Inheritance

LegacyUser

kiwikid wrote: »

oi smartarse i was referring to OP's suggestion that inheritor could farm on weekends only.
Many's the weekend home from college after a night out i was co-midwife to a shed of sheep, so im glad my brother did the green cert/ agri-college even to keep it on as a part time business to his own job.

I am amazed that op thinks the farm will stay in the family when given to one kid with no interest in it. or that kid will be bothered farming at weekends.

Op here. The farm will be farmed. I cant get that across in my posts but I know for certain it will. I was saying farming would be done at evenings and weekends. Its not ideal but it does happen especially now. The son and daughter are in the line of work where you can be self employed. My son is employed and also self employed. The daughter could be in the future.

kiwikid

Unregistered wrote: »

Op here. Its not 5 acres she wants. she just said that to her father when he said he would be dividing it between the lads. My daughter isnt like that. She just cant understand why it is being left to the boys. She said she would have no problem if it was left to my other daughter and then wouldnt care if she got a site. On top of everything she claims that we have always treated the boys more favourably than the girls. The eldest boy thinks he wont have to do the green cert to get the farm- something to do with it being passed to him by the time he is 35. My daughter is young- just finished college so she would do it now like.

The reason it was discussed it because we saw an article about it and my daughter said to my father its not fair her doing stuff on the farm to see other people get it which is true.
The main issues are my son and daughter dont get on and my daughter feels that we have also treated the boys better. That has made the situation so much worse.

The young farmer scheme still has to have the green cert AFAIK - but the farmers on the board can confirm that.
I suppose we are learning a lot more about your daughter - she would do the green cert and already works on the farm. A friend of mine got the family farm over a son who wasn't arsed because her father saw she loved it and farmed it like any boy who loved the land. She did ag college and is now a farmer and has another job as well during the week.
Your son seems not to be bothered.
Your kids seem very young to be talking about lot dying and spitting farms might i say - or is she the youngest? and your dealing of the situation (not explaining how it goes on farms until she is 20 odd is a bit strange)

skooterblue

Unregistered wrote: »

She just cant understand why it is being left to the boys. Sh On top of everything she claims that we have always treated the boys more favourably than the girls.

The main issues are my son and daughter dont get on and my daughter feels that we have also treated the boys better. That has made the situation so much worse.

NOW Finally we are getting to the real issue. Life isn't fair deal with it!!!!
Suggest counseling. If this isn't discussed without agreement it will will end up being divided between your family and the solicitors. Your daughter really needs to stop being the dog in the manger and get over her daddy issues.

schumacher

discuss it more with your husband and see can it be arranged a little better.

kiwikid

skooterblue wrote: »

NOW Finally we are getting to the real issue. Life isn't fair deal with it!!!!
Suggest counseling. If this isn't discussed without agreement it will will end up being divided between your family and the solicitors. Your daughter really needs to stop being the dog in the manger and get over her daddy issues.

Way harsh there - i wonder if the OP hasn't made the bed for themselves on this one.

Incidentally SK BL what would you do if there was a case of 2 sons and the younger of the 2 inheriting the farm when both of them have done the agri-college and wanted it but the father favoured the younger one in latter years because the older had to go support himself while waiting for inheritance of a small farm....? not loaded just curious.

LegacyUser

kiwikid wrote: »

The young farmer scheme still has to have the green cert AFAIK - but the farmers on the board can confirm that.
I suppose we are learning a lot more about your daughter - she would do the green cert and already works on the farm. A friend of mine got the family farm over a son who wasn't arsed because her father saw she loved it and farmed it like any boy who loved the land. She did ag college and is now a farmer and has another job as well during the week.
Your son seems not to be bothered.
Your kids seem very young to be talking about lot dying and spitting farms might i say - or is she the youngest? and your dealing of the situation (not explaining how it goes on farms until she is 20 odd is a bit strange)

Op here. The 3 of them help out- the 2 sons and her. The youngest son wouldnt care if he wasnt left land but we will be and my daughter cant undrstand that since he wouldnt really care. My husband is very very old fashioned and would think he would have to leave some land to him as hes a boy.
The eldest son would be bothered about the farm too. Shes the second youngest- early twenties.

