Messy farm inheritance issue

Muahahaha

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Only putting the problem off for another 15-20years.

I think it depends what 'the problem' is. Does the daughter just want to farm the land for the rest of her life or does she want an asset that can later be sold? If she just wants to farm then a life long lease from the brothers to her to do so solves that problem. But if it is really about ownership then it does not.

Its not an ideal situation but a life long lease allows her to farm the land and gets rid of the suspicion from the other two that her intention is to sell at some point. If that suspicion is removed with a lease then everyone can move forward imo. If it is not then her brothers will likely back their father and the farm gets split three ways which is no good to anyone.

_Brian

doc22 wrote: »

What was he living on for 25 years if herd number in mother's name?

He was running the farm so whatever that brought, which was feck all I'd say.. Never worked off farm or anything..

K.G.

Jayus lads athread up something over a day and 15 pages of replies..we are only here for a bit .

Jb1989

K.G. wrote: »

Jayus lads athread up something over a day and 15 pages of replies..we are only here for a bit .

Well its a very emotive topic, so no surprise.

Alrigghtythen

We can all give our opinions but really the answer is in the op

The parents have decided to split the farm equally between the three kids and said one can buy out the other if they want to farm.....

Good loser

Most unfair of the father (in particular) to suggest the 3 parts equal division.
Very unfair to daughter given all the contributions she has made over the years. T'would serve them right if she upped and left them alone at home with all the work.
The place should be left solely to her including stock and machinery, with a cash sum to be paid on the parents demise to the two sons - say 20, 30 or 40k each depending on whether Fair Deal is involved and how much it costs.


The parents can save their pension money as they see fit and leave that cash to the sons as well, is they so wish.

pablo128

Good loser wrote: »

Most unfair of the father (in particular) to suggest the 3 parts equal division.
Very unfair to daughter given all the contributions she has made over the years. T'would serve them right if she upped and left them alone at home with all the work.
The place should be left solely to her including stock and machinery, with a cash sum to be paid on the parents demise to the two sons - say 20, 30 or 40k each depending on whether Fair Deal is involved and how much it costs.


The parents can save their pension money as they see fit and leave that cash to the sons as well, is they so wish.

It has already been suggested by the OP that the daughter would be happy enough for the brothers to be left the house which is fairly new and worth over 300k. I think that would be a fair resolution.

Bass Reeves

Good loser wrote: »

Most unfair of the father (in particular) to suggest the 3 parts equal division.
Very unfair to daughter given all the contributions she has made over the years. T'would serve them right if she upped and left them alone at home with all the work.
The place should be left solely to her including stock and machinery, with a cash sum to be paid on the parents demise to the two sons - say 20, 30 or 40k each depending on whether Fair Deal is involved and how much it costs.


The parents can save their pension money as they see fit and leave that cash to the sons as well, is they so wish.

TBF she is still it seems in her early 20's. Some how O expect that there's a substantial age gab between her and her two older brothers. Both may have worked hard on the farm in there younger days. I suspect that they are maybe in relationship's and may have children. I like much more information before making any judgement's.

Parent have the final decision and it is there's alone. They have indicated there choices whole she is young enough not to effect her long-term

theguzman

Her parents are truly stupid and divisive fools, split the farm to cause your children to fight and it ultimately get sold? give it to the eldest or only only son as it always was and should be. This was the old way and it always prevented fighting, created certainty for other family members that they would get nothing or everything.

Lady Haywire

theguzman wrote: »

Her parents are truly stupid and divisive fools, split the farm to cause your children to fight and it ultimately get sold? give it to the eldest or only only son as it always was and should be. This was the old way and it always prevented fighting, created certainty for other family members that they would get nothing or everything.

Excuse me??

Should be given to the son? And what if the son has no interest & is likely to sell it or plant it. Just because something was done one backwards way for generations doesn't mean it should continue that way. There's plenty of capable women out there who can farm just as well, if not better than any eldest son who doesn't give a shít about the farm but was landed with it anyway.

paleoperson

There's nothing "messy" about this at all. The parents have clearly spoken and it makes a lot of sense, it would be very unfair to deny the other two sons.

Good loser wrote: »

Most unfair of the father (in particular) to suggest the 3 parts equal division.
Very unfair to daughter given all the contributions she has made over the years. T'would serve them right if she upped and left them alone at home with all the work.
The place should be left solely to her including stock and machinery, with a cash sum to be paid on the parents demise to the two sons - say 20, 30 or 40k each depending on whether Fair Deal is involved and how much it costs.

You're really suggesting that if a child decides to take up farming and the others are trying to build careers off their own backs, that they're then entitled to the entire farm inheritance?

