How should land be divided in a will [READ MOD NOTICE IN POST #1 BEFORE POSTING!]

MungoMan

[MOD] It is apparent that this subject can be somewhat emotive and that people have strong feelings and opinions on it.
That's fine, so long as discussion and comment is conducted in a polite and calm manner.
Trolling, name calling, and other nonsense WILL lead to infractions or bans!

Have a read of the forum Charter, particularly the bit about personal abuse, threats, trolling, offensiveness.

Carry on, and play nice. [/MOD]


I know there is no right answer to this question...just matter of opinion.


Suppose a farmer aged 75 is making a will.

He has a few children (say 3 children)

All 3 children have equally stable jobs, earning about the same amount.

One of the children lives at home in a house built on the farm, but he works in a good secure job. He likes farming on the side, and its convenient to farm, as he lives beside the land.

Should the farmer making the will give all his assets to the one living beside the farm (and distribute none of his wealth to the others) ?

I think most farmers would probably do this, as they would want some degree of succession, someone to maintain the old lifestyle.

But I know a farmer who recently in his will divided his assets equally among all his children, it was sold, and the money divided equally......sounded so fair, none of the children could say that one got more than another (as is ofter said when the winner takes it all)

Any views on what a farmer should do ?

moy83

I would say every situation is different . Depends on what the parents want to happen to the farm and would the other siblings be mad jealous if the only one of them with an interest got the full farm . Maybe we are going back to the days when the younest usually got the farm because he /she was the only one left in the country to look after the parents due to emigration ?

agcons

In school we were told one of the causes of the famine was that farmers kept dividing their holdings until eventually the countryside could only feed the population in it if people grew nothing but potatoes. In the 1840's we ended up with too many very small holdings and no crop rotation hence the rapid spread of the blight.
There is no future in reducing farm size so my thoughts on it are that it should go firstly to whoever is interested in running it as a farm, ie whoever over the years has been happy to be out there mucking around and helping out. Only if there is zero interest from anyone should it be left to everyone. Better in that situation to sell it on himself while he is still alive and enjoy the cash.

fatoftheland

every case is different a will can be contested by a close family member. so to avoid trouble legal advice, probably the fairest way is if one member is interested in farming is that they get the land and farm house only and all stock and cash is given to the other 2. its not perfect but may be least divisive, legal advice is a must as this wont work everywhere.

irishh_bob

i dont believe in that dividing up the place equally approach , from an early age , the one who took the most interest and put in the most effort and input should be rewarded the most , the others should and wil understand , giving an equal share is a form of indescision if you ask me and ensures that none of them will have enough to make a proper future with the land , its a fudge

redzerologhlen

If a son or daughter is interested then it shouldnt be divided up in my opinion but it depends on the size of the farm too. As it stands most irish farms arent big enough to justify full time farming. The person that wants to farm usually has many years of work and a good bit of their own money put into the place before they get it and I know cause im at this stepping stone. I know too that everyone wants their cut of the family fortune but I think its only right if someones interested they get it all. Its better for one person to make a living then see two people struggling or one struggling and the other flashing all the cash they got after selling half the farm. If nobody is interested it is best to sell and divide up equally.

blue5000

+1 for redzero, a simpler solution would be to have only one child:D:D:D

There is 5 of us, some of them will never be happy no matter how much cash out of the old pair they get/got

redzerologhlen

blue5000 wrote: »

+1 for redzero, a simpler solution would be to have only one child:D:D:D

Then go for the birdizzo is it;)

blue5000

redzerologhlen wrote: »

Then go for the birdizzo is it;)

Probably too late now......:mad:

whelan1

well if the person has a feeling there will be a row after their death are they not better to leave no will and let them get on with it? a relation of mine died last year , he wasnt even buried and his 5 sons had a big row , i felt so sorry for his poor wife .. greed is an awful thng

redzerologhlen

whelan1 wrote: »

well if the person has a feeling there will be a row after their death are they not better to leave no will and let them get on with it? a relation of mine died last year , he wasnt even buried and his 5 sons had a big row , i felt so sorry for his poor wife .. greed is an awful thng

True but i would imagine most farmers would want it to stay in the family and if theres no will made and 5 of them fighting over it its only a matter of time until theres a for sale sign up on it. I dont see why it should be divided up, Its a living for one of your children if they are interested. People who live in tows with no assets children dont expect anything. Why should it be any different for farmers.

