On 17 Apr 2008 00:36:07 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.blanched@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>QueBarbara <que.barbara.lanc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>news:cr5d049r5v29evtr5mu8jg136qc629cmta@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>> Yikes. Dying is so complicated. Everyone keeps saying that getting a
>> trust is the only way to go, but since we have no kids and limited
>> assets (house, retirement funds, small percentage of stock of a
>> private company), is all that really necessary?
>>
>
>Ask around amongst your acquaintances and find out if probate is a
>serious ***** in Texas. It is in California. It's not in Colorado.
>With no kids and limited assets, you very well might need only a will.
>
>In our case, my husband and I have a trust because he has a child from
>his previous marriage. If he dies first, then I can use his money for
>my maintenance and sup****t, and can drain the funds dry if necessary.
It's my understanding, and this sentence appears to sup****t it, that
trusts are set up to dispense money only 1) by a set amount on a
regular basis, or 2) if there are extenuating cir***stances (medical
needs, frex.). Is this correct, and if so, who decides what amount is
dispensed on a regular basis? Apologies if I've asked too personal of
a question.
--
QueBarbara
|
