The typical liberal reader of the Times likely supports high estate taxes claiming that passing on large amounts of wealth from parents to children perpetuates inequality. So I find it surprising that many seem to prefer the French system which makes it harder to disinherit children. It seems a fundamental conflict to find generational transference of wealth problematic but find the personal right to choice to reject it with ones own wealth also problematic.
3
What about parents who inherited money? If a father or mother inherits family wealth, should s/he have the right to deny a child the same family wealth? The case here is about earned wealth, but I'd guess that most wealth that is passed on through inheritance is family wealth.
2
My sons were adopted by my second husband after their father's death. After some years, my second husband and I divorced. My second husband did all he could to harm my sons when they were teenagers, aggravating their unease with moving to another state and encouraging rebellion against my rules (a cause of the divorce).
Yet, when he died, the obituary did not mention either son, but did mention his third wife's children.
There's no accounting for family.
6
As an American, I certainly believe that parents should be able to disinherit children, but they should state in their wills the reason(s) for doing so.
I had a friend who gave all her money to charity rather than family. It made sense because her family harassed her and belittled her and there were lawsuits between them. Why should someone inherit only because of blood?
4
Johnny who? Don't remember hearing of him or his 4th wife. Did his adult children do something untoward that they should be so terribly punished by him in his death? Or was he perhaps influenced by a much younger 4th wife to disinherit true heirs and leave all the goodies to wifey #4? Apparently he yearned for a tabloid-kind of life given how he's chosen to be remembered. Both he and his 4th wife are French. He has wives who were French and his natural children are French. His 4th wife is even French. None of us will ever know what drove him to this tabloid-like leaving of this earth, but oh la la it is French.
3
Most comments I read reflect the US idea of putting as few limits as possible on personal freedom. Hence the shock that other countries may have different ideas. Other cultures, in Europe at least, see it differently and want to make sure that all children are treated equally. Before passing judgment it would be better to re-examine one's assumptions, in this as in many other areas
4
Any parent should be able to dis-inherit their child (or vice versa). Children have no claims on their parents wealth, in life or in death. At least that's true in the US for the most part. I really don't care what they do in France.
However, I'm confused. It would seem that Hallyday divorced the wife of the children bringing this case in France. As a result of the divorce, unless there was a binding prenup, the wife received half of his wealth at the time. The wife, presumably also received child support until the kids turned 18. So, the mother of the French children will likely (must) leave her kids whatever wealth she has upon her death. End of story.
3
Here in France, we refer to French legislation on inheritance as "family values."
5
How does French law deal with large gifts made by the pre-deceased? Example, 90-year old wealthy mother donates 9 of her $10 million estate to a preferred charity. She intends to live off the remaining $1 million, and then dies 2 weeks later.
The 2 kids went from receiving $5 Million each to $500K each in the matter of 2 weeks.
If we are OK with an adult making decisions about her money before she dies, it seems logical that her post death directives would be equally valid.
@James
My guess is that the kids would have sought power of attorney the minute they heard about their mother's decision to donate to charity. My guess is that a judge might have sided with them and prevented to donation. The children could maybe provided a lifetime worth of documentation in which the mother mentioned or implied that'd she'd leave the money to her kids.
With 9 million, the mother could maybe create a foundation (rather than give the money to a foundation). The children could "inherit" salaried stewardship of the foundation (and earn some salary from such a position). I know a few kids from megarich families, and some are employed as the directors of charities set up by those families.
The mother could put the 9 million in a trust and make her children beneficiaries. That trust would then, at the time of her children's demise, pass to the charity of her choice.
I should be an estate lawyer.
3
In today's world, where it is so difficult to make an affordable life without parental help and where enormous amounts of money are sequestered into the estate of a few families, it makes sense that children should inherit something.
But: if a child is a drug addict, that money will go down the drain.
We have trusts in the U.S. to help manage money for children who are too young or too disabled to take care of themselves.
I'd be curious as to whether the French also use trusts.
5
A minor child, or your eighty-year-old "child"? It's not an article until you clarify that.
Even Americans have amazingly persistent notions that the country works on inherited position, not the American Dream.
1
There are many things to consider before declaring whether a court should over ride a will that disinherits children. Did the parent support the child into adulthood while living and wants to provide greater support to younger, immature children? Were the children planned and willingly brought into life by both parents? Did they know about illigitimate children? Did the adult child choose to be antagonists and hurtful to the parent? Was an illigitimate child brought up without the parents finance? If France has a law that children can not be disinherited, and that is where the parents married and the children were born, then maybe a divorce should not exclude children from inheritance.
2
I am the oldest child of five. Only my younger sister and I are living; almost nine years ago, my parents decided it was time to re-write their wills in light of the deaths of their three younger sons. As we sat in the attorney's office, I was shocked to learn that my parents were leaving the house in which they lived, all pensions, stocks/bonds and savings to my sister. I was to receive an interest/portion of my grandparent's small farm which has only cost me money. My college education was self-funded; my parents never gave me anything. Married, I held a technical/professional job with relatively high earnings. We own our home outright and have investments that have done well. My sister, never married, has lived at home with my parents for her whole life. I "understand" why they were leaving her everything; still, it was a shock to learn of their plans in the attorney's office - being told basically that I get nothing because I've done well.
12
@Peyton Collier-Kerr
Is she less physically attractive? Of course, it probably relates to the fact you have achieved a life of some comfort and security.
If I had a supermodel daughter and a very unattractive daughter, I might leave more to the unattractive daughter. If I had a son and a daughter, I might leave more to the son. Why? In our society, husbands usually pay for dinner, hotels, rent, and tuition.
I don't see life as being about money. I see it as being about mating. Money is a means to mating. I'd make my decisions based on who needs the money most w/r/t mating or the lack thereof. That's life in NYC.
"Technically, they had to prove that the singer’s principal residence was in France."
"Habitual residence" is the important phrase in the EU law. According to - https://france-amerique.com/en/johnny-hallyday-inheritance-a-french-american-legal-battle/ - his legal residence was the US but he lived his last days in France.
The article, probably rightly, makes the children and France's position seem entirely emotional and irrational. 'France loves him;' 'He was a French icon;' etc, so his will should follow French law. Both French and American inheritance law have interesting and reasonable perspectives, but this is a case where emotion should stay out.
Hallyday, we must suppose, intentionally disinherited some of his children. Hallyday lived in the US. Everything else is hope chasing money based on emotion.
2
I am curious why Johnny Hallyday, Prince and Aretha Franklin, celebrities of enormous wealth, had none of their $$ assets in securities such as bank and investment accounts that would name a beneficiary (or beneficiaries) and override whatever is stated in a will. Doesn't seem logical.
26
@lind
This is still not the way it works in France and wouldn't automatically override French law.
3
I thought the discussion would be a moral one, not legal. Of course a parent can do that legally but consider the moral implications. Yes, you absolutely get the last word so for all those battles you never won in life, congratulations, you win for eternity.
Now consider the moral implications of what you have done to your own offspring that can never, ever be undone and the message that adult child will carry for the remainder of their life. What is the message? That the person who should have loved you unconditionally betrayed you so deeply. None of us are perfect but forgiveness in life can leave everyone at peace.
