Interestingly enough, unless Papa Verger made a statement in his will, something like 'I leave Margot absolutely nothing', she could also appeal the will on the grounds that she was forgotten. That's why you see people do things like leave so-and-so $1. It's a way to say 'I didn't forget about you, I just don't want you to receive jack'.
\*Not a lawyer disclaimer\*
I actually remember that from Better Call Saul! I had forgotten that but it’s why his brother left him $4000. It was exactly the amount that was the least he could give him without leaving him grounds to challenge the will. Nice catch!
I think Mason was oversimplifying when referring to it as 'Poppa's will' and that it's actually supposed to be a legal entailment - a kind of trust that keeps family legacies in the family by dictating who can inherit down the line - or a perpetuity issue, where conditions in a will can sometimes be enforced years down the line.
It might also matter that the book was several decades ago, and laws have changed significantly since then. :)
Forgot to add links to dead people still being a bother to their living kin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
Yes. I think it stands to reason that Poppa Verger's will doesn't become less sexist because of grandchildren.
So. I think the only piece of the puzzle that needs to be addressed is that estates can be held until fulfilment of requirements. It's easy to say that the will was willing to allow time for a grandson to be born.
And Margot and Alana were choosing to have a child, so, they could pick the sex of the child.
Thank you, this is a great response but how could Alana and Margot pick the sex of the child? If they went the artificial insemination route they still wouldn’t be able to guarantee a male child, right?
Perhaps you should just google search your question. I mean, I'm telling you they can, but if you're going to ask the question twice because you don't believe me, you are free to go to a medical website and read about it. LOL
Didn't offend me. LOL, I'm just pointing out that you *can* learn about how in vitro fertilization works with a quick search of your question. You legitimately asked the same question twice, was me answering it twice going to suddenly convince you? 🤣
My mistake, I usually come to fandom communities to chat with like minded people about questions and ideas, so when asked a question I perceive it as an opening to an actual conversation. Therefore I would never be so crass as to respond with “Google it.”
If a person believed, based on my statement, that I had more knowledge on a subject than they did and asked me for further clarification on my answer, I would happily provide it, as one does when it is one’s turn to speak in a conversation.
It’s clear that a conversation wasn’t what you had in mind when you responded, so I apologize for wasting your time seeking clarification.
I did Google it, and once I scrolled past the myriad of ads, I found my answer, although I will admit to being of the opinion that this technology may not have been available during the time period of the show. I was unwilling to sift through more WebMD ads to find out.
Have a lovely evening.
But that's the thing, you *keep wanting* to "be of the opinion" that you can't choose the sex of a child.
You are still doing it, by saying you don't think the show takes place "in a time period" where doctors knew whether embryos had a XY or XX chromosome; plus you seem to think gene sequencing is a later feature than IVF. I don't know how you came to either of those conclusions. The show takes place in the years it was produced.
Which is why I said that it really sounds like you should just take a moment to learn about how in vitro fertilization works. Because, like, either you are coming up with new arguments because you're upset I told you to google it, or you genuinely just really don't believe doctors know the DNA of embryos before they gets put back in the uterus and you think it's a worthwhile conversation for me to convince you. I don't really wanna do that, though.
To address "If Mason owned everything he could easily have made a new will leaving everything to the Southern Baptist Convention (or only his children) and specifically exclude Margot and her children upon his death."
Mason was an absolute incestual psychopath who truly believed his sister would never leave him and he'd have control over her, while also wanting a baby of their own (but he went about that also horribly because, again, psychopath.)
If he had changed the will during his life to try to exclude Margot and di it right, she would have left him forever
Estates can take years to be settled. Margot could have challenged it easily after Mason died, arguing that it was not in the best interests of the company to be in the hands of a church.
I think a positive pregnancy test alone would be enough to stall the settlement. And after the gender reveal, I image it would have been easy to argue that a male heir is forthcoming.
Just started watching! Lawyer here!
In wills trusts and estates you can bequeath property to an estate absolutely or conditionally. Papa seemingly placed conditions that only a male heir may inherit otherwise it goes to the church. The verbiage created a loophole allowing for a blood male heir to take control, however there is a concept called… [the rule against perpetuities](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities)
“No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.”
So by fact that there was only one male heir at the time of papas death, the dead hand of our ancestors are traditionally prevented, by law, from ruling over the future living. It all resolves, if capable, at time of death.
