Imagine being able to enforce peace in the family even though you are no longer around, by empowering your beneficiaries to deal with troublemakers.

That was what some parents did to thwart potential attempts by family members to create trouble for their children, using legal obstacles that would make it harder for them to demand more money.

Although they did not prevent their families from landing in court, these strategic legal measures go a long way in deterring potential challengers, who risk incurring huge legal costs or, worse, being disinherited, if they lose their cases.

Clauses in a will that prescribe punitive measures to anyone who tries to sue for more inheritance are increasingly common, as those making a will believe that the threat of losing an inheritance would make any troublemakers think twice.

Such a clause was highlighted in a 2022 dispute, where an elderly woman’s will stated that anyone who challenged her wishes would have his or her share of the inheritance forfeited and donated to charity.

In a recent case, a 92-year-old patriarch took such a clause further by appointing his favourite son as heir to his business and the sole executor of his will, giving him absolute power to decide the fate of those who dared to challenge his wishes.

His will stated that anyone who mounted a contest would lose the inheritance and be given just $10,000. After that, the executor could decide how the forfeited inheritance should be distributed.

Such an arrangement would have a psychological impact on the rest of the family since the message meant that those who toe the line could end up getting more, while those who object would receive only token sums.

Not surprisingly, some family members who previously had heated disputes with the patriarch did not challenge his will, even though they received a lot less than the son.

Only a grandson questioned the validity of the will as he had less to lose, due to a mistake in the will that prevented him from inheriting one of his grandfather’s houses. If the latest will were declared invalid, he could get a property under a previous will.

Unfortunately for him, the High Court upheld the patriarch’s will, and this meant that the executor, who is his uncle, could decide whether the no-contest clause should be used on him.

In perhaps one of the wisest legacy planning decisions in recent years, a woman ring-fenced her substantial real estate holdings as she anticipated that her son’s spouse might give him trouble.

Without any planning, a property that a son inherits from his parent could be shared with his spouse if it is used in the marriage, such as a matrimonial home.

Even if inherited properties are used only to earn rental income, they can still be shared if the spouse makes improvements to them, such as by helping to renovate or take care of all the tenancy matters.

To prevent her wealth from landing with anyone who was not her chosen beneficiary, the wealthy woman, who had properties worth over $50 million, created a trust for her two children.

In her trust, she added a special clause that would bar her children from dealing with the properties, such as by selling or transferring her real estate to others, until the 25th anniversary of her death.

Until then, her children were each permitted to withdraw only $10,000 a month from the estate.

Her decision proved to be a wise one because her son and his wife filed for divorce a few years later. The inheritance was kept out of the matrimonial pool for division.

The woman placed a 25-year bar on her real estate probably because she figured that her children’s spouses deserved a share of the family’s assets too, if the couples could stay together for that long.

Such a masterful plan can happen only by having meaningful discussions with your lawyers to carefully map out your strategies if you sense that trouble may erupt when you are no longer around.

Just like how you have carefully planned for your retirement, you should never neglect to make plans for your loved ones too.