"Mike" signed what is called a disclaimer. It means that Mike is stepping back as a person who would otherwise be entitled to receive the bank account automatically dispite what your father's Last Will and Testament says. Because of this disclaimer, the bank account would then pass as your father's Will directs. If your father provided for Mike (or a trust for his benefit) to receive something under his Will, then the disclaimer won't preclude him from receiving that bequest.
I hope that helps.
This is Mike Smith voluntarily giving up his ownership interest as a co-owner of the account so the money can be distributed according to Tom Jones' will.
This posting is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship. For more information, please visit www.justinelderlaw.com.
I agree with my colleagues. It is impossible to know exactly their reason for signing the disclaimer. There is certainly a difference between the two scenarios. While Mike was on the account he had a current interest in the account as well as a right of survivorship. Once he disclaimed that interest, he no longer had any current interest in that account. The estate planning that was in place would then govern the distribution of the assets. There are also potential tax reasons, in particular a step up in basis, that may have spurred the change.
My responses are of a general nature and not having the opportunity to get all of the background may mean that they are not complete. I may not be a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction where you are seeking advice and is based solely on the laws and my expertise in those states in which I am licensed. Therefore, this advice can provide a good foundation in seeking quality legal advice in your particular area.
This does sound a little perplexing. Either way it seem that the funds would go to Smith. Probate counsel and he must have decided that there was some benefit to getting the funds through the will instead of outside the will. That is odd because counsel usually tries to do the opposite. Maybe there was some tax, solvency (non intervention powers) or creditor advantage for Mike Smith getting the property through the will. Without talking with Smith's counsel it is hard to say what they were accomplishing.
Possibly more importantly, how does it impact you? You did not mention if the legality impacts you in anyway or what interest you might have.