Elizabeth Edwards cut estranged husband John Edwards out of will week before she died

[RamboLiberal]

Source: NY Daily News


Elizabeth Edwards cut her louse of a spouse out of her will - less than a week before she died.

The wronged wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards, who died last month after a courageous battle with breast cancer, left everything in her sole possession to their three children.

"All of my furniture, furnishings, household goods, jewelry, china, silverware and personal effects and any automobiles owned by me at the time of my death I give and bequeath to my children," the will says.

Edwards' eldest daughter Cate, a lawyer, was named as the executor of the will, according to Inside Edition, which obtained a copy.





Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/05/2011-01-05_elizabeth_edwards_cut_estranged_husband_john_edwards_out_of_will_week_before_she.html

---

Good!

[delightfulstar]

1. Good, indeed.

I'm glad she was looking out for her children, and I'm sure Cate will handle things exactly as they need to be handled. I see a lot of Elizabeth in her. :)

[backtomn]

156. I agree....smart plan.

I am sure that she was very clear-thinking at the time.

[unc70]

174. Haters, remember family trip together to Japan last summer

Please refrain from projecting your emotions or motives as being those of Elizabeth Edwards or even of John Edwards. Most posting here obviously no little about the Edwards family dynamics nor of their circumstances these last few years. Remember that the entire Edwards family, including John, traveled extensively together last summer in Japan. Yes, John monumentally failed his marriage vows, his political supporters, and all those people and issues needing his and Elizabeth's voices. He still loves and cares about his children.

And his flaws are not greater than those of many who we consider heros: JFK, LBJ, MLK, Clinton. Even worse, since Elizabeth had remained an effective spokesman on healthcare after the affair was known, they attacked her and her motives in order to discredit her during the debates.

There is still huge risk from the Federal prosecutors (Repub) and from an out-of-control Rielle Hunter, acting out in public when she feels slighted, seemingly oblivious to the risk from the continuing Repub Federal investigation. Hunter seems delusional to me (think "Fatal Attraction"), and I suspect that something like the trip to Japan contributed to her doing various interviews and magazine articles last year, inappropriate and with risk for those under scrutiny.

The Federal grand jury continues to call witnesses. Yesterday, it was Lisa Blue Baron whose late husband Fred paid personally for much of Hunter's expenses when the scandal first broke.

[Fire1]

2. As it should be! I don't think he expected anything else. n/t

[CountAllVotes]

4. however what he deserved he did not get

and that was a kick in the ass! :grr:

:kick:

[Fire1]

5. That's another issue, entirely. n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibDemAlways]

19. My late father would have enjoyed your comment. I agree. +1000

[CountAllVotes]

28. actually ....

I learned that comment quite well from my own late father! :D :D :D

:kick: in the ass!!!!

[gateley]

3. I wonder if it's a community property state? The article says it was John's

income that built the fortune, so I'm sure he's going to be okay. Which is too bad.

[Raschel]

6. But mom is gone and it would not be a good thing for them to have a father in dire straits.

Elizabeth was wise to have him at her bedside with the children. Their well-being is most important and they will make their decisions about dad when they are older.

[Lindsey]

8. IMO he's the biggest BASTARD EVER. He's got 25 million so

I think he'll be able to provide for his children. She made a statement by leaving him out of her will. He has proven to be narcissist and shallow. I was a strong supporter of him early in the '08 primaries. I donated money to him. I want my money back!!!!!

[pnwmom]

11. I don't think that was necessarily a statement. It probably made

a lot of sense tax wise. Considering the size of his fortune, his children will probably be paying a significant estate tax on their inheritance from him -- so why add to it when she can leave her part to them directly?

[former9thward]

46. No estate tax in 2010. They don't have to pay anything.

At least at the federal level. I don't know if North Carolina has any estate tax.

[pnwmom]

53. Whatever is the case for 2010 won't apply for when John Edwards

dies. So it is better for the children that his estate not be added to, since he already has plenty. Otherwise, there will probably be substantial taxes when he dies.

[former9thward]

60. I guarantee you the estate of John Edwards will pay no tax.

He will do as any wealthy person does and set up trust beforehand to avoid the tax. Say what you want about Edwards he is a smart attorney and will do what he needs to do.

[pnwmom]

63. Setting up trusts doesn't ensure that all your money will pass on to your heirs.

But you can set up charitable trusts so that assets go to charities instead of to taxes.

[former9thward]

65. Yes charitable trusts that are run by your children

who are able to pay themselves huge salaries and expenses. That is one of the ways it is done.

[pnwmom]

73. They still are required to donate money to charity. n/t

[boppers]

126. Wait, we're worried about millionaire rich kids on DU?

Really?

[MrMickeysMom]

50. "I want my money back!"...

Face it.... It's been spent on someone who poses for Playboy wearing a man's shirt and pearls.

Give him the money and may he have a pox on it.

[jonthebru]

54. He'll do fine.

He'll do fine. I sure he is wealthy. She was making a very strong point...

[pnwmom]

10. Most community property states are in the west,

as far as I know.

