Who is responsible for the disposal of a body when there are no directives in the deceased&#39;s will? If someone dies with a will, but does not mention their body or how to dispose of it, who decides what happens? Or, let's say a parent has two children and dies leaving no will; which of the siblings decides? Who pays for the result of that decision? If one sibling wants to have a huge funeral and the other wants to just toss the body in a dumpster, does the cost for the funeral come out of the estate before it is split?
Who owns a dead body? No one, in common law countries human remains are not property and therefore have no owner. Who is responsible for disposal? It varies by jurisdiction. For example, in NSW, Australia: When the deceased has appointed an executor in their will, it is the executor’s responsibility to organise the funeral. The executor ... is not bound by specific directions left in the will. If there isn’t a will or an executor hasn’t been appointed, the next of kin is responsible for the body. If the next of kin doesn’t want to be involved, the funeral may be arranged through the government contractor. Where a person who dies in hospital has no next of kin or friends to arrange or pay for the funeral, and had no money or other assets, and the coroner is not involved, the hospital where they died must accept responsibility for arranging and paying for the funeral through the government contractor. If a person died at home, and has no next of kin or friends to arrange or pay for the funeral, had no money or other assets, and the coroner is not involved, when a doctor has issued a medical certificate of cause of death, the police will complete a burial/cremation of a ‘Deceased Destitute Person’ form P372, which is sent to the Director of Public Health Unit (PHU) of the relevant Health Service. The government contractor will be contacted by the PHU to organise a funeral. If a medical certificate of cause of death was not issued, the body is taken to the coroner’s morgue. The coroner issues an ‘Order for Disposal of a Destitute Person’ and forwards it to the Director of the relevant Health Service’s Public Health Unit (PHU). The PHU, in turn, contacts the government contractor who forwards the invoice to the PHU for payment by the Area Health Service. See the section on destitute funerals. If a Coroner’s case involves a destitute person, and there are next of kin, the counsellors at the Department of Forensic Medicine can be approached by the family to assist with funeral arrangements. If the deceased has no next of kin, but did have money or assets, the case is referred to the NSW Trustee and Guardian who arranges and pays for a funeral from the estate. If someone dies with a will, but does not mention their body or how to dispose of it who decides what happens? As stated above, your requests in your will as to the disposal of your body are not binding on your executor. They must decide how to dispose of the body with consideration of their duties to the estate and beneficiaries. For example, if your will requests a funeral costing tens of thousands of dollars but your estate is worth only a few thousand then the executor is duty bound to ignore that request. a parent has two children and dies leaving no will, which of the siblings decides? They decide together. If they cannot agree then they will have to go to court. In general, in Australia, courts take a very pragmatic view of what should happen: quickest and lowest cost option on the table will generally win. Who pays for the result of that decision? The estate is responsible for funeral costs (and court costs in arguing about them). As a practical matter, funeral service providers (and lawyers) will require the person engaging their services to pay the bill; that person can then claim reimbursement as a creditor of the estate. In the event that the estate is insolvent (i.e. has more debts than assets) then their reimbursement will be less than their costs. If one sibling wants to have a huge funeral and the other wants to just toss the body in a dumpster does the cost for the funeral come out of the estate before it is split? Observing that to &quot;just toss the body in a dumpster&quot; would be illegal; the costs of the funeral come from the estate as a creditor of the estate. The residual equity of the estate would then be divided in accordance with the will or the law if there is no will. It is worth noting that joint assets (e.g. real property owned as joint tenants, joint bank accounts) pass directly to the surviving owner and never become assets of the estate.
