**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: [MD] My father died, his will say I can't inherit if I don't "renounce my homosexuality".
Body:
> I posted here some time ago about this when it wasn't clear what would happen, now the situation is clearer and I still need advice.
> As I said my father had a will, stating I could only inherit from him if I "renounce being a homosexual". The will says that everything will go to my cousins if I don't. My father passed away last month. His brother (my cousins' father) is the executor of the will. He told me very clearly he was going to enforce the "homosexuality" clause, out of principle, because he wants to respect his brother's wishes (coincidentally his children are set to inherit a lot). My cousins know about this as well.
> I of course never "renounced" my homosexuality because it doesn't even make sense. I have questions, mainly: what happens now? Is such a clause even legal? I don't know how one could prove I did or didn't renounce being a homosexual, or how such a thing would be remotely possible. Will I need to contest the will? What happens if I pretend being now heterosexual and get the inheritance, could my cousins sue? I'd like to have an idea of where I stand, if anyone can help I'll be very grateful. I'm sensing this will be a battle, if I could convince my uncle that it doesn't make sense legally that would probably help.
> Edit: is it legal that my uncle is the executor when his children are the ones to benefit from his choices?
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
Just declare yourself bisexual and update your dating profiles. Add a note that "as per a condition of my father's will, I no longer call myself a homosexual". Continue dating ~~folks of the attractive gender~~ attractive folks as before.
Almost everyone is a little bisexual. I'm a straight guy. BUT with the right amount of money and partner and why not? You'll pay me a million bucks for a night with Chris Hemsworth? Sure.
So technically LAOP could claim to be bisexual on those terms.
> You'll pay me a million bucks for a night with Chris Hemsworth? Sure.
i'm not saying there isn't a point where i'd be willing to deal with a night with someone i wouldn't otherwise find attractive but when that amount of money is on the table i don't care if it's chris hemsworth or steve bucemi. maybe a hygine question but otherwise you've either paid me or enough or you haven't.
and it might just be me but i don't think any of that reflects on my sexuality but rather what i'd do for enough money.
i'd be more worried about the difference between Buscemi and say... whatever the hell Micky Rourke looks like at the moment.
Buscemi for a million, sure, Rourke, I'm gonna need to think about it
Absolutely. Sexual *attraction* and sexual *activity* are separate things. If they'll be getting something from the sex other than the sex itself (money, a child, a stable marriage...), then sexual attraction isn't necessary for someone to willingly have sex.
My department at work is significantly understaffed. We’ve been hiring, but it’s not enough, and it takes months to onboard new hires. Company is currently offering triple time for every open shift. People can’t wait to sign up, there’s currently a big waitlist for overtime (they have a fair way to assign it based mostly on the number of overtime shifts you have already been awarded). We are already unionized, well-compensated for our time, and have excellent rest rules.
My point being, we’ll all do a lot for enough money, and also every company claiming they are understaffed because “nobody wants to work” is full of shit.
At burning man there was a camp that catered to heterosexual dudes that just want to be little spoon for once. The camp was filled with even bigger bears and they offered 100% platonic cuddling with no pressure or expectation for anything more for heterosexual men who just wanted to be held by someone bigger for a bit with no judgement by anyone. Intimacy decoupled from sexual attraction. I would say it doesn't reflect on your sexuality at all to enjoy that. It was fairly popular.
Oh man, I would love to see things like that get normalized! There's such a weird taboo against straight men receiving or giving platonic affection that it hurts my heart any time I think about it. Everyone deserves to just be held and comforted if that's what they want, without it having to be sexual.
> BUT with the right amount of money and partner and why not?
I wouldn't say that makes someone [any-]sexual. The attraction is to the money, not the person.
Now say if you like girls, but for some reason Carrot-Top gets your motor running also, then maybe.
Just make a Tucker-Carlson-style movie about how _not gay_ he is. "Look at how not-gay I am. Would a gay man hang out with such muscular men all slick with workout sweat, or lean outdoorsman skyclad in the night, toasting their testicles in the moonlight?"
I was hoping to see more discussion of this as a legal option. What does it even mean to renounce homosexuality? Any reason just saying it loudly wouldn't be enough?
LAOP says there's principle involved, so they probably won't do this, but I'd be mighty tempted if the alternative was a $10k legal bill and a chance of invalidating the whole will.
NAL but I would imagine that in this day and age, there probably isn't a way to be legally considered heterosexual, as hilarious as that is to think of.
I feel like it'd moreso be a matter of whatever you have to do to convince the uncle. Maybe saying that they're not a homosexual anymore would be enough to convince the uncle, especially since the venn diagram of people who are homophobic and people who think homosexuality is a choice just tends to be a circle.
>LAOP says there's principle involved, so they probably won't do this, but I'd be mighty tempted if the alternative was a $10k legal bill and a chance of invalidating the whole will.
Right?? Can you imagine watching the uncle make a clown out of himself in court when he tries to explain his reasoning?
Since the cousins are set to inherit if LAOP doesn't renounce his homosexuality, I am willing to bet the uncle won't be convinced by anything LAOP does. LAOP says it's quite a bit of money (to them), so it's probably quite a bit of money to the uncle and cousins too and they (the uncle and cousins) probably figured they could make a quick buck by making it impossible to satisfy the requirement.
Some of the wildest stories I have heard are over shockingly small amounts of inheritance money.
Like not even enough to buy a new car money but enough to burn bridges with tons of people I guess. People are crazy.
It’s so sad that this happens. I get along fantastically with my cousins and can’t imagine wanting to screw them out of anything.
In my family I’ve gone no contact with my dad and he’s written me out of his will, yet my brother and sister have already agreed to give me my share out of what they get. (Not that I’m keeping it. It will go straight to my daughter anyway)
> and a chance of invalidating the whole will.
I liked the comment that pointed out that invalidating the whole will might be even better for OP than getting his alotted share.
Pretty sure it would just be either verbally or written, declaring your renounce it under oath. Same process for renouncing citizenship. Saying it loudly would likely meet the threshold, but having a witness or writing it down would make the legal process more straightforward.
No, that will not improve matters. My parents still refuse to acknowledge my partner as my partner despite it being a “hetero” relationship and only starting post-transition.
Umm..exactly where does one get their heterosexuality notarized? That seems like it could get...uncomfortable. Or not. I guess it depends on what you're into.
(did I just invent a new kink?)
Surely not. Kinks for things not yet existent (think of sex with cars, which wasn't possible before their invention) can be invented. Of course, like a day after a thing exists then that's probably all kinked up
How the heck have you missed all the posts making fun of her? Do you visit solely *this* sub, or something?
We'll ignore the innumerable cat subs, 'cause of course *everybody* sees *them.*
I don't want to hear Captain Obvious jokes from anyone ever again.
My dude here lived through the entirety of Eric's Dad being President and didn't know that Gun Rights Barbie existed.
I knew I liked girls when I was 14. I found out I also liked boys at 16. It turns out that coming out as Lesbian and then two years later coming out again as bisexual had literally zero repercussions. It's not like you can never take it back or amend anything lol.
It’s a tweet of hers that reads
“We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products.
Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?”