[pitohui]

41. louisiana is also a community property state

they are not all in the west
if you don't want your own husband to have a share in your property, i have a wild idea, DIVORCE HIM, don't just separate from him, finalize the divorce already sheesh

it is outrageous that someone can write their own spouse out of the will, in the edwards case, yeah, who cares, i'm sure he earned all the $ anyways but most of the time where this is allowed...it's an older woman who can no longer work who will be fucked out of an income

terrible precedent to set and just small minded behavior to write out your own husband

we would be plenty peeved off at any man who tried this shite...marriage is a partnership, folks

[pnwmom]

55. Wealthy couples often don't include each other in their wills.

If each of them already is independently wealthy, it makes more sense to leave their estate directly to their children. This wouldn't be "small minded behavior" in that case and I wouldn't be surprised if John Edwards was perfectly fine with the idea.

[MadLinguist]

69. Its almost certainly the case that they discussed it and agreed

that it was in the financial interest of their children that she do it this way. There is very little reason to believe that she was became petty and revengeful in the last week of her life, in contrast to the rest of her years on the planet.

[pnwmom]

72. I agree. nt

[marybourg]

71. In most states spouses who are cut out of a will get a certain

% (ususlly 1/3) anyway by law.

[Lex]

95. I'm sure they at least had a Separation Agreement which

would have waived that spousal share most likely.

[sabrina 1]

81. They were divorced, weren't they?

I wouldn't consider him Elizabeth's spouse once he made the decisions he made. She has taken care of her children, she owed him nothing. And she had plenty of money that she earned, writing books, raising HIS family, giving up her own career to help him with his. I would say whatever money they both earned together was earned by both of them. Unless raising four children and running a home, political campaigns etc. isn't worth anything. He probably never would have been as successful as he was had it not been for her. Look where he is now without her?

However, having said that, what he did has been done for centuries by men in positions of power. Only here in the puritanical U.S. do we make it an issue in their public lives, rather than making it their business. It really isn't any of our business and there's no reason to believe that, despicable as it is to cheat on anyone, but especially your spouse and the mother of your children, a cheating husband cannot also be a great lawyer, Senator, President etc. If that were the case, most of history's great leaders would never have had a chance to lead.

[Justitia]

84. no

[No Elephants]

117. You are wrong on the facts.

First, they were not divorced.

Second, see Reply 112 and google dower and curtesy on death of a spouse. Also, statutory forced share on death of a spouse.

[sabrina 1]

132. I haven't followed the Edwards marital affair story, just

thought Elizabeth had decided on divorce. Whatever she wanted to do I have a feeling that regardless of laws he will most probably honor her wishes at this point. He doesn't need the money anyhow. And if he did, I have a feeling she would have provided for him if she could, he is her children's father.

Anyhow, all of it is their personal business. Frankly I don't know why the public feels they have a right to get involved in the personal lives of public figures. I think what he did to his wife was reprehensible but she moved on and my opinion isn't worth anything to them. If he wants to spend the rest of his life with a wacked out bimbo, I guess that's his business also. It's a tragic story, but mostly for the children who I'm sure love both of their parents.

[trud]

83. "it is outrageous that someone can write their own spouse out of the will"

No, it's not. Anyone who doesn't make their own financial provisions and depends on someone else for that is nuts. With a divorce rate at 50%, that's why there are prenups.

[No Elephants]

111. In some states, you still cannot dishinherit a spouse entirely.

You can, of course, literally write him or her out--who would stop you?

But, if he or she knew the law, they would make a claim against the estate for a statutory share. In my state, it used to be one third. Do not know if it still is, or if the law changed.

And, of course, if you die without a will, your estate goes to your spouse, unless you have kids, whereupon it gets split among your spouse and kids, with spouse usually getting half and kids splitting the other half amongst themselves.

[No Elephants]

112. In some states, you still cannot dishinherit a spouse entirely.

You can, of course, literally write him or her out--who would stop you?

But, if he or she knew the law, they would make a claim against the estate for a statutory share. In my state, it used to be one third. Do not know if it still is, or if the law changed.

And, of course, if you die without a will, your estate goes to your spouse, unless you have kids, whereupon it gets split among your spouse and kids, with spouse usually getting half and kids splitting the other half amongst themselves.

[No Elephants]

113. Divorces can take a long time--and working on the divorce may not be your first priority if you are

dying, or just trying to support your kids because your spouse was not paying support? And sometimes, it is only the court calendar standing in the way. Also, from her wiki:

After John's January 21, 2010, public admission that he fathered a child with another woman, Elizabeth legally separated from him, intending to file for divorce after North Carolina's mandatory one-year separation.<18><19><20><21>



"terrible precedent to set and just small minded behavior to write out your own husband"


What if he asked her to write him out? Or they discussed it and he was fine with it?

Besides, if you were Elizabeth, would you really want Hunter sharing in your money after you died?

See also Reply #112.

Better idea: have a prenup that says what happens if you separate.

[DeschutesRiver]

145. What I read was that NC law requires that a couple filing for divorce live separately for 1 year

before a divorce will be granted. So she had filed for divorce and was in the process of the separation requirement of her state.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/27/elizabeth-edwards-and-john-edwards-are-legally-separated-divorc/

From what I'm reading, her will bequeathed personal property that was in her name solely - that isn't small minded; plenty of people give their personal property to various relatives, friends, etc in their wills. I haven't seen a mention yet of how her share, if there is one, of any real estate is handled - the OP here didn't reference real estate, just her own personal property.

For all I know, she may have left her share of any real estate to him. I know nothing about her state's divorce laws, other than what I've read. But I read about her state's requirement for a whole year of separation back when Elizabeth filed for divorce and was pretty amazed that a state would delay a divorce for so long. I don't know what is up with that or why they do it that way.

