Will v No Will

zagfles

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

Keep_pedalling

zagfles said:

I've help administer a couple of intestate estates and they were easy, in fact easier and cheaper than if there'd been a will. But they were quite straightforwards. One thing though, if there's no will make sure you understand the intestacy rules and are happy with them, and make sure to let the beneficaries know there's no will, so they don't waste time searching for one!

I can’t see how having a simple will makes it harder to administer or how it makes it more expensive. A more complex will containing trusts would create more work and expense but any testator who makes one of those does not want the laws of intestacy to apply anyway. 

Emmia

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

And in the event of something happening so one or both sons dies? I'd always have a will, even if the beneficiaries are obvious to avoid someone inheriting who you'd rather not.

Administering a simple estate really shouldn't cost 5 figures, and the sons can do it themselves if they're alive - no solicitor needed 

Bostonerimus1

Emmia said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

And in the event of something happening so one or both sons dies? I'd always have a will, even if the beneficiaries are obvious to avoid someone inheriting who you'd rather not.

Administering a simple estate really shouldn't cost 5 figures, and the sons can do it themselves if they're alive - no solicitor needed 

Agreed. A will just makes everything more obvious and prevents issues with unforeseen circumstances like sudden deaths of beneficiaries, marriages etc and also allows money to be left to charities or friends. A will appoints an executor and without a will you'll have to apply to be the estate's administrator.

zagfles

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

I've help administer a couple of intestate estates and they were easy, in fact easier and cheaper than if there'd been a will. But they were quite straightforwards. One thing though, if there's no will make sure you understand the intestacy rules and are happy with them, and make sure to let the beneficaries know there's no will, so they don't waste time searching for one!

I can’t see how having a simple will makes it harder to administer or how it makes it more expensive. A more complex will containing trusts would create more work and expense but any testator who makes one of those does not want the laws of intestacy to apply anyway. 

In the two intestate estates I helped to administer, there was an extra stage you had to go through had there been a will, getting a certified copy IIRC, which had a cost. Without a will this stage could be skipped. So it was quicker and cheaper than if there'd been a will.

The only slight complication was that in one of them it wasn't certain that there wasn't a will, but that is easily avoided by making sure the beneficiaries are aware there's no will. My wife and I don't have wills and we have told everyone relevant. 

zagfles

Emmia said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

And in the event of something happening so one or both sons dies? I'd always have a will, even if the beneficiaries are obvious to avoid someone inheriting who you'd rather not.

Administering a simple estate really shouldn't cost 5 figures, and the sons can do it themselves if they're alive - no solicitor needed 

Like I said, if circumstances change then consider a will. If you had a will you'd probably need to review it in those kinds of change in circumstances anyway. 

And obviously, if you don't like the intestacy rules, do a will. 

I don't have a will, I don't need one, nor does my wife, nor do my parents. Most of our "inheritance" will be via pensions anyway, which are outside a will. The house we're putting in joint names (beneficial joint owners) so that'll pass outside a will on the first death of me or my wife. 

Bostonerimus1

zagfles said:

Emmia said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

And in the event of something happening so one or both sons dies? I'd always have a will, even if the beneficiaries are obvious to avoid someone inheriting who you'd rather not.

Administering a simple estate really shouldn't cost 5 figures, and the sons can do it themselves if they're alive - no solicitor needed 

Like I said, if circumstances change then consider a will. If you had a will you'd probably need to review it in those kinds of change in circumstances anyway. 

And obviously, if you don't like the intestacy rules, do a will. 

I don't have a will, I don't need one, nor does my wife, nor do my parents. Most of our "inheritance" will be via pensions anyway, which are outside a will. The house we're putting in joint names (beneficial joint owners) so that'll pass outside a will on the first death of me or my wife. 

What happens if you and your wife both die in a car accident or go into comas. In such cases and LPA for health and wealth fare is good to avoid arguments between family. Getting this sorted before you are dead or incapacitated just makes it easier for your family. You don't make a will etc for yourself - you do it for your survivors.

zagfles

Bostonerimus1 said:

zagfles said:

Emmia said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

And in the event of something happening so one or both sons dies? I'd always have a will, even if the beneficiaries are obvious to avoid someone inheriting who you'd rather not.

Administering a simple estate really shouldn't cost 5 figures, and the sons can do it themselves if they're alive - no solicitor needed 

Like I said, if circumstances change then consider a will. If you had a will you'd probably need to review it in those kinds of change in circumstances anyway. 

And obviously, if you don't like the intestacy rules, do a will. 

I don't have a will, I don't need one, nor does my wife, nor do my parents. Most of our "inheritance" will be via pensions anyway, which are outside a will. The house we're putting in joint names (beneficial joint owners) so that'll pass outside a will on the first death of me or my wife. 

What happens if you and your wife both die in a car accident or go into comas. In such cases and LPA for health and wealth fare is good to avoid arguments between family. Getting this sorted before you are dead or incapacitated just makes it easier for your family. You don't make a will etc for yourself - you do it for your survivors.

Err...the kids inherit. Just like they would if there was a will stating they inherit in equal shares. There's no difference. As I've said multiple times dealing with an intestate estate was easy. I've done it twice. Having a will WOULD NOT have made things easier in the 2 cases I dealt with, it would have made it harder. 

It's not for everyone, and some people will need wills. But I don't, nor does my wife, or parents. Period. You can come up with 1000 "what ifs..." and however you draft a will you'll never cater for all the "what ifs" anyway. 

It is important to review things if circumstances change, but that obviously applies will or no will. 

Keep_pedalling

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

zagfles said:

Emmia said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

And in the event of something happening so one or both sons dies? I'd always have a will, even if the beneficiaries are obvious to avoid someone inheriting who you'd rather not.

Administering a simple estate really shouldn't cost 5 figures, and the sons can do it themselves if they're alive - no solicitor needed 

Like I said, if circumstances change then consider a will. If you had a will you'd probably need to review it in those kinds of change in circumstances anyway. 

And obviously, if you don't like the intestacy rules, do a will. 

I don't have a will, I don't need one, nor does my wife, nor do my parents. Most of our "inheritance" will be via pensions anyway, which are outside a will. The house we're putting in joint names (beneficial joint owners) so that'll pass outside a will on the first death of me or my wife. 

What happens if you and your wife both die in a car accident or go into comas. In such cases and LPA for health and wealth fare is good to avoid arguments between family. Getting this sorted before you are dead or incapacitated just makes it easier for your family. You don't make a will etc for yourself - you do it for your survivors.

Err...the kids inherit. Just like they would if there was a will stating they inherit in equal shares. There's no difference. As I've said multiple times dealing with an intestate estate was easy. I've done it twice. Having a will WOULD NOT have made things easier in the 2 cases I dealt with, it would have made it harder. 

It's not for everyone, and some people will need wills. But I don't, nor does my wife, or parents. Period. You can come up with 1000 "what ifs..." and however you draft a will you'll never cater for all the "what ifs" anyway. 

It is important to review things if circumstances change, but that obviously applies will or no will. 

You have obviously thought this though, but the vast majority without wills have not which is why intestacy causes so many problems, especially for unmarried couples and blended families. 

Bostonerimus1

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

zagfles said:

Emmia said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

A will makes everything easy and avoids the potential confusion of dying intestate. An executor can start the process of probate immediately. When my mother died her solicitor was the executor and the 4.5% of the estate that they charged was well worth it as it spared the family lots of worry. I'm now going through the consequences of the intestate death of my sister-in-law and have managed to find some distant relatives who can deal with the estate, but it's a more involved process requiring will searches and genealogies before an administrator can be apointed and then they have to follow the rules of intestate inheritance.

Which is nothing like the OP's scenario, there are obvious beneficiaries (the two adult sons) who can administer the estate, and as long as they know there's no will they don't need to search for one. There would be no need to use a solicitor (and pay them probably a 5 figure sum) assuming the estate is fairly straightforwards.

It couldn't be simpler, estate split between the two sons, which I guess it what 90% of widow(er)s with adult offspring would put in a will anyway, so why have one? I can't see any advantages. Just make sure the offspring know there's no will. And obviously consider a will in the case of remarriage or other changes in circumstances. 

And in the event of something happening so one or both sons dies? I'd always have a will, even if the beneficiaries are obvious to avoid someone inheriting who you'd rather not.

Administering a simple estate really shouldn't cost 5 figures, and the sons can do it themselves if they're alive - no solicitor needed 

Like I said, if circumstances change then consider a will. If you had a will you'd probably need to review it in those kinds of change in circumstances anyway. 

And obviously, if you don't like the intestacy rules, do a will. 

I don't have a will, I don't need one, nor does my wife, nor do my parents. Most of our "inheritance" will be via pensions anyway, which are outside a will. The house we're putting in joint names (beneficial joint owners) so that'll pass outside a will on the first death of me or my wife. 

What happens if you and your wife both die in a car accident or go into comas. In such cases and LPA for health and wealth fare is good to avoid arguments between family. Getting this sorted before you are dead or incapacitated just makes it easier for your family. You don't make a will etc for yourself - you do it for your survivors.

Err...the kids inherit. Just like they would if there was a will stating they inherit in equal shares. There's no difference. As I've said multiple times dealing with an intestate estate was easy. I've done it twice. Having a will WOULD NOT have made things easier in the 2 cases I dealt with, it would have made it harder. 

It's not for everyone, and some people will need wills. But I don't, nor does my wife, or parents. Period. You can come up with 1000 "what ifs..." and however you draft a will you'll never cater for all the "what ifs" anyway. 

It is important to review things if circumstances change, but that obviously applies will or no will. 

Which one of your children is going to be the administrator of the estate? and what about LPA and health directives?