Sisters wanting sites

memorystick

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This thread has gone full Jeremy Kyle.

Are you from a perfect family?

fergus1001

memorystick wrote:

There was an agreement made to divide land between 2 of us (brothers). Agreement made but when my wife had second child with DS, agreement off. Brother wound the father up. Took 2 years and 25k to get it sorted. My family is not to be pîsséd on.

fair play for getting it sorted

Pete_Cavan

memorystick wrote: »

Are you from a perfect family?

No, I'm riding my sister in law and my brother is back stage in a sound proof booth, stay tuned.

fergus1001

Pete_Cavan wrote:

No, I'm riding my sister in law and my brother is back stage in a sound proof booth, stay tuned.

your actions match your user name :pac:

koheim

There should be a ban on one off housing on agriculture land, I see this coming soon. Most european countries does not allow one off building of houses, in UK you can not build on farmland. Why is this accepted in Ireland? Just does not make sense to me.

Cattlepen

koheim wrote: »

There should be a ban on one off housing on agriculture land, I see this coming soon. Most european countries does not allow one off building of houses, in UK you can not build on farmland. Why is this accepted in Ireland? Just does not make sense to me.

Do you own farmland?

9935452

Gravelly wrote: »

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It does effect the value of the land and the use it can be put to.



I know I would avoid renting land with a house sitting on it. You have to constant risk of lawn cuttings being thrown over the wall and being left to cattle and sheep with the risk of neospora and listeriosis from the cuttings. Then you have the risk of dogs not being secured and chasing cattle and sheep with the losses and stresses to both farmer and animal and the risks of animals breaking out onto a road with the danger to traffic of collision. And that's only the dangers while family members are living there, it gets much worse with strangers there.


Then you are restricted from spreading slurry or dung in the field from a nuisance perspective, even though that land may be the area most in need of those fertilisers. No keeping bulls in the fields either in case a child goes in after a football one day. Then you have complaints from cutting silage or harvesting cereals when those days might be the only days where this is possible.


And they're only the few I've had experience from in the last few years, plenty more can give many, many more of their experiences of similar.

Can't be many farms in Ireland now that don't border onto a house surely? Thinking of my own area, I can't think of any farm without a house bordering it somewhere (not counting the farmers own house obviously). Unless it's a townie that buys the house, you are unlikely to have any of the problems above (other than the bull, and if you think like that, you couldn't keep a bull at all, as anyone could wander into any field anytime, regardless of whether there's a house beside it or not).

I work for a contractor for over 10 years and we have deen it all.
Conplaints made to guards from the smell from agitating slurry, from the smell when spreading it, for muck on road when there is none. Phone calls to farmers wife or bosses wife from her friends complaining about slurry and smell. Being threatened with the guards when cutting silage after 10 at night in fields behind houses because they cant sleep.
Complaints about tractors and machinery on the road. Blocking the road driving too slow and so on.

memorystick

koheim wrote: »

There should be a ban on one off housing on agriculture land, I see this coming soon. Most european countries does not allow one off building of houses, in UK you can not build on farmland. Why is this accepted in Ireland? Just does not make sense to me.

The countryside is ruined with one-off houses. They're like a line of rosarybeads in certain areas.

Water John

Might be news for some but that is the Irish tradition, scattered housing settlement. Dating back thousands of years, as in Ceidhe Fields. What makes it inferior to other countries?

The OP's partner is inheriting 197 acres + lock stock and barrel and he's whinging???
Each family member gets a site. It's not his call. If he has a problem he gets a one acre site too and sell the farm.
I think the sites need to be under one acre in size. Check with a conveyancing solr. One option is if there is a convenient farm roadway onto a public road, the three sites could be located in there, with one public entrance. Have seen that work well in a few places.
As its sisters their is less likelyhood of a difficult SIL. Sadly found they usually kick up a fuss about slurry etc. Not being sexist but tends to be reality.
Farmer may find BILs very handy.
BTW my sister got the farmhouse and deserved it. I gave an extra piece of ground to make the site more viable. Good grief, life is short.

blue5000

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

No, I'm riding my sister in law and my brother is back stage in a sound proof booth, stay tuned.

Mod note Pete_Cavan don't post in this thread again. Next time it's a card.

