simplyOJ: There are also numerous cases of men using their Fathers and brothers. There was a similar case of such that happened at my wife's place of work last year 2013. After the man passed, making his father the first option and brother the 2nd, the wife and kids where practically left in the cold. The office had to own their own frantically enter into some form of agreement between the father and brother for his wife and kids to be able to collect some stipend..

egopersonified: Sometimes, it boils down to the uncertainty of who dies first. What if the wife is next of kin and she dies before the husband or they die together? This is assuming the kids would have a longer life span than the parents. Where a child is made next of kin instead of his mother, at the man's death, the child would make sure he takes care of his mum and in a situation where the woman remarries, he is assured that his 'sweat' is not enjoyed or transferred to another man.

iwakolewa:

why do you say by law? Is it compulsory to make your spouse next of kin

Blockus:


[b]LAWYERS in the house please correct me...


Last time I checked:: If your your child is under the age of 18, they cant inherit a single thing and in the absence of a Guardian, your estate MAY be taken over by the Government.

Now if the Mother is still alive, your estate wold be handed over to the Mother who is the legal guardian of the Minor to hold in trust for the child pending when they reach the legal age of 18.. (so last last, the woman still controls your property)..

If the Child is 18+ (meaning youhave been married to the same woman for 18 plus years) and you die and leave her with nothing to live out the rest of her life, rather subjecting a Mother to depending on stipends from her child to survive, then that Man is cursed even beyond the grave..

And what makes you think that the Woman would not marry someone wealthier than the man?!




I still maintain that if a Man does not pass on his estate to his wife or leave his wife a sizable portion of his estate for her to live off of, then that marriage should end whilst everyone is still alive so the woman can put her effort into a marriage where she counts.

The above suggestion makes the womans contributions in the marriage look trivial..





NOW!! What if the Woman has all the Money and properties, is it okay for her to leave them to her Kids and have her husband live off of the handouts from her kids?![/b]

Tallesty1: Well, if you cleave to your partner according to the bible then s/he becomes the closest person to you. I think that automaticaly makes him/her the right person to contact when need arises.

soulglo:


Have a trust set up. Someone else besides the husband or wife could be trustee.

egopersonified:

My comment is my opinion, it doesnt have to go down well with everyone. And your statement about the kids handing their mother stipends? Hey, thought the trend now is everyone advocating for wives to ensure they work in case of eventualities. What if a man's wealth is handed over to his brothers and his wife and kids get nothing, guy, shit happens. Or havent you read threads on nl about a mother's hatred for her own kids? So she also can leave the kids behind and leave with their father's properties, life isnt as we used to know it. All I believe is that in the case of death of any or both of the parents, taking care of the kids till they can take care of themselves should be top priority.

donpeey22: Please i have a question to ask those of saying that it's silly to make one's sibling or parent next of kin. My question is: is it also silly for me to be 'wasting' my hard earned money in paying my late uncle's son's school fees and meeting his other needs and even those of his mum atimes since his dad died leaving nothing to inherit? Please answer me so that i can stop spending my money on the lad and channel all the money in building my own family. Thanks in advance.

egopersonified:

Getting someone reliable is very difficult these days. You find someone whose late parents left millions in accounts and assets but before he gets ordinary 200k for sch fees from the said trustee, it is a tug of war. While the trustee is using the said properties to send his kids to schs everyone knows he cant afford with his income.

Blockus:




Your family should always come first.. Charity begins at home,

donpeey22: Ok. That means i would have to cut all supports for the boy and his mum and have him withdrawn from school next term so as to focus on my family alone. Thanks for the advice.

donpeey22: Ok. That means i would have to cut all supports for the boy and his mum and have him withdrawn from school next term so as to focus on my family alone. Thanks for the advice.

soulglo:


