Will v No Will

Emmia

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

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?

Why do you want to know? They'd both do it. I'm not going to choose one. LPA etc are separate issues. 

I don't want to know, but your children should know the arrangement for an administrator and also about the extra paperwork involved and delay in access to your estate.

They do know. What extra paperwork and delay? How many intestate estates have you administered? I've done 2, and there was no delay or extra paperwork. In fact there was less as no need for a certified copy of the will. Both sorted within 3 months. As opposed to someone I know whose relative had a will and used a solicitor as executor and it's been over 6 months and counting for a very straighforwards estate where the solicitor is looking at pocketing a 5 figure sum. 

Who required a certified copy of the will? I have never needed one of those. The problem with your relative is that the testator choose a solicitor as an executor the will itself will not have slowed anything down.

Not sure, I know someone who needed it for some reason, I thought probate, maybe it was a precaution in case the original will was lost in the post. In any case, the point is all the stuff you read about intestacy causing all sorts of problems and delays is complete rubbish for someone with a straightforwards estate and straightforwards circumstances and obvious beneficiaries. IME it was easy, there was no "extra paperwork and delay". 

I think you are in a minority situation as a married couple, most of us want to make smaller bequests to people and organisations other than our spouses and children and some of us have sole assets in excess of £322k. Others (especially younger couples) should perhaps consider a will with IPDI trust clauses to protect their children’s inheritance if the surviving spouse remarries. 

As we have seen over the years on this board both intestacy and poorly drafted or out of date wills can both cause major problems for those left behind, so the important thing is to understand exactly what intestacy means for your personal circumstances, and if there are situations where it would not meet your wishes then make a will, but make sure that is done professional (not DIY or unregulated will writers) that you chose your executors wisely and you review it regularly and make changes where personal circumstances take change or the laws around inheritance change which would adversely impact your beneficiaries 

I'm usually in the minority. Apparently I was in a minority when I insisted on a repayment mortgage in the 90's rather than an endowment. I was in a minority in never having taken PPI. 

Anyway, I think one of the worst mistakes people made, and it was even suggested upthread, is doing a will and making a solicitor the executor. Then you're stuck with them, and if they're slow, costly, drag it out etc, you can't do anything about it. Much better to make beneficiar(ies) the executor and they can always pay for legal advice should they need it, and they can shop around, they're not stuck with one. 

I have a solicitor drafted will but personal appointees as executors - this is the best situation in my view as you're not constrained to the rules of intestacy, which you are in a no will situation.

You don't need to have a solicitor as an executor.

Keep_pedalling

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

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?

Why do you want to know? They'd both do it. I'm not going to choose one. LPA etc are separate issues. 

I don't want to know, but your children should know the arrangement for an administrator and also about the extra paperwork involved and delay in access to your estate.

They do know. What extra paperwork and delay? How many intestate estates have you administered? I've done 2, and there was no delay or extra paperwork. In fact there was less as no need for a certified copy of the will. Both sorted within 3 months. As opposed to someone I know whose relative had a will and used a solicitor as executor and it's been over 6 months and counting for a very straighforwards estate where the solicitor is looking at pocketing a 5 figure sum. 

Who required a certified copy of the will? I have never needed one of those. The problem with your relative is that the testator choose a solicitor as an executor the will itself will not have slowed anything down.

Not sure, I know someone who needed it for some reason, I thought probate, maybe it was a precaution in case the original will was lost in the post. In any case, the point is all the stuff you read about intestacy causing all sorts of problems and delays is complete rubbish for someone with a straightforwards estate and straightforwards circumstances and obvious beneficiaries. IME it was easy, there was no "extra paperwork and delay". 

I think you are in a minority situation as a married couple, most of us want to make smaller bequests to people and organisations other than our spouses and children and some of us have sole assets in excess of £322k. Others (especially younger couples) should perhaps consider a will with IPDI trust clauses to protect their children’s inheritance if the surviving spouse remarries. 

