Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
Nick
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowOther than the default rules, there are other differences, e.g. naming
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
Nick
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare thereNo, all you need to do is to destroy the original Will.
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can possibly affect you.
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or >revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can >possibly affect you.
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>> to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can
possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true wishes.
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of
admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might
mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>>> to happen.Thanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or >>> revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can
possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a
valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true wishes. >>
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of
admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might
mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of intestacy.
On 5 Sep 2026 21:00:57 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>> to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can
possibly affect you.
My existing will is still valid. Several clauses - the guardianship -
what should happen with certain archive materials etc etc - have all
been made redundant through the passage of time and now nothing in the
will sits outside current intestacy rules. The idea I floated was with
the thought of making things simpler by doing a Liam Byrne[1] and
leaving a note saying "there is no will"[2] Then destroying the old
one.
Nick
[1] "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards
rCo and good luck! Liam."
[2]There's not much money either hence the reference to fifty quid,
earlier
On 06/09/2026 10:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>> wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now >>>>>> wantThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things >>>>> still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my >>>>> current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have >>>>> become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their >>>>> own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now >>>>> and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been
destroyed or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can >>>> possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a >>> valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true
wishes.
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of
admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might
mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-
dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of
intestacy.
The "Heir Hunters" seem to make a reasonable living from it...
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>>> to happen.Thanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or >>> revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can
possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a
valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true wishes. >>
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of
admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might
mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of >intestacy.
On 6 Sep 2026 09:29:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>> wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>>>> to happen.Thanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things >>>>> still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my >>>>> current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have >>>>> become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their >>>>> own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now >>>>> and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or >>>> revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can >>>> possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a >>> valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true wishes. >>>
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of
admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might
mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of
intestacy.
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed
to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances
are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing
things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway. <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Nick
On 6 Sep 2026 at 11:21:13 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 09:29:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>>> wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>>>>> to happen.Thanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things >>>>>> still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my >>>>>> current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have >>>>>> become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their >>>>>> own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff >>>>>> would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now >>>>>> and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or >>>>> revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can >>>>> possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a >>>> valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true wishes. >>>>
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of
admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might >>>> mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of
intestacy.
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed
to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances
are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing
things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Nick
I have read that and I think the result is the opposite of what you suggest. Instead of the father stating his wishes, and perhaps giving his reasoning, the decision on how to implement the intestacy is left to the personal representative. And this would seem to increase rather decrease the chance of resentment from the half-sisters.
On 06/09/2026 13:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 11:21:13 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 09:29:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>>>> wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>>>>>> to happen.Thanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things >>>>>>> still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my >>>>>>> current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have >>>>>>> become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their >>>>>>> own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff >>>>>>> would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to >>>>>>> fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now >>>>>>> and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can >>>>>> possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a >>>>> valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true wishes.
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of
admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might >>>>> mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of >>>> intestacy.
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed
to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances
are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing
things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Nick
I have read that and I think the result is the opposite of what you suggest. >> Instead of the father stating his wishes, and perhaps giving his reasoning, >> the decision on how to implement the intestacy is left to the personal
representative. And this would seem to increase rather decrease the chance of
resentment from the half-sisters.
In fact, the personal representative has no discretion and has no
decisions to make. The estate *must* by law be distributed strictly according to the rules on intestacy, which are readily available.
On 6 Sep 2026 at 14:41:32 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 06/09/2026 13:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 11:21:13 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>
On 6 Sep 2026 09:29:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>>>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>>>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now wantThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things >>>>>>>> still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my >>>>>>>> current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have >>>>>>>> become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing >>>>>>>> guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their >>>>>>>> own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff >>>>>>>> would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>>>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to >>>>>>>> fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now >>>>>>>> and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed >>>>>>> or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can >>>>>>> possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a >>>>>> valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true >>>>>> wishes.
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of >>>>>> admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might >>>>>> mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of >>>>> intestacy.
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed
to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances
are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing >>>> things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Nick
I have read that and I think the result is the opposite of what you suggest.
Instead of the father stating his wishes, and perhaps giving his reasoning, >>> the decision on how to implement the intestacy is left to the personal
representative. And this would seem to increase rather decrease the chance >>> of
resentment from the half-sisters.
In fact, the personal representative has no discretion and has no
decisions to make. The estate *must* by law be distributed strictly
according to the rules on intestacy, which are readily available.
If the personal representative is also the only beneficiary
then you are
mistaken. She can share the estate out how she likes.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:1408106680.a0e9fea0@uninhabited.net...
On 6 Sep 2026 at 14:41:32 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 06/09/2026 13:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 11:21:13 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>>
On 6 Sep 2026 09:29:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's now >>>>>>>>>> dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed >>>>>>>>>> that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now wantThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things >>>>>>>>> still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my >>>>>>>>> current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have >>>>>>>>> become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing >>>>>>>>> guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their >>>>>>>>> own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff >>>>>>>>> would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there >>>>>>>>>> is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to >>>>>>>>> fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now >>>>>>>>> and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed >>>>>>>> or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can
possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a
valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true >>>>>>> wishes.
