State-by-State Uniform Probate Code Adoption in 2026: The 50-State Field Guide for Inherited IRAs, Anti-Lapse Rules, and Cross-Jurisdictional Beneficiary Cascades

Every one of the previous 38 pieces in our retirement sub-cluster has treated the beneficiary of an inherited IRA as a fixed, unambiguous person — Priya, David, Marcus, Diana. In real families, the identity of the beneficiary is often the single most-contested legal question after death: the form on file names a primary beneficiary who predeceased, or an ex-spouse the account owner divorced eight years ago but never updated, or two children in equal shares when one of them has already died leaving three grandchildren. What happens next is not decided by IRS Publication 590-B or by the SECURE Act. It is decided by the beneficiary-succession rules of a single state — usually the decedent's state of domicile at death — and by whether that state has enacted the Uniform Probate Code.^[1]

The Uniform Probate Code (UPC) is a model statute drafted by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC; formerly the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, NCCUSL) and first promulgated in 1969.^[1] Substantial revisions landed in 1990 and 2008, with technical amendments through 2019. The ULC drafts model acts; individual state legislatures choose whether to enact them in whole, in part, or not at all. As of the ULC's 2025 enactment map, 18 U.S. states have adopted the UPC in substantially uniform form: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida (partial), Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin.^[1] The remaining 32 states plus the District of Columbia have jurisdiction-specific probate codes that borrow selectively — sometimes heavily, sometimes barely at all — from the UPC framework.

For inherited IRA beneficiaries, the two UPC provisions that matter most are §2-706 — which extends common-law anti-lapse doctrine to non-probate transfers including retirement account beneficiary designations, so that a predeceased beneficiary's descendants may substitute in — and §2-804, which automatically revokes a beneficiary designation in favor of a former spouse upon entry of a final divorce decree, treating the ex-spouse as if they had predeceased.^[2] In UPC states these rules operate by default. In non-UPC states, whatever default applies is drawn from state-specific statutes, the custodian's IRA custodial agreement contract language, and residual common-law doctrine. The results diverge dramatically.

This piece is the field guide the successor-beneficiary sub-cluster has been building toward. If you have read the per stirpes vs per capita successor beneficiary piece, you already know how a well-drafted designation cascade should read. This piece answers the prior question: when the designation is silent, ambiguous, or names a predeceased or divorced person, whose rules fill the gap in each of the 50 states? When you are ready to model the resulting inheritance under the 10-year rule, our retirement calculator, Traditional IRA calculator, and Roth IRA calculator carry the arithmetic; this piece is the legal wrapper that determines who does the modeling in the first place.

What the Uniform Probate Code is (and what it is not)

The Uniform Probate Code is not federal law. It is not binding on any state until that state's legislature enacts it. It is a model statute — a proposed uniform text drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, a nonprofit association of state-appointed commissioners founded in 1892, whose job is to draft model acts that individual state legislatures may consider for enactment.^[1] The purpose of a Uniform Act is to reduce the friction of cross-jurisdictional practice: a Uniform Commercial Code adopted (in some form) by 50 states means a commercial-loan attorney trained in Nebraska can practice competently in Missouri. The Uniform Probate Code aspired to the same goal for probate law, but achieved it in fewer than half the states.

The 1969 UPC was drafted at a time when state probate codes were badly fragmented, court supervision of estates was often expensive and slow, and non-probate transfers (retirement accounts, life insurance, joint tenancy, POD accounts) were beginning to displace the will as the primary vehicle of family wealth transfer. Article I set general provisions and definitions. Article II covered intestate succession, spousal rights, wills, and — critically for our purposes — non-probate transfers. Article III restructured probate administration around informal, unsupervised, single-court procedures with a Uniform Personal Representative role. Articles IV through VII covered ancillary administration, protection of persons under disability, trust administration, and adoption. Article VIII contained transitional provisions.^[2]

