Inheriting an acre off a farm

concreteslab2

If someone inherits one acre on a farm inherited by someone else, can the choose which acre to inherit?

Can they claim a right of way to this acre along a farm lane?

Peregrinus

concreteslab2 wrote: »

If someone inherits one acre on a farm inherited by someone else, can the choose which acre to inherit?

What does the will say?

A bequest of, e.g., "one acre of my farm at Blacktown" without specifying which acre and without putting in place a mechanism for determining which acre would be highly unusual, and would quite possibly fail for uncertainty.

concreteslab2 wrote: »

Can they claim a right of way to this acre along a farm lane?

What does the will say about this?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

A bequest of, e.g., "one acre of my farm at Blacktown" without specifying which acre and without putting in place a mechanism for determining which acre would be highly unusual, and would quite possibly fail for uncertainty.

On the flip side, a reasonable person* and/or a mediator (at whatever level) should be able to resolve the situation. Assuming the farm is 'farm sized' and not 1.1 acres, I would think the heir receiving the 1 acre should have choice as to which acre. One would suggest said acre should be on a public road / right of way, contiguous, have a low perimeter and not include special features like existing buildings, bridges, etc. whose separate ownership wouldn't jeopardise the operation of the rest of the farm.



* Yeah, I know it's an inheritance on a family farm.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

On the flip side, a reasonable person* and/or a mediator (at whatever level) should be able to resolve the situation. Assuming the farm is 'farm sized' and not 1.1 acres, I would think the heir receiving the 1 acre should have choice as to which acre. One would suggest said acre should be on a public road / right of way, contiguous, have a low perimeter and not include special features like existing buildings, bridges, etc. whose separate ownership wouldn't jeopardise the operation of the rest of the farm.

That may not be an unreasonable suggestion, but for this to work it needs the agreement of all the interested parties - the beneficiary to whom an unspecified acre has been left, every beneficiary with an interest in the rest of the farm, and the executor. If you have even one holdout, this falls over, we're off to court and (I think) the bequest fails for uncertainty.

And it's not at all unlikely that there would be at least one holdout. While your suggestion is reasonable, somebody might prefer a different, but equally reasonable, suggestion - e.g. that the acre should have the characteristics you describe but that it should be chosen by the person to whom the rest of the farm has been left. Or it should be chosen by agreement between the the two beneficiaries.

But of course we are speculating. We don't know that the will says anything like this. OP needs to come back and say more about how it comes to be that somebody inherits an unspecified acre.

Claw Hammer

If the scenario is something like "the farm to Mary provided she gives a sight to John" the court might be willing to intervene.

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the scenario is something like "the farm to Mary provided she gives a sight to John" the court might be willing to intervene.

If that's the language of the will, it seems fairly clear that Mary chooses the plot that she will give John, but it has to be a plot that is suitable as a site for a house (meaning, amongh other things, that there must be access from the public road). Nothing in that language suggests that John gets to choose his site; he gets what he is given.

But, as I say, this is pointless speculation. It may bear no relationshiop to the situation described in the OP.

concreteslab2

The language in the will is along the lines "Mary inherits the farm and John inherits one acre." It is simply stated like this with no qualifications or instructions.

The author of the will is alive and has dementia. Is there anything the inheritor could do to prepare for this situation?

nuac

Mod
You are disclosing and discussing terms of a will when the testator is still alive?
I presume this is a hypothetical case?

Peregrinus

concreteslab2 wrote: »

The language in the will is along the lines "Mary inherits the farm and John inherits one acre." It is simply stated like this with no qualifications or instructions.

The author of the will is alive and has dementia. Is there anything the inheritor could do to prepare for this situation?

Mary and John can get together and try and identify by agreement a one-acre site that John will get, when the time comes. If they can agree on this, there doesn't seem to be anyone else with an interest in challenging it, or the standing to do so. They should make a written record of their agreement so that they don't, when the time comes, disagree about what they agreed.

If they can't agree the matter will end up in court, and that will be an unmitigated disaster for both of them. So they have a strong incentive to agree.

schemingbohemia

Stupid self-drawn up will gets stupid outcome, quelle fecking surprise Rodders.

floorboard222

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mary and John can get together and try and identify by agreement a one-acre site that John will get when the time comes. If they can agree on this, there doesn't seem to be anyone else with an interest in challenging it, or the standing to do so. They should make a written record of their agreement so that they don't, when the time comes, disagree about what they agreed.

If they can't agree the matter will end up in court, and that will be an unmitigated disaster for both of them. So they have a strong incentive to agree.

Would such a written agreement be legally binding? Would it need to be signed or witnessed by a solicitor or solicitors?

Claw Hammer

floorboard222 wrote: »

Would such a written agreement be legally binding? Would it need to be signed or witnessed by a solicitor or solicitors?

Such an agreement would be legally binding even if not witnessed by a solicitor. That being said, there can be difficulties with home-made written contracts which could result in the agreement becoming void. There could be a claim of duress, misrepresentation, undue influence, mistake, lack of precision or any other of the numerous ways by which effect might be denied to the agreement. It would generally be far better if each person were separately represented by a solicitor who drew up mutually agreeable contracts after giving each of them full advice.

Peregrinus

floorboard222 wrote: »

Would such a written agreement be legally binding? Would it need to be signed or witnessed by a solicitor or solicitors?

As long as it represents a genuine agreement between the parties (and not, e.g., something one of them has tricked or pressed the other into) then whether it's legally binding is a secondary issue; it doesn't need to be legally binding for the parties to implement it, and if it's a genuine agreement then odds are they will implement it.

But if you want it to be legally binding it can be. As Clawhammer says, if that's what you want then each party should be independently legally represented, to minimise any chance of a challenge to the deal on the grounds of duress, undue influence, unfairness, etc.

But before you go down that road ask yourself first of all if turning the whole thing into an elaborate (and expensive) process involvind lawyers on both sides is going to make it easier or harder for the people involved to come to an agreement.

Victor

Is there the matter of consideration if the agreement is to be enforcable?

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Is there the matter of consideration if the agreement is to be enforcable?

Not a problem; each party gives consideration by abandoning any claim that the estate should be administered in a different way to the one they have agreed. This is no different from the compromise/settlement of any other dispute.