Pete_Cavan

Water John wrote: »

Might be news for some but that is the Irish tradition, scattered housing settlement. Dating back thousands of years, as in Ceidhe Fields. What makes it inferior to other countries?

In other European countries where scattered housing is prevented have far superior infrastructure and facilities in rural areas than we do. In those countries people continue to live in villages which sustains the businesses in the village, whereas here we have abandoned the villages, businesses closed and half the place is boarded up. That one of these policies is inferior is self-evident.

Even going back 100 years, the scattered farmsteads worked because people were largely self-sufficient and were able to provide most of what they needed themselves or obtain locally. This is no longer the case, you can't compare the Ceide Fields with the modern world.

Addle

9935452 wrote: »

Being threatened with the guards when cutting silage after 10 at night in fields behind houses because they cant sleep

I love that noise.
It means the weather is great and reminds me of the excitement at home when I was young and those jobs were going on. And invariably, the fine things that were at work! My first crushes!

Minnie Snuggles

I am not from a farming background my husband is.

While the op's husband is inheriting a 200 acre farm, he may also be inheriting huge debts and the cost of transferring the land would only add to these debts. So why not offer to sell the sites to the sisters for the cost of the transfer, and instead of "fuming" and "raging" to the point of not wanting to talk about it anymore, why not write down all his concerns and get legal advice. I think this might only interest the sisters who genuinely want to live locally.

Stratvs

Addle wrote: »

I love that noise.
It means the weather is great and reminds me of the excitement at home when I was young and those jobs were going on. And invariably, the fine things that were at work! My first crushes!

All the way from Tuam

Ginger83

Becks610 wrote: »

Oh I really feel for ye. What an awful thing to happen to ye. I am surprised that they didn’t change their mind especially when grandkids came along or even the mother change her mind.

I believe ye were right tho in moving away - there would be no point living close by squabbling or pretending to get on as it would really bug your wife. That would have really annoyed your wife. Ye will be the better for it in the long run and at least ye know that these grandparents don’t get a chance to give unequal treatment to your children if they are of different genders.

No doubt if ye had of stayed your wife would have been the one expected to look after her parents if they got sick etc.

We've had a great few yrs, they've missed a house-warming, 2 births, christenings, birthdays, easters, halloweens, christmas', 1st days at school and the chance to see their daughter get married.

Even during my illness i'm content knowing they're not involved.

As i said they have their land. They can keep it.

Bass Reeves

I cannot understand the issue. Op husband will still have 197 acre afterwards. I think the real issue here is that often we invest too much within the farm. As well the living off 200 ares now in drystock or tillage is not what it was 30+ years ago.

If we look back OP would have had to come with a dowry 50 years ago and this dowry and other cash was used to settle the futures of siblings. As well when parents became older there was not the care issue it is now with both people in a family unit working. Now some expect that just because the other sibling got an education that this is enough. Traditionally parents from larger farms like this also left any money they had after death to those sons and daughters that did not inherit land. But now any excess cash in all probability will be swallowed up in Nursing home fees. The big isssue is unless there is an outside income a 200 acre farm is not able to generate the cash to do what it did 50 years ago.

Over the last 50 years we have had a bit of a culture shock to those with bigger land banks who were not in dairying. Most now accept that a 100 drystock acre unit can be managed part time and a 200 acre unit can as well. Some elder siblings took it for granted that they would inherit the farm lock stock and barrel with no settlement to other family members. However giving 600K-2+ million of an inheritance to one family member and letting all the rest go sing is inherently unfair.

Having said that if this person was required to stay at home then that is another matter. However in most case Johnny did not bother to educate himself maybe with a bit of acceptance from Mam and Dad but often it was a case of I alright Jack I do not need education. Now fast forward 15-20 years and other family members have moved on got educated got goodish jobs but are facing costs involved in housing. There parents look at it and decide that because they have not got the cash to do it then they will give them a site.

Johnny is upset as he sees it as part of his inheritance. He has the choice go away and borrow 300K and give it to the parents to settle his siblings interest and learn from it. But most will baulk at that. They have no problem with borrowing 60K for a new tractor and 40K for the land cruiser etc etc but are unwilling to accept that there siblings are due something as well.

