Affidavit For Collection Of Personal Property For Small Estates: Fill & Download for Free

How does probate work when there is no will?The person will have died intestate, meaning s/he will have died without a will. The laws of intestacy in the state where s/he was last domiciled would apply.Laws of intestacy govern appointment of a personal representative or administrator to probate the estate. These laws would especially determine how property and residue would be distributed, to whom and the proportions, but only after payment of taxes, last illness expenses, funeral expenses, unpaid debts and claims against the estate.It may be possible to use the state’s small estates affidavit process with probate being necessary if the value of the estate is under a certain value set forth in the law.I will assume the estate must go through probate because its value is over the limit set forth by state probate law.Someone would have had to be acquainted with the decedent. That person as an “interested person” could petition the probate court where decedent was last domiciled to open an estate. Maybe that “interested person” could also petition the court for appointment as PR. Another “interested person,” meaning a person or entity who has an interest in the estate because s/he/it has a claim against it could petition the court to open the estate and appoint a PR (with estate monies eventually paying of the claim). In this situation, the court might appoint an administrator to probate the estate. In Colorado, the administrator may very well be the public administrator for the county (hereinafter, the “personal representative” or “PR”).The PR will ascertain the decedent’s children who would be rightful heirs under the laws of intestacy, which may take time and effort, other possible heirs and other persons with an interest in the estate, very possibly before the estate is open. The PR will notify these people an estate is being opened and copy them with all pleadings s/he files with the probate court.As with a testate estate (decedent had a valid will admitted to probate), the PR will marshal the estate assets. The statutory claims period will begin running after the estate is opened, so the PR will ensure notice of the claims period is published in the newspaper and notify all known creditors the estate is open and the claims period is running. The PR would consider any claims filed against the estate In short, the PR will handle the same tasks s/he would for a testate estate and a few more. In the meantime, if the PR determines decedent owned property out of state, s/he will have to open an estate(s) in the states in question to probate the property.Only after all priority expenses are paid, claims are settled and any other property passes through probate and distributed can the PR distribute the leftover monies, called “residue,” to the heirs pursuant to the laws of intestacy and in the proportions these laws mandate.It is notable that under intestacy laws rightful heirs might be relatives who decedent would have neither imagined could inherit from him/her or, more importantly, relatives s/he had nothing to do with and would have never named them as beneficiaries had s/he made a will.Probate is a process, especially considering in many states courts closely supervise probate and personal representatives very often must apply to the probate courts for permission to act every time they need to. If they don’t know how to act, even if a probate attorney helps them, they may have to ask the court how to proceed via filing a petition for instructions.Finally, many states have a small estates affidavit process. If heirs file with the probate court an affidavit in which they swear under oath they are rightful heirs to an estate, they can collect their shares without probate. However - the estate has to be under a certain value pursuant to state law to use the small estates affidavit process. How to File an Affidavit for the Collection of a Small Estate

Every time there’s a political ‘shock’ in our nation, when our people’s consciences are seared with a hot iron from events that make us fearful, we tend to knee-jerk and say ‘Someone ought to make a law’.What, I fear, those who are against the second amendment right will never tell you is that Cruikshanks was decided the way it was out of racial animus, and ignored the plain intent of the author of the Fourteenth amendment, and that of congress and the states that passed it.Congressional Debates of the 14th AmendmentThe next question is whether this act infringes that section of the Constitution which declares that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?' "The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, bemore tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of theState, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental, to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each State in every other State was manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of the corresponding provision in the old Articles of Confederation) 'the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States of the Union.'"