skooterblue

kiwikid wrote: »

Incidentally SK BL what would you do if there was a case of 2 sons and the younger of the 2 inheriting the farm when both of them have done the agri-college and wanted it but the father favoured the younger one in latter years because the older had to go support himself while waiting for inheritance of a small farm....? not loaded just curious.

lol this is the same situation? First I wouldnt split the farm as you wouldnt have two farms you would have 2 scraps of unviable land. If I had one farm. Both would be free to do Agri college (its not even 2 years), but they would be informed of my decision who I would leave it to. The son who didnt inherit the farm would have to accept the burden of agri college without the garuntee of a farm. the common sense thing to do would be leave it to the younger son. Its not fair to have an older son wait unreasonably for the farm to change hands. I know I didnt make the "fair choice", I made "common-sense" choice based on family experience, being a farmer and the future of the farms. Actually I think it would be idiotic for a guy to go away and get a good education (masters degree/garda/apprenticship/Defence forces) and want to give it up to return to a small farm. Someone that small minded doesnt deserve a farm. Alot of men grow old waiting for a father/uncle to die and leave them a farm at 50 when life has pasted them by. My neighbour will be 60 when he inherits his mothers farm if he is lucky. If he went off at 18 and got himself a fitters trade in Cork in a chemical factory, he would have been married before 47, had a farm and had kids and not earned less than minimum wage all his life. But dont worry rest assured he will be getting his farm. "Ever seen a young girl growing old trying to make herself a bride".

As my family have been here, I would leave the farm to the younger son and assist the older son to get a farm for himself. It obviously wouldnt be as big as the family farm but he took this burden on himself and now bears the responsibily of the out come. I would hope If I had a son who wanted to pursue any course without a garuntee of a sucessful out come that it was due to being kicked in the head by mule at an early age!!! IE only the very stupid and brave take risky life choices and are rewarded accordingly.

LegacyUser

When the parents pass there will be a new era beginning, times are changing, what if they did sell the farm after they passed and all 4 siblings got a share and moved on and stayed friends.

kiwikid

Sb,
i would not say it was the same situations for the following reasons,
- Older son got job because you have to wait until a family farm is given to you or else there is no livelyhood to be had. I mean say a 170 acre farm does it support the owners their dependants and the oldest son on a living wage? i don't think so - its been pointed out already anyway its not viable to have both owners at the same time.
- The older son went to ag college (which to me qualifies for one thing only) with a view of taking over the farm, he went out and managed another farm locally and helped on the family farm while his father reared the remaining children on the land. I think the father is wrong in this situation as he raised both to believe they would have the farm. just as op seems to have reared his daughter to think part of the farm was going to be hers - its probably a bitter realization at 20 to think your father thought you were good enough to work the business but you don't have balls so not one scrap can be yours. But that never happened to me thankfully - at best looking back at it as a girl I was probably reared to be a farmers wife moreso than a farmer! my parents were very clear who the farm was going to so nobody was under any illusions from start to finish. But then our farm was bought rather than inherited so i think that made a difference in the approach.

Also OP what is your thinking of how you will see out your dotage? in the family farm home? in a nursing home at first chance your daughter-in-law can shove you in? i know girls/women who stayed at home (and its not always a choice) minding parents and chief inheritor not sorting her out with a home or lump sum to buy a home of her own when he moved along into the home place and turfed her out. thats one to be mindful of too - we are living longer and perhaps there won't be a lot of farm left if you are ill and need to choose private care etc so you could be upsetting yourself over leaving stuff now when there might be nothing major to leave.

skooterblue

skooterblue wrote: »

Black Briar where have you been while all this nonsense has been going on. you seem to be the only person who knows how a farm actually works.

Busy farming

Unregistered wrote: »

OP here. It will never go under the hammer when we are alive. That isnt an option for my huband or me as the house is right beside the yard and loads of fields.

Thats just an excuse.For a start even at a minimum price today the land would be worth 7 to 10k an acre [sometimes over 20k an acre] so theres 1.7 million minus 25% leaving you and your husband 1.2 million after tax plus your annual SFP which by the sounds of things is probably another 20 to 40k a year and no work to be done.I'll bet the owner of the farm wont look at it like that though if he's like any farmer I know...but still it's a valid option and then it comes down to the pure greed of money in terms of what the other siblings think they should or should not get.

