Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related FFQ: When Kids Have Money...

So, let's say that a couple of reporters have a baby [not naming any names here ]. The female does actually give birth to said child - they don't find him in the dining room or anything insane like that. However, for reasons I'm not going to get into here, the paternity of this child is in question. The male reporter, also for reasons I'm not going to get into here, has a DNA test done at a certain astrological lab [without telling the female reporter, but that's a different issue ]. Anyway, they don't look at the results. The other potential biological donor, a multibillionaire megalomaniacal sociopath [did I spell any of those right?] who shall also remain nameless, is now deceased [and by deceased, I mean really most sincerely dead]. The will stipulates that a certain psychologist will get everything unless a biological child shows up. Of course, 'kids' come out of the woodworks, but none of them are proven to be the biological spawn of said sociopath.

The reporter couple decides to look at the DNA results and it is eventually proven that the child is the biological child of the sociopath. As such, he is entitled to the vast majority of the fortune, but he's very young - like preschool.

Who controls the funds until he's 18 or 21 or whatever? For the sake of discussion - his parents? What can they do with it? Could they donate almost all of it to a foundation for a particular superhero? Would they pay for things like security to keep the paparazzi away and take a monthly stipend to pay for things like a home etc.?

Any idea how this might work? I'm guessing they wouldn't just have free rein with the money as it's not really theirs, but I don't know how it would work?

For the record... I'm not even sure what the DNA results are [stupid muse won't tell me], but in trying to decide [and of course, I may not know until the words actually flow through my keyboard], I'd like to know what might happen.

Thanks in advance .
Carol

Carol, I would think that the will of this unnamed megalomaniacal sociopath would have allowed for all possible contingencies and had all the i's dotted and t's crossed - because he could afford the lawyers necessary to do it and, because let's face it, he was brilliant. So he would probably specify in the will just WHO was to have control of the money while the child was a minor, and also how much access the "controller(s)" had to the funds as well.

Kathy

That thought crossed my mind after I posted. So said reporters would likely have little control over the money and it would be controlled by a set of lawyers etc. appointed by said sociopath? Could he also place restrictions on it - like what schools said child must go to etc? Could the reporters contest that part of the will when the criminal activities of the donor of biological material comes to light? I'm guessing that if the conditions are unacceptable to the reporters, they would just refuse the money or not make an official claim or whatever to it in the first place. The muse stuck a time limit of 2 years after the death of said megalomaniac for a claim to be made - does that sound reasonable?

Bad muse. Mustn't work on this...
Carol

The money would (I believe) go into a trust fund, overseen by a named trustee, as specified by the will. If money is withdrawn from the fund, it is legally required to be used to the advantage of the beneficiary.

Couldn't tell you the details about time limits or overthrowing the will, but I suspect that challenging the will (especially with certain lawyers working to defend it) would involve long, complex legal proceedings.

For a reference, see the case of Anna Nichole and her baby for an example of just how much legal in-fighting there is when there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

Hmm... that's true. The female reporter *is* the biological parent of said child... the paternity of the deceased is the question rather than the paternity of the non deceased parent... and whether you liked her or not... she's no... megalomaniacal multibillionaire .

I will look up some of it though...

I can see a detailed will, I can also see going with the Alexander the Great solution and leaving it for the heirs to fight over. After all after you're dead who cares what happens since you are the only person that matters so you might as well have the entertainment of knowing that they'll be fighting.

Changing the trustee based on the fact that many of the known associates are criminals should be possible.

Usually money left in trust can only be spent for the good of the person it is left in trust for. The decision of what that is is left up to the trustee unless someone takes it to court. With that kind of money I'd expect lots of people watching however. Giving it all away would not be OK I'd expect. Better housing, proper security etc. would. As the child got older I'd expect that they could give a reasonable amount away which with that much could be millions a year. This sort of thing varies by state, the best I could find with a quick google is details of children with income not trusts left to them. In many states the parents have basically full control unless someone sues, in some cases the child is the one who sues. In a couple of states, California and New York especially given the amount of child actors, models etc. that make enough for it to matter 15% of the income has to be put in trust and not touched. Look for Coogan law after the child actor whose parents spent all his income.

Sorry, Carol, to drag this off topic. But...

Why is Lois having a child from Lex Luthor while she could also have this very same child from Clark? What most sinister plot has your muse devised? And just how much angst and whams would we have to worry about when and if you were to start posting this?

And by dead, do you mean his body has been chopped up, ground to pieces by a meat grinder, dissolved in sulfuric acid and vaporized by heat (vision), and are all known and unknown clones and cell samples also properly disposed of?

Michael, who now hands the thread back

Lois? Clark? Lex?

/me NEVER mentioned those names

Norcross? Judd? Chow?

Angst? WHAMS? What are those?

/me runs and hides
Carol

In the UK, at least, there is a legal requirement to appoint trustees.

When I made a will a few years ago I wanted to leave some money to my nephew who was then about five. I was told that for anyone under 16 you had to choose trustees to look after the money for them - usually the parents, sometimes others - and that that part of a will could be ruled invalid if you didn't do it properly.

To preface: some of what I know (or what I think I know?) about this comes from listening to Dave, and some of it was learned somewhere in my quest to go to law school.

As others have said, the will would stipulate a trustee for the money, which would most likely be the sociopath's lawyer or CPA, so naturally the trustee's trustworthiness is probably in question. The sociopath could have included any number of restrictions for the money. If the reporter (or the kid) didn't like some/any/all of the restrictions, she could contest it in court. The results would vary from judge to judge, but in most cases the judge would use the rule of "what a reasonable person would have done" when making up restrictions.

Using college as an example: The will says the money will only pay for college if kid goes to X school. Kid wants to go to Y school. Reporter (or Kid only, if over 18 at this point) takes it to court to try to get the money to pay for Y school. Most likely the judge would rule that the money won't pay for Y school, because a reasonable person could/would have made that stipulation. It wouldn't directly matter if the sociopath was a sociopath or a criminal or whatever, as long as a reasonable person could/would have made that restriction.

If, however, the restriction was something insane, like Kid can only have the money if he jumps off a 40 story building and lives, then the judge would throw that out because no reasonable person would make that restriction.

Hopefully that helped. And made sense. And was correct.

~Anna

/me grabs anna and duct tapes her to boards

Thanks .

That helps.

I'm still pondering though getting closer to the point where the reporters find out what the DNA tests say but the one reporter keeps putting it off *sigh*.

Carol
[Anna - check your email ]

As for a trustee, I believe if one is not appointed or if for whatever reason he/she cannot do the job (refuses, is hauled off to jail, etc.), then the courts will appoint a trustee.