Money and the family

[RBM]

14 hours ago, Gary D said:

The problem would be getting Emma to buy out the family, it goes against the grain.

Perhaps Steve if Emma spent a good deal of time reading this and other similar  threads she would enhance her understanding of these difficult issues.

[jrlee183]

Having thought about this overnight I think the best solution is as follows:

1. Dont buy the house of Dad now, as emma would only receive 20% of the cash back on his death.

2. In the event of Dad's death, then presumably the family would prefer to have the cash as opposed to the property itself?

3. If so, then Emma then agrees to do an 'extra judicial settlement' with the siblings.  This is basically an agreement between ALL of the compulsory heirs that the property would be distributed differently from what the law states, however it is essential that all of the heirs agree (in the UK we call it a deed of variation).   As part of this, you could include a clause to pay the other siblings PXXXX in exchange for their share in the property.  This could be part of the document itself, or a side agreement.

4. End result is you would effectively be buying the property, less Emma's share so saving 20% of the purchase cost.  Family would be happy as they have cash in their hands, and you have sole ownership of the property.

Of course estate taxes would need to be paid etc etc.

As always, get a competent attorney to do this document for you

[Snowy79]

My apologies if I'm missing something as I've been following this on my phone but wouldn't the easy way be to buy out the Father whilst he's still alive. That way the land and house will be your wife's. Write into the title that the Father can live rent free until his demise. 

Once he passes away the only inheritance left will be money which will be divided amongst heirs. That way you'll not have to worry about every sibling agreeing to sell their share of the property. The Father might even be happier knowing he has cash to cover his costs instead of relying on hand outs. 

[bigpearl]

5 hours ago, RBM said:

Perhaps Steve if Emma spent a good deal of time reading this and other similar  threads she would enhance her understanding of these difficult issues.

I mentioned this also but in the mean time the problem dissolved and rightly so. Steve being ever so diligent foresaw the outcome with a few pertinent questions, a little bravado from his compatriots on this site, possibly others led to a fait accompli. Well done Sir. In and above this topic, If others shared their insights garnished from this and other expat sites with their beloved there would be less expectations and stress, share.

Cheers, Steve.

 

[stevewool]

Just two more points to add to this thread then I will try to keep my mouth shut.

First one is, many are saying but the father out and then it will be Emma's, but what about the other siblings share of the house, I am lead to believe that when there mother died her share went to the kids so the father has his 50% and the 5 kids have 10% each .

So still buying the father out it would only be 60% for Emma and then the family 10% each..maybe good for a few and yes if the home is where I want to be, but I want a view not a brick wall to look at for the rest of my life.

2 nd one is it just me but when trying to explain this  to the wife about money and family matters I may as well talk to the family dog, that's if I had one.

When explaining it's our future we are trying to sort out all I seem to get is my family are not like that.

We shall see.

Thank you all, the end

[robert k]

6 hours ago, Jack Peterson said:

 Of Course Kev, they would own it and the Only thing Dad would have, is the money for the sale and Emma would get 20% of that as well.

And Dad may well spend it if he lives long enough.

[stevewool]

6 hours ago, jrlee183 said:

Having thought about this overnight I think the best solution is as follows:

1. Dont buy the house of Dad now, as emma would only receive 20% of the cash back on his death.

2. In the event of Dad's death, then presumably the family would prefer to have the cash as opposed to the property itself?

3. If so, then Emma then agrees to do an 'extra judicial settlement' with the siblings.  This is basically an agreement between ALL of the compulsory heirs that the property would be distributed differently from what the law states, however it is essential that all of the heirs agree (in the UK we call it a deed of variation).   As part of this, you could include a clause to pay the other siblings PXXXX in exchange for their share in the property.  This could be part of the document itself, or a side agreement.

4. End result is you would effectively be buying the property, less Emma's share so saving 20% of the purchase cost.  Family would be happy as they have cash in their hands, and you have sole ownership of the property.

Of course estate taxes would need to be paid etc etc.

As always, get a competent attorney to do this document for you

Thank you again for the time spent looking into this, and you are right, just wait and use it has our home till the time is right to do want we would like to do.

[robert k]

3 minutes ago, stevewool said:

Just two more points to add to this thread then I will try to keep my mouth shut.

First one is, many are saying but the father out and then it will be Emma's, but what about the other siblings share of the house, I am lead to believe that when there mother died her share went to the kids so the father has his 50% and the 5 kids have 10% each .

So still buying the father out it would only be 60% for Emma and then the family 10% each..maybe good for a few and yes if the home is where I want to be, but I want a view not a brick wall to look at for the rest of my life.

2 nd one is it just me but when trying to explain this  to the wife about money and family matters I may as well talk to the family dog, that's if I had one.

When explaining it's our future we are trying to sort out all I seem to get is my family are not like that.

We shall see.

Thank you all, the end

Steve, I always conditioned what I said if the siblings were NOT heirs to the Mom. You never said, until now.

[stevewool]

23 minutes ago, robert k said:

Steve, I always conditioned what I said if the siblings were NOT heirs to the Mom. You never said, until now.

Sorry Robert, but I did not know this either when we took over the house and the family said it is Emma's and yours place now, but would not put that on paper,

It's only these last few months that I have found out that the law says the siblings are the rightful owners and one person cannot own it unless solicitors and cash is paid and everyone agrees too, that is what I am lead to believe.

[robert k]

2 minutes ago, stevewool said:

Sorry Robert, but I did not know this either when we took over the house and the family said it is Emma's and yours place now, but would not put that on paper,

It's only these last few months that I have found out that the law says the siblings are the rightful owners and one person cannot own it unless solicitors and cash is paid and everyone agrees too, that is what I am lead to believe.

Not mad at you Steve. I try to help people on a forum for mineral rights owners and you never know what is left out. Sometimes you have to give 3 answers, Condition1, Condition 2, and so on. I gave the only conditional answer that I knew would do you any good, IF Dad owned all of it. Since that is not the case, you are of course right, not a thing you can do.