As we have seen over the years on this board both intestacy and poorly drafted or out of date wills can both cause major problems for those left behind, so the important thing is to understand exactly what intestacy means for your personal circumstances, and if there are situations where it would not meet your wishes then make a will, but make sure that is done professional (not DIY or unregulated will writers) that you chose your executors wisely and you review it regularly and make changes where personal circumstances take change or the laws around inheritance change which would adversely impact your beneficiaries 

Anyway, I think one of the worst mistakes people made, and it was even suggested upthread, is doing a will and making a solicitor the executor. Then you're stuck with them, and if they're slow, costly, drag it out etc, you can't do anything about it. Much better to make beneficiar(ies) the executor and they can always pay for legal advice should they need it, and they can shop around, they're not stuck with one. 

I don’t think anyone on here would disagree with that. There are good reasons that some people would appoint a solicitor as executor but for most people it is not a requirement.

zagfles

Emmia said:

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

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?

Why do you want to know? They'd both do it. I'm not going to choose one. LPA etc are separate issues. 

I don't want to know, but your children should know the arrangement for an administrator and also about the extra paperwork involved and delay in access to your estate.

They do know. What extra paperwork and delay? How many intestate estates have you administered? I've done 2, and there was no delay or extra paperwork. In fact there was less as no need for a certified copy of the will. Both sorted within 3 months. As opposed to someone I know whose relative had a will and used a solicitor as executor and it's been over 6 months and counting for a very straighforwards estate where the solicitor is looking at pocketing a 5 figure sum. 

Who required a certified copy of the will? I have never needed one of those. The problem with your relative is that the testator choose a solicitor as an executor the will itself will not have slowed anything down.

Not sure, I know someone who needed it for some reason, I thought probate, maybe it was a precaution in case the original will was lost in the post. In any case, the point is all the stuff you read about intestacy causing all sorts of problems and delays is complete rubbish for someone with a straightforwards estate and straightforwards circumstances and obvious beneficiaries. IME it was easy, there was no "extra paperwork and delay". 

I think you are in a minority situation as a married couple, most of us want to make smaller bequests to people and organisations other than our spouses and children and some of us have sole assets in excess of £322k. Others (especially younger couples) should perhaps consider a will with IPDI trust clauses to protect their children’s inheritance if the surviving spouse remarries. 

As we have seen over the years on this board both intestacy and poorly drafted or out of date wills can both cause major problems for those left behind, so the important thing is to understand exactly what intestacy means for your personal circumstances, and if there are situations where it would not meet your wishes then make a will, but make sure that is done professional (not DIY or unregulated will writers) that you chose your executors wisely and you review it regularly and make changes where personal circumstances take change or the laws around inheritance change which would adversely impact your beneficiaries 

I'm usually in the minority. Apparently I was in a minority when I insisted on a repayment mortgage in the 90's rather than an endowment. I was in a minority in never having taken PPI. 

Anyway, I think one of the worst mistakes people made, and it was even suggested upthread, is doing a will and making a solicitor the executor. Then you're stuck with them, and if they're slow, costly, drag it out etc, you can't do anything about it. Much better to make beneficiar(ies) the executor and they can always pay for legal advice should they need it, and they can shop around, they're not stuck with one. 

I have a solicitor drafted will but personal appointees as executors - this is the best situation in my view as you're not constrained to the rules of intestacy, which you are in a no will situation.

You don't need to have a solicitor as an executor.

Why do these discussions always go round in circles with people stating the obvious and replying to strawmen. It's blatantly obvious that if you don't want to be "constrained to the rules of intestacy" then do a will. And nobody said you need to have a solicitor as executor, I said it was a mistake some people make. But someone did say earlier that using a solicitor as executor was "well worth it".

But it's pointless IMO doing a will if it simply reflects the rules of intestacy (wrt both beneficiaries and executors for the avoidance of doubt). Cue the next "what ifs..." and strawman replies...

poseidon1

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Keep_pedalling said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

zagfles said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

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?

Why do you want to know? They'd both do it. I'm not going to choose one. LPA etc are separate issues. 

I don't want to know, but your children should know the arrangement for an administrator and also about the extra paperwork involved and delay in access to your estate.

They do know. What extra paperwork and delay? How many intestate estates have you administered? I've done 2, and there was no delay or extra paperwork. In fact there was less as no need for a certified copy of the will. Both sorted within 3 months. As opposed to someone I know whose relative had a will and used a solicitor as executor and it's been over 6 months and counting for a very straighforwards estate where the solicitor is looking at pocketing a 5 figure sum. 

Who required a certified copy of the will? I have never needed one of those. The problem with your relative is that the testator choose a solicitor as an executor the will itself will not have slowed anything down.

Not sure, I know someone who needed it for some reason, I thought probate, maybe it was a precaution in case the original will was lost in the post. In any case, the point is all the stuff you read about intestacy causing all sorts of problems and delays is complete rubbish for someone with a straightforwards estate and straightforwards circumstances and obvious beneficiaries. IME it was easy, there was no "extra paperwork and delay". 

I think you are in a minority situation as a married couple, most of us want to make smaller bequests to people and organisations other than our spouses and children and some of us have sole assets in excess of £322k. Others (especially younger couples) should perhaps consider a will with IPDI trust clauses to protect their children’s inheritance if the surviving spouse remarries. 

As we have seen over the years on this board both intestacy and poorly drafted or out of date wills can both cause major problems for those left behind, so the important thing is to understand exactly what intestacy means for your personal circumstances, and if there are situations where it would not meet your wishes then make a will, but make sure that is done professional (not DIY or unregulated will writers) that you chose your executors wisely and you review it regularly and make changes where personal circumstances take change or the laws around inheritance change which would adversely impact your beneficiaries 

Anyway, I think one of the worst mistakes people made, and it was even suggested upthread, is doing a will and making a solicitor the executor. Then you're stuck with them, and if they're slow, costly, drag it out etc, you can't do anything about it. Much better to make beneficiar(ies) the executor and they can always pay for legal advice should they need it, and they can shop around, they're not stuck with one. 

I don’t think anyone on here would disagree with that. There are good reasons that some people would appoint a solicitor as executor but for most people it is not a requirement.

Would agree. 

The very wealthy with complex estates, businesses, crossborder assets etc,  routinely have both Solicitors and Chartered Accountants as professional executors who then morphed into ongoing professional trustees of complex trusts emerging from those estates. Pretty normal in my previously employed world, but for the vast majority of the general public with simple modest estates, wholly unnecessary.  

sheslookinhot

Another example of a post , where after a simple answer is provided to the OP, others jump-in with their own uncalled for personal experiences/opinions.

Spendless

To go back to the original question - if the friend died without a will and one (or both) of the sons pre-deceased her then would they be happy with what the rules of intestecy did at that point and who the money would go to instead? 

This was the main reason we made our wills, we wanted to direct where our estate went as plan B, if dividing equally  between our 2 adult children was no longer an option.


Also  I don't know if this is relevant or not, but both my Grandmothers lived to an old age (one almost 99 the other 100, one in a care home with dementia for the last 8 years of her life, 1 in hospital for her last few weeks). My parents had LPA for them, which ends on death, they then needed to inform the banks (probate not needed in either case as estate too small, no property involved) since each Nan had a will and parent was an executor of their will, it was a straight forward situation where the bank accepted a copy of the will and parents ID and after 'freezing' (for want of a better word)  the bank released the money to said parent (or will do in the next few weeks for my Dad, as paternal grandmother has only recently died). I'm unsure if that part of the process isn't as simple if there's no will and someone has to appoint themselves as administrator of the estate instead, or if it's just been simpler due to no probate required.  From reading stories on here there's also been issues when one person has become administrator and again I'm unsure if 'anyone' can? 

Savvy_Sue

There's a set order of priority for who can act if there is no will.

https://www.gov.uk/applying-for-probate/if-theres-not-a-will

An informal or divorced partner would have no rights, as far as I can see.