IANAL. I am not your lawyer. Assuming that they bought the house together, and are both on the title, your step-father would, as a surviving owner, take sole possession of the house (and it wound not enter your mother's estate). If she bought the house before they married and he moved in, and he is not on the title, it would theoretically enter her estate, but there may be additional rules as it is his residence. As your mother lived in NY, NY law governs her estate. If the estate is worth less than $50,000, you would get nothing. If the estate is worth more than $50,000, he would get $50,000 plus half of the remainder, with the other half of the remainder being split between your mother's children. You don't mention any siblings, so I would assume you don't have any, in which case you should receive: (Estate_Value - $50,000)/2. Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/WhenSomeoneDies/intestacy.shtml
Bob's will leaves everything to Abby. Bob has a brokerage account solely in his name with no TOD on the account. Bob then dies. It is my understanding that for Abby to get the money, you have to go through probate. Am I right about that? Yes, this has to go through probate. I have been told that when you are leaving everything to a spouse you can skip probate. I am thinking that is wrong. You are correct. This said, in a very small dollar estate (e.g. $20,000, with the actual dollar amount varying state by state), some states allow you to transfer assets by affidavit rather than via the probate process, if the sold heir at all and will beneficiary are the same and there are no unpaid creditors with a claim against those funds. New Jersey has two sets of small estate procedures for estates under $50,000. The cutoff is sometimes $10,000, sometimes $20,000, and sometimes $50,000 depending upon the circumstances and the nature of the simplified process sought. It isn't clear to me that they apply in cases where the decedent has a will and therefore is not intestate. Small Estates General Summary: Small Estate laws were enacted in order to enable heirs to obtain property of the deceased without probate, or with shortened probate proceedings, provided certain conditions are met. Small estates can be administered with less time and cost. If the deceased had conveyed most property to a trust but there remains some property, small estate laws may also be available. Small Estate procedures may generally be used regardless of whether there was a Will. In general, the two forms of small estate procedures are recognized: Small Estate Affidavit -Some States allow an affidavit to be executed by the spouse and/or heirs of the deceased and present the affidavit to the holder of property such as a bank to obtain property of the deceased. Other states require that the affidavit be filed with the Court. The main requirement before you may use an affidavit is that the value of the personal and/or real property of the estate not exceed a certain value. Summary Administration -Some states allow a Summary administration. Some States recognize both the Small Estate affidavit and Summary Administration, basing the requirement of which one to use on the value of the estate. Example: If the estate value is 10,000 or less an affidavit is allowed but if the value is between 10,000 to 20,000 a summary administration is allowed. New Jersey Summary: Under New Jersey statute, where as estate is valued at less than $50,000, a surviving spouse, partner in a civil union, or domestic partner, may present an affidavit of a small estate before the Superior Court. Upon the execution and filing of the affidavit, the surviving spouse shall have all of the rights, powers and duties of an administrator duly appointed for the estate. New Jersey: New Jersey requirements are set forth in the statutes below. TITLE 3B ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES–DECEDENTS AND OTHERS 3B:10-3. When spouse, partner in a civil union, or domestic partner entitled to assets without administration. Where the total value of the real and personal assets of the estate of an intestate will not exceed $50,000, the surviving spouse, partner in a civil union, or domestic partner upon the execution of an affidavit before the Surrogate of the county where the intestate resided at his death, or, if then nonresident in this State, where any of the assets are located, or before the Superior Court, shall be entitled absolutely to all the real and personal assets without administration, and the assets of the estate up to $10,000 shall be free from all debts of the intestate. Upon the execution and filing of the affidavit as provided in this section, the surviving spouse, partner in a civil union, or domestic partner shall have all of the rights, powers and duties of an administrator duly appointed for the estate. The surviving spouse, partner in a civil union, or domestic partner may be sued and required to account as if he had been appointed administrator by the Surrogate or the Superior Court. The affidavit shall state that the affiant is the surviving spouse, partner in a civil union, or domestic partner of the intestate and that the value of the intestate’s real and personal assets will not exceed $50,000, and shall set forth the residence of the intestate at his death, and specifically the nature, location and value of the intestate’s real and personal assets. The affidavit shall be filed and recorded in the office of such Surrogate or, if the proceeding is before the Superior Court, then in the office of the clerk of that court. Where the affiant is domiciled outside this State, the Surrogate may authorize in writing that the affidavit be executed in the affiant’s domicile before any of the officers authorized by R.S.46:14-6.1 to take acknowledgments or proofs. amended 1983, c.246, s.1; 2004, c.132, s.77; 2005, c.331, s.24; 2015, c.232, s.1. 3B:10-4. When heirs entitled to assets without administration Where the total value of the real and personal assets of the estate of an intestate will not exceed $20,000 and the intestate leaves no surviving spouse, partner in a civil union, or domestic partner, and one of his heirs shall have obtained the consent in writing of the remaining heirs, if any, and shall have executed before the Surrogate of the county where the intestate resided at his death, or, if then nonresident in this State, where any of the intestate’s assets are located, or before the Superior Court, the affidavit herein provided for, shall be entitled to receive the assets of the intestate of the benefit of all the heirs and creditors without administration or entering into a bond. Upon executing the affidavit, and upon filing it and the consent, he shall have all the rights, powers and duties of an administrator duly appointed for the estate and may be sued and required to account as if he had been appointed administrator by the Surrogate or the Superior Court. The affidavit shall set forth the residence of the intestate at his death, the names, residences and relationships of all of the heirs and specifically the nature, location and value of the real and personal assets and also a statement that the value of the intestate’s real and personal assets will not exceed $20,000. The consent and the affidavit shall be filed and recorded, in the office of the Surrogate or, if the proceeding is before the Superior Court, then in the office of the clerk of that court. Where the affiant is domiciled outside this State, the Surrogate may authorize in writing that the affidavit be executed in the affiant’s domicile before any of the officers authorized by R.S.46:14-6.1 to take acknowledgments or proofs. amended 1983, c.246, s.2; 2004, c.132, s.78; 2005, c.331, s.25; 2015, c.232, s.2. The consent and the affidavit shall be filed and recorded, in the office of the surrogate or, if the proceeding is before the Superior Court, then in the office of the clerk of that court. Where the affiant is domiciled outside this State, the surrogate may authorize in writing that the affidavit be executed in the affiant’s domicile before any of the officers authorized by R.S. 46:14-7 and R.S. 46:14-8 to take acknowledgments or proofs.