They are interested in their share because the realationship between two of them is not good.

Thats sad.
However if I was the father of the 2 warring siblings-I'd be telling them very quickly that they will be getting what I give them and thats that and they won't know what untill I die.
I'll tell you I'd have got a right clip round the ear if I asked my father questions like that.

It's an entirely different story if one of the siblings is Full time at home working the land with the father.
In that case the father has usually discussed a retirement plan and a handing over of the farm and that sibling will have legitimate expectations.

By the way I don't buy the idea that the farm is making a reasonable profit in 2009 or that it will in future do so.
It might.Farming is cyclical now.
You have to save money in the good years to subsidise every second or third year that is bad.
Thats the future.
The SFP is probably whats keeping it going [if that] and remember thats only going to go on for so long.
Go over to the farming and forestry forum folks and you'll see how EU/government payments to farmers are being cut right left and centre.

Unregistered wrote: »

Op here. Its not 5 acres she wants. she just said that to her father when he said he would be dividing it between the lads. My daughter isnt like that. She just cant understand why it is being left to the boys. She said she would have no problem if it was left to my other daughter and then wouldnt care if she got a site. On top of everything she claims that we have always treated the boys more favourably than the girls.

I honestly think it's time to take a step back when someone is coming out with stuff like that at this stage.

The eldest boy thinks he wont have to do the green cert to get the farm- something to do with it being passed to him by the time he is 35. My daughter is young- just finished college so she would do it now like.

There are practicalities.
To inherit the farm and get whats called agricultural relief the person has to be working the farm,have a green cert or a suitable similar qualification like a degree in the subject.
The owners of the farm should see an accountant.

The reason it was discussed it because we saw an article about it and my daughter said to my father its not fair her doing stuff on the farm to see other people get it which is true.

She has free will doesn't she? If she enjoys doing stuff on the farm or likes helping her father out occasionally - fine.
Otherwise going on about it like that is a red herring.

The main issues are my son and daughter dont get on and my daughter feels that we have also treated the boys better. That has made the situation so much worse.

Well how have you treated them better? [other than the fact that the owner wants one of them to succeed].

LegacyUser

Not a farmer, but would it be legal to leave it to the one son but stipulate that this is only if he does farm it full-time, if he sells within say 20 years the proceeds to be split between all the siblings?

I have to say I shouldn't be surprised, but I am appalled at the blatant disregard on the part of male farmers (as expressed by skooterblue and others) for the women of farming families. "putting them in their place", "time to take a step back" if they dare to expect equal treatment with their brothers... Yes I KNOW that splitting to small parcels of land is unviable but why is it automatic that the women must get the short end of the stick?

What the hell would be wrong with Murphy's land becoming Purcell's land, when in the example above the Purcell children would contain EXACTLY as much Murphy DNA as their hypothetical Murphy cousins?! ie, exactly one Murphy parent...

Plus it was mentioned above that many farms these days are only viable insofar as one partner is bringing in an income from another job - often the wife.

To the OP - even if you yourself didn't work outside the farm, your being there all these years and your contribution to the family and business means this should be an equal decision between you and your husband. Does he not have any interest or respect for your opinion here? I know you are not going to do this, but as a way of making him think - say you got divorced now, you would be entitled to a big chunk of the farm because of your equal contribution to the marriage. Then you could leave your half to your daughters. I am just saying this as a way of making him think about how drastic his own position is - he would hate to see that happen, so maybe he should think harder about a fair solution.

LegacyUser

Well how have you treated them better? [other than the fact that the owner wants one of them to succeed].[/QUOTE]

Op here. Its very complicated -too much so to get into on boards. She thinks that we have as does our other daughter. I suppose mistakes have been made regarding them getting certain things and the girls not. That doesnt happen anymore but it seems it wont be forgotten. Anyway she says she accepts her fathers decision regarding the farm and is no longer going to argue with him over it and will be civil. Basically that means she will talk to him while she is living here but will move out in the next few months once she starts her job and then she wouldnt be bothered in contacting him.

