View Full Version : Clinton Grybus's ex squeeze
What a gold digging money hungry number she has turned out to be.
Live with the bloke for a few months and now wants all his estate.
I have seen this bullshit too many times.
*shakes head*
Goat 53
10 Apr 2008, 15:24
ALL of his estate? Got a link?
If true, that's a bit rough.
FevolasFox
10 Apr 2008, 15:35
3 months is all it takes.
ALL of his estate? Got a link?
If true, that's a bit rough.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23514491-661,00.html
I know its the herald sun but...
Lynch takes a mark
10 Apr 2008, 15:54
$5500 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Nice ride
tigerboyz
10 Apr 2008, 15:57
What is it about blonde women that make them such gold diggers?.
Common thing.
At least Grybus is dead so she's not skinning the money from him.
I know a bloke that's been cleaned out twice and the second one wanted half his super. :eek:
FevolasFox
10 Apr 2008, 16:04
the second one wanted half his super. :eek:
Did she get it?
Why cant men take half of what they own?
TheSheik
10 Apr 2008, 16:04
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5979111,00.jpg
What does the will say?
Unfortunately there was no will. :(
That's been the problem.
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 16:05
Nice to see she is still grieving so soon after his death. :thumbsd:
numchuks
10 Apr 2008, 16:06
They were about to get married, yeah?
They were in a relationship, so I guess she deserves something.
Not sure whether she deserves the whole cake though.
Unfortunately there was no will. :(
That's been the problem.
ahh shit.
Never get engaged without 1. A Pre-nup 2. A Will.
Ms Grybas has also said: "Laurenna had only lived in that apartment since September . . . about four months."
Ms Toulmin has previously claimed that Grybas had kept their relationship secret for some time.
Quite simple. By law I believe you need to be living with each other full time for 6 months before any rights are granted? yes? Is there CCTV available of his Southbank apartment? If so just check it.
randyzany
10 Apr 2008, 16:12
Judging by the pic I reckon she was worth every penny. :thumbsu:
When I get married, pre-nup all the way baby! If she doesn't wanna sign a pre-nup then her intentions are brought forward all the quicker.So you are worth how many million?
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 16:15
Quite simple. By law I believe you need to be living with each other full time for 6 months before any rights are granted? yes? Is there CCTV available of his Southbank apartment? If so just check it.But wouldn't you need some kind of proof like joint back account etc?
I mean she could have been a friend he was putting up for all the law would know.
She looks nasty but,
They were about to get married, is this true?
Been together a while presumably, living together a while?
No kids?
Who else is entitled to it? Brother? Sister? Parents?
No, the woman you're about to marry would be the one you'd want to have your estate.
If they were just casually f@*king then yeah, she's a money grabbing bitch.
FevolasFox
10 Apr 2008, 16:18
She looks nasty but,
They were about to get married, is this true?
Been together a while presumably, living together a while?
No kids?
Who else is entitled to it? Brother? Sister? Parents?
No, the woman you're about to marry would be the one you'd want to have your estate.
If they were just casually f@*king then yeah, she's a money grabbing bitch.
Spot on brother :thumbsu:
red+black
10 Apr 2008, 16:18
Unfortunately there was no will. :(
Responsible people take out a will. How stupid could he be?
The Final Word
10 Apr 2008, 16:20
Quite simple. By law I believe you need to be living with each other full time for 6 months before any rights are granted? yes? Is there CCTV available of his Southbank apartment? If so just check it.
Seriously where did you pull this from?
And it's anything but simple, you're showing a great deal of naivity here.
FevolasFox
10 Apr 2008, 16:23
Responsible people take out a will. How stupid could he be?
Im 32 aswell, and I havn't even thought about a will yet.
So you are worth how many million?
You'd be surprised! ;)
jimmy35
10 Apr 2008, 16:26
Im 32 aswell, and I havn't even thought about a will yet.
Don't sleep walk .
Responsible people take out a will. How stupid could he be?
As much as I appreciated and respected Clinton like the next person, you're right. If he had as much cash lying around as he did he really needed a will.
red+black
10 Apr 2008, 16:28
Im 32 aswell, and I havn't even thought about a will yet.