Helping out on the farm is hardly worth millions of euros worth of assets, that's ridiculous. It's hardly that noble if you're looking for a cash bonanza at the end of it. This wan needs to get over herself.

If she has interest in the farm then what's the problem? Noone is going to stop her from continuing to farm it. She will get her labour paid for the work she does and have her job, but no windfall. Why should she? The old idea of allowing someone the farm wasn't about assets, it was about because it made sense the person who was actually using it owned it.

Women go after farm inheritances all the time these days, it's different to previous generations where the man would be expected to provide for the woman.

Good loser wrote: »

The parents can save their pension money as they see fit and leave that cash to the sons as well, is they so wish.

The parents can do anything they like. They can cut all the children out and give everything they own to charity if they like.

patsy_mccabe

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Excuse me??

Should be given to the son? And what if the son has no interest & is likely to sell it or plant it. Just because something was done one backwards way for generations doesn't mean it should continue that way. There's plenty of capable women out there who can farm just as well, if not better than any eldest son who doesn't give a shít about the farm but was landed with it anyway.

Who2

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This all started when they got to vote. Look what it’s causing now.

roosky

As I am the Original Poster I would like to say thanks for all your opinions as varied as they may be.

For once this is a genuine case where there is no back stabbing or aim to do anyone I think the parents have just simply mixed up splitting their assets fairly and splitting them equally.

This has come up a few times so to clear it up, the girl in question is nearing 30, had planned to move home and hopefully start a family with long term partner when 30 and the brothers are of similar age. She never received payment for work as she has a few cattle of her own on the farm and her and her father always worked very much as a team so payment never came into question.

It’s a genuine case and there are no back stories or other sides to the story as some have suggested....the only possible thing i can see is the father not wanting to pressure her into farming as he would have had a hard time making ends meet off the farm alone

JJayoo

The OP should stop helping on the farm, do absolutely zero, tell the father to ring the sons and foook off

gally74

roosky wrote: »

As I am the Original Poster I would like to say thanks for all your opinions as varied as they may be.

For once this is a genuine case where there is no back stabbing or aim to do anyone I think the parents have just simply mixed up splitting their assets fairly and splitting them equally.

This has come up a few times so to clear it up, the girl in question is nearing 30, had planned to move home and hopefully start a family with long term partner when 30 and the brothers are of similar age. She never received payment for work as she has a few cattle of her own on the farm and her and her father always worked very much as a team so payment never came into question.

It’s a genuine case and there are no back stories or other sides to the story as some have suggested....the only possible thing i can see is the father not wanting to pressure her into farming as he would have had a hard time making ends meet off the farm alone

to be honest, I dont disagree with the Parents approach, one condition could be added, that if any of them want to seel that they seel to a sibling first at 70% of Market value....

At the end of the day, its about their not being a falling out in the family,

K.G.

One approach thats often used in partnership deals in business is if the a party or parties decide to leave they musy offer their share at a price they would be prepared to pay for it.so if they overvalue it they will have to buy the other party share at that price.its called a roulette clause or something like it

Bass Reeves

gally74 wrote: »

to be honest, I dont disagree with the Parents approach, one condition could be added, that if any of them want to seel that they seel to a sibling first at 70% of Market value....

At the end of the day, its about their not being a falling out in the family,

K.G. wrote: »

One approach thats often used in partnership deals in business is if the a party or parties decide to leave they musy offer their share at a price they would be prepared to pay for it.so if they overvalue it they will have to buy the other party share at that price.its called a roulette clause or something like it

Roulette clauses would not come into play here. Neither do I think the idea of a lifetime lease is an option as it kicks the can down the road as well as being of no benefit to the other siblings. As well renting land unless at a nominal price( which may carry longer term value issues for the other beneficiaries. The other solution of a 70% vale clause may again not be a solution as it would leave OP borrowing 200-250K which she is unlikly to be able to fund unless both she and her partner work in area's which have good earning potential in Mayo.

It is a suckler farm and maybe the parents considers that there daughter will have better career prospects and down the line a better lifestyle away from where the farm is located. You as well have the factor that they may see this as a chance to set up there other children. While the parents house is longterm solution it will not benefit the other sibling for 20 years+ on average.

I am often surprised that some consider it a right that you should get the farm if you work on it for a few years. Young adults are easily swayed and do not see implications of a decision to give an undertaking to forego any inheritance. In reality most farms suck up savings nowadays and can leave older farmer asset rich and cash poor. This was not the case 20+ years ago on what were considered commercial farms such as this at that time .

