This newsletter contains spoilers for the Netflix show The Four Seasons. No spoilers beyond the first two episodes of Season 2.
Netflix’s The Four Seasons has always been less about vacations than about relationships. The first two episodes of the new season continue that tradition by presenting a conflict that centers around a will.
Summary
The first season of the show depicts a group of long-time friends seeing each other throughout each of the four seasons. Among the group of friends are Nick and Anne, who are in the middle of a divorce. Needless to say, Anne is not thrilled when Nick brings Ginny, his much younger girlfriend to their get togethers. Regardless, Anne and Ginny learn to tolerate, and even like each other. In season one Nick dies in a car accident, and Ginny reveals she is pregnant with Nick’s unborn child.
At the start of Season 2, one of the central disputes involves Nick’s Last Will and Testament. Anne reveals that Nick never finalized his divorce from her. The will nominates Anne to serve as his personal representative in his Will, which he never updated. The Will also, presumably, names Anne as the beneficiary of the estate. Anne and Ginny, find themselves on opposite sides of a difficult question: should Nick’s estate be distributed exactly as his Will directs, or should it somehow be changed because of circumstances that existed when he died?
Both women have understandable perspectives. Anne spent decades building a life with Nick. Ginny is expecting Nick’s child and, frankly, she’s strapped for cash to support the child. Both believe they are honoring what is fair.
But television and real life are not always the same.
How this turns out in Arizona
Under Arizona law, a valid Last Will and Testament generally speaks to the testator’s wishes on the testator’s death. Once the person has died, the beneficiaries cannot simply decide that the Will should say something different because they believe the deceased “would have wanted” another result. Personal representatives have a duty to administer the estate according to the law and the terms of the Will. They can’t administer the estate according to emotions or who needs the money the most.
That doesn’t mean the outcome is always as simple as reading the document.
Arizona law contains protections for children who are born after a Will is signed. If a child is unintentionally omitted from a parent’s Will, Arizona statutes may entitle that child to inherit a share of the estate. This is true even if the Will never mentions the child. The law recognizes that a parent often signs estate planning documents before life changes in unexpected ways.
Under A.R.S. § 14-2302, It is likely that because Nick executed his estate plan prior to Ginny’s child being born, Ginny’s child would receive the same amount that he would if Nick had died without a Will under Arizona Law. This would mean Ginny’s child would likely get one-half of Nick’s separate property and none of the one-half of the community property that belonged to the decedent. A.R.S. § 14-2102.
Notice that the protection belongs to the child, not to the child’s other parent. Ginny would not receive a distribution, but her unborn child would. And, she may be able to manage it for him.
What can we learn?
The larger lesson from The Four Seasons is one we see regularly in our practice. Life changes. Your estate plan should too.
Marriages end. New relationships begin. Children are born. Families become blended. Estate plans that once reflected your wishes may no longer accomplish what you intended. The best way to prevent loved ones from arguing over what you “must have wanted” is to make sure your estate planning documents clearly express what you actually want and to update your estate plan when that changes.
