealth to the Church of Spaghetti she has that right.

I think you're basically suggesting (but not coming right out and saying it) that Mr. X is attempting to control his wife at least from beyond the grave. That's quite odd to me for reasons that are hopefully obvious. My suggestion is he not even try to control his wife or her decisions from beyond the grave but that, rather, he provide generously for her to the end of her days (life annuity plus lump sum) and provide lump sums to his siblings. That means his wife's lifestyle is assured, her independence is respected (as it should be), and his siblings get some gifts earlier (while they're still alive, or more likely to be alive) rather than later. If Mrs. X's siblings inherit something and/or receive gifts, OK, that's her decision.

2. Why must Mr X's siblings wait b4 they get to enjoy...". This can be taken care of by Mr X also leaving some lump sums to his siblings directly as per my earlier post.

Exactly, and Mr. X can do that without risking his surviving wife's financial security through a combination of a generous life annuity (preferably escalating) plus lump sum for her.

But Mr X's first priority is still to his spouse and that is reflected by the Jt Ac arrangement and the life annuity with Mr X's sibling as nominee

Joint accounts just don't work for these purposes. If he genuinely cares about his wife's financial security then having any joint account holder is inherently risky. If Mrs. X wants to make that decision (to add a joint account holder) then she can.

BTW this phrasing - "Second, if Mr. X should predecease me, I bequeath a sum equal to what I inherited from Mr. X to his surviving siblings, divided among them in equal parts." is not entirely correct. Mrs X needs to only bequeath the Balance of the sum that she inherited from Mr X. Without a Jt Ac or proper accounting, it would be impossible for an executor to determine the Balance

There are possible solutions, but...trying to control Mrs. X from beyond the grave? Really?

One of the first few comments in this thread has already given you the right answer: Mrs X is a life tenant, and Mr Y is the remainderman.

That arrangement can sometimes work for a home, but there can be significant disadvantages (as mentioned in this thread).

Let me see if I can translate the obtuse nature of this thread. Apparently Mr. X loathes Mrs. X's siblings, and Mrs. X doesn't. So Mr. X is trying to engineer an estate plan that attempts to control Mrs. X's estate and gift giving decisions after Mr. X passes on, to curb Mrs. X's possible generosity toward her siblings.

Well, I suppose Mr. X can try. (I've suggested one possible formula. It won't absolutely prevent Mrs. X from sharing some of "his" dollars with Mrs. X's siblings, but it'll come relatively close. A professional estate planner might have other ideas.) FWIW I think this way: loving my wife means loving what makes her happy — assuming what makes her happy doesn't hurt anyone, of course. I can't think of anyone in my extended family I loathe, but let's assume there were such a person: Mr. L. If giving something to Mr. L makes my wife happy then that's what matters, my wife's happiness. Her happiness wins. And (in this scenario) I wouldn't be feeling anything anyway because I'd be dead. Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[royalmix]

Hi,

Here is the scenario.

Mr X is married with no children. The matrimonial home was bought by him b4 marriage and is held under his sole name.

If X predeceases his wife, aside from the usual monetary bequests, he would want her to have the full usage of the property (ie full ownership rights) for as long as she lives. But if he were to bequest her the property in his Will, it means that, on her passing the property would go to her family (presumably) instead of X's family

Would it be possible for Mr X to make a "time-limited" bequest I.e. that during Mrs X's lifetime she will have full ownership rights but on her passing, the property passes to Mr X's nominees?

Above is kind of a rare question but I think this type of issue appears in many families without children.

Hope to get some answers from the many experienced and learned people in this forum. I kind of suspect it's not possible but let's see. Thks

From what I learnt, I would setup a trust to manage the properties and assets, as u have many conditions to determine the ultimate distribution of assets. I will not place undue stress or responsibilities on the parties which might cause disputes/unhappiness, no matter how good they are when u are alive. Consult a legal expert in this area, there is free consultation at cc you can try.

