For many individuals, the decision to create a last will and testament is often driven by the desire to provide for minor children. However, financial advisors emphasize that having offspring is not the sole determinant of whether an estate plan is necessary.
This question was raised by a reader contributing to MarketWatch’s personal finance advice column. The individual, who is in their 50s, noted that they and their spouse do not have children but possess a net worth of approximately $2 million.
“We have no debt and own our primary home, a vacation home, as well as my mother’s home in another state,” the reader stated, highlighting a portfolio of significant real estate assets across multiple jurisdictions.
Experts suggest that owning property in different states, holding substantial assets, and having specific wishes for inheritance make estate planning essential, regardless of parental status. Without a valid will, state intestacy laws dictate how assets are distributed, which may not align with the couple’s intentions, particularly regarding the out-of-state property and potential heirs such as extended family members.
I assumed no kids meant no stress, but my parents proved that wrong. State laws defaulted to distant cousins I didn’t know existed!
Can anyone explain why they haven’t set up trusts yet? With $2M and three properties, a will feels insufficient.
The multi-state property issue is a classic trap. Intestacy laws vary wildly across borders, causing real headaches for heirs.