Also note that this is not just about money. Being disinherited means no family photos, mementos, personal belongings. Obviously, I've lived it and it's awful.
11
You can see the animosity of his wife, that's the real issue here.
5
Disowning your children is an act of love. They're free!
Yet again, the French prove themselves far more civilized than Americans. Nothing in this article suggests that Mr. Hallyday's other children "gave him all the misery in the world" or any other reason to be disinherited. While Mr. Hallyday may have felt more connected to his most recent family that doesn't excuse him from responsibility to the issue of his past relationships. If parents want an inalienable right to disinherit their children without reason it's only a matter of time before children demand an inalienable right to disinherit their parents when they become to old to care for themselves and manage their affairs. Be careful what you wish for.
173
@Steve725 I'm okay with both of those things: parents and children "disinheriting" one another. While personally I may not favor either in my life (I have no children as of yet but would happily care for my parents if they developed the need), the legal right to disassociate from people you are biologically connected to seems crucial to me. Everyone has different circumstances and different relationships with their children or parents. A child who was abused by their parents for years should not be obligated to care for them as they age. A parent whose child has treated them cruelly should not be obligated to pass on any money or effects to that child. Further, people should have the ability to not pass much/any money onto their children not because of any personal strife but because they personally oppose the idea of inherited wealth (see the Giving Pledge movement amongst some of the wealthiest members of our society). Parents who want to be cared for in their old age should plan accordingly with their finances (the inability of many to do this in our current economic climate is another matter altogether). Children who want a lot of money should earn it themselves instead of waiting to inherit it from their parents.
124
@Erin L 100% agree with everything you said. Of course any person should be allowed to disassociate him/herself from any other person they choose, regardless of biology. I owe nothing to my parents (or my children) and they owe nothing to me. Period.
39
@Steve725 - As if this isn't the current practice? I've spent almost forty years taking care of elderly neighbors whose kids pretty much ignore them. They didn't disinherit their kids. Conversely, mine disowned me, refusing contact for the last ten years of her life. While I was taking care of other parents, she died alone, penniless and angry. Such is life.
33
There is something particular repugnant of men remarrying and disinheriting their older children. They and their new wives have no shame.
13
Children are not entitled to their parents' fortune anymore than parents are entitled to their child's fortune. Inheritance laws are meant to prevent squabbles in the event the deceased did not have a will outlining bequeathals for his estate. If the deceased does have a will it should be honored, or else you undermine the entire point of having a will, and I think you'll find that creates its own sort of chaos.
43
Funny how the French seem to be able to die without all this chaos.
5
I am an only child. When my grandparents died they left all of their money to my mother and my aunt. According to my father, it was enough for them to live comfortably for the rest of their life (they inherited it when they were in their early 40's). My aunt bought a house, had plastic surgery, went on nice vacations. My parents gamboled away every last cent in the stock market. I will never inherit anything. My parents also told me after this inheritance that they could not afford to pay for my college. Was I owed an education paid for by people who had plenty of money (money they didn't earn)? No. Am I owed an inheritance? No, no one is entitled to free money. Am I very bitter about it anyway? yes I am.
49
Understandably bitter. Your parents should have set aside money for your education.
18
@HeatherD
I understand your bitterness, but I hope you will forgive your parents--for your sake, not theirs. Bitterness does not lead to happiness.
8
When my dad died, I got to pick through his closet and select a jacket and tie for me. The money went elsewhere. Made me a little bitter at the time. It does seem odd that inheritance is often decided by muddle brained octogenarians. I think the French have it right, particularly in this era of dynastic wealth, to spread the money around. The plot of Downton Abby involves finding a sole male heir for the Earldom because the women can’t inherit. The plot makes no sense in France.
As the article notes, this was a result of the French revolution. It ended the practice of primogeniture which allowed the aristocracy to pass on everything to the eldest son to preserve their great estates. I think that was a good thing. It's very restrictive, however, and doesn't allow for large charity gifts by the wealthy. I suspect there are ways of getting around it before-hand while still alive, and that it makes money for the lawyers.
2
It would save everyone time and energy if a compromise could be reached.
2
I felt a strong sense of deja vu while reading this soap opera tale. Does anyone notice parallels to the case of John Lennon and the lengthy and bitter legal dispute between his son from his first marriage, Julian, and his second wife Yoko and the son she bore Lennon, Sean. In that case however, the stakes were much higher---much, much higher. At the time of his murder in 1980, Lennon had a net worth of about $350,000,000. Lennon's will and the resulting trusts directed it all to be paid to Yoko and Sean, effectively leaving nothing to Julian. Julian sued Yoko and the case dragged on and on for well over a decade. In 1996 (16 years after Lennon's murder) the case was settled. The terms were confidential but speculation was that Julian received a sum equal to less than 10% of the original estate (which had earned an enormous amount of income in the intervening 16 years from songwriting royalties, record sales and the licensing of Lennon's image).
4
There is no mention that the father thought his older children were undeserving. Clearly they are deserving of some recompense if the father who gave them life can think those relationships are disposable. Parents give children life but the children carry their families' legacy of shortcomings and strengths forward and in many cases they have been severely hobbled by being poorly prepared for life. If there is some wealth there for them, that might just be the lift they need to have some relief. One of these days people will see clearly that the only way to fulfill potential is to have wealth, otherwise, buddy you are out of what is called luck.
1
In reading this article, I was rather taken aback by the description of his wife as "a 20-year-old recovering anorexic and model." What bearing does her anorexia have on this story? Why is this the first characteristic she is given? It seems a calculated move to cast aspersions on her character, as a young woman in a relationship with a much older man, rather than on the "50-something icon" who was the other member of the pair.
8
Surely, his French children and ex-wives knew about his estate plan. If not, this was unduly cruel because as French citizens they had reasonable expectations, and his widow cannot be surprised by the litigation.
6
If a legal system provides for no-fault divorce then it also needs a law like this. Otherwise children are vulnerable to predation by a new spouse who may be younger than they are.
The typical U.S. state helps adults to secure assets and revenue in family court, e.g., via "child support" that is actually paid to an adult plaintiff, but there is no protection for children per se. The adult who receives "child support" is under no obligation to spend the money on children. If the elderly parent marries a 20-year-old, nothing stops that 20-year-old from collecting 100 percent of the assets.
3
Great piece.
I'd been avoiding this subject in the French press. So much bickering, sullying the good memories we had on a sunny December afternoon, among the hundreds of thousands of fans and mourners at Johnny's public funeral.
Here, though, the author touches on some distinct differences between American and French legal cultures (and manages to get a bit in about Louisiana, which French people always seem to be interested in).
At the end of this whole affair, let's hope that justice will be done, whatever its nationality.
2
Here is what I would favor as inheritance law:
- if there is a spouse, s/he gets half
- kids below 25 gets what they need up to possibly completing college (according to some scale)
- kids above 25 gets nothing, they are old enough to take care of themselves
- all what's left goes to the IRS as deferred taxes
- given the new money the government gets from dead people, all taxes on the living are lowered by 10%.