You prove my point.
tigerboyz
10 Apr 2008, 16:29
Don't sleep walk .
We're all gonna cark it just live your life well and be kind to others.
Seriously where did you pull this from?
To be honest, it's something I heard some time back. Things may have changed but that was my knowledge of the situation. One you're living in a place with someone 6 months and in a relationship they start to get 'rights'. I can't be bothered googling resources but would be glad if you can either confirm this or prove I'm a tool! ;)
And it's anything but simple, you're showing a great deal of naivity here.
I know it's not 'simple'... just a figure of speech.
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 16:30
If there's no will then the estate will be dealt with under the laws of intestacy. In WA that would mean she'd get the lot if there's no kids. I'm not sure if Victoria's the same.
If she can prove they were in a de facto relationship then she'll get the lot. If she's going to struggle to prove that then expect things to get very very ugly. The estate's not that large and if it becomes a protracted battle then there's a real chance that the bulk of it will end up being paid to the lawyers.
Im 32 aswell, and I havn't even thought about a will yet.
What kind of assets do you have? If it's just the TV and couch in a rented house then perhaps a will isn't as important. If you've got half a million in cash then it would be advisable.
FevolasFox
10 Apr 2008, 16:31
You prove my point.
But then, I am married, so everything should go to the Mrs anyway, yeah? Thats what I'd want.
Lunchlady Doris
10 Apr 2008, 16:32
Judging by the pic I reckon she was worth every penny. :thumbsu:
You reckon?
Geezus, i'm married with 3 kids and I don't have a will, best do something about that.
Also, on reading the article, the parents sound a bit grabby.
red+black
10 Apr 2008, 16:33
You reckon?
He made a typo. What he meant to say was: Judging by the pic I reckon she was worth a penny.
tigerboyz
10 Apr 2008, 16:33
What kind of assets do you have? If it's just the TV and couch in a rented house then perhaps a will isn't as important. If you've got half a million in cash then it would be advisable.
Assets what are those?,I have only debts to leave behind.:D
red+black
10 Apr 2008, 16:34
But then, I am married, so everything should go to the Mrs anyway, yeah? Thats what I'd want.
Then make sure of it. What if an estranged sibling says they deserve 50%?
I know what most of you are thinking.
Yes, yes I would
Well she is a good looker and lets face it Clint was no oil painting (like myself), not that he was ugly.
How old was he ? 460 000 grand in cash - he must have been earning a packet.
Easy to see what she saw in him.
Unfortunately there was no will. :(
That's been the problem.
Therefore he has died intestate and the assets will be distributed in accordance with state legislation. Based on quick research looks like it all going to her if she can prove she is a de facto spouse. There is no "2-year" test in Victoria.
Any joint assets held in both Clinton's & that blond chick's name will pass directly to her under the rite of survivorship rules.
campbell
10 Apr 2008, 16:37
Sad stuff. if in fact his parents came to their house and took stuff, then I could imagine why she would be pissed.
Disrespectful by his parents of his sons choice of partner in life.
FevolasFox
10 Apr 2008, 16:37
Then make sure of it. What if an estranged sibling says they deserve 50%?
hmmm, point taken, will look into this further.
Seriously where did you pull this from?
Hit a nerve so I decided to look into it a little further.....
Am preety sure this is relevant.
Granting De Facto Spouses Rights on Proof of Dependence
In 1977 the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission proposed that further legal recognition should be extended to de facto relationships, but that such relationships should not be treated automatically as if they were legal marriages. The Commission recommended that recognition should be based on proof of dependence, but that it should be open to a de facto spouse to prove dependence only where the parties had lived together for at least twelve months.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/ip1summary
MadDawg
10 Apr 2008, 16:40
Its sorta like she's Terry Wallace and Grybas was the Richmond Football Club.
Assets what are those?,I have only debts to leave behind.:D
hahahahah :D
What a gold digging money hungry number she has turned out to be.
Live with the bloke for a few months and now wants all his estate.
I have seen this bullshit too many times.
*shakes head*
any chance of looking into the facts before you abuse and condemn a person youve never met and know absolutely nothing about!
The Donners
10 Apr 2008, 16:41
What a gold digging money hungry number she has turned out to be.
