Sisters wanting sites

lefthooker

I like the OP's husband have 3 sisters, all younger, college educated, currently abroad and never expressed an interest in farming.

I was farming at home for 10 years when my parents decided to transfer everything to me, including household bills and sizable farm debt. It was discreet with only the solicitor, my parents and I knowing. I'll admit I was initially overwhelmed with the thoughts of what was going to happen but the only sticking point was my parents (mainly my dads) desire to gift 3 sites to my sisters. Not that I disagreed with my sisters getting sites, more with the timing and location.

The sites were literally going to be in the milking parlour and at the time none of them were prepared or wanted to live at home, and the thoughts of them selling a site or house to a total outsider really rankled me. So the compromise I offered was if in years to come when hopefully I'd made a good go of this farming lark and my sisters came looking for a site to build on and live in I'd look after them.(They've also been accounted for in our parents wills).Thankfully the solicitor and my parents agreed with the proposal.

Now as I write this, I'm happy with my lot, engaged and building my own house. I know that there's a good chance they all won't return home and luckily I can say we all get on with our siblings partners so I think a site for my sisters shouldn't be a problem. A relationship with my sisters is more valuable than what would keep a few cows.

My parting shot, while I can see why the OP's husband might be raging, in my case and with his, land is not the most valuable commodity. It's good old fashioned common sense.

Pixel Eater

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But Post Offices etc are not located in towns for the sole use of town dwellers.
You are using An Posts argument now.
Our local PO is to be closed, An Post claim its uneconomical because there are 'only" 46 houses left in the town.
But there are several hundred households scattered across 30 square miles that the PO serves.
And why do you think that rural dwellers don't use a shop or a doctor?

And to reply to another poster, who claims that all the one off houses and the lifestyle associated whit them is unsustainable, its sustainable untill oil runs out.
When that happens, living in a town won't be any better than living on an acre in the countryside.
The trucks bringing food to the shops wont be running for anyone.

And An Post have a point though A postman can drive a mile in a town and deliver post to maybe 60/70 plus houses. In the countryside he (or she) may call to maybe only 4 or 5 in the same distance and probably have drive up a long lane to get to some of them too; that's a lot of time, effort and petrol and not very productive. It's completely unsustainable and contributed to their closure.

People would use their local shops/cafes/pubs a lot more if they could walk there and not have to drive everywhere.

fepper

Ginger83 wrote: »

Ah land.......the biggest cause of all feuds.

I met my wife 15yrs ago. She wanted to build on the family land so we asked her parents for a site. They said no. We offered to buy it. They said no. The land is being kept for the oldest son. My wife was very upset over it.

We moved to another county and don't speak to them. Its been 7yrs now with no contact, we're married now and they were not invited, we have kids they've never met and a beautiful home they've never set foot in. I was diagnosed with a terminal illness a few yrs ago, they are not involved and will be informed on the day of my funeral that they are not welcome at it.

They have their land, i hope it keeps them happy. It cost them a daughter, son in law and grandkids.

OP if your husbands decides to let greed get the better of him, one day he'll stand in a lonely field and realise....it was a poxy bit of grass.

You married their daughter so you should give them some praise...

Alrigghtythen

fepper wrote: »

You married their daughter so you should give them some praise...

A daughter they refused to live beside and banished from the area

Ginger83

fepper wrote: »

You married their daughter so you should give them some praise...

A daughter they thought nothing of.

This is Ireland, not China.

bfa1509

Ginger83 wrote: »

Ah land.......the biggest cause of all feuds.

I met my wife 15yrs ago. She wanted to build on the family land so we asked her parents for a site. They said no. We offered to buy it. They said no. The land is being kept for the oldest son. My wife was very upset over it.

We moved to another county and don't speak to them. Its been 7yrs now with no contact, we're married now and they were not invited, we have kids they've never met and a beautiful home they've never set foot in. I was diagnosed with a terminal illness a few yrs ago, they are not involved and will be informed on the day of my funeral that they are not welcome at it.

They have their land, i hope it keeps them happy. It cost them a daughter, son in law and grandkids.

OP if your husbands decides to let greed get the better of him, one day he'll stand in a lonely field and realise....it was a poxy bit of grass.

I really felt for you until I got to the 3rd paragraph where you started putting all of the blame on your in-laws. It is completely up to the parents to decide who should or should not inherit a plot of land. Your in-laws likely hold a more traditional approach where the son or daughter who intends on looking after the farm, gets the farm. Sounds like you excommunicated yourselves from your wife's family as you couldn't bring yourself to respect their decision.