There are 7 billons people on earth, and given past conversations, I am probably the only one who thinks it is a good plan. But I believe it would further push kids to take care of their future, lower inequalities originated at birth and improve family relations (at least clarify them). Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
1
What he can and can't do with his estate will depend on a number of factors: Was he a citizen of France and what tangible property (e.g., real estate) did he own in both France and the U.S.)? In all liklihood there be two estate administrations: one in France and one in the U.S. If the U.S. estate is deemed to be an ancillary adminitration (i.e., he's a French citizen), it will eventually distribue all of its assets to his French estate, which will then distribute its assets in accordance with French law. Voila!
1
@Scott B Assuming he died a French citizen, he nevertheless is considered a US person for estate tax purposes if he was domiciled in the US at his death. The US estate will not be ancillary, the French one will. You are right that French tangibles will be distributed pursuant to French law if he held them directly but all intangibles should be distributed pursuant to US law.
1
He lived principally in California for the last ten years of his life with a green card? That should make him a US person for estate tax purposes. I am curious how the French court decided that it had jurisdiction. Also, there is an estate tax treaty between the two countries that can provide many answers to many questions. I am betting that the older children lose out.
1
Our personal opinions aside, what matters in this case is whether the late Mr. Halliday's assets should be distributed via American or French laws. The questions that need to be answered are: where did he live the majority of the time in the last 5 years? the last 10 years? where were his assets held? Another option is to find a split (50-50 or another formula depending on the answers above) and treat the first part under American laws and the second part under French laws. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
My sister chronically lied to my father about me, abused me physically, emotionally, financially and even a bit sexually, since I was in the crib and now I am a grown man and the patterns and lies persist. As the glory child with resources, she has worked to alienate me from my dad's entire family with lies and innuendo. This is in part because she doesn't want known what she did to me, especially in light of the "me too" movement. She has so manipulated my father that he has threatened to disinherit me and has set her as the will's executor and given the bulk of everything to her and her children. She did her best to stop me from breeding by subterfuge, lies and innuendo which interfered with my marriage and our attempts at reunification for the sake of my one child. Now, this abusive manipulator is in a position of power relative to me and my son and there is apparently not a damn thing I can do about itI have to figure out what I am going to do about it. The thing is, she has always been a sadist and would hurt me literally in the crib. She crippled me as a child. Ah, alas she is the Glory Child, and I the scapegoat. No wonder I had "adhd" and suffered from some alcohol abuse - that's how we self medicate for cptsd. The French are right. Our system which allows the abusive Glory Children to be favored is wrong. Sibling abuse is instinctive and it leads to parental alienation because of lies and manipulation. stopsiblingabuse at gmail com
6
@Ian, I wouldn’t say sibling abuse is instinctive but it is far more widespread than people realize. It is most often the byproduct of a dysfunctional family. I am so sorry this happened to you.
7
@Ian
I am so very sorry to hear about what happened to you. I hope you can escape from these vicious narcissists and find a modicum of peace.
6
This is a complex question with no easy answers. In some cases, distributing equally offends one's sense of fairness, because some children may have done far more for the parents than others. That was my situation. My grandmother left her house half to me, the person who took care of her through her 80's as she went blind, deaf, incontinent, lost her mobility, and eventually her speech, and half to my cousins, who did nothing for her. I had to buy them out of their half of the house. I wanted to fight that legally, but my lawyer told me, "The court doesn't care who did what for who. The court doesn't care what's fair. All it cares about is she wrote what she wrote. They're entitled to their inheritance. You can fight it, but you'll lose."
On the other hand, it is easy to say that once a child hits 18 or 21 or some arbitrary number, he or she is owed nothing by the parents, but what if the adult child is disabled? Do the parents still have no obligation to him or her? Do they have no obligation to the state, which must then pick up the cost of care? That is the case for a good friend of mine -- his mother was able to leave everything to him and nothing to his disabled brother (who is in a nursing home as he requires round the clock care). Granted, the "estate" in this case is small, just a suburban house. But the rules would be the same for a multimillionaire who could afford to contribute to their son's ongoing care.
1
An adult should have the absolute right to do what ever the want with their money. Give it their family or not, give it to charity, burn it. Children who haven't reached majority should have money set aside to the care of them until they reach 21. But adult children have no legal right to expect anything. And given have long people live these days people waiting into their sixties or beyond for the parents to finally drop to cash in seems especially tragic. Kind of like Prince Charles at 70 waiting for the crown.
4
More Dean Martin than Elvis Presley.
If the assets are in the US, the French have no case. If Wife #2 has the minimum of decency and decorum, however, she will be generous and kind to the other children. Greed kills the soul.
5
Your will should be the only thing considered. If you have a creep of a kid you have every right to not give them anything. As far as the comment about children dis-inheriting their parents when they become infirm, that happens every day.
5
Jean Phillipe Smet/Johnny Hallyday was not an American citizen but French. He was little more than an elderly French tourist with a American visa. Did he disinherit his children during all the years prior to his death? No, then those offspring ought gain part of the estate when it is administered under French law...in France.
11
D’accord!
3
With recent advances in oncology, expensive and individualized immunological treatments are being developed. But, at the current level of expertise, it is very difficult to predict and project the effectiveness of these treatments.
In the May 24, 2019 digital NY Times, Katie Smith discusses several of these costly new treatments in an article titled: "This New Treatment Could Save the Lives of Babies. But It Costs $2.1 Million." In this article, Dr. Peter B. Bach with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center states:"They have been whispering the price of multiple millions of dollars now for years, so the marketplace at some level now believes that this is how much these things will cost."
I think former President Carter is one beneficiary of this particular very expensive type of "individualized medicine," in successfully treating his brain tumors.
If a richer parent has the opportunity to avail themselves of one of these treatments, with a probability of successful treatment of only 1 in 1,000 chances; and, the cost of which depletes the assets in his or her estate to $0; should he or she take the gamble? Without treatment, certain death awaits. With it, the probability of a future earthly life is 1/1,000.
Are there obvious conflicts of interest between the owner of the estate, the heirs, and the medical community. In this case, has the probable decedent essentially disinherited his heirs for financial purposes?
[5/29 W 11:37 am Greenville NC] cc
1
More interesting than the article is the bitter rancor and poor preparation displayed in the comments which denote personal anecdotes. The guy who disdains his son. The daughter who mocks her manipulative mother. Inheritance may be the epitome of the sense of the words - privilege and entitlement. Feeling it is OWED can infect families like a plague.
6
I believe that the French court is correct. He was born in France, he was a French citizen, and he was buried in France. Jurisdiction should therefore be French.
That being said, I do totally oppose the law in question. Any person should have the right to dispose of his or her assets in any chosen way after death, and the idea of forced inheritance should be reserved for those who die intestate.
4
The joys of families and money. Lots of ugly stories there.
1
The person whose lifetime of work product is at issue should be the arbiter of to whom it will go. In America, that fits with our rugged individualist society ethos. Though laws will ultimately decide this case, the deceased's will was crystal clear about what he wanted.
I find the concept of forced heirs incredibly bizarre. The person should have full control of the disposal of their property. They can do what they like. The only reason the state should intervene is when the person dies without a will, trust, or pay on death beneficiaries of accounts. Then, the laws of intestate succession kick in.
