|Posted: May 18, 2013, 12:46 pm - IP Logged|
This is going to sound harsh, but, if a man who has a child, chooses to leave his business assets to his wife, then he probably had a good reason for it. He consulted with a lawyer and his business partner and this is what he wanted done. As for the wife selling her share of the business, so what? Lots of widows don't feel up to running and handling their late husband's business dealings. As long as neither the wife nor his business partner were the one's who poisoned him, then leave it be.
Now the sister took custody of his child and wants the child to get the money. Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that the daughter's financial security is not her primary motivation. If she has guardianship, then she gets to control any money that goes to the daughter until the daughter reaches her majority.
Even if the wife is a greedy, unfeeling b(i)tch and took the businesses and the real estate, the daughter still gets $340,000. Not really chump change is it.
If it was the husband's wish that the business goes to his wife, then really, who are we or anyone else to say he had no right to do that. I don't think anyone should be changing anyone's wishes posthumously. Seems sneaky and disrespectful. Now, maybe he was just an a(s)shole and a terrible father, and it is spectacularly unfair that his daughter won't receive more, but why should a contract be changed simply because someone else doesn't like the outcome.