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be — for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.What they will also not tell you is that there are multiple state-level court cases (from the 1830s) claiming that the right was cojoined within the second amendment and the state constitutions, and nearly all of them (with the exception of New York) recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms as part of the very national citizenship… until they were faced with the idea of being forced to share that citizenship with persons of other skin colors.Nor are they willing to look at the laws of England and the privileges and immunities of British subjects, from which our own rights arose, which also involved a right to keep and bear arms.Absolute Rights of Individuals - LONANG InstituteJustice Blackstone had a lot to say on the subject of rights, laws, and punishment under the British system.5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other. And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. so long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in its full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.By and large in the racial cases (Prudence crandall being among those) they claimed that right was restricted to the WHITE citizens of the united states,a nd hence, nobody else could be citizens. (They also generally tried to exclude those of Irish and Italian ancestry from that definition), but it was among the rights of that class of persons known as citizens.They ignore what the milita WAS at the time.LETTERS ON THE LATE WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN: TOGETHER WIT OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS ON THE SAME SUBJECTFrom the war of 1812.The episode with the “brilliant dash,” seems to have been marked with nearly all the charicteristics of the “brilliant dash” itself. Sir peter Parker, with his ship’s company and marines, go in search of a parcel of militia in a wood. The reader may not, perhaps, be aware, that there is no sort of resemblence betwen the American and the English militia. These militia in America receive no pay, no clothing, no arms, from the government. Every man goes out in his own ordinary array and carries his own arms and accoutrements. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, he finds his own powder and ball. In short, it was a body of the people, voluntarily assembled, and acknowleging no superior not of their own electing: This was the sort of force against whom Sir Peter Parker marched. They were, as usual, greatly superior in numbers; and as usual, they were defeated, and ran away. But in the end, Sir Peter lost his life, and his second in command succeeded. . . . . . . in what? Why, in bringing off to the ship almost all our wounded.I would say the gentleman writing this article, alas, has failed all the tests of historic study; a responsibility to derive the truth from what he read, to dig deeper into the subject, and to not simply take things at the initial glance. Take his mentions of the Federalist papers as regards to arms and militias.He takes the federalist 29, and ignores multiple other federalist papers on the subject of arms. The federalist 27 through 29 concern the militia, yes, but in the format of arming and disciplining the militia via training.If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!There was a strong concern that the states could crush the rights of the citizens, but there was other further quotes on the subject.Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.Then there are the arguments in that Continental Congress.Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a(p.17)standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.[13]Tench Coxe wrote on the subject, and was thanked by Madison for it:The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The Yeomanry are the people, the untrained, undisciplined people, subject to the call to military service, but separate from the organized military. Upon being called to service, or calling themselves thus, they become a thing known as a ‘militia’.When we disbanded the militias in the post-civil-war south, we did not disarm them. To do so would be a violation of their rights, according to the argument, and even then it was recognized that the rights were separate from militia service.There was a grave fear that the people would be disarmed, at the federal or state level in the beginning.Massachusetts Yeomen Oppose the "Aristocratickal" Constitution, January, 1788.In framing a constitution for this commonwealth, two trials were made before one would stick. We are willing to relinquish so much, as to have a firm, energetick government, and this we are sensible may be done, without becoming slaves, to the capricious fancies of any sett of men whatever. It is argued, that there is no danger that the proposed rulers will be disposed to exercise any powers that this constitution puts into their hands, which may enable them to deprive the people of their liberties. But in case, say they, they should make such attempts, the people may, and will rise to arms and prevent it; in answer to which, we have only to say, we have had enough of fighting in the late war, and think it more eligible, to keep our liberties in our own hands, whilst it is in our power thus to do, than to place them in the hands of fallible men, like ourselves, who may if they please, entirely deprive us of them, and so we be at last reduced to the sad alternative of losing them forever, or recovering them back by the point of the sword. The aristocratick party are sensible, that these are the sentiments of the majority of the community, and their conduct plainly evinces the truth of a well known ancient adage— " Nothing cuts like the truth."This is not a new battle. The Republican party and the Democratic have been arguing about it since before the passage of the 14th amendment.People rail against District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)They claim that there was no history behind McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)Have they ever READ them?After the Civil War, many of the over 180,000 African Americans who served in the Union Army returned to the States of the old Confederacy, where systematic efforts were made to disarm them and other blacks. See Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 42); E. Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877, p. 8 (1988) (hereinafter Foner). The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that “no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” Certain Offenses of Freedmen, 1865 Miss. Laws p. 165, §1, in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction 289 (W. Fleming ed. 1950); see also Regulations for Freedmen in Louisiana, in id., at 279–280; H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236 (1866) (describing a Kentucky law); E. McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction 40 (1871) (describing a Florida law); id., at 33 (describing an Alabama law).[Footnote 18]Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves. In the first session of the 39th Congress, Senator Wilson told his colleagues: “In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages upon them; and the same things are done in other sections of the country.” 39th Cong. Globe 40 (1865). The Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction—which was widely reprinted in the press and distributed by Members of the 39th Congress to their constituents shortly after Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment[Footnote 19]—contained numerous examples of such abuses. See, e.g., Joint Committee on Reconstruction, H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, pp. 219, 229, 272, pt. 3, pp. 46, 140, pt. 4, pp. 49–50 (1866); see also S. Exec. Doc. No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 23–24, 26, 36 (1865). In one town, the “marshal [took] all arms from returned colored soldiers, and [was] very prompt in shooting the blacks whenever an opportunity occur[red].” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, at 238 (internal quotation marks omitted). As Senator Wilson put it during the debate on a failed proposal to disband Southern militias: “There is one unbroken chain of testimony from all people that are loyal to this country, that the greatest outrages are perpetrated by armed men who go up and down the country searching houses, disarming people, committing outrages of every kind and description.” 39th Cong. Globe 915 (1866).[Footnote 20]Union Army commanders took steps to secure the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms,[Footnote 21] but the 39th Congress concluded that legislative action was necessary. Its efforts to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms demonstrate that the right was still recognized to be fundamental.The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in §14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right … to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens … without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added).[Footnote 22] Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitutional right to bear arms.”One might pardon my exasperation, but it would seem a willful blindness to claim ‘no history’ where the history is not only laid out, but referenced and footnoted and neatly stacked away.From HellerBetween the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.Someone is lying here… one side or the other. The history is laid out, the examination is plain and relatively simple. Even the language of the amendment itself is explored in Heller, McDonald, and Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)For the last 150 years, the same party has been declaring that there is no such right, in violation of both the laws, and the constitution.Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of LawWhen we engage in felonies under the color of ‘public policy’ it hardly comports with the ‘democratic process’.

Wonderment at quality of life but bewildering language and norms.Probably it is easier to move east to west (Frenchman to NY), then west to east (American to Paris).They key difference is that Frenchmen have to study a foreign language (most likely English) and have ample opportunity to visit or practice foreign languages (longer holidays, shorter distances); so most under 50 can read/write somewhat even if they lack practice in speaking and understanding spoken English. American movies and TV now are shown in France, and so, Frenchmen have at least a superficial familiarity with American lifestyles.Big city denizens and government employees are unlikely to be able to accommodate non-French speakers, much as Americans and civil servants are unlikely to deal with foreign languages save for Spanish in some States.Wonderment as there still exists “mom and pop” stores in cities and towns, with a daily ritual of shopping at the bakers, fruit vendors, delicatessens, local groceries as well as occasional trips to fishmongers, pastry makers, candy and chocolate makers, the wine merchant; weekly, often Saturday is open market day at the municipal Halles (Market Hall).With tiny homes, the French socialize daily in cafes, so don’t expect to be invited over much.On the weekend, visit the “hypermarkets” (“Walmarts”); the key difference is that the food hall is more than half the store. Shelves of dairy products stretch beyond what the eye can see. The variety of fresh produce, including local production, is astounding as well as seasonal. Did you know that there are more than a dozen types of cherries or lettuces? That cheeses go from runny at room temperature to rock hard in over a hundred varieties. That day old bread is rejected with some people going to the bakers twice a day for freshness. That your interactions with neighborhood people may be wider and more frequent than in the US where you use your car to shop, rarely hang out in cafes instead of your living room.Easiest Adaptation - Longer, more frequent holidays; more foreign