5live

redzerologhlen wrote: »

True but i would imagine most farmers would want it to stay in the family and if theres no will made and 5 of them fighting over it its only a matter of time until theres a for sale sign up on it. I dont see why it should be divided up, Its a living for one of your children if they are interested. People who live in tows with no assets children dont expect anything. Why should it be any different for farmers.

Have to agree with that.

And Whelan1, what advantage would not leaving a will be? If one wants it then give it to them to farm it and put some sort of limit on selling it for say 10 years so any sale would be divided equally up to that date among those left.

On redzerologhlen comment, my father said all any of us were entitled to was an education. Anyone that wanted to farm had to work for it. So as the only one that wanted it, i worked and studied all week and farmed all weekend. Now none of the rest did a tap so why should they get rewarded for sitting on their behinds on a spanish beach while i was pulling calves at 3 in the morning and leaving that to go ploughing?

If they want a share of it, they should put in the time

Rovi

whelan1 wrote: »

are they not better to leave no will and let them get on with it?

Dying intestate is a great way of ensuring that the State and the solicitors get a good sized chunk of the estate.
Here's the legislation: Succession Act, 1965

The right thing to do is to sit down with ALL concerned parties (spouse and children usually) and discuss succession. That way, no-one is under any illusions and there are no 'surprises' at the reading of the will.
This approach may or may not be realistic, depending on family circumstances.


Alternatively, the owner could aim to re-distribute as many assets as possible while they're still alive and able to, dying with just enough left to pay for a decent funeral.
The trick, of course, is getting the timing right

Tipp Man

whelan1 wrote: »

well if the person has a feeling there will be a row after their death are they not better to leave no will and let them get on with it? a relation of mine died last year , he wasnt even buried and his 5 sons had a big row , i felt so sorry for his poor wife .. greed is an awful thng

Absolute madness not making a will

1 sure way of ensuring that the state get a load of money for nothing

redzerologhlen

5live wrote: »

Have to agree with that.

And Whelan1, what advantage would not leaving a will be? If one wants it then give it to them to farm it and put some sort of limit on selling it for say 10 years so any sale would be divided equally up to that date among those left.

On redzerologhlen comment, my father said all any of us were entitled to was an education. Anyone that wanted to farm had to work for it. So as the only one that wanted it, i worked and studied all week and farmed all weekend. Now none of the rest did a tap so why should they get rewarded for sitting on their behinds on a spanish beach while i was pulling calves at 3 in the morning and leaving that to go ploughing?

If they want a share of it, they should put in the time

I think you took me up wrong, I actually agree with you. What I meant was why should all the children of a farmer think they are entitled to it just because its there. I agree 100% the lad who works for it should get it all and a few sites for the rest of them if they want. But some greedy people cant resist the chance to try and make a quick few euro. Someone suggested here aswell selling of the stock and giving the money to the other children. I dont agree with that either. It costs an awful lot to stock a farm.

whelan1

Tipp Man wrote: »

Absolute madness not making a will

1 sure way of ensuring that the state get a load of money for nothing

tbh this family is question are seriously greedy, the father sold development land some years ago and the sons would not let him see his grandchildren until they got their "share" what a pack of pricks and these where the same people who couldnt even wait til the man was buried to see what they could get.... was just wondering in a case like that would it not serve them right to have to pay solicitor and government fees... i know we all want to see our farm stay in 1 piece and have no rows after we are gone but it doesnt work like that

eyescreamcone

Why do people think that the farm should stay in one piece???
Couldn't the one party buy the other siblings shares with a mortgage???

If someone from the city had built up a property portfolio (not worth much these days - I know) would there be anyone saying
"I'd like to see the portfolio stay together??"
Sure that's crazy talk!

Yet out in the country there's all this talk about not breaking up the farm.