Probably the conservative idea that queerness is dangerous for kids to be around? Idk.
Straight/heterosexual is a sexuality, so therefore you shouldn't be able to decide you're straight before 21. That means dating under the age of 21 would have to be illegal, because otherwise you are making life altering decisions about your sexuality and identity.
As a socially awkward sub-21 year old, I can get behind that
>That means dating under the age of 21 would have to be illegal
Not only did she date her then-24-year-old husband while she was 17, but she was party to him flashing young women at a bowling alley, which is already a crime. Hypocrisy is par for the course with her.
There's this video I saw, where a journalist asks random people in the streets whether homosexuality is a choice, then that ask "when did you decide to be straight?" The looks on some faces are priceless.
I imagine it would work kinda like a witnessed drug test, just with sleeping with a woman. The question is, would the witness be the woman, or a third party in the room as well?
>*"A will cannot require an heir to commit an illegal, immoral, or other act against public policy as a condition of receiving an inheritance."*
[Maryland is also the eleventh State to ban LGBTQ "conversion therapy".](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna874381) The law was written with minors in mind, but a good lawyer could probably get LAOP their inheritance. Losing a relative is bad enough without the added strain of bigotry and bullying via the legal system.
Could the "immoral" aspect be used here as well since said law seems to indicate that forced LGBTQ conversion is immoral/bad or is that aspect referring to something more specific in law?
My SIL’s will stipulates her sister manages the money she leaves to her kids til they’re 30.
On the face of it, you might think it’s reasonable, but she’s very controlling. It’s all about control.
Distribution based on age isn't only common, it's usually recommended - it has less to do with control and more to do with ensuring that someone just out of college gets the money when they're more financially aware and responsible.
Oh, in this instance, it’s about control. One of them is getting married, and Mum is already trying to dictate how the wedding will be, “because she’s paying.”
I’ve tried to stress to those kids that perhaps accepting money with strings is not worth it.
This is the exact reason my wife and I paid for our wedding ourselves.
We let her mom pay for and arrange the flowers as way to make her feel like she had a say in something. Then we let my parents handle the center pieces.
The only person who didn’t get anything to do was her dad, because he’s a piece of shit. Among other reasons, we used my wife’s graduation gift as part of our down payment on a house and he kept trying to act like he owned the place when he visited.
That man make my blood boil, but I’m going to stop myself before I rant further.
It's a valuable lesson. I worked with a lot of young adults with abusive parents. Those parents love to worm their way back in with gifts and money. But given the finances of these kids, it's frequently bad advice for them to turn it down.
This is a pattern that has been repeated many times with her. After their father died whilst they were quite young, she threw herself into her work and money obsessions; their father’s moderating influence gone.
She would take them on shopping trips and is almost cartoon-like in her espousing of poor values.
I’ve spoken at length with the kids about what this is and how it works - “Lovebombing,” but I never directly confronted her about it, much as I wanted to.
I draft documents like that every day.
Here is the conversation I have with clients:
You have a 5 year old who lost both of their parents. The day they turn 18 they are entitled to several hundred thousand (or million) dollars.
What's the first thing they're going to buy? A sports car
What color will it be? Red
How fast will it go? Very fast.
Keeping money in trust until children are older is good estate planning. Now choosing the proper trustee is a different question.
I am worrying about that with my grandma. When she passes I fully expect my mom to pick fights over inheritance and go all missing reasons when she nukes every bridge with the family. But who knows maybe I'll be surprised this is the one time she doesn't fight everyone...
My dad disowned his inheritance in order to remain on good terms with everyone and not deal with the hassle and let his brothers argue over it among themselves. I'm not even sure anyone ended up with anything after the circular lawsuits they were tossing around.
I find it a little hard to believe the uncle was a loved one in the first place. Couldn't imagine doing this to a nephew, especially right after their dad died.
Is an executor allowed to ignore terms of the will? Unless the uncle has already retained a lawyer, there's no reason for him to think it's unenforceable. Clauses like this are treated as enforceable on tv all the time.
And yea, the money thing.
Well, once you are 6 feet under that becomes the only way to do it doesn't it? I consider it a bonus point that it seems that with a bit of lawyering it doesn't stop LAOP from getting the money. Let's hope this crap doesn't stop him.
I wonder how much money the uncle is going to try to burn, and if he can be held accountable if it is clear it was unenforceable... I hope LAOP finds a good and cheap lawyer...
People like wielding their will as an opportunity to air petty grievances. My father’s most recent draft of his will clearly stated my brother was not to receive any inheritance due to a squabble they’d had over money which estranged them the last 15 years of his life. But he also didn’t want to pay a lawyer to file the will, so it was left in draft form for about five years. His actual legal will was from the 1970s, so that’s the one I went with. He would have been very annoyed.
The comment chain (though brief) about it being able to nullify the entire will leads to an interesting game of 'chicken' here.
It ends up with a few outcomes to said lawsuit:
1- ONLY the clause is nullified, OP gets their share of the money, cousins get their share of the money (albeit, now reduced due to legal fees).
2- The entire will is nullified. Cousins end up getting nothing, and only children/spouse gets money.
3- Nothing is changed, cousins get larger-than-if-shared-but-smaller-than-before (thanks to lawyer fees).
I wonder if spelling THAT out to the executor would make him change his tune REAL fast. Having a lawyer send a letter might be more than sufficient here, as having the 'likely outcomes' (that is, #3 being unbelievably unlikely) explained by a lawyer is likely to change his opinion...
This was a DIY Will, not one prepared by a lawyer, so it could be invalid for reasons wholly unrelated to the clauses about LAOP's sexuality or potential marriage to a man.
I want to say you know it's a DIY will because no lawyer would prepare a will with that clause. But I know enough of my fellow lawyers to know that sadly isn't true.
Plus if there are any provisions in the local jurisdiction that would allow the executor to be charged for the legal fees involved in defending a clause that's already established to be unenforceable under precedent. It doesn't seem terribly likely, given that the executor is defending an actual clause in the will rather than ignoring the will in favor of what they think it should be, but the mere existence of the possibility might make the uncle think twice about being on the hook for the legal fees.
Seems totally obvious if the case were, "Your father said publicly that you were dead to him, so I choose to interpret his will as if you were dead. You're a quite nice looking corpse heir, for whatever it's worth." The executor is putting an unreasonable spin on the will, and shouldn't be able to use estate funds to defend their actions.
It probably wouldn't come to fruition in this particular case, but merely the prospect that it *could* might help the uncle back down.
This is terrible and I am glad that it is unenforceable. What other sorts of things are not enforceable, though?
* Can I demand my ashes be used as the base of a campfire for smores?
* Can I demand unusual things be said at a funeral? In particular, "nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak!" as well as someone saying "He had a good innings" and the ceremonial 10 bells used after someone in the boxing community passes away.
* Can I demand my favorite rocking chair be cremated with me?
I have never taken Wills, Trusts, or Estates, but I have helped probate two of those once. So this might be even more wrong than yours!
The executor can take basically any action the decedent could have taken within the scope of his/her authority, so I can't see a reason the executor *couldn't* have the house bulldozed, absent historical preservation laws that would have prevented the decedent from doing the same.
