Avoiding further family arguments - post will

vikings2012

Hypothetical scenario as I know you can’t provide legal advice on this forum.

If there was a family of 7
Father - Farmer
Mother - housewife and receptionist
Older daughter - hairdresser
Older son - quantity surveyor
Daughter - college
Daughter - shop assistant
Youngest son - disability allowance

The older sister has had a terrible relationship with the family. Doesn't speak to grandparent, parents or siblings. Would do anything to cause conflict with siblings.

In the will each child had a right to live in the family home.

The older son who works on the farm and helps out the most was willed the house and land.

Each other child was treated equally and received €5k each.

The older daughter had not lived in family home for significant period of time (10 years).

Is there much scope for the older daughter to cause trouble over this will. And would it be possible for her to demand a right to land or more ?

All other siblings are happy with will.

Just wondering what potential problems people of this forum could envisage.

Victor

Exam question?

vikings2012 wrote: »

In the will each child had a right to live in the family home.

The older son who works on the farm and helps out the most was willed the house and land.

This sounds like the oldest son has been through college **and** will get the farm **and** the house and do substantially better than everyone else (put together).

Giving everyone the right (only) to live in the family home may be beyond what the deceased is entitled to give - surviving spouse likely has rights.

I would consider the will to lack social and legal balance.

vikings2012

Victor wrote: »

Exam question?

This sounds like the oldest son has been through college **and** will get the farm **and** the house and do substantially better than everyone else (put together).

Giving everyone the right (only) to live in the family home may be beyond what the deceased is entitled to give - surviving spouse likely has rights.

I would consider the will to lack social and legal balance.

Oldest son paid own way through college with summer work.

Parents paid for oldest daughter hairdressing course. Years ago.

No other sibling has any interest to work on the farm and it’s not feasible to divide the farm equally to continue the farming enterprise. Nor it is not the wish of mother or father to divide the farm.

Both mother and father happy with will.

No other child will contest bar the oldest daughter.

coylemj

vikings2012 wrote: »

In the will each child had a right to live in the family home.

......

Just wondering what potential problems people of this forum could envisage.

Endless problems, conflict and legal bills. In practical terms, you cannot give five adults the right to live in a home, it's a recipe for disaster.

PhilOssophy

Tell your parents to get proper legal advice (I hope the above is not it, giving life interest to 5 siblings is nothing short of insane).
No child has a right to anything under a will I don't think (spouse is the only person who does)....but if the eldest sibling contests she was unfairly left out, etc reckon on 2-3k per day a for a senior counsel and a likely outcome of the legal profession being the big winner once the farm is sold to pay the bill.
I think parents can outline in a will why a child is being left out. But I'd be getting a proper probate solicitor rather than Joe public in the small town to make sure it is bullet proof.

Claw Hammer

The simpler way to deal with this is to transfer the farm to the son whilst the parents are still alive, if necessary with sums charged on the land to his siblings.
The rights of residence in the house can be left by will but should be subject to buyout and have a sunset clause.

TheBoyConor

That will as outlined will guarantee that none of the siblings will be talking as they'll all fall out over it and the farm will have to be sold to pay the lawyers to sort it out.

The 4 older siblings should not be given any right to live in the house as they have careers. The youngest son should have the right to reside in the house, or should just be given the house as he has a disability and won't be capable of providing his own home.
Another option is to bequeath such moneys as might be necessary to the disabled son so that he can be cared for in a full time residential institution. That allows the oldest son with the farm to live in the house without the hindrance of a life interest.

PhilOssophy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The simpler way to deal with this is to transfer the farm to the son whilst the parents are still alive, if necessary with sums charged on the land to his siblings.
The rights of residence in the house can be left by will but should be subject to buyout and have a sunset clause.

Depends whether the son is under 35 I think, if he is over it he'll have to pay inheritance tax as far as I know. If he is, its a no brainer to transfer it.

antimatterx

Has anyone faced the situation where your family isn't happy that you have been appointed executor of the will. My parents are young, so hopefully this won't be an issue for a long time.

My parents were discussing their will with me (24) and my brothers (21, 19). They were just saying that everything is being split evenly and that I'm going to be the executor of it. The 19 Y/O started screaming and shouting that I was the executor, and he wasn't. He said just because I'm the oldest, doesn't mean I'm in charge. He seems to think that I can decide who gets what, and won't accept that I have no power over who gets what.

PhilOssophy

I think he needs to google "role of executor".....

vikings2012

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Depends whether the son is under 35 I think, if he is over it he'll have to pay inheritance tax as far as I know. If he is, its a no brainer to transfer it.

Yes, however the following risk becomes evident.

In the event of the the parents transferring the land and house to the son (assume he is married) and the son unfortunately dies before the passing of his parents, how are the parents protected?

The sons wife will then own the land and the house. Which from the parents perspective would be terrible.

TheBoyConor

^ I have seen that happen to the family of a friend of a friend.