travel opportunity.France has statutory minimum of about 4 weeks of vacation per year. With public holidays, another two weeks are available. Many families head off for weeks in August, leading to seasonal closures in cities’ businesses, but, usefully, lighter crowds as many French will have left town.Since France borders 6 countries and has a tunnel link to England, “foreign travel” is easy, not costly and rapid (Pre COVID, at least). Outside of the UK and Ireland, NOT studying a 2nd language since primary school is the exception.Everyday life challengesResidency PermitsUsually, a newly-arrived immigrant from outside the EU is allowed one-year, renewable permits (Carte de Séjour). After three years, the person may be offered a multi-year resident (Carte de Résident de longue durée, usually valid for 10 years)Accommodation is a BIG problem in Paris. Cost is somewhat less exorbitant than in NYC. However, it is extremely difficult to have a lease for an unfurnished apartment; residential leases terms are statutory with indexing of rent, minimum term of several years. It is very much in favor of lessees, so lessors are extremely demanding or choosy.If you are a well-paid employee of a major firm, that may be sufficient but, in many cases, one would need a payment guarantee of a year’s lease either by blocking an account (like an escrow) or by guarantee of a firm or a French resident (assuming that such practises remain available).Others costs includeOccupancy tax (taxe d’habitation; impôts locaux) are imposed on the occupant by the government. Tenants are liable for this as a cost of using city services. It may be collected monthly or quarterly.Property Ownership tax (Taxe Foncière). This is paid annually by the owners even of empty property.In the US “Property Tax” = Taxe d’habitation + Taxe foncière.So, a French lease excludes the Taxe d’habitation, whereas a US lease includes it - so US leases tend to vary widely according to property values from year to year. In France, the lease or rental amount is stably indexed but the Occupancy tax is charged to the tenant.Monthly maintenance charges (charges mensuelles). Whereas neighborhood or condo associations in the US organize common area services, and charge occupants a monthly share of expenses, in France, it is usually in the hands of commercial building maintenance firms or organization called “Syndicats immobiliers”. This pays for cleaning, repairs, common area maintenance, waste disposal and, sometimes, a live-in building supervisor (“concierge”)Upfront capital costs / Key money (la reprise d’appartement). In addition, French “unfurnished” means bare walls. Tenants install their own kitchen, cabinets and equipment. For that reason, a previous tenant could require “key money” as reimbursement for any fixtures they leave - otherwise, you could be left with a place with no cabinets, appliances, floor covering and window treatments. The more tony areas also have some “key money” that is almost a premium access fee that is strictly illegal but often practised.Healthcare Access and Medical insurance (Public Coverage usually combined with Private Insurance)If you are employed, they may offer a wrap-around complementary private insurance on top of the French public coverage, or covering travel outside of France. If you are not (freelancer, retiree, entrepreneur), you will have to get registered with the local Social Security office that also opens the door to health insurance, usually via Amélie (Assurance Maladie). Most French people (87%) have private “complementary” coverage to cover both the higher fees of non-State providers as well as for premium “hospitality” (like private rooms) and para-medical (dental, optical, hearing). Those “complémentaires” are often non-profit and low cost.Public health coverage operates like a national HMO with your “généraliste” acting as a PCP gatekeeper for access to specialists.However, your private health insurance policy may allow for directly consulting with a specialist - but it won’t be covered by the government system.You can get a list of English-speaking MDs from the US Embassy but many French MDs are accustomed to reading English medical texts, so, in extremis, write out your questions and answers.Education for childrenFrance is mostly safe for minors to travel on their own in daytime, and public transport is dense; so, unlike in the US, many children travel to school unsupervised. Nonetheless, until they are familiar with transport and the lay of the land, you may have to do as in the US, take them to school and back.French schools have a pecking order, even in the public sector. If you want your children to be only in a French curriculum, learn as much as possible about the landscape. From 5 to 12, your children would most rapidly make the linguistic transtion; they’ll soon be your daily life interpreters and get a sense of responsibility in the family.Teenagers, already disoriented by loss of familiar relationships, have a harder time both linguistically and socially. You may want to put them initially in immersion French courses to ease their transition. Bilingual schools are especially suitable for teens since they face a harder linguistic learning curve and social isolation issues. Besides those with American curricula, there are a number of schools with British equivalence or with EU equivalence. The best such schools may not be close to your residence, so you may want to consider weekday boarding, seeing your kids on weekends and holidays (all 4–6 weeks of yours, and the 12 weeks of theirs - unless you can have them join the Spring School Skiing trips or send them to their country of birth with grandparents in Summer).Higher education. While health professions are only taught at universities, other disciplines are also taught in “elite” schools with competitive entry and assessment methods, the “Grandes Ecoles”. If you wish your child to attend university or a Grande Ecole in France, the benefit would be much lower tuition costs than in the US where one usually has to make financial plans as soon as a child is born!Pensions & Workers Compensation. In France, there are public, autonomous pension funds, organized by professional group. Get ready to the land of obtuse acronyms (AGIRC, ARRCO…) These pension funds are decoupled from the solvency of employers. Ask the HR department to explain but it takes a while to understand.French Banking - Opening a French bank account. Very difficult for Americans because of FATCA.The Obama Administration slipped in FATCA into the PACA. This technical-sounding law basically has been forced upon non-US banks into becoming screeners for US taxpayers among their clients. Although the terms of FATCA contravene privacy laws in many countries, since the USD is the world reserve currency, non-compliance by a foreign bank can lead to its bankruptcy if the US Treasury blocks US dollar transactions of that bank. The work-around is that the international bank (not the foreign government) complies with FATCA and forces American account holders to give up their right to financial privacy regarding FATCA! It takes hundreds of millions of euros for a bank’s transaction systems to be compliant with the automated reporting of FATCA, so most smaller banks simply reject any client who MAY be subject to US taxation (i.e. “US Persons” in the IRS definition - not the Immigration definition).As a result, long-term expatriate American clients of foreign banks, binationals, their spouses and even children have been subject to account freezing or closures unless the clients signed away their rights to non-disclosure to the IRS/FinCen or signed affidavits that they were not subject to US taxes. Only the largest foreign banks have invested in the compliance systems of FATCA; in France, it is BNP Paribas that had been fined over $1 billion! Almost every other French bank will likely discourage your custom as a retail customer.Filing Taxes. Americans are obliged to file Income Tax for life, regardless of residence. This means double complexity - the local country and the US’ tax filing obligations, on dual timetables. Banking secrecy has gone with FATCA compliance, so it is no longer possible to simply stop filing IRS (and now, also to FinCEN) annually.France Income Tax, it is very straightforward if you are an employee without a complex estate. Taxes are higher than in the US BUT you have no financial worries for health care, no need to plan decades ahead for higher education of children, no need to worry about your employer’s pension fund disappearing… The tax forms are pre-filled with info provided by the employer and many Frenchmen don’t need a CPA. However, if you have income-producing assets and activities outside of France, you should hire an Expert Comptable (= CPA). French residents are taxed on worldwide income but, unlike in the US, that ends when you give up French residency.US Income Tax & FATCA filings. The IRS will be part of your life until you die. Unfortunately, your American government heads the only nation on earth that enforces extraterritorial taxation based on citizenship / status of Lawful Permanent Resident. You should hire an US expat tax service as tax evasion is a felony and subject to punitive penalties. You have to file taxes annually even if there is zero net tax incurred. HR Block has a virtual expat service used by servicemen stationed outside the US but you may wish to locale an IRS accredited agent from the American Embassy.Thanks to FATCA, you also have to annually file notification of all your non-US financial assets if they totaled over $10k at any point in the year. This is to FinCen - in addition to the IRS.Option 1 Scheme for US taxation - FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) If your only income in France is wages (“earned income”) totaling under $90k (or whatever the current threshold is), US taxes are greatly simplified if the French earnings are less than a threshold pro-rated to physical presence (FEIE prorated to maximum annual thereshold x non-us physical presence days/365). You would still file US taxes but your income net of FEIE could be zero. KEEP CLOSE RECORD OF YOUR DAYS ON US TERRITORY.Option 2 Scheme for US Taxation - FTC (Foreign Tax Credit). If your income is higher than the maximum FEIE threshold, or if you have significant “non-earned income” (rental income, alimony, passive investments, trust disbursements, dividends, foreign bonds, real estate earnings, foreign capital gains, royalties etc.), it’s usually cheaper to opt for filing US taxes on world income but deducting allowed foreign taxation on such income. Since, in most cases, the foreign taxation is less than US tax, so the net US tax bill could be zero.If you are resident in a country that only taxes national income (i.e. Panama, Bermuda etc.), you would still have to pay the IRS taxes as if you were resident in the US; the only “saving” would be not being obliged to enroll in Medicare when you reach 65 years if you wish to avoid a late enrolment penalty. However, if you intend to return to the US annually beyond even if retired overseas, it may make sense to enroll in Medicare at age 65 and also subscribe to a zero premium wraparound HMO Medicare Plan - just remember that you have to have at least an annual checkup for an HMO. Choose a US residence that is convenient to your lifestyle and travel pattern. (e.g.Chicago versus Ann Arbor, Denver versus Reno, PHL versus Norristown, San Francisco versus Eureka, Miami versus Ocala, Boston