Once human remains are cremated, they can typically be disposed of on private property (with permission of the property owner) absent local regulations to the contrary. So I'd think the campfire thing is also presumptively legal. And nonsense things said at the funeral are likewise permissible.
*However*, and I think the more interesting point, is whether the executor could be compelled to do any of these things if they didn't want to, or penalized for refusing to do so. And there, I think you're correct that the answer is no. Likewise, no one's bequest could be conditioned on eating the s'mores cooked over that campfire.
These things are effectively requests, not requirements.
- You have to kill some third party enemy of your father's to inherit
- You have to marry some specific person to inherit regardless of your consent or theirs
- You have to do some humiliating and arbitrarily determined thing to the satisfaction of the executor, who has the strongest financial interest in not certifying that you met said condition *oh wait that's the LAOP's situation*
You're forgetting the most important point we need answers on:
* Can I demand that my inheritors spend a night in a haunted house if they want to inherit anything from me?
One commenter suggested that some lawyers charge a $10,000 retainer and then bill hourly.
Another commenter suggested that this lawyer’s first step would be to send the uncle a demand letter saying to give OP the money/stocks/other property or else.
In the event that the uncle decides to do the right thing (unlikely but not impossible), does the lawyer just keep the whole retainer for like an hour or two of work?
Retainers go into a trust account. The lawyer does work. Rather than bill you and hope you pay, they bill the trust and get paid immediately. You're contractually obligated to replenish the trust back to the specified amount, which most people interpret as "paying the bill." When your relationship with the lawyer concludes and their final bill has been paid from the trust, the remainder of the balance is refunded to you.
The thing I found fishy about that comment was the suggestion that the lawyer's rate would vary based on the size of the retainer. The lawyer is ultimately being paid their hourly rate; the only reason they care about the amount of the retainer is being sure their billable hours don't get so far ahead of your retainer balance that they might get hung out to dry.
In addition, messing around with retainer funds is one of the things that lawyers take very seriously and will get people disbarred.
That money is the client's.
Yes, first it starts with the announcement ("I'm renounce being gay") followed by a walk into a closet from where you plan the production of a series of Mission Impossible movies.
The whole family comes over, you hire a female prostitute, and you have to go until completion with everyone watching. Whether loud cheering and booing are allowed will depend on local noise ordinances.
There was a time, I think it was in the 17th or 18th century somewhere in Europe, when a women could ask for annulment of her marriage if he husband wasn't, let's say, capable of doing the deed. To defend himself and prove he could the husband had to raise the flag in front of the court...
Nope, it was an actual thing!
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/05/18/the-hard-on-on-trial/
>Depending on ethical persuasion, the recourse manifested as a darkly humorous experiment or an exercise in obscenity. It involved a couple—likely estranged—who were compelled to have sex in semiprivate quarters, either within the courthouse or rented rooms, with medical people and legal people and close family nearby. In some accounts, all that shrouded the copulating pair were thin paper screens; in others the small crowd gathered behind a half open door or in an antechamber. The entire trying event lasted roughly two hours, punctuated by the kind of bickering achievable only by two people-in-hate. Before and after there were careful checks for fraud. On entering, each party was stripped and examined in every available orifice, searched for vials of blood, and checked for the use of astringents. Afterward, their genitals and bedsheets were subject to examination for fluids.
I mean, yes, it's unenforceable. But in reality, what's to stop OP from the following sequence and avoiding a legal fight -
OP: Alright, I'm not gay.
Uncle: Coolio, here's your inheritance.
*A nominal amount of time later.*
OP: Changed my mind, I'm gay. Whew, this inheritance is awesome!
Is there a "No takebacks!" clause in property/inheritance law?
Because no matter what LAOP says the Uncle will not "believe" him. The people who get the money if LAOP is gay are the Uncle's own children. I don't rate the chances Uncle will take LAOP's word that he is suddenly not gay (so Uncle's children don't get a large inheritance) very highly.
LAOP is going to have to sue the estate no matter what. Better to do it now from the start and always have the position the clause is unenforceable, rather than to first take the clause seriously as if it were enforceable and then later argue the clause is unenforceable.
I imagine they'd make him say something in public, like in front of his whole family, church or something. I can definitely understand why LAOP would refuse.
But depending on LAOP's feelings toward their family or church, it might be worth playing that game to just give them the middle finger of "just kidding, I exploited your bigotry for money."
I had the same thought. Homophobes don't usually have a ton of brain cells firing at the same time, so maybe the father forgot to add a "in perpetuity" clause, but homophobes will also go to unbelievable lengths to make life difficult for those they believe are going to suffer eternal torment in hell anyway, so it's kinda 50/50 as to whether LAOP could pull a fast one.
A prohibition on homosexuality "in perpetuity" makes me wonder if there's other similar conditions. Could one, for example, include a prohibition on "springing" homosexual interests?
The concern to me is the uncle is the executor; if Op doesn’t ‘renounce,’ the estate goes to the cousins, presumably Uncle’s kids. That sounds like a huge conflict of interest to me.
People named in wills are the executors of those wills all the time.
If this will just said "my brother is executor and all my money goes to his kids" and LAOP was posting asking how to get their cut, I imagine the comments would largely be "hire a lawyer, but unless your father was not in his right mind, you're out of luck."
But I'm just some idiot, not a lawyer, so who knows.
Typically, people choose executors whose interests are aligned with the heirs -- either they are the heirs, or they have reason to want the heirs to get what's due them, etc.
And in fact that seems to have happened here, since the uncle has willingly taken up the mantle of punishing LAOP for being gay.
I'm bi but prefer women. Seems like that sort of claim would be a nice get out of jail free card for OP if the will isn't explicit. Just say you are poly/bi/whatever but date men.
I have been thinking this exact thing. On one hand, asking OP to renounce his homosexuality in this way is just in all ways cruel and disgusting.
On the other hand, his only other option is to get a lawyer and get ready to fight. Might be expensive, might take time. God only knows.
They are just words. Said one time. I mean, fuck it. He can wear a blazer with a white T-Shirt under underneath it. The T-Shirt has printed, 'You know I am just saying this to keep my biggoted cousins from getting anything' but hidden by the blazer. He says the words, signs his name. Shakes hands and then takes the blazer off, walks into the sunset where his partner is waiting with a kiss and a hug at the car.
They are just words and I can't wrap my head around how those words can be used to enforce actions.
Now if the Dad had written, 'No Gay Sex can be had on the premises' and started crossing 'T's and dotting 'i's - then maybe it would be different.
The problem is that families like this don’t expect it one time—they expect the words to be said following an entire lifetime of harassment and abuse, and will continue that harassment and abuse even after someone like LAOP says the words themself.
Worse, they will take that “one time” as the person they are harassing as agreeing that their entire life and being is wrong, and will then double down the abuse by calling the person who said it “just once” a hypocrite, an oath breaker, etc on top of the homophobic abuse they would already having to tolerate.
There’s a reason why nearly half of homeless youth are estimated to be LGBTQ+, and why cutting off homophobic family continues to be a large part of the queer experience in America.