Water John

Great post Bass. A shorter version might be, he'd want to get over himself. Time for the OP to knock a bit of sense into him or maybe even reflect on her commitment.

Markcheese

Inheritances and farming are tricky, splitting a valuable asset amongst the kids sounds great, but may not result in an economically viable farm for anybody, same with borrowing to pay off siblings, could be an economic noose around the neck of "the farmer". But just giving everything to one child doesn't exactly seem fair, especially if all kids helped work the farm..
Different alright if one member worked the farm for years or decades before its handed over...

Water John

There is a whole diff between dividing a farm and giving siblings a site. In this case it's 1.5%, he keeps 98.5%.

Bass Reeves

Markcheese wrote: »

Inheritances and farming are tricky, splitting a valuable asset amongst the kids sounds great, but may not result in an economically viable farm for anybody, same with borrowing to pay off siblings, could be an economic noose around the neck of "the farmer". But just giving everything to one child doesn't exactly seem fair, especially if all kids helped work the farm..
Different alright if one member worked the farm for years or decades before its handed over...

What is a viable farm? In reality there is not the income in drystock off most farms. From that you jump to should you educate all your children let them get jobs and then make there decisions based on that.

In Holland those that inherit have to borrow to settle there parents future requirements. What is different. Its too easy to leave it in the pub on a friday night. If with a 200 acre farm you could not justify 300K in borrowing then you are as well off without it. It is 21K/year approx over 20 years a job slightly over the minimum wage will pay for that.

Mooooo

Holland it's slightly different in terms of the cost of credit as well as other issues, land disposal is often taxed at marginal rates as they can write off capital purchase against tax as well as how much the banking system is exposed to the level of debt. Visited 4 dairy farms and the previous generation were all still helping out in farm. Also most farms are dairy/ tulips or have wind turbines and are more financially viable than many drystock and tillage here and indeed prob a share of dairy as well.
It should be planned out prior to the parents handing over or passing on. All children should be educated regardless. If one or two wish to take over or go farming a plan should be put in place. If siblings are living/ working within commuting distance a site is fair I believe.
It's different for every family tbh. Heard of one lad went to ag college loves dairying, came home and father said he'll be farming himself for another 20 years most likely and that there wasn't two incomes off the farm, young lad now has 300 cows to his name in a partnership elsewhere. Heard of others where two kids both wanted to go farming and themselves and parents rented another farm and increased in scale so they could all do it. So if In place of a site help with a deposit if possible would be an alternative, at the end of the day a site is worh so much, the house would have to be built on top if it so deposit sized help with a purchase would be an equivalent contribution. Again I reiterate it's up to the parents at the end of the day but I think the majority would do the most they could to help siblings out

Who2

It’s not always clear cut. Everyone presumed this family all get along well all bar the son. Nearly every farm in the country has a horror story of splits over ground and regularly see families broke up over it. It is greedy for the said farmer if it’s just the site they get but more often than not the parents may have already got substantial help. I know my own sister got her site, block work done and roofed, yet she’s still not happy and wants more yet never stood on the farm or helps out with either of my parents.
Chances are they may have been looked after already in this farmers eyes or he may just be greedy but I doubt any of us will hear the full truth on here.

Water John

A farm cannot be bled dry. Know of one case where the farm funded two houses, one of them not now lived in. Enterprise totally starved of cash and capital.
A site seems fair to me, don't ask or expect the house as well.

Shaunoc

Ginger83 wrote: »

We've had a great few yrs, they've missed a house-warming, 2 births, christenings, birthdays, easters, halloweens, christmas', 1st days at school and the chance to see their daughter get married.

Even during my illness i'm content knowing they're not involved.

As i said they have their land. They can keep it.

pretty sad story all round

yosemitesam1

Water John wrote: »

There is a whole diff between dividing a farm and giving siblings a site. In this case it's 1.5%, he keeps 98.5%.

Maybe there's a lot of hill land or bog, it could be a fairly large proportion of the best land in question.