Unregistered

Unregistered wrote: »

Not a farmer, but would it be legal to leave it to the one son but stipulate that this is only if he does farm it full-time, if he sells within say 20 years the proceeds to be split between all the siblings?

Yes that is very doable and a good idea actually.

I have to say I shouldn't be surprised, but I am appalled at the blatant disregard on the part of male farmers (as expressed by skooterblue and others) for the women of farming families. "putting them in their place", "time to take a step back" if they dare to expect equal treatment with their brothers... Yes I KNOW that splitting to small parcels of land is unviable but why is it automatic that the women must get the short end of the stick?

Hang on...I only used the phrase "take a step back" in relation to the mothers approach to the daughter getting all fighty towards how she was treated etc ie not to get involved or encourage such a fruitless argument.

What the hell would be wrong with Murphy's land becoming Purcell's land, when in the example above the Purcell children would contain EXACTLY as much Murphy DNA as their hypothetical Murphy cousins?! ie, exactly one Murphy parent...

Nothing at all wrong with it.
However,it's the owners right to do what he wants to do.
That view is traditional in farming.
You'd have to be in or from farming to know to be honest.

To the OP - even if you yourself didn't work outside the farm, your being there all these years and your contribution to the family and business means this should be an equal decision between you and your husband. Does he not have any interest or respect for your opinion here? I know you are not going to do this, but as a way of making him think - say you got divorced now, you would be entitled to a big chunk of the farm because of your equal contribution to the marriage. Then you could leave your half to your daughters. I am just saying this as a way of making him think about how drastic his own position is - he would hate to see that happen, so maybe he should think harder about a fair solution.

Thats a valid question to be asking the Mother in a case like this.
However you must bear in mind that the relationship is complicated.
A wife who loves her husband is not going to divorce him over an issue like this.
Thats even more so if the mother as in this case is probably at least near or in her 60's [going on the fact the kids are grown up].
People that age ESPECIALLY in a rural environment aren't going down that route unless there are several genuine reasons [like infidelity or wife beating etc].

Unregistered-the OP wrote:

Anyway she says she accepts her fathers decision regarding the farm and is no longer going to argue with him over it and will be civil. Basically that means she will talk to him while she is living here but will move out in the next few months once she starts her job and then she wouldnt be bothered in contacting him.

Frankly does she love her father?
This all sounds like greed and utter selfishness taking over.

Another observation I'd like to make and that is that the situation described here is further complicated by the siblings not working the farm.
The conversation the father should be having with the chosen sibling is when are they going to come home to farm or organise their job around farming aswell as having the job [something which is more possible on a beef or tillage farm than say on a dairy farm].

iguana

Unregistered wrote: »

Op here. Its very complicated -too much so to get into on boards. She thinks that we have as does our other daughter. I suppose mistakes have been made regarding them getting certain things and the girls not. That doesnt happen anymore but it seems it wont be forgotten.

But you are still treating them differently now if the farm is automatically going to the male child(ren). If you've done something wrong in the past and then keep on doing the same thing the past won't be forgotten as it's not the past it's ongoing.

LegacyUser

Deleted User wrote: »

Frankly does she love her father?
This all sounds like greed and utter selfishness taking over.

Black Briar, thanks for your generally reasonable reply to a non-farmer. However, this one bit here still sticks with me - so it is greed and equating her father's love with material gain when it is a daughter concerned about her inheritance - but pure blithe entitlement when it is the son fully expecting to get everything. The woman's motives are assumed to be selfish, what then are the son's? The woman should stop being an inconvenience to the family and take herself off the land she grew up on. Is that really fatherly love either? Do you not see how this is derogatory to women?

Just to say again I realise that this in reality is not a divorcing matter for the OP, but she obviously does disagree with her husband and yet feel that she has little chance of him listening to her opinion. My point above was that if the husband realised how seriously the women of the family felt about this, that it could come to that, he might consider that they have just as strong feelings about the land as he does.