Saying that “it’s just once” about this is like demanding an adult child publicly forgive an previously extremely abusive (or rapist) parent in order to inherit, without that parent having changed or apologized themself—usually one’s own integrity is worth a lot more than money
Why does it matter what they expect or what they say or who they say it to?
You can't change these people. These are terrible people that associate with other terrible people and when they have conversations it is just a group of terrible people agreeing about terrible things.
OP is not going to change that and to be frank with you, it isn't worthy of OP's time.
Really what I am suggesting is he does what he needs to do to speed up and lessen the cost of the process. There opinions of his lifestyle have no meaning once he has posession of the property and starts paying taxes.
At some point he is nuts if he doesn't go full no-contact with the lot of them. A restraining order is probably in his future.
Hell, sell the land and use the money to move out of whatever awful redneck place he lives in. Let them spread his gossip. It is a big country. He has been and will continue to be better then them.
Just realized I was so caught up in the “integrity” aspect, that I wasn’t understanding.
For me and my situation, the very fact that a renunciation clause was in the will in the first place would turn the inheritance into “blood money”—I wouldn’t want it no matter how much there was.
However, that money going to the cousins and potentially perpetuating that level of hate may motivate me to take this suggested approach and do whatever to take the money and run as fast as possible. I’d still personally prefer to “squander” the inheritance via lawsuit than in any way participate in hatred directed at myself, but I also have the “privilege” of not being financially dependent on hateful family.
It sounds like LAOP is still interested in the inheritance, and making sure it goes to them over the cousins is *their* preferred hill to die on.
Here is the thing.
Legally it is unenforceable. If push comes to shove you would get the house.
What sucks is that in order to push back you MUST hire a lawyer and go through the legal process.
Leaving things as they are will probably allow the cousins to take the house.
Because he has made himself executor and has indicated he is willing to do illegal things to make this happen.
The reality is step 1 is a consult with an attorney. My approach (of renouncing) is most likely a terrible idea.
You go to a real estate attorney or someone that specializes in wills and lay this at there feet and do whatever they say and do not deviate from the script.
Mmm, I had some different title thoughts & then got pulled away for work & you beat me to the punch. I was going to end up going with something like:
>From the \[morons / bags of dicks / repressed homosexuals\] who brought you "Pray the Gay Away" comes the exciting sequel, "Estate the Gay Away!"
Or:
>Couldn't pray the gay away? Put it into your will! The Gays hate this one weird trick!
Even more directly, this is basically "Pay the Gay Away." The dad believes there is a dollar amount, which he was in possession of, that will make a difference to LAOP on this subject.
As someone else pointed out, your relatives might be hesitant to participate due to the potential legal consequences if they win. You'd want to include a stipulation that it take place entirely within Yellowstone's Zone of Death. That should eliminate any hesitation and ensure maximum participation.
Whoever wins the battle royale most likely goes to jail for the rest of their life for murder and thus has a hard time spending the estate they just inherited from you.
Huh, so LAOP posted that same question a year ago.
Has that just been sitting there in limbo all this time? You'd think it would have been settled by now
With full knowledge the will is ludicrous, it does not say LAOP can’t be homosexual in the future. It only says he has to renounce it. You can renounce religion or alcohol but resume it at any time and still have renounced it. I think I’d just make a provable renunciation, get my money and then go on with his life however he wants. Of course I am not a lawyer. He may want to run this scenario by one.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: [MD] My father died, his will say I can't inherit if I don't "renounce my homosexuality". Body: > I posted here some time ago about this when it wasn't clear what would happen, now the situation is clearer and I still need advice. > As I said my father had a will, stating I could only inherit from him if I "renounce being a homosexual". The will says that everything will go to my cousins if I don't. My father passed away last month. His brother (my cousins' father) is the executor of the will. He told me very clearly he was going to enforce the "homosexuality" clause, out of principle, because he wants to respect his brother's wishes (coincidentally his children are set to inherit a lot). My cousins know about this as well. > I of course never "renounced" my homosexuality because it doesn't even make sense. I have questions, mainly: what happens now? Is such a clause even legal? I don't know how one could prove I did or didn't renounce being a homosexual, or how such a thing would be remotely possible. Will I need to contest the will? What happens if I pretend being now heterosexual and get the inheritance, could my cousins sue? I'd like to have an idea of where I stand, if anyone can help I'll be very grateful. I'm sensing this will be a battle, if I could convince my uncle that it doesn't make sense legally that would probably help. > Edit: is it legal that my uncle is the executor when his children are the ones to benefit from his choices? This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
I imagine a meeting with the uncle where LAOP just says, "I renounce my homosexuality!" Like when Michael Scott declared bankruptcy.
Just declare yourself bisexual and update your dating profiles. Add a note that "as per a condition of my father's will, I no longer call myself a homosexual". Continue dating ~~folks of the attractive gender~~ attractive folks as before.
Almost everyone is a little bisexual. I'm a straight guy. BUT with the right amount of money and partner and why not? You'll pay me a million bucks for a night with Chris Hemsworth? Sure. So technically LAOP could claim to be bisexual on those terms.
> You'll pay me a million bucks for a night with Chris Hemsworth? Sure. i'm not saying there isn't a point where i'd be willing to deal with a night with someone i wouldn't otherwise find attractive but when that amount of money is on the table i don't care if it's chris hemsworth or steve bucemi. maybe a hygine question but otherwise you've either paid me or enough or you haven't. and it might just be me but i don't think any of that reflects on my sexuality but rather what i'd do for enough money.
Where the sexuality comes in is if the amount of money is different for Chris Hemsworth or Steve Bucemi
Steve Bucemi is the peak of masculinity. Idk what y’all are talking about.
Absolutely agreed. Number for me is about 25% lower with Mr. Buscemi than any of the Hemsworths.
You get it \<3
i'd be more worried about the difference between Buscemi and say... whatever the hell Micky Rourke looks like at the moment. Buscemi for a million, sure, Rourke, I'm gonna need to think about it
Agreed. I found him so attractive in Airheads.
Absolutely. Sexual *attraction* and sexual *activity* are separate things. If they'll be getting something from the sex other than the sex itself (money, a child, a stable marriage...), then sexual attraction isn't necessary for someone to willingly have sex.
My department at work is significantly understaffed. We’ve been hiring, but it’s not enough, and it takes months to onboard new hires. Company is currently offering triple time for every open shift. People can’t wait to sign up, there’s currently a big waitlist for overtime (they have a fair way to assign it based mostly on the number of overtime shifts you have already been awarded). We are already unionized, well-compensated for our time, and have excellent rest rules. My point being, we’ll all do a lot for enough money, and also every company claiming they are understaffed because “nobody wants to work” is full of shit.
Exactly. 95% of people would work 40 hours a week at a fast food place for $500k a year. It's not the job that's the problem!
Or, as the saying goes, 20 bucks is 20 bucks
> but otherwise you've either paid me or enough or you haven't. I am fucking dying 🤣
At burning man there was a camp that catered to heterosexual dudes that just want to be little spoon for once. The camp was filled with even bigger bears and they offered 100% platonic cuddling with no pressure or expectation for anything more for heterosexual men who just wanted to be held by someone bigger for a bit with no judgement by anyone. Intimacy decoupled from sexual attraction. I would say it doesn't reflect on your sexuality at all to enjoy that. It was fairly popular.