As an aside, I'm not certain it is fair in any way that, for example, Elizabeth's royalties from the book she published detailing her life and her husband's betrayal/infidelity go to her unfaithful husband and his mistress if he marries her, merely because the book was published during her year of state-forced separation. I mean, with terminal cancer, it is not like she could have waited an extra year to finish/publish her book just to have that final divorce decree in hand before proceeding.

[1monster]

162. In Florida, if one's home is "homesteaded" (and most are due to the tax break), the homesteaded

real estate goes to the surviving spouse. If the homesteaded real estate is not also in the surviving spouse's name, then he/she does not inherit the real estate. It goes to the surviving children of the deceased homestead holder. If I remember correctly, the surving spouse does have the right reside in the homesteaded property for the rest of his/her life.

Real estate inheritance laws can get down right funky...

[LiberalEsto]

155. I thought she was a lawyer

and I thought she must have made money from the books she wrote. I would think she must have earned quite a bit by herself.

[elleng]

52. Right, and as she said 'owned by me at the time,'

there's probably a fair amount of property held jointly, so while headline sounds great and she did what she could, he's prolly 'OK.'



;(

[jaysunb]

79. correct

it just means the children replace her as joint owner of their joint holdings.

I don't think this is something done for spite or anger, but to do as many parents ( my wife and I included )do to insure the new spouse -- if any-- will override the children of their inheritance.

[Lex]

94. NC is not a community property state. nt

[MindandSoul]

7. Well done! A great lady!

[pnwmom]

9. Even if they weren't estranged, it wouldn't have made financial sense

to leave anything to him -- he's got more money than she had. I'm sure he's happy it went to their children.

[Fire1]

12. Ditto. n/t

[Sheepshank]

149. agreed

doesn't do anyone any good to revel in hate so deeply that you start making up shit and motivations for why the will was written the way it was.

In fact, wasn't there an article right before she died indicating something other that hate and retribution for John?

The mentality of those attempting to turn Elizabeth in to a hateful, small minded, vindictive person in her last week, is annoying and petty and simply unfounded.

[Sheepshank]

150. self delete

ooops

[JI7]

13. even if they were still together and all that crap didn't happen, why would she leave that stuff to

him ?

[madokie]

15. Good deal

Sorry bastid anyway. We dodged one there. I doubt seriously if that was the only person he cheated on her with too.

[No Elephants]

114. Adultery is like murder--first time is the hardest. I do not believe Hunter

was his first.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. If that is how she wrote the will there's going to be some serious fighting.

[davidinalameda]

17. you really think he's going to contest the will?

[tritsofme]

18. Nothing that from that sleezebag would surprise me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. I'm thinking about the kids sorting through it.

It's best to make an inventory of everything and force everyone to sit down with you before you die, so that everybody can know beforehand how to split things up. The last thing you want is your children harming their relationship with one another, fighting over some bauble. Sometimes, after somebody dies, there is as lot of emotion that you can't project anywhere else. These inheritances that are not itemized are just the kind of thing where that kind of energy gets displaced.

[HillbillyBob]

66. Oh yes, no matter how well a family gets along

When one dies look out.

My aunt and my grandfather both passed right before Christmas.
Now extended family are already fighting over the farm, and my grandfathers second wife whose family had owned that farm for 3, generations and she is still living, but has late stage Alzheimer's.
There are folks dividing it up already and fighting over what is left of the furnishings.
Which are mostly 30 to 50 years old and worn out anyway, most of it bought when they first married around 1950.
My aunt was left the bulk of my grandmothers stuff when she died 4 yrs ago (grandfathers first wife), now some are fighting over old cookbooks and dust collecting nicnacks. Not to denigrate, but there is nothing all that unique and the grabby ones are not exactly sentimental.
There is nothing really collectible or antique having appraised most of it for her when so she could put a value on it for insurance purposes. I'm not licensed but was in the antiques biz I did it so she would know if the appraisal she got from the insurance folks was in line.

I am glad I live 300 miles away so as not to be caught up in the back and forth. I only wanted one of the photo portraits of her, or a copy for my own sentimental reasons and that the one I had of her had gone missing in a move.

[pnwmom]

70. You think the 10 and 12 year olds will hire lawyers to go after their 28 yr. old sister?

Who is the closest thing they have to a mother right now?

Because of china, silver, furniture, and knickknacks?

I agree that adults can act crazy in this circumstance, but I can't imagine that these children will.

[No Elephants]

115. Court has power to appoint a lawyer for minors, to make sure someone is looking out

for their interests. Probably will not in this case, but it can.

[pnwmom]

122. Why would the court do that? The court might have the power,

but who wouldn't trust the older sister to act as executor, as their mother wanted?

[pengillian101]

102. Indeed!

When my Grandparents went into a nursing home in 1960-something, my Grandma put stickers on the backs of furniture, pics, jewelery, whatnot - who she wanted to get what. They died and lo and behold, my aunts and uncles swooped in and some even swapped the name-tag stickers so they got what they wanted.

None even visited them in the home except our immediate family and a very few grandkids.

My Grandparents had 8 kids, and my Father never had anything to do with any of his siblings them after that. What a shame. Family is most important.

[CreekDog]

21. that wouldn't be very classy

but...:eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. No, I think the kids are.