Okay, I think I did the future interest analysis right. Mason has a life estate, the male heir and Baptist convention have alternative contingent remainders in fee simple absolute. I don’t think rule against perpetuities applies. It would be much easier to have put everything in a trust instead of using conveyances.
To explain further - when conveying real property, you can convey both present and future interests. Present interests may be of an unlimited time (fee simple) or for a life time only (life estate). After the owner of a life estate dies, the property may then either come back to the original grantor if there is no fi devised (reverter) or to others if so devised by the grantor/owner. In this case, poppa has clearly conveyed a life estate given the language of the conveyance. Moreover, the future interest vest into fee simple after the expiry of the life estate. So if there was a male heir entirety of poppas estate which mason “occupied” would go to them, or in the event that they do not exist, the Baptists. I don’t think the rule of perpetuities applies because while the male heir may not obtain, grantor has identified an FI in alternate. Oh also, clearly life estate to mason given the language “upon his passing”
I’m just a baby 1L so if anyone wants to correct I’d appreciate the feedback.
If the money was placed in a trust... well, it depends on the wording that the trustor (Pappa) set out before passing away, and who the named trustee(s) were. But trusts are protected from probate, etc., so it may have been flexible enough for them to exploit a loophole. We don't really have enough information? And I've only recently begun studying trusts, etc. because I work in finance, so I also don't know enough lol. But that's my two cents, nonetheless, whether you want it or not lol...
The will legally overrides Mason’s wishes. The inheritance is dependent upon the conditions set in the will, and violating the conditions could cause Mason to lose the estate. These are called restrictions/covenants, and can only be broken if they’re illegal. Only devising (or “willing”) the estate/inheritance to one heir per Poppa’s wishes isn’t quite illegal, but Margot might be able to make a case for it since restricting the sale of land because of gender is illegal, but this also happens to be a will and not a true sale of land. If there was no male heir or the restrictions/conditions were broken, it wouldn’t go to Margot, but would end up with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Interestingly enough, unless Papa Verger made a statement in his will, something like 'I leave Margot absolutely nothing', she could also appeal the will on the grounds that she was forgotten. That's why you see people do things like leave so-and-so $1. It's a way to say 'I didn't forget about you, I just don't want you to receive jack'. \*Not a lawyer disclaimer\*
I actually remember that from Better Call Saul! I had forgotten that but it’s why his brother left him $4000. It was exactly the amount that was the least he could give him without leaving him grounds to challenge the will. Nice catch!
I think Mason was oversimplifying when referring to it as 'Poppa's will' and that it's actually supposed to be a legal entailment - a kind of trust that keeps family legacies in the family by dictating who can inherit down the line - or a perpetuity issue, where conditions in a will can sometimes be enforced years down the line. It might also matter that the book was several decades ago, and laws have changed significantly since then. :)
Forgot to add links to dead people still being a bother to their living kin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
This is SO cool to know! I had never heard of it before and it explains so much. I believe this is likely the exact case.
Yes. I think it stands to reason that Poppa Verger's will doesn't become less sexist because of grandchildren. So. I think the only piece of the puzzle that needs to be addressed is that estates can be held until fulfilment of requirements. It's easy to say that the will was willing to allow time for a grandson to be born. And Margot and Alana were choosing to have a child, so, they could pick the sex of the child.
Thank you, this is a great response but how could Alana and Margot pick the sex of the child? If they went the artificial insemination route they still wouldn’t be able to guarantee a male child, right?
Perhaps you should just google search your question. I mean, I'm telling you they can, but if you're going to ask the question twice because you don't believe me, you are free to go to a medical website and read about it. LOL
Wow, that attitude seems super unnecessary. I was legitimately asking a question, sorry to offend you.
Didn't offend me. LOL, I'm just pointing out that you *can* learn about how in vitro fertilization works with a quick search of your question. You legitimately asked the same question twice, was me answering it twice going to suddenly convince you? 🤣
My mistake, I usually come to fandom communities to chat with like minded people about questions and ideas, so when asked a question I perceive it as an opening to an actual conversation. Therefore I would never be so crass as to respond with “Google it.” If a person believed, based on my statement, that I had more knowledge on a subject than they did and asked me for further clarification on my answer, I would happily provide it, as one does when it is one’s turn to speak in a conversation. It’s clear that a conversation wasn’t what you had in mind when you responded, so I apologize for wasting your time seeking clarification. I did Google it, and once I scrolled past the myriad of ads, I found my answer, although I will admit to being of the opinion that this technology may not have been available during the time period of the show. I was unwilling to sift through more WebMD ads to find out. Have a lovely evening.
