Cost of not having a will

Sea_Shell

neilmorgan said:

No, I used the word. You can plan for known what ifs and I'm sure they will be covered in professionally written wills. The problem is with the unexpected ones.
My original question was asking what the additional costs are of dying intestate compared with having a will.
I still don't have an answer to that question except that in the absence of any examples I am left with the impression that there don't appear to be any.

I'm sorry I have upset you. Have a good evening.
  

If the charges for obtaining 'Letters of Administration'  are the same as those for obtaining 'Probate' then AFAIK, there are NO additional DIRECT costs of not having a will.


Plenty of potential additional indirect costs, yes, as have been discussed throughout the thread.   

Sarahspangles

Just checking as I don’t think it’s been mentioned, that at least one of your children is over 18?  If so, and if you and your wife both die in the same tragic accident, they can apply for letters of administration.  If they’re younger other family members can act, but of course if other relatives aren’t going to inherit anything under the intestacy rules they could simply hand it over to a solicitor. 

Secret2ndAccount

Recent story: 3 siblings. One of them died. The other two inherited. Had there been a will, it would likely have named the two siblings as executors. However, one sibling tends towards lazy, and doesn't do paperwork. The other is proactive and capable. Between the two survivors they agreed that proactive sibling would administer the estate. Probate was granted and the assets divided. Everyone seems happy, and as far as I can see, it was all done fairly. The costs were the same, and the process possibly slightly easier with no will. The final outcome appears to be exactly what it would have been were there a will in place.

YoungBlueEyes

Having a will means you can be specific about who gets what but also who you don't want to benefit, should a person need excluding for whatever reason. Intestacy might count them in where you wouldn't actually have wanted them to.

Keep_pedalling

Secret2ndAccount said:

Recent story: 3 siblings. One of them died. The other two inherited. Had there been a will, it would likely have named the two siblings as executors. However, one sibling tends towards lazy, and doesn't do paperwork. The other is proactive and capable. Between the two survivors they agreed that proactive sibling would administer the estate. Probate was granted and the assets divided. Everyone seems happy, and as far as I can see, it was all done fairly. The costs were the same, and the process possibly slightly easier with no will. The final outcome appears to be exactly what it would have been were there a will in place.

Why do you think it possibly easier with no will? Had they been a will with both appointed executors then the same agreement would have worked in exactly the same way. The lazy beneficiary would simply have had to have held their powers in reserve. 

Sarahspangles

Keep_pedalling said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

Recent story: 3 siblings. One of them died. The other two inherited. Had there been a will, it would likely have named the two siblings as executors. However, one sibling tends towards lazy, and doesn't do paperwork. The other is proactive and capable. Between the two survivors they agreed that proactive sibling would administer the estate. Probate was granted and the assets divided. Everyone seems happy, and as far as I can see, it was all done fairly. The costs were the same, and the process possibly slightly easier with no will. The final outcome appears to be exactly what it would have been were there a will in place.

Why do you think it possibly easier with no will? Had they been a will with both appointed executors then the same agreement would have worked in exactly the same way. The lazy beneficiary would simply have had to have held their powers in reserve. 

We’re in this exact situation, except it’s not that one executor is lazy.  

Two brothers, both executors.  At the point the Will was made it might be assumed that the younger one who runs his own business would be better suited to ‘lead’ the process of getting probate and distributing the estate, might even delegate the admin tasks to his accountant, and the older brother who dislikes admin would just be ‘kept informed’ and sign things where required.  But neither would feel left out of the process.

Roll forward twenty years and the older brother is now retired with time to see estate agents and solicitors, and has acquired a partner who is good with the admin stuff. Meanwhile the younger brother is juggling his business with caring for a wife with serious health problems and spending time with new grandchildren.  He’s happy to be ‘kept informed’ and sign things where required.

The Will is a bit more explicit about how the parents wanted things to be arranged, so there’s less to discuss/agree than would be the case if they were following intestacy rules.

Secret2ndAccount

Keep_pedalling said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

Recent story: 3 siblings. One of them died. The other two inherited. Had there been a will, it would likely have named the two siblings as executors. However, one sibling tends towards lazy, and doesn't do paperwork. The other is proactive and capable. Between the two survivors they agreed that proactive sibling would administer the estate. Probate was granted and the assets divided. Everyone seems happy, and as far as I can see, it was all done fairly. The costs were the same, and the process possibly slightly easier with no will. The final outcome appears to be exactly what it would have been were there a will in place.

Why do you think it possibly easier with no will? Had they been a will with both appointed executors then the same agreement would have worked in exactly the same way. The lazy beneficiary would simply have had to have held their powers in reserve. 

You underestimate the difficulty of getting a simple person to sign a simple form. When the same group arranged LPA's, all forms were signed by siblings and informed parties in two weeks. Except for Slow Sibling, who delayed the process 3 months.
Deceased sibling would have invested cost and time into producing a will. Executor would have invested cost and time into getting slow sibling to excuse themselves. All to achieve the same final distribution.
What if slow sibling had decided they wanted to remain an executor, and have proactive sibling explain every decision to them, and get their joint signature? They would probably still be planning the funeral. Siblings live in different cities, so every signature would have required a 100 mile drive.
Of course, it's possible (though unlikely) that the will would have expressly stated that only proactive sibling was to be the executor. In which case it would have achieved precisely nothing, other than to offend slow sibling.

Wills are essential for most people. For others they achieve nothing. OP keeps asking a simple question. What is the extra cost of intestacy if the distribution is the same? I believe the answer is zero.

Keep_pedalling

Secret2ndAccount said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

Recent story: 3 siblings. One of them died. The other two inherited. Had there been a will, it would likely have named the two siblings as executors. However, one sibling tends towards lazy, and doesn't do paperwork. The other is proactive and capable. Between the two survivors they agreed that proactive sibling would administer the estate. Probate was granted and the assets divided. Everyone seems happy, and as far as I can see, it was all done fairly. The costs were the same, and the process possibly slightly easier with no will. The final outcome appears to be exactly what it would have been were there a will in place.

Why do you think it possibly easier with no will? Had they been a will with both appointed executors then the same agreement would have worked in exactly the same way. The lazy beneficiary would simply have had to have held their powers in reserve. 

You underestimate the difficulty of getting a simple person to sign a simple form. When the same group arranged LPA's, all forms were signed by siblings and informed parties in two weeks. Except for Slow Sibling, who delayed the process 3 months.

No paperwork to sign for reserving powers

OP keeps asking a simple question. What is the extra cost of intestacy if the distribution is the same? I believe the answer is zero.

I don’t know why they keep asking, I agree with you and gave the same answer on page one of this thread.

neilmorgan

Sarahspangles said:

Just checking as I don’t think it’s been mentioned, that at least one of your children is over 18? 

All over 18 but good point. None currently living "at home". Either of which would mean I'd probably have to have a will.

Emmia

What if your wife, and all your children pre-decease you? Perhaps after you've lost the physical or mental capacity to make a will. Where would you like the money you leave to go?

Are you happy for the government to have it all? Or, would you prefer it went to a charity of your choosing? Or to close friends who won't inherit anything under intestacy rules?

If you'd prefer for the government not to get the money in that scenario, then you need a will.