Spouse as a witness to a last will I live in PA and we recently completed a will. The lawyer who drafted our wills stated that my wife and I could witness each other's will. Because his office is small (two lawyers and a paralegal), there weren't enough witnesses to go around. I searched on Google and it looks like PA doesn't require witnesses to a last will as long as the person signs at the end of the document? I assume he knows what he's doing since his practice does a lot of estate planning. Should I be worried that my wife and the lawyer signed as witnesses?
Every state requires at least two witnesses to a will unless it is entirely written in your own handwriting. A lawyer as a witness is fine. A spouse as a witness is not ideal as she would be an interested party if there was a dispute over whether it was executed. It may not be prohibited, but I would never do that in my practice ever. I discontinued a will signing just last week because we only had a lawyer and a spouse and not other witnesses. I would be somewhat concerned.
First, agree w/Dale M re: it would be an egregious and likely career-ending move for an attorney to fake his representation. That said, there is likely no reason why you would be unable to request such proof of representation. Your job consists of protecting the assets of the trust, carrying out any other duties outlined in the trust document, being honest and in communication with the trust's beneficiary, managing the assets, and ending the trust as determined by the trust document. Several of those points (particularly the "protecting the assets" part) argue heavily in favor of your confirming the veracity of any claims involving the trust and/or the identity or true intent of those seeking any information, etc., with respect to the trust. Also, demand letters are letters stating a legal claim and usually asks for restitution or performance of an obligation. It's not entirely clear what constitutes a "demand letter requesting information" unless you have a legal duty to provide that information (and this would - or should - be stated in the demand letter itself). Finally, should you be unable to obtain the confirmation you're seeking, you should consider consulting a trust administration attorney. In most cases, you may use trust assets to pay for expert help (including tax preparers and accountants).
A witness who disobeys a court order has automatically broken the law. Indeed, this is the most fundamental of laws; you can't decide "If I turn up to the hearing I may be punished for my crime; but not attending isn't against the law, so goodbye." A witness who goes out of the jurisdiction cannot, of course, be punished while there (though when he returns he may have to explain why he chose to leave having been warned that he must attend or face penalties- that is the meaning of sub poena). But your assumption that anybody who fails to attend probably had a good reason betrays a fundamental, though common, misunderstanding. A court has determined that your evidence is necessary for justice to be done. There is therefore no good reason not to attend. It may well be that a doctor would prefer that you did not go to court that day, and if you apply to the court it may be possible to find some arrangement. But you are not allowed to decide 'my convenience is more important than discovering whether the defendant should go to jail or not". Civilised countries have people who are empowered to make that decision; they are called judges, and the decision has been made.
In most places I imagine the issue would go before a probate judge who would attempt to determine the validity of each presented will, and if both were valid, then they would attempt to reconcile the disparities to the best of their ability. Broadly speaking, the process would look like this (I'm using UK law as an example): You die An individual is chosen to handle your affairs (executor or administrator [or possibly both depending on jurisdiction]) They choose a will to go off of (these steps could be reversed if the wills named different administrators, in which case each administrator would file for the grant of representation and consequently involve the probate judge earlier) Someone challenges and suggests using the other will (probably because they feel they're not getting what's theirs) A probate judge is involved The probate judge decides Appeals would be made to Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court That being said, every jurisdiction is different, and this is more of a template answer for English common law (and derivative courts), than an attempt to describe in detail any specific jurisdiction's procedures.
If you lived in a community property state, that would create responsibility for your late wife's debts (but Kansas is not one). If you signed a financial responsibility agreement you would be liable (but I assumed you did not). No matter what, her estate is liable, and that could eventually affect you (her debts must be paid first). However, there is one last criterion, the "doctrine of necessaries". This ruling notes Kansas recognizes the doctrine of necessaries, under which a spouse can be held liable when the other spouse obtains necessary items, like food or medical care, on credit. See also St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Bowles for support that the doctrine survives in Kansas.
No, in germany there is no universal requirement as to form (Formfreiheit). This includes associating a signature with a name in block letters. In principle you can enforce a contract in court even if the written contract does not identify the contracting parties by spelled out name, but by signature only. It stands to reason there is no benefit in omitting the full names. The legislature implemented elevated form requirements for certain legal transactions by mandating the use of a notary. Here, again, there is no requirement as to put a plain text name next to your signature. The link between signature and person is established via the notary’s documentation. You could put an alias “Donald Duck” next to your signature, the notarial deed will indicate that in fact Kalle Richter signed the document. As far as I am aware all european-union legal transactions will need to go through their official channels. It is simply not possible, for example, to establish a European Economic Interest Grouping on a scrap of paper. Thus there is no issue and in turn no regulation. One thing is for sure, the european-union does not impose a “minimum framework” on its member states. I recollect there are some directives regarding electronic signatures, but that is a different story now.