I feel for you, but you are wrong to lay all of the blame on the parents. The previous generation will always be more stubborn than the next, you should account for this.

Ginger83

bfa1509 wrote: »

I really felt for you until I got to the 3rd paragraph where you started putting all of the blame on your in-laws. It is completely up to the parents to decide who should or should not inherit a plot of land. Your in-laws likely hold a more traditional approach where the son or daughter who intends on looking after the farm, gets the farm. Sounds like you excommunicated yourselves from your wife's family as you couldn't bring yourself to respect their decision.

I feel for you, but you are wrong to lay all of the blame on the parents. The previous generation will always be more stubborn that the next, you should account for this.

We had no choice but to accept their decision but my wife decided as they thought so little of her to have nothing to do with them. It was a corner of a field. It looked worse for them as we approached neighbours asking for a site.

Alrigghtythen

To reduce one off housing, Farmers should be made to live in the current farmhouse.

lefthooker

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

To reduce one off housing, Farmers should be made to live in the current farmhouse.

I'd love to agree with you but,
Two queens can't live in the one hive.

Simmental.

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

To reduce one off housing, Farmers should be made to live in the current farmhouse.

To reduce urban sprawl people living in urban areas should be made live in their parents current town house

Alrigghtythen

lefthooker wrote: »

I'd love to agree with you but,
Two queens can't live in the one hive.

The parents can move to the village/town. Bus services, doctors etc within walking distance.

lefthooker

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

The parents can move to the village/town. Bus services, doctors etc within walking distance.

Why should parents be made move out of their home?
Sure why not send them to Auschwitz:rolleyes:

beauf

lefthooker wrote: »

I'd love to agree with you but,
Two queens can't live in the one hive.

Used to be three generations of Queens lived in the same house.

These days if people don't get on we aren't stuck with each other though.

Just be aware of the costs of nursing homes and even care at home. If they choose to go in the fair deal it gets backdated to 5yr prior to when they need it.

Alrigghtythen

lefthooker wrote: »

Why should parents be made move out of their home?
Sure why not send them to Auschwitz:rolleyes:

They wouldn't have to move out. They could all stay there. Unless the child they have just gifted a sizable amount of assets to can't stick them.


It would make sense, Elderly people living on their own, with their son 24/7 farming and the daughters banished from the area, are vulnerable rattling around in large houses. If they moved to towns public health nurse etc wouldn't have to travel as far, an post would have to stop less etc.

J.O. Farmer

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

They wouldn't have to move out. They could all stay there. Unless the child they have just gifted a sizable amount of assets to can't stick them.


It would make sense, Elderly people living on their own, with their son 24/7 farming and the daughters banished from the area, are vulnerable rattling around in large houses. If they moved to towns public health nurse etc wouldn't have to travel as far, an post would have to stop less etc.

That's going to be an uncomfortable situation for everyone. These days retiring parents can be in good shape leading active lives. They need their space as much as the next generation and don't necessarily need the grandkids around 24/7.

There needs to be 2 houses for the farm. One the parents own house which they should have their day in. After that it's their decision what happens it. It may go to the 3rd generation or maybe not. There should be a second house for the successor and their family.

After that it's up to each family to decide on further houses.

flatty

lefthooker wrote: »

I like the OP's husband have 3 sisters, all younger, college educated, currently abroad and never expressed an interest in farming.

I was farming at home for 10 years when my parents decided to transfer everything to me, including household bills and sizable farm debt. It was discreet with only the solicitor, my parents and I knowing. I'll admit I was initially overwhelmed with the thoughts of what was going to happen but the only sticking point was my parents (mainly my dads) desire to gift 3 sites to my sisters. Not that I disagreed with my sisters getting sites, more with the timing and location.

The sites were literally going to be in the milking parlour and at the time none of them were prepared or wanted to live at home, and the thoughts of them selling a site or house to a total outsider really rankled me. So the compromise I offered was if in years to come when hopefully I'd made a good go of this farming lark and my sisters came looking for a site to build on and live in I'd look after them.(They've also been accounted for in our parents wills).Thankfully the solicitor and my parents agreed with the proposal.

