Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Close friends met in retirement and were together 15 years through health and terrible sickness. They lived in her house while his condo was their home away from home. The perfect adorable couple all the way. The day he passed his daughter showed up to take his belongings, car and lock the condo. She and her son had not been in their lives by her choosing. Local law made her the sole heir of a hefty estate.
Could it be that the father wanted it that way? And that was the understanding between him and his partner of 15 years?
Even a distant daughter is still his child - no matter the relationship between them?
The blood is thicker than water.
It would be preferable that the daughter was more decent to the father’s partner, but what if the existence of that partner was the cause of the rift in their relationship?
Close friends met in retirement and were together 15 years through health and terrible sickness. They lived in her house while his condo was their home away from home. The perfect adorable couple all the way. The day he passed his daughter showed up to take his belongings, car and lock the condo. She and her son had not been in their lives by her choosing. Local law made her the sole heir of a hefty estate.
No - her father's lack of planning made her his sole heir. Or maybe that's what he really wanted?
At any time during the fifteen of co-habitation, the couple could have put each other's names on the deed to the property. Don't even need a will to pass titled property to anyone you want.
The father should have done that if he wanted his condo to go to his partner.
Other than in the state of Louisiana, it is my understanding that a parent can disinherit a child in the US.
I've lived in 14 states. I'm told that wills are not very portable. So that has my wills so far costing $7,000 in legal fees -- possibly more than my entire estate. If I want my wife to get everything, how can a $500 lawyer express that any more clearly?
Where can I get one of these magic prepaid legal services plans for less than $500? For those "non-traditional" of us who do not have the traditional 6+figure estate, the sole function of the legal cartel is to just take it all for themselves.
If you want your wife to have everything, then put her name on all the assets with yours. Then when you die, she will automatically get everything without needing a will. Since you have so few assets, shouldn't be a problem.
I think people many times intentionally leave a mess behind by not having a will. They want to leave chaos behind.
The musician Prince -- and singer Aretha Franklin -- BOTH died without wills!
No one can say they didn't have the money to get one.
Prince one could argue didn't know he'd die so young.
But Aretha had cancer for goodness sake. You you can't say she didn't know she was going downhill health-wise!
How does a person -- and wealthy person -- with cancer no less -- with an estate that involves not only personal property -- but also music rights, residuals, etc -- NOT have a will!
Not having one had to have been intentional. In some twisted say did she WANT her kids fighting over the estate?
----
Rant over....
Aretha's problem wasn't lack of a will, it was that they found three wills, all hand written by her. I never followed the litigation, so I don't know the final resolution.
I do agree that not having a will is incredibly foolish for anyone who has assets that will be left at death. Even those with a trust need a pourover will. I eventually convinced my parents to have a will drafted, but it took 25 years or so. Some people appear to have a unfounded fear that somehow their entire financial life will be exposed after they die.
Making a will is called adulting - if someone doesn't want to be responsible for their life, I don't sure what could be done.
I think having a judge decide who gets what is awful. How does a judge decide who was important in the deceased's life and how to split the assets.
In Threestep2's case, how would the close friend prove his daughter wasn't in his life - phone records??? The daughter would lie. Someone would have to do a whole investigation and hope the truth was found out. It might be fair and might not be. I'm not sure the state should have that kind of power.
Wills (and the lack of) can be turned into a weapon from the grave. Some people act like they walked out of a Charles Dickens' novel before the ghosts of Christmas came - it's an awful thing.
Most states have laws for intestacy that define who gets what. Judges apportion the estate based on those laws.
Close friends met in retirement and were together 15 years through health and terrible sickness. They lived in her house while his condo was their home away from home. The perfect adorable couple all the way. The day he passed his daughter showed up to take his belongings, car and lock the condo. She and her son had not been in their lives by her choosing. Local law made her the sole heir of a hefty estate.
Those actions were probably illegal. You can't start taking things and locking up property until after probate, at least that's the case in Texas. The wife in that case may have had a life estate in the condo, depending on the laws.
My father in law thought that having a will prepared would imply he wasn't immortal, so he never did one, and died intestate. He and my mother in law owned some property. Under Texas law, since he had children outside the marriage(he ran around a lot), his half of the property would be divided up into 8 pieces. One of my brothers in law died without a will not long after my father in law. The BiL was divorced, but had 7 kids, so his piece of my FiL's estate would be split 7 ways. My MiL died intestate as well, and her half of the property would be split 5 ways, with the piece belonging to the deceased BiL split 7 ways. It's going to cost between $10k and $20k to go to court and get the estates settled, maybe more, now that more than 4 years have passed.
Get a will, people. It will save money in the long run.
Could it be that the father wanted it that way? And that was the understanding between him and his partner of 15 years?
Even a distant daughter is still his child - no matter the relationship between them?
The blood is thicker than water.
It would be preferable that the daughter was more decent to the father’s partner, but what if the existence of that partner was the cause of the rift in their relationship?
We knew them well enough to be able to answer your questions. Both were widowed after long relationships with abusive partners. He was fairly well off. His daughter had not been in the picture since before they met.
No will was recorded and the unspoken consensus was that the daughter was looking for it. Water under the bridge. Hopefully those two love birds are back together.
Blood or no blood - even with a will the daughter would have been entitled to the lion share. It is the law. I signed my rights over when my father passed. Not a bright but a decent move.
Those actions were probably illegal. You can't start taking things and locking up property until after probate, at least that's the case in Texas. The wife in that case may have had a life estate in the condo, depending on the laws.
As the thread title reads - non-traditional families. They may have been seniors but not married and common law does not apply everywhere.
Legal or illegal is not the question here.
Get your affairs in iron clad order as money brings out the worst in people.
I'm not sure its that "incredible" of a reaction. A reach (on my part), maybe, but its there, nevertheless. It is "the Atlantic", after all.
As I said - at face value, there is great advice in the article, very much worthy of being posted.
There are a lot of concerns (legal and otherwise) with cohabitation laws, which is why a lot of states haven't adopted them. I don't need to go through the whole article (although I did) to find what I'm looking for...
As a kaleidoscope of new relationship structures enters the mainstream, we need to consider redefining family based on actions, not just legal status.
I agree with that part. My honey and I live together, not getting married for personal, financial reasons. In NJ, he will have to pay 16% inheritance taxes if I go first. Add to that, I know he will never be able to handle probate or being executor, and the lawyer wants 6% for doing that, and if my estate is worth $200,000, he will be out almost $50,000 right off the bat. The whole situation is very complicated and confusing. I've been in the process of getting a will together but the hardest part is figuring out who the executor will be, because I hate the thought of so much of it being spent before he gets anything at all.
I don't think the vast majority die without a will on purpose, I think most people just think they have plenty of time and don't want to think about death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
