Which neatly summarises the main plot point in Unnatural Death by Dorothy L. Sayers.
I agree that it’s a terrible thing to not leave a will and it’s best to have an attorney make it so there are no problems. I can still write “I leave everything to Planned Parenthood” and sign my name on a piece of paper and tape that to the door.
Famously Howard Hughes didn’t have a will and didn’t have kids. They found a bunch of cousins who all became fairly rich. There was a bit of a kerfuffle over a bastard in the lineage and whether their descendants got a piece. I think they ultimately did.
China was on the way there for a while….
I found a pretty good answer for California but it’s still a bit vague. It might be an interesting job to track it all down.
What Happens if There is No Spouse or Children?
Intestate succession gets a bit trickier when there is no surviving spouse or children. When parents survive their child, the child’s estate is transferred to their parents. If there are no surviving parents, the estate is evenly distributed to the surviving siblings. Like children, siblings inherit equally even if they only share one parent.
When there are no surviving spouse, parents, children, grandchildren, or siblings of any degree the estate will pass to the next of kin. Aunts and uncles are considered next, then any surviving nieces or nephews. The intestate succession continues to consider heirs based on relationship, with more remote relatives receiving a smaller, or no portion.
If the probate court cannot find any other surviving heirs or beneficiaries, the estate escheats to the state of California. This rarely happens because the laws are designed to prevent it. However, it does happen that people pass without any living heirs and no will.
So it’s probably pretty rare in the UK as well if they follow a similar formula
Some jurisdictions do put a limit on how they define next of kin (please see the legal treatise Unnatural Death, supra, for guidance on English law), and other jurisdictions don’t put a limit.
Here’s the guidebook put out by the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee:
And here’s the relevant part:
So, sounds pretty thorough, in Ontario at least. (I’ve put bolding on a couple of points in the two paragraphs.)
This is fascinating. Thank you.
The Sayers book was titled The Dawson Pedigree in the US, which gives you a hint as to the issues involved.
Another issue, of course, is that people are mobile. Distant kin may not even know about that 2nd cousin twice removed living in Black Lake, Saskatchewan, let alone that they’ve died. That may especially be the case if the deceased was an immigrant to Canada, and their next of kin is in their home country on the other side of the world. The issue may not be whether is kin; it’s trying to find them that is the difficulty.
It’s very possible (and quite probable) to die with no known relatives or friends. Happens all the time.
Everyone has relatives. Far from everyone has known relatives, and the state can only relate to known relatives
Not true—Northern_Piper mentioned hiring professional genealogists. An individual may not know about any relatives, but the state has the resources and motivation to track down the unknown ones.
There are childless orphans and other people whose documentation is incomplete, making it more difficult to locate these relatives, but there’s also DNA testing. (As long as we’re talking about relatives rather than family.)
A long time ago I was marginally involved in a case like that, as a junior lawyer. The litigation was still going on 10 years after the death.
Please folks, go to a lawyer, please. Wills are generally pretty cheap.
Lawyers who do wills on a regular basis will be aware of issues (eg tax implications, child support) that the average citizen isn’t aware could come into play, and the problems that could arise if you do it yourself.
It’s worth the money, to ensure that your assets go where you want, and to avoid putting your family through a grinder like DrDrake mentions.
(And no, I don’t do wills and estates, so I’m not trying to drum up business. )
As has been said, "Only if NO relatives are found
It’s possible that no living relatives may be found.
Earlier this year I got a letter from an attorney to the effect that I’d been identified as an heir to the estate of a woman who had died intestate and with no known relatives. Since a) I’d never heard of her, and b) the only listed asset was a house that could charitably be described as “ramshackle,” I contacted the attorney and asked to be removed — partly because I felt the second reason was going to result in a quagmire, but primarily because of the first reason: I was not at all comfortable with the idea of benefiting from an estate to which I had no claim.
Turned out my request cost me around $100,000 — the house sold for far more than I would have guessed — but I can live with that.
(Apologies if this is too much of a hijack. Just trying to elaborate on @Northern_Piper’s statement.)
@Aspenglow - my humble apologies. I had thought this thread was in MPSIMS. I see I’ve turned a political debate into a salon to discuss points of law and Golden Age murder mysteries. OOps.
Yes, well, it’s weird. The Duchy is not part of the Crown estates.The duchy consists of a portfolio of lands, properties, and assets held in trust for the sovereign and royal family. wiki- The duchy is administered on behalf of the sovereign by the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a government minister appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister, and by the clerk of the council.[16] The former position is sometimes held by a cabinet minister, but is always a ministerial post. For at least the last two centuries the duchy has been run by a deputy; the chancellor has rarely had any significant duties pertaining to its management but is available as a minister without portfolio and is answerable to Parliament for the effective running of the estate.[17][18][19][20] … The duchy is administered on behalf of the sovereign by the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a government minister appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister, and by the clerk of the council.[16] The former position is sometimes held by a cabinet minister, but is always a ministerial post. For at least the last two centuries the duchy has been run by a deputy; the chancellor has rarely had any significant duties pertaining to its management but is available as a minister without portfolio and is answerable to Parliament for the effective running of the estate.[17][18][19][20]… As the duchy is an inalienable asset of the Crown held in trust for future sovereigns, the current sovereign is not entitled to the portfolio’s capital or capital profits.[2][40] The Duchy of Lancaster is not subject to tax, but as the monarch has voluntarily paid both income and capital gains tax since 1993 income from the duchy is taxed in practice.[22][41]
So, its not quite the same as Personal property. It is a trust.
This is not helpful.

This may help for those who are not familiar with terminology, and do not understand what “The Crown” means:
This is.
But I see the term "the crown used also to refer to the Royals. So, forgive a yank if he is confused, because it is confusing.
Okay, so we dont know much about King Charles or even Sunak. But this is not new. So who would you trust more- QE2 or Boris Johnson?
Even dead, her.

I see I’ve turned a political debate into a salon to discuss points of law and Golden Age murder mysteries.
I say it was the Duke of Lancaster in the study with the lead pipe.

So who would you trust more- QE2 or Boris Johnson?
The question poses an irrelevant distinction. The Queen / King reigns but does not rule.
In terms of running the country, the choice was between Boris and Jeremy Corbin. I certainly agree that the British democratic process somehow coughed up one of the worst possible pairings in that case, but the democratic process is superior to a monarch exercising substantial powers.
If the British don’t like what Sunak is up to, they will have an option next year, just like in any other democracy.

Sadly no one ever listens to me
.
Have you tried making your recommendations at the head of an army of 100,000 mounted archers?

I say it was the Duke of Lancaster in the study with the lead pipe.
I laughed!

But I see the term "the crown used also to refer to the Royals. So, forgive a yank if he is confused, because it is confusing.
Yes, “the Crown” is used as the shorthand term for the government. It’s not a reference to the current wearer of the Crown.
So, getting back to the point in issue here, bona vacantia going to the Duchy of Lancaster is not the same as going to the Crown, which is how they are handled elsewhere in England. Agree that the Duchy is an odd thing, since it is designed to give personal revenue to the monarch, and yet is administered by government officials. (I think Churchill was Chancellor of the Duchy at one point.)