For many will-holders, the impetus to make a will came from a death in the family.
A death in the family was the most frequently reported trigger among the 421 respondents who reported having a will in Sanlam’s 2026 Legacy Survey on South Africans and Wills, selected by 41%. Having a child followed at 32%, receiving financial advice at 27%, marriage or a long-term partnership at 25%, and buying a home or land at 18%. Respondents could select more than one trigger.
The findings do not measure the effect of each event on will-making or establish that bereavement caused respondents to act. They do identify the circumstances that will-holders most frequently selected when asked what prompted them to draw up a will.
Sanlam commissioned the online survey of 1 200 people through the ovatoyou panel. The convenience sample, which was not nationally representative, comprised 67% women and 70% respondents aged 25 to 49, with the largest provincial groups in Gauteng, the Western Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal. The findings therefore reflect respondents’ experiences and views rather than population estimates.
The survey was released ahead of National Wills Week, an annual campaign led by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development in partnership with the Law Society of South Africa and other stakeholders. This year, Wills Week runs from 14 to 18 September.
When the consequences become real
The survey’s findings about respondents’ experiences of deceased estates provide context for the prominence of bereavement as a trigger.
Almost half of the sample, 47%, said they had helped to sort out a deceased family member’s affairs or estate. Respondents were not asked to identify their role, so this group may have included executors, beneficiaries, relatives assisting an executor, or family members handling practical or administrative tasks informally.
Only 22% of that group said the process had run smoothly. Arguments among relatives about who should inherit what were reported by 26%, followed by delays in finalising the estate and transferring assets at 23%, legal and administration costs at 18%, and frozen accounts at 12%.
The report does not indicate whether the estates concerned had valid and accessible wills, invalid or unavailable wills, or no wills. The findings therefore cannot attribute these difficulties to intestacy or show that experience of estate administration makes respondents more likely to have wills. They do, however, illustrate some of the practical problems respondents encountered while helping to deal with deceased relatives’ affairs.
Dr Mavis Mazhura, a leadership psychologist and adult development specialist who contributed commentary to the report, discusses optimism bias and present bias as possible explanations for the gap between knowing and doing. Optimism bias can lead people to place death in the distant future, while present bias can make the immediate effort involved in drafting a will appear more prominent than a benefit that will arise later, mainly for other people.
Mazhura also identifies discomfort around mortality, money, family roles, and possible conflict as reasons people may avoid the subject until another event creates urgency.
Responsibility creates other opportunities
Bereavement was not the only reported trigger. Other leading responses coincided with changes in family circumstances or financial position.
Having a child was selected by 32% of will-holders. Having a child can change a person’s financial responsibilities and raise estate-planning questions around dependants, guardianship, and the treatment of assets intended for a minor.
Marriage or entering a long-term partnership was selected by 25%. A change in relationship status can affect whom a person wishes to benefit and who relies on them financially.
For advisers, it may also provide an opportunity to review the client’s will alongside beneficiary nominations, life cover, ownership arrangements, and estate liquidity. These broader arrangements are not necessarily governed by the will, but they should operate coherently with it as part of the estate plan.
Buying a home or land was reported as a trigger by 18%. A property purchase provides another opportunity to discuss the ownership, financing, and estate-planning implications of a significant asset.
Financial advice can provide an earlier prompt
Receiving financial advice was selected by 27% of will-holders, making it the third most commonly reported trigger in the survey.
This is not a conversion rate: the report does not disclose how many respondents received financial advice, what form it took, or whether it specifically concerned estate planning. It shows only that financial advice was among the triggers most frequently selected by will-holders.
Another finding points to the potential role of advisers. Qualified financial advisers were selected by 58% of respondents as someone they would trust to guide the will-drafting process, while 52% selected a specialist legal firm or attorney. Respondents could select more than one option.
The finding should not be interpreted as a preference for financial advisers instead of legal or fiduciary practitioners. The survey asked who respondents would trust to guide them through drafting a legally valid will but did not ask whether they expected advisers to draft the document themselves, arrange for it to be drafted, or refer them to a legal or fiduciary specialist.
Lee Hancox, the head of channel and segment engagement at Sanlam, said the findings supported an approach that combines convenience, affordability, and professional guidance.
In her commentary, Hancox said technology could make it easier for clients to begin by answering questions about their families, assets, and wishes, while access to a trusted professional could help them complete the process with greater confidence.
Why people continue to postpone
The reported barriers among the 779 respondents (65%) without wills highlight the gap between intention and action.
Forty-four percent said they did not own enough to justify making a will. A further 34% intended to make one but had not found the time, while 16% did not know the step-by-step process and 9% found the subject uncomfortable.
The findings also suggest that not having a will does not necessarily mean having made no arrangements at all. Twenty-four percent of the full sample said they had no will but had nominated beneficiaries on life insurance policies or similar products, while 10% said they had communicated their final wishes to family members. Thirty-one percent reported having neither a will nor another arrangement identified in the survey.
The first barrier is perceived irrelevance or the belief that formal estate planning can be deferred. A person may associate wills with substantial property or accumulated wealth and conclude that a formal plan is unnecessary until they reach a particular financial milestone.
Sanlam argues that the relevance of estate planning depends not only on asset values but also on liabilities, liquidity, dependants, and the decisions required after death. The broader plan may include life cover, retirement-fund arrangements, and beneficiary nominations, which may operate separately from the will.
The survey’s findings about family responsibilities provide further context. Only 9% reported living alone without dependants. Forty-one percent looked after children under 18, 38% supported or lived with a spouse or partner, 19% supported adult children, and 21% identified themselves as single parents. Among 412 respondents, 34% said they financially supported or cared for at least one ageing parent, grandparent, or extended-family member.