All things being equal the farm should be divided equally among the children.
That's the only way to prevent arguments!

redzerologhlen

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why do people think that the farm should stay in one piece???
Couldn't the one party buy the other siblings shares with a mortgage???

If someone from the city had built up a property portfolio (not worth much these days - I know) would there be anyone saying
"I'd like to see the portfolio stay together??"
Sure that's crazy talk!

Yet out in the country there's all this talk about not breaking up the farm.

All things being equal the farm should be divided equally among the children.
That's the only way to prevent arguments!

Like I said earlier its very rarely just handed over that simply. The person who gets it usually has many years of hard work put into it for nothing ''Sure it will all be yours someday'' springs to mind. Most farms arent big enough to justify full time farming anyway so how could you break them up.

whelan1

most cases i know , the other family members get a site or are well looked after, what would be the advantage of splitting up the farm?

Tipp Man

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why do people think that the farm should stay in one piece???
Couldn't the one party buy the other siblings shares with a mortgage???

If someone from the city had built up a property portfolio (not worth much these days - I know) would there be anyone saying
"I'd like to see the portfolio stay together??"
Sure that's crazy talk!

Yet out in the country there's all this talk about not breaking up the farm.

All things being equal the farm should be divided equally among the children.
That's the only way to prevent arguments!

Land is completely different from property - for starters very very very little of it comes on the market - houses and commercial property are a dime a dozen, secondly a farm is much easier to manage if it is in 1 block - it doesn't matter if you have a few houses 5 miles apart as you wouldn't be walking cows to and from the house every day

If 1 or more siblings have devoted their life to working on the farm then they should be the one's to get it all - it's their livelyhood

It is simply impossible to divide a farm equally and then expect the farmer to buy out his siblings. Land is too dear and the money isn't in farming. The farmer sibling would be working his entire life to pay off his siblings who did nothing on the farm - does that seem fair to you?

MungoMan

5live wrote: »

So as the only one that wanted it, i worked and studied all week and farmed all weekend. Now none of the rest did a tap so why should they get rewarded for sitting on their behinds on a spanish beach while i was pulling calves at 3 in the morning and leaving that to go ploughing?

You wanted the land, and you worked many hours on the farm for free.

And in return you end up with an asset worth several hundred thousand, while other people who are equally related to your parents get nothing.

You have to agree, you were well compensated for your efforts.......!

An.Duine.Eile

Where is the wife/mother in all this ?

There are many situations where the farmer has passed on and left the farm to a son. His wife has nothing.

IMO The wife should inherit as the surviving partner. The son can rent the farm.

I don't accept that because someone had the use of the land that you have a right to it. If the land was rented, the tenant would expect to receive it in the will.

They have made an income from it and should make provisions for when circumstances change.

irishh_bob

MungoMan wrote: »

You wanted the land, and you worked many hours on the farm for free.

And in return you end up with an asset worth several hundred thousand, while other people who are equally related to your parents get nothing.

You have to agree, you were well compensated for your efforts.......!

thats one way of looking at it , another is that those who inherit land very often sacrafice a huge amount of time helping thier father , uncle etc when they are young , they often miss out on opportunitys elsewhere as a result , older generations of farmers were by and large a very selfish bunch , they saw thier sons as existing to carry buckets of milk or for taking lambs from ewes , theese sons , nephews more than earn thier inheritence

eyescreamcone

And what would you propose if more than one child took an interest in the farm???

Also, it would take a lot of hours at farm labourer rates to amount to hundreds of thousands of euro.

Why couldn't the person interested in the farm buy the others shares???

irishh_bob

eyescreamcone wrote: »

And what would you propose if more than one child took an interest in the farm???

Also, it would take a lot of hours at farm labourer rates to amount to hundreds of thousands of euro.

Why couldn't the person interested in the farm buy the others shares???

the person who inherits a farm has often sacraficed opportunitys in other areas of employment , beit here or overseas , this includes earnings potential which would ( in most cases ) not be matched on thier fathers , uncles farm , if the son , nephew was not working on the farm , the father , uncle etc would have had to pay someone , sons , nephews were seen as cheap labour on farms until very recently , they got nothing handy

eyescreamcone

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is fair in this instance

towzer2010

eyescreamcone wrote: »

And what would you propose if more than one child took an interest in the farm???