Now as I write this, I'm happy with my lot, engaged and building my own house. I know that there's a good chance they all won't return home and luckily I can say we all get on with our siblings partners so I think a site for my sisters shouldn't be a problem. A relationship with my sisters is more valuable than what would keep a few cows.

My parting shot, while I can see why the OP's husband might be raging, in my case and with his, land is not the most valuable commodity. It's good old fashioned common sense.

Why would either of ye be "raging"?
It's frankly bizarre behaviour.
I can't get my head around it.
Genuine question.

Alrigghtythen

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

That's going to be an uncomfortable situation for everyone. These days retiring parents can be in good shape leading active lives. They need their space as much as the next generation and don't necessarily need the grandkids around 24/7.

There needs to be 2 houses for the farm. One the parents own house which they should have their day in. After that it's their decision what happens it. It may go to the 3rd generation or maybe not. There should be a second house for the successor and their family.

After that it's up to each family to decide on further houses.

They can be in good shape but time ticks on and eventually one will die before the other. Family living close with leave them less vulnerable in many ways. Instead they must live isolated to please the farmer because he wouldn't be happy with 197 acres instead of 200.

If the family home is left between the other siblings it will more than likely be sold to strangers. Better leave it to the farmer too.

patsy_mccabe

This thread reminds me of family farming in general. Usually for the day to day work, the hard labour, the tough decision making there's one family member that does it all. But by God, when there's easy money to be dished out, people crawl out of the woodwork. Animated opinions on this and that.

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

lefthooker

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

They wouldn't have to move out. They could all stay there. Unless the child they have just gifted a sizable amount of assets to can't stick them.

Its not about "sticking them" its about being comfortable in your own place, living by your own rules and not having to tip toe around someone else's house.
All the above leads to resentment

J.O. Farmer

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

They can be in good shape but time ticks on and eventually one will die before the other. Family living close with leave them less vulnerable in many ways. Instead they must live isolated to please the farmer because he wouldn't be happy with 197 acres instead of 200.

If the family home is left between the other siblings it will more than likely be sold to strangers. Better leave it to the farmer too.

They can live close without being under the same roof. A seperate house on the same farm is close enough. If there's more than 1 child close all the better.

It's up to the parents who to leave the house to. It may even be to the farmers son or daughter, aka someone who doesn't already have a house.

Alrigghtythen

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This thread reminds me of family farming in general. Usually for the day to day work, the hard labour, the tough decision making there's one family member that does it all. But by God, when there's easy money to be dished out, people crawl out of the woodwork. Animated opinions on this and that.

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

Would more than one child make a living off the farm, or would they both/3/4 farm part time and have other professions? Or would one be full time, and the others contribute their time for free?

Have they all being asked their opinion on the tough decisions?

K.G.

Ginger83 wrote: »

Ah land.......the biggest cause of all feuds.

I met my wife 15yrs ago. She wanted to build on the family land so we asked her parents for a site. They said no. We offered to buy it. They said no. The land is being kept for the oldest son. My wife was very upset over it.

We moved to another county and don't speak to them. Its been 7yrs now with no contact, we're married now and they were not invited, we have kids they've never met and a beautiful home they've never set foot in. I was diagnosed with a terminal illness a few yrs ago, they are not involved and will be informed on the day of my funeral that they are not welcome at it.

They have their land, i hope it keeps them happy. It cost them a daughter, son in law and grandkids.

OP if your husbands decides to let greed get the better of him, one day he'll stand in a lonely field and realise....it was a poxy bit of grass.

that story casts you and your wife in a poorer light than her parents

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

I really felt for you until I got to the 3rd paragraph where you started putting all of the blame on your in-laws. It is completely up to the parents to decide who should or should not inherit a plot of land. Your in-laws likely hold a more traditional approach where the son or daughter who intends on looking after the farm, gets the farm. Sounds like you excommunicated yourselves from your wife's family as you couldn't bring yourself to respect their decision.

I feel for you, but you are wrong to lay all of the blame on the parents. The previous generation will always be more stubborn than the next, you should account for this.

The parents decided that one child was more important than the others, one child should get everything & the others nothing.
I would walk away from them too.
I actually don't believe that children deserve to inherit from their parents, if the parents worked all their life, it's their decision what to do with their estate.
Sell it all if they wish, however singling out one child to inherit everything & not even give a site to another! Not even sell a site to another! Wrong..

J.O. Farmer

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Would more than one child make a living off the farm, or would they both/3/4 farm part time and have other professions? Or would one be full time, and the others contribute their time for free?