 

[yoongf]

Actually, for the given scenario, no Executor is required for the Property or the Jt Ac because both assets would no longer belong to Mr X and would fall outside the Will

Without an executor, how will this requirement be carried out?

"....The Remainderman will not be the sole beneficiary of the Property but will be tasked to dispose of the Property and to distribute the proceeds amongst Mr X's siblings...."

 

[electrum]

What Mr. X definitely doesn't get to decide is how Mrs. X distributes her estate upon her passing.

That's solely her decision. She's an equal person under the law — and hopefully otherwise, too.

First of all, why would he want to avoid that? Isn't part of genuinely loving your wife also not even attempting to control how she distributes her estate?


Yeah, and if/when she inherits anything — from Mr. X or anyone else — those assets are hers, too. If she wants to donate or bequeath her wealth to the Church of Spaghetti she has that right.

No, Mr X has no interest or wish to control how Mrs X distributes HER own assets (incl any lump sum bequeathed by Mr X) even to the Church of Spaghetti if she wishes

Let me see if I can translate the obtuse nature of this thread. Apparently Mr. X loathes Mrs. X's siblings, and Mrs. X doesn't. So Mr. X is trying to engineer an estate plan that attempts to control Mrs. X's estate and gift giving decisions after Mr. X passes on, to curb Mrs. X's possible generosity toward her siblings.

No, that's not it - "loathing" is completely not the issue. Perhaps u may understand better if I say that firstly, Mrs X's assets at least equal the assets of Mr X and secondly, Mrs X has far fewer siblings than Mr X and hence Mrs X can adequately provide for her siblings from her own estate

Mr X's intention is just to ensure that his assets go to those who need them the most - first, to his wife while alive and thereafter, to his siblings. Is that unreasonable?

 

[electrum]

Without an executor, how will this requirement be carried out?

"....The Remainderman will not be the sole beneficiary of the Property but will be tasked to dispose of the Property and to distribute the proceeds amongst Mr X's siblings...."

It will be purely an understanding between Mr X and Mr Sibling but it may be worthwhile having a letter attached to the Will to explain Mr X's wish. Such a letter will likely not be enforceable under the law but merely serve to ensure that all parties are aware of the arrangement. Mr X nevertheless has full faith and confidence that his sibling will honour his wish

This side-letter is another aspect of Will-making that I prob need to seek legal opinion on. A possible usage would be to spell out the distribution of CPF monies. Mr X's siblings are mainly overseas except for 1 sibling. It would be much easier to nominate the Spore-based sibling to receive the CPF monies and then redistribute because I am not clear how the CPF Board will be able to locate and distribute to overseas nominees

 

[luvpraline]

Mr X's intention is just to ensure that his assets go to those who need them the most - first, to his wife while alive and thereafter, to his siblings. Is that unreasonable?

There are so many cases of family members (particularly siblings) falling out over fighting of inheritance. Since Mr X's priority is very clear - to take care of his wife first and foremost - the concern would be whether Mr Sibling would touch the money in the joint account while she's still alive. People may change, life circumstances may change.

Since Mr X is perfectly fine with his wife using all the inheritance in her lifetime and should trust his wife more than his sibling (hopefully), why not just leave everything to his wife? Have an open conversation with his wife that he hopes for any remainder unused to go towards taking care of his siblings, and ask the wife to consider including his siblings as beneficiaries in her will? If I were Mrs X and I am able to understand where my husband is coming from, I don't find it an unreasonable request to leave something for his siblings considering he has left everything to me to ensure that I'm well taken care of.

 

[electrum]

There are so many cases of family members (particularly siblings) falling out over fighting of inheritance. Since Mr X's priority is very clear - to take care of his wife first and foremost - the concern would be whether Mr Sibling would touch the money in the joint account while she's still alive. People may change, life circumstances may change.

