Search results

Is this the case if there is a binding nomination (upon death)?

No arguments here. (Unless some bright spark takes advantage of the person on their deathbed {try to prove it after the fact & previous beneficiaries aren't present} & amends the will.

If they died tomorrow it wouldn't benefit them at all, they'll still be dead. It is the legacy left behind to their heirs. However if the structure of the tt is such that it costs the heirs $0.01 to administer or $$ to get advice to understand they aren't going to be satisfied and will seek...

What I am alluding to is, that for the vast majority of people whose assets compromise joint tenancy ppor, industry or retail super, a handful of NRMA/Telstra shares & the family dog with a couple of kids that their intentions are usually: 1st to spouse, then to kids, then charity etc no...

Simply YES. If your asset base is worth less than say $5-10 m or your requirements are straightforward (probably 》90% of cases), is extremely qualified advice actually warranted?