versus Hartford…). I don’t know if the pandemic of 2020 would allow for continued “virtual consultation” regarding annual checkup.Some taxation treaties between the US and a foreign nation restrict categories on income etc. Don’t assume anything as each country pair treaty is different.Estate Planning & PortfoliosFrench inheritance is taxed more and the rules are more rigid and complex.For example, in France, you cannot disinherit biological or adopted children, nor can you allocate grossly inequitable assets among them; the spouse cannot be favored at the expense of children. That is the basis of Paloma Picasso’s fortune; she was born to one of Pablo’s mistresses and sued to acquire his lastname and a share of his estate.The “wicked, gold-digging step mother” or “swindler of widows” is less likely to be successful in France than in the US since estates limit what spouses inherit and children cannot be disinherited. If you hear otherwise in the French press (like Johnny Hallyday né SMET whose last wife Laetitia is accused of grabbing most of Johnny’s estate to the detriment of his children by former marriages), it because they had expatriated outside of France (to the US in the case of Johnny Hallyday).If there is an indivisible asset (like a property) and the heirs cannot arrange how to share (e.g. buyout), the contested (“indivision”) estate can go into independent disposal by sale for liquidation and disbursement. In the case of the Picasso heirs, there was a division of paintings, some of which were given to the State in lieu of estate taxes.If you have major assets around the world and there is a chance that you pass away as a French resident subject to French estate law, it is worthwhile arranging inter-generational transfers BEFORE you become a French taxpayer.Portfolio taxation on non-US instruments is dissuasively high for US Persons. The US taxes foreign source instruments at a much higher rate than US-source investments. (See PFIC) Basically, the IRS taxes capital gains from non-US financial investments as if they were ordinary income. This dissuades Americans, whether residing in the US or not, from investing in any non-US-based funds! It is a form of financial instrument protectionism by the US; if you wish to invest in non-US stocks, do so only via US instruments, or directly in individual foreign stocks. However, the French would also tax any gains from your worldwide portfolio if you restrict investment only in US instruments.If you have a non-US pension, depending upon the taxation treaty of the two countries, you may be subject to double taxation! For example, a British multinational may be able to pay into its US pension fund for an American working in London. Work this out if the foreign pension is substantial.The Cocooned Expatriate.In other words, if you are in an Anglophone cocoon for work and socializing (multinational executive, jurist, diplomat) you would simply be one of many transient “expats” in Paris. In such situations, the employer would provide or have a staff for administrative service to arrange the administrative dealings for residence, drivers license, spouse employment, child care, schooling, taxes, health insurance, home insurance, rent etc.There are some long-term expatriate Americans who NEVER integrate into French society, even after 10 years, and are destined to be forever an outsider limited to socializing with a small expatriate community, many of whom are transient.There may be some French families who are very worldly and all can socialize in English, but that’s a very thin stratum of Frenchmen.PS. Don’t expect to develop many friends among Frenchmen at work; work and private life are compartmentalized in France. People will be cordial at work but don’t expect to be invited for a weekend party or meal. There is a social firewall that allows diverse, individualistic French character to flourish without judgment and civil working relations.The On-His/Her-Own ImmigrantIf you take up residence as a long-term visitor or immigrant (student, artist, scientist, performer, model, teacher…) you would find it challenging unless you have a very generous-minded bilingual friend OR pay for bilingual facilitators. There is now on-the-fly interpretation on connected smartphones that can do if all else fails.Unless you are so well-to-do that you can hire interpreters for everyday tasks, I would suggest that your fist priority is to “invest” initially in immersion French courses, both a pleasurable and highly efficient way to learn about France and practice French. See other Quora entries about choosing a course - but essentially, go with an accredited school NOT in Paris.Even if you are learning French in order to enroll in a French University, I suggest you arrive at least a month before the start of the term and do at least 2 weeks of immersion. Although there are some exchange courses in English (e.g. at Sciences Po, HEC etc.), the general minimum requirement to attend French university is B2, a level that is hard to achieve in terms of understanding spoken French without at least a year of living in French society. Ideally, a French student who orients you would be very useful in taking the mystery out of a strange new world.Despite the yearning to socialize in English and pain of loneliness, if you want to minimize the acculturation process, seek out French interaction and avoid Anglophone conversations as much as possible. France is a very volunteer-oriented society and there are many opportunities to volunteer among French people; see at the local town hall (mairie) or its website. You can also take up some activity (horse-riding, a craft…) where you will interact in French and get accustomed to vocabulary and speech.as an in-country experience would