Besides an action to contest a Will, a frustrated beneficiary may attempt to proceed with a tort known as "intentional interference with an inheritance." In some cases, this may be the ONLY way in which the potential beneficiary can proceed.
In the Nemeth case (425 N.E.2d 1187), for instance, the decedent's stepdaughter (not an heir of the decedent) filed an intentional interference with an inheritance action against her step-sister because a successful Will contest would have done her no good.
A number of cases have followed, trying to explain the limits and ramifications of the tort. A recent case involves the estate of a woman named Grace Ellis (found here as a PDF). The case was brought by the Shriners Hospital for Children, beneficiaries under a previous Will, against a man named James G. Bauman (who was named as sole beneficiary and executor under the Will that was admitted to probate). Ms. Ellis evidently died in 2003, but the Shriners took no action to contest anything until 2006. Maybe their itty-bitty cars were in the shop all that time? Or (more likely), perhaps the Shriners had no idea that they were named as beneficiaries in a previous Will.
Anyway, the Shriners file their suit, making the same sorts of allegations as you might see in a Will contest (lack of capacity and undue influence). But, of course, they can't file a Will contest, because Will contests must be filed within six months after the Will in question was admitted to probate.
Can you use the intentional interference with inheritance tort to get around the six month period, since it isn't a Will contest? No, says the court.
Want to pay 0% on your capital gains? Act now.
"At the end of the contract term in 25 years, or in the event of its earlier termination, we can elect to deliver the contract value either in shares or in cash"
Two of the top officers of CGI Group Inc. have cashed in about $127-million worth of stock in the Montreal information technology company, 30 per cent of their combined holdings, for estate planning purposes. via The Globe and Mail
Real estate transfer taxes vary greatly in the Chicagoland area. Here is a list (in PDF form). Note, however, that this list doesn't include any changes since July of 2007. For instance, it's missing the recent change (effective 4/1/08) to Chicago's transfer taxes. Traditionally, Chicago's tax was unique in that it was assessed only against buyers -- most transfer taxes are paid by sellers. Chicago now has a transfer tax for buyers AND sellers, at the following rates:
For buyers: $7.50 per $1,000.00 of purchase price
For sellers: $3.00 per $1,000.00 of purchase price (this is in addition to the combined county and state transfer tax of $1.50 per $1,000.00 of purchase price)
According to this article, Chicago now has the highest transfer taxes in the nation!
I used to recommend (somewhat facetiously) moving from Chicago to Oak Park, as Chicago only taxed buyers and Oak Park only taxed sellers. The result would be a pretty huge savings on the opposite move (from Oak Park to Chicago -- Oak Park taxes sellers at a rate of $8 per $1,000.00):
Transfer Taxes (prior to 4/1/08)
assuming sale of $400,000 home and purchase of $500,000 home
Sale in Chicago, Purchase in Oak Park: $600.00 (just county and state transfer tax on sale)
Sale in Oak Park, Purchase in Chicago: $7,550.00 ($3,800 for sale plus $3,750 for purchase)
That's a difference of almost $7,000! Of course, the difference is now smaller -- the tax hit for a "sale in Chicago, purchase in Oak Park" scenario as of 4/1/08 is $1,800.00.
Note that you can still find "bargains" from a transfer tax perspective, as municipalities like La Grange and Hinsdale have no transfer taxes whatsoever. You can use the above list and a little research to check on the municipality to which you are planning a move.
