how is it that if a will/trust states anyone who contests gets nothing, one can claim undu influence?
464189
Two possibilities; I can't tell from your post which one you mean:\n\n1) you are not contesting the PROVISIONS of the will, you are contesting the GENERAL LEGALITY of the will.  If there was undue influence, the entire will is invalid.  This is different from contesting (for example) the "$1000 to my good friend John" provision of the will.  This depends on the drafting of the "no contesting allowed" clause.\n\n2) you ARE contesting the will, and if you lose you will get nothing.  But if you win, the entire will is invalid (see above), INCLUDING the 'no contest' part of the will... so if you win, you will inherit.
272199
Make a will and it will go to whoever you want it to go to.  Unless she fights it.
1116431
If the trustee of a trust gave someone power of attorney, then it is possible... as the power of attorney may have the right to act on the trustees behalf if the limitations allow it.  So my first advice would be to get your hands on the POA and read it.  POA is only voided if it is revoked or upon death of the trustee.
939121
You can sue anybody over anything. The judge decides if its valid.
459758
how can you win something you didnt enter?! its a con!
408196
+\nthey have no vested intrest excepth yours
73140
If you challenge this, you will have to produce witness that say that she changed it when he lost his mental abilities.  You will have to contest the will in Probate Court in the county that you dad lived in.  It will be an uphill battle to win this.  If a person leave no will, all funds go to the wife.  You see the challenge?
800618
Contests must follow rules laid out by the government (protest the consumer). There are different rules state by state and include things like - alternative entry methods (mail in a ballot), and rules so it isn't gambling (often why they have a skill testing question), sometimes it means getting a liceence and with the differnt rules that is why you sometimes see that it is only for residents of a particular location etc.. \n\nThere are companies that specialize in planning and running contests like "Big Ballot" in California
862051
You can't "fire" them, but if you're the guy who set up the trust in the first place, you can replace him with a different trustee.    You *might* have to go to court to do that.
464238
If you can't prove ownership, NOTHING.
103988
it doesnt, its a contract restriciting the power of those we 'trust' with it.\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
926305
Since vote rigging would be next to impossible in the state were I live then no one here who be able to "win" this money.\n\nWe have checks and balances to keep it from happening.
475736
The part "trustees shall hold the trust fund on trust for X" is just lawyer talk for the following:\nTrustee gets money, trustee holds or invests money, and then trustee pays, over time, the interest on the money to or for X.  \nUsually a trust then states what happens to the money when X dies, or some other event (X reaches majority) occurs.  \nI have no idea what the two "absolutelys" are for.  I suspect the person who wrote this was not an attorney.
660238
"Judicial Decisions.There is a doctrine in law called the "unclean hands" doctrine in which a plaintiff is denied any recovery because it comes into court with unclean hands (i.e., being guilty of some illegal or related misconduct), and the doctrine says (when the doctrine applies at all) that the court will leave the wrongdoers where they are and deny relief to them all in such a situation. \n\nThis unclean hands doctrine has repeatedly been held not to apply in antitrust cases. The importance of antitrust law enforcement for the nation far exceeds any benefit from depriving a plaintiff recovery because of some pecadillo, such as obtaining a more favorable price than smaller competitors. The defendant manufacturer is not excused from its liability to all disfavored purchasers merely because some of the disfavored purchasers were disfavored more or less than others"\n\n\nHow I'm assuming this applies to your ex-husband is:  Maybe he did not pay what he was court ordered to and then filed an exemption, so first he violated the law by not paying it and then filed an exemption; rather than filing the exemption before not paying it?  But I'm not a lawyer, so this is completely based on what I was able to deduce from that definition.
710775
Do whatever you want .. nobody can influence in you
1093095
Inheritance laws vary by state. The executor of the will is responsible for making an effort to locate heirs. What happens if no heirs are located is that the estate will go to the state.\n\n"No heirs" also includes those entitled to the estate if the named heirs cannot be located.\n\nLaws vary by state but that's the general process.\n\n"No contact" is irrelevant regarding the right to an inheritance.
452602
The court does not collect judgments, that is up to the person who was awarded a judgment.\n\nThe court is finished with the matter.\n\nYour opponent is in the same category as all other debt collectors, and if you have nothing he can attach, he better be glad that you are willing to make payments, regardless how small, or how often.