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of >>>>>>> admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might >>>>>>> mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm. >>>>>>>
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of >>>>>> intestacy.
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed >>>>> to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances >>>>> are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing >>>>> things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Nick
I have read that and I think the result is the opposite of what you suggest.
Instead of the father stating his wishes, and perhaps giving his reasoning,
the decision on how to implement the intestacy is left to the personal >>>> representative. And this would seem to increase rather decrease the chance >>>> of
resentment from the half-sisters.
In fact, the personal representative has no discretion and has no
decisions to make. The estate *must* by law be distributed strictly
according to the rules on intestacy, which are readily available.
If the personal representative is also the only beneficiary
So she is then the sole beneficiary.
then you are
mistaken. She can share the estate out how she likes.
But they are not "beneficiaries", are they ?
You have already stated that she is the siole beneficiary.
The Intestacy Rules have no bearing on what beneficiaries
might do with the proceeds, *following* distribution
bb
On 6 Sep 2026 at 18:18:16 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1408106680.a0e9fea0@uninhabited.net...
On 6 Sep 2026 at 14:41:32 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 06/09/2026 13:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 11:21:13 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>>>
On 6 Sep 2026 09:29:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6 Sep 2026 at 08:05:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things >>>>>>>>>> still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my >>>>>>>>>> current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have >>>>>>>>>> become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing >>>>>>>>>> guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their >>>>>>>>>> own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff >>>>>>>>>> would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want
to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to >>>>>>>>>> fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now >>>>>>>>>> and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
Do you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been destroyed
or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can
possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with a
valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true >>>>>>>> wishes.
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in >>>>>>>> administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of >>>>>>>> admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might
mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm. >>>>>>>>
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying-without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
No one in this thread seems to have identified any actual advantages of >>>>>>> intestacy.
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed >>>>>> to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances >>>>>> are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying >>>>>> schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing >>>>>> things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Nick
I have read that and I think the result is the opposite of what you suggest.
Instead of the father stating his wishes, and perhaps giving his reasoning,
the decision on how to implement the intestacy is left to the personal >>>>> representative. And this would seem to increase rather decrease the chance
of
resentment from the half-sisters.
In fact, the personal representative has no discretion and has no
decisions to make. The estate *must* by law be distributed strictly
according to the rules on intestacy, which are readily available.
If the personal representative is also the only beneficiary
So she is then the sole beneficiary.
then you are
mistaken. She can share the estate out how she likes.
But they are not "beneficiaries", are they ?
You have already stated that she is the siole beneficiary.
The Intestacy Rules have no bearing on what beneficiaries
might do with the proceeds, *following* distribution
bb
Well of course they don't!!! Norman was claiming, incorrectly, that the personal representative had no choice but to distribute the estate according to the intestacy rules. I was pointing out that the beneficiary(ies) can execute a deed of variation ignoring the intestacy rules. Even though, in this
case, the personal representative is the same person as the beneficiary. So she, the personal representative, *does* have a choice. It's not hard.
On 6 Sep 2026 at 20:27:07 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 18:18:16 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
I have read that and I think the result is the opposite of what you suggest.
Instead of the father stating his wishes, and perhaps giving his reasoning,
the decision on how to implement the intestacy is left to the personal >>>>>> representative. And this would seem to increase rather decrease the chance
of resentment from the half-sisters.
In fact, the personal representative has no discretion and has no
decisions to make. The estate *must* by law be distributed strictly >>>>> according to the rules on intestacy, which are readily available.
If the personal representative is also the only beneficiary
So she is then the sole beneficiary.
then you are
mistaken. She can share the estate out how she likes.
But they are not "beneficiaries", are they ?
You have already stated that she is the siole beneficiary.
The Intestacy Rules have no bearing on what beneficiaries
might do with the proceeds, *following* distribution
Well of course they don't!!! Norman was claiming, incorrectly, that the
personal representative had no choice but to distribute the estate according >> to the intestacy rules. I was pointing out that the beneficiary(ies) can
execute a deed of variation ignoring the intestacy rules. Even though, in this
case, the personal representative is the same person as the beneficiary. So >> she, the personal representative, *does* have a choice. It's not hard.
Sorry, I meant to point out that that choice was precisely what the Guardian financial advice column referenced by the OP was all about.
On 06/09/2026 20:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 20:27:07 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2026 at 18:18:16 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
I have read that and I think the result is the opposite of what you suggest.
Instead of the father stating his wishes, and perhaps giving his reasoning,
the decision on how to implement the intestacy is left to the personal >>>>>>> representative. And this would seem to increase rather decrease the chance
of resentment from the half-sisters.
In fact, the personal representative has no discretion and has no
decisions to make. The estate *must* by law be distributed strictly >>>>>> according to the rules on intestacy, which are readily available.
If the personal representative is also the only beneficiary
So she is then the sole beneficiary.
then you are
mistaken. She can share the estate out how she likes.