Have they all being asked their opinion on the tough decisions?

I didn't say they should all be farming it. In reality often times only 1 really has an interest but it depends on the farm and family how it's divided. Also in a lot of cases 1 will farm and have a full time job. 200 acres is far from the norm.

That's different to get to building a house on a half acre and helping out their parents.

alps

27 FEB 2018
The French law provides that the children of the deceased person are protected by what is called the hereditary reserve. Children are assured to receive a fraction of their parent’s inheritance, the proportion of which varies according to the number of children of the deceased person. If the deceased person has two children, the hereditary reserve is two-thirds of the patrimony. This means that the deceased person can dispose of a third of his wealth as he wishes and can assign it to the person of his choice. He can donate it to an association, to his wife, to a mistress …

All children are placed on the same equal footing, regardless of the nature of parentage. So, regardless of the case of stepfamilies, the children of a “first bed” are treated on the same level as children of the “second bed“.

If this minimum quota is not respected, the injured heirs may act to restore the share of the reserve which is legally due to them.



Do donations help to avoid this reservation?
If previous donations have been made, they are “reincorporated”. We will simply add them to the deceased’s patrimony on the day of his death to determine the amount of this hereditary reserve.

For example, imagine the case of a father of two children who gives his mistress house worth 800,000 euros and who dies a few years later then having a net worth of 100,000 euros. The calculation of the reserve will be on 100,000 euros (net assets of the deceased person on the day of the death) + 800,000 euros (value of the house given on the day of the death – considering that its value has not changed) = 900,000 euros. The reserve is therefore 2/3, or 600,000 euros. If the present property at the day of death is not sufficient to fill the children of their reserve, the mistress must therefore compensate them to keep the given house

robindch

littelady wrote: »

My hubby is in the process of taking over the family farm. Now three of his sisters are looking for sites with intent to start building as soon as possible. My hubby is raging to the point he doesn't want to talk about it. How would you feel.

In my extended family, there's one set of parents and their kids. The parents have some cash and some property - not a massive amount but enough to cause trouble if it weren't dealt with fairly. Previous ancestors on both sides had fallen out over property (and politics and religion) to the extent of not speaking with each other, not going to funerals, avoiding family gatherings and in one splendid instance, two siblings showing up on the day of the funeral of a third sibling to hear the will, then scoot off before their siblings funeral service to raid the dead women's house for furniture.

Anyway, one of the kids concerned saw the previous generation's mess, then sought legal and financial advice, persuaded the parents to transfer the property into the kids' names - via the usual legal and tax-compliant route which cost some tax but not too much - then created a parallel co-ownership agreement with the siblings to cover the terms and conditions of access to, control of, maintenance of, funding etc for the parents' property.

The main thing here was that everybody agreed up front what the principles of the transfer were (fairness firstly), then during negotiations was fully informed about all aspects of the transfer, all aspects of the co-ownership agreement, the tax, the legal requirements, all took part in genuine negotiations respecting their wishes and this produced a solid, mutually respectful, legally-enforceable contract between all of them. It wasn't easy to do and took about two years, but - whatever else happens - that part of the family shouldn't ever fall out over their property.

As to what I feel about your hubby? Well, if he's getting 200 acres and his siblings are getting nothing, then I can quite understand why the siblings might be hopping mad and can't understand why your husband might be annoyed. Not talking about it will solve nothing and will almost certainly make things worse. I would recommend that the parents seek constructive legal and financial advice as soon as possible and that everybody sits down, firstly in small groups, then as a family, to sort out the problem as this is the kind of thing which could lead to court and the destruction of the entire estate.

Ginger83

K.G. wrote: »

that story casts you and your wife in a poorer light than her parents

I suppose they should have had 1 kid.

Ginger83

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This thread reminds me of family farming in general. Usually for the day to day work, the hard labour, the tough decision making there's one family member that does it all. But by God, when there's easy money to be dished out, people crawl out of the woodwork. Animated opinions on this and that.

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

85k offered for 0.5 acres, easy money for who?

sasta le

Jesus people desperate for even a small home and people in backwards Ireland fighting over sites and money

Lady Haywire

sasta le wrote: »

Jesus people desperate for even a small home and people in backwards Ireland fighting over sites and money

They're not that desperate if they won't move to 'backwards' Ireland :rolleyes: