The Woman Who Will Inherit Nothing
May 21, 2009 1:00 PM   Subscribe

The Woman Who Fought Back: "[Stieg] Larsson’s novels - the bestselling Millennium trilogy, which starts with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo — have sold 12 million copies worldwide... [Eva] Gabrielsson [link to Swedish video], now 54, lived with Stieg Larsson from 1974 until his death in 2004. Yet, due to Swedish inheritance laws, she was not entitled to a single krona...'It’s like the plot of a Larsson novel,' said [Jan] Moburg. 'He wrote about how women are abused by men and about how they sometimes fight back. That was one of the messages of the books - to fight back. That’s what we’re trying to help her do.'"
posted by ocherdraco (20 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
"...great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients."
-Andrew Carnegie
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 1:54 PM on May 21, 2009


If anything, she should fight against ignorance of the law. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that was entirely avoidable.
posted by mek at 2:13 PM on May 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


So she wants the benefits of the marriage contract without having accepted its obligations?

I'm sorry; no. There was absolutely no doubt, none, regarding the outcome of such poor planning. Whether through ignorance, stupidity, superstition, or malice on his part, they left her unprotected against this inevitable situation. She does not get to retroactively and unilaterally change that at the expense of others.
posted by Epenthesis at 2:47 PM on May 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


They never got married, and he never explicitly put her in his will, despite her living with him for 20-odd years? To be honest, it sounds like it just might be the case that he didn't want to leave her anything.
posted by explosion at 2:51 PM on May 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


They never got married, and he never explicitly put her in his will, despite her living with him for 20-odd years? To be honest, it sounds like it just might be the case that he didn't want to leave her anything.


He only made one will, in 1977 (only a few years into their relationship) leaving everything to the Socialist Party. It wasn't formally witnessed nor entered, so it was rendered invalid. He was only 50 when he died in 2004, by the way, so he may have just figured on having time.

It is an unfortunate case. I'm not sure if it should affect her case retroactively, but the law should definitely change to count unmarried partners.
posted by cmgonzalez at 3:08 PM on May 21, 2009


In Scandinavia, inheritances are “distributed” by law. People very seldom write testaments.

True?

Granted, ditto America, but usually from laziness or cheapness or unwillingness to face death. That said, once the estate gets into seven figures, certainly eight figures, that's kind of neglectful in any country. This guy never had an accountant?

(The lowbrow in me wants to know what the relationships between girlfriend and family were before the death. Not that it's any of my business....)
posted by IndigoJones at 3:09 PM on May 21, 2009


Yeah, this isn't something that you can blame on an accident. If you live with someone for twenty years, at some point it might be a good idea to talk to them about wills and planning for the future.
posted by graventy at 3:21 PM on May 21, 2009


This guy never had an accountant?

No, because the books were published after his death:
"When he died Larsson left the manuscripts of three completed but unpublished novels in a series. He wrote them for his own pleasure after returning home from his job in the evening, making no attempt to get them published until shortly before his death."
posted by iviken at 3:31 PM on May 21, 2009


Yeah, this isn't something that you can blame on an accident. If you live with someone for twenty years, at some point it might be a good idea to talk to them about wills and planning for the future.

On the other hand, this is why countries like New Zealand extend recognition to de facto relationships.
posted by rodgerd at 3:33 PM on May 21, 2009


whoa. tough crowd here. i'd venture to guess that i'm an even bigger procrastinator than either larsson or gabrielsson, and it's clear that i'm more sympathetic than any of the posters here so far. i wonder if you'd be so letter-of-the-law if he was on life support & she had no say in keeping him that way or cutting him loose? or if there were young children involved?

sweden isn't the only place in the world where common law spouses are shafted, and gabriellson isn't the first woman to be treated this way. (some might argue that lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of the breadwinner, historically male, is one of the very reasons for the existence of marriage.) it's just a damn shame that she's not the last partner who's going to be treated this way.

it's a good lesson, though, that matters of the heart should never overrule common sense, and that in the end, all any of us really has is ourself.
posted by msconduct at 3:45 PM on May 21, 2009


I would thank my government to let people decide when they want to be bound by the one contract everyone understands, rather than forcing them to bring in a lawyer if they do not wish to be bound by new obligations, simply by co-habiting.

I say I would thank them because I will have no opportunity to do so, coming from one of the "enlightened" countries in this respect.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:59 PM on May 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


No, because the books were published after his death:

Missed that. The other links ("She was there when Stieg Larsson realized that his books were going to be a success") suggested he knew he was on the verge of riches. So does the Times article. Accountant time. (NB also, any creative type should always imagine that their scribblings are potentially windfall fodder and act accordingly. It may be delusional, but you never know....)

the law should definitely change to count unmarried partners.

I'm sympathetic to her situation, but I have to say, that way lies mischief and, well, ugly lawsuits. How long would you have to be partners? How do you define partnership? What supporting evidence would constitute proof of such a claim?

He could have married her. He didn't. He could have re-written his will. He didn't. This is why we have written contracts. Slightly tragic (it's not like this woman, a professional in her own right, is going to starve), but Bleak House it ain't. At the risk of inevitable brickbats, I submit that if you choose to live outside the protections of the law, you're on your own.

And I have to say, it's a little uncomfortable making to see pleas for donations so one person can scoop a multimillion dollar fortune. Me, I'd rather give my tuppence to cancer research.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:25 PM on May 21, 2009


I'm sympathetic to her situation, but I have to say, that way lies mischief and, well, ugly lawsuits. How long would you have to be partners? How do you define partnership? What supporting evidence would constitute proof of such a claim?