A trustee does use the money as he wishes but as the Trust stipulates. It is a court document just like a will. In many cases there's more than one trustee. The trust should be written in a way that the child still has money in there when he is old enough to handle money. Disobeying a court order can mean jail time and a trustee cannot even withdraw school funds from a trust if the trust says to pay the funds directly to the school the child attends. In fact in financial institutions they have departments that can read and interpret Trusts. If the Trustee is taking money he is likely working with someone at the financial institution to defraud the Trust. Even in Nigeria it will not be so easy to do this. Imagine this child turns 25 and gets a copy of his Trust. A well established bank like UBA would pay millions just so it does not get out that their employees are fraudulent. People should simply know their rights. You should not make decisions like this out of fear or ignorance. A Trust is definitely not a blank check for the Trustee

donpeey22: Please i have a question to ask those of saying that it's silly to make one's sibling or parent next of kin. My question is: is it also silly for me to be 'wasting' my hard earned money in paying my late uncle's son's school fees and meeting his other needs and even those of his mum atimes since his dad died leaving nothing to inherit? Please answer me so that i can stop spending my money on the lad and channel all the money in building my own family. Thanks in advance.

Blockus:


I simply said 'Family comes first'..



If you cant afford to accommodate your cousin comfortably together with your family then do the best you can for him without making your immediate family suffer.

Thats what I advised.

donpeey22: Your advice was wrong in the sense that you made it seem as though ALL siblings or relatives will always take all the dead man's wealth and live his family with nothing. You didn't take into cognizance the fact that some siblings/relatives could even take better care of the man's children than the wife as some wives have abandoned their children with her late husband's siblings upon his death and got remarried to other men. I think it would have been better if you had said that the man should entrust his wealth to his most TRUSTED person, be it his wife, friend or sibling, if his children haven't grown to the legal age at the time of his death.You made it look like none of the man's sibling/relative can EVER be trusted to take better care of his children in his absence, while the wife is always trustworthy.

Blockus:


A trust fund can be mismanaged especially if it isn't fixed.

Blockus:



We are Humans and more importantly Africans. A mans estate in the hands of his siblings would almost never be used exclusively for his children he left behind.

I can never argue with some of the points you have raised here especially the part about 'MOST TRUSTED' person. However, I always expect that in an ideal marriage, a Man's most trusted person ideally be his wife and vice versa. A marriage where the most trusted person is not the spouse is indeed troubled and isnt an ideal picture.


If the case is such that the wife isnt a trusted partner, than that presents a different situation.

simplyOJ:
My brother, you do not need to discontinue what you have started if they are within your means to carry. What you where advised about earlier is that your immediate family is your primary responsibility, and if God has so blessed you, it will not be out of place to extend some assistance to others, in this case, your late uncle's wife and son.

donpeey22: Ok. That means i would have to cut all supports for the boy and his mum and have him withdrawn from school next term so as to focus on my family alone. Thanks for the advice.

donpeey22: Your advice was wrong in the sense that you made it seem as though ALL siblings or relatives will always take all the dead man's wealth and live his family with nothing. You didn't take into cognizance the fact that some siblings/relatives could even take better care of the man's children than the wife as some wives have abandoned their children with her late husband's siblings upon his death and got remarried to other men. I think it would have been better if you had said that the man should entrust his wealth to his most TRUSTED person, be it his wife, friend or sibling, if his children haven't grown to the legal age at the time of his death.You made it look like none of the man's sibling/relative can EVER be trusted to take better care of his children in his absence, while the wife is always trustworthy.

cococandy: Are you doing it at the detriment of your iown immediate family?
If no why should you stop?
I don't see how the posts here discourage anyone from taking care of their siblings.

Paying the fees of a brother is very different from making him your heir when you have a wife and kids.

soulglo:


It's gross irresponsibility in my opinion. Makes no sense to me. You just cannot hide these feelings. If someone truly feels that their wife is that useless that she cannot make sure that their final will and testament is carried out then the marriage always had problems. You cannot feel that poorly about someone and think they do not know. Classic case of "we meet in the bedroom and make babies" marriage. Everything else is separate.

Or is the union viewed a marriage of convenience which only exist to bear children.

soulglo:


It's gross irresponsibility in my opinion. Makes no sense to me. You just cannot hide these feelings. If someone truly feels that their wife is that useless that she cannot make sure that their final will and testament is carried out then the marriage always had problems. You cannot feel that poorly about someone and think they do not know. Classic case of "we meet in the bedroom and make babies" marriage. Everything else is separate.