Receiving Handgun from Florida Estate

[skoutr1]

My father-in-law (who lived in Florida) passed away in May 2014. There was no will so his wife inherited his entire estate. My mother-in-law has offered to give me one of his handguns.

My wife and I will be flying to Florida soon to visit. What are the issues in accepting and transporting the handgun back to Pennsylvania?

Thanks.
-Rod

[Sam1911]

Unfortunately, this is a pain in the butt.

If your father-in-law had written in his will that this gun was to go to you, that would be fine. It transfers with no paperwork as a "Bequest."
Since the guns now belong to his wife -- a living person, and resident of another state -- they have to transfer on a form 4473, which means she'll need to ship them to an FFL here in PA where you can take possession.

[knight0334]

In this situation the firearm will need to go through a PA FFL.

Since you were not named in a will to receive it, and you are not of blood or adopted legal heritage for intestate succession - the gun must follow the normal rules of interstate transfers.

Your wife on the other hand - if she is his blood heir or legally adopted daughter, SHE could receive the gun and bring it home. You though - absolutely not without a PA FFL doing the transfer.

Also, your mother-in-law didn't receive the entire estate. Darn near every state divvies the estate up between the surviving spouse and any surviving issues(children). ...which means your wife is heir to some of that estate.

Florida Intestacy Rules

A surviving spouse of the decedent receives the entire estate if the decedent has no surviving lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc).
A surviving spouse of the decedent will also receive the entire estate if the decedent had descendants that are also descendants of the surviving spouse and neither the decedent nor the surviving spouse had any other children. (Note: This is a relatively recent change to Florida law – see our post on the October 2011 changes to Florida intestacy law for more information.)
If the decedent is survived by both a spouse and lineal descendants and any of the lineal descendants is not also a descendant of the spouse, then the spouse is entitled to one half of the estate, and the descendants share the balance, per stirpes.
If there are lineal descendents but no surviving spouse, then the estate is shared by the lineal descendants.
If there is no surviving spouse and no lineal descendents, then the estate passes to lineal ascendants (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.) and collateral relatives (siblings, aunts, uncles, etc.). This means that if the decedent’s parents are alive then they are entitled to the estate. If the parents are not alive, then the estate passes to the decedent’s brothers and sisters and their descendents, per stirpes.
If none of the above heirs survive, then the estate passes to the heirs of the decedent’s grandparents, per stirpes, with one half of the estate going to the decedent’s maternal relatives and one half going to the decedent’s paternal relatives. If there are no relatives on one side, then the entire estate passes to the other side.

Per Stirpes

“Per stirpes” is a method of distributing shares of an estate. The basic concept is that each descendant is entitled to an equal share, and the share of a deceased descendant is divided equally among his descendants. For example, assume that a decedent had a son and a daughter. The son had a child, and the daughter had two children. The decedent dies without a will or a surviving spouse.

If both the son and the daughter are alive, they split the estate equally between them, each receiving 50%.
If the daughter is dead at the time of the decedent’s death, then her children share their mother’s portion, each receiving 25% (half of 50%). The son still receives his 50%, while his child receives nothing.
If both the son and the daughter are dead at the time of the decedent’s death, then both of their share pass on to their children. The two children of the daughter again receive 25% (half of their mother’s 50%), which the child of the son receives the son’s share of 50%.

Disqualification by Misconduct or Divorce

A person involved in the murder of the decedent is disqualified from inheriting any share of the estate. A criminal conviction for murder is conclusive for this purpose. In the absence of a criminal conviction, the probate court may still find that there was an unlawful killing by the greater weight of the evidence, in which case the killer is likewise disqualified.

A spouse’s right to inherit ends at the time of divorce. However, a spouse who is separated or in the process of divorcing still inherits if the decedent dies before the marriage is dissolved.
Intestacy and the Probate Process

Intestacy does not significantly change the probate process. The biggest difference is that there is no need to prove the validity of a last will and testament. Otherwise, the personal representative’s role still involves opening, administering, and closing the estate.