Since Mr X is perfectly fine with his wife using all the inheritance in her lifetime and should trust his wife more than his sibling (hopefully), why not just leave everything to his wife? Have an open conversation with his wife that he hopes for any remainder unused to go towards taking care of his siblings, and ask the wife to consider including his siblings as beneficiaries in her will? If I were Mrs X and I am able to understand where my husband is coming from, I don't find it an unreasonable request to leave something for his siblings considering he has left everything to me to ensure that I'm well taken care of.

Yes, that is certainly an alternative approach that Mr X has considered

But it might be harder to execute and has its own complications. For eg Mr X would find it much easier to speak to his sibling on the exact distribution to all the siblings. Mr X would need to provide Mrs X with details of all the siblings for her to draw up her Will. Mrs X's Will would also be open to challenge if her siblings wonder why she is making such bequests to Mr X's siblings. The approaches being explored here will hopefully remove some of these possible complications

As it is, currently as far as monies goes, the most viable and appealing option might be for Mr X to set up a life annuity for Mrs X and naming Mr Sibling as the beneficiary of the annuity. Separately, Mr X will task Mr Sibling to distribute the annuity payout to Mr X's siblings

As for the Property, the Jt Tenant option needs further exploration

 

[BBCWatcher]

Her lifestyle is assured (financially anyway) with an escalating life annuity. But I’m repeating myself.

 

[CrashWire]

Life tenant / Remainderman is basically willing the property to Mrs.X and Mr.Y as joint tenancy owners. When Mrs.X goes, it automatically goes to Mr.Y.

I hv seen many examples and this is not a healthy thing to do. The property usually turns into very poor condition becos the tenant has no incentive to upkeep it.
Annual property tax will be interesting. Will the tenant be willing to pay the full share of property tax? Will the remainderman be willing to pay half share of the property tax?

The Remainderman cant wait for the Life Tenant to pass on. ABSD property count also adds to the complication.

I believe the latest trend is to will everything into a Pte Ltd and let the Companies Act set the framework for regular distributions.

Why are you trying to view life estates through a joint tenancy framework, when they're different legal concepts?

The life tenant is responsible for property taxes and upkeep, and the remainderman has no say in the property until the life tenant dies.

 

[yoongf]

Why are you trying to view life estates through a joint tenancy framework, when they're different legal concepts?

The life tenant is responsible for property taxes and upkeep, and the remainderman has no say in the property until the life tenant dies.

For argument sake, so who shd be the registered owner of the title to the property while life tenant is living there?

 

[BBCWatcher]

What if a life tenant wants to sell the home and move elsewhere? Is she stuck?

 

[electrum]

What if a life tenant wants to sell the home and move elsewhere? Is she stuck?

I would presume she cannot sell the home but is free to rent it out and use the rental proceeds to rent another place

 

[CrashWire]

For argument sake, so who shd be the registered owner of the title to the property while life tenant is living there?

I don't know.

What I do know is that life interests are a thing in Singapore, and separate from the concept of joint tenancy. You can take a look at LKY's 3rd will to see how it only gave LWL a "life interest". There's also the term "right to reside".

This research article seems to be fairly well-written:

https://sudhirtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-battle-over-LKYs-last-will_Sudhir-Vadaketh.pdf

 

[BBCWatcher]

Is this arrangement (life tenancy, remainderman) even possible for HDB flats?

 

[yoongf]

When a person dies, a new entity call " Estate of personname" is automatically created. Executor normally settle the estate matters ASAP.
However, if the will has some long term wishes, then this entity will become a Trust, with its own IRAS tax reference number. Trust are taxed at flat 20%. This trust can hold the property indefinitely no different from a pte ltd holding it.
So it all depends whether the estate is sizable enough to justify this extra overheads.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/other...e-trust/estate-trust-income---what-to-declare
https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/other-taxes/filing-estate-trust-income-tax-(form-t)/form-t

 

[electrum]

For argument sake, so who shd be the registered owner of the title to the property while life tenant is living there?

The following article answers several questions about life-tenant/remainderman arrangements. It seems like it is a form of joint ownership:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/life-estate.asp
What is interesting is that the same concept can be used for non-property estates such as monies invested in shares or bonds