When.com Web Search

  1. Ads

    related to: oregon small estate affidavit limit

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. What's Included in a Small Estate Affidavit? - AOL

    www.aol.com/finance/whats-included-small-estate...

    A small estate affidavit is a sworn legal document that may allow an estate to avoid going through probate. Small estate affidavits are permitted in many states, as long as the value of the estate ...

  3. Probate - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probate

    For example, California has a "Small Estate Summary Procedure" to allow the summary transfer of a decedent's asset without a formal probate proceeding. The dollar limit by which the small estate procedure can be effectuated was $150,000 [34] before a statutory increase was implemented on a three-year schedule, [35] arriving at $184,500 by April ...

  4. I Live in Virginia. How Can I Avoid Probate? - AOL

    www.aol.com/finance/live-virginia-avoid-probate...

    For a more modest estate consisting of a bank account containing $40,000, a small estate affidavit can work. To do this, 60 days after the death, the heir files a notarized affidavit, claiming the ...

  5. Pros & Cons of Getting a Small Estate Affidavit in Virginia - AOL

    www.aol.com/finance/pros-cons-getting-small...

    Continue reading → The post Filing a Small Estate Affidavit in Virginia appeared first on SmartAsset Blog. ... Some limits and drawbacks include: Estates must be smaller than $50,000.

  6. 1990 Oregon Ballot Measure 5 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_5

    Ballot Measure 5 was a landmark piece of direct legislation in the U.S. state of Oregon in 1990. Measure 5, an amendment to the Oregon Constitution (Article XI, Section 11), established limits on Oregon's property taxes on real estate.

  7. Pennoyer v. Neff - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennoyer_v._Neff

    Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a state court can only exert personal jurisdiction over a party domiciled out-of-state if that party is served with process while physically present within the state.