My grandmother passed away after her husband, and left a will that her 4 children would be her heirs to split her estate equally between them with my oldest uncle as the Executor of the Estate, but my mother died intestate (without a will) before my grandmother's estate was through probate. Does my mother's share of my grandmother's inheritance go to me or her husband (my step-father?) This is in KY and my grandmother did have a clause in her will stating that should one of her children precede her in death, that child's share should go to that child's children, but my mother did not precede my grandmother in death. My mother's death only preceded the probate of the will, which actually means the same thing as far as my grandmother was concerned before she didn't want her money going out of her bloodline, but I don't think that will hold up in court.

Since your mother passed away after grandmother, the clause in grandmother is not in effect. So mothers share will go into her estate ( since there is no will)
It will be given out, accounting to KY probate law.

And your mother dropped the ball by not having a will to be sure that what grandmother wanted would happen.

So it does not matter what grandmother wanted to happen, it only matters what is written in the will.

People do sue over situations like this, but you have to be willing to pay for a lawyer knowing you might lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

People do sue over situations like this, but you have to be willing to pay for a lawyer knowing you might lose.

---

I suppose some people do sue, but you would loose. Clearly, the inheritance from the grandmother goes to the mother's estate, and from there wherever the Kentucky intestacy statute says it goes.

Ky391.010 Descent of real estate.
When a person having right or title to any real estate or inheritance dies intestate as to such estate, it shall descend in common to his kindred, male and female, in the following order, except as otherwise provided in this chapter:
(1) To his children and their descendants; if there are none, then
(2) To his father and mother, if both are living, one (1) moiety each; but if the father is dead, the mother, if living, shall take the whole estate; if the mother is dead, the whole estate shall pass to the father; if there is no father or mother, then
(3) To his brothers and sisters and their descendants; if there are none, then
(4) To the husband or wife of the intestate; if there are none surviving, then
(5) One (1) moiety of the estate shall pass to the paternal and the other to the maternal kindred, in the following order:
(a) The grandfather and grandmother equally, if both are living; but if one is dead, the entire moiety shall go to the survivor; if there is no grandfather or grandmother, then
(b) To the uncles and aunts and their descendants; if there are none, then
(c) To the great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, in the same manner prescribed for grandfather and grandmother by subsection (a); if there are none, then
(d) To the brothers and sisters of the grandfathers and grandmothers and their descendants; and so on in other cases without end, passing to the nearest lineal ancestors and their descendants.
(6) If there is no such kindred to one of the parents as is described in subsection (5), the whole to go to the kindred of the other. If there is neither paternal nor maternal kindred, the whole shall go to the kindred of the husband or wife, as if he or she had survived the intestate and died entitled to the estate.


391.215 Rebuttable presumptions.
In determining whether KRS 391.210 to 391.260 applies to specific property the following rebuttable presumptions apply:
(1) Property acquired during marriage by a spouse of that marriage while domiciled in a jurisdiction under whose laws property could then be acquired as community property is presumed to have been acquired as or to have become, and remained, property to which KRS 391.210 to 391.260 applies; and
(2) Real property situated in this Commonwealth and personal property wherever situated acquired by a married person while domiciled in a jurisdiction under whose laws property could not then be acquired as community property, title to which was taken in a form which created rights of survivorship, is presumed not to be property to which KRS 391.210 to 391.260 applies.

I do understand; I was saying that people sue over this. People contest wills all the time. (I might, regardless of what state my relative was in, especially if I had some letters or other proof of her wishes.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

I do understand; I was saying that people sue over this. People contest wills all the time. (I might, regardless of what state my relative was in, especially if I had some letters or other proof of her wishes.)

---

I'm confident you understand. But for OP's sake, and with respect to this question, the fact that Granny "didn't want her money going out of her bloodline" doesn't mean that she could have written a will tieing up the money for all time. Sooner or later, it goes to someone, to be spent as he or she wishes. In this case, the right to the money went to the mother and, by not writing a will, she (the mother) "decided" to "spend" it by leaving it to her (intestate) heirs.

Who those people may be is still unclear to me. The statute that GV70 found pertains, I believe to real property. OP's question suggests we are talking about "money". It does appear, however, that it would be the children, with the exception of $15,000 to the surviving spouse (the step-father in this case).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

I do understand; I was saying that people sue over this. People contest wills all the time. (I might, regardless of what state my relative was in, especially if I had some letters or other proof of her wishes.)

---

You cannot control money/property/assets from the grave. It's as simple as that. Of course people sue over all sorts of things all the time, but it is irresponsible to suggest that OP even think of that option when it is very apparent, according to law, that OP has a losing case.

A letter or "other proof" does NOT over ride either a Will OR law - particularly in States which do not allow holographic Wills.