![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Consider husband, wife, both of their 2 children, and all 4 of their
grandchildren go on a cruise, and the ship sinks. Husband and wife have wills, leaving all to kids, then grandkids. But with all dead, where does the husband and wife's estate go? No living parents, wife does have siblings. Residence is Michigan. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
dulieber69-game@yahoo.com (dulieber) wrote in message
news:<8pd0m0lkc068spajetqvnbfevavo820vsq@4ax.com>. .. Quote:
law. But in general, assuming this is a hypothetical and hasn't already happened, the testators (the grandparents, presumably) would be well advised to include both (a) a simultaneous death clause, and (b) an "ultimate taker" clause, in their wills. Under the Simultaneous Death clause, if both the testator and one of the intended beneficiaries dies at about the same time, it is assumed the beneficiary pre-deceased the testator, so that his share would instead go direct to those who would take thru that beneficiary, rather than having to be probated twice. Under the "ultimate taker" clause, the testators specify what they want to happen if all the specific bequests lapse. Often, it will just say that the residuary estate should be distributed to those who would take under the intestacy laws of (their state) as if they had died without a will. If that's the case, the grandma's siblings would get it all. -- This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice. Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information. I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter. For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication. Mike Jacobs LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS 10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300 Columbia, MD 21044 (tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dulieber" <dulieber69-game@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8pd0m0lkc068spajetqvnbfevavo820vsq@4ax.com... Quote:
First - were the spouses of the 2 adult children on the cruise? Either they weren't on the cruise or these adult children are incestuous <g> since you don't list any other possible parents for the grandchildren. Let's assume that the spouses of the adult children were on the cruise and were lost as well. Second - under the circumstances you describe, it is likely that the spouses of the adult children would have family that could likely inherit, but let us assume that there really is no one available to inherit the estate. I can't speak to Michigan, but I would be willing to bet that most states treat this in a similar fashion - In Maryland, when there is no one left to inherit an estate, I believe the estate goes to the Maryland Department of Education. Gene E. Utterback, EA |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
dulieber wrote:
Quote:
few seconds, so all the money would pass to the wife and then to the wife's intestate heirs, ie her siblings.. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7/10/04 22:16, in article becbm01ofmku55trq9crfuou9d6fem5ogh@4ax.com,
"Thomas Anantharaman" <tsa@biostat.wisc.edu> wrote: Quote:
relating to simultaneous death. In the case you hypothesize, the biggest asset of the estate will probably be the cause of action for wrongful death against the cruise line. Other than that, I'm not going to waste time imagining how state laws differ. Some law review editor has probably already done the work. Or, better, American Law Reports, Annotated. Go to your county law library and look up ALR's indexes, and also the Index to Legal Periodicals. And when you're done, come back and tell us the result. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
dulieber69-game@yahoo.com (dulieber) wrote in message
news:<8pd0m0lkc068spajetqvnbfevavo820vsq@4ax.com>. .. Quote:
resulting in EPIC (Estate and Protected Individuals Code). I don't claim to understand it fully because my Wills class was based on pre-2000 law. With that disclaimer in mind... The terms of the wills' residuary and anti-lapse clauses will control, to the extent that they are not in conflict with EPIC. If those clauses say something to the effect of "by law" or "according to the rules of intestate succession", then each grandchild's surviving parent will receive that grandchild's respective share of the estates (unless their parental rights have been terminated). The pertinent portions of the Michigan statutes are available at: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/m...603&highlight= and http://www.michiganlegislature.org/m...604&highlight= |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
"Gene E. Utterback, EA" <eagent@alliancetax.com> wrote in message
news:<aip8m0lu7q9n19ddepvb7to3b2v8s8usrf@4ax.com>. .. Quote:
estates of their deceased spouses, the adult children. But if the adult children don't inherit, they'd get nothing: there's nothing else to put them in the lineup for intestate succession. Quote:
argument either way, but I'm leaning toward (see below) the position that the adult children don't inherit. Quote:
by at least 120 hours is deemed to have predeceased the decedent, unless applying this rule would cause the estate to pass to the state. If this actually applies here, nobody who went down with the ship survived long enough to inherit, nor do any of their heirs inherit, so the hypothetical in-laws of the adult children are shut out. But neither would the state inherit. The wife's siblings would get at least so much of the estate as was the wife's separate property and her share of marital property. They are the highest-priority non-empty class of heirs contemplated by the intestate succession law. They would have a good argument that they are entitled to the entire estate. Surviving aunts, uncles, and cousins of the husband would also have a good argument that they are entitled to so much of the estate as was the husband's separate property and his share of marital property. They would argue that the simultaneous demise precluded the wife's succession to the husband's property. Michigan's rule on simultaneous demise can be read so as to recommend "language dealing explicitly with simultaneous deaths or deaths in a common disaster" and possibly to "expressly [indicate] that an individual is not required to survive an event, including the death of another individual, by any specified period". -- Not a lawyer, Chris Green |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Im sorry, but that's not a topic I really want to think about. That is a sad, sad day
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
DutchRudder, please do not reply to old threads. Thanks.
__________________
What do we live for if not to make the world less difficult for each other? George Eliot |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Kent Wills wrong yet again -- Death is not necessarily a Penalty | \- Prof. Jonez©\ | Small Claim Court | 0 | 04-19-2005 03:17 PM |
| Death penalty vs torture | Guest | General legal issues | 0 | 03-25-2005 12:53 PM |
| * * * * * * * Please Read This Everyone * * * * * * * | Ron400043 | US Immigration Law | 1 | 03-12-2005 07:59 PM |
| Don't de-Word the Pledge | Alberto Moreira | Personal Finance and Investment | 234 | 04-15-2004 08:22 AM |