lj, thanks for the vote of confidence for attorneys in general.

Or for that matter a good financial planner.

Of course, as an attorney, you have a meager living. HAHAHA!

No injury or poke intended. Just making a joke. Actually, I advise people to use an attorney for a great many things. Including every time they buy real estate. The “meager” cost of doing so when committing such a large amount of money truly is meager. Lawyers are valuable assets when used correctly, and worth the money for the most part, for most people. I do think that many times people could do without, IF they are willing to do the research themselves. Most are not. I have used the library downtown a few times myself. I like to check on things, even if an “expert” tells me so.
I guess I need to reevaluate my understanding of the probate process, instead of just listenng to commom wisdom. Thanks for the insight. Truly.

A smart person can figure out many things on their own. A wise person knows when he best not do so, and retain an expert.

If a person truly desires to not be involved in the probate process, there are ways to do so. Of course, since that’s how I earn my meager living, I’ll not give anything more here. Anyone interested may likely be able to find out how, although be careful in relying upon what might be found, as some of it is out of date, and some of it is just flat incorrect.

***Yawn*** Who cares. Maybe they won’t find anyone to approve of, and we’ll have less church pushed on all of us. You know, like its supposed to be… separate and a non-issue in politics. Keep your preaching in church where it belongs. As for those trying to ‘bring others to the fold’ or what not, if you stop shoving stuff down people’s throat they tend to gag less. Anyone else sick of the Uber-religious trying to take over this country?

Ahhh… I feel better :-)

That is certainly my understanding. Is that not why you appoint an executor? Why should the court get involved, and with the extra expense of an attorney?

One thing I’d like to say here; there is some feeling that if one has a will, there is no need to probate an estate. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be effective, the will must be admitted to probate, and subject to administration by the court. I don’t know where this falsehood got started, but I heard it again from a client just last week.

Agreed.

God information. I should have been more specific. I was just trying to point out that hetero surviving “spouses” do in fact have more standing than those of gay or lesbian “spouses”. I advise everyone to leave nothing to chance and leave a will. Not only are their wishes spelled out and can be followed, without interference, in some families, unfortunately, it is the best gift the deceased can leave behind.

The above, of course, only applies to property held by the decedent alone at time of death, and does not apply to property held as jtwros with another, pod, tod, etc. These may be upset, if the surviving joint tenant or beneficiary under a POD or TOD designation is not the surviving spouse under the “spousal elective share” statutes.

I’ll not comment further, but leave it to you and others interested to look it up, so to say. I’ll also not comment on the SS survivor’s benefit issue, pension plan beneficiary designations, etc., which are governed by certain statutory language which dictates how the same are to be distributed or do not apply as the case may be in the absence of marriage if, in the case of a pension plan, there is no effective beneficiary designation as an example.

Yes, Charles, you were on the mark with your point. I only wanted to straighten out the one thing. Many people assume there were burnings in the U.S., because of earlier history.

Just goes to show that even good people (I assume most of the citizens of Salem were basically good) can be carried away on the wave of mass hysteria. Frankly, if those girls had been mine, they’d have been grounded for life. ;)

Yes it does. As I recall correctly, Kansas law basically assumes that the surviving spouse in the inheritor, period.

I didn’t say it was, but there is an enormous difference in what has to be specified and covered in a will when marriage is not presumed. My argument, as well as the direct experience of many people, remains valid.

“Another straw man argument.”

A straw man argument is when someone creates a position for his/her opposition and then replies to that created position. Sort of like saying…

“Paying an attorneys fee for this isn’t limited to the same sex people.”

When I did not imply otherwise.

By the way, I agree that people should have wills, but people are widowed unexpectedly when they are still young. When that happens, the legal presumption of marriage does provide quite a lot of protection for the surviving the spouse.

Another straw man argument.

I regret this statement, because I forgot that there are people, and I am sure Nathan is among them, who honestly believe that…

“The people who are opposed to the state recognizing a choice like Homosexual marriage are merely pushing back. We are not the ones making it an issue.”

The statement is flat out false, because it is those who “oppose the state recognizing a choice” who are making it an issue. No one is forcing them to agree with the choice, but they are trying to insure continued legal punishment of the choice.

But, I did imply that Nathan was insincere, and that is wrong.

Doesn’t mean that I find what he is saying any more morally palatable.

It’s no red herring, and you are clearly dense.

“You can choose to leave your property to anyone you choose. Draw up a will. You can have a durable power of attorney to let whomever you wish be your speaker and in charge of your finances. You can draw up a statement allowing whoever you list be allowed in as family in the event of illness or hospitilization. There are legal ways to handle all of the things you have mentioned.”

Baldy, I’ve been a widower. I married a widow and I was in more than one support group for widows and widowers at one time in my life. Some of the people I got the closest to were gay and lesbian widowers. The fact is, if you are married then right of successorship is assumed unless you work out something different (and that involves attorneys). You don’t have to go to an attorney to get it all straightened out. So, you are saying that people who are gay can do what straight people can do, they just have to pay an attorney to draw up a detailed will and powers of attorney to do it, you don’t see any inequity in that?

“The majority of dem and repubs said they did not want same sex marriage in Kansas. I seriously doubt if all of them did so because of religious reasons.

“They are just more honest than you.”

a) The very reason it was on the ballot was for “religious reasons”. That is a documented fact.

b) I suspect a very large portion of the voters DID vote their religious prejudices.

c) Others just voted their prejudices, and never did stop to think about how such arrangements between OTHER people wouldn’t effect them.

And your charge of dishonesty is blantantly false. I voted against the Hate Amendment.