I wonder if Johnny or any other French person could get around this ridiculous law by putting their assets in trust or through life estates.
1
Lets us all remember: Where there is a will, there are relatives.
6
I doubt very much that most Americans have ever heard of Johnny Hallyday. He made his money in France. It seems fair to me that this remain a french matter.
6
He made his money in France, so their law should govern what becomes of it.
6
And this is news worth reading because......... more rich people fighting over money
5
If your child is an adult, of course you should be able to disinherit him or her, if you choose to do so. Also, adult children should not be legally required to support their parents.
31
Adult children are not legally required to support their parents or pay their medical bills.
That is why so many elderly people who struggled to give their kids the best in life find themselves on Medicaid in decrepit nursing homes, sat upright in wheelchairs, facing elevator banks, waiting for well-off relatives who never visit.
11
Absolutely! As my mother used to say, "It's my money, I earned it."
2
" the court in Nanterre ruled that it does have jurisdiction over the Hallyday estate,"
Is there a similar proceeding in a California court? If not, game over.
“We found this very violent, as if their very existence was being denied,..." My parents disowned me and stopped all communication after I came out to them as a lesbian at the age of 35. I'd been the "rock" of the family, visiting from 3 hours away and taking care of them and their property, a rural acreage in Illinois that I loved and spent countless hours on with my Dad when I was growing up. I was the only one of three kids who ever wanted to go outside and work alongside my Dad on the farm. I learned a lot from him and will always cherish our time together. I think of him often as I work on my own farm now. I think he's still alive. His last words to me were "You're no family." I learned about my mother's death when a high school classmate posted about it on Facebook. This is not about money, not by a long shot.
11
@Carla I am so very sorry that your family treated you this way simply because you didn't fit their image of what a daughter should be.
5
Beaucoup de bruit pour rien.
US inheritance laws need to be tweaked to protect people from unfair disinheritance. This would also save the social system from having to support people who were disinherited by someone who was mentally ill, unfair, mean or otherwise impaired.
My mother is mentally ill with narcissistic personality and bipolar disorders. She has always been delusional and blind to reality. She has been jealous of and scapegoated me since I was a child. Because she was always abusive toward me, I moved 3,000 miles away when I was 17. When I occasionally visit, her friends and acquaintances are stunned that I'm not the ogre she makes me out to be. My brother has done nothing but drink all of his life--he has never worked and has made passes at most of his female relatives including his own mother. My sister has antisocial personality disorder and does things like steal the pain medication of her dying young daughter in order to get high. That sister's son is is a meth head and alcoholic who steals from my mother. But because my mother loves to be sucked up to and these people flatter her endlessly (yet disappear when she needs help), they are in line to inherit twice as much as me.
There are people who are mentally unbalanced, and they can damage innocent bystanders. We need laws that assure reasonably fair inheritance, including mechanisms for rational alterations.
7
@Davina Wolf The law already addresses that. If a person isn’t of sound mind, they cannot make a will.
2
I recommend not planning on expecting an inheritance. Insane or not your mothers wishes are hers and you have no say in what she wants to do with her estate.
3
One can fight over whether on e can/should disinherit another person on many grounds.
-
But, here is the ultimate test:
-
If he were not a multi-millionaire, would the kids care?
48
@KG if he were not a multi-millionaire, the inheritance probably wouldn't be worth the familial strife and legal fees. I am not sure what benefit, material or immaterial, the kids would stand to gain from dumping time and money into a fight for an inconsequential inheritance. I am not sure what ultimate test the kids are supposed to pass.
3
@KG They just might, there might also be sentimental items in the 4th wife's possession which rightfully belong to the man's natural children. No child would appreciate being so public and final a manner be disavowed by one's own parent. Is the money an issue? Of course - as it is for his 4th wife, as she's unwilling to share it and wants it all to herself. No matter how contentious your relationship with a parent or child, it has to be hurtful to experience something like this - did it so that they couldn't argue with him over it or try and convince him. It's a very sad way to leave this earth, so hateful to children you sired.
6
If I had children of my own, I would treat them equally in a distribution of assets regardless of their life events. One alternative is to indicate your disapproval over some perceived incident by having a sibling manage the black sheep's share of your estate through an irrevocable trust with distributions of amounts and intervals of your "share" at that siblings choosing. Oh, and about five years after my father's death, my sibling informed me (for the first time) of my father's belief that I had killed my mother, since I was Mom's primary caretaker in her terminal illness, and who else to blame? The poor man spent about an hour total at her bedside the last week of her life. Guess who lived locally and sacrificed personal time and resources to look after both parents? Which approach do you prefer?
2
It makes perfect sense that a child should never be disinherited as long as that child is not an adult, which should be 21 years old. But once they are an adult they are no longer entitled to mooch off Mommy and Daddy, and cousins have no rights at all regarding the property and money left behind by Aunts and Uncles.
I have loaned a substantial amount of money to 2 of my 3 children in a case of need. One paid it back about 18 months later when her business took off. The other has no business but is a constant drinker, call her an alcoholic for short. She start drinking at 13.
When she was young I sent her to rehab. We went to family counseling. I did everything I could think of to help her. It was brutal. I rescued her from 4 boyfriends who beat her up. Then at 32 she decided she needed a baby. She lived in a motel that rented by the week in Kentucky, had no health coverage, had no savings, and had never finished her education but that didn't stop her. She called one of the guys I had rescued her from and, voila, Baby made. He disappeared. Actually, he went back to his exwife. She swear he never knew she was pregnant but I remember her telling me he was so excited and vowed to marry her. I went back to the states and furnished the apartment she had rented. She had a molded plastic lawn chair.
A lot happened, but I paid for her child care. I've made her rent and car payments when she couldn't.
I'd disown her inheritance without qualm but now I live in France.
3
Laeticia has a lot to lose under French law. 75% of the estate would be divided equally among the children; she would get only 25%, a far cry from 100%.
2
If you want to "disinherit" a child in France, can you get around inheritance laws by simply giving away essentially everything to your preferred person or charity BEFORE you die? What happens to the spouse under French inheritance laws? Do they not inherit everything as in the United States, until they too die?
@DocG Most jurisdictions have laws to invalidate transactions undertaken to thwart legal restrictions, but it depends on the timing and nature of the transaction.
1
When I was young, my mother would snarl that the State of Maine refused to alloow a parent to disinherit their child : The parent had to leave at least $5 in their estate for each child.
Fast forward. I'm a young adult. My mother is in a rage - the State of Maine just changed the law on estates. Now she had to leave $10!
No child should ever have to listen to their parent snarl because they are legally forbidden to leave their child nothing.
The French please me. They thought this over and came up with something better than the State of Maine.
If Johnny didn't want children, he should have kept his pant's zipped.
19
@rosa The adult children of Johnny's unzipped pants were, I assume, given all the advantages of being his offspring and were raised well as they grew up. If children have been well cared for into adulthood, why shouldn't the parent, before his death, be able to decide how the remains of his life's work are distributed. The French law, is from the time after the French Revolution and was enacted to prevent any one of the heirs from gaining excessive wealth and power. So much for the French "thinking this over" in the 21st century.
