Its not clear from the movie, but one could assume that the probate of Emily's estate should have been completed by the beginning of this third movie. Another poster here opined that Meg would be out of luck if probate was completed. However, assuming that Meg Riley was allowed to contest the estate, I think it is clear that she is NOT entitled to one third of the present value of the Inn.
At most, I think she would be entitled to a 25% share of what was inherited. It looks like the descendants have been grouped using the concept "per stripes" meaning by the branch. Meg is part of the same branch of Emily's descendants that Jenny is part of. So, Meg, if she gets anything, would only be entitled to up to one half of Jenny's share.
Emily was Jenny's aunt snd Meg is described as a second cousin. Jenny is more closely related to Emily than Meg is. So, Meg's share should be even be less than 25%, because she is a more distant relative of Emily than Jenny.
Assuming Meg Riley is found to be entitled to a share of the Inn, the next question is what value does Meg Riley have a share of. I don't think she would be entitled to a share of the present value of the Inn. If she is entitled to a share, it would be a share of the value the property on the date of Emily's death . . . not of the present value of the Inn.
You may recall the property was "mess" when they first got it. Bad plumbing, bad wiring, leaky roof etc. Meg is not entitled to share in the value they added to the property by re-wiring the house, fixing the plumbing, patching the leaky roof and painting etc.
In the movie, Meg claims her share is worth more than $100,000. I don't think the property they inherited in the first movie was worth $300,000. I'm not saying the Inn was worthless when they inherited it, but its present value (of apparently more than $300,000) is mostly the result of the all value they added since they inherited the property.
Finally, I am appalled by the ignorance and indifference displayed by the lawyer they consulted in this movie regarding Meg's claim that she is entitled to over $100,000. This is not a complicated matter. The lawyer should have immediately seen these issue in Meg's claim.
At most, I think she would be entitled to a 25% share of what was inherited. It looks like the descendants have been grouped using the concept "per stripes" meaning by the branch. Meg is part of the same branch of Emily's descendants that Jenny is part of. So, Meg, if she gets anything, would only be entitled to up to one half of Jenny's share.
Emily was Jenny's aunt snd Meg is described as a second cousin. Jenny is more closely related to Emily than Meg is. So, Meg's share should be even be less than 25%, because she is a more distant relative of Emily than Jenny.
Assuming Meg Riley is found to be entitled to a share of the Inn, the next question is what value does Meg Riley have a share of. I don't think she would be entitled to a share of the present value of the Inn. If she is entitled to a share, it would be a share of the value the property on the date of Emily's death . . . not of the present value of the Inn.
You may recall the property was "mess" when they first got it. Bad plumbing, bad wiring, leaky roof etc. Meg is not entitled to share in the value they added to the property by re-wiring the house, fixing the plumbing, patching the leaky roof and painting etc.
In the movie, Meg claims her share is worth more than $100,000. I don't think the property they inherited in the first movie was worth $300,000. I'm not saying the Inn was worthless when they inherited it, but its present value (of apparently more than $300,000) is mostly the result of the all value they added since they inherited the property.
Finally, I am appalled by the ignorance and indifference displayed by the lawyer they consulted in this movie regarding Meg's claim that she is entitled to over $100,000. This is not a complicated matter. The lawyer should have immediately seen these issue in Meg's claim.