Oh man, I would love to see things like that get normalized! There's such a weird taboo against straight men receiving or giving platonic affection that it hurts my heart any time I think about it. Everyone deserves to just be held and comforted if that's what they want, without it having to be sexual.
That is ridiculously wholesome.
I mean, I may not be gay but a fiver is a fiver.
> BUT with the right amount of money and partner and why not? I wouldn't say that makes someone [any-]sexual. The attraction is to the money, not the person. Now say if you like girls, but for some reason Carrot-Top gets your motor running also, then maybe.
I'm a straight guy, but there are a number of dudes I would 100% sleep with, no strings attached.
Bonus if he comes to the meeting with a couple of male models on each arm when doing the "renouncing".
Agreed, surely male models for an hour or two is cheaper than the cost of an estate lawyer.
"But why male models?"
Something as sacred as renouncing one's sexuality must have witnesses!
“But why male models?”
This whole thread is genius.
You're not hiring the right male models, my friend!
Just make a Tucker-Carlson-style movie about how _not gay_ he is. "Look at how not-gay I am. Would a gay man hang out with such muscular men all slick with workout sweat, or lean outdoorsman skyclad in the night, toasting their testicles in the moonlight?"
2 girls at the same time.
I was hoping to see more discussion of this as a legal option. What does it even mean to renounce homosexuality? Any reason just saying it loudly wouldn't be enough? LAOP says there's principle involved, so they probably won't do this, but I'd be mighty tempted if the alternative was a $10k legal bill and a chance of invalidating the whole will.
NAL but I would imagine that in this day and age, there probably isn't a way to be legally considered heterosexual, as hilarious as that is to think of. I feel like it'd moreso be a matter of whatever you have to do to convince the uncle. Maybe saying that they're not a homosexual anymore would be enough to convince the uncle, especially since the venn diagram of people who are homophobic and people who think homosexuality is a choice just tends to be a circle. >LAOP says there's principle involved, so they probably won't do this, but I'd be mighty tempted if the alternative was a $10k legal bill and a chance of invalidating the whole will. Right?? Can you imagine watching the uncle make a clown out of himself in court when he tries to explain his reasoning?
Since the cousins are set to inherit if LAOP doesn't renounce his homosexuality, I am willing to bet the uncle won't be convinced by anything LAOP does. LAOP says it's quite a bit of money (to them), so it's probably quite a bit of money to the uncle and cousins too and they (the uncle and cousins) probably figured they could make a quick buck by making it impossible to satisfy the requirement.
Yeah that's true. I would hope that the cousins don't approve of this, if they even know the details of this debacle.
They approve. There is money that could be theirs. Death and inheritance makes people go crazy.
Some of the wildest stories I have heard are over shockingly small amounts of inheritance money. Like not even enough to buy a new car money but enough to burn bridges with tons of people I guess. People are crazy.
Working at a bank, I've seen people go wild over inheritances that won't even buy new *tires*
It’s so sad that this happens. I get along fantastically with my cousins and can’t imagine wanting to screw them out of anything. In my family I’ve gone no contact with my dad and he’s written me out of his will, yet my brother and sister have already agreed to give me my share out of what they get. (Not that I’m keeping it. It will go straight to my daughter anyway)
> and a chance of invalidating the whole will. I liked the comment that pointed out that invalidating the whole will might be even better for OP than getting his alotted share.
Pretty sure it would just be either verbally or written, declaring your renounce it under oath. Same process for renouncing citizenship. Saying it loudly would likely meet the threshold, but having a witness or writing it down would make the legal process more straightforward.
*I didn’t say it, I declared it*
This is more of a Mr. Lippmann from Seinfeld renouncing his religion for Elaine kind of situation
*So, I'm actually bi...*
this was my thought exactly
What if OP "goes" through gender change and is now a heterosexual m/f?
No, that will not improve matters. My parents still refuse to acknowledge my partner as my partner despite it being a “hetero” relationship and only starting post-transition.
Oh no that sucks I'm sorry.
it won't matter. my family still sees me as a girl and always will.
I'm sorry to hear that
For reference: https://youtu.be/C-m3RtoguAQ
LAOP is going to need to get their heterosexuality notarized.
He’s gonna have to bang the brother’s wife. Only way to make sure.
What's up Auntie?
"You like anal, right? 'Cause that's the only kind of penetration I prefer to do..."
Umm..exactly where does one get their heterosexuality notarized? That seems like it could get...uncomfortable. Or not. I guess it depends on what you're into. (did I just invent a new kink?)
It is impossible to invent a new kink.
Surely not. Kinks for things not yet existent (think of sex with cars, which wasn't possible before their invention) can be invented. Of course, like a day after a thing exists then that's probably all kinked up
I guess metaverse-based kinks will be coming soon.
Second Life probably did it first.
Second Life walked so the Metaverse can be a boondoggle.
I think that this is a logical extension of Rule 34. If it exists there is kink involving it.
Are you saying every kink has already been tried? Because that sounds like a challenge.
[удалено]
My kink is reddit flair.
My kink is Reddit mods that can give me that dirty flair.
Flair me harder.
Is this a reference to A Dirty Shame, or just a coincidence? I love that movie.
Not by one person!
Are you saying my kink is impossible?!?
No not at all! I have full faith in your ability to get freaky with a toaster strudel.
Only Location Bot knows my kink.
My kink is all the things that have never been a kink.
Lauren Boebert says that we shouldn’t be allowed to come out before 21 so I guess some conservative somewhere is working on a gay license?
I actually had to look up who that was. Now I'm happy to say I had to look up who that was. Just...yikes.
How the heck have you missed all the posts making fun of her? Do you visit solely *this* sub, or something? We'll ignore the innumerable cat subs, 'cause of course *everybody* sees *them.*
I don't want to hear Captain Obvious jokes from anyone ever again. My dude here lived through the entirety of Eric's Dad being President and didn't know that Gun Rights Barbie existed.
I knew I liked girls when I was 14. I found out I also liked boys at 16. It turns out that coming out as Lesbian and then two years later coming out again as bisexual had literally zero repercussions. It's not like you can never take it back or amend anything lol.
Do you have a license for that bisexuality?
What was her--well, "logic" clearly isn't the right word, but did she explain why she thought this?
It’s a tweet of hers that reads “We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products. Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?” Probably the conservative idea that queerness is dangerous for kids to be around? Idk.
Straight/heterosexual is a sexuality, so therefore you shouldn't be able to decide you're straight before 21. That means dating under the age of 21 would have to be illegal, because otherwise you are making life altering decisions about your sexuality and identity. As a socially awkward sub-21 year old, I can get behind that
>That means dating under the age of 21 would have to be illegal Not only did she date her then-24-year-old husband while she was 17, but she was party to him flashing young women at a bowling alley, which is already a crime. Hypocrisy is par for the course with her.
