Controlling assets from the grave

Putting aside what the judge has said about the deceased being able to decide which beneficiaries are to receive their inheritance and on what conditions, the children would have found it difficult to convert to another Christian faith without some period of indoctrination (this may take 12 months or more). Whether or not this could be achieved in the 3 month time frame stipulated in the will would be also a grounds for appeal as it may show that the conditions are unable to be met by the beneficiaries and the deceased had no intention of passing their property to his children.
 
That case was about a father giving gifts to children only if they converted to Roman Cathlics. Forced conversion should be against public policy. I think the decision would have been different if the religion was 'islam' for example.
 
Putting aside what the judge has said about the deceased being able to decide which beneficiaries are to receive their inheritance and on what conditions, the children would have found it difficult to convert to another Christian faith without some period of indoctrination (this may take 12 months or more). Whether or not this could be achieved in the 3 month time frame stipulated in the will would be also a grounds for appeal as it may show that the conditions are unable to be met by the beneficiaries and the deceased had no intention of passing their property to his children.

from memory they had a Catholic priest as an expert witness saying it was possible.:D
 
Hi Terry, have you seen other cases like this? Where a judge has upheld a stipulation in the Will for certain conditions to be met?
 
Terry, why was it 'forced'? The father gave the children options: choose the religion or don't choose it. Isn't it his money to do with as he wishes?

I recall a case in Asia where a very wealthy father cut his daughter from will as she was gay. She elected to be disowned v's marriage to her partner. Cost her a $1b or so I recall.

Same style of issue. Religion, skin colour, sexual orientation, physical abilities, intelligence, height, weight, appearance, hair colour, hair length etc.... Its discriminatory. If its illegal during life it should be illegal in a deed, will or trust.

Imagine inserting a clause in a will that told the executor to kill or hurt someone they despised in life. Its not legal so why should other issues ?
 
Paul, I can see where you're coming from. But being gay is not a choice, whereas religion (especially those that proselytise such as Jehovah Witnesses and Roman Catholics; not so much those that do not proselytise such as Judaism) is.

But if it's his money, why can't he discriminate? We may find his choices offensive, but it's his money. Do children have a 'right' to their parents' money?
 
There's nothing wrong or illegal about giving someone money on the condition that they convert to a religion while alive, so why should it be illegal by way of will? I agree with the judgement on this basis.

Let's take something more extreme as an example. What if your child was a member of ISIS. Would it be wrong to bequeath to them on the basis that they leave ISIS before the property will vest with them?

On the reverse of the above example, it is likely that a requirement for them to join ISIS would be against public policy and may be struck out.
 
I have seen a few wills excluding a child, not because of his or her religion, but because he/she had chosen to marry outside the religion. I didn't even know it was illegal/discriminatory or could be grounds for contesting.
 
I have seen a few wills excluding a child, not because of his or her religion, but because he/she had chosen to marry outside the religion. I didn't even know it was illegal/discriminatory or could be grounds for contesting.

It's generally not illegal or discriminatory. The grounds for conesting such a will would be on that there has not been adequate provision for that child. It does not generally matter if the child was excluded because they married outside of the religion or because their favourite colour is purple. This is really general and does not apply in every case, but the relevant factor is usually the child's ability to support themselves, rather than the reason they were excluded.

The above will not apply in all cases (ie the child was excluded because of a mistaken belief).
 
What about if an employer said to someone that they would only employ them if they changed their religion to X?

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to throw myself into the mix with this one. Is it different because you are employing to fulfil a certain criteria; eg, they have a job to do? Whereas a will is a totally subjective and personal choice; you're not giving money to the person who has a 'job' to do.
 
What about if an employer said to someone that they would only employ them if they changed their religion to X?

Not lawyer here and I might be totally wrong, my guess is:
Then the employer is in trouble unless it's a very specific religion role
My argument is everyone has right to be considered for their service (in exchange of money) despite their believes, gender, race and sexual orientation.
No everyone has right to receive someone else personal money for free
 
A few people have raised the question lately: 'Can I control how my assets are used after I pass away?' Here is an article that addresses conditions in Wills, thought it might be of interest to some people.

http://www.townsendslaw.com.au/blb-news/469/conditional-gifts-in-wills-how-far-can-you-go

Thanks for the link,and sometimes it happens even before the person is dead,i'm going along to a funeral on Friday morning the person in question
had dementia been in high care for about less the one year,one of the family had the enduring power of attorney and ended up in court then the public trustee took over everything,and it's quite a large $$$ property shares estate..
 
What about if an employer said to someone that they would only employ them if they changed their religion to X?

That would be discriminatory as you know but is different as you are throwing it open to the general public. As far as estates go- my view is that it is my money and I can give it to whoever I want (subject to claims from "dependants" under the Family Provision part of the Succession Act). If my wife is dead why should my grown financially independent kids believe they have any unconditional entitlement to my property (unless they contributed to it or there was an estoppel issue)?
I can give my property to whoever I want when I'm alive and under whatever conditions I feel like- why should this be different when I'm dead?
 
Yes employment is totally different to gifting but using this as the example doesn't it seem wrong to favour a particular religious teaching over others. It is not forcing the beneficiary to convert, but compelling them.

This case might make these sorts of things more common now. Wonder what would happen if someone made a condition that wasn't about religious. e.g.

I give $100,000 to Sam provided that he can juggle 6 golf balls for 6 minutes - within 6 months of my death.

I give $100,000 to John provide that he become right handed as demonstrated by writing a 5 page letter with his right hand only on the first sunday in June after my death.
 
Back
Top