The 34% figure combines respondents who said they financially supported family members with those who provided care, so it should not be read as a measure of formal financial dependency.
The findings do not mean that every respondent required a complex estate plan. They do illustrate why its relevance cannot necessarily be assessed solely by the value of a person’s assets. A person’s death could also affect those who rely on their income, housing, care, or other support.
The second barrier is intention without a defined occasion to act. More than a third of respondents without wills said they intended to make one but had not found the time.
Mazhura suggests that a vague intention can become more actionable when it is converted into specific, manageable steps, such as gathering identity documents and information about assets and beneficiaries and scheduling a consultation.
Another barrier is practical or emotional friction. Some respondents did not understand the process, while others found the subject uncomfortable.
When respondents without wills were asked what would make the next step easier, 48% selected a free or low-cost will-drafting service, 40% selected trusted guidance, 34% selected an open family discussion about assets, and 33% selected clear online tools and templates.
The range of responses points to a combination of affordability, guidance, family communication, and digital tools as potential ways of making the next step easier. Taken together, they suggest that no single intervention is likely to address every barrier.
Families can also struggle to start the conversation
Estate planning is not only an individual decision. The report also examines who raises the subject within families and why some families avoid it.
Twenty-nine percent of respondents said nobody in their household raised the subject. Twenty-four percent said their family discussed financial affairs across generations, while 26% said siblings or children actively encouraged parents or elders to get their affairs in order. Seventeen percent said elders initiated the conversation.
Among respondents from families that avoided these conversations, a perceived lack of assets was the most commonly reported reason, at 32%. Twenty-six percent feared that the conversation would cause arguments over money, and the same proportion worried that it would cause sadness or fear. Twenty-four percent feared that relatives would think someone was waiting for them to die, 22% had privacy concerns, and 20% believed that talking about death invited bad luck.
The obstacles therefore extend beyond information to privacy, cultural beliefs, family relationships, and suspicion about people’s motives. The report recommends framing the conversation around reducing uncertainty and maintaining family continuity, rather than beginning with inheritance.
The report also identifies an intergenerational pattern in will ownership. Among respondents with wills, 57% said one or both parents had a will, compared with 22% of respondents without wills. Twenty-six percent of will-holders recalled a grandparent having a will, compared with 11% of respondents without wills.
The survey does not establish causation, and demographic, financial, or other differences could influence both family exposure to wills and respondents’ own planning.
Sanlam nevertheless uses the findings to explore the idea of a “first-will generation”. On this interpretation, someone who introduces will-making into a family without a history of formal estate planning may provide an example that makes the process more familiar to others.
Drafting is not the end of the process
Deciding to make a will is only the beginning. The document must comply with the applicable execution requirements and, as a practical matter, arrangements should be made so that the executed original can be located when it is needed.
The report says 421 respondents, or about 35% of the sample, reported having a will. This included respondents who said their will was signed, witnessed and safely stored, those whose document had not yet been signed or witnessed, and those who regarded their will as outdated.
Of the full sample, 28% said their will was signed, witnessed and safely stored, 4% said it had not yet been signed or witnessed, and 3% said it was outdated and no longer reflected their circumstances or wishes. Respondents were not asked separate questions about signing, witnessing, and storage, so the survey cannot show whether a document failed one, two, or all three criteria.
The report’s measure of a completed will should also be distinguished from legal validity. Signing and witnessing are among the legal formalities governing the execution of a will, whereas safe storage serves the practical purpose of ensuring that the original document can be located when the estate is administered. Sanlam confirmed that safe storage formed part of its survey measure of a completed will rather than its definition of legal validity.
Among the 421 will-holders, 30% said the original was stored with a financial institution, 27% with a lawyer, legal firm, or administrator, and 21% with a bank. These categories accounted for the 78% who stored the document with a professional institution. Another 18% kept it at home, 4% said it was on a laptop, 1% did not know where it was stored, and 1% selected another arrangement.
Among will-holders, 61% said the person most likely to act knew both where the will was stored and what it contained. Twenty-six percent said that person knew where to find the document but did not know its contents, while 13% said that person knew neither the location nor the details.
Informing someone where the original is stored serves a different practical purpose from disclosing its contents during the testator’s lifetime. Both may affect how easily the estate can be administered, but they address different risks.
Life events should also prompt reviews
The events that lead someone to make a will can also change the circumstances reflected in an existing document.
Among will-holders, 45% said they had reviewed or updated their will during the previous 12 months. Thirty-one percent had last done so between one and three years previously, 14% more than three years previously, and 10% had never updated it.
The survey did not distinguish between reviewing a will and updating it. Respondents were asked when they had last “reviewed or updated” the document.
Adele Barnard, a financial planner and money educator who contributed to the report, recommended incorporating a will check into the annual financial review.
Her suggested review includes considering whether the client’s family circumstances have changed, whether property has been bought or sold, whether the beneficiaries, nominated executor, and guardians remain appropriate, and whether the estate is likely to have sufficient liquidity.
The review should also cover life cover, retirement-fund benefits, and beneficiary nominations, which may operate independently of the will.
For advisers, the survey’s significance may lie less in the familiar wills gap than in the circumstances associated with action. Bereavement was the leading reported trigger, but parenthood, relationships, property purchases, and financial advice also provide potential points of intervention.
The opportunity is to recognise moments when changes in a client’s circumstances provide a natural reason to raise the subject and then to help ensure that the process moves beyond intention to appropriate drafting and execution, secure storage, discoverability, and regular review.
