Your accounts will pass to your account beneficiaries regardless of your will

JustCurious

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,396
This issue came up in another thread, and I thought it was important enough to start a new thread, because I don't think that most people really understand the importance of account beneficiary designations. Some people think that as long as they have a will, all of their assets will pass according to their wishes in their will. But this is simply not true.

For many people, or perhaps most people, having a will is irrelevant to determining how their liquid assets will pass to their heirs, and they don't realize it. The average person has most of their money and liquid assets in financial accounts (mutual fund companies, brokerages, banks, credit unions, savings bonds, etc), and for those accounts, the funds pass directly to the named beneficiaries on your accounts upon your death, regardless of what your will says, or even regardless of whether you have a will. I don't think many people understand this. After your death, your named beneficiary simply has to present a certified copy of your death certificate to the financial institution holding your account, and fill out the appropriate form and confirm their identity as your named beneficiary, and the funds or assets in your account are then transferred to them, as per your beneficiary designation. Even if you have a will, and even if you have an executor or administrator of your estate, the executor of your estate has no right to get involved and has no say in the matter, regardless of what your will says. Therefore, when determining how to pass your liquid assets to your heirs, the most important thing to do is to make sure your beneficiary designations are up to date. For this purpose, you should simply ignore your will, or, ignore the need to have a will in the first place. (There may be other valid reasons to have a will, I am only referring to the issue of passing financial accounts to your heirs)
 
Last edited:
Keeping these things in mind if you want to equalize what your heirs get. For example, you might have a will that leaves all to your children equally, but one child is named on your bank accounts as a matter of convenience. If you ignore the situation, the child named on the accounts will get more than the others will get, because "equally" only pertains to what passes via the will.

This happened to some friends of mine and the child who got substantially more did the right thing and gifted to his sibs to equalize the distribution.

Wills only serve as instructions for passing along assets that are not addressed in some other way. So, beneficiary designations, joint tenancy, and other mechanisms to pass along assets will trump a will.
 
When I sold some shares last year in my IRA, I called the fund company to verify who was now designated. I was concerned that I had inadvertently cut someone off. I think of those designations as more important than my will as I expect them to have higher balances than the rest of my estate.
 
This happened to some friends of mine and the child who got substantially more did the right thing and gifted to his sibs to equalize the distribution.

There could be a possible problem with this is the money is large enough that it is over the $12,000 gift exemption...

And this is my thinking... ask a lawyer to be sure...

I would think that the friend could have renounced (or whatever the correct word is) the account by the beneficiary designation... and then it would have gone to the estate to be distributed according to the estate benes..... and all would have been as the decedent wished...
 
In their case, the accounts were held jointly with dad and automatically went to #1 son on death. Nothing that could be disclaimed. I don't know that you could disclaim a beneficiary designation.

Anyway, in this case it wasn't that big of a deal. He was out of whack by about $80,000 and the money was gifted to brothers' children to fund 529 plans without running into a gift tax issue.
 
My 2nd beneficiaries on my accounts are per my will. I don't have a name only listed.
 
Our trust is our beneficiary of our accounts. Makes things easier.
 
This is a nice reminder - thanks for starting the thread.

Louisiana is still an odd-ball state in that by law I believe half of all your assets must pass to your children, by-passing any surviving spouse. Presumably this law trumps the beneficiary designations. for example, say you are single and name your lover as beneficiary in your accounts, would the law not require the children to receive half?
 
Keeping these things in mind if you want to equalize what your heirs get. For example, you might have a will that leaves all to your children equally, but one child is named on your bank accounts as a matter of convenience. If you ignore the situation, the child named on the accounts will get more than the others will get, because "equally" only pertains to what passes via the will.

My Mom has named each of my two siblings as beneficiaries on her various annuities and IRA accounts, and I'm a 'Joint Owner' on all of her other accounts, plus the homestead passes to me. It works out that we each will get approximately equal amounts.

All of my accounts have Mom as 'Primary' beneficiary, and my siblings as 'Secondary' beneficiaries

We all learned quite a bit about "getting stuff to the proper people with the least amount of hassle", when my Dad and Grandad were preparing for Grandad's "fading into the sunset". When Grandad eventually kicked the bucket, settling his estate went 'smooth as silk'. We made sure everything would work that way when my Dad passed away also.....it did! Now we have everything set to work smoothly when Mom takes her leave.

Proper preparation sure makes life easier for the survivors! :D
 
This is a nice reminder - thanks for starting the thread.

Louisiana is still an odd-ball state in that by law I believe half of all your assets must pass to your children, by-passing any surviving spouse. Presumably this law trumps the beneficiary designations. for example, say you are single and name your lover as beneficiary in your accounts, would the law not require the children to receive half?
Only if you die intestate. I don't believe any state can just appropriate your funds and do with them as they will.
 