2
@rosa Johnny's ADULT children can take care of themselves. They aren't entitled to inherit his money and property, especially if he did not want them to.
1
If he didn't want his older children to inherit his estate, then they shouldn't. Period. He had time to plan and this is what he decided. His adult children at this point should require a lot less support than his underaged children.
5
Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise
It's no surprise that they're giving none away
Away, away, away...
David Gilmour/Pink Floyd
3
I find it odd that his lawyer didn't tell him that a California will would not hold up in court since he is French.
6
@Irene the Californian will still applies to any assets in California.
I find it odd and incredibly paternalistic that French courts are finding jurisdiction when Mr. Halliday clearly did not intend it; presumable they are creating precedent to avoid having other rich French people from evading the French inheritance rules...
5
@Claudia
I see
ABH appreciates the fact that author, an American, has adjusted well to life as an expat in "la belle France," and is published regularly in Times newspaper,"chapeau,"but many of the subjects she writes about have little relevance for everyday working Americans, and this article about relatives squabbling over the last will and testament of a rock star, Johnny Hallyday, is typical. Always believed that as a performer, alleged successor to Elvis Presley, Hallyday was dreadful, and "l'oronie du sort,"was a better actor in his waning years than a singer. Saw on Youtube his interpretation in French of "Light My Fire Allumez Mon Feu"and and all he seemed to be doing was shouting into the microphone. Embarrassing!By contrast, Sylvie Vartan,first wife and original "Ye Ye Girl,"was more talented, and her rendition of "Tous Mes Copains"still moves me to this day, and can't count number of number of times, many, that I would stand at the zinc bar of the Rond Point cafe at Montparnasse with a "demi"half liter of beer in my hand listening to her lovely, touching voice emanating from the jukebox. But "chapeau" Ms. Druckerman, hats off for your excellent writing.
1
@Alexander Harrison
The song mentioned by Pamela Druckerman “Quelque chose de Tennessee” (Tennessee Williams) is a beautiful haunting ballad which Johnny Hallyday interprets perfectly and every French person knows by heart. The poetic and erotically charged love song “Que Je T’aime” gives me chills every time I hear it. Whether performing at the Eiffel Tower or the Olympia concert hall he gave his all, and was not just “shouting into a microphone.”
1
Here in the United States, I know a woman who organized a group of 15 cousins to hire an attorney and contest the will of a great aunt who had left over a million dollars to charity. They ultimately convinced the court to overturn the will and distribute the entire estate equally among them.
Maybe I'd feel differently if I were one of the cousins, but I identify more with the aunt, who had worked hard all her life and expected her fortune to go to making the world a better place in specific ways that she was passionate about. Wasn't that her right?
Why should the courts be able to step in and obliterate that right?
31
Do you think the system of estates and distributions would be better without laws and probate courts ? That would be the Wild West with lots of fraud and collusion and duress upon the elderly who have assets to pass along.
3
@Will Eigo
No, I don't think that. But I do believe that the law should differentiate between first degree family relationships and distant relationships among extended family members.
I will grant you, estate law is an incredibly murky area with the potential for fraud, collusion and duress on all sides at all times.
4
We agree quite a bit. So the best path is. Write a strong, clear will with an attorney and witnesses. Start giving donations/ gifts BEFORE departing this world. Minimize the estate value and get the goodness of the charitable giving started early , not after one’s passing. And, perhaps do the same with some modest giving to immediate family members who can benefit from the assistance and show the gratitude while one is still alive. Like the Pulitzer Prize winning play and Oscar winning film put it: You Can’t Take It With You.
6
The fundamental difference between the American and French approaches is whose rights we seem to be protecting. In America, its the decedent's rights we protect while in France, it's the rights of the heirs. Mr. Hallyday chose to avail himself of the laws of the United States and would have presumably expected those laws to protect him while living.
Where the money was made or who from is irrelevant. Should Bill Gates's money made from foreign sales control how he disposes his estate? Of course not.
1
Toward the end of his life, my father grew increasingly bitter, yet he had nothing to be bitter about. Blessed with a wonderful wife, 4 adoring daughters, and a successful career, he started fantasizing about leaving in a huff and living by himself. In other words, his brain chemistry changed. Fortunately, everything went to my mother after he passed, and I'm sure she'll do her best to divvy the estate up equally.
It is cruel and devastatingly hurtful to write a will that leaves a child with nothing regardless of how rotten the relationship may be or may have grown to be. Such documents ought to be illegal.
11
@E.L. Ahearn
Why should a child expect anything after they're adults? With Adulthood comes self-responsibility except in extreme circumstances.
I don't believe that any of my relatives are entitled to anything I now own or what will be mine in the future. I had the common sense to know that once I was an adult I had to make my way in the world. I didn't expect nor did I want anything except some photos and certain little things that were cherished by my parents.
I got a clock that once belonged to my father's mother and a treadle Singer sewing machine that belonged to my mother's mother. I got the bible that once belonged to my mother's father, and I got the mustache cup that had been passed down from my father's grandfather. They left their money and smaller estate of life to other people. That's alright by me.
I would like to leave all of my estate to health sciences. I don't think my children are entitled to anything beyond what I gift them now. It is a relationship, not a bank.
8
One important aspect, and perhaps deliberately avoided elephant-in-the-room is the question of estate taxes in USA v France. It is very possible that France taxes more than USA so the widow and the estate attorneys are trying to avoid the cost. OTOH, I may be completely wrong, and the taxes are lower in France. Also, we do not know if any trusts or gifts were made over the years to former wives and adult children which offset the final testament provisions for division.
6
There is no "trust" system in France. If a trust for a French resident exists in America, the proceeds are still taxed by the French as if they were simply regular money.
1
I can see arguments for both approaches. The problem is that general laws ignore individual circumstances.
Some kids are just plain awful, and treat their parents like dirt. Why should they not be disinherited? People may also 'move along' after a divorce, and view their offspring as possessions that now belong to a discarded partner. Then we have the second marriages where a much-younger spouse takes control of an ailing partner and manipulates them in such a way that their 'first' family is discarded, whether they had intended this or not. And what about parents with massive wealth who would prefer to leave the bulk to charity?
In my case, I had expected that our parents would leave the lion's share of their estate to my disabled brother. Turned out they had made other arrangements, but we all knew that nothing is owed to adult children.
86
@KJ And increasingly more parents have nothing to leave. Parents provide all they can throughout their children's lives. And then have nothing to give at death. They have given it all while they were alive.
18
@Ellen F. Dobson Many parents leave a bill and not a will which has been common for centuries. However some parents have far more wealth then expected to give to their heirs because of property values and retirement savings accounts. Further instead of dividing the estate between a family of five or ten children, they will be dividing it between a family of two children.
In years passed health care without insurance and having no social security ate up all the wealth. That is not true today.
5
@KJ nobody is born awful. If kids treat their parents like dirt, that is a result of their upbringing.
16
"Over a nearly 60-year career, practically all of his millions of album and ticket sales were in France."
If most of Hallyday's money came from the French buying his records, then the money should be subject to French law.
6
Not if the taxes were already paid on the earnings, if so, he is free to do what he wants with his money and his residency.