It certainly can; in New Zealand the previous government decided to extend our 70s de facto coverage to full marriage equivalence after 3 years, right down to divorce settlements.
posted by rodgerd at 4:40 PM on May 21, 2009


in New Zealand the previous government decided to extend our 70s de facto coverage to full marriage equivalence after 3 years, right down to divorce settlements

Much like various US state common law marriage arrangements, then. They usually require also, as I understand it, that the happy couple publically put themselves forward as a married couple, which again, can lead to, uh, misunderstandings. I still contend that to avoid this kind of thing, get the ring and get it in writing. (Or not. If children are off the menu and you want separate finances and a no-fault escape hatch, go ahead, co-habit for the duration.)

The black comedian in me found his comment on his writing as his “pension insurance” to be grimly amusing (nb "his", not "their"). That and the beneficiary of his original will. I would love to have been a fly on the wall of their offices when this came out. (I wonder if they're considering getting into this mess....)
posted by IndigoJones at 5:09 PM on May 21, 2009


in New Zealand the previous government decided to extend our 70s de facto coverage to full marriage equivalence after 3 years, right down to divorce settlements

Much like various US state common law marriage arrangements, then. They usually require also, as I understand it, that the happy couple publically put themselves forward as a married couple, which again, can lead to, uh, misunderstandings. I still contend that to avoid this kind of thing, get the ring and get it in writing. (Or not. If children are off the menu and you want separate finances and a no-fault escape hatch, go ahead, co-habit for the duration.)


That's the thing - it doesn't matter what you want; if a court considers you've been living as a couple for 3 years, there is no no-fault escape hatch in New Zealand any more.
posted by rodgerd at 5:22 PM on May 21, 2009


I grew up in sweden in the 80's and I think i heard the term "sambo" more often than I heard of married couples. As the site I link to defines it; "If you’re living with your girlfriend or boyfriend but aren’t married you are sambo". Here in Scandinavia marriage isn't as common as in the US. My mother didn't marry her second husband until their two sons, my younger brothers, were well into their teens. And they did it because they were temporarily moving abroad, I think.

This guy wanted to bequeth his earthly belongings upon departure to the Socialist party. So it wouldn't surprise me if he had a particular disdain for the institution of marriage.

He'd written three whole books yet hadn't gotten around to getting one published. It would not strike me as very strand if he wouldn't have the clarity of mind to write a will.

He wasn't very old, and he didn't really have any money, so writing a will at that point would actually have been pretty weird of him, given the circumstances.

Here in Iceland heredetary laws are similar to the Swedish, I think. I don't know of anyone around me who's written a will. Most of the couples I know aren't married.

In the end, whatever the reason he had for his failure to specify what to do with the imaginary money he didn't have, weather it was lack of forsight or a fear of confronting mortality, it's his failure, not hers.
posted by svenni at 6:53 PM on May 21, 2009


... and to quote Eva Gabrielsson:

"“In Scandinavia, inheritances are “distributed” by law. People very seldom write testaments,” wrote Gabrielsson. “And Stieg lived under the impression that the special Cohabitation Act for common law relationships would also include inheritance. It does not. And that law also gives me no rights to go to court.” Her only hope is to try and reach a settlement with his family, something she’s pursued through her lawyer."
posted by svenni at 6:57 PM on May 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


Trusts and Estates was one of my favorite classes in law school. Reading about how people try to control the distribution of their property after they die provides such a fascinating glimpse into human nature.

One of the best stories in our T&E textbook was about one of the founders of DHL, Larry Hillblom, who died in a plane crash in the mid-90s and left an estate of hundreds of millions of dollars. According to his will his entire estate was supposed to go to charities, but it was soon discovered that he had fathered several children with prostitutes all around southeast Asia (it was unclear if he knew about them), and he had not specifically disinherited the children in his will. Each of these previously impoverished kids ended up inheriting about $80 million. I made a previous post about it, and this more recent article gives a really fascinating account of all the legal maneuvering involved. There's also a new documentary about it that just came out, "Shadow Billionaire."
posted by banishedimmortal at 9:14 PM on May 21, 2009


If children are off the menu and you want separate finances and a no-fault escape hatch, go ahead, co-habit for the duration (IndigoJones)

Exactly, which is why governments shouldn't assume cohabitating people wanted to be treated as married. I mean, you can always find a case like this where yeah, probably he would have wanted her to enjoy the same rights a spouse would have, but that's not always the case, and the government isnt going to be good at determining this. Thats why we have marriages, wills, etc.

i'm more sympathetic than any of the posters here so far (msconduct)

But you're only looking at one side of it. If governments start deciding people are in effect married just because they live together, people will get hurt that way too (especially once you start thinking about abusive relationships). Marriage and other legal contracts should have to be voluntarily and explicitly entered into.

(Yes, I am aware of common law marriage, and I think it should not exist. In the US, only 12 states even recognize it --- not sure how common it is in Europe).
posted by wildcrdj at 6:16 PM on May 22, 2009


Well, so based on those last couple posts I guess I can see why this would have been less clear in Scandinavia. Still seems a slippery issue to me to have common-law marriages, but in this case it seems like the law should probably cover inheritance too --- if it works as described, this does seem like an odd omission.

I definitely wouldn't be in favor of that kind of law over here, though, for the reasons I outlined --- but I suppose the importance of having to explicitly state your intent is probably cultural.
posted by wildcrdj at 6:19 PM on May 22, 2009


« Older Technomadics   |   Andy Warhol's Frankenstein and Dracula: almost... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments