Brother dies, leaves no will, son is taking it all

I'm sorry firefly, I didn't think it was different just trying to make a point. The way our wills are set up, the surviving spouse inherits everything, if both parents get hit by the bus, then everything goes to son. If son dies before us, after last parent dies, money goes to charity. We do need to make provisions for grand daughter, but since she is so young proceeds will have to go into a trust.

I love my brother, but we already settled our parents estates. We have outlined how we want our estate divided, and he will not be a beneficiary in place of or along with our son.

glitterbag, you were wise enough to draw up a Will. That allows you to distribute your property to anyone you choose. Laws of inheritance come into play mainly when people fail to do estate planning and they don't have Wills or trusts that specify their wishes.

Yes, we just did our wills last year (don't know why we waited so long) and it really makes you think about bequests and exactly what assets you have.

Good for him.

I have to wonder how y'all have treated him.

right drew dad.

I especially like the comment somewhere on the first page where the OP called him a "young son", as if he were a child. The son is 22 years old, an adult, not a minor.

If this son is the rightful heir, I certainly hope he stands his ground.

The other relatives certainly didn't appear to be concerned about a will before the son took control. Now, there're coming out of the woodwork.

Agree. I didn't answer this thread at first as the outcome was patently obvious to me. But I do think I see greed or more doing circles. Or maybe just plain ordinary ignorance, in which case I'll back off on estimations of level of greed to a basic could I get in on this mode... but it didn't sound like that.

However, we are left in conjecture.

If the deceased brother wanted to make sure his siblings got some of his assets, or some family heirlooms, or things of sentimental value, he should have had a Will. He may well have known that, without a Will, his son would get it all, and he was fine with that.

Deaths in a family often bring out greed, and resentments, even when there are Wills and trusts, which is why people should give some thought to estate planning, and make their wishes known regarding bequests, and have these formalized in legal documents like Wills and trusts.

Also, the brother of the OP only died two weeks ago. No one should be removing any of the assets yet--the estate has to go through probate, debts have to be paid, etc. The deceased person's son is acting appropriately by preserving the estate and by not letting anyone make off with anything at this point.
Also, if other relatives descend like vultures, the son may be less likely to give them family heirlooms, or things of sentimental value, at a later date. Everything seems to belong to him now, and, if they want something from him, they should go about it differently.

My parents had experience of how nasty these situations can get and so years ago they gave me and my brothers a list of 'heirlooms' and we could tick a box indicating how much we'd like to inherit each thing. They didn't tell us the results but I know everything is specified in their wills. I'm very grateful to them for that.

I can’t advice you on the law in Texas. My practice is in Florida. I do Trust Accounts, Trust Estates, Wills and Estate planning. Without a Will his son will be his next of kin, who knows, it's possible you may be listed as a beneficiary.

Talk to a lawyer.

No duffy, don't talk to a lawyer.

Talk to your nephew!

Do both.

Nope.

A lawyer is only going to cause turmoil.

This isn't, necessarily, a knock on lawyers; it's what they get paid to do.

Even if the nephew is a complete d*ck, duffy can pay him for the few sentimental articles he claims to want for less than he will pay a lawyer.

This isn't a legal slam dunk for anyone other than the son. All duffy's lawyer is going to be able to do, after being paid a lot of money, is to create a situation wherein the son relents rather than paying his lawyer any more money.

I doubt duffy's brother would be happy to know his brother and his son were fighting it out with lawyers.

I think the brother is insegrevious - that is, duffy.

sounds like the original poster is already going to cause turmoil. Getting a lawyer will mean the nephew won't have to deal with him.

Given the tone of the original post, I kind of like the idea of the original poster having to pay to get items he might have been able to get without cost if he hadn't presented so greedily to begin with.

He might not present as unpleasantly in real life as he did in his post here, but if he's anything like his original post - blechh

Even the title of the thread <shakes head>

Maybe, but if duffy gets a lawyer the son will have to as well, and that means money spent by the son.

Unless duffy's parents willed all of their possessions to his brother, rather than to him, what the hell can he possibly want that warrants burdening his nephew?

And if the aforementioned is the case it speaks volumes about duffy.

Better duffy thinks twice and does the right thing.

BTW - notice duffy hasn't returned?

And that is exactly right. Brother dies, leaves no Will, Son is entitled to all. Without a lawyer brother will get nothing. The deceased mans brother can play nice with the son but that doesn’t guarantee his entitlement to any of his brother's assets or personal belongings.

Yes.

Hard to imagine he has an entitlement that overrides that of the man's son.

The original poster never mentioned anything about bank accounts or who is the beneficiary of such funds. Big difference there depending on State laws.