But wouldn’t the trustee look at that knowing it’s pretty obvious the bankrupt did it to avoid her responsibilities?
The onus of proof would be on the bankruptcy trustee to prove that the mother-in-law acted to defeat the daughter's creditors. I'm not sure that's ever been able to be proved.
Clay Jones said:
Mum in-law was nearly ninety when the Will was changed and wasn’t aware daughter was bankrupt.
If mother-in-law wasn't aware the daughter was bankrupt, then clearly she wasn't acting to try and defeat creditors, and that makes it even more above board.
If you're suggesting that she didn't have capacity to make a will, you could challenge the will on that basis, but you'd need evidence.
Clay Jones said:
Seems a bit deceptive to me. You seem to think it’s super clever of the bankrupt, avoiding their debts. She’s set to inherit nearly $170k, or the grad daughters will lol
No, it's called "asset protection". The mother has no obligation to direct her assets to cover her daughter's debts - they're debts of the
daughter. Many parents leave gifts to their adult children intending for those assets to ultimately pass to their grandchildren. It's perfectly reasonable for the mother to not want those assets to be forgone by her grandchildren because of their mother's financial issues, and thus to bypass her.