Inheritance Nightmares

messy tessy

swimming in a sea wrote: »

No I wasn't trying to say one was worse than the other, they are all detestable to me. Its just the hunger for land is something I don't(no connection to land) understand. I suppose to me the collection of land would be a means to do something else by eventually selling up, but to a lot of farmers increasing the size of their farm is the end in its self.

I don't get your point at all. I don't see anything wrong with trying to build up a farm, who is he hurting by it?

Lollipops23

AlexisM wrote: »

The other side of inheritance nightmares is people not understanding why they have been left out/done poorly from a will.

I think this is a good point- my parents' wills are all quite complex due to divorces/kids from various marriages/several properties involved. However- they've each done their best to explain who can expect what to be left to them; it means there won't be any unpleasant surprises and nobody gets left out.

People really should try to explain this stuff before they die- not that people are entitled to anything, it's just very unfair and upsetting for people to have such an unexplained disparity between siblings etc.

acon2119

AlexisM wrote: »

The other side of inheritance nightmares is people not understanding why they have been left out/done poorly from a will. I know a guy whose mother left her estate very unevenly - the bulk to one sister who was hardly ever around, a reasonable amount to another sister and he get relatively little. It wasn't the money that upset him (all 3 were fairly well off) - it was not knowing why the mother had done things that way - really made him question his whole relationship with her. And there had never been any sign of this coming, no disputes or bad blood - it was considered bizarre by everyone who knew the family.

While I generally agree with the many on this thread who have said that it's the parents money and they can do what they want - I think most mean they hope the parents spend it on themselves in their final years. Are you sure you would feel this way if your siblings got 99% of the will and you got 1%? I have to say, I would be devastated at the message that would send if it wasn't explained to me in advance or in the will. The person is dead so you can never ask them why - so you'll always be wondering did they love you less or did you do something bad that they are punishing you for.

I totally agree with this viewpoint. If your parents choose to leave a larger share to one child and leave another child out it would taint your memories of your relationship with your parents. This is not because I would be wanting to grab what I could get, its that I believe all the children in the family should be treated equal unless there's a very strong case for doing otherwise.
My own parents have already given a lot of their money to just some of their children and one grandchild, (they are still alive) and the remainder of their assets will most likely go to the same children, leaving two of their children and two grandchildren out. And its not a farming family.

I, on the other hand have already made a will making sure that my children inherit equally when I die, as I do not want either of them to feel any that I didn't love them equally.

Its the parents that's to blame for these problems

Francie Barrett

It's crazy what money will do to people, I have seen it first hand. When my wife's father died over ten years ago it ended up tearing her side of the family apart. Her father had been poorly for a number of years, so the day-to-day running of the pub went to my wife's only sibling (an older brother) and two of her cousins who had worked in the pub since they were kids. Relations between all the parties were perfect literally until the day he was buried. We had all known that my father-in-law was well-of, but it wasn't until the will was read out, we discovered the extent. Between the pub, the house, rental properties and cash, there was over 2 million even after tax was settled. The older brother got the pub, the house, the rental properties and most of the cash. My wife got a token cash amount, the cousins who had put 30-40 years into the pub got nothing. The understanding of the will was that the older brother was to "look after" everyone else. He proceeded to do this by making his two cousins lives unbearable, so much so that they quit. The next stage was to upscale his lifestyle. He got a trophy girlfriend, new Merc, new Rolex, went on several holidays a year, and we're sure got involved with drugs. With the cousins out of the picture and him not bothered to manage the pub, the business inevitably went into decline. At that stage, he ended up taking advice with a financial charlatan. He remortgaged the pub under the impression that it needed a re-design (it didn't) and then started investing in new build properties using the existing rentals as security. It was then the recession really kicked in, the pub trade utterly died and property prices collapsed. The banks ended up taking the pub (Which has now been boarded up for years) and all the rental properties. All the brother was left with was the house, which to this days he sits in like a recluse fuming over the crooks at Anglo who robbed him.

Moral of the story - if you have a bit of money, don't leave an inheritance to change.

Capt'n Midnight

AFAIK you can add a note in the will to disinherit anyone who contests its.

Anyone remember the story of the homeless guy who got left a pub in Galway ?

On a lighter note
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-dead-millionaire-convinced-dozens-of-women-to-have-as-many-babies-as-possible/

Water John

Cap, I'd be surprised at that. One cannot disavow someone's constitutional and legal right.

Spanish Eyes

A spouse is entitled to a Legal Right Share, which must be claimed within twelve months I think.

A child is not entitled in law to a share in a parent's estate, but they may contest it, although the success rates are low. In any event the Law Reform Commission have put forward that children should not in the future have any recourse in law to a share in a parent's estate. That is only a proposition, but shows how the thinking is going now.

http://www.thejournal.ie/parent-will-rewrite-courts-law-reform-2733377-Apr2016/

Shint0

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

A spouse is entitled to a Legal Right Share, which must be claimed within twelve months I think.

