Ziggy Zapata Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - www.ziggy.com.au - to open the entire Ziggy Zapata website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


Once upon a time, people could write their wills and bequeath their assets in any way they chose. The word "will" in this context means the free will of a person to arrange the disposal of his assets after his death without interference. If those people wished to cut beneficiaries out of their wills after changing their mind, that was their prerogative. If those people decided to leave their wealth and assets to a home for stray cats rather than their families, that was their right.

Of course people who were left out of wills could contest them, but in most cases, if they could not prove that the testator was insane or unduly coerced or tricked into changing his will, then the testator's wishes as to whom would be the beneficiaries of his estate were respected, no matter what. There was never any expectation that a person had to provide for his offspring or relatives after he had died.


Somewhere along the line, state governments decided that a person who passed away had to provide for certain descendants and relatives, regardless of his intentions as stated in his will. So the situation arose where even completely estranged members of a person's family could contest that person's will and receive funds and assets that the testator never intended to grant to those people.

In other words, that deceased testator's will was not his will anymore. It was now the will of a court to determine who was to get the testator's estate. This negated the entire principle of giving a person the right to dispose of his estate after death as he desired, not as a court dictated. Not only that, the laws were changed to cancel the transfer of any assets of a person within three years of his death, to negate any attempts by that person to dispose of his own assets in the manner he saw fit before he died.

So if for instance an elderly person transferred all his assets to somebody he chose to receive them and then that person died within three years of the transfer, family, relatives and friends could crawl out of the woodwork and make application to a court to have the transfer of those assets nullified, so that they could get their hands on them, despite the express wishes of the now dead testator.


State governments passed these disgraceful laws because they considered that testators had a responsibility to provide for their families and even some relatives, even if those testators hated their guts and would have never given any of them a cent when they were alive. It is obvious that people have a responsibility to provide and support their kids if they are not yet adults, but it is very wrong for parents to be legally obligated to support those offspring once they become adults and are required to take responsibility for their own circumstances.

If for instance the parent was totally estranged from his children and they were total strangers and he deliberately excluded them from his will, a court could order that this will be overturned and those estranged offspring would benefit from the estate of a parent who did not want to give them anything at all. This is beyond disgraceful.

State governments may have thought that they were doing the right thing, but what they actually did was to deprive testators of their rights to dispose of their assets after their deaths as they saw fit and at the same time, they created a legal industry of rapacious lawyers, whose motive was to attack the wills of testators. The government also created a situation where people who were not related in any way to testators could lodge claims against that testator's estate and actually carve off a slice of it for no good reason.


All people should have the unfettered legal right to to dispose of their own assets as they sees fit, without any government or legal interference. If for instance a person sold his $5 million mansion five years before he died and gave the money from the sale to a religious cult, there would be absolutely nothing that anybody could do about it, because that was his 'will' to do this. So why the hell should it be different if that person does the same thing two years or even two days before his death? Why should a court be able to overturn such a disposition of assets like that if the testator is of sound mind?

State governments need to be forced to repeal all those laws that interfere with a testator's right to bequeath his assets to whoever he chooses, even if people who think that they are entitled to a piece or even all of that testator's estate are cut out of it completely. A person's 'will' and his intentions, whether he is alive or dead, should be respected and the terms of his will should always be upheld.