Back 20+ years ago it was a lot easier to make a career and getting into longterm employment was easier. A 20 year mortgage was the norm and people may have entered settled life in there mid late 20's meaning that by the time the next cash draw happened (kids going to college) you were mortgage free. Nowaday average mortgages are 30 year+ and draw downs are 3-4 times joint incomes compared to about twice joint incomes back 20 years+.

This makes choices harder for parents. In a case where this farm is no longer capable of sustaining even a single income these parents have to make choices. They may have little excess cash themselves . Sell the farm and retain maybe 100K for there own retirement and gift 150K to each of the children or split the pot between there children only. This will set up all there children. Its easy to say oler siblings are not entitled however I imagine that they too did there share back through the years.

150-200K would still allow this children to pursue her dream but not just at this time or to the extent she wished. With a 3-400K mortgage it would give her funding of 5-600K to maybe buy a farm in a location nearer to where her career is at present.

Millionaire only not

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Roulette clauses would not come into play here. Neither do I think the idea of a lifetime lease is an option as it kicks the can down the road as well as being of no benefit to the other siblings. As well renting land unless at a nominal price( which may carry longer term value issues for the other beneficiaries. The other solution of a 70% vale clause may again not be a solution as it would leave OP borrowing 200-250K which she is unlikly to be able to fund unless both she and her partner work in area's which have good earning potential in Mayo.

It is a suckler farm and maybe the parents considers that there daughter will have better career prospects and down the line a better lifestyle away from where the farm is located. You as well have the factor that they may see this as a chance to set up there other children. While the parents house is longterm solution it will not benefit the other sibling for 20 years+ on average.

I am often surprised that some consider it a right that you should get the farm if you work on it for a few years. Young adults are easily swayed and do not see implications of a decision to give an undertaking to forego any inheritance. In reality most farms suck up savings nowadays and can leave older farmer asset rich and cash poor. This was not the case 20+ years ago on what were considered commercial farms such as this at that time .

Back 20+ years ago it was a lot easier to make a career and getting into longterm employment was easier. A 20 year mortgage was the norm and people may have entered settled life in there mid late 20's meaning that by the time the next cash draw happened (kids going to college) you were mortgage free. Nowaday average mortgages are 30 year+ and draw downs are 3-4 times joint incomes compared to about twice joint incomes back 20 years+.

This makes choices harder for parents. In a case where this farm is no longer capable of sustaining even a single income these parents have to make choices. They may have little excess cash themselves . Sell the farm and retain maybe 100K for there own retirement and gift 150K to each of the children or split the pot between there children only. This will set up all there children. Its easy to say oler siblings are not entitled however I imagine that they too did there share back through the years.

150-200K would still allow this children to pursue her dream but not just at this time or to the extent she wished. With a 3-400K mortgage it would give her funding of 5-600K to maybe buy a farm in a location nearer to where her career is at present.

In fairness that’s nonsense talk , it’s either ur own farm u take over or get out altogether!
Borrowing 100/200 - 400 k , what bank do seriously think would give her that type of money for a sucker farm !
The days are long gone of dishing out money !

Bass Reeves

Millionaire only not wrote: »

In fairness that’s nonsense talk , it’s either ur own farm u take over or get out altogether!
Borrowing 100/200 - 400 k , what bank do seriously think would give her that type of money for a sucker farm !
The days are long gone of dishing out money !

And there is the flaw in your argument why has it to be a suckler farm

A lot of borrowing is about structuring the loan on two incomes. A fairly average Mortgage is 250-300K nowadays over 30 years. In the early mid noughties I had slightly over 400K borrowed for farm land for the same type of land area and got through it. It all about focus and management. Sucklers cannot be part of that focus.

Main loan is now paid off remaining borrowing will be paid back in 2025. At times I cursed the banks willingness to throw money at me in the noughties but most of the time I was ok with it.

Millionaire only not

Bass Reeves wrote: »

And there is the flaw in your argument why has it to be a suckler farm

A lot of borrowing is about structuring the loan on two incomes. A fairly average Mortgage is 250-300K nowadays over 30 years. In the early mid noughties I had slightly over 400K borrowed for farm land for the same type of land area and got through it. It all about focus and management. Sucklers cannot be part of that focus.

Main loan is now paid off remaining borrowing will be paid back in 2025. At times I cursed the banks willingness to throw money at me in the noughties but most of the time I was ok with it.