LegacyUser

Op here. Brianbear- As for does she love her father-that is her arguement in this that he doesnt love them all equally to treat the sons differently. She says that she would have no problem if the farm was split between the 2 eldest- ie a son and daughter and she didnt get anything. Basically the problem is that she perceives her father to love the sons more by giving them the land and treating them differently throughout their childhood. If he was to give it to a daughter ( not necessarily herself and a son ) there would be no problem as then she says it proves that he values both equally. Its very complicted as it is not greed that is driving her. But nevertheless she is not going to argue with her father about this.

Xiney

Deleted User wrote: »

As regards the father being sexist...if he's like most farmers I know it's not a question of sexism at all,it's a question of leaving the land in the family name.
Thats why farmers nearly always leave it to sons.
It's his decision.EG Murphy land is always going to be Murphy land...it will be purcells land if left to the daughter and purcell marries her and his sons names will be purcell..

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. And call it what you like, it IS sexist.

Women don't need to take their husband's name. If the Murphy farm goes to Mary Murphy, and she farms it with her husband Mark Purcell, it is still the Murphy farm. Especially if Mary Murphy continues to call it that.

Unregistered

Unregistered wrote: »

Black Briar, thanks for your generally reasonable reply to a non-farmer. However, this one bit here still sticks with me - so it is greed and equating her father's love with material gain when it is a daughter concerned about her inheritance - but pure blithe entitlement when it is the son fully expecting to get everything. The woman's motives are assumed to be selfish, what then are the son's? The woman should stop being an inconvenience to the family and take herself off the land she grew up on. Is that really fatherly love either? Do you not see how this is derogatory to women?

Look it's quite simple.
The father doesn't see it that way obviously and I doubt he's for changing.
He certainly won't be if he's confronted with what his daughter is saying now ie saying she wants no more to do with him because he wants to do what has always been done.
Thats where certainly selfishness and mean ness comes into it.
I'd also consider the other son to be selfish and greedy if he was carrying on in the same way.

Just to say again I realise that this in reality is not a divorcing matter for the OP, but she obviously does disagree with her husband and yet feel that she has little chance of him listening to her opinion. My point above was that if the husband realised how seriously the women of the family felt about this, that it could come to that, he might consider that they have just as strong feelings about the land as he does.

Theres quite a good deal of younger farming couples where the farm has gone into joint names actually.
It's an evolution.
It's not something to be expected from old timers.

OP wrote:

he doesnt love them all equally to treat the sons differently. She says that she would have no problem if the farm was split between the 2 eldest- ie a son and daughter and she didnt get anything. Basically the problem is that she perceives her father to love the sons more by giving them the land and treating them differently throughout their childhood. If he was to give it to a daughter ( not necessarily herself and a son ) there would be no problem as then she says it proves that he values both equally. Its very complicted as it is not greed that is driving her. But nevertheless she is not going to argue with her father about this.

I'll have to be brutally honest with you but if thats the road down which her mind on this has gone or is going and along with a total disrespect for her fathers right to choose what to do with the property [in this case the desire to keep it in the family name and viable ] then I think thats sad.
The two parents from the nappy stage to now probably did everything they could for the daughter and made her the educated Woman that she is, from the sweat of your own brows on the farm and then she gets all uppity about what the father wants in terms of succession.
So uppity in fact that she's going to hate her father effectively.

Sorry but thats the ultimate in meanness,disrespect and selfishness in my book.
Both my parents are dead now and to tell you the truth I wish they were back every day.
To hear of a daughter going on like this is to me just plain horrible.

Xiney

Xiney wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. And call it what you like, it IS sexist.

Women don't need to take their husband's name. If the Murphy farm goes to Mary Murphy, and she farms it with her husband Mark Purcell, it is still the Murphy farm. Especially if Mary Murphy continues to call it that.

You just dont understand old timers do you?
You are replying to me like as if I am an advocate of that aren't you?

You are wrong.

iguana

Xiney wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. And call it what you like, it IS sexist.

+1. There has been a lot of nonsense on this thread justifying sexism with the statement; you wouldn't understand if you aren't from a farming background. But all they are describing is the type of mentality which prevailed all over the country until about 80 years ago. So as it happens people do understand, our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were subjected to this type of crap in their lives and somewhere along the line they changed things, and made things fair.

