Yeah, and wear pant and shoes.
Fucking Canadians
That’s different in Spain: when something is jointly owned, the only part that gets split is the equal-share (unless a different division had already been established previously) of the deceased. My grandparents’ flat had been in his name, so she inherited half and paid taxes on that half; their bank accounts had been joint, so she had half (the half she already owned), inherited one quarter (which she paid taxes on) and the other quarter is what got split between Mom and my aunt (who paid their own taxes on that and their quarters of the flat). And it is not possible for any of the parties to force others out: so long as one refuses to sell, it can’t be sold, even if that party owns 1/32.
I “have signature” on my mother’s bank accounts, and one thing we wanted to make sure was that I count as “second signatory” and not as “co-owner”: what happens is that if she is incapacitated or dies I have access and I can close the accounts faster than if I didn’t “have signature”, but I’m not legally an owner.
Eh Nava, it’s the same (or very similar). Perhaps we misunderstood each other? Something is jointly owned, one of the owner dies, the surviving one is entitled to half of what was owned (or half of its value, in case it is sold/is money). That is what happened with grandpa and grandma’s house.
I think what is different is that in the bank account, the surviving spouse gets only half, not the half plus quarter that you mentioned, unless the dead decided to do the “favor someone else after distributing the required part equally among the other heirs” thing in its will.
And again, I did mention that nobody drives anybody out, and everyone has to agree on selling. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about that, but that’s the case.
See, in the Spanish case, the half which the survivor is entitled to is not “inherited”; it was already his property. If my grandparents’ house had been jointly owned, Grandma would now own 3/4, it would have gone like the jointly-owned account. There was no will, so the daughters are entitled to have half their father’s estate distributed equally among themselves, and the surviving spouse is entitled to the other half. If Grandad wanted to arrange anything else, he needed a will - and the one he would have been able to disposess without a lot of signatures and complications is… Grandma. Wills under general law tend to be more a matter of details (“this particular piece of furniture goes to this child”) than of resizing the actual chunks; the arguments arise, of course, when someone pipes up with “her chunk is bigger than mine!”.
Only what the deceased owned is the deceased’s estate; of what he owned jointly, only his part is in his estate. It’s like having shares in a company, only without a piece of paper that says you have “X shares of Y total shares”; if a shareholder dies, the rest aren’t his inheritors.
Nava, again, I mentioned not even I considered the half the survivor gets an “inheritance”, and that I wasn’t counting that like that. It was his/her given half, of course! It’s the last (or near to last) sentence in one of my posts!
I think what is the thing is that the spouse is not considered a heir, unless specifically mentioned in the will in the “part the deceased gives to whomever” section. The remaining half of the joint bank account, the other half of the house, or a car. Zip, zilch, nothing. The spouse does not automatically get a share of that half.
This is why dad confided that in my once. Because mom would have no share in the home she leaves, if he dies. The house would be divided between sibs and I, mom would get nothing despite living there for over half her life. She’d be a tenant, instead of wife of an owner. Granted, through the same inheritance system she owns half of another house, but that is not her home. I don’t think anything major should happen because my sibs do not know this, and even if they do, we’re all good family, they love my mom, and wouldn’t act like total scum.
Well, we do have to keep warm.
So a spouse is not an heir unless the deceased specifically makes the survivor an heir?
(I think I got confused by the “gets”, fweiw.)
Apparently, it isn’t true in KarlGrenze country, but it is in France. Asuming the basic case where there wasn’t any peculiar prenup, the house wasn’t an heirloom of the deceased, there was no written will, etc… The surviving spouse would kept half the house (not as an inheritance, but because it’s “her half”) and the children would share the other half. If one of them wanted his money right now, contrarily to what happens in Spain according to Nava, the house would have to be sold (or the mother/other heirs come up with the money)
To avoid this unfortunately not uncommon occurence, the spouses can sign an agreement (at any time, my parents did so in their 50s) that changes the normal repartition :
Instead of getting her half, the surviving spouse gets only one quarter of the common property, but benefits of the usufruct of all of it. So, if the house is the only asset, she technically only owns 1/4 of it, but is entitled to use it (live in it but also rent it if she wants to) until her death.