Fighting over materialistic things. Happens in the best families.

[TBF]

38. With the older daughter being in her twenties, and the others

much younger I doubt that it will be a huge problem. She obviously trusted her adult daughter to do the right thing. I would bet on Catherine before I'd trust John to divvy things up properly.

[KoKo]

45. Do you know how old her kids all are? Only the oldest daughter in her late 20's is

one to know the value of anything. The other two are under 13 years of age. They are not, at this point able to make any decisions about the value. That's why the oldest daughter is the executor. And, I'm sure Elizabeth gave her lawyer strict instructions about how the estate will be carried out.

I could understand what you say if all three children were over 18...but they are not and there is not a chance of squabbling with two of them so traumatized being so young with all that they've been through in campaigning and their father's affair and their mother's illness. Those little ones have been through hell and so has Cate...

[roguevalley]

107. I am sure they discussed it in fine detail and I am sure she gave

her wishes to the young ones. I don't see them arguing and fighting.

[Donnachaidh]

20. why? Do you really think she didn't talk to him about her will?

And do you really think he's going to contest -- even he's not that stupid, considering all the crap that could be dredged up. Case in point - the responses to this thread proves the point.

:shrug:

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. No, I don't think he will. But the kids might fight over things.

See previous posts.

[JI7]

27. why would the kids fight over those things ?

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. Oh, for crying out loud. Here's the cut and paste:

It's best to make an inventory of everything and force everyone to sit down with you before you die, so that everybody can know beforehand how to split things up. The last thing you want is your children harming their relationship with one another, fighting over some bauble. Sometimes, after somebody dies, there is as lot of emotion that you can't project anywhere else. These inheritances that are not itemized are just the kind of thing where that kind of energy gets displaced.

[tpsbmam]

77. Depends on the family. With 4 kids in our family, we had zero problem divvying

everything up after Mom & Dad died. There was no squabbling. As a matter of fact, we were just as likely to say "so-and-so should get that because....." as we were to request something. There wasn't one disagreement and we all felt it was completely equitable. Any actual money was divvied up in their will equally 4 ways but as for "things," there wasn't any problem at all. To squabble over things would have been to REALLY dishonor our parents, who trusted that we were above squabbling over things. They were right to trust us. From what I've seen of Elizabeth's family, they'll be the same.

[roguevalley]

108. my parents died ten months apart. No one argued and grabbed

and did all that. I had the house and all of it because I lived there. Everyone knew what the folks wanted everyone to have and I've tried to give it to them. They said leave it in the house and when the time comes it'll come to us. We all want the house to look like home. Just because a death happens and people are involved doesn't mean that people turn into pigs. I don't really know anyone that happened to around me, friends or family included.

[47of74]

141. My grandparents are still alive

And we already have one family member grasping for their stuff. :sarcasm: Yay. :sarcasm:

[roguevalley]

152. I'm really sorry to hear that. Hugs, honey.

[47of74]

165. Thank you

My Grandma & Grandpa had to move to assisted living. So one cousin was telling everyone that she was moving into their house rent free.

I think judging the way of the rest of my family reacted the grabby cousin is not going to get that far. When she was told how it was she deleted her Facebook page after declaring that she was done with the family. Good riddance.

[roguevalley]

175. her loss. I am glad your family protected your grandparents

against her.

[pnwmom]

64. Only one of the kids is an adult. I doubt that the young boy and girl

will be fighting with her over the china, etc. I'm sure the older daughter will just try to divide things in a way that seems fair, guessing what the younger siblings might like to have when they're older.

[onehandle]

32. No. It's all personal stuff. He holds the real estate and cash. nt

[pnwmom]

56. Why? He's got plenty and he loves his children.

Why would he want to add even more to his fortune, when most wealthy people his age are trying to transfer money to their children to lower the estate taxes at their death?

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. pnwmom, just a word of advice.

Sometimes it's a good idea to read a subthread before posting because I already answered that question in the three posts above yours.

Peace out.

[pnwmom]

67. I read it and I didn't see an answer, other than that you think those little kids

will be scrapping over the china and silver. Can that really be your answer?

Only the oldest daughter, who is the executor, will care. Young children aren't going to fight about furniture and crystal. And I trust her mother's wisdom in deciding to put the 28 year old in charge of this.

[The Backlash Cometh]

76. I've been through one of these things.

It is never as easy as you think it will be.

[pnwmom]

88. I've been through several of these things and I know the kind of problems

that can come up, including lawsuits.

But I can't see a 10 and 12 year old suing their much older sister -- the closest person to a mother they have -- over some silver and some dishes.

[No Elephants]

129. How do you know he loves his children--or what that means to him?

IMO, he has been putting his own interests ahead of those of EVERYONE else for quite some time now.

Ever read Shrum on how John lied about his dead son? How about the headlines to which he has exposed his children--while their mother was dying, at that? What about his innocent, but illegitimate, baby whom Edwards denied repeatedly, knowing the kid would someday read all about that? loving father?

I am always bemused when folks are convinced they know what is in the heart and mind of someone whom they have never met. Most people are blessed if they know their own spouse or kids that well. Apparently, his wife of over 30 years did not even know John Edwards as well as she assumed--but we do not really know even that for sure.

[unc70]

179. Supported by what I have seen and been told by those close to the family

What evidence do you have that John Edwards does not, or even might not, love his children?