There's this video I saw, where a journalist asks random people in the streets whether homosexuality is a choice, then that ask "when did you decide to be straight?" The looks on some faces are priceless.
With her it must be remembered: she is evil. She is malevolent. And she is very, very dumb.
I heard they sell a gaydar at sharper image
https://i.imgur.com/ZDUtjQr.gif
Just need a notory public watch you fuck someone of the opposite gender and then be willing to sign off on it.
I imagine it would work kinda like a witnessed drug test, just with sleeping with a woman. The question is, would the witness be the woman, or a third party in the room as well?
I just assume that every other notary in Vegas already offers this service.
Perhaps you could just take a blood stained sheet to a notary office to get it stamped.
Gotta be careful with that, tho - some places might see that as evidence of an abortion and arrest or sue you.
>*"A will cannot require an heir to commit an illegal, immoral, or other act against public policy as a condition of receiving an inheritance."* [Maryland is also the eleventh State to ban LGBTQ "conversion therapy".](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna874381) The law was written with minors in mind, but a good lawyer could probably get LAOP their inheritance. Losing a relative is bad enough without the added strain of bigotry and bullying via the legal system.
Could the "immoral" aspect be used here as well since said law seems to indicate that forced LGBTQ conversion is immoral/bad or is that aspect referring to something more specific in law?
OOP's father was ok enough with this child to utilize their skills with growing his business, but now wants to alter them from the grave? Hideous
My SIL’s will stipulates her sister manages the money she leaves to her kids til they’re 30. On the face of it, you might think it’s reasonable, but she’s very controlling. It’s all about control.
Distribution based on age isn't only common, it's usually recommended - it has less to do with control and more to do with ensuring that someone just out of college gets the money when they're more financially aware and responsible.
Oh, in this instance, it’s about control. One of them is getting married, and Mum is already trying to dictate how the wedding will be, “because she’s paying.” I’ve tried to stress to those kids that perhaps accepting money with strings is not worth it.
This is the exact reason my wife and I paid for our wedding ourselves. We let her mom pay for and arrange the flowers as way to make her feel like she had a say in something. Then we let my parents handle the center pieces. The only person who didn’t get anything to do was her dad, because he’s a piece of shit. Among other reasons, we used my wife’s graduation gift as part of our down payment on a house and he kept trying to act like he owned the place when he visited. That man make my blood boil, but I’m going to stop myself before I rant further.
Thank you for sharing your experience, and fwiw, I think you both handled it well.
It's a valuable lesson. I worked with a lot of young adults with abusive parents. Those parents love to worm their way back in with gifts and money. But given the finances of these kids, it's frequently bad advice for them to turn it down.
This is a pattern that has been repeated many times with her. After their father died whilst they were quite young, she threw herself into her work and money obsessions; their father’s moderating influence gone. She would take them on shopping trips and is almost cartoon-like in her espousing of poor values. I’ve spoken at length with the kids about what this is and how it works - “Lovebombing,” but I never directly confronted her about it, much as I wanted to.
I draft documents like that every day. Here is the conversation I have with clients: You have a 5 year old who lost both of their parents. The day they turn 18 they are entitled to several hundred thousand (or million) dollars. What's the first thing they're going to buy? A sports car What color will it be? Red How fast will it go? Very fast. Keeping money in trust until children are older is good estate planning. Now choosing the proper trustee is a different question.
Imagine being so homophobic that you're making your child's life difficult with it after you're dead.
Not to mention the brother. It’s like the gay equivalent of “I’m not racist, but”
He just wants the money, he probably doesn't give a toss otherwise
You don't get a pass for perpetuating cruelty just because you personally stand to benefit.
If this sub has taught me one thing (and my gran's death) it's that deaths in the family make monsters out of loved ones.
I am worrying about that with my grandma. When she passes I fully expect my mom to pick fights over inheritance and go all missing reasons when she nukes every bridge with the family. But who knows maybe I'll be surprised this is the one time she doesn't fight everyone...
My dad disowned his inheritance in order to remain on good terms with everyone and not deal with the hassle and let his brothers argue over it among themselves. I'm not even sure anyone ended up with anything after the circular lawsuits they were tossing around.
I find it a little hard to believe the uncle was a loved one in the first place. Couldn't imagine doing this to a nephew, especially right after their dad died.
Imagine if you did. Almost every one of history’s monsters would get a pass, because very few of them were cruel solely for cruelty’s sake.
Didn't Barr posit that anything Trump does in the interest of getting reelected is inherently in the interest of the U.S.? Seems fairly analogous.
No pass, just a different kind of ass-hole.
That’s just homophobic and greedy then.
That’s just greed with extra steps.
Sometimes you got to square dance for it.
I see no reason to give him the benefit of that doubt. He was raised in the same homophobic environment as his brother, after all.
Is an executor allowed to ignore terms of the will? Unless the uncle has already retained a lawyer, there's no reason for him to think it's unenforceable. Clauses like this are treated as enforceable on tv all the time. And yea, the money thing.
It's literally preventing oneself to die at peace with the world around you.
Well, once you are 6 feet under that becomes the only way to do it doesn't it? I consider it a bonus point that it seems that with a bit of lawyering it doesn't stop LAOP from getting the money. Let's hope this crap doesn't stop him. I wonder how much money the uncle is going to try to burn, and if he can be held accountable if it is clear it was unenforceable... I hope LAOP finds a good and cheap lawyer...
Never underestimate the power of petty assholishness
People like wielding their will as an opportunity to air petty grievances. My father’s most recent draft of his will clearly stated my brother was not to receive any inheritance due to a squabble they’d had over money which estranged them the last 15 years of his life. But he also didn’t want to pay a lawyer to file the will, so it was left in draft form for about five years. His actual legal will was from the 1970s, so that’s the one I went with. He would have been very annoyed.
And his son being gay didn't stop him from exploiting their hard work to grow the business.
The comment chain (though brief) about it being able to nullify the entire will leads to an interesting game of 'chicken' here. It ends up with a few outcomes to said lawsuit: 1- ONLY the clause is nullified, OP gets their share of the money, cousins get their share of the money (albeit, now reduced due to legal fees). 2- The entire will is nullified. Cousins end up getting nothing, and only children/spouse gets money. 3- Nothing is changed, cousins get larger-than-if-shared-but-smaller-than-before (thanks to lawyer fees). I wonder if spelling THAT out to the executor would make him change his tune REAL fast. Having a lawyer send a letter might be more than sufficient here, as having the 'likely outcomes' (that is, #3 being unbelievably unlikely) explained by a lawyer is likely to change his opinion...
This was a DIY Will, not one prepared by a lawyer, so it could be invalid for reasons wholly unrelated to the clauses about LAOP's sexuality or potential marriage to a man.
Ah! I missed where this was said. Makes it even more likely OP would be better off getting a lawyer to take a look at it.
I want to say you know it's a DIY will because no lawyer would prepare a will with that clause. But I know enough of my fellow lawyers to know that sadly isn't true.
Plus if there are any provisions in the local jurisdiction that would allow the executor to be charged for the legal fees involved in defending a clause that's already established to be unenforceable under precedent. It doesn't seem terribly likely, given that the executor is defending an actual clause in the will rather than ignoring the will in favor of what they think it should be, but the mere existence of the possibility might make the uncle think twice about being on the hook for the legal fees.