I believe however that the concept of usufruct, used quite commonly in a number of situations here, isn’t very common in anglo-saxon countries.
But I thought if the house was jointly owned, when one passed, it reverted to the surviving partner. Period. Never becoming part of the estate, not covered in the will. I know many people have it set this way, for this reason, and have seen it play out just as I’ve described. Is this not accurate?
Exactly. The surviving spouse retains his/her half, or gets half of the profits of whatever joint property is sold. So if the house is sold, she gets half the money. If there are joint accounts, only half is split amongst the heirs, the rest goes to the surviving spouse (in a new account set up).
The question can be jurisdiction-specific. It seems to me that the discussion between Karl Grenze, Nava, and clairobscur is dealing with property law concepts in Puerto Rico, Spain, and France, respectively. I don’t know about Puerto Rico, but I do know that Spain and France are civil law jurisdictions; and the questions under discussion may have their answers in the various civil codes of these places. I don’t know, however.
Certainly, in your location, elbows, you’re correct. Property held in joint tenancy by two spouses will pass to the surviving spouse on the death of the other spouse. Note that there can be more than two people on title in a joint tenancy situation (say, Mom, Dad, and Junior); and they need not be married (say, Mom and Junior); but the joint tenancy concept continues to operate regardless of who is on title: on the death of one of the title-holders, the remaining title-holder(s) automatically assume the property.
It is a good idea and very common, however, for the parties in a joint tenancy situation to designate a beneficiary for the property in their wills. Then, there should be no argument about what happens if all joint tenants die at the same time.
You’ll notice I did not use the word “share.” Joint tenancy is by far the most common form of property ownership for spouses and family members in Canada, but there is another: tenancy-in-common. If two or more people agree to own a property as tenants-in-common, they are agreeing to hold it under a share, or percentage, arrangement. If Bob, Charlie and Fred decide to buy a property, but Bob is putting up half the money, they may decide to own the property as tenants-in-common with Bob owning a 50% interest, and Charlie and Fred each owning 25%. In this situation, Fred can indeed will his share to a designated person–Fred’s title will not automatically pass to Bob and Charlie.
This is a very general overview, elbows, of a couple of complicated Canadian property law concepts, but I hope it answers your question.
Not in the Dominican Rep.
Also, I am pretty sure that any real estate inherited by one of the spouses during the marriage is the sole property of the inheritor, regardless of what type of marriage they have.
I am guessing most countries with Napoleonic codes function in a similar manner regarding this.
Puerto Rico follows Napoleonic/civil law.
Same here. Mom inherited part of a property. If she were to die (which I hope doesn’t happen anytime in the near future), I’ll be her heir to her share. Dad gets nothing.
Thanks Spoons, that was very helpful.
To further refine this a bit for some (not all) US states - there is a third version called “tenancy by the entirety” which is ONLY for spouses. This usually behaves just like a joint tenancy - the main difference is that a joint tenant may sell his share while he is alive (even though he cannot will it away from the other joint tenant(s) at death). Selling his share converts the entire arrangement into a tenancy in common. In a tenancy by the entirety, neither spouse has the power to sell without the other.
I know the feeling. It’s true about wills in Canada.
My dad passed recently and although his will stated that my brother and I were to inherit everything (which was nothing more than his friggin bills and funeral costs) and that his ex wife was to receive nothing…the well known phone company that he had worked at decided that they were above the law and gave the life insurance and his pension to her anyway.
He and his ex had even signed papers a few years back stating that she would give up her dower rights and that she would not be able to receive his life insurance and pension…but guess who’s rich now…and guess who gets stuck with his bills?
Why write a will? To make the lawyers richer of course…that’s all the wills are good for…same as separation agreements…and letters to a certain phone company…all for naught.
Life insurance and pensions have nothing to do with wills. Beneficiaries are specified within the respective policies.
So why should any of your offspring get anything? Why not let the judge assign it all to the state, or whatever else he likes? Why should you care? You’re dead.
Exactly. The voiding of a will means the violation of the intentions of the living person who wrote it. If you wouldn’t arbitrarily seize his property during his life, it can’t become appropriate just because he’s now conveniently out of your way.
So, it’s antiquated except when the money is willed to you. Awesome