Eamonn8448

Its not all about money ffs its their home too im sure they have alot of memories growing up on that farm, seems more like a squabble between siblings to me, give them their sites, nephews and nieces can come in fierce handy at times - free or underpaid labour again just like the siblings, theres no luck in denying them a site seen it happen here 45 years of bad blood, that farm is plenty big enough, we are only all passing through and just remember op your only a blow in, what happens to the farm should god forbid it you divorce or even worse your oh has a fatal accident, will you continue on what generations did through good and bad? if you decide to not give them be prepared for bad blood and years of cousins not talking to each other over a chip on their shoulders , i just cant help feeling this is about money, create happy memories and teach the young ones good family values, have fond memories of doing my cousins on the other side of the families hay etc ... not their fecking bog though hated that why couldnt they buy coal like us lol

Donald Trump

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Hoping to AI myself during the week. Have the weanlings booked in to sell, but it's a draw on the first 40 pens. If I get a late pen, I might put it off till next week. Also got a letter today from ICBF about WHPR. Might sign up but not sure how it all ties in with the new weighing and genomics scheme.
Mighty weather is right.

You are going to AI yourself?


:eek:

patsy_mccabe

Donald Trump wrote: »

You are going to AI yourself?


:eek:

Haven't you a country to run. Nothing here only fake news.

jaymla627

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I cannot understand the issue. Op husband will still have 197 acre afterwards. I think the real issue here is that often we invest too much within the farm. As well the living off 200 ares now in drystock or tillage is not what it was 30+ years ago.

If we look back OP would have had to come with a dowry 50 years ago and this dowry and other cash was used to settle the futures of siblings. As well when parents became older there was not the care issue it is now with both people in a family unit working. Now some expect that just because the other sibling got an education that this is enough. Traditionally parents from larger farms like this also left any money they had after death to those sons and daughters that did not inherit land. But now any excess cash in all probability will be swallowed up in Nursing home fees. The big isssue is unless there is an outside income a 200 acre farm is not able to generate the cash to do what it did 50 years ago.

Over the last 50 years we have had a bit of a culture shock to those with bigger land banks who were not in dairying. Most now accept that a 100 drystock acre unit can be managed part time and a 200 acre unit can as well. Some elder siblings took it for granted that they would inherit the farm lock stock and barrel with no settlement to other family members. However giving 600K-2+ million of an inheritance to one family member and letting all the rest go sing is inherently unfair.

Having said that if this person was required to stay at home then that is another matter. However in most case Johnny did not bother to educate himself maybe with a bit of acceptance from Mam and Dad but often it was a case of I alright Jack I do not need education. Now fast forward 15-20 years and other family members have moved on got educated got goodish jobs but are facing costs involved in housing. There parents look at it and decide that because they have not got the cash to do it then they will give them a site.

Johnny is upset as he sees it as part of his inheritance. He has the choice go away and borrow 300K and give it to the parents to settle his siblings interest and learn from it. But most will baulk at that. They have no problem with borrowing 60K for a new tractor and 40K for the land cruiser etc etc but are unwilling to accept that there siblings are due something as well.

The other side of it is where, the parents are overly generous to the other siblings, fathers mother passed away here in 1995 and with it 200 thousand pounds had to be found to pay off siblings/gift houses and buy back land willed to another sibling....
The toll it took on my mother/father financial was enormous and the siblings reckoned they still hadn’t got their fair share looking for sites etc on top of pay-offs, it’s basically took the guts of 20 plus odd years to get the farm back to a even-keel, and that was achieved by myself since the age of 12 running the place while the ole chap helped out in the evenings/weekends after putting in 80 odd hours a week driving lorries,

GrasstoMilk

No sites to be given here and my sisters are fine with that. They got there education and parents helped them out every way posssible and I'm presuming they'll get a nice contribution towards they're wedding etc.
I've been out doing what ever I could do since I was young and I came home at 20 to farm full time to pay the bills and put food on the table with the promise of no wage. Everything we have now is because of my parents and me, and at the end of the day we are only pulling wage from what we have. If I have to go borrowing money to pay them off when the inevitable happens I may as well sell the whole lot. Worked hard enough to get what we have, why should I work even harder just so someone that had no interest can get a nice payout because I inherit an asset rich business that me and my parents built up

But in saying that it's all case specific. If my siblings were interested as much as me and put in as much as I have they would definitely be entitled to as much as me