People in California know that a will is probably the single most important estate planning document that every person should have. That being said, there are certain kinds of property that a will simply cannot cover for various reasons. For that reason it's important to know the limitations of a will, and what other supplemental estate documents a person may need to work with their attorney to draw up or amend.
People in California know that everyone needs a will. It's an important document that spells out what is to become of a person's assets after they die, and in many ways is a person's only means of communication with friends and family members after death. For that reason, a lot of time and effort can go into the will decision-making process, but unfortunately not enough people spend enough time making sure that the will itself is correctly written and legally valid. People who try to write a will on their own may end up making some serious mistakes which could in some cases nullify the will entirely, or lead to costly and avoidable legal challenges as to the validity of the will or its execution.
People in California may have seen a recent news article about a new variation on the old theme of family members behaving badly when it comes to fighting each other for a share of a wealthy benefactor's inheritance. The sad fact is that money, combined with grief at the loss of a loved one, can lead to some serious family in-fighting when the terms of the will are not crystal clear on how to distribute the deceased's assets.
People in California know how important it is to have a will. Not only does a person's will provide him or her with the ability to express final earthy sentiments and provide comfort and closure to loved ones, it has powerful legal and financial implications that will impact the world long after the person is gone. But on the other hand, dying or becoming incapacitated without a will can be a legal and practical nightmare, as the disposition of a person's personal property and assets is essentially left to up to the court system, which will blindly and systematically dictate who receives what without any consideration for what the deceased would have wanted.
People in California may have seen a recent editorial in Forbes about the common and potentially costly mistake many people make when it comes to estate planning and preparing a will. Many people relax after they have prepared and executed their will, but whether they know it or not, a simple change of circumstance could potentially render the best-laid plans null, or even direct that the assets go to the wrong person.
Many families in California who have dealt firsthand with the death of a loved one may understand all too well the trouble that can arise when a family squabbles over inheritance. The situation can be a perfect storm of emotions. Relatives are dealing with funeral arrangements, worrying about the deceased's last will and testament, and of course, coping with the loss of a loved one and it can be simply too much for people to handle all at once. These are just some of the reasons why family arguments about inheritance can be so painful. People have been known to suffer serious health problems as a result of this stress, including heart attacks, nervous breakdowns and even strokes.
Problems can arise when a child or other family member in California is excluded from the will of a deceased loved one. This situation is becoming more and more commonplace in recent years, as more and more people in the "baby boomer" generation inherit money from their dying loved ones. A study has shown that baby boomers could inherit an estimated $8.4 trillion. With so much money changing hands, it's no wonder that some people are feeling deeply slighted when their loved one forgets them or intentionally excludes them from their will.
Readers of the blog and those who watch California current events are aware of the Silicon Valley millionaire who was killed in a home invasion last year and the drama that has surrounded his estate since his death. After his death, a woman came forward and claimed that he was the father of her two girls, ages seven and nine. Though the man's family adamantly denied the allegations, a San Jose court has sided with the woman and awarded her a monthly support amount of $1,800 for each of her daughters.