I know less than nothing about the law, but as I understand it the Louisiana laws concerning forced heirship were changed in the 1990's so that forced heirship is no longer in effect, except for certain cases such as disabled children.

Me, commenting on the law? That's just plain ridiculous. But I guess on the internet you get what you pay for. :2funny:

Here's a link:

http://www.lsba.org/2007MembershipDirectory/TelLawDocuments/6086-Forced_heirship_tape.pdf
 
I know less than nothing about the law, but as I understand it the Louisiana laws concerning forced heirship were changed in the 1990's so that forced heirship is no longer in effect, except for certain cases such as disabled children.

Me, commenting on the law? That's just plain ridiculous. But I guess on the internet you get what you pay for. :2funny:

Here's a link:

http://www.lsba.org/2007MembershipDirectory/TelLawDocuments/6086-Forced_heirship_tape.pdf

I believe the law was changed late 1995, but forced heirship still applies if the children are 23 yrs or younger, or incapcitated either mentally or physically to the extent that they cannot live by themselves. It is the only state whose laws are not based on English common law.
 
In their case, the accounts were held jointly with dad and automatically went to #1 son on death. Nothing that could be disclaimed. I don't know that you could disclaim a beneficiary designation.

Martha.... I thought you were a lawyer....

How can they 'make' you take ownership of anything:confused: If you don't want to take ownership of the account you just don't..... it is just like a will IMO, you do not have to accept the assets.


But as always..... I could be wrong...
 
Martha.... I thought you were a lawyer....

How can they 'make' you take ownership of anything:confused: If you don't want to take ownership of the account you just don't..... it is just like a will IMO, you do not have to accept the assets.


But as always..... I could be wrong...

Texas - it's because they held the account jointly. The son was already an owner of the account.

bssc and donheff - my understanding is that this is a bad idea, at least for IRAs, because it makes it a little harder to get the money distributed (trusts can't technically be beneficiaries, so the beneficiaries of the trust have to turn in extra paperwork and then it's as though they were named directly). Much easier on the heirs to just name them directly, which avoids confusion and allows them to keep the money in the IRA and take RMDs according to their own life expectancy.
 
Martha.... I thought you were a lawyer....

How can they 'make' you take ownership of anything:confused: If you don't want to take ownership of the account you just don't..... it is just like a will IMO, you do not have to accept the assets.


But as always..... I could be wrong...

You could be right. I really don't know if you could refuse the transfer even though the transfer is automatic, I suppose if you never contributed to the account there is a good likelihood that you could. I never have had to face the issue directly.
 
I have multiple dozens of asset accounts (don't ask) and even though I am aware of what JustCurious said in the OP and even though I am probably in the 99th percentile for estate planning among folks my age, I know that most of my accounts do not have named beneficiaries. A few of the larger ones at Vanguard do. I do have a will that leaves most of my stuff to my three kids in equal shares.

I would think that most people probably don't even fill out the beneficiary designations unless required by the institution to do so. Given that, I wonder what percentage of people die intestate. Anyone know?

2Cor521
 
This happened to some friends of mine and the child who got substantially more did the right thing and gifted to his sibs to equalize the distribution.

That's what happened when my mother passed. I was joint on two accounts because she was having trouble keeping things balanced. I just wrote a letter to the Registrar of Wills office waiving my right to the accounts and that fixed it.
 
I will have to check with the credit union, but in general: can I assign a beneficiary to an existing CD?

And can an non-profit organization be named as beneficiary?
 
Texas - it's because they held the account jointly. The son was already an owner of the account.

Sorry... I read the below quote... which is not a joint account...

the funds pass directly to the named beneficiaries on your accounts upon your death, regardless of what your will says, or even regardless of whether you have a will.
 
I will have to check with the credit union, but in general: can I assign a beneficiary to an existing CD?

I'm fairly certain that you'll be able to, as a CD is pretty much like any other bank or credit union account. You're not changing the terms or conditions of the CD, only adding a beneficiary.
 
make sure your state recognizes a brokerage tod ,(transfer on death) beneficiary request on taxable accounts .. some states still require anything except bank accounts to go thru probate despite having a beneficiary. iras and 401k's arent an issue

until last year new york was one such state. even though i had elected beneficiarys on my taxable brokerage account for decades technally the brokerage wasnt supposed to follow that request in new york.

the fact was the brokerage was registered in boston and so using their descretion they followed your request but didnt have to.

most states do accept brokerage tods on taxable accounts at this point but make sure your state does or you may find stuff going thru probate that you thought woulnt
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom