5 Things to Do Now to Make Your Estate Simpler for Your Heirs

No one likes to think about their own demise, but planning can make life after your death significantly easier for heirs.

Here are five ways to help heirs avoid extra time, money, stress and acrimony after you pass:

Keep documents updated

Having a will or living trust is essential—but it isn’t enough. The proper documents need to be updated periodically, especially as life circumstances change.

Amber Hughes , a lawyer in the Phoenix office of law firm Dickinson Wright, offers the example of a mother who belatedly drafted new estate-planning documents but died before signing them. The old will had named as heirs stepchildren she hadn’t spoken to in 20 years, and her sons are spending tens of thousands of dollars to have the unsigned will enforced by a judge.

Many people also fail to update beneficiaries for life insurance, retirement accounts and bank or investment accounts. These assets pass according to the beneficiary designation, if there is one, regardless of what the will or living trust says, says Laura Zwicker , chair of the private client services group at law firm Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger in Los Angeles.

A client’s brother had an IRA valued at several million dollars. When he died, the IRA funds went to a woman he hadn’t dated for at least 10 years instead of to his brother’s daughters, even though they were named as beneficiaries in his trust. The heir indicated on the IRA was the former girlfriend, and that was the one that counted. “Imagine their surprise, but there’s nothing we can do about it,” Zwicker says.

Address digital assets

Many people have digital assets, including email and online photos, that could be lost to heirs if proper provisions aren’t put in place. For instance, a writer who stores plays or novels on a Google drive, but doesn’t set up a Google inactive-account profile, may make it harder or impossible for heirs to gain access to these works. Terms might differ, so having appropriate documentation on file with each provider is important.

Cryptocurrency and non fungible tokens can also easily be lost if their owners don’t provide heirs a way to access these assets. So people should make sure beneficiaries know how to access an account’s private keys—the secret numbers used to access cryptocurrency—as well as the kind of wallet and crypto type. One caveat: Those private keys and other sensitive information shouldn’t be included in a will because it becomes public through the probate process and that puts the assets at risk.

Assign personal property in advance

Many people assume that heirs will figure out on their own how to divide personal property, but that can lead to fights.

Hughes offers the example of three sisters who fought over their mother’s collection of hundreds of porcelain dolls. They had to hire a professional mediator to draw straws until all of the dolls were distributed. Had the mother made a personal-property list before she died, significant aggravation and hostility might have been avoided. The list can be handwritten and up-to-date, and should be kept with estate-plan documents. The document should also include where items can be found.

Leave good notes

Estate-planning experts advise that people set aside a folder with important information for the heirs, such as names, numbers and locations of accounts, as well as names and contact information for attorneys, accountants and financial advisers. This is especially important since bills are often paid online, eliminating once-helpful paper statements. Also let heirs know where to find your estate-planning documents. “If you can’t find the will and you don’t know who the trust and estate attorney is, that’s a horrible situation,” says Seth Slotkin at law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in New York.

One word of caution: Try not to leave unnecessary documents for your heirs, because it’s overwhelming, Slotkin says. How long to keep certain documents depends on their nature, but generally speaking, purging unnecessary documents will save your heirs time and money, he says.

Strive for conflict-avoidance

Parents sometimes create conflict by choosing one child over another to serve as executor, trustee or both, says Neil Solarz , shareholder at Weinstock Manion in Los Angeles.

Sometimes it may be appropriate. But in most instances, Solarz recommends naming a relative or friend to avoid potential sibling-rivalry issues. If there’s no one else available, people might consider hiring a trust company or a private professional fiduciary—vetted and licensed individuals who are licensed to act as trustees or executors.

People who have specific reasons for dividing assets or roles unevenly should prepare a letter that explains their thought process, which can help mitigate the potential for future conflicts, Slotkin says. For example, clarify that you named your daughter as executor because she lives locally, but that you want all of your children to work together to settle the estate, he says. Or, if you are leaving the younger of three children $100,000 more than the others, explain why. This extra step can mean the difference between harmony and acrimony among your heirs, he says.

“The thing that’s most likely to cause the estate process to dissolve into something horrible is acrimony among the children,” Slotkin says. “If you want to make things easy for your kids, if there’s anything that could be misinterpreted, explain it to them so they’re not fighting about it.”

It’s the corporate gamble of the moment: Can you run a company, increasing sales and juicing profits, without adding people?

American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink through layoffs—without harming their businesses.

Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy many still describe as uncertain.

JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors recently that the bank now has a “very strong bias against having the reflective response” to hire more people for any given need. Aerospace and defense company RTX boasted last week that its sales rose even without adding employees.

Goldman Sachs , meanwhile, sent a memo to staffers this month saying the firm “will constrain head count growth through the end of the year” and reduce roles that could be more efficient with AI. Walmart , the nation’s largest private employer, also said it plans to keep its head count roughly flat over the next three years, even as its sales grow.

“If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky , Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”

Airbnb employs around 7,000 people, and Chesky says he doesn’t expect that number to grow much over the next year. With the help of AI, he said he hopes that “the team we already have can get considerably more work done.”

Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit , every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla , the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.

“That typical behavior that settles in—and we’re all guilty of it—is, historically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Aujla said in an interview. Now, when someone quits, the company asks: “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?”

Intuit has chosen not to replace certain roles in its finance, legal and customer-support functions, he said. In its last fiscal year, the company’s revenue rose 16% even as its head count stayed flat, and it is planning only modest hiring in the current year.

The desire to avoid hiring or filling jobs reflects a growing push among executives to see a return on their AI spending. On earnings calls, mentions of ROI and AI investments are increasing, according to an analysis by AlphaSense, reflecting heightened interest from analysts and investors that companies make good on the millions they are pouring into AI.

Many executives hope that software coding assistants and armies of digital agents will keep improving—even if the current results still at times leave something to be desired.

The widespread caution in hiring now is frustrating job seekers and leading many employees within organizations to feel stuck in place, unable to ascend or take on new roles, workers and bosses say.

Inside many large companies, HR chiefs also say it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict just how many employees will be needed as technology takes on more of the work.

Some employers seem to think that fewer employees will actually improve operations.

Meta Platforms this past week said it is cutting 600 jobs in its AI division, a move some leaders hailed as a way to cut down on bureaucracy.

“By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Alexandr Wang , Meta’s chief AI officer, wrote in a memo to staff seen by The Wall Street Journal.

Though layoffs haven’t been widespread through the economy, some companies are making cuts. Target on Thursday said it would cut about 1,000 corporate employees, and close another 800 open positions, totaling around 8% of its corporate workforce. Michael Fiddelke , Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo sent to staff that too “many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”

A range of other employers, from the electric-truck maker Rivian to cable and broadband provider Charter Communications , have announced their own staff cuts in recent weeks, too.

Operating with fewer people can still pose risks for companies by straining existing staffers or hurting efforts to develop future leaders, executives and economists say. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword,” said Matthew Martin , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “You want to keep your head count costs down now—but you also have to have an eye on the future.”