The 1990 revisions to Article II were the most consequential set of amendments for our topic. The Uniform Law Commission added §2-706 to extend anti-lapse doctrine — which had for centuries applied only to wills — to non-probate transfers including insurance policies, retirement accounts, and payable-on-death designations.^[2] The Commission also added §2-804 to revoke former-spouse dispositions automatically on divorce; §2-707 to address future-interest anti-lapse in trusts; and §2-702 to establish a uniform 120-hour survival requirement replacing the older common-law "simultaneous death" doctrine.^[2] These 1990 amendments have been adopted by most of the 18 UPC states in their entirety, and by several non-UPC states in stripped-down form.

The four UPC-adoption tiers

Categorizing 50 states and the District of Columbia into a clean taxonomy requires some rough edges, but a workable framework groups jurisdictions into four tiers based on the scope of UPC adoption.

Tier 1: Full UPC states (18)

These states have enacted the UPC in substantially uniform form, including most or all of the Article II beneficiary-succession provisions relevant to inherited IRAs. The current list, drawn from the ULC 2025 enactment tracker:^[1]

• Alaska (adopted 1972, Alaska Stat. Title 13; substantial 1990-revision integration)
• Arizona (adopted 1973, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Title 14; comprehensive UPC framework with 1990-revision amendments)
• Colorado (adopted 1973, Colo. Rev. Stat. Title 15; strong 1990-revision uptake including §2-706 and §2-804)
• Florida (partial adoption; Fla. Stat. Chapter 732 borrows UPC framework substantially but with Florida-specific modifications; §732.301-.507 track UPC §2-706/§2-804 concepts)
• Hawaii (adopted 1976, Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 560; full 1990-revision incorporation)
• Idaho (adopted 1971, Idaho Code Title 15; one of the earliest UPC states with subsequent revision updates)
• Maine (adopted 1980, Me. Rev. Stat. Title 18-C; recodified in 2019 as new Title 18-C incorporating the 2008 UPC revisions)
• Massachusetts (adopted the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code in 2008, Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 190B; effective 2012; comprehensive 1990- and 2008-revision integration)
• Michigan (adopted the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC) 1998, Mich. Comp. Laws Chapter 700; substantial UPC framework)
• Minnesota (adopted 1975, Minn. Stat. Chapters 524-525; ongoing revision integration)
• Montana (adopted 1974, Mont. Code Ann. Title 72; comprehensive framework)
• Nebraska (adopted 1974, Neb. Rev. Stat. Chapter 30)
• New Jersey (adopted 2004, N.J. Stat. Title 3B; substantial framework)
• New Mexico (adopted 1975, N.M. Stat. Chapter 45; comprehensive)
• North Dakota (adopted 1973, N.D. Cent. Code Title 30.1)
• South Carolina (adopted 1986, S.C. Code Title 62; comprehensive framework)
• South Dakota (adopted 1974, S.D. Codified Laws Title 29A)
• Utah (adopted 1975, Utah Code Title 75)
• Wisconsin (adopted 1997, Wis. Stat. Chapters 851-879)

In each of these 18 states, the UPC §2-706 anti-lapse rule applies by default to an IRA beneficiary designation unless the designation expressly provides otherwise or unless ERISA preempts state law (for a qualified employer plan). A parent who lived in Colorado at death and named "Rachel" as sole primary beneficiary of a $1.4M IRA — where Rachel predeceased her by six months, leaving two children — will typically see the two grandchildren substitute into Rachel's place under §2-706. The custodian will require a certified death certificate for Rachel, birth certificates or other evidence of the descendant relationship, and often a probate court order or written legal opinion; the substitution then flows to the grandchildren as designated beneficiaries under IRC §401(a)(9)(E)(i), not as inheritance through Rachel's estate.^[4]

Tier 2: Substantial-borrower states (~9)

These states did not adopt the UPC as an integrated code, but their probate statutes borrow heavily from UPC concepts — often including functional equivalents of §2-706 anti-lapse and §2-804 divorce revocation, but drafted state-specifically. The lines are fuzzy; a scholarly consensus places roughly the following states in this tier: California (Cal. Probate Code §21110 anti-lapse, §5040/§6122 divorce revocation), Delaware (Del. Code Title 12), Illinois (755 ILCS 5/), Iowa (Iowa Code Chapter 633), Kansas (Kan. Stat. Chapter 59), Kentucky (Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 391), Maryland (Md. Code, Estates & Trusts), Missouri (Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 474), and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code Title 11).^[3]

In these Tier 2 states, an inherited IRA beneficiary who needs to invoke anti-lapse can usually find a state-law analogue to §2-706, but the exact wording, the class of eligible substitute beneficiaries, and the procedural mechanics differ. California Probate Code §21110, for example, extends anti-lapse to "at-death transfers" broadly defined but excludes transfers to former spouses under §6122. Washington's §11.11.020 covers non-probate assets and reflects UPC-inspired concepts. The practical implication: retain a probate attorney licensed in the specific state; do not assume the UPC treatise you read applies verbatim.

Tier 3: Selective-borrower states (~15)

Roughly the next tier includes states that have enacted a few discrete UPC provisions (typically self-proving affidavits, holographic-will validity, or portions of the intestacy schedule) but have not adopted UPC §2-706 anti-lapse for non-probate transfers. Examples include Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Several of these states have their own anti-lapse statutes for wills (Pennsylvania's 20 Pa.C.S. §2514 is a well-established example), but the statutes do not extend to beneficiary designations — meaning a predeceased primary beneficiary's descendants have no default statutory substitution right, and the IRA typically flows to any named contingent beneficiary or, failing that, to the account owner's estate.^[5]

Tier 4: Non-UPC states (~9 plus DC)

The remaining jurisdictions have probate codes that reflect little UPC influence: Alabama, Connecticut, Louisiana (with its distinctive Civil Law regime), Mississippi, New York (with its comprehensive Estates, Powers and Trusts Law), Ohio, Rhode Island, plus the District of Columbia. In these jurisdictions, beneficiary designations for retirement accounts are governed almost entirely by the custodian's contract, state-specific statutes when they exist (New York's EPTL §5-1.4, for example, provides divorce revocation for revocable dispositions), and common-law default rules.

UPC §2-706 in detail: how anti-lapse protects an inherited IRA

UPC §2-706 is the single most consequential provision of the UPC for inherited IRA beneficiaries. Its full text runs three pages of statute, but the operative rule can be compressed to a single sentence: if a designated beneficiary of a non-probate transfer predeceased the account owner and was a grandparent, or a descendant of a grandparent, of the account owner, then the predeceased beneficiary's surviving descendants take by representation, unless the designation expressly provides otherwise.^[2]

The three qualifying gates of §2-706:

1. The predeceased beneficiary must be within the qualifying degree of consanguinity. §2-706 covers grandparents and descendants of grandparents (that is: the account owner's parents, siblings, children, nieces, nephews, and their descendants). It does not cover friends, unrelated business partners, charities, or ex-spouses.
2. Substitution flows to the predeceased beneficiary's surviving descendants. If Rachel (named primary) is dead but her two adult children survive, they substitute. If those two children are also dead but Rachel's four grandchildren survive, the grandchildren substitute. The distribution is by representation — the modern per stirpes formula codified at UPC §2-709(b), which is a per-capita-at-each-generation modification of strict per stirpes.^[2]
3. The designation must not expressly override. If the account owner wrote "Rachel, if she survives me by 30 days; otherwise to the American Cancer Society" — the express clause controls and §2-706 does not substitute Rachel's children. Custom contingent language in the beneficiary designation always beats the statutory default.

The application to a modern inherited IRA is direct: a parent dies at age 76 with $1.4M in a Traditional IRA, having named "my daughter Rachel" as sole primary beneficiary with no contingent. Rachel died at age 48 in a car accident two years earlier, leaving two children ages 15 and 12. In a UPC §2-706 state, the two grandchildren substitute for Rachel — each takes 50% of the IRA (that is, $700K each) as designated beneficiaries subject to the SECURE Act 10-year rule under IRC §401(a)(9)(H).^[6] In a non-UPC state, the same fact pattern typically results in the IRA flowing to the account owner's estate — which extinguishes designated-beneficiary treatment, triggers a 5-year full-payout schedule under Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-3(b)(4) for pre-RBD deaths (or a shorter of the 10-year window or life-expectancy schedule for post-RBD deaths), and requires probate administration.^[7]

UPC §2-804 in detail: divorce automatically revokes ex-spouse designations

UPC §2-804 addresses the second most-common source of unintended-beneficiary outcomes: divorce that was never followed by an updated beneficiary designation form. The rule, again compressed: entry of a final divorce decree automatically revokes any provision in a governing instrument that names the former spouse as a beneficiary, treating the former spouse as if they had disclaimed the interest or predeceased the account owner.^[2]

§2-804 applies broadly to "governing instruments" — a term defined at UPC §1-201(19) to include wills, trusts, insurance policies, retirement account beneficiary designations, transfer-on-death deeds, and payable-on-death designations. The revocation is automatic at divorce; no action is required by the account owner. The former spouse is deleted from the beneficiary designation as a matter of law, and any contingent beneficiary — or, failing that, the anti-lapse substitution under §2-706 — takes.^[2]

The critical carve-out: §2-804 does not apply to ERISA-governed qualified employer plans, because ERISA §514(a) preempts state law relating to any employee benefit plan.^[8] The U.S. Supreme Court held in Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) that Washington's version of §2-804 was preempted as applied to an ERISA plan; the ex-spouse who was still named beneficiary of the decedent's ERISA plan took the benefit, notwithstanding Washington's automatic-revocation statute.^[8] The Court reinforced this in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009), which held that the plan document controls beneficiary determinations regardless of an ex-spouse's written waiver in a divorce decree.^[9]

The ERISA preemption line matters because it creates an asymmetry within a mixed retirement portfolio. An account owner who divorces in a UPC state and dies without updating designations may see their IRA automatically revert away from the ex-spouse under §2-804, while their 401(k) continues to pay the ex-spouse under ERISA-preempted plan-document rules. For an executor sorting through the aftermath, the state of confusion is total.

The ERISA preemption line: IRAs vs qualified plans

The single most important distinction in this entire framework is between IRAs (governed by state law and the custodial agreement) and ERISA-covered qualified plans (governed by the plan document and federal law). The distinction matters because state UPC provisions apply to IRAs but are preempted for ERISA plans.

ERISA §514(a), codified at 29 U.S.C. §1144(a), states: "the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan…"^[11] The Supreme Court has interpreted this preemption clause broadly. Egelhoff (2001) held it preempts state divorce-revocation statutes. Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997), held it preempts state community-property laws that would grant a non-owner spouse an ownership interest in the participant's qualified-plan benefits.^[12] Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont (2009) held the plan document controls, notwithstanding a valid waiver by the ex-spouse in a divorce decree.^[9]

An IRA — an individual retirement account governed by IRC §408 or Roth IRA governed by §408A — is not an "employee benefit plan" under ERISA §3(3). The IRA custodial agreement is a contract between the IRA owner and the custodian, subject to state contract law and, in the states that have adopted the relevant UPC provisions, subject to §2-706 and §2-804 by default. The Department of Labor's ERISA preemption authority does not reach IRAs held outside an employer plan.^[11]