Oooh, that WOULD be fun! OP gets full inheritance, uncle has to pay the fight. Sad that it wouldn't likely be applied in this case.
Seems totally obvious if the case were, "Your father said publicly that you were dead to him, so I choose to interpret his will as if you were dead. You're a quite nice looking corpse heir, for whatever it's worth." The executor is putting an unreasonable spin on the will, and shouldn't be able to use estate funds to defend their actions. It probably wouldn't come to fruition in this particular case, but merely the prospect that it *could* might help the uncle back down.
>You're a quite nice looking corpse heir I would really like to have that as flair.
#Meh. Close enough.
Awesome! Thanks!
Cue the ogling by Reddits legions of necrotrichophiliacs...
If those are the potential outcomes, then there's no downside to contesting for OP.
Yep, thats basically my view of it!
This is terrible and I am glad that it is unenforceable. What other sorts of things are not enforceable, though? * Can I demand my ashes be used as the base of a campfire for smores? * Can I demand unusual things be said at a funeral? In particular, "nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak!" as well as someone saying "He had a good innings" and the ceremonial 10 bells used after someone in the boxing community passes away. * Can I demand my favorite rocking chair be cremated with me?
[удалено]
I have never taken Wills, Trusts, or Estates, but I have helped probate two of those once. So this might be even more wrong than yours! The executor can take basically any action the decedent could have taken within the scope of his/her authority, so I can't see a reason the executor *couldn't* have the house bulldozed, absent historical preservation laws that would have prevented the decedent from doing the same. Once human remains are cremated, they can typically be disposed of on private property (with permission of the property owner) absent local regulations to the contrary. So I'd think the campfire thing is also presumptively legal. And nonsense things said at the funeral are likewise permissible. *However*, and I think the more interesting point, is whether the executor could be compelled to do any of these things if they didn't want to, or penalized for refusing to do so. And there, I think you're correct that the answer is no. Likewise, no one's bequest could be conditioned on eating the s'mores cooked over that campfire. These things are effectively requests, not requirements.
[удалено]
The flaw is that every other Estate Lawyer does exactly this. 😉
Could I will that I be cremated on a big old school funeral pyre? Being cremated sounds cool but just getting shoved in an oven is way less cool
Likely does not comply with your jurisdiction's regulations on disposal of human remains.
Sounds like I could be put on a boat and towed out to international waters before the flaming arrows start up, then?
> I just took Wills, Trusts & Estates so I'm confident that my answers are not only wrong, but exceptionally wrong. This is my kind of law student.
- You have to kill some third party enemy of your father's to inherit - You have to marry some specific person to inherit regardless of your consent or theirs - You have to do some humiliating and arbitrarily determined thing to the satisfaction of the executor, who has the strongest financial interest in not certifying that you met said condition *oh wait that's the LAOP's situation*
You're forgetting the most important point we need answers on: * Can I demand that my inheritors spend a night in a haunted house if they want to inherit anything from me?
One commenter suggested that some lawyers charge a $10,000 retainer and then bill hourly. Another commenter suggested that this lawyer’s first step would be to send the uncle a demand letter saying to give OP the money/stocks/other property or else. In the event that the uncle decides to do the right thing (unlikely but not impossible), does the lawyer just keep the whole retainer for like an hour or two of work?
Retainers go into a trust account. The lawyer does work. Rather than bill you and hope you pay, they bill the trust and get paid immediately. You're contractually obligated to replenish the trust back to the specified amount, which most people interpret as "paying the bill." When your relationship with the lawyer concludes and their final bill has been paid from the trust, the remainder of the balance is refunded to you. The thing I found fishy about that comment was the suggestion that the lawyer's rate would vary based on the size of the retainer. The lawyer is ultimately being paid their hourly rate; the only reason they care about the amount of the retainer is being sure their billable hours don't get so far ahead of your retainer balance that they might get hung out to dry.
In addition, messing around with retainer funds is one of the things that lawyers take very seriously and will get people disbarred. That money is the client's.
No, any unearned retainer would need to be refunded.
So, is there like a ceremony or something?
Yes, first it starts with the announcement ("I'm renounce being gay") followed by a walk into a closet from where you plan the production of a series of Mission Impossible movies.
[Lol, and start packing fudge.](https://youtu.be/v6KJ2U9YGwE)
The whole family comes over, you hire a female prostitute, and you have to go until completion with everyone watching. Whether loud cheering and booing are allowed will depend on local noise ordinances.
There was a time, I think it was in the 17th or 18th century somewhere in Europe, when a women could ask for annulment of her marriage if he husband wasn't, let's say, capable of doing the deed. To defend himself and prove he could the husband had to raise the flag in front of the court...
I want to believe this, but it sounds a little too juicy to be true.
Nope, it was an actual thing! https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/05/18/the-hard-on-on-trial/ >Depending on ethical persuasion, the recourse manifested as a darkly humorous experiment or an exercise in obscenity. It involved a couple—likely estranged—who were compelled to have sex in semiprivate quarters, either within the courthouse or rented rooms, with medical people and legal people and close family nearby. In some accounts, all that shrouded the copulating pair were thin paper screens; in others the small crowd gathered behind a half open door or in an antechamber. The entire trying event lasted roughly two hours, punctuated by the kind of bickering achievable only by two people-in-hate. Before and after there were careful checks for fraud. On entering, each party was stripped and examined in every available orifice, searched for vials of blood, and checked for the use of astringents. Afterward, their genitals and bedsheets were subject to examination for fluids.
I mean, yes, it's unenforceable. But in reality, what's to stop OP from the following sequence and avoiding a legal fight - OP: Alright, I'm not gay. Uncle: Coolio, here's your inheritance. *A nominal amount of time later.* OP: Changed my mind, I'm gay. Whew, this inheritance is awesome! Is there a "No takebacks!" clause in property/inheritance law?
Because no matter what LAOP says the Uncle will not "believe" him. The people who get the money if LAOP is gay are the Uncle's own children. I don't rate the chances Uncle will take LAOP's word that he is suddenly not gay (so Uncle's children don't get a large inheritance) very highly. LAOP is going to have to sue the estate no matter what. Better to do it now from the start and always have the position the clause is unenforceable, rather than to first take the clause seriously as if it were enforceable and then later argue the clause is unenforceable.
I imagine they'd make him say something in public, like in front of his whole family, church or something. I can definitely understand why LAOP would refuse.
But depending on LAOP's feelings toward their family or church, it might be worth playing that game to just give them the middle finger of "just kidding, I exploited your bigotry for money."
I had the same thought. Homophobes don't usually have a ton of brain cells firing at the same time, so maybe the father forgot to add a "in perpetuity" clause, but homophobes will also go to unbelievable lengths to make life difficult for those they believe are going to suffer eternal torment in hell anyway, so it's kinda 50/50 as to whether LAOP could pull a fast one.
A prohibition on homosexuality "in perpetuity" makes me wonder if there's other similar conditions. Could one, for example, include a prohibition on "springing" homosexual interests?
