In a recent article posted on the New York Times, a story details the legal battle which has erupted over the estate of an elderly woman whose estate is worth multiple millions of dollars. Of course, she left two wills, rather than one, and the first will gave millions to distant relatives she had rarely, if ever, met, and the second provides substantial resources to her caregiver and also set up a charitable foundation. As one might imagine, a legal battle has erupted over which of the wills controls the disposition of her estate. Such actions are common in the Nashville area. Here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/your-money/how-to-avoid-an-estate-battle-after-you-die.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
It is also possible that the years of court battles could have been avoided with some careful planning. The first step is recognizing that the distant relatives might be encouraged to put up a fight about the will, especially considering that they stand to gain a few million if they win. That self-interested action - in this case, challenging the final will - is highly predictable. Aparently, the solution was not evident to either the testator or the testator's attorney.
This is the classic scenario to use the "No Challenge Clause" language of a will. Here's the idea. Banking on the self-interest of the distant relatives, or more generally, someone who might start a fight because they feel disgruntled, the smart testator will provide them with some money, but they only get that money if they don't challenge the validity of the will. So, consider giving a small chunk to someone to encourage them not to put up a fight. The smart client could end up saving millions in court costs, and give more of their estate to the people they actually want to have it.
