well, seriously though, i'm not sure that is the case all over. i mean, when you fill out stock forms and insurance forms and stuff, you designate primary benificiary and secondary beneficiary. how could the state overrule that?
On September 11 there was a story about a a family who past a way living three kids behind . When state look it the case they did have a living grant parents but the state did not think they can afford to raise a three kids so they sad
"Pick Two "
Ever seance the third child was in 7 deferment foster homes .
So all a I'm saying Pcunix don't placing that burden on a loved ones.
Obviously this changes drastically from state to state...my husband and two of his brothers were raised for ten years by their grandparents, who were in their 90s at the time they took over the boys' care (the oldest boy was four) and had no income. They lived off of what they could produce only, and obviously couldn't expect to live until the boys reached the age of majority.
In my own state, if there are only minors in the next of kin, then all assets (or the proceeds of the sale of the assets) are placed in trust until the children reach 18, and there is a pretty extensive hierarchy of relatives that the assets would go to before there's no one left. The government gets its cut either way, they're not particularly gung-ho to take over all the finer points of disposing of the property if there's anyone else that can take the helm on that.