They lived a block from me while their house was being built, routinely seeing them going about their busy lives much the same as other neighbors. After they moved to their new house, I would see them around town every month or so, often with one of the children and their friends. At youth sports, eating at the food court at the mall, dropping the children off at some event or a movie -- typical for parents here. Still involved last year, but dealing with issues and problems facing most families dealing with separation and divorce, plus those unique to his situation.

Since Hunter and her child are not around, I have no direct and modest heresay evidence, so I can only speculate that John will love this daughter, provide for her, and work to be part of her life, whatever his relationship might be with Hunter now and into the future.

Over 60% of men and almost as many women are unfaithful to their spouses at some point, often without the spouse ever finding out, and more often with the marriage somehow surviving. With infidelity so widespread among us and our leaders, why so much scorn and hate for him and even for Elizabeth, while you go much easier on many others? How many of our lives could withstand close public scrutiny? How many of our leaders in Washington if not for its culture of keeping secrets from those outside DC?

[LynneSin]

144. Why? He's a millionaire in his own right

and he will never clean up his name if he keeps rehashing the crap he did in the past.

Anyhow the money went to their children so it's not like she named a pet dog or some obscure religion as the recepient of the will.

[SoapBox]

23. Fabulous...and good for her. RIP.

[janet118]

24. The things listed are personal belongings . . .

they are mainly of sentimental value. It makes sense that children inherit personal effects from their mother. Who owns the real estate? That's the real question.

[hayu_lol]

30. Outstanding on her part. nt

[TBF]

42. I'm sure he does - they were legally still married right? She just wanted her

personal items to go to the kids (ie Cate gets the China that has been handed down for generations, and other items for Jack and Emma, so it doesn't go to one of John's women). That's what she was doing - she wanted to make sure her kids got her things. Don't blame her one single bit.

[Still a Democrat]

31. Great seeing that slime get stuck n/t

[onehandle]

33. To those celebrating a family tragedy. John holds the bulk of real estate and cash.

This is about her personal things. But enjoy yourselves.

[cbdo2007]

34. That's what I'm thinking - most of the $$$ was already his.

It's not like she's Theresa Heinz or anything. I'm sure she had some but most of what she would be giving away would just be her jewelry and momentos and stuff.

[KoKo]

39. Didn't she have two very successful Books? Royalties...and she opened a store in Chapel Hill over

a year ago and had income from the sales there. She may have inherited family things of value, jewelry, etc. from parents or other family members. She chose to leave them to all three kids. The youngest two are two young to know the value of anthing at this point and that's why she told put her oldest daughter in charge. Her oldest daughter knows the value Elizabeth had on her items and I'm sure Elizibeth had them appraised and her oldes daughter knows that and will keep her mother's things safe. It may even be in her will as a trust that will direct some be held until the youngest are old enough to decide what they want. If they don't want the things they can be auctioned off for the monetary value at the time of sale.

[Dappleganger]

90. Enjoy ourselves, why?

A great woman has left this world leaving her children motherless, and left with a father who messed around while his wife was battling cancer.

He's not fit to have her tupperware as far as I'm concerned.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

35. How . . . Cute.

No one dares mention hs life with her?his troubles, efforts, and strife?

She is 100% in the right and he is entirely wrong?

What a load of crap,

[roguevalley]

109. I'm sure he had them but given that he was in the public eye

and asking for our support, he didn't have to be a lowlife. He could have been a man and done the right thing but his ego led him off a cliff and the results are his. That he was a public person made his crap ours too.

[No Elephants]

116. Most married couples have those and still do not sire or birth babies while spouse is dying.

Many would not even cheat, but would split honorably if the marriage were over for them.

[elleng]

36. GREAT NEWS, and thanks to a brave womaan,

encourages all those treated badly to be brave too.

[pitohui]

37. this should be illegal

you're married, you should NEVER be able to cut your spouse out of your will period end of sentence

the abuses that can occur, if you're allowed to do this, should be obvious

i don't want to remember elizabeth as a spiteful petty person so i will put this down to what chemo does to the brain, i've seen it for myself

now we all know john don't need her money but this isn't the point, the point is marriage is a contract and as long as you're married, your property is for both of you -- otherwise there is no security for most middle class surviving spouses

wanting to go "ha ha" at john edwards should not make us overlook the HUGE harm this would do to surviving spouses, mostly women, if people are allowed to write their own spouse out of the will

she had a LOT of time when she knew she had cancer, she should have used that time to finalize the divorce and then i would be OK if she put him out of the will

but to put your own spouse out of your will while you're still married...that makes a travesty of marriage...and the harm it will do 90 percent of the cases will be to women as most of the time WE'RE the ones who live longer and men are the ones who get silly & crazy & suddenly want to give all their money to some teen-ager when they're not in their right minds

i'm sorry if this is the last act of elizabeth, it just reminds me of what i already know from people in my life...chemo changes you and it clouds your thinking and the things you say/do on chemo are not the real person

[TBF]

43. Total BS - John gets the real estate and cash because he is still

her husband. The kids get her personal things because she wanted to be sure they got them rather than John's "girlfriend" and any other children he may decide to parent. That's what she was doing & I applaud her.

