intestate

Are there any instances when having a valid will isn't really important?

A will is not necessary if all of a deceased person's assets are held jointly with other persons or pass to others by beneficiary designation or are held in an inter-vivos trust (a “revocable" or “living" trust) whose terms dispose of the property on the grantor's death. However, life makes this result difficult to assure; some items of property cannot be jointly owned or pass by designation, and property can be acquired shortly before death without time to transfer to the owner's trust. Therefore, most people who intend their property to pass by beneficiary designation, joint ownership, or the terms of an inter-vivos trust also have a will that disposes of any other property they own at death

The intestacy law of the state in which the deceased person lived specifies how the property of a person who dies without a will is distributed. This law is intended to distribute property in the way most people would have wanted if they had thought about it. However, the administration of the estate of someone who dies intestate is often more cumbersome and more expensive than if that person had a will. For example, an individual who is survived by children, and wishes to leave all of his or her property to the children equally, will not, in most jurisdictions, need a will to accomplish that result. However, the children may not agree on which of them should act as administrator of the intestate estate, a controversy which could have been avoided if the individual had designated an executor in a will. Further, an administrator's powers to deal with estate property may be more limited than those which are granted an executor by law or would typically be granted by the terms of a will, which can result in greater court supervision of the administration of the intestate estate and increased cost.

Stephen F. Lappert, Partner, Trusts and Estates Department, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York, NY