How unseemly and unedifying it is when family members fight tooth and nail over a dead relative's will, disputing what it says and trying to grab a bit more money for themselves.I see the latest family row is over the will left by Australian actor Heath Ledger. The will was written in 2003 before his partner Michelle and baby Matilda came on the scene.
Now everyone's squabbling over who should get what and how much (if any) should go to his new family. His father Kim has appealed for dignity at a time of grief.
I suppose the fewer relatives there are, and the more straightforward the will, the less trouble there's likely to be. And the more money there is at stake, and the more bizarre the will's provisions, the greater the prospect of a battle royal and insults flying thick and fast.
There are regular reports of huge sums of money being left to a pet cat or a faithful gardener or the preservation of endangered molluscs.
Relatives frequently argue that poor old Gladys wasn't of sound mind at the time and couldn't possibly have intended such absurd legacies. It was the influence of those strange pills the GP had prescribed, or the insidious charisma of some new acquaintance who wormed his way into her affections.
But at the end of the day, if that's what Gladys wanted, what right has anyone to dispute it and argue otherwise, just because they're greedy and feel cheated out of their rightful inheritance?
My family is very small, so hopefully there won't be any unsavoury quarrels when the next will gets opened. We'll just grab the money and run!!