[No Elephants]

118. Do you know NC law or how John and Elizabeth held their property?

[KoKo]

44. It was Her Money...she earned it and maybe family things she inherited that she wanted to go to the

kids. That's her right to do that. You are turning the argument to what a man might do to take money away from a spouse that has nothing. But, in this case Elizabeth worked on her own for years and wrote two or three successful books and had parents, grandparents and maybe other family members who left things to her that she wanted to will to her own children. This is her right and it's sexist to say she should have left that all to her husband (what she earned in her own life and what she owned from inheritance or bought with her own earned money) upon her death.

I hope you will think about this ...what you said...further.

[InvisibleTouch]

47. Disagree. People should be able to leave their estate to anyone they want.

By no means should it be a given that they can't disinherit a spouse. If a person dies without a will, sure, then all goods and assets should go to the surviving spouse (or, lacking a spouse, to the kids or other nearest relatives). But everyone should have the right to decide where their stuff goes or does not go, if they feel strongly enough to put it in writing. I'm not saying that to comment on this particular instance, but in general terms. Everyone should have the individual right and freedom to make their own choice.

[Midwestern Democrat]

68. It doesn't work that way in most (probably all) states. Almost every

state, to my knowledge, has an "elective share" provision - where a spouse can elect to receive one-third or one-half (depending on the state)of the estate if this amount would be greater than what she or he was left in the will. About the only thing I'm aware of that is shielded from the elective share provision is life insurance proceeds.

[Justitia]

89. In North Carolina he is still entitled to 1/3 of her net assets. -eom

[Lex]

100. Not if they had a standard Separation Agreement he isn't.

It's one of the basic things in a Separation Agreement, waiving the rights in each other's estates should one die after the Separation Agreement but before the Divorce.

[Justitia]

105. well, in any event, I really don't see him suing / contesting anyway.

My comment applies to the more general case of someone trying to disinherit a spouse (in NC) - not the Edwards case specifically.

[No Elephants]

123. I would bet my home they did NOThave a standard agreement.

Not saying whether or not their agreement said that, just saying it was not standard.


Two spouses, both knowing of his mistress, his other child and her imminent death, both being very smart; both being very rich; both being lawyers, three of their kids involved--I bet every phrase was gone over with a fine tooth comb and negotiated by them and by their high priced lawyers.

[Lex]

136. By standard, I mean having at least the basic terms such as

waiving estate rights during the separation period, etc. It's a given that they had "high priced lawyers" who negotiated the marital asset distribution.

[aquart]

78. How....libertarian.

And utterly, completely, dreadfully wrong. Fortunately most states, nations, and religions prevent sadistic spiteful idiots from disinheriting spouses and children. Not all, sadly.

[InvisibleTouch]

82. That's insane. In life you can give your assets to anyone you want...

...and *not* give them to anyone you want. Why should it be any different in death?

Maybe the spouse and children don't deserve those assets. Maybe *they* were the ones that were spiteful and sadistic. Not every family is sweet and wonderful to each other, and I don't believe that one has an "obligation" to a person simply because they're a spouse or blood relative. If that person has been cruel to you, why would you want them to benefit from your death? Far better to leave it to a good cause. I don't see a thing in the worlds wrong with that.

[No Elephants]

124. Wrong again. You have spousal and child support obligatiions in life

during a marriage and, very often, after the marriage ends.

And, you often do a property settlement (frequently grudgingly or outright fored on you), when you legally separate or divorce.

Try being under a court order for support and saying you cannot meet your obligaotions anymore beause you gave Hunter all your money and you do not plan on getting a job.

[Union Scribe]

85. So Elizabeth Edwards was a "sadistic, spiteful idiot"?

[No Elephants]

119. Please see Reply 112 and 117.

I disagree everyone should always be able to decide, esp. if minor offspring are involved. Sweeping statements are fine, but what if, for only one example, a couple agreed that one of them would always be the homemaker while the other would always be the provider? Should the provider be able to leave all his or her assets to a lover, leaving the homemaker and child caregiver high and dry, or having to ask a kid for money?

When it comes to matters of the heart and/or of family, always suspect easy answers.

[Sparkly]

49. I imagine she didn't want her money going to benefit the other woman's child

at the expense of her own.

[No Elephants]

121. Her money may well be held in joint accounts. Story says she left her kids

what was in her sole possession when she died.

[No Elephants]

127. Meh. I doubt she wanted Hunter having it, too.

But, we really do not know about money. It may have been in joint accounts or mostly in his name. Story is about stuff in her sole possession when she died.

[Dappleganger]

91. Well, SHE didn't break that contract.

His tiny member did.

BTW, having been through 2 chemo treatments myself for BC--your statements are highly offensive and untruthful. Chemo didn't do that to her, she was a smart woman who knew exactly what was going on.

[Lex]

98. WTF? They were SEPARATED which means their property had

mostly likely been divided ALREADY through the Separation Agreement. She damn well should make sure her property goes to her kids, not to John. Sheesh. That's just basic.

[roguevalley]

110. I disagree. It wasn't billions she was talking about but personal

things that she wanted her kids to have and his girl friend never to use. She has the right to choose what she wanted. If every single act a person chooses has to be screened against the greater good then we're all screwed.

[cali]

131. He broke that contract. smashed it to smithereens. n/t

[msanthrope]

148. It's an operation of law--legal separation and/or divorce voids

spousal share.

And that's a good thing.

Because otherwise, a separated person would have a hell of a motive to kill before the divorce....

besides, he still gets his share of all the non-probate assets.

