There is a benefit to be paid to a member of university alumni. The school is told that the alumni member put them on a will. The benefit is not paid but they want to think they can work something that it is paid to the school if they are in the will. How can they receive it as a gift or beqweathal if the alumni did not receive it in actual possession in an account before he died? This is if it's on his will but it's not. Click here.

 

There is a benefit to be paid to a member of university alumni. The school is told that the alumni member put them on a will. The benefit is not paid but they want to think they can work something that it is paid to the school if they are in the will. How can they receive it as a gift or beqweathal if the  alumni did not receive it in actual possession in an account before he died? This is if it's on his will but it's not. Click here.

////

This scenario touches on a common intersection of contract law and estate law: what happens to a "vested" right to a payment when the beneficiary dies before the money actually clears into their account.

Here is the legal breakdown of how an unpaid benefit is treated, how a school could theoretically receive it, and what happens if the will does not explicitly align with what the school was told.

## 1. The Status of the Unpaid Benefit ("Chose in Action")

Actual physical possession (or the money landing in a bank account) is not legally required for an asset to belong to someone’s estate.

If the alumni had a legal right to receive that benefit before they died, that right is considered a **chose in action**—a legally recognized property right that can be enforced to recover money.

 * **Vested vs. Contingent:** If the benefit was fully approved and owed to the alumni (vested), the right to collect it survives their death and becomes an asset of their estate.

 * **The Executor's Duty:** The school cannot directly approach the entity paying the benefit to claim the funds. The paying entity is legally obligated to release those funds to the deceased's **estate** (specifically, to the Executor or Estate Administrator).

## 2. How the School Receives the Funds

If the benefit is paid into the estate, the school’s ability to receive it depends on how the will is structured.

If the school is indeed named in the will, they receive the funds in one of two ways:

 * **Specific Bequest:** The will explicitly states, *"I leave the proceeds of my [Specific Benefit] to the University."* In this case, once the executor collects the benefit, they pass that specific sum to the school.

 * **Residuary Estate:** The will does not mention the specific benefit at all, but names the school as the beneficiary of the *"residue"* (whatever is left over). The executor will pool the unpaid benefit with the rest of the alumni's bank accounts and assets, pay off any outstanding debts or taxes, and then give the remaining pool of money to the school.

## 3. The "But It's Not" Scenario

Your final note—*"This is if it's on his will but it's not"*—presents the most significant hurdle. If there is a discrepancy between what the school was verbally promised and what is actually written in the finalized legal documents, the written documents dictate the outcome.

Here is how that discrepancy plays out depending on what is missing:

**Scenario A: The school is in the will, but the specific benefit is NOT mentioned.**

As noted above, this is generally fine. The school doesn't need the exact benefit to be named in the will, as long as the school is named as the residuary beneficiary. The unpaid benefit simply becomes part of the general estate pool that the school eventually inherits.

**Scenario B: The school was promised a gift, but they are NOT in the will at all.**

A verbal promise or an intention to donate is generally unenforceable after death. If the finalized will does not name the school, the estate's executor has a strict fiduciary duty to distribute the assets (including the newly collected benefit) *only* to the legal beneficiaries listed in the will. The school would have no legal standing to claim the benefit.

**Scenario C: The benefit was not a vested right.**

If the benefit was contingent on the alumni being alive to receive it (such as a life-only annuity or certain types of pension payouts), the benefit terminates upon their death. It never enters the estate, and neither the executor nor the school can claim it.

////

You are absolutely correct that this is highly unlawful. In the eyes of the law, deliberately stalling a payout so that the recipient dies before the asset vests is a severe violation.

While the legal system can pursue this as a crime under specific fraud statutes, it most aggressively attacks this kind of manipulation through heavy civil liabilities, torts, and equitable remedies designed to ensure the stalling tactic fails entirely.

Here is exactly how the law handles an entity that intentionally delays payment to cheat a testator out of a vested right:

## 1. The Equitable Remedy: Retroactive Vesting

The law anticipates this exact kind of gamesmanship. Courts operate under a foundational principle: *"Equity regards as done that which ought to be done."*

If an executor or the estate's legal counsel can prove that the paying entity intentionally dragged its feet, a judge will not allow the entity to benefit from its own misconduct. The court will apply a legal fiction and deem the benefit to have **retroactively vested** on the date it *should* have been paid, regardless of the testator's subsequent death. The money is then forced into the estate.

## 2. Civil and Tortious Liability

Before it reaches the level of criminal prosecution, the entity attempting this delay opens itself up to massive civil penalties, often far exceeding the value of the original benefit:

 * **Breach of Fiduciary Duty:** If the entity holding the funds is a pension administrator, a trust fund, or an executor, they owe the highest duty of care and loyalty to the beneficiary. Deliberately withholding funds to alter who receives them is a fundamental breach of fiduciary duty.

 * **The Tort of Bad Faith:** In insurance and contractual benefits, every agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Intentionally stalling a claim to wait out a beneficiary's death is textbook bad faith, allowing the estate to sue not just for the benefit, but for punitive damages.

 * **Tortious Interference:** The entity can be sued for intentionally interfering with an expected inheritance or contractual right.

## 3. The Criminal Threshold

For the delay to be prosecuted as a literal crime (resulting in jail time or criminal fines for the administrators), the state must get involved.

The threshold for a criminal charge is higher than a civil lawsuit. The prosecution must prove **criminal fraud** or **theft by deception**. They must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the entity had the specific, malicious intent to deceive the recipient and permanently deprive them of their legal property. If the delay involves mailing documents across state or national borders, it can also trigger federal mail or wire fraud charges.

In short, the law does not reward a "run out the clock" strategy. The entity attempting it will likely lose the benefit to the estate anyway, pay severe punitive damages for the tort, and potentially face fraud charges.