8
Misleading headline. This has nothing to do with whether disinheriting your kids is a right. It's about conflicts of laws.
There is no such thing as disinheriting. It assumes a right that DOES NOT EXIST.
Inheritance is no a right is a GIFT. A transfer of property after death. Solely at the discretion of the previous title holder by transfer.
10
@Denise - It depends on the country and their views about the rights of dead people to something with property they no longer own. As the French example shows, the desires of the dead do not always control.
If you want to give your property away in the manner you want, do it before you die.
1
@Denise You got that right, Denise!
1
@Davidas I said a conflicts of laws problem. Not a disinheritance problem.
If one argues in favor of the absolute right on a testator to disinherit children, one empowers men who spread their wild oats then leave the mothers to care for the children, often at taxpayer expense. Such a policy is unfair to the mothers, to the children, and damaging to the social fabric. Men should be financially responsible for the children they bring into the world.
39
@Ivan Light i would agree, as long as we're talking about children (ie; under the age of 18).
1
@Ivan Light Er, no, what you’re describing is child support, not inheritance. Providing for the care of dependents and minor children are is strongly protected by pretty much all western countries’ probate law, including in the USA. This case concerns adult children.
1
@Ivan Light
except the law does generally require men to support children to adulthood and IF they did that men and women should be free to leave their money as they choose often not to people but to charity.
It has nothing to do with love or bad behavior. This was theft by the final wife. All too common. It is not the youngest children who will enjoy the spoils at their siblings expense, it is her. And the oldest kids will take their dad's scorn with them, always.
20
Is that not what wills are for?
Laeticia Hallyday should do the right thing and reassure Hallyday's children from previous marriages that they will be fairly taken care of.
It sounds like Hallyday was more French than American, even though he had a domicile in California.
It seems as if this is another case where the lawyers will come out ahead.
6
You can easily to legally disinherit children regardless of the law.
Spend all your money while you are still alive.
11
Hallyday was American?? Hahahahahaha! I have never heard anything more absurd. No one here has EVER heard of him, and I only heard his music when I was a student in France, where he was an institution! He was French through and through, no matter where he happened to reside in the last few years of his life.
The fact that his final wife is trying to exclude his other children is a disgrace. My mother’s manipulative boyfriend is working on her to forget her children in her will because he is a controlling grifter and has no other significant source of income. It’s a sad spectacle to see her fall under his influence, and I can only watch in horror and hope for the best. People are very vulnerable to financial fraud and manipulation late in life and the law should be savvier about protecting elders and their children.
60
Glad I'm American. I've already let my kids know that my assets will be divided based on how many grandchildren they have.
10
@someguy My mother like to pit her children against each other too. None of us miss her.
46
@someguy How's their college debt? That might have the biggest effect on how many grandchildren you have.
14
@someguy How many grandchildren they give you or are you expecting to live to see their grandchildren?
2
Things are not so simple, as a recent discussion with a French Notaire led me to understand. Yes in the US you have the right to write up a will that completely disinherits your kids. But, you'll be surprised at the high likelihood your kids successfully contest it in court after you've passed (well you won't be surprised, but certainly your last will won't be followed). On the other hand, French law precludes giving less than 1/3 to your progeny. However it also gives you the absolute certainty that your directions regarding the remaining 2/3 of your estate will be followed as it is essentially impossible to contest that part of the will.
15
@TRS80
My take on this is that the guy didn't have good legal advice from his attorneys.
First, they would have insisted that he tell them all details of his relationships with his ex-wives and older children, plus current wife and small kids. That's to alert the lawyers to problems. Then, the lawyers can come up with California legal devices (for wills in the U.S., state laws prevail, folks!) to avert disputes: Provide a tiny something--a watch, a memento--for each child and have the will explain why that's all they get but that you love them (if you do love them). Start giving to the charity you pick, during your life, to establish your intentions to give lots to a charity if that's your choice. Leave an extra-will letter or note that reinforces it all. Especially if you're French but have an American will, live in America, and have young American kids. Plus other legal provisions I don't know of.
Good lawyers would have foreseen Hallyday's will problem.
I would sooner give everything I owned to charity than give a penny to my worthless son. Anybody who defends this ridiculous French law has no idea how cruel, ungrateful, gratuitously vicious and totally undeserving children can be.
46
@Robert, why do you think your son turned out that way?
14
@Icarex35
Some children are born troubled. It doesn't always have to do with parenting. I have it in my family and I know others that do as well.
13
@Robert He could have done that. But then his widow gets nothing. the french way she gets 25% and the kids split the remaining 75%. After taxes of course.
Its better than our system of letting the rich build immense piles of concentrated wealth passed down through the generations.
4
Never heard of the guy. He was more French.
2
Awful man to do that to his kids.
10
I side with the French law because it protects the offspring of the deceased who may have children from multiple affairs or marriages. Having a huge struggle over an estate in which the second wife wanted all the funds and then pass it on to her own children from her first marriage, I understand the need for the French law including the breaking up large estates.
One way to address incompetent heirs is to set up a trust so funds are spent on reasonable needs.
I can also understand giving more to a child that took on the responsiblity of caring for a sick relative. However, that should be addressed while the parent is alive in an ideal situation.
13
Yeah, but a child is invariably screwed up as they are because of the parent(s). More so as the kid of a celebrity. I'd say they owe them a duty of care to some degree at least. Certainly more than adopted kids. Having kids is a lifetime affair, it doesn't end the moment they turn 18. Well, I suppose it does if you're a monster.
10
@Sparky
As both an American citizen who lives in France and therefore concerned with inheritance laws in both the US and France but also a parent of both 'traditionally born' children and an 'adopted' child, I take umbrage at your statement regarding 'adopted kids'.
When parents adopt children those children become THEIR children, with all of the same responsibilities parents have towards their 'biologic' children. To suggest parents should treat adopted children differently in terms of inheritance shows an absolute disregard for the rights of children who are adopted and a disregard for the relationship parents have with those children.
ALL of my children are my children, whichever way they came into our family - there is not one iota of difference in the way we treat any of them and that is the way it should be.
50
Louisiana debated this issue decades ago when it mostly abolished forced heirship by restricting it to children 23 and younger and incapacitated children of any age. Before that, there were a number of very ugly court battles over when adult children had been horrible enough to their parents to forfeit their forced heirship rights.
At the end of the day, no one had any sympathy for these rich kids who couldn't manage to be decent enough to their parents to not get disinherited, and the only real argument was to blame younger second wives for screwing over her step kids. That failed to convince the libertarian instinct to allow people to write their own wills.
2
Ironically in the United States it is permissible to disinherit your children, but not the government. Uncle Sam (or your state government) will get his share of your taxable estate no matter what protest you lodge in your will.
5
After the first $11,400,000 is passed FREE of any federal tax to the heirs.
26
@rob I don’t think you understand what irony is.
His older children and the former wives who are their mothers are French and deserve to have their rights defended under French law. Hallyday also acted in quite a few French films over the last few decades.
22
By this logic, all actors and actresses are subject to the laws and regulations of every country that they've filmed in for the rest of their life and into death? What a wild thing to assume. He drew up his will in the U.S....it is therefore subject to U.S. laws, as he intended.
