|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
I have a relative who died intestate probably because he had a son by a previous
marriage and his wife of 50+ years was adamant that this son get nothing. Any
discussion of a will set off huge fireworks.
His simple solution was to allow the law to make sure his son got a portion of
his modest estate. Under Louisiana law (where he lived) the children inherit in
the absence of a will, while the wife gets her portion of the community
property.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
The problem with naming your estate as the beneficiary (over here at least) is
that the taxman will then take his cut - 40% is the current rate. Assigning the
policy takes it out of the death duty net.
And I don't know how it works with regards to assignments like that, but at the
moment both I and my daughter don't have valid wills for the exact same reason -
a marriage promptly invalidates any will unless the will was (a) signed within a
certain time limit of the marriage, and (b) contains a clause stating that it is
intended to survive said marriage.
Then of course, you can have the problem of administrators who can't read ...
When I got married, I sorted out an assignation of benefit. Bearing in mind the
previous assignation was made five years earlier, in favour of a previous
girlfriend, AND HAD AN EXPIRY CLAUSE, the administrator was adamant I had to
change things so it didn't go to the girlfriend, despite the assignation clearly
saying it was only valid for one year!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