[CTyankee]

173. No, I just LOVE this form of "rough justice" for this slimebag...

I APPLAUD her last act and I think she knew EXACTLY what she was doing...

[mudplanet]

40. How DU became SOU (soap opera underground)

[KoKo]

48. John Edwards was the hope for many DU'ers and his Wife was Loved by Most All...that's Personal

because they were very important. This isn't Lindsey Lohan/Brittany Spears or the "Dancing With Stars" kind of Crap.

[mudplanet]

51. What happened between them was personal. Both back then and right begfore she died.

I suspect that the average participant in this discussion is enjoying revenge by proxy over some imagined or real hurt someone did to them in a relationship.

[KoKo]

57. I don't think so...I think it's folks concerned about those kids that they watched throughout two

Campaigns. People were very involved with them and their Hope.

[mudplanet]

62. Gosh. Heartwarming. And now they get to be intimately involved in their dirty laundry.

[Dappleganger]

142. Nice try.

Nope, we just hate wankers.

[Lex]

96. How DUers became PN (posting nannies)

[mudplanet]

99. touché

and I finally figured out how to use different fonts and special characters in posts

[man4allcats]

58. Good for you, Elizabeth!

Rest In Peace, my dear.

[pengillian101]

104. K&R!

Rest in peace.

[stray cat]

59. He has money

[pinto]

74. Minority view, but I think it's no one's business but the Edwards'.

:shrug:

[Union Scribe]

86. Happy to be a fellow member of that minority.

[William769]

93. I seem to be in the minority on most things.

I'll join you on this one also.

[Arkansas Granny]

139. I'll join you in your minority view.

[MissDeeds]

75. Elizabeth was an awesome lady

I'm glad she made this move to protect her children and secure their financial futures. It is heart breaking that she had to address issues such as this in her final days.

Although I was an Edwards supporter, I hope John spends the rest of his life rethinking his abysmal choices and regretting the pain he caused Elizabeth, his children, and those of us who believed in him.

[Xenotime]

80. This won't stand in court

[HEyHEY]

92. If Edwards is a big enough prick to challenge it, yeah I doubt it would

[Lex]

97. Of course it will stand in court.

There is nothing unusual about it AT ALL.

[msanthrope]

101. Of course it will. Legal separation voids any share of her personal property he hoped to have. n/t

[No Elephants]

120. Do you know NC law on that issue?

[msanthrope]

151. Yes.

In all jurisdictions in the United States, legal separation voids the automatic spousal share of intestacy, any minimum testamentary share, and, usually any other will provisions made for a spouse. Now, you can write your ex back in, but you must make a separate writing doing so.

This is black-letter law that you learn on the first day of T&E. Or you don't learn it, and miss a question on the bar.

This is a good thing.


Now, if there is non-probateable property, that property would not be affected by this. For example, JT-owned real estate, life insurance, pensions....that stuff needs to be retitled.

[Dappleganger]

87. Excellent.

A very wise mother indeed.

[NNadir]

103. I can't say I blame her. She was a very fine woman and though I never even thought of voting

for John Edwards for President (although I did vote for him as VP), when she was still with him, she made me think better of his campaign.

Call me a prude, but I believe in marital fidelity though. I thought less of Clinton because of what he did, and I felt really bad about what happened to Ms. Edwards. She didn't deserve that.

[No Elephants]

125. Marital infidellitiy speaks to things like

honor, keeping promises, sneakiness, character and so on. I believe it speaks to many things that ARE indeed relevant to serving in elective office.

On the other hand, you and I do not know what arrangements two people in a marriage have made with each other. So, it is their personal choice. On their other hand, how you vote is your personal choice.

[Frisbee]

106. He got everything he deserved. In abundance.

Good for her.

[No Elephants]

128. Daily News headline is sensationalism, period. But, I am stunned she

did not do this as soon as she found out Hunter and Edwards had cavorted in the marital home and bed--or that Edwards had denied his own baby.

[Freddie Stubbs]

135. What would be a more appropriate headline?

[Raine]

130. GOOD for Elizabeth

that scum doesn't deserve a thing. Elizabeth was probably worried that Rielle would end up with her things.

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. The human capacity for vindictiveness is fascinating.

It's reasonable for Elizabeth to want her kids to get her stuff.

But you'd think that the posters above were the ones he cheated on.

I guess we were betrayed, in a way. In 2008, I put a lot of support behind the guy and his populist rhetoric. But I don't think there's any hotter place in hell for him than Newt, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, etc.

I guess I don't give fuckups a relative pass for fucking up. "I expected better" isn't a good reason for a lynching.

[Ilsa]

133. I see this news report as a bunch of hype.

Reporting on who gets her furniture and personal effects? Maybe she wants her kids to have reminders of herself. That's not where her wealth was. This is another media jab at her widower.

[VeryConfused]

134. Seems quite reasonable

[dendrobium]

137. Why so angry?

No one can know what goes on between a husband and wife. Of course his behaviour was selfish and wrong. But I try not to judge people harshly. People are outraged that he would cheat on a cancer stricken wife, but it is often at times of extreme stress and crisis that people cheat. Cheating on a sick spouse is far more common than you would think.

I don't want anyone to think I am making excuses for John Edwards. But it amazes me how people take it so personally and they have never even met these people. I wish the Edwards family peace in this time of grief.

[mstinamotorcity]

138. Well his mystical mistress with

the reincarnated child of the Dahli Lama can conjure up a fortune for themselves.:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[truebrit71]

140. Good for her...

..