Who administers the will of someone who dies intestate, who has no family? There is a position known as the &quot;public administrator&quot; paid mostly from fees charged to probate estates in most jurisdictions. In the absence of such a post, creditors of the estate or beneficiaries of the estate can apply to do so when there is no family. Other than the administrator, who else did he need to convince the will was genuine? The court with probate jurisdiction. By what credible set of occurrences could have have led him to ‘find’ the ‘lost’ will as a non-family member, nor friend? Is there somewhere else he could have ‘found’ the will that would have been credible? A companion had it. A bank had it. A former lawyer of the person had it. A military colleague had it. A landlord or storage unit company found it. Note also that the probate court sees only the will, and doesn't hear the whole story of how it was found, in the absence of a will contest or a will not executed with the usual formalities as these wills would have appeared on their face to have. And, if the notices to disinherited family members are not actually delivered (not mailed or mailed to bad addresses), the disinherited family doesn't show up to contest the matter until the finder's fee has been collected, the fraudster is nowhere to be found, and the charity has received the money and is being asked to refund it. Would he have to have somehow had access to the deceased's property after their death? No. Often a will in not stored with someone's other property. And, in this case, he already knew that there was no actual will to find. He just needed to know that they died and weren't paupers. How could he have gotten away with listing ‘fake’ witnesses? (doesn't the administrator do research?) If the witnesses signatures are notarized, the witnesses aren't interrogated unless there is a contest. Frequently, they are law office or bank employees who witness many wills and may not have a very specific recollection. The notary's authenticity wouldn't usually be checked unless there was a dispute as to the will's authenticity raised by some interested party. Once he had convinced the right people/organisations, who would have been responsible for selling the deceased’s assets, and paying the money to the charities in the will? The executor of the estate appointed by the court. Sometimes distant family, sometimes a creditor or a representative of a charitable beneficiary, sometimes the public administrator. What benefit could his approach have had over simply acting as a normal heir hunter, e.g. using genealogy research databases to track down distant family members (who eventually brought his fraud to light), and just charging them a finders fee as he did the charities? Family, even distant family, is likely to know more about the decedent and to research that relative (previously unknown or little known to them) than a charity that never met the decedent and doesn't want to contest a bequest to itself. Also, close disinherited family will usually find out eventually. A finder's fee recipient can be paid and gone by then. A recipient of the inheritance under a forged will can be forced to disgorge it to the rightful heirs. Money laundering of the finder's fees received would be a necessary component of the scheme if it is to be successful. This was a pretty successful &quot;long con&quot;. After the fraud was discovered and proved: The relatives we had found were then able to inherit, following the rules of intestacy laid down by law. The criminal was not prosecuted in this case because of his advanced age. In fraud, if they only catch you after you are dead, it is a win for the fraudster. Footnote In cases where the decedent had no family, this is a &quot;victimless&quot; crime that gives money to the finder and charity in lieu of an escheat of the decedent's entire estate to the government. Second Footnote This is not a common fact pattern at all. I've never seen it in twenty-five years of practice, I've never encountered someone who has seen this happen, I've never seen a news account or continuing education instructor account, or professor's account of this particular kind of scheme before today, and I've never seen a court opinion addressing this fact pattern. This may be the only time in the history of the world that this particular kind of fraud has occurred. More common instances of fraud involve: A family member who feels great financial need duping other family members to get the entire estate for himself or herself. A family member forging a will in an effort to win an internal family struggle where the testator isn't budging. A family member forging the estate plan the decedent intended to make, but didn't, with little substantive change. An outsider or family member winning the trust of a frail but wealthy elderly person and having that person execute a will leaving them everything. A professional conservator or guardian for someone who has no close family (or unrelated power of attorney agent) charging excessive fees (perhaps for services not actually rendered) and making undisclosed self-dealing transactions (e.g. gifts to himself or herself, and unfair business deals with related parties).
While the state, or a creditor, can initiate a probate if no one else does (if the state does so, the official in charge of this is called the "public administrator"), neither are required to do so. Also, sometimes a guardianship is converted to a probate, but this doesn't appear to have happened. This is a thankless job that probably doesn't make sense to bother with if estate liabilities exceed the assets of the estate, but most states have a "non-claim statute" that bars creditors claims, other than liens including property tax liens, after a certain amount of time after the death. So, even if the estate may have been insolvent at death, if enough time has elapsed, many of the potential claims may now be barred, making the estate solvent again. Siblings generally have priority for appointment over a nephew, so to be appointed yourself, you would ordinarily have to receive a renunciation of their right to serve as executor before applying to do so yourself, but some states disregard that priority if no one has taken action after a certain period of time. You would initiate probate by contacting an Alaska lawyer in the vicinity of the place he was domiciled at death. The lawyer can review the guardianship court file, determine if an executor was appointed, and determine if there are assets that could justify opening an estate relative to lien debts including Medicaid liens. If there are not, letting the assets be lost to a property tax lien may make more sense that spending money to transfer his property in an orderly fashion to his creditors with nothing in it for any of his family.