USA Law question versus UK Law situation.

Probably not many can answer this unless they took a Law degree.

But if you do know the correct answer, please help.

Does the USA have the same law as the UK, where if a person is happy to be the beneficiary of a will or situation, then they automatically have to agree to anything negative.

Example, you inherit a million bucks from Uncle Joe, but Uncle Joe owes the electricity company 50 grand.

In the UK, if you are willing to have the good part - the million - you also have to deal with the bad part - the electricity bill.

Is it the same in the USA ??

Seriously?

That kind of thing differs state to state and even by county in the US.

In general, an executor has to settle debts before the estate is dispersed.

If the water company is making a claim on the estate, then it would have to go to probate court and if proven, would have to be paid before you get your inheritance check.

Not all creditors pursue debts of dead people.

Ahhh the voice of reason. Miss Kit is invariably correct, and similar laws apply in U.K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misskit

In general, an executor has to settle debts before the estate is dispersed.

---

This.

^ Exactly. Pretty universal I would imagine otherwise chroncally ill and very old people would stack up debt and leave their savings.

Wot she said

Where there's a will, there's a relative

This is all starting to seem a bit... dodgy. :confused:

As missit says it seems logical that wills include as standard that the executor (or court) settles debts and taxes against the estate before distribution, otherwise legitimate creditors could tie up everything in court forever or until they're paid. While the litigation route would be great for lawyers and creditors, both on a win-win, the executor's duties include protecting the assets of the estate which means avoiding pointless court dramas where the outcome is a formality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabir

As missit says it seems logical that wills include as standard that the executor (or court) settles debts and taxes against the estate before distribution, otherwise legitimate creditors could tie up everything in court forever or until they're paid. While the litigation route would be great for lawyers and creditors, both on a win-win, the executor's duties include protecting the assets of the estate which means avoiding pointless court dramas where the outcome is a formality.

---

I think you'll find that it's not neccessary to stipulate debt clearance in a will because it's already the law that creditors have first dibs on the estate.
One thing, though, is that if the estate is penniless and has no assets, the heirs are not responsible for the debts, it's creditor's bad luck.

all/most answers are correct. however thats not the question. the question is beneficiary not executor.... to which the answer is the beneficiary gets in line with the tax man and any other claims on the estate.

uncle joe may end up with zero but not liable for debt incurred by the deceased.

He's wondering if he can fuck off with the whole inheritance before the bills are paid innit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misskit

before the estate is dispersed.

---

...I wonder if disbursed isn't a better word choice...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lob

the beneficiary gets in line BEHIND the tax man and any other claims on the estate.

---

Important distinction FFY.