what happens if parents don't have a Will and they die?
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
From: South Carolina
^^ The mere transfer of assets into revocable trust will not result in an estate tax savings. You can achieve the same estate tax results via a will or a revocable living trust. Not sure I understand what you're trying to say...?
In some states there is a definite advantage to putting real estate in a revocable trust. It avoids probate and the associated probate fees.
In some states there is a definite advantage to putting real estate in a revocable trust. It avoids probate and the associated probate fees.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, California
^^
The transfer of assets into trusts are usually not revocable unless specifically stated by the giver. Most trusts are set up to avoid estate taxes that are taxed on the whole of the estate given to the beneficiary.
In most states there is no advantage of putting real estate into trusts because typically the real estate is dividied among different beneficiaries, and therefore a sale must be conducted to divide the assets. When the money is disbursed, they are taxed on the lump sump of that value. However, there are special provisions for certain types of property. (farm land, ect.)
A revocable living trust usually is done in the interest of the trustor, not the beneficiary. Moreover, a revocable living trust usually has a life interest in some individual and a remainder to a different individual. I think you are confusing different types of trusts here... They perform very different functions..
The transfer of assets into trusts are usually not revocable unless specifically stated by the giver. Most trusts are set up to avoid estate taxes that are taxed on the whole of the estate given to the beneficiary.
In most states there is no advantage of putting real estate into trusts because typically the real estate is dividied among different beneficiaries, and therefore a sale must be conducted to divide the assets. When the money is disbursed, they are taxed on the lump sump of that value. However, there are special provisions for certain types of property. (farm land, ect.)
A revocable living trust usually is done in the interest of the trustor, not the beneficiary. Moreover, a revocable living trust usually has a life interest in some individual and a remainder to a different individual. I think you are confusing different types of trusts here... They perform very different functions..
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,288
Likes: 39
From: Nashville
Lots of good information. If he choses not to have a Will, that is his decision. It didn't sound right that the STATE would get his belongings, so that is the only reason I asked.
I am not concerned about "getting my cut" of the deal. Hopefully everyone lives for a good bit longer and I don't have to worry about anything.
I am not concerned about "getting my cut" of the deal. Hopefully everyone lives for a good bit longer and I don't have to worry about anything.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,827
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Thanks for all the good comments about living trusts and probate. But I am still not clear "when it makes sense to have a living trust to avoid probate". In other words, is there a point below which it is not worth the trouble of drawing up a living trust? In the case of my parents, all they own is their house. When they die, who/what decides if their estate needs to go through a lengthy probate? (I understand all deaths will result in a probate, but in most cases, it is just a formality and someone just fills in the form that says "he owned such and such when he dies" and that's the end of it.)
What is it that makes probate so lengthy and painful that people are willing to draw up living trusts (which are complicated and painful in their own way) to avoid it?
What is it that makes probate so lengthy and painful that people are willing to draw up living trusts (which are complicated and painful in their own way) to avoid it?
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
From: South Carolina
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anrosphynx
^^
The transfer of assets into trusts are usually not revocable unless specifically stated by the giver. Most trusts are set up to avoid estate taxes that are taxed on the whole of the estate given to the beneficiary.
In most states there is no advantage of putting real estate into trusts because typically the real estate is dividied among different beneficiaries, and therefore a sale must be conducted to divide the assets. When the money is disbursed, they are taxed on the lump sump of that value.
^^
The transfer of assets into trusts are usually not revocable unless specifically stated by the giver. Most trusts are set up to avoid estate taxes that are taxed on the whole of the estate given to the beneficiary.
In most states there is no advantage of putting real estate into trusts because typically the real estate is dividied among different beneficiaries, and therefore a sale must be conducted to divide the assets. When the money is disbursed, they are taxed on the lump sump of that value.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,827
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Originally posted by Anrosphynx
The notion of default will can seem very simple, but you must remember a will is the desire of a giver to give something to someone. ie- if your parents and you have not had a relationship in 2 decades, it might be the desire of the parent not to give you anything under the estate. Moreover, it really gets dicey when a person remarries multiple times because the surviving spouse will get the proceeds of the estate and may exclude the heirs of their share by willing the proceeds of the estate to her own heirs or assigns. This is why a will is SO beneficial.
The notion of default will can seem very simple, but you must remember a will is the desire of a giver to give something to someone. ie- if your parents and you have not had a relationship in 2 decades, it might be the desire of the parent not to give you anything under the estate. Moreover, it really gets dicey when a person remarries multiple times because the surviving spouse will get the proceeds of the estate and may exclude the heirs of their share by willing the proceeds of the estate to her own heirs or assigns. This is why a will is SO beneficial.
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
From: South Carolina
Yes, White, there's a difference. Without a will the intestate succession statute controls and the kids would (likely) get a share of the seperate property on the first death.
The "typical" married couple has wills that leave everything to each other, then, at the second death, all to the kids.
Most married parents don't leave their kids anything on the first death since it leaves the surviving spouse less to live on.
Neither of the states I'm licensed in are community property states, but if you have any more questions PM me and I can give you general information and then tell you to ask a CA lawyer.
The "typical" married couple has wills that leave everything to each other, then, at the second death, all to the kids.
Most married parents don't leave their kids anything on the first death since it leaves the surviving spouse less to live on.
Neither of the states I'm licensed in are community property states, but if you have any more questions PM me and I can give you general information and then tell you to ask a CA lawyer.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,401
Likes: 1,104
From: Napa
JMC is correct, as an estate attorney should be, of course. Trusts do not save you from estate taxes, but proper planning with trusts can save estate taxes on the second spouse to die. And they save probate fees. Whether or not you pay probate fees depends on the assets in the estate and their values. I don't know the numbers (I'm not an attorney) but you might consider a trust in the following circumstances:
1. net worth over 500,000
2. minor children
3. prior marriage
4. prior marriage with kids
5. substantial assets before marriage
1. net worth over 500,000
2. minor children
3. prior marriage
4. prior marriage with kids
5. substantial assets before marriage