Cross-jurisdictional planning: three states, one account

Most beneficiary-succession disputes involve three different states: (a) the state of the decedent's domicile at death, (b) the state where the IRA custodian is incorporated, and (c) the state where the primary beneficiary lives. The general rule under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is that the decedent's state of domicile at death controls beneficiary succession for non-probate transfers, subject to the custodian's contract-of-adhesion choice-of-law clause and any specific federal-law preemption (ERISA for qualified plans).^[13]

Most major custodians resolve the ambiguity by contract. Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and Vanguard's standard IRA custodial agreements apply the law of the state of the account owner's residence to beneficiary determinations. Interactive Brokers and several fintech custodians apply the custodian's state of incorporation (typically Delaware or Nebraska). Reading the specific custodial agreement is essential before assuming which state's UPC posture applies.

Community property regimes overlaid on the UPC map

Nine U.S. states have community property regimes as their default marital-property framework: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.^[14] Alaska and Tennessee have opt-in community property regimes accessible via marital-property agreement. In community property states, income and assets acquired during the marriage are presumptively community — owned 50/50 by both spouses regardless of legal title — and each spouse has testamentary power over only their community 50% share plus any separate property.

Of the nine community property states, four are also UPC states: Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. For an IRA in these four states, the community property overlay means that even if the account is titled solely in one spouse's name and the beneficiary designation names a non-spouse (say, an adult child from a prior marriage), the surviving spouse retains a community-property claim to 50% of the account's value attributable to contributions made during the marriage. The claim is typically enforced by petition to the probate court in the decedent's state of domicile.^[14]

For qualified employer plans, Boggs v. Boggs (1997) held that ERISA preempts state community property law to the extent it would grant a non-participant spouse an inheritable interest in the participant's plan benefits. This means that a Texas or California resident whose 401(k) names an ex-spouse or child as beneficiary will typically see that beneficiary take the full account balance, notwithstanding the surviving spouse's community-property claim — unless the surviving spouse asserts the claim through a QDRO entered before the participant's death.^[12] For IRAs, the community-property overlay generally does apply, though the case law is jurisdiction-specific and evolving.

Three worked case studies

Case study 1: Priya, Colorado (Tier 1 full UPC state)

Priya, age 41, is a software engineer living in Denver. Her mother Meera, age 72, dies suddenly in Denver in March 2026 with a $1.4M Traditional IRA at Fidelity. The beneficiary designation on file names only Priya's older sister Anjali as primary beneficiary, 100%. Anjali died in a car accident in November 2024, leaving three children ages 22, 19, and 16. Priya is Meera's only other surviving child and has no children of her own.

Colorado has adopted UPC §2-706 and §2-709(b) at Colo. Rev. Stat. §15-11-706 and §15-11-709. Under §2-706, because Anjali (the named primary) predeceased Meera and was a descendant of Meera's parent (a grandparent of Meera under the statute's technical construction), Anjali's three surviving descendants substitute in her place. Under §2-709(b) per capita at each generation, each of Anjali's three children takes 33.33% of the $1.4M IRA (approximately $466,000 each). Priya inherits nothing directly — her sister's designation as sole primary excluded her, and the anti-lapse substitution flows down Anjali's branch, not across to Priya.^[2]

The three grandchildren are non-EDB designated beneficiaries subject to the SECURE Act 10-year rule under IRC §401(a)(9)(H) — they must fully drain their inherited IRA shares by December 31, 2036.^[6] They are subject to annual RMDs under Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-5 as amended by TD 10001 for years 1 through 9 (because Meera died post-RBD), plus the year-10 flush. Priya's family attorney advises the family to see-through-trust each grandchild's share for spendthrift protection and to enable §72(t)-independent conversion strategy — see our see-through trust conduit vs accumulation piece.

Case study 2: Marcus, Texas (Tier 3 selective-borrower state, community property overlay)

Marcus, age 55, lives in Austin, Texas. His father Julian, age 78, dies in Austin in June 2026 with a $2.1M Traditional IRA at Charles Schwab. The beneficiary designation names Julian's second wife Karen (Marcus's stepmother) as sole primary beneficiary, 100%. Julian and Karen divorced in October 2024, but Julian never updated the beneficiary form. Marcus is Julian's only child from his first marriage; Julian and Karen had no children together.

Texas has not adopted UPC §2-804. However, Texas Estates Code §111.052 (enacted 2013 and effective for divorces on or after September 1, 2005) does provide an automatic revocation of beneficiary designations in favor of a former spouse for many non-probate transfers, including IRAs.^[15] Under §111.052, Karen is treated as having predeceased Julian for purposes of the IRA beneficiary designation. Because no contingent beneficiary was named, the IRA flows to Julian's estate — triggering probate, extinguishing designated-beneficiary treatment for stretch purposes, and forcing a 5-year full-payout schedule for the estate under Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-3(b)(4) (Julian died at 78, post-RBD, so the estate takes over Julian's remaining life expectancy under the Single Life Table with the subtract-one convention — approximately 12 years).^[7]

Additionally, Texas is a community property state. Karen, as Julian's ex-spouse whose 2024 divorce decree partitioned community property, does not retain any community-property claim to the IRA post-divorce. If Julian had died still married to Karen, Karen's 50% community claim would have attached to contributions made during their marriage; but the 2024 divorce decree presumably resolved that claim as part of the property division.^[14]

Marcus inherits through Julian's estate as sole heir under Texas intestacy (Julian died with only a stale will benefiting Karen, which is also revoked under Texas Estates Code §123.001 divorce-revocation-of-will provisions). Marcus receives the IRA as beneficiary of the estate — losing stretch treatment, paying tax at Marcus's marginal 35% federal bracket + 0% Texas state (Texas has no state income tax), totaling approximately $735K over the 12-year drain schedule vs approximately $580K if he had inherited directly as designated beneficiary under the 10-year rule (assuming similar growth and bracket assumptions). Cost of the missed beneficiary-form update: approximately $155K in additional federal tax.

Case study 3: Diana, Massachusetts to New York (Tier 1 UPC to Tier 4 non-UPC relocation)

Diana, age 62, has an $850K Roth IRA at Vanguard, funded originally in 2010-2020 while she lived in Boston, Massachusetts (a Tier 1 UPC state). She named her husband David as primary and their two children equally as contingents. In 2023, Diana and David divorced in Massachusetts; Diana never updated her beneficiary designations. In 2024, Diana relocated to New York City to be near her adult children. In August 2026, Diana dies in Manhattan at age 62.

New York is a Tier 4 non-UPC state. New York EPTL §5-1.4 does provide automatic revocation of a beneficiary designation in favor of a former spouse for revocable dispositions.^[16] As with Texas, David is treated as having predeceased Diana. The two contingent beneficiaries (Diana's adult children) take the $850K Roth IRA — 50% each, or $425,000 each.

Because Diana died before her RBD (age 62 is well before 73), and because Roth IRAs have no RBD for the original owner, the two adult children are non-EDB designated beneficiaries subject to the 10-year rule with NO annual RMDs for years 1-9 (Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-5(d)(3)(ii) for pre-RBD deaths).^[17] They can defer withdrawal until year 10 for maximum compound growth, or spread withdrawals for tax efficiency. Because it is a Roth, distributions are tax-free (assuming the 5-year clock is satisfied per IRC §408A(d)(2)(B)), so bracket management is not a driver; the children's optimal strategy is to leave the balance untouched and drain at year 10 for maximum tax-free growth.

Cost of the not-updated beneficiary form: zero, because both New York's EPTL §5-1.4 and (had Diana died in Massachusetts) UPC §2-804 would revoke David's designation with the same effect. But the analysis was not automatic — the children had to affirmatively invoke §5-1.4 with the custodian, provide a certified divorce decree, and wait approximately six weeks for Vanguard's legal team to process the substitution. During that window, the account was frozen and no rebalancing or transfer was possible.

Six mistakes that break the UPC cascade

1. Assuming your state adopted the UPC. Only 18 states did. Check the ULC enactment map for your state before relying on §2-706 or §2-804. A parent who has lived in Pennsylvania (Tier 3) for 30 years cannot rely on the UPC anti-lapse cascade even if their descendant lives in a Tier 1 state.
2. Assuming ERISA plans follow state UPC rules. Egelhoff and Kennedy make clear that ERISA preempts state law for qualified employer plans. Your 401(k) will pay the ex-spouse if the designation was never updated, regardless of whether you live in a UPC state.
3. Naming a single primary with no contingent in a non-UPC state. If the sole primary predeceases you, the IRA flows to your estate — extinguishing designated-beneficiary treatment for stretch purposes and forcing a 5-year (pre-RBD) or life-expectancy (post-RBD) drain schedule for the estate. Always name at least one contingent, ideally with per stirpes language.
4. Assuming custodian contract law follows your state. The custodial agreement usually names a specific governing-law jurisdiction. If Fidelity's agreement says "the law of your state of residence controls" and you moved from Texas to Florida three months before death, the answer depends on when the custodian's records were updated. Verify.
5. Ignoring the community-property overlay in mixed marriages. A surviving spouse in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, or Wisconsin retains a community-property claim to IRA contributions made during the marriage — even against a non-spouse beneficiary designation. For qualified plans, ERISA preemption blocks the claim; for IRAs, it typically survives.
6. Missing the October 31 documentation deadline. Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-4(h) requires the custodian to identify the designated beneficiary(ies) by October 31 of the year following death. If a UPC §2-706 substitution requires court order or extensive documentation to prove descendant status, and the paperwork is not complete by that October 31 deadline, the custodian may default to the beneficiary designation as-written or to "no designated beneficiary" — either of which can foreclose stretch treatment.^[4]

8-item pre-death and post-inheritance action checklist

1. Confirm your state's UPC posture. Consult the Uniform Law Commission's current enactment map. If you live in a Tier 3 or Tier 4 state, do not rely on statutory anti-lapse or divorce-revocation defaults — draft everything explicitly.
2. Name primary AND contingent beneficiaries on every IRA and qualified plan. "Sarah, per stirpes" is a complete instruction; "Sarah" alone plus no contingent is a trap in non-UPC states.
3. Use "per stirpes" or "by right of representation" as the descent instruction. Never leave the successor-beneficiary cascade to the custodian's default. See our per stirpes vs per capita successor beneficiary piece for drafting language.
4. Update all beneficiary designations within 30 days of any life event. Divorce, remarriage, birth of a child, death of a named beneficiary, or interstate relocation each requires a fresh audit. The 30-day window is habit-forming; longer windows are how ex-spouses collect $2M IRAs.
5. Read your IRA custodial agreement's choice-of-law clause. If the custodial agreement's governing law differs from your state of residence, either update the custodian's records to reflect your current residence or move the IRA to a custodian whose contract respects your state's UPC posture.
6. Verify the ERISA/non-ERISA distinction for each account. Standard 401(k), 403(b), and pension plans are ERISA-covered — state UPC provisions are preempted. IRAs, Solo 401(k)s without employees, and non-qualified deferred compensation are typically non-ERISA — state UPC provisions apply.
7. Retain a certified copy of the beneficiary designation on file at each custodian, dated within the last 12 months. Custodians occasionally lose or misfile beneficiary designations. A dated certified copy in your estate-planning file is the evidence of record if disputed post-death.
8. On inheritance, obtain a certified death certificate + the custodian's beneficiary-designation-as-of-death within 30 days. If any complication exists (predeceased primary, ambiguous language, divorced named beneficiary), engage a probate attorney licensed in the decedent's state of domicile before the October 31 documentation deadline in the year following death.

Frequently asked questions