[Sam1911]

... if she is his blood heir or legally adopted daughter, SHE could receive the gun and bring it home

How so? If she's not named as getting it in a will ("bequest") and it wasn't parceled out to her specifically as part of "intestate succession" then she couldn't take possession without the form 4473.

Since there is a close living heir (the mother-in-law), intestate succession doesn't help skoutr1's wife.

At least, that's how it has been explained to me a number of times.


EDIT: Here's a primer on intestate succession -- http://nationalparalegal.edu/willsTr...ssionRules.asp I do believe that for the daughter to take possession of the firearm directly from the estate she would have to be named in the intestate succession process as receiving it as part of her share. I don't think this is a case where any heir can simply decide, "I want that gun" and take it home.

[Sam1911]

Knight, I read your edit (thanks!) and my question is then this: does the divvying up of goods still not fall to the executor?

The specifics of this case are given as, "My mother-in-law has offered to give me one of his handguns." Is she the rightful heir to that gun? If so, she cannot transfer it to the daughter directly.

Is she acting as executor of the estate? If so, perhaps she can. Who makes the specific dispositions?

[knight0334]

How so? If she's not named as getting it in a will ("bequest") and it wasn't parceled out to her specifically as part of "intestate succession" then she couldn't take possession without the form 4473.

Since there is a close living heir (the mother-in-law), intestate succession doesn't help skoutr1's wife.

At least, that's how it has been explained to me a number of times.


EDIT: Here's a primer on intestate succession -- http://nationalparalegal.edu/willsTr...ssionRules.asp I do believe that for the daughter to take possession of the firearm directly from the estate she would have to be named in the intestate succession process as receiving it as part of her share. I don't think this is a case where any heir can simply decide, "I want that gun" and take it home.

Intestate doesn't require naming. The law sets a chain of succession. There was a surviving spouse and a surviving issue. The wife gets 1/2 and the children share 1/2 of the estate.

[knight0334]

Knight, I read your edit (thanks!) and my question is then this: does the divvying up of goods still not fall to the executor?

The specifics of this case are given as, "My mother-in-law has offered to give me one of his handguns." Is she the rightful heir to that gun? If so, she cannot transfer it to the daughter directly.

Is she acting as executor of the estate? If so, perhaps she can. Who makes the specific dispositions?

Since the wife and the daughter are lawful successors - the property transfers from the estate to the heir. The executor/executrix just decides what goes where, and what must be liquidated to satisfy debts of the deceased.

The transfer is from the estate directly to the heir. The executor just facilitates it, and in no means becomes the lawful owner in between.

The mother-in-law is probably acting as executrix. I cant remember if FL law requires the county or state to officially appoint the executor.

[JoshIronshaft]

Soooooo...when you visit your mother-in-law help her ship it to a PA FFL from a FL FFL after making arrangements with a PA FFL?

[staylo]

Intestate doesn't require naming. The law sets a chain of succession. There was a surviving spouse and a surviving issue. The wife gets 1/2 and the children share 1/2 of the estate.

I may be wrong, but as I read what you posted it seems to me the inheritance is only split if there are step children involved. If all the children are the descendants of the surviving spouse as well as the deceased then the surviving spouse gets 100% of the estate. If there are descendants that are not descendants of the surviving spouse but only of the deceased parent(step children of the surviving spouse) then the estate is split. At least that's how I read it.

[Sam1911]

Staylo, you're talking about this?

A surviving spouse of the decedent will also receive the entire estate if the decedent had descendants that are also descendants of the surviving spouse and neither the decedent nor the surviving spouse had any other children.

Then yes, if skoutr1's wife is the child of both the deceased father and his surviving wife (skoutr1's mother-in-law) then the mother-in-law should inherit the entire estate.

Which makes sense as the matter of further succession to the children will be handled upon the death of the mother-in-law.

The law that splits up the estate seems to be intended to protect OTHER children of the decedent (from previous marriages, etc.) and make sure they get a part of the estate instead of being shut out by the surviving wife who is not their blood relative.



In almost any case, it still appears that either skoutr1 or his wife would need to transfer the pistol through a PA FFL dealer.