MovieChat Forums > Knives Out (2019) Discussion > The movie is based on wrong premises (or...

The movie is based on wrong premises (or "lawyer reacts to a movie", if you will)

posted 5 years ago by MovieElephant (349)
12 replies | jump to latest

I hope you learn something.

1. Just like many other movies, this movie wants you to believe that it's possible to completely disinherit people who would otherwise inherit, and give it to a random third person. This isn't possible. There's something called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_share, which means they have a right to a certain part even if the will doesn't give it to them. The fact that you you aren't on good terms is irrelevant.

2. After the will is read, Marta starts receiving stuff like the next day as if the inheritance process is already over. We've seen other members were more than willing to contest the will so this would be a long process lasting weeks, months and even years before all appeals are resolved and the process finished. Also, there's a criminal investigation going on, for fuck's sake. The movie creates this feeling of urgency for Marta, which doesn't make sense.

3. Marta and her mother start receiving stuff and they are like "What do we do with all this stuff?" Why are they moving stuff from Harlan's house to her residence? This was the stupidest part. Are you emptying Harlan's house? Why? Are you also going to rip the house out of the ground and place it in front of Marta's residence lol. Simply leave everything in Harlan's house as is and when the ownership of the house is transferred to Marta in the land registry, she'll be able to live in Harlan's house and do what she wants with all the stuff. Is she supposed to move all that stuff back into Harlan's house? This scene in the movie was really retarded.

4. Slayer rule. Ah yes. In the movie it's black and white. Either she applied the correct bottle and she inherits or she applied the wrong bottle and she doesn't inherit. In real life, the slayer rule applies only if it was murder. Murder means that there was an intention to kill beforehand. Something like "I'm going to kill this person and I mean it". What Marta did (if we assume she took the wrong bottle) was involuntary manslaughter. That's a different thing from murder because there was no intention. The slayer rule applies only if there was murder. It doesn't apply if it was involuntary manslaughter. So Marta would inherit either way and which bottle she applied doesn't matter at all. Furthermore, if somebody were to argue in court that Marta had an intention to kill Harlan, that would break apart even more when we realize that she wasn't aware that she's in the will, so from her perspective she wouldn't gain anything and so we can't invoke the slayer rule when Marta couldn't even expect to inherit. The slayer rule is when you expect you'll inherit because you murdered.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 5 years ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i6l8MFdTaPE

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Moral of the story: this movie makes no sense. It's just a movie.

[–] liscarkat (18373) 5 years ago

"I hope you learn something"

Fuck you, you arrogant fucking fuck.

[–] MovieElephant (349) 5 years ago

I'm suing you for what you told him

[–] DracTarashV2 (4493) 5 years ago

And this is the reason (one of them anyway) why movies are way more fun to experience than real life. Most of the time.

Lawyer brings the facts to a
whodunit.... zzzz.

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

If I understand your first point you are saying that a person cannot disinherit spouses or children.

From what I was able to find with quick research from other sites (and I am not a lawyer and have not done an exhausted search, so I am not claiming any of this is absolute fact), only Louisiana prohibits you from disinheriting an adult child. (Minor children must be supported by the estate.)

In most states the spouse is entitled to some portion of the estate (not counting assets in common ownership.), but not necessarily all of it. Minor children may also have a claim.

However, if what I was able to find is correct, then adult children do not have any claim on their parent's estate unless their is no surviving spouse and no will in effect.

Of course, wills can be contested for various reasons.

[–] MasterPenguin (165) 5 years ago

You are likely correct I haven’t fully looked in to it. But I do know that it defs wasn’t as black and white as the movies portrayed it. The family was very well off and Marta wasn’t. I don’t think while a court case would be happening that Marta would get anything and this family can defs hire the better lawyers. Not to mention that really only a couple of people in the family were total assholes. The daughter seemed pretty switched on a business savvy. The son running the publishing side of things seemed desperate but not to bad. The granddaughter was just a scared kid and it was her mum being a dick. So would say with all of them they could make a case against the current will pretty well in terms of hey there really isn’t any reason for us to be written out besides an old sick man changing his mind suddenly a week before his apprent suicide.

It would be a very grey area thing and the movie would be a court drama than a murder mystery.

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

There would definitely be court cases filed. Depending on how he set up the estate she likely wouldn't have access immediately. His lawyer may have been contracted beforehand to defend her interests, so she might not have to come up with money to defend her claim.

Of course, all that wouldn't have the dramatic effect the final scene had; so for story-telling purposes the illusion of finality was the proper choice.

[–] MasterPenguin (165) 5 years ago

I agree that story wise it makes sense. It’s just one of those stories though that after it ends there was probs sooooo much legal crap that happened lol.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

I picked up on most of your points instinctivey, I am an excellent innate lawyer and my lawyer reflex tingles when something seems to contradict the founaments of the law.
This movie is quite a mess, it follows the writer's agenda for the plot he intends, forcing the events in that direction, rather than have them realistically unfold in their natural (and plausible) way.

I hate this kind of shit writing, and I love it when writers are able to stick to real technical details and still pull it together (see Reversal of Fortune).

[–] infi220 (2) 5 years ago

1. Elective share applies only to a spouse, not to the mother, children or other relatives. So, Harlan did have the right to disinherit all of the family members portrayed in the movie.

2 & 3. She is not "receiving stuff". In the dialogue Marta's sister says "there is a guy here and bunch of stuff" which is referring to a reporter outside with media equipment. When Marta goes to the other room, she sees her house in the news and asks "is that here?" meaning if that's their house on TV. Her sister also is heard saying moments earlier "Everything's going crazy. Are we rich?". Again, this doesn't mean they are already getting stuff delivered but rather if the information being reported in the media about the inheritance is true. Even the headline on TV says "Best selling author snubs family, leaves fortune to caregiver".

4. It seems you assume the family lawyers would take it at face value and not question whether Marta knew about the inheritance. The envelope was sealed but so what? Harlan had told Ransom he is out of the will, so he could have as well told Marta she's in. The family could easily argue in court that Marta likely knew about the inheritance, so had a motive and intention.

MovieElephant: "I hope you learn something."
Oh the irony

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

It seems the elective share only applies to the spouse of the deceased based on the link you shared. Since Harlan didn't appear to have a living spouse, I don't see why he wouldn't be able to disenherit everyone else.