Also, it would take a lot of hours at farm labourer rates to amount to hundreds of thousands of euro.

Why couldn't the person interested in the farm buy the others shares???

If a child does an average of 3 hours a day for 30 years at normal agricultural wages that amounts to close to €250,000. And as most children start working at a young age that is easily achievable.

I know in my situation I did more that 3 hours a day but all my siblings agreed to me getting the farm anyway so the issue didnt arise.

I've probably spent close to that again on buildings, stock, machinery and other improvements (mostly before it was even mine). I also look after my parents to an extent so while you mention shares if someone does all the work obviously they are entitled to a much higher share.

LostCovey

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why do people think that the farm should stay in one piece???
Couldn't the one party buy the other siblings shares with a mortgage???

If someone from the city had built up a property portfolio (not worth much these days - I know) would there be anyone saying
"I'd like to see the portfolio stay together??"
Sure that's crazy talk!

It certainly is crazy talk if the talk was about a property portfolio.

It wasn't, eyescreamcone.

It was about a family business.

Would it be crazy talk if a supermarket owner tried to pass on his premises intact, or should he divide it equally among their 4 kids - they could each run a huckster shop and spend the rest of their days in competition with each other.

What about a publican - should they try to split the pub up among the kids, give one the jacks, and another the pool table & cigarette machine.

Crazy talk, man!

LostCovey

redzerologhlen

MungoMan wrote: »

You wanted the land, and you worked many hours on the farm for free.

And in return you end up with an asset worth several hundred thousand, while other people who are equally related to your parents get nothing.

You have to agree, you were well compensated for your efforts.......!

Yes the land is worth several thousand euro as an asset but farmers generally speaking dont sell land because you cant farm without....Do you get me? If everyone divided up the land equally in 100 years time the country would be full of inefficent farmers with 5 acre plots. Im 21 years old now (22 in a week) and since I can remember I have been working on the farm. With the last few years doing almost everything. I have gone to college an have all the qualifacations that are required of me to be a farmer. Our farm is big enough for one man to farm full time. Now I have an older sister aswell, She has gone to college and got her qualifacations and has a full time job in Scotland with a good salary. She never did anything on the farm and her education was paid for. We have 2 houses and she will get one of them and a site if she so wishes. She doesnt mind though as she doesnt expect any more. If there was money in the bank she would get that too. If you were a farmer (which i suspect your not) you would realise that most farmers couldnt put a value on their land cause they never intent to sell it. I wont get the farm for another few years but I have a lot of work and my own money put into it to try and get it in shape for the day I get it (hopefully). Im never going to be rich but I dont mind because health is wealth at the end of the day. I couldnt picture myself sitting in an office chair twiddling my thumbs. If my father turned around and split up the farm theres no future in it for either of us. We might have a few hundred thousand each but it wont do either of us any good as we wouldnt live the rest of our lives on it. She would probably be ok but I have all I have put into it, and if he thought I would sell it i wouldnt get it all!!

Do you still think its best to get the ruler out and start drawing lines through every farm in the country??

LostCovey

eyescreamcone wrote: »

And what would you propose if more than one child took an interest in the farm???

Also, it would take a lot of hours at farm labourer rates to amount to hundreds of thousands of euro.

Why couldn't the person interested in the farm buy the others shares???

It's not simple, and never has been.

The approach taken on a lot of farms is that one child by virtue of interest/inclination becomes a candidate for the farm, and the others are compensated by getting an education and/or a site, so they get sorted with a living and a place to live, which is all the candidate heir is getting at the end of the day.

The person does buy the others' shares, but not usually by taking out a high six-figure mortgage on a business that (at best) will return a low five-figure annual return.

They usually buy the others' shares with work, with opportunities forgone, with the burden of antisocial hours in their teens and twenties when their siblings have a social life, etc

I know which siblings are getting the better deal in this scenario, and it ain't Farmer Joe.

LC

5live

MungoMan wrote: »

You wanted the land, and you worked many hours on the farm for free.

