> back
To whom? The deceased person?
To whom? The deceased person?
The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
I can not just challenge something with you to make it not legitimate.
This is like not guilty until proven different.
That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise."
In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined.
You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
That is how it always has been.
The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling.
The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decision has been made.
I don't really see other ways it could work?
> You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise.
Not if the process by which you become the the thing is swiss cheese.
In that case you are nothing but a potential. A potential thing is not a thing.
With a $1M account, it's a lot easier to say you would return it than to actually do it though. That's life changing money and it's hard to say no to life changing money.
"He died at 59, single and childless, with no will and no guidance on who should inherit his assets."
Parents, siblings, siblings children.
What would be the point of a beneficiary if it gets ignored even without a will?