A child is not entitled in law to a share in a parent's estate, but they may contest it, although the success rates are low. In any event the Law Reform Commission have put forward that children should not in the future have any recourse in law to a share in a parent's estate. That is only a proposition, but shows how the thinking is going now.

http://www.thejournal.ie/parent-will-rewrite-courts-law-reform-2733377-Apr2016/

Interesting.

In theory, yes, people should be entitled to dispose of their assets in whatever manner they choose. It still doesn't deal with the harsh reality that some adult children or relatives have been exploited or felt under obligation to care for ageing relatives or work for a family business to later find themselves dropped from a height and left with nothing. In a lot of cases it has been more vulnerable family members who have ended up in this situation.

I will be following any developments in relation to this and would be interested in making a submission to the Law Reform Commission.

SCOOP 64

Days and Days wrote: »

It is never the children who will fight but the people who marry into the families tend to cause problems.

I find that people who marry into famlies tend to get the blame.

Spanish Eyes

Shint0 wrote: »

Interesting.

In theory, yes, people should be entitled to dispose of their assets in whatever manner they choose. It still doesn't deal with the harsh reality that some adult children or relatives have been exploited or felt under obligation to care for ageing relatives or work for a family business to later find themselves dropped from a height and left with nothing. In a lot of cases it has been more vulnerable family members who have ended up in this situation.

I will be following any developments in relation to this and would be interested in making a submission to the Law Reform Commission.

It is not clear as to whether the LRC is referring to intestacy where each child will get an equal share (after the spouse if there is one alive that is), and where one child or more took care of the deceased parent. As mentioned above.

I mention this because a child is NOT entitled to an equal share under a will as the article seems to state.

Or whether they have an issue with a child contesting the contents of a will. I think that is what they are referring to.

Either way it is something to keep an eye on!

Cee-Jay-Cee

Days and Days wrote: »

It is never the children who will fight but the people who marry into the families tend to cause problems.

That's not quite true. I know a few families split by wills/inheritance.

It's so sad that these people put property/land/money ahead of their own brothers and sisters.

One family near me have spent the last 7 or 8 years in and out of court. They have wasted countless Garda hours reporting their brothers/sisters for trespass etc etc In an ideal world a judge should order that they vacate the property, sell it to the highest bidder and divide it equally among them minus the legal costs and payment for the Garda time they have wasted over the years...there'd probably be nothing left but that would be just deserts for the whole lot of them. The sickening thing is that the three of them are decrepit old fcukers all in their 70's who wouldn't spend money to save their life and will probably die leaving everything to someone else anyway. None of them need the money or land but have become so engrained with hatred that they will die having wasted over a decade fighting with their only two siblings over something they don't actually need.

FalconGirl

I suspect my mam has screwed us out of inheritance left by my dads passing. I'm the eldest but really hate the idea of falling out with people over money. Today she offered me money to buy a new car as mine is playing up but I don't want the money. I just wish she would be honest with us. It's really disappointing.

I wasn't told about meetings with solicitors in the weeks after which says a lot. Being the eldest I should have been there to represent my siblings.

Water John

If there is a will, there is an executor. No, why should you represent your siblings.

stoplooklisten

You'd be notified if you were a benefactor.

Spanish Eyes

FalconGirl wrote: »

I suspect my mam has screwed us out of inheritance left by my dads passing. I'm the eldest but really hate the idea of falling out with people over money. Today she offered me money to buy a new car as mine is playing up but I don't want the money. I just wish she would be honest with us. It's really disappointing.

I wasn't told about meetings with solicitors in the weeks after which says a lot. Being the eldest I should have been there to represent my siblings.

Woops that is the executor's fault if they did not observe the will. Who was or is the executor? And then go from there.

Maybe it is your Mam. Maybe your Dad left her everything.

Have you seen the will if there was one.

You can always go to the Probate Office in your locality after Probate has been taken out and get the details. It is open to anyone to see this.

If there was no will your Mam is entitled to 2/3rds and the children 1/3rd amongst them equally.

Check it out. If you want to that is.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

FalconGirl wrote: »

I suspect my mam has screwed us out of inheritance left by my dads passing. I'm the eldest but really hate the idea of falling out with people over money. Today she offered me money to buy a new car as mine is playing up but I don't want the money. I just wish she would be honest with us. It's really disappointing.

I wasn't told about meetings with solicitors in the weeks after which says a lot. Being the eldest I should have been there to represent my siblings.

If you were named in the will the solicitor would contact you to tell you.

Cathy.C

FalconGirl wrote: »

I suspect my mam has screwed us out of inheritance left by my dads passing. I'm the eldest but really hate the idea of falling out with people over money. Today she offered me money to buy a new car as mine is playing up but I don't want the money. I just wish she would be honest with us. It's really disappointing.

I wasn't told about meetings with solicitors in the weeks after which says a lot. Being the eldest I should have been there to represent my siblings.

I think your mother and my mother should get together and go bowling.

Witchie

My parents took the attitude that they wanted to give us an inheritance when we needed it so my older brother and I both got deposits for our first houses back in the early 90s. My 2 younger siblings were too little then.

