See the recent brouhaha about Fox and the Murdoch trust. Apparently it can be interesting to try to change the conditions of a trust afterwards without the consent of the trust beneficiaries? Better be sure what you want to do…
This varies widely between provinces, but generally in case of intestacy someone applies to be named administrator of the estate rather than the government acting as executor. The courts have a preference list so that generally the closest relation to apply will be granted administrator.
In Ontario, a married spouse would get at least the first $350K and then the balance gets split equally between spouse and kids (per stirpes). If this results in less for the spouse than they would receive if they had divorced, the spouse can elect to receive that portion instead.
Yes, my will has specific language about that. I don’t remember the term of time, but it’s long enough that if, for instance, we are in the same car crash but one of us lingers for a bit, we are treated as if we died at the same time.
Yes, what matters is when people died, not when the will is executed. And yes, in the example your gave, each child gets half, and then the daughter’s estate goes to whoever.
You should consider asking them why, and then confirming if it’s true. Because as a legal aid attorney, I have a shockingly large amount of people come asking about how to establish a trust for “tax” purposes. But of course if they are poor enough to qualify for our services, there is no way they have enough assets for their heirs to get a tax benefit from a trust.
Does California have an estate tax?
But note what I said about some (many? most?) states having laws that actually do impose survival requirements on heirs if the will is silent.
That still doesn’t depend on the timing is when the will is read, however. It just clarified what to do when the situation might otherwise be ambiguous.
No clue. What California has is a long probation process, especially if any property is included in the estate. At least that’s what is claimed. I suppose the first question is would a will be just as good for a small estate.
The other reason that some folks claim a trust is better is that it can only be contested when you begin it. I forget how long it needs to be established before no relative can contest the beneficiaries.
Surprisingly, no.
Known as the “commorientes” rule. A notorious example occurred in England in 1941, when Josiah Stamp, one of the wealthiest men in the country, and his son Wilfred died when their house was hit by a German bomb. The commorientes rule applied, which meant that under law, Josiah was deemed to have died first. The family had to pay inheritance tax twice, first for Wilfred inheriting from his father and then for Trevor (the second oldest son) inheriting from Wilfred. Also, since Josiah held a peerage (1st Baron Stamp), Wilfred is listed as 2nd Baron Stamp (and Trevor as 3rd), making Wilfred the record holder for the shortest peerage ever, held for a legal instant only.
Could they have escaped the second tax if the father’s will had specified that “unless they survive me by 30 days” rule?
I think that’s exactly the purpose of those clauses -to prevent the outcomes that would happen if the legal presumption was in effect. Sometimes, the presumption is that the oldest died first, sometimes the law says that each person will be treated as pre-deceasing the other unless one survives by more than a certain number of hours. In addition to taxes, there’s also the issue of heirs- lets say a married couple with no children dies without wills . Bob and Jane die in a plane crash, Bob survives Jane by a few minutes. Bob inherits everything of Jane’s and then his heirs inherit everything of his, including what he inherited from Jane. Even if there is no inheritance tax involved ( sometimes there isn’t for spouses) if there’s a simultaneous death rule that requires one to survive by say 120 hours , the courts only have to deal with each estate being inherited once and Bob’s parents wouldn’t get everything while Jane’s get nothing.
It’s partly to avoid extra taxation, and partly for simplicity. The time of death on a death certificate isn’t always the actual time of death (my mom’s was a couple hours later, when a suitable medical person arrived to pronounce her dead) and you can avoid any issues around the m what the exact order of death is if you set a rule for deaths that are close enough that there might be any ambiguity. You also remove most incentives for pulling the plug sooner or later in a case where the person isn’t going to make it. It won’t affect the inheritance.