Being a farmer is not an excuse for being backward, or for putting material goods and assets (even much beloved ones like the farm) ahead of your children.

LegacyUser

Deleted User wrote: »

Look it's quite simple.
The father doesn't see it that way obviously and I doubt he's for changing.
He certainly won't be if he's confronted with what his daughter is saying now ie saying she wants no more to do with him because he wants to do what has always been done.
Thats where certainly selfishness and mean ness comes into it.
I'd also consider the other son to be selfish and greedy if he was carrying on in the same way.
Theres quite a good deal of younger farming couples where the farm has gone into joint names actually.
It's an evolution.
It's not something to be expected from old timers.I'll have to be brutally honest with you but if thats the road down which her mind on this has gone or is going and along with a total disrespect for her fathers right to choose what to do with the property [in this case the desire to keep it in the family name and viable ] then I think thats sad.
The two parents from the nappy stage to now probably did everything they could for the daughter and made her the educated Woman that she is, from the sweat of your own brows on the farm and then she gets all uppity about what the father wants in terms of succession.
So uppity in fact that she's going to hate her father effectively.

Sorry but thats the ultimate in meanness,disrespect and selfishness in my book.
Both my parents are dead now and to tell you the truth I wish they were back every day.
To hear of a daughter going on like this is to me just plain horrible.

Op here. Shes not like that but I suppose its not coming across too well in my posts. The eldest son also inquires about what will happen and would know that she thinks like this and would also be trying to persaude my husband to leave it to him. Its certainly not just her that has it in her mind. he does too . So there as bad as each other. She sees it as like her father would let her look after him into old age, help out on the farm but still the son would get it no matter what he done or what she done. Its a very complicated situatuion- one that is not going to be solved I think.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

But all they are describing is the type of mentality which prevailed all over the country until about 80 years ago. So as it happens people do understand, our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were subjected to this type of crap in their lives and somewhere along the line they changed things, and made things fair.

Who decides fair though?
Mindsets only ever evolve,they don't change overnight or on demand.
The father is the owner of the property with some rights legally entitled to his wife.

Being a farmer is not an excuse for being backward, or for putting material goods and assets (even much beloved ones like the farm) ahead of your children.

Thats a view certainly.It's not a law.
It's an evolved view.

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

You just dont understand old timers do you?

That is massively disrespectful to the elderly, if the OP and her husband are even that old. You know the people who set in motions the changes in our society are long, long dead of old age now? The current "old-timers" weren't even born when a lot of them were dead" And all of those people were raised to live their lives in a certain way but they saw it was wrong and they changed it. So unless farmers are in someway mentally incapacitated they too have the ability to tell right from wrong and the ability to love and respect their children equally and more than their belongings.

The OP's husband obviously prizes his stuff more than his family and within his family he prizes the men over the women. There is no justification for that whatsoever.

prinz

The whole principle of dividing up the land is ridiculous and one of the reasons that the Great Famine happened. You cannot keep dividing and dividing and dividing, just to give everyone an equal share.

This is a tough one and someone will always be upset IMO, but tbh, I'd offer up the farm now, whoever wants it badly enough can move back home and run it while your husband and yourself enjoys a retirement. If none of them are bothered to give up their present jobs and lives then they can suck on it tbh. The same issue arose with my father, but in fairness only the youngest of his brothers made the decision to sacrifice his own life and career, returned home, worked the farm and took care of the parents in old age and he got the whole lot lock stcok and barrel, with no complaints from any of the others. Why would someone get an equal share in a farm they had/have no interest in working? Lots of replies on this thread with no connection to farming or the country me thinks.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

You just dont understand old timers do you?
You are replying to me like as if I am an advocate of that aren't you?

You are wrong.

Unfortunately you're right.
I do understand where the daughter is coming from though- its an expectation and a sense of entitlement on the part of the son- who has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the farm, and hasn't had any farming experience in several years- that he is automatically going to inherit the farm- while she and her younger brother- who are actively working the farm- are expected to simply accept that their elder brother who has made a life for himself elsewhere- is going to come back and take over the reigns.