Live with the bloke for a few months and now wants all his estate.
I have seen this bullshit too many times.
*shakes head*
Anyone with reasonable grounds can contest a will. I'm not a solicitor but my brother is, I've asked this particular question for a situation I'm indirectly involved in.
Big Blow Hard
10 Apr 2008, 16:43
They lived together 3 months, but she was his practically his fiancee. /how long had they been together. Shes entitle to a share.
The Donners
10 Apr 2008, 16:45
Therefore he has died intestate and the assets will be distributed in accordance with state legislation.
Any joint assets held in both Clinton's & that blond chick's name will pass directly to her under the rite of survivorship rules.
Life tennancy for residence- She'll keep the house until death or until she vacates. Other than that parents have legal support to challenge for proceeds of corpus. Is this not true? :confused:
Its a question, not a rhetorical one.
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 16:48
They lived together 3 months, but she was his practically his fiancee. /how long had they been together. Shes entitle to a share.You can't be a little pregnant, she was either his fiancee or not.
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 16:49
Life tennancy for residence- She'll keep the house until death or until she vacates. Other than that parents have legal support to challenge for proceeds of corpus. Is this not true? :confused:
Its a question, not a rhetorical one.
If they owned it as joint tenants then it passes to her by right of survivorship.
If they owned it as tenants in common then she keeps her half and his half goes into his estate.
If he owned it and she just lived there, then it all goes into his estate.
The more I read the more I'm thinking she doesn't have a case. The item below states she should have been living with him 2 years!
Really, they should just split it down to the middle instead of handing it all to legal representation.
Am I entitled to a property settlement?
The Property (Relationships) Act (formerly called the De Facto Relationships Act) gives important rights to de facto partners and people in close personal relationships. The law gives such partners rights which are similar to those of a married partner claiming property settlement, regardless of whose name the property is in. However, you usually need to show that you have lived together for at least two years. If your relationship has lasted less than two years, you may claim if:
* There is a child of the relationship, or
* You are caring for a child of the other party, and the failure to make an order would result in serious injustice to you, or
* You made substantial contributions (financial or personal) for which you will not receive adequate compensation if the court does not make a property order, and the failure to make an order would result in serious injustice to you.
In deciding on the division of property, a court would take into account the financial and non-financial contributions of each partner – for example the labour involved in renovating property or answering the phones for a business – and the contributions of each partner as a homemaker and parent.
The property relevant to a claim may include real estate and personal property, such as funds held in a company, or damages payable to your partner as a result of court proceedings, but generally not superannuation owned by the other party. However, superannuation and property owned by a discretionary trust will often be a financial resource and relevant to a property settlement.
Applications for property division must be made to the Supreme Court, District Court or the Local Court within two years of the end of a relationship. The maximum you can claim in the Local Court is $60,000, unless the parties agree to the Local Court hearing
a claim for a higher amount. The maximum you may be able to claim in the District Court is $750,000. In some circumstances you may be able to apply outside the two-year period if the court gives permission. It is best for the claim to be made within two years of the end of the relationship.
http://www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?partid=6651
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 16:50
Hit a nerve so I decided to look into it a little further.....
Am preety sure this is relevant.
Granting De Facto Spouses Rights on Proof of Dependence
In 1977 the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission proposed that further legal recognition should be extended to de facto relationships, but that such relationships should not be treated automatically as if they were legal marriages. The Commission recommended that recognition should be based on proof of dependence, but that it should be open to a de facto spouse to prove dependence only where the parties had lived together for at least twelve months.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/ip1summary
The recommendations of the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission are unlikely to be relevant here. Try looking for Victorian legislation.
Life tennancy for residence- She'll keep the house until death or until she vacates. Other than that parents have legal support to challenge for proceeds of corpus. Is this not true? :confused:
Its a question, not a rhetorical one.
Only if the relationship ends up being recognised by the courts as de facto and there are rules in place to define a de facto. From what I've seen so fart of these rules they were not de facto but were in fact basically boyfriend and girlfriend living together.
It's been said that Clinton was to propose to her, this MAY change things a little however in saying that it never happened so probably can't be taken into account as he may have thought differently before proposing.