And in return you end up with an asset worth several hundred thousand, while other people who are equally related to your parents get nothing.

You have to agree, you were well compensated for your efforts.......!

LOL:D:D:D

You dont own land. Land own you, as the song goes.
Every thing i do, from waking in the morning to sleeping at night revolves around the land. What i do, where i go, when i sleep, when i eat, all is determined by what the farms requirements are at that particular time. Unlike you, i cant decide at a monents notice to bugger off for the weekend to Prague or even to Dublin. And the vast majority here are in the exact same position.

When my father was at the solicitors for the signover, he stopped and asked me was i sure, that the only time i would own the land was at that monent in time and as soon as i signed i would only be holding it in trust for the next generation. Its only now with my own children that i can see exactly what he was talking about.

Frankly MungoMan, i dont think you could ever see that concept, not to mind understand it. I have deep roots here, deeper than a tree and even more difficult to transplant. All you can see in land everywhere, all i see is where the land is shallow, deep, flat, fertile, needing p&k, roads, where the tree i swung on as a child is, the old hay barn where we used jump onto the reeks of hay.

You see the cost of it, i see its value. And never the twain shall meet:(

ijooc

It's a bit simplistic to suggest that inheriting land should turn into a competition, on who clocks up most hours on the farm. Should it be a battle of wills, the last man standing? (A lot of nephews have wasted there lives minding Aunts/Uncles only to end up with nothing!)

The reality is, land is a valuable asset. (it's a completely different discussion that the return on investment from farming is so bad.) Why should ones siblings be forced to support your desire to be a farmer?

There is no reason, why land should not be divided in a will. However, there are family traditions etc, where there is a desire to keep the family farm intact.

redzerologhlen

ijooc wrote: »

It's a bit simplistic to suggest that inheriting land should turn into a competition, on who clocks up most hours on the farm. Should it be a battle of wills, the last man standing? (A lot of nephews have wasted there lives minding Aunts/Uncles only to end up with nothing!)

The reality is, land is a valuable asset. (it's a completely different discussion that the return on investment from farming is so bad.) Why should ones siblings be forced to support your desire to be a farmer?

There is no reason, why land should not be divided in a will. However, there are family traditions etc, where there is a desire to keep the family farm intact.

I would and most would prefer to see someone use the asset rather then the value of it. The other siblings dont get neglected in most cases where a will is made. Most problems arise where there is none and everyone wants their cut.

ijooc

I would and most would prefer to see someone use the asset rather then the value of it. The other siblings dont get neglected in most cases where a will is made. Most problems arise where there is none and everyone wants their cut.

The reality is, it's extremely difficult to have a equitable division. Except, in cases, where there is additional property/cash available. However, in a lot of cases, everything is put into the family farm, leaving very little for everyone else.

Tipp Man

ijooc wrote: »

However, in a lot of cases, everything is put into the family farm, leaving very little for everyone else.

And that is the reason why it should not be divided. On a lot of farms several generations have put blood, sweat and tears and alot of money into developing farms and expanding them.

To then go along and divide them which will lead to it being sold in a matter of months, expecially when 1 member of family wants to keep it going, is pure madness

I fail to see why somebody who has worked for 20 or 30 years on a farm, whilst the siblings have done nothing on it, shouldn't get the farm. Its quite frankly incomprehensible to me. It's like saying that the farmer siblings time and effort is worth nothing - and that seems to be the theme from a few on this thread (non-farmers i guess)

ijooc

The presumption here, is that only one person has contributed to the development of the farm. What do you suggest, when two people have contributed to the farm?

Tipp Man

ijooc wrote: »

The presumption here, is that only one person has contributed to the development of the farm. What do you suggest, when two people have contributed to the farm?

Its impossible to say as each circumstance is different

But if 1 is farming and 1 is working but helping out on farm then i would expect the farming sibling to still get the vast majority of the land (size of course being a factor)

If 2 farming full time then you are looking at splitting i suppose

Tora Bora

ijooc wrote: »

The presumption here, is that only one person has contributed to the development of the farm. What do you suggest, when two people have contributed to the farm?