There are two cases to distinguish: information that the other party does not want to give without court order, and information that the other party may not give without court order. Only the former case matters, of course, since the latter by definition requires a court order. So, if the other party is legally capable of giving the information, but it's commercially not sensible for them, then you'll need to sweeten the deal. And that's business, not a legal question anymore. In other words: there's no legal instrument that's at the same time equal to a court order but also different from one. When you need a court order, there's no alternative to a court order.
In general, no, if you make a will then you can revoke that will while ever you are still legally competent. Also, in general, this is a good thing. For your first example, you are ruling out all possibility of redemption - people change: a person who is a selfish a*$%^#@e in their 20s may be a kind, caring, dutiful and loving person in their 40s. For your second example, what if XXX gets demolished? Or you move cities? If you are truly serious, you can transfer all your assets to a trust, put your instructions in the trust deed and then nominate someone you really, really, really trust to be the trustee. This would prevent you modifying the instructions but you are then relying on the trustee interpreting them.
Short Answer Inheritance usually refers only to a post-humous transfer, but that usage isn't absolute. There are circumstances when people will use the word in an extremely broad sense that also includes large transfers received during the donor's life in lieu of a true inheritance received at death, and it isn't completely incorrect to do so. For example, if the stock made up 90% or 100% ownership in a family business, often this might be called an inheritance even if it was received while the donors were alive. Still, if you received the stock while the donors were alive, the preferred term would be to call it a gift (even though a gift can include gifts made during life and gifts made upon death). Long Answer If you receive something because someone died and their will says that you should receive it, the proper legal term for this is a devise. You are a devisee. A devise and bequest and legacy are close synonyms. Historically, a gift by will of personal property at death was called a bequest or a legacy, and a gift by will of real property at death was called a devise, but the terms are now often used more or less interchangably. The original primary meaning of the word legacy has become a secondary and technical one in contemporary usage. Now, the term legacy is primarily used to refer to the reputation that someone (usually, but not always, someone who has died or at least ceased to participate in a particular field in which they are distinguished) has left behind and is associate with. If you receive something because someone died and they didn't have a will, the proper legal term for this is an inheritance and you are an heir. (In civil law jurisdictions not derived from the laws of England where English is spoken, such as Louisiana, there is also the term a testamentary inheritance which means a devise or bequest in the narrow technical senses of those words.) However, many people (even in legal circumstances) use the term inheritance to refer to anything received as a consequence of someone's death even if it was pursuant to something other than intestate succession (which is the passing of property at death other than pursuant to a will or a beneficiary designation or joint ownership). And, the term heir is likewise sometimes used more generally to refer to anyone receiving an inheritance in the broader sense of the word. The term heir also refers to someone who would be entitled to receive an intestate succession at the time if someone died, even in the absence of any actual inheritance or death. This narrow sense of the word is also called an heir at law. And the term heir is also used in a slightly different sense to refer to someone who would receive the property or feudal title of someone if they died, even if this is not pursuant to intestate succession. If one wants to distinguish this sense of this paragraph from other senses of the word heir, one can say heir apparent. (There are also non-literal senses of the words inheritance and heir that refer to people who are recipients of intellectual contributions made by someone or some movement. Similarly, there is a technical sense of the word in genetics which means to receive a trait genetically from a parent. More generally, sometimes the semantic focus when one uses the word inheritance is on the fact that something is received by someone in a younger generation from an older generation, rather than on the timing of the transfer.) If you receive property from a trust or a beneficiary designation you are a transferee also called a beneficiary and the technical terms for this are non-probate transfer or distribution. The term gift usually refers to a transfer of property during life, but the strict technical meaning of the word gift includes both gifts made during life and gifts given as a consequence of a death. The strict technical term for a gift given