Vis-a-vis inheritance rights- the elder brother will need a green cert- without one, he will get hit with punitive inheritance tax. It may be a moot point with the current proposal to do away with the farmer's exemption- but as it stands he does need to get good advice on this from someone who knows what they're talking about.

I don't believe its a case of selfishness or jealousy on the part of the younger sister- in so far as she has stated she would like to see her older sister involved in the future of the farm.

What I really don't understand- is how the future of the OP, the farmer's wife, is expected to be safeguarded in all of this. In the past the person who inherited the farm would take over the family home, and their wife would take care of the mother-in-law for the rest of her days. I really cannot see this happening in the modern world.

Totally aside from the antics of the younger daughter- I think it would be remiss of the OP and her hubby- to automatically assume the elder son and his wife would take care of their mother/mother-in-law, when the time comes. This is far more pertinent than who may eventually inherit the family farm in my eyes.

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

Who decides fair though?
Mindsets only ever evolve,they don't change overnight or on demand.

Those mindsets had already begun to change before the man in question was born. In the past it may have taken longer for societal changes to happen in the countryside as information traveled slower, but there is no excuse for that anymore. You talk about evolution, but being set in your ways stands in the way of evolution. And those who don't evolve become extinct. The mind-set of the OP's husband is already almost extinct so he can either change or drive his family apart. It's his choice, which he still has.

My 78 year old grandmother, who grew up in the household of an anti-treaty civil war soldier and has voted FF all her life as a consequence, has decided this year that she won't vote for them anymore. "Old-timers" are perfectly capable of assessing a situation and seeing that things have changed, just as much as anyone else. The brain doesn't just stop being able to make new decisions just because it has passed it's 60th year.:rolleyes:

iguana

prinz wrote: »

This is a tough one and someone will always be upset IMO, but tbh, I'd offer up the farm now, whoever wants it badly enough can move back home and run it while your husband and yourself enjoys a retirement. If none of them are bothered to give up their present jobs and lives then they can suck on it tbh.

But the OP's youngest daughter does currently live and work on the farm.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

That is massively disrespectful to the elderly,

*put words in my mouth much*

if the OP and her husband are even that old. You know the people who set in motions the changes in our society are long, long dead of old age now? The current "old-timers" weren't even born when a lot of them were dead" And all of those people were raised to live their lives in a certain way but they saw it was wrong and they changed it.

Not all of them changed it.Believe me,I'm in the community and can categorically tell you that,the view on sucession in farming is only evolving.The old keep it in the family name is very prevalent still.

So unless farmers are in someway mentally incapacitated they too have the ability to tell right from wrong and the ability to love and respect their children equally and more than their belongings.

How very condescending.
Whats right for you and whats right for someone else are two different things.
You can jump up and down about it all you like,it doesnt change the persons whose views you disagree with,right to hold those views.

The OP's husband obviously prizes his stuff more than his family and within his family he prizes the men over the women. There is no justification for that whatsoever.

Again,thats your view.
It in my opinion though displays a complete disregard for the sensitivities of an older farming mindset.

prinz

iguana wrote: »

But the OP's youngest daughter does currently live and work on the farm.

Yep, hadn't read the whole thread through, and didn't pick that up. Nuff said, she should get it.

smccarrick

smccarrick wrote: »

What I really don't understand- is how the future of the OP, the farmer's wife, is expected to be safeguarded in all of this. In the past the person who inherited the farm would take over the family home, and their wife would take care of the mother-in-law for the rest of her days. I really cannot see this happening in the modern world.

Totally aside from the antics of the younger daughter- I think it would be remiss of the OP and her hubby- to automatically assume the elder son and his wife would take care of their mother/mother-in-law, when the time comes. This is far more pertinent than who may eventually inherit the family farm in my eyes.

Usually the way that is done is the parents either hold onto the family home or retain a right of residence untill they die.
They wouldnt have a mortgage [or if they did,that would become the responsibility of the sucessor - a bank couldnt turf anyone out whilst the residency rights were active] so should be able to live on their savings plus the contributory oap and other entitlements.
Sometimes,the sucessor may also be obliged to look after the parents in terms of keeping food on their table etc.