There are times when difficult decisions need making. This is one of those difficult decisions, that each generation has to make!!
Breaking up what successive generations have put together, makes no sense, whether it be a farm, shop, or any other family business.

Think of another analogy .............. Ronan O Gara and Johnny Sexton.
Both can claim the right to play, but Kidney has to make a decision!!

Get over it. Move on.

Oldtree

It is a contentious issue. Firstly above all there must be a will to allow the farmers intentions to be carried out, if not then everyone is entitled to a share end of story. If Mrs farmer survives then she should get all Mr Farmers assets, but she must also have a will for her intentions to be carried out.

I would agree that if a son/daughter has put heart and soul into the farm with the understanding of inheriting then it should be so and written into a will, but only after talking to the other siblings to ensure no legal action after Mr Farmers demise. A very generous site for the other siblings would ensure that their roots are not cut. Perhaps a small % of profits could also go to the siblings for a period of years?

My wifes uncle died intestate and the tax man took all his money away but left the farm. The farm had previously been signed over to him by the other siblings who had no interest. The farm was subsequently divided up into non commercial units and my wife then inherited a section directly from her father. The bit we got was on no interest to any other member of the family as it was rock and woodland mainly. But I got planning in a field for a house and considder it a big garden. I am pleased that if my children want to they can build a house there on family land where their roots go back generations.

I got the tractor and spent 6 months getting it going!

ijooc

Tora Bora wrote: »

There are times when difficult decisions need making. This is one of those difficult decisions, that each generation has to make!!
Breaking up what successive generations have put together, makes no sense, whether it be a farm, shop, or any other family business.

Think of another analogy .............. Ronan O Gara and Johnny Sexton.
Both can claim the right to play, but Kidney has to make a decision!!

Get over it. Move on.

It's all well and good to say "Get over it". Not much consolation if you're walking away from a very valuable asset.

As for O'Gara/Sexton, they still get paid!

BeeDI

ijooc wrote: »

It's all well and good to say "Get over it". Not much consolation if you're walking away from a very valuable asset.

As for O'Gara/Sexton, they still get paid!

The asset value, is primarily because land is closely held. It's passed down from generation to generation. If your logic ws followed and each successive generation broke up / sold the farms, the market would be far, far more liquid and unit value per acre would be a fraction of what it is now.
If your forefathers had broke up / sold the farm you were reared on, you wouldn't have any reason to be grousing today, would you???

redzerologhlen

Look, you cant justify splitting up a small farm, It is that simple but it still happens cause people are greedy. Its a hobby for two people or a living for one. If the farm is big enough then it could be split if there were 2 interested siblings. Valuable asset it may be but a farmer doesnt see it as that, He or she is just using it until the next generation is ready to take over the reins. It is normally decided at a young age who is going to get it anyway. The main problems arise where there is no will made in the first place which is very irresponsible of the land owner to do. No farmer is ever going to hold the value of their land in their hand so talking about valuable asset's doesnt really make sense. Sure, family's fall out over it but they are thick greedy ones!!!

ijooc

BeeDI wrote: »

The asset value, is primarily because land is closely held. It's passed down from generation to generation. If your logic ws followed and each successive generation broke up / sold the farms, the market would be far, far more liquid and unit value per acre would be a fraction of what it is now.
If your forefathers had broke up / sold the farm you were reared on, you wouldn't have any reason to be grousing today, would you???

If you had read my posts, you would realise that I never once stated a farm should be equally divided up etc.

The points that I am trying to make are:
1) farm/land is a very valuable asset
2) it is extremely difficult to deal with family farm succession in an equitable and fair manner. The reality is most Irish families do not actively address this, which can lead to resentment.
3) It is simplistic to state that a farm should never be divided! There are cases where it makes sense and it is the right thing to do.
4) In many cases, the various family members have made different contributions to the family farm etc. However, this does not mean, that whoever is top of the list takes all. All I'm saying that, other members of the family are entitled to something.
5) No one is disputing the fact that dividing up the farm, makes it more difficult for a person to make a living off it. What I am saying, is that the farm should not come before the family. A lot of posters are suggesting that the farm is much more important than the family.