during life when the context doesn't make the fact that the donor is alive at the time of the gift is a lifetime gift or an inter vivos gift. While it is contrary to the technical meaning of the term inheritance and also to the broader literal meaning of the term inheritance, people sometimes the term inheritance very loosely to refer to a large lifetime gift made in lieu of an inheritance or devise or bequest at death. But, this usage is not appropriate in technical discussions. If you received the stock during the life of the donor, it would be more clear and a better usage to say that it was a gift, rather than an inheritance, even though it would not be unheard of (and not absolutely incorrect) to call a large gift made during life in lieu of a transfer at death an inheritance and even though a gift, in theory, could be made after death. In this extremely broad, but literal, sense, inheritance refers to a substantial, usually one time, intergenerational transfer of wealth. Also, when one talks about inherited wealth one is usually talking about all wealth received from lifetime gifts and gifts made upon death by any means, combined, rather than in the narrow sense of wealth received upon someone's death. Similarly, the word inheritance can be used in the sense of all of a person's inherited wealth rather than with respect to a particular transfer of property, and in this sense inheritance refers to all wealth received from lifetime gifts and gifts made upon death by any means, combined, rather than in the narrow sense of wealth received upon someone's death. Indeed, sometimes inheritance is used even more broadly still to refer to everything a person owns (i.e. all of their wealth) without regard to its source, although this usage is usually limited to poetic or religious uses of the word. (While I don't cite to sources here, I have been an estate planning attorney for twenty years and just yesterday taught a course to attorneys and accountants that spent the first 40 minutes or so defining these terms.) The origin of the word inherit is as follows: Middle English enherite ‘receive as a right’, from Old French enheriter, from late Latin inhereditare ‘appoint as heir’, from Latin in- ‘in’ + heres, hered- ‘heir’.
Since Harlan Thrombey is not married at the time of his death, his children (Walt and Linda, but not Toni, who is his daughter-in-law) are entitled to some of the personal effects from the estate. Section 2-403 of the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code: The decedent's surviving spouse is entitled from the estate to a value at date of death, not exceeding $10,000 in excess of any security interests therein, in household furniture, automobiles, furnishings, appliances, and personal effects. If there is no surviving spouse, the decedent's children are entitled jointly to the same value. ... These rights are in addition to any benefit or share passing to the surviving spouse or children by the decedent's will, unless otherwise provided, by intestate succession, or by way of elective share. This means that even if the will held up in probate court, Marta would probably still not be entitled to &quot;the house ... and all belongings therein&quot;; Walt and Linda would get to pick out up to $10,000 (between them) of their favorite pieces. To be honest, though, you could probably remove $10,000 worth of furniture from that house and it would look largely the same. And, of course, the house itself, the money, and the business are not affected by this clause. Note that unlike surviving children, a surviving spouse cannot be completely disinherited under Massachusetts law. A surviving spouse can choose the &quot;elective share&quot; of the estate instead: The surviving husband or wife of a deceased person, except as provided in section thirty-six of chapter two hundred and nine, within six months after the probate of the will of such deceased, may file in the registry of probate a writing signed by him or by her, waiving any provisions that may have been made in it for him or for her, or claiming such portion of the estate of the deceased as he or she is given the right to claim under this section, and if the deceased left issue, he or she shall thereupon take one third of the personal and one third of the real property; ... if he or she would thus take real and personal property to an amount exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars in value, he or she shall receive, in addition to that amount, only the income during his or her life of the excess of his or her share of such estate above that amount, the personal property to be held in trust and the real property vested in him or her for life, from the death of the deceased. ... If I'm reading this correctly, this means that if Harlan's wife (or husband?) had still been alive during the movie, and had been disinherited in the will as the children were, she could have claimed $25,000 outright and a life interest in one-third of the estate (less the $25,000.) Given the ongoing income from the publishing business, this would probably have been quite lucrative. However, there do not appear to be similar provisions for Walt and Linda under Massachusetts law.
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.