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

No he didn't. He mentioned possessions of sentimental value.

Should we suggest to him: "Hey duffy, forget about that pocket watch or family photos, your brother might have named you as a beneficiary of a financial instrument. Get a lawyer, and go fishing!"

Now you get it.

Consult a lawyer, or take a chance fishing with no bait.

baby bro wants more than sentimental things

Because the lawyer will create bait?

The son probably has a lawyer. His father's estate has to go through probate in Texas, even without a Will. And the deeds to property owned by his father have to be transferred to him, financial accounts may have to be transferred, etc. If he doesn't have a lawyer, he certainly should get one. And the lawyer's fee can be paid out of his inheritance.

Whatever it is he does want, he can't want it very much if he posted here asking about inheritance laws in Texas, something he could have Googled, just as I did, and something any probate lawyer could have told him over the phone.

He may be questioning the legitimacy of the son as the sole heir since no marriage took place, and perhaps his brother wasn't named as father on the son's birth certificate. I'm just guessing, but the OP seems to have some notion that a sibling, like himself, is a closer next of kin than his brother's son. Perhaps he's just confused regarding the law.

I don't agree with you about not involving lawyers. The son definitely needs one, and probably has one to handle probate and other estate matters. And we have no idea of the size of this estate, in terms of monetary value, and types of assets, and exactly what the siblings are after. But, if they want to make a claim, they should be prepared to pay a lawyer if that person tells them they have a legitimate claim. There are also several siblings, who may not even agree with each other, and it's probably easier for the son to let matters be handled by lawyers than to deal with each of them.

I doubt that involving lawyers will make the family situation worse than it is now. And it may help to deflect some of the anger and resentment because the family won't have to have face-to-face dealings, or any direct contacts with each other, if they don't want to. And settling an estate is a legal matter, and it follows a legal process, and all interested parties should have legal representation, particularly in such a potentially contentious situation as this one appears to be.

You're right, and if that's his goal, he should get a lawyer (the way if your goal is to kill your wife you should get a professional hit-man), but I'm having a problem with anyone here recommending that he should.

You're right, the son almost certainly has a lawyer: To guide him through the complexities of the law, not to engage in a battle.

Any lawyer the brother hires will promote conflict not agreement.

Not necessarily. Any lawyer the brother, or the other siblings, hire can only pursue a legitimate claim--either the siblings are legally entitled to something or they aren't. If they are entitled to something, then they should get it, or try to go after it. If they aren't entitled, they'll wind up empty-handed.

The conflict is already present. Involving lawyers won't make it worse. The lawyers aren't going to manufacture conflicts, they've got to follow the inheritance laws in Texas. They can help keep the family from going at each other in more direct ways.

That's not my experience of good lawyers.

I have been in a business for almost 40 years in which the involvement of lawyers is integral.

Personally I really like lawyers. The majority of the them are very much the sort of people with which I enjoy spending time.

However, the notion that they are anything but highly skilled hired guns in a conflict is rather naive.

Yes, they eventually end up as representatives in an agreement but not before they do all in their power to bring the opposition to its knees. If they don't, they haven't served their clients very well.

Yet again, this isn't a condemnation of lawyers.

Some have a problem with their defending the scum of the earth who we all know are guilty. Not me. That's our system; that's their job; that's what they do.

Our legal system is adversarial, and this applies to every criminal and civil action. It's not centered on mutual agreement, but winning.

We can argue whether or not this is the way it should be, but, for now, it is what it is, and lawyers, rightfully, play the role that has been written for them.

It is up to us, not lawyers, to determine whether or not we want conflict or agreeably coming to terms.

Obviously there are times when you need a lawyer for defensive purposes, and most of them will serve you well in this regard (while billing you for hours spent - no problem there; they're making a living not providing charitable services), and sometimes you may need an attack dog to advance your rights, but too often people resort to lawyers and litigation when they should, at least, attempt, to resolve the problem themselves.

When your hire a lawyer, you are not facilitating a mutually agreeable resolution.

I'm in Florida and my mother passed then her husband passed he only had one child but she realized his property to me and my brother because she doesn't want to be bothered and we are trying to save it. He had a brother who also passed before him he had no children but he was married will the property go to her or me and my brother we are in the probate process as we speak and don't want to pay the past due taxes or liens unless we are sure please help

http://able2know.org/topic/240674-1