ijooc

redzerologhlen wrote: »

Look, you cant justify splitting up a small farm, It is that simple but it still happens cause people are greedy. Its a hobby for two people or a living for one. If the farm is big enough then it could be split if there were 2 interested siblings. Valuable asset it may be but a farmer doesnt see it as that, He or she is just using it until the next generation is ready to take over the reins. It is normally decided at a young age who is going to get it anyway. The main problems arise where there is no will made in the first place which is very irresponsible of the land owner to do. No farmer is ever going to hold the value of their land in their hand so talking about valuable asset's doesnt really make sense. Sure, family's fall out over it but they are thick greedy ones!!!

It's very easy to call people greedy, especially if you expect to inherit the family farm.

All, I'm stating is that it's extremely difficult to find an equitable solution. (Equitable does not mean that everything is equally divided! In fact, the farm does not have to be divided to ensure an equitable solution!)

Let's be honest, there is a lot of baggage that goes with the family farm. It isn't necessarily mean happy days for who ever inherits the farm!

There is a suggestion on this thread, that land is more important than everything else. Personally, I believe family element is the most important aspect of the "family farm". Furthermore, it unfair to brand someone as greedy, if all they are looking for is some recognition of work that they put into building the family farm.

eyescreamcone

LostCovey wrote: »

It certainly is crazy talk if the talk was about a property portfolio.

It wasn't, eyescreamcone.

It was about a family business.

Would it be crazy talk if a supermarket owner tried to pass on his premises intact, or should he divide it equally among their 4 kids - they could each run a huckster shop and spend the rest of their days in competition with each other.

What about a publican - should they try to split the pub up among the kids, give one the jacks, and another the pool table & cigarette machine.

Crazy talk, man!

LostCovey

Why can't a property portfolio be a family business???

The fairest method of dividing an estate is to add up the values of each asset and then divide by the number of children.
If for special reasons (a very deserving child) then maybe give one a bigger share.

After dividing the assets, the "I want to be a farmer" can purchase the other shares for an appropriate sum.

Or he may decide to have the farm sold and use his share as a downpayment on a better farm.

This method would be the same for supermarkets, pubs and property portfolios!

Any other method of passing on the estate is usually unfair on the unfortunate siblings (usually females).

"Shur, she'll be fine as a nurse"!!!

Oldtree

Have a look here at some free advice, see no 14 in particular

http://www.myinheritance.ie/FAQs/Default.26.html

eyescreamcone

Oldtree wrote: »

Have a look here at some free advice, see no 14 in particular

http://www.myinheritance.ie/FAQs/Default.26.html

All sorted so

blue5000

Lots of new posters on this thread, some with great big chips on their shoulders. Every farm family situation is different, if communications break down or if the older generation don't know when to start taking a back seat everybody suffers.

yourpics

To avoid any arguments among siblings it is best to leave the farm to a total stranger like myself. PM me if you are writing a will

dar31

The two brothers were sat in the solicitor's waiting room waiting for their fathers will to be read.

An argument started as to which of them was the favourite son and it was getting into full flow when they were invited into the office.


After a few preliminaries including the disposal of a few small items to the cousins and old friends the important bit came - who would inherit the farm.


The solicitor took a deep breath, looked at one of the brothers and said 'Well John, the farm is yours'.


John turned to his brother 'See...!!......I told you you were the favourite'

DaNiEl1994

hi guys im 16 and we have farm thats about 35 acres at a push, i, in my mind am thinking i will be inheriting all of it bar a site or two out in lahnch with a good view for my other 4 siblings as i am the ONLY one who has shown interest, id say not a saturday has gone by where i havent been down there working on the farm with my father. no one has ever shown interest in the farm except my older brother who was tought how to drive the tractor at my age and lost all interest in two weeks :rolleyes: never set foot on the farm since.

35 acres is far from the biggest farm in ireland and im nearly 100% certain you guys will agree it cant be farmed full time on that scale. brought up the topic of who gets the farm with the father, he didnt really say anythng much and sort of ignored the subject then my sisters got very angry quickly saying we all deserve a piece of it equally, i said nothing but to me they deserve nothing.