If the relationship is finally recognised as de facto then it may come down to working out percentages etc. It doesn't surprise me it's gotten messy.
The recommendations of the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission are unlikely to be relevant here. Try looking for Victorian legislation.
Have been trying! ;) I'd say it would likely be similar though.
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 16:56
Section 3 of the Victorian Administration and Probate Act defines a 'domestic partner' as
"a person irrespective of gender who lived with the intestate at the time of death on a genuine domestic basis for two continuous years prior to the intestate’s death or was the parent of a child of the intestate where that child was under the age of 18 years at the time of the intestate’s death
If she hadn't been living with him for two years she won't meet the criteria.
She could bring a claim under the relevant Family Provision legislation, which is likely to get even messier.
Black&White
10 Apr 2008, 16:58
She was not his fiancee!! Looks like another dumb blonde out to get what she can.Reminds me of Lara BLINGLE running out of petrol on the freeway...What a joke!!!Tell me it's not the money she is after:eek: and of course a celebrity husband..
His parents must be devastated, to lose a son, then to have all this crap tipped on them..
She is young, no doubt she will find another man before long..
Poor Clinton will be turning in his grave!
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 16:58
Have been trying! ;) I'd say it would likely be similar though.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/aapa1958259/
any chance of looking into the facts before you abuse and condemn a person youve never met and know absolutely nothing about!
Read the article - IF she is after his full estate I stand by what i say.
What's your opinion?
Caraboo
10 Apr 2008, 17:06
Have been trying! ;) I'd say it would likely be similar though.
Ari the only 6 month one I know of off the top of my head is the Child Support Agency one, where if you were living together for a period of 6 months or more, and that period includes the date of conception, then you will be presumed to be the father until proven otherwise, even if you haven't signed the birth certificate.
I'm pretty sure for all other defacto claims for property and assets you have to be living together for 2 years, or have had children together and living together before the death (and with acknowledged children involved the 2 year thingy doesn't apply).
Clark Kent
10 Apr 2008, 17:10
They were together quite a long time - four years, I think. From what I've heard on 3AW she's no gold-digger.
It seems a shame to me that she and the parents aren't communicating, but also a great shame that she's been judged based on very few facts.
LuvMyHawks
10 Apr 2008, 17:11
This is taken from the Law Institute of Victoria site!!
http://www.liv.asn.au/public/legalinfo/family/family-Defacto.html
Defacto relationships
Couples who have been living together in a de facto relationship for two years or more, or who have been cohabiting for a shorter time but who have had a child together, may make a claim in Victoria under the Property Law Act in relation to disputes about property.
I truly can't see that she has ANY claim at all on the estate...but then lawyers have ways and means of turning fact into fiction!!
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 17:13
They were together quite a long time - four years, I think. From what I've heard on 3AW she's no gold-digger.
It seems a shame to me that she and the parents aren't communicating, but also a great shame that she's been judged based on very few facts.
But only living together for 4 months, she has no claim and you'd think she'd have a little more sensitivity for the parents.
Power King
10 Apr 2008, 17:15
Did she get it?
Why cant men take half of what they own?
^Coz many of them make shit all.
Clark Kent
10 Apr 2008, 17:20
My take on it is that she loved the man. I don't know what's been said between her and his parents, so I can't comment on whether she lacks sensitivity or not, nor they.
But only living together for 4 months, she has no claim and you'd think she'd have a little more sensitivity for the parents.
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 17:21
There's a lot of rubbish and jumping to conclusions on this thread. I'll set out the actual legal situation for you:
It appears that Clinton Grybas died intestate (i.e. no will), which means that his estate will be split according to the laws of intestacy. If he had a "domestic partner", i.e. someone he lived with for two years or more then she gets the lot.
If this girl didn't live with him for two years then she doesn't qualify. It doesn't matter if they'd been going out, exclusive, going steady, whatever, it doesn't matter if he was about to propose ... if they hadn't been living together for two years then the estate will get split amongst his parents and siblings (if any).
Then she can possibly bring a claim for family provision. The court can award her any or all of the estate if it is satisfied that Clinton did not adequately provide for her proper education, maintenance and support. Whether he adequately provided for her will depend on the nature of the relationship, her own personal position in life, etc. It's generally a long, messy piece of litigation if you go down that path.
The Big League
10 Apr 2008, 17:24
The question really needs to be asked, why can't they just split it 50/50? Obviously the most important people in his life would have been his de-facto and his parents, wouldn't be want these two to have his stuff? Grow up people squabbling over chips makes you a seagull.
Have been trying! ;) I'd say it would likely be similar though.
Based on quick research looks like it all going to her if she can prove she is a de facto spouse. There is no "2-year" test in Victoria.
Pumper Rubberfunk
10 Apr 2008, 17:28
fox sports must be a tight bunch clint only had 450k left in the tin..
LuvMyHawks
10 Apr 2008, 17:35
Based on quick research looks like it all going to her if she can prove she is a de facto spouse. There is no "2-year" test in Victoria.
Wrong.. There is a TWO year "test" in Victoria.
Go to this page and read for yourself!
http://www.liv.asn.au/public/legalinfo/family/family-Defacto.html
bigtuna
10 Apr 2008, 17:40
Based on quick research looks like it all going to her if she can prove she is a de facto spouse. There is no "2-year" test in Victoria.
Some of the things written here are sick. :mad: I 've only read the last page and as a big fan of Clinton I am disgusted that people would attack the women he loved when they don't know her or the situation. You are just going on what was said in the sun. That 4 month figure thats been mentioned is what his parents claim so its only half the story.
I don't know who is right or wrong here. I just know that Clinton was my favourite commentator and host and its sick that people are trashing his memory by ignorant comments about the people he loved. I thought this was a footy site not New Idea message board. :rolleyes:
Underdog
10 Apr 2008, 17:41
But only living together for 4 months, she has no claim and you'd think she'd have a little more sensitivity for the parents.
I've been living with my girl for 18 months, she wouldn't qualify but I'd expect and wish her to get all my assets.
Unfortunately this seems it wouldn't be the case, but I don't think it's an unreal expectation for that to happen.
Did she get it?
Why cant men take half of what they own?
No, didn't stop her trying though, a bit of sandbagging and she had to lower her 'needs.'
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 17:45
I've been living with my girl for 18 months, she wouldn't qualify but I'd expect and wish her to get all my assets.
Unfortunately this seems it wouldn't be the case, but I don't think it's an unreal expectation for that to happen.
Then you should make a Will.
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 17:47
The question really needs to be asked, why can't they just split it 50/50? Obviously the most important people in his life would have been his de-facto and his parents, wouldn't be want these two to have his stuff? Grow up people squabbling over chips makes you a seagull.
Because she wasn't his de-facto, 4 months is nothing.
Underdog
10 Apr 2008, 17:52
Then you should make a Will.
I'll just marry her
Because she wasn't his de-facto, 4 months is nothing.
Disagree. That's pretty ignorant. The mere fact they moved in together, lived together for 4 months and he was reportedly going to propose, you'd expect they were very happy and in love.
Whilst that may not be sufficient by law, it's below the belt to belittle their relationship
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 17:56
Disagree. That's pretty ignorant. The mere fact they moved in together, lived together for 4 months and he was reportedly going to propose, you'd expect they were very happy and in love.
Whilst that may not be sufficient by law, it's below the belt to belittle their relationship
Well if you are going to use a legal term to describe their relationship you should not be surprised if you are pulled up for using it incorrectly, by law they are not de-facto, saying they are is ignorant.
bigtuna
10 Apr 2008, 18:08
Well if you are going to use a legal term to describe their relationship you should not be surprised if you are pulled up for using it incorrectly, by law they are not de-facto, saying they are is ignorant.
How the ____ would you know what they are by law. It's Clinton's parents who claim they lived together for only 4 months, that's their side of the story. Until this goes to court and both sides give their account wouldn't it be best to respect Clinton's memory and the people he loved and not speculate about this? This is sick.:mad:
Underdog
10 Apr 2008, 18:09
Well if you are going to use a legal term to describe their relationship you should not be surprised if you are pulled up for using it incorrectly, by law they are not de-facto, saying they are is ignorant.
I certainly know that, that's why I didn't. I was disputing the "4 months is nothing" statement in regards to their relationship just because they weren't de-facto
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 18:14
How the ____ would you know what they are by law. It's Clinton's parents who claim they lived together for only 4 months, that's their side of the story.Yes I'm sure his mother is lying about something so easy to confirm. :rolleyes:
bigtuna
10 Apr 2008, 18:19
Yes I'm sure his mother is lying about something so easy to confirm. :rolleyes:
So is his girlfriend lying about something so easy to confirm?:rolleyes: Get some class you tosser. Clinton was a class act and his parents had confirmed that he was going to propose to Laurenna but things have obviously turned sour between the parties and now the parents claim they were only dating a short time and only living together for 4 months. I don't know the full story and you obviously don't unless you were close to Clinton so stop dragging his memory through the mud with your ignorant diatribe.
DanGerous
10 Apr 2008, 18:23
So is his girlfriend lying about something so easy to confirm?She didn't say anything in that article. :rolleyes:
The Donners
10 Apr 2008, 18:28
If they owned it as joint tenants then it passes to her by right of survivorship.
If they owned it as tenants in common then she keeps her half and his half goes into his estate.
If he owned it and she just lived there, then it all goes into his estate.
What about life tennancy rules? The capital would go to the estate but the use of the residence would remain with the girlfriend/fiance... or whatever she is. That's my understanding anyway.
I'm not quite fully qualified accountant so I wouldn't take my word as gospel, however internal training at work has led me to believe abovementioned.
FiveStrings
10 Apr 2008, 18:35
What about life tennancy rules? The capital would go to the estate but the use of the residence would remain with the girlfriend/fiance... or whatever she is. That's my understanding anyway.
I'm not quite fully qualified accountant so I wouldn't take my word as gospel, however internal training at work has led me to believe abovementioned.
There has to be something creating a life tenancy, it doesn't just happen because she was living in his house when he died.
The Donners
10 Apr 2008, 18:53
There has to be something creating a life tenancy, it doesn't just happen because she was living in his house when he died.
Oh yeah, that would depend on what the will said... err... there's no will! :eek:
What is this girls job??....what does she do??....
red+black
12 Apr 2008, 02:02
I'll just marry her
I would suggest a Will would put her in a stronger position in case a claim is made against your estate.
Why are you seemingly so lazy to get a Will?
Forrest Gimp
12 Apr 2008, 03:04
How do things get so messy that it comes to this? Does she really want the WHOLE estate? If so, that's pretty twisted. I'm sure Grybas would have wanted his family to be looked after as best they can, as well as his G/F.
Mighty Eagles
12 Apr 2008, 17:52
Greedy bitch. She is turning this public so she can get a profile, which will garantee her a over-paid interview with Channel 9 which will get her money.
Regardless of this she'll benefit financially, fair or not fair.
Greedy bitch. She is turning this public so she can get a profile, which will garantee her a over-paid interview with Channel 9 which will get her money.
Dunno about that, let's be honest the future missus of Clinton Grybus is hardly big news across Australia. Grybus wasn't that big.
tigerboyz
13 Apr 2008, 06:24
What is this girls job??....what does she do??....
Professional Gold digger.:p
How the ____ would you know what they are by law. It's Clinton's parents who claim they lived together for only 4 months, that's their side of the story. Until this goes to court and both sides give their account wouldn't it be best to respect Clinton's memory and the people he loved and not speculate about this? This is sick.:mad:
Something smells here, I get the feeling Clinton's parent may be blaming a little lady for his death. People don't turn on the Ex after a seemingly "innocent" death without reason.
Responsible people take out a will. How stupid could he be?
This whole episode is so ugly.
How many people who are 32 think about their own mortality? Not many. Beyond that, how many people think, "If I die, my family and girlfriend might fight over my assets, so I should have my will written." ??
It is not as if he was a rich man.
I don't think it is stupid at all that he didn't have a will.
red+black
13 Apr 2008, 22:05
I've had a Will since my early 20s. Surely common sense dictates that as you start to accumulate assets you go get a Will. As your life situation and assets change, you get a new Will.
Honestly, if you're married and have a little child, and don't have a Will, you are irresponsible. I don't care how old you are.