51–55 of 55 posts
The article seems to suggest that this is a bad thing. But what's the alternative? That it just gets soaked up by the bank or the state or whatever happens when there's no will? Better it go to a person even semi by mistake like in this case in my opinion
People updating their wills is the good alternative they're advocating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was no will, no spouse, no children. "He died at 59, single and childless, with no will and no guidance on who should inherit his assets."
Ok, in case when there's no will there's path of inheritance defined by law. It's still the best way to go forward. Parents, siblings, siblings children.
What would be the point of a beneficiary if it gets ignored even without a will?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, in case when there's no will there's path of inheritance defined by law. It's still the best way to go forward. Parents, siblings, siblings children.
My understanding is that beneficiary trumps a will, and definitely trumps the default when there is no will. What would be the point of a beneficiary if it gets ignored even without a will?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the process by which one becomes a beneficiary is swiss cheese, that does matter. That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise." In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined. You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
Beneficiary until proven otherwise. That sounds precise. If you are in poor belief that you really are not the beneficiary, I would take care spending the money! That is how it always has been. The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling. The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decisio…
Not if the process by which you become the the thing is swiss cheese.
In that case you are nothing but a potential. A potential thing is not a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beneficiary until proven otherwise. That sounds precise. If you are in poor belief that you really are not the beneficiary, I would take care spending the money! That is how it always has been. The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling. The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decisio…
"You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise." Not if the process by which you become the the thing is swiss cheese. In that case you are nothing but a potential. A potential thing is not a thing.