First, I do suggest that you work towards having a real lawyer draw up wills for you. We had ours done through the State Employees Credit Union, and it was only $250. Look around and see what SIMPLE forms would cost. The lawyer who did ours asked SO MANY QUESTIONS that got us thinking, prompted the right discussions, and we feel secure in our choices now. For example, suppose one of your children pre-deceases you. Would you then split your estate 3 ways, or would you still split it 4 ways ... and divide the fourth "portion" among that deceased child's children? Would the monk son WANT to inherit, or would he rather see his portion divided among his nieces and nephews, perhaps to be put towards their educations? What if one of your children comes to live with you in your elderly years? Would you want to give that child a larger portion of the estate as a thank you for the time and effort he gave you in your final years? These aren't easy questions, and you want to KNOW that your wishes are followed. You can BOTH be buried in the Veteran's cemetery without charge. My father-in-law was military, so a plot is reserved for him. His wife died first, and she was buried 12' down. When he dies, he'll be buried 6' down. You're legally married, right? Yes, if one of you were to die, the other would automatically own everything. You can /should make your kids (or one kid named as executor) beneficiary on your bank accounts. Even if the accounts are small, you want them to have your money (not the state!). Beneficiary trumps will. If you died tomorrow, the person who's named beneficiary on your checking and savings accounts could walk into the bank (with your death certificate) and leave with every penny in the accounts -- before the will goes into probate. If one of you were to die, leaving the other alone, would that spouse want to remain on the property? I ask because my parents live in similar circumstances, and I strongly suspect my mom will "come to the city" to be nearer us kids/grandkids and nearer to services she uses ... after my stepfather is gone (which is the likely scenario, given the state of their health). The tricky thing is, What happens when the second spouse dies? I do think you should talk to the children and see if any of them are interested in the land ... or would they prefer to see it sold /split the profits? You should also consider a "back up plan" in case one or both of you cannot continue to live on your property. That is, if one or both of you need medical care that isn't compatible with your current lifestyle. I don't know if you've considered this possibility, but I think this is your nightmare scenario: You're living frugally but comfortably now on your land. Suppose one of you becomes ill and needs serious care, even nursing home care. The state'll pay for that person's care, but not until you've sold the land and exhausted your resources. Where is the the still-health spouse going to live? The state doesn't care. To prevent this relatively likely thing from happening, could you put the land into one of the children's names now? That isn't a risk-free choice, of course, as it gives them power over your lives; if their children are eligible for financial aid for college, it could affect them too. As for the two of you dying at the same time, it's very unlikely to happen. Even if you were to be in a car wreck, the likelihood is that one of you would go first. Even if one of you lives an hour longer than the other, that person still predeceases the other. Consider, too, writing a letter to your children -- be sure they know where it's kept -- that'll let them know your final wishes. Ours includes a note about being fair and generous with one another during this time, remembering their faith, and then notes about how I'd like them to divide things that we value -- but don't really have much value -- like my wedding ring, my husband's tools, my grandmother's china, and certain pieces of furniture. Of course this isn't a legal document, but it's something you can easily change and update as time goes on. My husband and I have "a rule" we go over our estate information and the letter to our girls every year when we do our taxes. It works because money is already on our minds.

Having sat through countless estate-planning seminars (I'm a lawyer), I understand all the arguments for revocable living trusts, but I still think they're *way* oversold to middle-income people who don't have a pressing reason for a trust, such as a special-needs child. They can help minimize federal estate taxes - for people who will actually *owe* them. (The exemption as of 2009 is $3.5 million per person, so that doesn't include most of us.) They can't minimize income taxes, help you to qualify for Medicaid, prevent disgruntled wanna-be heirs from contesting your wishes, or protect you from creditors. They do let you bypass probate for the assets that are in the trust, but whether that's a big deal or not depends on where you live. I gather it's a big deal in California, but it's not so big in Massachusetts, for example, where I practice. And remember, not everything you own is included in your probate estate, only things you own individually and that do not have named beneficiaries. Think of an average couple's assets. They have a house, maybe two, held as joint tenants with right of survivorship - not part of the probate estate. They have some IRAs and/or 401(K)s and have named each other as beneficiary - not part of the probate estate. Life insurance? Not part of the probate estate. Bank accounts with joint owners? Not part of the probate estate. For many people, there is very little that *is* included in the probate estate. I'm not saying that you shouldn't get a revocable living trust, but be clear why you want it before you do. Do you and your husband own most things jointly or have you named one another as beneficiaries? Then when the first of you dies, there won't be much to probate. When the second dies? Well, you don't have kids or anyone in particular that you're trying to benefit, so why spend your money now to avoid probate in the future?

I took everything personal of worth of my mothers and left. I had been staying at their house, because mother asked me to, saying he couldn't live alone (agreed). After a couple of years of emotional turmoil, I'd had enough. As things stand, I would as soon not see my father (never had a good relationship to begin with). He threatened verbally to sue me, and his sole living brother apparently told him what a fool he was to treat his son that way. It finally did shake him up enough that he relented. My mother would have been horrified if she knew what had happened. Btw, father was 90 when this transpired...so perhaps not of totally right mind...but legally owner of all property and wouldn't listen to anyone (stated that to his brother...he was going to do what he felt like, didn't care what anyone said). Moral of story may be the opposite of what is above...think about how your loved ones feel about each other and try to do what is right. And I really do believe things would have gone a lot better, if things weren't left solely in spouses name barring spouses death (which is a typical resolution). If I had any children (don't), I'd do something like aunt/uncle and leave everything joint with no proviso of sell or transfer unless the majority shareholders (for lack of a better word), agree.

Everybody is confused about these directives. House staff, the people signing the documents, and their families. Living will is written for a very narrow circumstance, and the language in it is very clear (I think) but people tend to think that it applies to many other situations. Something that I see is that a seriously ill person has designated a medical power of attorney, but he is at that point still competent to make his decisions (ie does he want surgery); but the medical team asks the POA instead of the patient. Kind of an assumption that the patient has deferred to the POA to make the decision, even if he is not sedated, or delirious -- and actually, legally, the POA is not in effect when the patient is competent. Also, some hospital personnel tend to assume that "do not resuscitate" should mean "no treatment" beyond comfort care. But, treating an infection or setting a fracture can be perfectly appropriate, depending on the actual situation and condition of the patient. Likewise, life support can be inappropriate for a person -- because it is futile, and will not lead to recovery -- but the decision maker doesn't understand or fears making the choice to let go. All this argues that people need to learn about modern life sustaining measures, think about what they want, and discuss it with their family.