<p>It just made me so sad, particularly this part where Cate said: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everytime I talk to my D I tell her I love her the most and she always tells me no, I love you the most. I don’t know that I’ll ever be able to say that without thinking of Elizabeth Edwards and her family. I don’t know why I feel so sad about her death but I think it’s because she could be any one of us - she seemed so human.</p>
<p>Her Will</p>
<p>According to CNN, Elizabeth Edwards left everything to her kids (I would do the same), and didn’t even mention her husband in the document. [Elizabeth</a> Edwards’ will leaves everything to her children - CNN.com](<a href=“Elizabeth Edwards' will leaves everything to her children - CNN.com”>Elizabeth Edwards' will leaves everything to her children - CNN.com)</p>
<p>Isn’t that risky? I thought most attorneys recommend leaving $1 or purposely stating that a spouse shall receive nothing. </p>
<p>Until I hear otherwise I’ll assume that John Edwards has enough decency to let his children inherit everything. But, I’m dying to know, what logic is there to completely omitting him from the will?</p>
<p>:confused:</p>
<p>I, too, wondered about an omission of his name, hopefully the newspaper is inaccurate in that and meant did not mention him with any bequest.</p>
<p>I’m curious as to what you think she should have left him? I’m sure they had made all financial settlements before her passing (and since they had been legally separated for a while). I, too, have no idea of the legal ramifications since they were still legally married, but I’m sure the attorneys took care of all of that. I think she was past the token acknowledgement stage with him.</p>
<p>They were legally still married, right? So I’m assuming a ton of stuff is in his name or owned jointly, in which case he still owns it. </p>
<p>The article I saw did note that although they were separated, he remained at her side around the clock in the days before her death. I thought I had read somewhere that she said they had gotten to a place where she could speak to him without anger, so I doubt the will was intended as a slap to him.</p>
<p>Oh, she not have left him anything at all, it is just that that is usually specifically addressed in the will, as if the disinherited family member is not mentioned, they can sue based on the premise it was an accident.</p>
<p>He Who Shall Not Be Named is many things, but he’s not suicidal. He will not sue Elizabeth’s estate to get some of her things back from their children. I’m not worried about that possibility.</p>
<p>^^ That’s what I was thinking…</p>
<p>
Oh, I don’t think she should have left him anything. In my post I clearly say that I, too, would have left everything to the kids. I just found it odd that the husband was completely omitted from the will…not even mentioned in a “$0” context. That’s all. And, like I said above, I’m going to assume the fink has enough decency to leave his kids’ inheritances alone.</p>
<p>
LOL I haven’t thaough about the word “fink” in a million years. Fits perfectly. Not so sure I’d refer to John Edwards and use the word “decency” in the same sentence, though… Somehow I don’t put those two thoughts together…</p>
<p>I figured she didn’t have him in the will because he has plenty of money and ways of making plenty more.</p>
<p>Maybe she forgot how to spell his name.</p>
<p>And now he is engaged to his co-fink.</p>
<p>I think we were not questioning the reasoning of leaving him out nor even having the thought that he would sue, I was more wondering about whether that was inaccurate reporting and how it may be confusing to people read it and take the reporting as fact. I would bet he was mentioned in the will and specifically included. It would be nice if the newspapers would make the effort to be more specifically accurate.</p>
<p>Not to be critical, Somemom, but how would you know that the reporting is inaccurate? I read the reports pretty carefully (as my dad recently wrote a relative of mine out of his will specifically, and reviewed it with me and his attorney so I would know what he did). So it caught my attention. I saw no reason to think that she DID specifically mention him based on the reports I have seen. What I couldn’t tell for sure is how the reporters got the information… if the will does not go to probate, they shouldn’t have access to the actual document.</p>
<p>I did think it was probably a small relief to her that Cate is old enough to be the estate executor so she did not need to hand it over to an attorney.</p>
<p>I don’t know why anyone even cares about this ambulance-chasing shyster trailer-trash family.</p>
<p>I don’t think he needs decency in order to decide against (effectively) suing his children in this scenario. He just needs to care a tiny bit about his own image, and we have no doubt that he does care about that. He’d be run out of America on a rail if he sued, and he knows it.</p>
<p>Wonder if engagement rumors are true? Hard to know–denials by him can’t be trusted!</p>
<p>intparent- I really don’t know, it was sort of an offhand comment…I have worked in financial offices over the past 30 years and often deal with people with trusts & will & all that and get to see some complex issues and interesting family dynamics. In my limited anecdotal experience, people who are financially excluded are generally specifically named to avoid litigation.</p>
<p>Also, in my personal experience, knowing the real story behind some things in the newspaper over my adult life, not once have a read a story that was 100% accurate as to every detail and implication, perhaps not critical details, but details that were important to the people involved and details which might give a different overall impression of the story to a reader- for better or worse.</p>
<p>So, yeah, I am assuming the safest way to leave someone out of a will is to name them with no bequest and I am assuming that it is more likely that the article simply was not specific (the point of the article is that he was not left anything, not that he was named as not receiving anything, a reporter writing that may not even think about the other way of interpreting the statement that ‘john was not mentioned’ in the will)</p>
<p>It’s really not any big deal, but I think any of us on this forum do notice the details of those situations with which we are familiar. DB brought up a valid point that has nothing to do with the Edwards personally and is about what the current trend is in disinheriting an heir (since they are not divorced yet, he would still be a legal heir had she died intestate, right?) I do not claim to be an expert, just interested because I deal with this stuff, but am not an attorney. ;)</p>
<p>For the love of god-- are they really engaged already? Ewww…</p>