A ‘floozy clause’ in a will: Can you really protect your money from the grave?

April 26, 2026 — 5:00am

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

Save this article for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime.

Real Money, a free weekly newsletter giving expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money, is sent every Sunday. You’re reading an excerpt – sign up to get the whole newsletter in your inbox.

Early last year on business podcast Trading Secrets, fashion designer Rebecca Minkoff disclosed that she had inserted a “floozy clause” in her trust. This clause states if her husband decides to move on “with some new hot young thing” after she dies, or they divorce, all her assets are immediately passed on to her kids.

“So that girl has no chance of getting anything that I make,” Minkoff said at the time.

While I can’t imagine a huge number of people are racing to insert floozy clauses into their prenups or wills, Minkoff’s bombastic declaration does invite an intriguing question: can you really rule from the grave?

How to prepare for a recession

In short, this is when people attempt to dictate how their inheritance is spent after they’re gone – for example, saying your children can have $100,000 each, but only if it’s used for a home deposit. Or leaving your estate to your children, but not their spouse. Petty, I know, but it happens!

And it’s happening more and more, with a number of family lawyers I’ve talked to saying they’re seeing an increased number of clients asking about how to insert these sorts of protections in their wills, or establish trusts to do so. With $3.5 trillion in intergenerational wealth to be passed on by 2050, its little wonder people are looking for ways to protect it.

What you can do about it

So if you want to “rule from the grave”, how can you do it? And do these sorts of “floozy clauses” really hold water?

Via your will: There are a number of ways you can control the flow of your inheritance through your will, says Nicholas Parker, senior associate at Coote Family Lawyers. Simply leaving your money directly to your children and not to their spouse is one way, Parker says, along with setting up a discretionary trust where your partner and children are beneficiaries, but any future partners are not. When it comes to the family home, Parker says he commonly sees wills which include a “right of residence” for a living spouse. “[This] allows them to continue to live in the family home for their lifetime while the legal title to the property is held by the executor,” he says. “For wills that give the spouse a right of occupation in the family home, it is quite common for that right to occupy the property to terminate upon that spouse remarrying or entering into a de facto relationship.”

Via a prenup: For those who want to head off any issues before marriage, you might be out of luck. Gary Yan, partner and family law specialist at Coote, clarifies that prenups can only dictate what happens on a couple’s separation, not death. Death is not considered a separating event, which is why having a will to make your wishes clear is important.

Via a trust: According to Luisa Di Bernardo, managing associate at Armstrong Legal, a testamentary trust can be one of the most effective ways to control where your money goes after you die. These trusts are set up in a will which starts upon death, appointing a trustee to hold and distribute the will’s assets for beneficiaries, and can provide some protection for your assets in the event of a divorce, bankruptcy or financial mis-management. “Conditions you can impose in trusts can include releasing funds at a certain age or life milestone, ensuring funding goes to certain things like education, health expenses and housing,” Di Bernardo says. However, the level of influence you can have over a trust after your departure can be limited, as you must appoint a trustee who will have control over the money who has an obligation to act in the best interest of beneficiaries. Another option is a family trust, which sits outside a will and can be a useful way to keep assets separate that are not eligible to estate claims.

Do these clauses hold up in court? Inheritance disputes are commonplace, and a punitive clause that attempts to cut out certain parties would be ripe for a challenge. Parker says when it comes to wills, courts generally look at whether the will adequately provides for those the deceased is obligated to provide for. Will-makers can therefore dole out their estate as they wish, including the provision of a “floozy clause” or similar, as long as they make the adequate provisions. “Often, the courts will find that adequate provision for a spouse requires giving a spouse absolute ownership of a property as well as a nest egg. A life interest or mere right of occupation is not adequate provision,” he says. Similarly, Di Bernardo says those sorts of clauses in trusts and the like would have to be carefully drafted, and are far from bulletproof. “If perceived as overly controlling or unreasonable, it could lead to family provision claims,” she says.

Advice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

© Brisbane Times