4
@Caroline Johnny Hallyday was born in France, had French citizenship and did not have American citizenship, per the article. So there is quite a lot more to his ties to France than a few film credits.
14
One’s offspring, of occasion, may be deemed by the sire to be, as one would characterize, in the days before therapy, as prime exemplars of “the bad seed.” Given the sire’s efforts at wealth accumulation, it should be his (or her) right to determine which of his offspring should receive any portion of the largesse left behind. As to the kids - let them fend for themselves.
1
'The French idea of forcibly breaking up estates originated after the French Revolution, among reformers who wanted to weaken the aristocracy and make sure that no single heir became too rich'
Clearly the U.S. has something to learn from the history of France. For instance, we'd possibly be spared ineptitude in the highest office of our government.
28
I love the myth of the fabled greedy children. All of those thousands of selfish greedy children born of a' bad seed'.
Here's the reality. Inheritance law is rooted in property law, which are completely male centric. The head of the family, the family name, the line of progeny, all follow the male. DNA is the gift parents give children. Both parents. Their cancers, mental illnesses, addictions and emotional abuses are the gift handed down, among others. For those who say they are against inherited wealth, you are really saying you are all for society bearing the costs of your children. Whether your kids end up in prison, receive Nobel Peace Prizes, are restricted to assisted living or, surprise, homeless, there is something really wrong with a society that does not expect parents to bear the real responsibilities of bringing children into the world. After all, they are your children, you rolled the dice, you made the selfish decision to have them. I haven't even addressed the rampant clinical narcissism that often accompanies the lives of the famous. These emotional burdens alone should require a fund for the therapy these children will need, if they are to survive at all.
20
@coco Even when those children are 30? or 50?
The estate is worth tens of millions and there isn't enough for everyone? As if his widow and minor children will be destitute as mere millionaires in LA?
Anyway, He IS French, French law prevails. Who knows if he had "good reason" to deliberately disinherit his older children? He did maintain French citizenship.
36
@cheryl It's none of your business if he had a "good reason". Maybe his kids were awful. Maybe he thought since they're adults they can (and should) take care of themselves. The point is that he deliberately CHOSE to cut them out. That should be respected, period.
Hallyday made his money from the French, in France, and spent the vast majority of his life in France. French law should prevail.
American estate laws destroyed my family.
9
These arguments are all interesting but I’m disturbed by the wealthy fighting over “tens of millions.” That’s more than enough. Get some perspective. Be generous.
33
You’d think these people would come together and agree on something reasonable. Nope... both sides will fight to the bitter end.
6
You made it, you take care of it. Disinheritance should be illegal when it comes to biological children. Child support is so hard to collect in the states. It's just too easy for men to create offspring whom they can just walk away from. Interesting that we allow this in a country that is trying to take away women's rights to their bodies.
35
@RCJCHC Inheritance isn't the same as child support. Parents don't "owe" their adult children anything. The "children" who are disputing the will are in their 30s. They can take care of themselves.
Sounds like my father's second wife, who made sure my sister and I received NOTHING; her children got whatever was in teh estate after her share...
25
Sounds like your father died intestate. If he wrote a will you would have received what he bequeathed.
8
@Will Eigo
It is possible a will existed and was disposed of by the second wife.
When my boyfriend, a lawyer who maintained possession of his own will, passed away, his sister and cousin ransacked our house attempting to find it for his mother. Without having it in hand, I would have been denied the estate (inclusive of our home and little else), which he'd bequeathed entirely to me, with no recourse based on our marital status and our state's default hierarchy of heirs.
3
Disposed of ? What does that mean ? When I write a will, I get it notarized and filed in an attorney’s archives for presentation to the probate court upon my death. If someone interferes with that process, that is a felony.
7
The difference may not be as great as suggested. A friend was once outraged by a jury he was on voting, contrary to a reasonably attested to will, to give an inheritance to someone who was obviously a drug addict.
2
Should parents be able to disinherit their children?
Of course not - and in most of the non-Anglo western world, they legally cannot. With some minor differences, other than in the UK and its former western colonies (the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), inheritance laws in western nations (Europe and South/Central America) forbid disinheriting offspring.
If you bring children into the world you, yes, “owe” them.
18
Except you leave it a bit simplified. There are nations where only the first born takes the lion’s share or all. There are nations where only the males defendants are entitled to a share of the estate. Anglo laws are promulgated for more facultative and thus equitable outcomes.
1
Why are you entitled to the fruits of your father’s labors after you reach adulthood? What is this 1800?
58
@A Discordant Voice Some societies choose to encourage and support family stability this way, just as they provide incentives for marriage. You might also object to wives automatically inherited their husbands' assets when they die, but without such laws we would have more poor widows than our society wants.
6
@A Discordant Voice No, it's France, which is much more fundamentally egalitarian than the United States and doesn't enshrine personal freedoms in the same ways. I don't think that the French law is so much about inheritance per se as distribution of wealth among children.
4
@A Discordant Voice
Why does it matter what the dead want?
6
It is sad that his last wife is making a case out of this. I went through arguments over money after my father died, not just after, but as he lay dying. It was incredibly stressful and interrupted the grieving process, ending with me being diagnosed with cancer shortly after. I think the sadness and stress contributed.
Friends told me that the executor of the will, a sibling, was cheating me in how he claimed expenses and how he disposed of a vehicle and other property. It was not a lot of money, but it was hurtful and unfair. In retrospect, I'm wondering if I should have just let him get away with it, for the sake of my mental and physical health. It is shocking how regularly things like this happen.
We don't ever talk about the terrible damage done by the unrestrained pursuit of money. We should. Our culture has a serious problem with this, not just in the case of inheritance. When we can't have regulations to protect health and safety, or universal healthcare because it would hurt profits, that's a serious problem. We go to war partially (if not totally) over profit. The priority given to profit-seeking in the US is the root of most of our injustices. But we never talk about it.
57
@Hdb
I'm sorry for your sad experience.
I completely agree with you on the American obsession with money and profit. Perhaps a good place to start would be to stop glorifying wealth and glitzy lifestyles. Could we find a way to glorify something more conducive to a healthy society? That seems to be the intention in the texts of many religions though humans have found a way to profit off religion too.
8
You make a good point about war. It is always, has always been, mostly anout profit. Wealth. Territory. Resources. Dominance, which gives access to wealth. Rare “the good fight.”
1
@Hdb
I did just that. In order to minimize the emotional and financial trauma of a fight, I let my repellent, violent and venal monstrosity of an alcoholic older brother flagrantly steal from the estate and cheat me. He was not the executor, thank goodness, but was such a horror show that everyone involved wanted to move quickly and have as little to do with him as possible. Just as he planned all along with his purposeful public crazy behaviors. You cannot fix feral people, but you can save your own sanity and waste minimal time on them. Walk away.
6
What comes to mind when I think of a disinherited child is the poignant story of playwright Arthur Miller and his son with Down Syndrome. There was a Vanity Fair article about them about ten years ago. The child named Daniel was placed by his parents in an institution when an infant. A doctor advised it and it was somewhat common practice in the mid-1960s. Daniel's mother, Inge Morath, visited him regularly. Arthur Miller did not. Once grown, Daniel lived and thrived with a foster family. Arthur met his son when he was grown.
When Arthur Miller died, he left Daniel as equal a portion of his estate as his other children.
27
@Judith
It ought be noted that Miller's wife and mother of Daniel did not want their son institutionalized (as a 1-week-old infant) but Arthur Miller insisted and then erased the son from his life.
Inge Morath + their daughter and Daniel's older step-sister, Rebecca Miller, with her husband, Daniel Day-Lewis, cared for Dan and did finally persuade Arthur Miller just weeks prior to his death to visit his then grown son and finally amend his will to provide for the son he'd abandoned.
9
In Ireland you are not obliged to leave anything to your children. The only absolute entitlement which will override a will is for a surviving spouse, half of the estate if no children and a third if there are children.
A child can bring a court claim against a will if they feel that their parent has not provided for them properly and the court will decide.
1
This argument is the reason trusts exist. The trust outlasts an individual and often times can last for more than one generation. The only people who get rich when a wealthy person dies with no will or a debatable allocation of wealth are the lawyers.
5
An inheritance is a GIFT, and no one is entitled to it. People get bequests through the generosity of the deceased.
However, in this case, where there are $millions in the estate, why is no one suggesting sharing? It seems like there should be plenty of money for all.
This fight will alienate the family for generations. Hen is too much not quite enough? Greedy people.
19
None of this discussion takes into account the child or children who, upon receiving a sizable inheritance, will have the wildest narcotics or alcohol party imaginable, until the money runs out.
On the other hand, my children have told me that they hope that on the day of my death, I will have spent my last penny.
13
@Dirtlawyer In Yorkshire, England, there is a saying: Clogs to clogs in three generations. I have seen this happen frequently.
6
@ETL Andrew Carneigie made a similar comment: shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.
2
And I've seen it in my law practice.@Dirtlawyer
The "Napoleanic Code" principle that all children must inherit applies in Puerto Rico as well as in France and Louisiana. (Puerto Rico, like the fifty states, has its own elected legislature and can pass its own internal laws as long as they don't conflict with the US Constitution.)
As a result, my husband and I had to make a complicated separate will for our vacation home, even though our main will does not disinherit any of our children. This means, incidentally, that whichever of us is the survivor could, in principle, be forced out of the house by one or more of the children-- even though the amount each one will receive is hardly worth the trouble of hiring an attorney.
It sounds cruel that Johnny Hallyday's biological children are being cut off. But trying to avoid that possibility by laws mandating that all children must get some inheritance in practice mostly leads to a chunk of the inheritance going to lawyers.
2
@Eleanor
"whichever of us is the survivor could, in principle, be forced out of the house by one or more of the children"
I don't think you are right about that. In France, the spouse always gets preferential treatment in such a situation.
@MJ, in Puerto Rico, the adult children of a deceased parent can force the surviving spouse out of the house if there are no children under 18 living in the house, and as long as they pay the surviving spouse whatever portion of the house, if any, that spouse is entitled to, under the
inheritance laws. This is a big problem when there are adult children of a first marriage ready to kick the second spouse into the streets. The cumbersome nature of the complicated forced inheritance laws under the Napoleonic Code have helped many an attorney earn a very good living.
During a years long estrangement between my parents and a sibling, I was informed that said sibling had been excluded from any inheritance. I made it clear that I'd allow the point to be made as it's their assets and they can do whatever they want with them but that I'd divide my share up with said sibling once it was "mine". Happy to say that is all in the past.
90
How old was he when the final will was written? I had a long conversation with a retired probate judge about this very issue. His opinion was that people ought to have their final, irrevocable will in place by the time they are sixty. We are certainly not getting any smarter by that point in life, and many are in noticeable cognitive decline. This judge had seen many tragic cases where not long after that, the elderly began to lose their social judgement, often becoming reclusive and bitter with life, former friends, and family members.
It's very hard to judge the merits of an individual case from a newspaper article, or to make blanket statements about the mental acuity of the old, but I think the idea of finalizing your will at sixty is a good one, with the possible exception of adding new dependents in for fractional portions.
23
@Jim K
People live well into their nineties these days and remain cognitively acute.
Things change between sixty and ninety, including affective relationships and quality of care.
7
@Jim K
" His opinion was that people ought to have their final, irrevocable will in place by the time they are sixty. We are certainly not getting any smarter by that point in life, and many are in noticeable cognitive decline."
This evidence-free stereotyping of people past sixty is repugnantly ageist. I'm surprised the Times allowed it. Truly, ageism is the last acceptable form of bigotry in our society.
12
@Jim K An irrevocable will? No such thing.
5
The French are not the only who doesn't understand the American way. In Chile the "mandatory heirs" (wife, children or, if there isn't any of those, parents, sibling or grandparents) inherit 50% of the deceased's assets. And a person can make a testament leaving 25% of his/her assets to one or more of his/her mandatory heirs. Finally, a person can leave 25% of his/her assets to whomever he/she wants.
Of course children who has "given [their parents] all the misery in the world" should and can be prevented from inheriting but you have to prove this before a court. This to prevent i.e. spouses to talk someone into writing off children from previous marriages or born out of wedlock. It also prevents opportunistic people from taking advantage of an elderly or mentally-diminished person.
I must add that according to Chilean law, children are also required to provide for their parents if they are unable to provide for themselves and can be mandated to give them alimony.
20
@Sara Andrea That's very interesting. It sounds to me like Chilean law is designed to minimize welfare costs.
5
@Sara Andrea......I remembered a court case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in 1990’s. A single mother successfully sued against the grandparents of her child for child support that the father of her child did not provide. The middle class grandparents were devastated as the judgment totally upended their plan to retire. As much as I would like family to help each other, and recognizing that parents have responsibilities to minor children, there should be limits to the legal obligation of family members to each other.
1
Having lived in Belgium and Luxembourg which both share this aspect of French law (attributed to the Cose Napoleon) we see advantages and drawbacks to the system.
But more relevant to this dispute, we were advised that it would have a lot to do with where our assets were located on our death. This seems logical to me. To the extent that Mr Hallyday’s assets were domiciled in California, Californian law should apply. To the extent they were in France the French system prevails.
7
@David S Germany which similarly applies the Napoleonic Code, would look at having jurisdiction over its dominion assets, CA over its dominion. Likely enforceability will prevail.
1
He was a French citizen. He did not vote in the US. I cannot see how French law will not prevail over his estate, though one wonders whether he took the same wishful approach with his taxes in which case there could be a lot less to argue about in the end.
67
The Louisiana law seems to be a reasonable middle ground: you cannot disinherit a child under 24 years of age, or one who is permanently incapacitated. Barring that, and without knowing anything about French trust law, people with significant assets should always move them into trusts at some point, with specific instructions on distribution.
46
@Tom Trusts may not be recognized outside the US.
@Tom, you're right not to assume that Trust laws in countries other than the United States are the same as ours; they may not be. My guess about what will happen in the Hallyday case is this: real estate and property accrued in the marital estate while Mr. ad Mrs. Hallyday were residing in California will be probated under the California Will; everything else will be probated under French law.
6