Did op not say it was a suckler farm !
Anyway like urself money thrown at u from banks , no thks I’ve done my time I warn people off borrowing money anymore !
Stress is not worth it !
Do like the old people either have it to buy it or do without it !

patsy_mccabe

"More smart people have gone broke from borrowing, than any other activity. A smart person can't go broke unless they borrow. If you're smart, you don't need to borrow. if you're dumb, you have no business borrowing in the first place." - Warren Buffett

Bass Reeves

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Did op not say it was a suckler farm !
Anyway like urself money thrown at u from banks , no thks I’ve done my time I warn people off borrowing money anymore !
Stress is not worth it !
Do like the old people either have it to buy it or do without it !

Yes she did but that is not to say that it has to remain as one. A Suckler farm is incompatible with commercial farming. If you wish farm.longtetm you have to look at it commercially. Such a land bank is capable of throwing free 30ish K in surplus cash ever year.

On borrowing as I said the average mortgage nowadays is hitting 250-300k add in 150-200k gifted from parents and borrowing another commercial loan of 200k would give you a fund of 600k to buy a farm and have a house on it. It is doable but you will not be driving a land cruiser or a 2-4 year old car either .

chooseusername

Splitting it equally between the three may seem the fairest thing to do,
but in reality it's a cop out.
It's what would happen if they made no decision at all, ie ;died intestate.
Leave it to one or to no-one.
Many family members have been set against each other over such arrangements.
There needs to be a family sit-down and sort it now, with all cards on the table.

K.G.

Times have changed and we have to realise this when it comes to succession. We had a talk from a succession planer recently and they made a distinction between a farm as an asset and a farm as a career.in terms of thinking about this if the poster had gone into farming on the home place and had invested time in it as a career then they are in a position to be regarded as favoured successor and consideration must be given to protecting the farm as a viable entity in the future.if however the op has made a career outside of farming and the farm is not critical to ops financial future then the farm should be.treated as an asset and then equal division of wealth should frame the thinking. To be honest help your parents because its the right thing to do and have no regrets afterwards. If you d like do some farming afterwards set yourself up for it and let the home place be a bonus as it plays it self out.

paleoperson

chooseusername wrote: »

Splitting it equally between the three may seem the fairest thing to do,
but in reality it's a cop out.
It's what would happen if they made no decision at all, ie ;died intestate.
Leave it to one or to no-one.

What the hell are you talking about? "one or no-one". The whole point of the will is to split it equally in a way that suits each person and avoids the taxman. That's why it's a good idea to make wills, not so you can favour one child over another. In no way is it a "cop out".

chooseusername wrote: »

Many family members have been set against each other over such arrangements.

The only way someone would have a right to feel aggrieved would be if it was split unfairly - such as her getting the whole thing. Favouritism among children in a will is a very significant thing and leads the doors open to manipulation or persuasion, especially of elderly people, and that's where fighting could really start.

chooseusername wrote: »

There needs to be a family sit-down and sort it now, with all cards on the table.

Finally you say something useful. She can bring her arguments to the table such as:

* Already put labour into the farm.
* Wanting to hold onto and farming the land rather than selling it - but we don't know the brothers have any intention of selling it though.
* Wanting to start a family - if this is important to the parents, the brothers may have or be thinking about more children as well.

carrollsno1

Millionaire only not wrote: »

In fairness that’s nonsense talk , it’s either ur own farm u take over or get out altogether!
Borrowing 100/200 - 400 k , what bank do seriously think would give her that type of money for a sucker farm !
The days are long gone of dishing out money !

Yea because everyone in New Zealand inherited the family farms....

Mach Two

carrollsno1 wrote: »

Yea because everyone in New Zealand inherited the family farms....

What has this thread got to do with New Zealand farming practices. We are in Ireland and the thread is concerning a problem with the inheritance of an Irish farm.

Anto_Meath

Could all the family assets not be valued ie livestock, machinery, family farm ect be valued. She could then get the land and the brothers get the house, livestock and machinery ect, if she could afford to she could buy some of these off the brothers. This is kinda what happened with our family farm. We were all looked after property wise but all livestock and machinery was to be valued and divided 5 way. I bought the suckler cows and some of the machinery off the the other 4, it worked out ok for everyone and we all still get on very well and I like that I now have cows that have been on the farm for generations dating back to before I was born. When my older sister is visiting from Dublin and admiring a cow out in the filed I can then say to her "ye is the the bred of buttons or bows", which would have been a cow when she was a child on the farm.

carrollsno1

Mach Two wrote: »

What has this thread got to do with New Zealand farming practices. We are in Ireland and the thread is concerning a problem with the inheritance of an Irish farm.

Im just pointing out the fact thar most NZ farms had to be started by getting borrowings or if the family farm was split it was split end of and if any of the beneficiaries wanted to go farming they could as they had a their share to back themselves with.