The son who had taken on the farm died suddenly and therefore the substantial farm property was now basically gone from the family and was in the wife's (now widow) hands and she was pregnant with a baby. The wife was never really all that well liked by the family to begin with (an outsider, and not from a farming background). I'd say the grave hadn't even been backfilled and the already tense relationship between the son's family and the wife started to crumble.
She was subjected to a vile hate campaign of harassment and bullying, being put down, accused of all sorts and called all sorts of names behind her back to anyone who would listen. There had never been word that she had done anything to deserve any of it - being an outsider and not of the land was reason enough.

The hate campaign eventually ended in the family buying the farm back from her in it's totality. It was very much a Pyrrhic victory. I cannot imagine where they might have got the money from to buy back the farm - a substantial dairy farm. Perhaps they got some discount on the going market value, but even still, it would have been massive money.

the thing is, in doing so, they have also cut off the grandson, who presumably would have inherited it. However they didn't see it that way. In their eyes, the farm which had been in the family for generations had been usurped by an outsider doughter in law, who even having their own grandson, could potentially turn hostile in the future, possibly bring another new outsider husband into the land and have more children and leave it to them, or possibly have no meas on the land at all and sell to someone else.

I suspect that they saw their best bet as being to bring about the departure of the daughter in law, with the help of a shameless bullying campaign, and recover the land at all costs, even if it meant condemning the family to indefinite financial penury to re-aquire it. They have other daughters with good jobs. I suspect that they all came together to raise enough funds to buy back the land.

The lesson in this is never hand over the land while you are still breathing.

You often hear young farmers complaining about how their elderly parents won't sign over the land - this is why.

This was all over a decent size dairy farm but be warned, there are people and families who would readily do the same and worse over a piece of land smaller than a postage stamp.

They say blood is thicker than water, but if there is a bond stronger that family, that is the bond of man for the land.

PhilOssophy

vikings2012 wrote: »

Yes, however the following risk becomes evident.

In the event of the the parents transferring the land and house to the son (assume he is married) and the son unfortunately dies before the passing of his parents, how are the parents protected?

The sons wife will then own the land and the house. Which from the parents perspective would be terrible.

True, but sure that's a risk of land and marraige I suppose! Same with divorce - she will take half of the land! As prenups aren't recognised, there is no getting away from the fact that the wife has to be looked after under Irish law.

Pistachio19

Not sure the guy will ever get a spouse to move in if he's either living with his parents while they're still alive, and also has his siblings living with him indefinitely once the parents pass. Surely the siblings couldn't have an indefinite right to stay.

Its all very well for the parents to be happy with the will. They won't be here for the fall out after they die. Giving the siblings a right to live there might only end in tears unless they can be asked to leave by a certain age.

As for the estranged daughter - doubt she'd have much of a case to contest. The parents can have it noted with the will that she was financially provided for up to and including her hairdressing course, after which time she cut the family off. She's also getting the same as the siblings who will get €5k so she's not being left out.

John Hutton

Disabled son best placed to dispute - proper provision

MIKEKC

PhilOssophy wrote: »

True, but sure that's a risk of land and marraige I suppose! Same with divorce - she will take half of the land! As prenups aren't recognised, there is no getting away from the fact that the wife has to be looked after under Irish law.

The wife will of course have to be looked but where did you get the idea she would get half the farm ?. You need to read up a bit on the law

PhilOssophy

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The lesson in this is never hand over the land while you are still breathing.

You often hear young farmers complaining about how their elderly parents won't sign over the land - this is why.

But if they don't hand it over, Revenue will come looking for a huge chunk of the value! Its catch 22 because you are right that that is why, which is fine until people realise they need to pay the tax man once they pass on.

Its a tricky one admittedly, but I don't know if I'd not transfer land to a child based on something which might happen (their son's untimely death) versus something which will happen (tax bill on their death).

PhilOssophy

MIKEKC wrote: »

The wife will of course have to be looked but where did you get the idea she would get half the farm ?. You need to read up a bit on the law

I don't claim to be a solictor! But am I wrong in saying she is entitled to a legal right share of half if they have no children?

Victor

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I don't claim to be a solictor! But am I wrong in saying she is entitled to a legal right share of half if they have no children?

No. The way the law is structured is that each party is a divorce (and any minor children) needs to be provided for. If the 'wife' has their own income and property they might get nothing.

TheBoyConor

Disabled son best placed to dispute - proper provision

Good point, that is true. But then look at how that might come about. The estranged sister could come out of the shadows to "help" the disabled brother get what he is entitled to, then when he has it she could swindle him and make off with a big chunk of whatever he may have gotten. Then go off into the sunset.

Claw Hammer

vikings2012 wrote: »

Yes, however the following risk becomes evident.

In the event of the the parents transferring the land and house to the son (assume he is married) and the son unfortunately dies before the passing of his parents, how are the parents protected?