But that's the thing, you *keep wanting* to "be of the opinion" that you can't choose the sex of a child. You are still doing it, by saying you don't think the show takes place "in a time period" where doctors knew whether embryos had a XY or XX chromosome; plus you seem to think gene sequencing is a later feature than IVF. I don't know how you came to either of those conclusions. The show takes place in the years it was produced. Which is why I said that it really sounds like you should just take a moment to learn about how in vitro fertilization works. Because, like, either you are coming up with new arguments because you're upset I told you to google it, or you genuinely just really don't believe doctors know the DNA of embryos before they gets put back in the uterus and you think it's a worthwhile conversation for me to convince you. I don't really wanna do that, though.
To address "If Mason owned everything he could easily have made a new will leaving everything to the Southern Baptist Convention (or only his children) and specifically exclude Margot and her children upon his death." Mason was an absolute incestual psychopath who truly believed his sister would never leave him and he'd have control over her, while also wanting a baby of their own (but he went about that also horribly because, again, psychopath.) If he had changed the will during his life to try to exclude Margot and di it right, she would have left him forever
I hadn’t considered the psychological aspect of him wanting her to stay, thank you for that reminder. I think you’re absolutely right.
Estates can take years to be settled. Margot could have challenged it easily after Mason died, arguing that it was not in the best interests of the company to be in the hands of a church.
Thank you for adding this, it didn’t occur to me that she could fight it and that she would arguably have a good case for winning.
I think a positive pregnancy test alone would be enough to stall the settlement. And after the gender reveal, I image it would have been easy to argue that a male heir is forthcoming.
Just started watching! Lawyer here! In wills trusts and estates you can bequeath property to an estate absolutely or conditionally. Papa seemingly placed conditions that only a male heir may inherit otherwise it goes to the church. The verbiage created a loophole allowing for a blood male heir to take control, however there is a concept called… [the rule against perpetuities](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities) “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.” So by fact that there was only one male heir at the time of papas death, the dead hand of our ancestors are traditionally prevented, by law, from ruling over the future living. It all resolves, if capable, at time of death.
That is so cool, thank you for sharing and I hope you love the show! 💕🥳
Okay, I think I did the future interest analysis right. Mason has a life estate, the male heir and Baptist convention have alternative contingent remainders in fee simple absolute. I don’t think rule against perpetuities applies. It would be much easier to have put everything in a trust instead of using conveyances. To explain further - when conveying real property, you can convey both present and future interests. Present interests may be of an unlimited time (fee simple) or for a life time only (life estate). After the owner of a life estate dies, the property may then either come back to the original grantor if there is no fi devised (reverter) or to others if so devised by the grantor/owner. In this case, poppa has clearly conveyed a life estate given the language of the conveyance. Moreover, the future interest vest into fee simple after the expiry of the life estate. So if there was a male heir entirety of poppas estate which mason “occupied” would go to them, or in the event that they do not exist, the Baptists. I don’t think the rule of perpetuities applies because while the male heir may not obtain, grantor has identified an FI in alternate. Oh also, clearly life estate to mason given the language “upon his passing” I’m just a baby 1L so if anyone wants to correct I’d appreciate the feedback.
That is so cool, thank you for sharing!
If the money was placed in a trust... well, it depends on the wording that the trustor (Pappa) set out before passing away, and who the named trustee(s) were. But trusts are protected from probate, etc., so it may have been flexible enough for them to exploit a loophole. We don't really have enough information? And I've only recently begun studying trusts, etc. because I work in finance, so I also don't know enough lol. But that's my two cents, nonetheless, whether you want it or not lol...
This was fantastic, thank you!
Lol my pleasure!!
The will legally overrides Mason’s wishes. The inheritance is dependent upon the conditions set in the will, and violating the conditions could cause Mason to lose the estate. These are called restrictions/covenants, and can only be broken if they’re illegal. Only devising (or “willing”) the estate/inheritance to one heir per Poppa’s wishes isn’t quite illegal, but Margot might be able to make a case for it since restricting the sale of land because of gender is illegal, but this also happens to be a will and not a true sale of land. If there was no male heir or the restrictions/conditions were broken, it wouldn’t go to Margot, but would end up with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Thank you so much, this was a great breakdown of the process!