People are also fickle and are prone to changing their minds about such things also as evidenced by Boss Hogg in every single episode of The Dukes of Hazard. Your analogy is a WIN.
A will is a legal document but it's not in force unless someone petitions the court on behalf of the estate (usually the appointed executor). The children did not do that.
That is why you can't take a will to the DMV to get an automobile title changed..
They didn't get an appointment, probably because there's no substantial assets (real estate, automobile) subject to probate or they got around probate with those other assets using joint ownership.
The will shows who the deceased at one point in time said should have the rights to the property. The problem the children have is the will is not in force unless a court says it is . There could be multiple wills. They all start "Last will and testament". People step forward on frequent occasion with an updated will or contestation of a singular will. A court sorts this out. That is why the uniform commercial code says that proof of executorship/administration, even when issued by the court, be accepted if dated within 60 days. In this way, the person or entity accepting the authority of the court from that document be held without blame according to safe harbor provisions.
I RTFA. The kids don't have proof of executorship. A will doesn't cut it.
Certified Death Certificate=proof of death. Solicitor's letter=a letter from an attorney that uses fancypants words like herewith and forthwith Copy of will=copy of an unexecuted will, of which there may be several copies drafted and amended over the years to perhaps bequeath the rights or property to someone else. This is why people come out of the woodwork with multiple wills or the courts settle the matter when there is a dispute. Waiting periods often apply. Sometimes the equivalent of a cocktail napkin is sufficient evidence to decide these matters, but the matter about always necessitates a document bearing the raised seal of a probate court or affidavit drafted by a lawyer or a Suze Orman CDROM which includes the statutory language.
What the children don't have is a document proving that the will was entered into probate, or statutory substitute thereof.--often a property-specific court order. It works the same in the U.K. as it does the states (it gets weird with Louisiana, though).
The children either want to avoid full probate because of the expense or need to get a new attorney familiar with whatever the affidavit of small estate alternative process is for their jurisdiction. They can tell the 'false economy' story to folks who don't understand civil law and get the media and the blogosphere to believe them.
Net the cost of the premium one would pay versus taxes on benefit, it is worse. Give my spouse a 10x salary insurance coverage premium instead of the same amount of wage pay. Cheaper for you, better for me. Especially after the unfortunate 'accident'
Currently the SSA takes in less money than they need to pay out for benefits. In the short term, that is ok, they have a large fund which is used to fund the difference. However the difference is quite large, and nothing is being done to fix the problem. That means at some point the fund will be depleted (when depends on a lot of factors, you can look up the various estimates). When that happens, they can't pay out the promised benefits, only a fraction of them, maybe 70% currently.
Except no article on the subject goes past that point. It's just 70% and the story ends there. The mathematical unsustainability of the system in its current state means that the payments will start at 70% and decline year after year after year.... Promises were made, promises were kept, but when the trust fund runs out, hold onto your hats.
The system needs reform on the expense side of the equation.
Slashdot Mirror
You! Alright! I learned it by watching you.
But what if it's Scottish?...
Your analogy makes no sense.
The vaccine is Dr. Phil and the cancer is DJ Jazzy Jeff getting thrown outta the house.
mostly....
He said, "Never let them Klingon."
Eat the pennies, Quizboy.
Never heard of it...
Because Mike Tyson didn't take a bite out of Evander's pancreas.
People are also fickle and are prone to changing their minds about such things also as evidenced by Boss Hogg in every single episode of The Dukes of Hazard.
Your analogy is a WIN.
A will is a legal document but it's not in force unless someone petitions the court on behalf of the estate (usually the appointed executor).
The children did not do that.
That is why you can't take a will to the DMV to get an automobile title changed..
They didn't get an appointment, probably because there's no substantial assets (real estate, automobile) subject to probate or they got around probate with those other assets using joint ownership.
The will shows who the deceased at one point in time said should have the rights to the property.
The problem the children have is the will is not in force unless a court says it is .
There could be multiple wills. They all start "Last will and testament". People step forward on frequent occasion with an updated will or contestation of a singular will. A court sorts this out. That is why the uniform commercial code says that proof of executorship/administration, even when issued by the court, be accepted if dated within 60 days. In this way, the person or entity accepting the authority of the court from that document be held without blame according to safe harbor provisions.
AC lawyer--you should know better.
I RTFA. The kids don't have proof of executorship.
A will doesn't cut it.
Certified Death Certificate=proof of death.
Solicitor's letter=a letter from an attorney that uses fancypants words like herewith and forthwith
Copy of will=copy of an unexecuted will, of which there may be several copies drafted and amended over the years to perhaps bequeath the rights or property to someone else. This is why people come out of the woodwork with multiple wills or the courts settle the matter when there is a dispute. Waiting periods often apply. Sometimes the equivalent of a cocktail napkin is sufficient evidence to decide these matters, but the matter about always necessitates a document bearing the raised seal of a probate court or affidavit drafted by a lawyer or a Suze Orman CDROM which includes the statutory language.
What the children don't have is a document proving that the will was entered into probate, or statutory substitute thereof.--often a property-specific court order. It works the same in the U.K. as it does the states (it gets weird with Louisiana, though).
The children either want to avoid full probate because of the expense or need to get a new attorney familiar with whatever the affidavit of small estate alternative process is for their jurisdiction. They can tell the 'false economy' story to folks who don't understand civil law and get the media and the blogosphere to believe them.
I for one would like the Forum 2000 Hall of Fame to be restored.
Now that I'm divorced, all that relationship advice from Cookie Monster, Ayn Rand, Bill Gates and Hillary Clinton would come in handy.
Frog one is in that room.
I blame Zorak.
Didn't pay attention in civics class, did you?
V.P. gets tie-breaking vote in the U.S. Senate.
Net the cost of the premium one would pay versus taxes on benefit, it is worse.
Give my spouse a 10x salary insurance coverage premium instead of the same amount of wage pay. Cheaper for you, better for me.
Especially after the unfortunate 'accident'
No, it's worse than insurance. The company pays, so it's taxable to the recipient.
for comparing records against stolen vehicle, missing persons, wanted criminals, and revoked license reports.
..except Fred Willard.
Currently the SSA takes in less money than they need to pay out for benefits. In the short term, that is ok, they have a large fund which is used to fund the difference. However the difference is quite large, and nothing is being done to fix the problem. That means at some point the fund will be depleted (when depends on a lot of factors, you can look up the various estimates). When that happens, they can't pay out the promised benefits, only a fraction of them, maybe 70% currently.
Except no article on the subject goes past that point. It's just 70% and the story ends there. The mathematical unsustainability of the system in its current state means that the payments will start at 70% and decline year after year after year....
Promises were made, promises were kept, but when the trust fund runs out, hold onto your hats.
The system needs reform on the expense side of the equation.
It's been watered down.
Take off the mask, Butters. We know it's you.
Not some asshole on the internet.
Some asshole on slashdot.
Not so surprising now.
I'd have voted for Blaster Master (esp for the underwater level) over cartoonish yet superplayable Super Mario III.