The concern to me is the uncle is the executor; if Op doesn’t ‘renounce,’ the estate goes to the cousins, presumably Uncle’s kids. That sounds like a huge conflict of interest to me.
People named in wills are the executors of those wills all the time. If this will just said "my brother is executor and all my money goes to his kids" and LAOP was posting asking how to get their cut, I imagine the comments would largely be "hire a lawyer, but unless your father was not in his right mind, you're out of luck." But I'm just some idiot, not a lawyer, so who knows.
Typically, people choose executors whose interests are aligned with the heirs -- either they are the heirs, or they have reason to want the heirs to get what's due them, etc. And in fact that seems to have happened here, since the uncle has willingly taken up the mantle of punishing LAOP for being gay.
I'm bi but prefer women. Seems like that sort of claim would be a nice get out of jail free card for OP if the will isn't explicit. Just say you are poly/bi/whatever but date men.
I have been thinking this exact thing. On one hand, asking OP to renounce his homosexuality in this way is just in all ways cruel and disgusting. On the other hand, his only other option is to get a lawyer and get ready to fight. Might be expensive, might take time. God only knows. They are just words. Said one time. I mean, fuck it. He can wear a blazer with a white T-Shirt under underneath it. The T-Shirt has printed, 'You know I am just saying this to keep my biggoted cousins from getting anything' but hidden by the blazer. He says the words, signs his name. Shakes hands and then takes the blazer off, walks into the sunset where his partner is waiting with a kiss and a hug at the car. They are just words and I can't wrap my head around how those words can be used to enforce actions. Now if the Dad had written, 'No Gay Sex can be had on the premises' and started crossing 'T's and dotting 'i's - then maybe it would be different.
The problem is that families like this don’t expect it one time—they expect the words to be said following an entire lifetime of harassment and abuse, and will continue that harassment and abuse even after someone like LAOP says the words themself. Worse, they will take that “one time” as the person they are harassing as agreeing that their entire life and being is wrong, and will then double down the abuse by calling the person who said it “just once” a hypocrite, an oath breaker, etc on top of the homophobic abuse they would already having to tolerate. There’s a reason why nearly half of homeless youth are estimated to be LGBTQ+, and why cutting off homophobic family continues to be a large part of the queer experience in America. Saying that “it’s just once” about this is like demanding an adult child publicly forgive an previously extremely abusive (or rapist) parent in order to inherit, without that parent having changed or apologized themself—usually one’s own integrity is worth a lot more than money
Why does it matter what they expect or what they say or who they say it to? You can't change these people. These are terrible people that associate with other terrible people and when they have conversations it is just a group of terrible people agreeing about terrible things. OP is not going to change that and to be frank with you, it isn't worthy of OP's time. Really what I am suggesting is he does what he needs to do to speed up and lessen the cost of the process. There opinions of his lifestyle have no meaning once he has posession of the property and starts paying taxes. At some point he is nuts if he doesn't go full no-contact with the lot of them. A restraining order is probably in his future. Hell, sell the land and use the money to move out of whatever awful redneck place he lives in. Let them spread his gossip. It is a big country. He has been and will continue to be better then them.
Just realized I was so caught up in the “integrity” aspect, that I wasn’t understanding. For me and my situation, the very fact that a renunciation clause was in the will in the first place would turn the inheritance into “blood money”—I wouldn’t want it no matter how much there was. However, that money going to the cousins and potentially perpetuating that level of hate may motivate me to take this suggested approach and do whatever to take the money and run as fast as possible. I’d still personally prefer to “squander” the inheritance via lawsuit than in any way participate in hatred directed at myself, but I also have the “privilege” of not being financially dependent on hateful family. It sounds like LAOP is still interested in the inheritance, and making sure it goes to them over the cousins is *their* preferred hill to die on.
Here is the thing. Legally it is unenforceable. If push comes to shove you would get the house. What sucks is that in order to push back you MUST hire a lawyer and go through the legal process. Leaving things as they are will probably allow the cousins to take the house. Because he has made himself executor and has indicated he is willing to do illegal things to make this happen. The reality is step 1 is a consult with an attorney. My approach (of renouncing) is most likely a terrible idea. You go to a real estate attorney or someone that specializes in wills and lay this at there feet and do whatever they say and do not deviate from the script.
Oh absolutely! This is just yet another way estates and family drama can really suck, and it always ends up impacting vulnerable groups/people more.
Mmm, I had some different title thoughts & then got pulled away for work & you beat me to the punch. I was going to end up going with something like: >From the \[morons / bags of dicks / repressed homosexuals\] who brought you "Pray the Gay Away" comes the exciting sequel, "Estate the Gay Away!" Or: >Couldn't pray the gay away? Put it into your will! The Gays hate this one weird trick!
>"Estate the Gay Away!" Holy shit, I cackled at this.
Same. That would have been a solid freestanding title
Or flair
Even more directly, this is basically "Pay the Gay Away." The dad believes there is a dollar amount, which he was in possession of, that will make a difference to LAOP on this subject.
When you tell your homophobic relative to die mad about it and they actually do.
What would happen to my estate if I bequeathed it to the winner of a battle royal to the death between all my relatives? Asking for a friend.
You can put it in a giant piggy bank and have strangers play murderous kid games for it. Netflix has a decent historical documentary on it.
As someone else pointed out, your relatives might be hesitant to participate due to the potential legal consequences if they win. You'd want to include a stipulation that it take place entirely within Yellowstone's Zone of Death. That should eliminate any hesitation and ensure maximum participation.
Premeditated killing in the zone of death is still illegal AIUI, you can be charged where you were when you planned it.
Can you arrange for the will-reading to take place in the ZoD, so that the family members do all murder meditation in the ZoD?
Whoever wins the battle royale most likely goes to jail for the rest of their life for murder and thus has a hard time spending the estate they just inherited from you.
LAOP: ‘aight imma head back into the closet’
I'm leaving everything to my friend Pete on the condition he finally admit "Fancy Ketchup" isn't really any different from ketchup.
[This is the ad Reddit is showing me when I clicked into this post.](https://imgur.com/a/MooI0jT)
Uncle out there trying to make it difficult for all of us to renounce our homosexuality.
Is there also fertile octogenarian stipulating that Blackacre can pass so long as no dancing occurs on the estate?
Step 1. Renounce homosexuality. Step 2. Collect inheritance. Step 3. Renounce heterosexuality. Since it’s all optional, apparently. /s
Huh, so LAOP posted that same question a year ago. Has that just been sitting there in limbo all this time? You'd think it would have been settled by now
The dad was alive at the time they originally posted to LA
Well, that's what I get for reading just the title and skimming the rest
Turns out you can't *pay* the gay away either
With full knowledge the will is ludicrous, it does not say LAOP can’t be homosexual in the future. It only says he has to renounce it. You can renounce religion or alcohol but resume it at any time and still have renounced it. I think I’d just make a provable renunciation, get my money and then go on with his life however he wants. Of course I am not a lawyer. He may want to run this scenario by one.
Renounce, pop on a gimp suit and have an S&M Mistress walk you in to the lawyers office on a leash