Cost of not having a will

neilmorgan

I watched the programme the other night about having or not having a will.
My situation is simple and I would want the English rules of intestacy used to distribute whatever I leave. No divorce, no second marriages etc. Everything to my wife & vice versa then everything to our children. House is in "Joint" ownership. Accounts are joint except for ISAs. Our names are both on every bill etc. My children will agree between them who AT THAT TIME is in the best position and location to be executor. They are all money savvy and will support reach other.

A badly written will can make it very difficult for a family to deal with some things, for example if circumstances change unexpectedly after writing a will so I don't want to have one that may possibly restrict them.

The only thing that I picked up on that would affect our family were the repeated comments that it would cost more to deal with my estate if I didn't leave a will.
Why would it cost more? With a will you pay for probate. Without a will you pay for probate. What else do you pay for without a will?

allconnected

If you die intestate your spouse only gets the first £250k of your estate, the remainder is split between them and any children.

Is your estate likely to be worth more than to this? If so, then not writing a will and relying on intestacy rules won’t get you the outcome you want.

allconnected.

neilmorgan

I thought it was £270K but the principle is still the same. Joint accounts go to the remaining account holder so don't count as part of my estate. The house, being in joint ownership, doesn't count either. The total amount in the ISAs in my name is the only money that does count and that is less than £250K so we are back to the original sharing out per stirpes.
Oh, and none of  them live with us and I do understand the implications if they did and I would either require a will or do some preplanning.
  

comeandgo

Neither of my parents had a will, when dad died everything went to mum, no probate or anything needed as bank just changed names on account to mum and when she died banks gave all the money to me.  What they wanted was what the rules of intestacy were and they did not have a lot in value to leave.

neilmorgan

comeandgo said:

Neither of my parents had a will, when dad died everything went to mum, no probate or anything needed as bank just changed names on account to mum and when she died banks gave all the money to me.  What they wanted was what the rules of intestacy were and they did not have a lot in value to leave.

We'd have to get probate to deal with the ISAs because banks aren't allowed to deal with them without the "letters of Administration" but having helped with my mother-in-law's will I found quite a few pitfalls that would have been easier to deal with without a will. They were all resolved, just with extra hassle. 

Keep_pedalling

neilmorgan said:

I watched the programme the other night about having or not having a will.
My situation is simple and I would want the English rules of intestacy used to distribute whatever I leave. No divorce, no second marriages etc. Everything to my wife & vice versa then everything to our children. House is in "Joint" ownership. Accounts are joint except for ISAs. Our names are both on every bill etc. My children will agree between them who AT THAT TIME is in the best position and location to be executor. They are all money savvy and will support reach other.

A badly written will can make it very difficult for a family to deal with some things, for example if circumstances change unexpectedly after writing a will so I don't want to have one that may possibly restrict them.

But a well written will can handle changes in circumstances far better than intestacy can. For instance you die, your spouse remarried, fails to make a will and your children end up with mother. A will can avoid that. 

The only thing that I picked up on that would affect our family were the repeated comments that it would cost more to deal with my estate if I didn't leave a will.
Why would it cost more? With a will you pay for probate. Without a will you pay for probate. What else do you pay for without a will?

With no will someone would have to apply for letters of administration but there would normally be no additional costs involved with that.

While you are thinking about wills, also think about putting LPAs in place not having those in place could cause extreme financial difficulties if one of you lost the mental capacity to make your own decisions though illness or accident.

Username03725

neilmorgan said:

My children will agree between them who AT THAT TIME is in the best position and location to be executor. They are all money savvy and will support reach other.

Much like couples who swear they’ll never get divorced, then they get divorced. 

My siblings and I were like that, close as could be for a bunch of middle-aged folk all the way through the deaths of both parents, then some minor issue became a big issue and there’s a split. I’ve tried to resolve it but after a while it becomes pointless. Our parents would be stunned at the fallout. But clearly you can rely on that never happening, to save a few quid on a will.

I really don’t see what you’re trying to achieve. For the sake of a pretty trivial amount you can specify exactly what you want to happen and nominate all of the children as executors, and any of them can renounce that when the time comes. Mainly though, if you write a will it’s absolutely clear what your wishes were. Surely the better option than relying on external processes. Up to you though. 

RAS

Of rather more concern are two issues that wills deal with:

What happens if the survivor re-marries? That voids the will (not Scotland, I believe). So under intestacy, the assets of your marriage go to the new spouse.

If the survivor goes into care, the marital assets will have to be used to fund it. I know those in care often only survive a few years, but some live a long time. Switching to tenants in common with a life interest secured for the survivor could allow you to "leave" your half to your children.

neilmorgan

Username03725 said:

neilmorgan said:

My children will agree between them who AT THAT TIME is in the best position and location to be executor. They are all money savvy and will support reach other.

Much like couples who swear they’ll never get divorced, then they get divorced. 

My siblings and I were like that, close as could be for a bunch of middle-aged folk all the way through the deaths of both parents, then some minor issue became a big issue and there’s a split. I’ve tried to resolve it but after a while it becomes pointless. Our parents would be stunned at the fallout. But clearly you can rely on that never happening, to save a few quid on a will.

I really don’t see what you’re trying to achieve. For the sake of a pretty trivial amount you can specify exactly what you want to happen and nominate all of the children as executors, and any of them can renounce that when the time comes. Mainly though, if you write a will it’s absolutely clear what your wishes were. Surely the better option than relying on external processes. Up to you though. 

Like I've already stated, I would want the estate shared out in the same way as intestacy would.
What if my children want someone else to be executor? If I name them all then there is more paperwork involved just to get started. If I die naming my children as executor my wife wouldn't automatically be able to deal with my estate so I'd have to  have her named but what if she doesn't want to be executor? More paperwork 

Following on from another comment, If I die first and wife remarries then my will is meaningless and she would have to have one to safeguard our children's inheritance whilst also taking into account her new husband's children and circumstances.
It's not about saving money. I have seen 3 wills just in our extended family where it would have been simpler to deal with without the will because the will added restrictions that intestacy wouldn't have. 

All I'm asking is what are the EXTRA COSTS of dying intestate? 

sheramber

3 wills just in our extended family where it would have been simpler to deal with without the will because the will added restrictions that intestacy wouldn't have.

But you wouldn't be putting restrictions in your will would you?  You want  straightforward inheritance to apply so there would no need for restrictions.

neilmorgan

RAS said:

Of rather more concern are two issues that wills deal with:

What happens if the survivor re-marries? That voids the will (not Scotland, I believe). So under intestacy, the assets of your marriage go to the new spouse.

If the survivor goes into care, the marital assets will have to be used to fund it. I know those in care often only survive a few years, but some live a long time. Switching to tenants in common with a life interest secured for the survivor could allow you to "leave" your half to your children.

Thanks RAS, Your comment about care is interesting. There are good reasons for both types of ownership and I can see the relevance of then having a will but my gut feeling is that it would be better to leave the ownership as it is. I will look into the pros and cons of those issues. Thanks.