Yep...that’s why a will usually proclaims “if anyone contests this will, that person’s share will be $5’ or something to that effect. I do hate to see someone cut out, however, couldn’t the father leave him a respectable, token amount. Why carry his hatred on?
It's kind of presumptuous that anyone but the estranged son is carrying on any *hatred*.
Why is it that when someone doesn't bend over backwards to accommodate the person who is wronging them, it's called hatred.
The son chose to leave, and apparently leave it all.
HIS choice. I don't know that anyone owes him anything for having the same DNA as the rest of the siblings.
I understand the dilemma as he IS the son, but again, the choice is him.
It's interesting because nobody has any problem with including non-family members in a share of the estate along with the family, but suddenly when, for a very good reason, someone considers not including a family member in the will, they are the bad guy.
Where did we get this notion that we owe someone anything no matter how they treat others or what they do?