The sons wife will then own the land and the house. Which from the parents perspective would be terrible.

They can avoid that by making the son a joint owner and it will not go through the will, but pass to him by survivorship when that last parent dies.

TheBoyConor

And what if the son marries and dies while a joint owner? Does the wife inherit his share? And then onwards from that, inherit gain the other 2/3 rds when the parents die?

I suppose a benefit is that the parents could buy out the 1/3rd share of the wife much easier.
With a buy out like this, what if the wife objects? Can the other joint owners force the third one to sell?

Would it work if the son was a joint owner and then made a will in which he would leave his share back to the parents in the event of his death? Maybe he could only leave half of it back to them as I know a wife cannot be written out of the will. perhaps she'd be entitled to half of that share. In which case she would now only have her hands on 1/6th of the land. I think that is a good strategy for risk mitigation and post will land grabs.

Claw Hammer

TheBoyConor wrote: »

And what if the son marries and dies while a joint owner? Does the wife inherit his share? And then onwards from that, inherit gain the other 2/3 rds when the parents die?

.

No. The whole point of joint ownership is that the asset does not form part of the estate. If the son dies while a joint owner his share would pass to the surviving joint owners.

vikings2012

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Good point, that is true. But then look at how that might come about. The estranged sister could come out of the shadows to "help" the disabled brother get what he is entitled to, then when he has it she could swindle him and make off with a big chunk of whatever he may have gotten. Then go off into the sunset.

The disabled brother is physically disabled but mentally sound. There is no risk of the sister helping this brother as the relationship between them is significantly strained and unrepairable.

However, I do understand your point. The probability is that the eldest sister will contest the will regardless. Her significant other (not married) is a land hungry farmer. Her significant other would have substantial resources (cash, holiday homes, land and a family business). Assuming he is willing to support her cause they would have substantial resources to represent themselves legally speaking.

TheBoyConor

I see. Considering that all other siblings are getting an equal share of €5000, what argument could she put forward for her being unfairly treated yet she is receiveing no less and no more than the other non farming siblings? Would the fact that the other equal €5000 siblings are not contesting affect the validity of her unfair treatment argument, as they by not contesting, are essentially stating that they are satisfied with the arrangement? If the other €5000 siblings were to jointly express their satisfaction as to the fairness of their treatment in a written statement, would this have any bearing on the view of a court?

Could she be given €10,000 instead so that she is not equal but "more equal" than the non farming siblings? Would that have any bearing in countering the argument that she is unfairly treated, ie, she is being almost favoured by getting more than the others. Could the others be brought to agreement with this?

I would certainly get good legal advice on the making of this will by a solicitor with a special interest in wills and will related litigation. I would even say you should be seeking the expert advice on it. Obviously, that will cost a bit but spending a little on this now might save multiples of it later on in court. It could save the land and that is worth paying for.

I think a counter to such challenges is sometimes that the farming sibling is getting the high value farm not necessarily for it's market value but as it is their means of making a living and that all the other children already have their living with their off farm careers.

That land hungry bother in law, if he pulls of a stunt like this through her, well I believe in karma, and i would that the wife would divorce him and take him to the cleaners for his land and if not, i'd be hoping he'd spend the rest of his life in fear that his wife would try to do so.

Claw Hammer

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I see. Considering that all other siblings are getting an equal share of €5000, what argument could she put forward for her being unfairly treated yet she is receiveing no less and no more than the other non farming siblings? Would the fact that the other equal €5000 siblings are not contesting affect the validity of her unfair treatment argument, as they by not contesting, are essentially stating that they are satisfied with the arrangement? If the other €5000 siblings were to jointly express their satisfaction as to the fairness of their treatment in a written statement, would this have any bearing on the view of a court?

.

The problem with this is that the costs of a case are often awarded against the estate. The result is that by the time someone proves they are right the whole estate is gone in legal costs. The idea is not to get into court in the first place.
A mischief making in-law may well pay be prepared to launch litigation which has little merit just to force a settlement so that the remaining siblings get something from the estate.

PhilOssophy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The problem with this is that the costs of a case are often awarded against the estate. The result is that by the time someone proves they are right the whole estate is gone in legal costs. The idea is not to get into court in the first place.
A mischief making in-law may well pay be prepared to launch litigation which has little merit just to force a settlement so that the remaining siblings get something from the estate.

Exactly, if you are sitting in a court room everybody is losing except the solicitors and counsel!
Best to avoid that with a carefully written will, get your parents to get proper probate advice OP!

Pawwed Rig

PhilOssophy wrote: »

But if they don't hand it over, Revenue will come looking for a huge chunk of the value! Its catch 22 because you are right that that is why, which is fine until people realise they need to pay the tax man once they pass on.

Its a tricky one admittedly, but I don't know if I'd not transfer land to a child based on something which might happen (their son's untimely death) versus something which will happen (tax bill on their death).

With agricultural relief the tax would be small enough