TERMINOLOGY

The way some specialist lawyers wilfully mis-use specialist terminology is like something out of a lunatic asylum…

'probate' properly refers only to the process of proving a will and nothing else. Repeat: NOTHING ELSE. Of course some (especially some American) lawyers, being technically and generally unscrupulously illiterate, incorrigibly inarticulate and irredeemably incoherent, abuse the word and it now means whatever they want it to mean, including the execution of a will and the administration of an estate. I've even seen the monstrous phrase 'probate administration'. (English lawyers are not much better but for terminological error American lawyers are definitely the worst.) If you're not on your guard, 'probate', 'probate court' and grandiosely moronic, devious, calculatingly obfuscatory lawyers (don't forget the 'team') will mislead, confuse, disorient and demoralise you to death. (In law practice, the one thing worse than a no-good lawyer, or a collection of them, is the customer who does nothing about it.)

'trustee of a will': using the words 'trust' and 'trustee' strictly in the context of a legal trust and a trust deed and not, characteristically sloppily (see above), in the insipid senses of an equitable trust and or any other fiduciary what-not, there's no such thing as a trustee of a will. A mere will is not a trust deed; there is no implicit will trust of any testamentary asset or disposition; a mere estate manager (see below) is not a trustee. (Estate assets might be treated as, or as if, some sort of trust property, and an estate manager might be seised with some trustee-like functions and treated as or as if a trustee, but terminologically an estate manager is not synonymous with a legal trustee, nor an heir with a beneficiary of a legal trust.) Unless there's a trust deed somewhere expressly appointing a trustee, there's no legal trust and no legal trustee. A completely different thing: a will might happen to contain a trust deed ('I leave 25% of net residue on trust to X' etc.). Then it's correct to talk about the trustee(s) of that so-called will trust. It's important to protest at 'trustee of a will' because it's gibberish, it's plain wrong, and because the dumb lawyer ('here to help') who would have you believe it is capable of further error, misdirection, misconception, misrepresentation and (if he knows he's wrong) simple and elaborate (including error-derivative, error-evolutive and other psychotic) deception and deceit.

'executrix', 'administratrix': however appropriate — some female estate managers are tricky indeed — it's time to stop stupidly using stupid Latin.

'estate manager': this is my generic term for ad col grantee, executor, interim administrator, full administrator and any other relevant estate management official. Incredible we don't have an established generic term for it. ('Trustee' isn't it. Incredible too, while we're at it, that English, for all its floridity and adaptability, has no noun for:-

• a dishonest person. I use 'dishonester'; hence 'dishonestee'

• the beneficiary of fiduciary duties. I use 'fiduciant'

• someone granted a power of attorney. I use 'power-attorney'.) 

'inheritance theft': another fantasy term. Do not use it except to refer to an offense specifically so called. The offense of inheritance theft is extremely rare to not-existent. (I've seen only two instances. Can you name the jurisdictions?)

'inheritance hijacking': if there is no such offense, this highly misleading fantasy term, with its grandiose insinuations, is presumptively dishonest. So far as I know, there is no offense of inheritance hijacking (a stupid term anyway) on any statute book anywhere on the planet and never has been any. I would be delighted to stand corrected.

'THE GREAT WEALTH TRANSFER'

We've all seen the insinuations of dispersal into the general population of trillions of dollars (and that's just in the US) of baby boomer net residue. Yes transfer, inevitably, but voluntary and or compulsory devolution within the family not (at least not the same extent) voluntary dispersal outside it; and I imagine more will be dispersed by inheritance crime than juridically. As for the notion of inheritance or estate tax to effectuate dispersal, no-one can be that stupid.

DISINHERITANCE

Various jurisdictions officiously vouchsafe some classes of heir an inheritance of net residue regardless of the deceased's wishes. I think that is despicable. I do what I properly can in my various consulting practices to properly circumvent it. If, anticipating leaving net assets, a eufunctional testator wants to lawfully properly effectually disinherit someone — whatever happened to respecting his wishes, whatever his reasons? — that's what will happen, even if it entails (preferably timeous) comprehensive pre-death divestment (a good idea anyway in principle).

INHERITANCE CRIME

In my personal and professional experience, much inheritance crime (a permitted generic term: there is no inherent, implied or implicit suggestion of an offense of that name) is especially perpetrated by specialist lawyers (especially, by a long way, females). The victim heir's own lawyers particularly. These are specialist professional criminals. Check out my inheritance crime consulting firm.