[spanone]

143. what took her so long?

[MilesColtrane]

146. Anybody heard anything out of the grand jury in Raleigh?

If Edwards was using campaign money to feather his bimbo's nest, he needs to go to prison for a couple of years.

[Lateedee]

147. What business is it of ours...

how Elizabeth divided up her stuff? Really does he need her money when he's worth up wards of $25 million dollars? I would have left all my stuff to my kids as well. Besides who do think is going to inherit his estate when he passes?

I don't doubt for a minute that they loved each other very much.. yes he made a huge mistake at a time in her life when she needed his total devotion. We all know women are stronger than men in keeping it together and I am not excusing what he did... but he was her husband, he is the father of their children and she's gone. Even Elizabeth would not want discord in the lives of her children. I doubt seriously if she would have stood for any disrespect toward John from their kids. They were raised better, she knew they would need their father and he would provide for them emotionally, financially and in every way a parent does.

[backtomn]

158. She was a "public person"......and this is America....

This is a lot like people who say that people are "innocent until proven guilty" when there is a public issue (like we have no business discussing it). The only place that applies is in the courts. Americans can comment on ANY public issue they choose. We hope that they do it respectfully (as, I believe, it was done here), but they have the right to comment......and others have the right to ignore us. People think that she was treated poorly by John.....and they have considerable evidence to suggest that. It is ultimately her choice, but that doesn't mean that it is, in some way, improper to comment on it.

In my opinion, John Edwards was a pretty sleazy human being (regardless of his politics) and she had every right to protect her children, rather than a sleaze that could support himself. (federally-protected speech) : )

[OrangeGrapes]

159. And why is a news-source like Inside Edition...

able to obtain a copy of someone's will? That is something I feel is and should be off-limits to the media.

[Sheepshank]

153. Why is it so important for posters to turn Elizabeth into a petty, vindictive shill

I don't think that is how she left this world at all.

[JI7]

171. actually most people see this as something good, something John deserves

not something petty on her part.

[HardWorkingDem]

154. I think postings like this show what is wrong with DU...

From E. Edwards' behavior and the way she carried herself in life, does anyone here think she would have appreciated this posting? I think not.

The moderators should delete it out of respect for her.

[upi402]

157. Edwards was silent when Kucinich was black-listed from debates

I knew he was not my hero then.

[Cleita]

176. So was Clinton and Obama. None of them were

heroes.

[earth mom]

161. Good! I'm glad! BUT-this clears the way for John to leave all HIS money to Rielles kid.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that greedy homewrecker beeotch will make sure her kid gets ALL his money! :grr:

[unc70]

177. You would lose that bet, though Hunter is capable of trying almost anything

Hunter is almost the worst possible person that Edwards could have had an affair with, made far worse by having a child with her with the lifetime responsibilities and continued involvement that entails. The movie "Fatal Attraction" should have been a warning for JE and the rest of us.

I am confident that Elizabeth's children are well provide for and protected from Hunter and from claims against John by others -- clients, liability, criminal or civil fines, etc. Comparable financial arrangements to support his child with Hunter are probably also in place.

John and Elizabeth needed to be very careful setting all these things up, particularly the last couple of years with the grand jury looking at every detail of their personal, charitable, and political finances, the GOP prosecutor trying to find something that would support charges against Edwards or someone, thus justifying the years of investigations, media hype, and over the top political and personal attacks.

[Maru Kitteh]

163. Good for you Elizabeth!

we miss you :-(

[SaveAmerica]

164. That's her version of the southern woman's "Bless His Heart"- heard this

morning on a local news show (I'm in NC)

[lillypaddle]

166. I dunno ...

I read the will, and I'm thinking there is much left unmentioned, and that's as it should be, e.g., life insurance, etc. John didn't get a mention for any of her personal or household items, for sure. But I don't think we know who got any bank accounts, insurance policies, etc - and that's also as it should be. But I doubt he was mentioned there either, and why would he be? He's been a successful attorney and probably has his own cash assets. And of course, I am sure that she didn't want anything of hers to go, indirectly or otherwise, to that other woman.

[LiberalLovinLug]

167. She did what she should have done

But its amazing how much vitriol is displayed towards a man that cheats on his wife. Or rather gets caught cheating. Maybe its the cancer card that puts it over the top for some posters, but men AND women cheating on their partners is as old as Methuselah. Lust is a human condition. Yes it SHOULD have been wrestled down by John, but the fact is that probably he and Elizabeth hadn't been intimate for a while, and his other head got the best of him in one stupid moment that turned into more.

Yes it was cowardly and selfish, but I save my outrage for war criminals and child abusers.

[vanbean]

168. None of my business.

[BigD_95]

169. I must be missing something

What did he do that was so bad? Cheated on his wife?

Bill Clinton did that. Lots of people do that. Sorry I like John Edward. Unless I missed part of the story. I didnt follow it. Just heard he cheated on Elizabeth.

and to add to that. I wish he was our President right now. At least he talked about Two America's. The have and the have nots. He would be fighting the Republicans if he was elected. There would have been a Public Option

[Stoic]

170. Is everyone having fun wallowing in another family's misery? n/t

[Citizen Worker]

172. Is this revelation going to change the political/economic conditions here? Why in the hell is this

of ANY importance?

[Kaleva]

178. There's probably a reason why she did that.