But they are not "beneficiaries", are they ?
You have already stated that she is the siole beneficiary.
The Intestacy Rules have no bearing on what beneficiaries
might do with the proceeds, *following* distribution
Well of course they don't!!! Norman was claiming, incorrectly, that the
personal representative had no choice but to distribute the estate according
to the intestacy rules. I was pointing out that the beneficiary(ies) can >>> execute a deed of variation ignoring the intestacy rules. Even though, in this
case, the personal representative is the same person as the beneficiary. So >>> she, the personal representative, *does* have a choice. It's not hard.
Sorry, I meant to point out that that choice was precisely what the Guardian >> financial advice column referenced by the OP was all about.
There is always the possibility for any beneficiary to execute a Deed of Variation, so that's a given anyway, though usually it's totally
unnecessary unless it's to reduce a tax bill, which wouldn't apply with
a low value estate. The recipient could just give it away after receipt.
But your claim was "the decision on how to implement the intestacy is
left to the personal representative". No it isn't, not in that capacity anyway. The personal representative is constrained absolutely by the intestacy rules. The only choice is that any beneficiary, as
beneficiary, can do with what he receives or is entitled to as he wishes.
On 6 Sep 2026 at 21:31:39 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:And so it may be, but your claim was clear. Your understanding was
But your claim was "the decision on how to implement the intestacy is
left to the personal representative". No it isn't, not in that capacity
anyway. The personal representative is constrained absolutely by the
intestacy rules. The only choice is that any beneficiary, as
beneficiary, can do with what he receives or is entitled to as he wishes.
The deed of variation is a mandatory instruction to the personal representative.
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed
to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances
are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing
things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway. <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
"Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:jgeq9l5aoamomjfj4rdt629v49b1ckinl2@4ax.com...
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed
to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances
are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing
things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Dying intestate wouldn't neceassrily keep the relatives from each
others throats.
Beacause the Intestacy Rules will most likely favour one or more
relatives, over others. And then the question may arise, as to why the deceased didn't in fact make a will. "It's all your fault. You were
living with them. Why didn't they make a will ? You know they wanted to
leave everything to me !"
On 07/09/2026 14:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:jgeq9l5aoamomjfj4rdt629v49b1ckinl2@4ax.com...
Well, the deceased in the article that prompted all this is presumed
to have found at least one. I emphasis that his family circumstances
are not and are never likely to be the same as mine but by staying
schtum he managed to achieve what he wanted without putting in writing
things that might set the relatives at each others' throats.
Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/sep/04/leading-questions-my-dad-died-suddenly-with-no-will-how-should-i-distribute-his-estate>
Dying intestate wouldn't neceassrily keep the relatives from each
others throats.
Beacause the Intestacy Rules will most likely favour one or more
relatives, over others. And then the question may arise, as to why the
deceased didn't in fact make a will. "It's all your fault. You were
living with them. Why didn't they make a will ? You know they wanted to
leave everything to me !"
I am sure that the local library can obtain a copy of Bleak House, where anybody interested can, and should, read about Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
And hopefully learn from it...
On 05/09/2026 22:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Sep 2026 at 19:22:15 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:39:06 +0100, Nick OdellDo you mean your existing will is still valid or it has been
<nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Prompted by an article in a newspaper a couple of days ago, it's nowThanks to everybody who contributed: there are obviously many things
dawned on me that, since I last revised my will, so much has changed
that default intestacy rules would match exactly what I would now want >>>> to happen.
Is it sufficient for me to renounce previous wills and declare there
is no replacement will?
Do I need to do this formally?
still to consider. There's nothing I would prefer to change about my
current, out-of-date, will - it's just that most of the clauses have
become redundant due, for instance, to my children not needing
guardians any more now that they are hulking great adults with their
own children to worry about. And as I said, all the important stuff
would be covered by the intestacy laws anyway.
So, just in case they bring the inheritance tax threshold down to
fifty quid in the next budget, I'll leave things as they are for now
and think it over.
Thanks again,
Nick
destroyed or
revoked? If it is still valid I fail to see how the intestacy rules can
possibly affect you.
I think the OP is saying that he prefers dying intestate to dying with
a valid will because the intestacy rules accurately reflect his true
wishes.
However, a probate lawyer might say that the costs involved in
administering an intestate estate are likely to exceed the costs of >admitting a will to probate and then distributing the estate.
A will is likely to save time and costs for those left behind. It might
mean that the executor doesn't even need to instruct a law firm.
https://www.secureinheritance.co.uk/blog/posts/the-hidden-cost-of-dying- >without-a-will-a-real-life-probate-lesson/
I do know that marriage or divorce after a will is created does annul
the will......
In message <117jhf3$29uee$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:06:11 on Sun, 6 Sep
2026, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
I do know that marriage or divorce after a will is created does annul
the will......
Apparently not, in all cases. A will which is drafted with a title "In
the expectation of marriage, this is my will..."
I suppose it avoids having to get some witnesses to sign a will while on honeymoon.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 34:21:38 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,622K bytes) |
| Messages: | 294,696 |