This guest post is from Sofia Altamura, Regent Law 2L and current Wills, Trusts, and Estates student:
The sequel to the successful Agatha Christie-inspired murder mystery
movie Knives Out came out this weekend. In anticipation of this release,
my family and I felt prompted to screen Knives Out. What I did not
anticipate was the number of estate planning concepts that were woven into the
film.
Beware – there are spoilers ahead!
One theme that came up was the modification of wills. In the movie,
the patriarch of the family, played by the late film star Christopher Plummer,
decides to change his will because he feels his assets would be better off in
his unselfish caretaker’s hands. This was a good reminder that wills can be
updated, modified, or even revoked. Every person is entitled to freedom of
disposition, meaning that any person is free to leave whatever they own to
whomever they wish. Christopher Plummer’s character, Harlan Thrombey, had every
right to have a subsequent writing drawn up before he died.
Another theme that came up was undue influence. In the movie, Harlan’s
family members go ballistic upon hearing that everything he owns (and he is a
wealthy man) will go to his caretaker. They immediately turn on the caretaker,
Marta, and suggest that undue influence was at play. Undue influence occurs
when a person is coerced to do something that he or she would not have done
otherwise. If the testator was susceptible to undue influence, the “influencer”
had the opportunity and intent to influence, and the testator did indeed draft
a will he or she otherwise would not have made, that will is invalid and will
not be effectuated. It can be common for people who are unhappy with the
directions of a will to start throwing around accusations in hopes that their
lot will change. However, it is quickly clear that there is no reason for Harlan’s will
to be invalidated because of this issue.
When this eccentric family’s hopes of invalidating the will
through undue influence fail, they decide to go for the slayer statute next. The
slayer statute bars “A” from being a beneficiary of “B’s” will if A killed B (because
a person who is convicted of killing a decedent should not be able to benefit
by inheriting from that decedent). If Marta killed Harlan, then she would not
be able to inherit anything from him, even though he declared her to be the
sole beneficiary. However, the family members once again fail in their attempt
to receive a share of Harlan’s inheritance.
One thing that this film does not teach us is that there is
hope for people who are cut out of their parent’s wills. That hope is found in
Jesus. If we invite Him into our hearts, accept Him as our Savior, and follow
Him, we are promised something better than any earthly inheritance – an eternal
inheritance. 1 Peter 1:3-4 states that by God’s great mercy, we have been born
again because God raised Jesus from the dead, and we can now have a priceless
inheritance – an inheritance kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond
the reach of change and decay. Colossians also talks about the inheritance we
can receive from the Lord. So, if you are intentionally left out of a parent’s
will, you do not have to have a look of anger and despair on your face, as the
children of Harlan do. You can rest assured that Jesus died and left us with the
greatest inheritance of all – eternal life in heaven with our Father.
No comments:
Post a Comment