Now thanks to some bad judgement and the economic collapse my parents have little but the home house left so are not in a position to help my younger siblings onto the property market. Today my dad had a health scare and we were chatting about life and death and he was saying that he feels that 1 of my younger siblings needs help and he is thinking of putting the house in trust for him that he always has somewhere to live but can't sell it. But that leaves the youngest with nothing so not sure how she will feel about that.

I don't feel I will have any right to object to anything and won't be expecting anything when they die bar a few rings my mum told me I can have.

The youngest is unlikely to cause a hassle over this though so can't see us having any issues.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Cap, I'd be surprised at that. One cannot disavow someone's constitutional and legal right.

Only the spouse is entitled to stuff automatically. Children would have to go to court and stuff. Others need not apply.


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/the_deceaseds_estate/what_happens_the_deceaseds_estate.html

Unlike a spouse/civil partner, children have no absolute right to inherit their parent's estate if the parent has made a will. However, if a child considers that he/she has not been adequately provided for, he/she may make an application to court. The child need not be a minor or be dependent in order to use this procedure. The court has to decide if the parent has "failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means".

pgj2015

Witchie wrote: »

My parents took the attitude that they wanted to give us an inheritance when we needed it so my older brother and I both got deposits for our first houses back in the early 90s. My 2 younger siblings were too little then.

Now thanks to some bad judgement and the economic collapse my parents have little but the home house left so are not in a position to help my younger siblings onto the property market. Today my dad had a health scare and we were chatting about life and death and he was saying that he feels that 1 of my younger siblings needs help and he is thinking of putting the house in trust for him that he always has somewhere to live but can't sell it. But that leaves the youngest with nothing so not sure how she will feel about that.

I don't feel I will have any right to object to anything and won't be expecting anything when they die bar a few rings my mum told me I can have.

The youngest is unlikely to cause a hassle over this though so can't see us having any issues.

I think if parents die and have assets, they should leave them to be split equally between their children, even if some of their children are more wealthy than the others, as i have seen it happen that some children get land, money etc and others get nothing or next to nothing, it is very hurtful to the child who is left out.

4ensic15

Titzon Toast wrote: »

I'm open to correction on this, but I've heard that as long someone is named in a will and given as little as a tenner or so, then they can't legally object to it because they've been included and indeed left something.

Urban legend. A child of a testator can claim that adequate provision was not made for them under Section 117 of the Succession Act. If the €10 is not adequate provision then the challenge will succeed.

Titzon Toast wrote: »

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that gets read out in the solicitors office!

You are watching too many movies. There is no reading of a will in a solicitors office.

Ri_Nollaig

Francie Barrett wrote: »

It's crazy what money will do to people, I have seen it first hand. When my wife's father died over ten years ago it ended up tearing her side of the family apart. Her father had been poorly for a number of years, so the day-to-day running of the pub went to my wife's only sibling (an older brother) and two of her cousins who had worked in the pub since they were kids. Relations between all the parties were perfect literally until the day he was buried. We had all known that my father-in-law was well-of, but it wasn't until the will was read out, we discovered the extent. Between the pub, the house, rental properties and cash, there was over 2 million even after tax was settled. The older brother got the pub, the house, the rental properties and most of the cash. My wife got a token cash amount, the cousins who had put 30-40 years into the pub got nothing. The understanding of the will was that the older brother was to "look after" everyone else. He proceeded to do this by making his two cousins lives unbearable, so much so that they quit. The next stage was to upscale his lifestyle. He got a trophy girlfriend, new Merc, new Rolex, went on several holidays a year, and we're sure got involved with drugs. With the cousins out of the picture and him not bothered to manage the pub, the business inevitably went into decline. At that stage, he ended up taking advice with a financial charlatan. He remortgaged the pub under the impression that it needed a re-design (it didn't) and then started investing in new build properties using the existing rentals as security. It was then the recession really kicked in, the pub trade utterly died and property prices collapsed. The banks ended up taking the pub (Which has now been boarded up for years) and all the rental properties. All the brother was left with was the house, which to this days he sits in like a recluse fuming over the crooks at Anglo who robbed him.

Moral of the story - if you have a bit of money, don't leave an inheritance to change.

I think the moral of the story there is that a will, when that level of asset is involved, need to be complete and very clear. No ambiguity of who should get what. Really can't leave anything to chance and assume that someone will be taken care of, not when you are talking 2+ million euro! People would kill for a lot less of that!

If possible, that level of asset; either a Farm or a Business should really be settled before the person dies, with some kinda 'right of residence' if its a house. I know people don't like to discuss these kinda matters but it really can save a lot of hardship down the road.

As for people saying "Don't understand how it tears families apart/would never do that...."
Well, its easy to say that but how do you think you would honestly react if you are left out of possibly hundreds of thousands or euros? For no real reason.

And its definitely NOT a uniquely Irish this. This has been happening the world over for a very long time and will continue to do so.

Howard the Duck

My father and his siblings were raised by their two aunts. When they died his younger and only sister got the family house and a small bit of land and his younger brother got the rest of the land.
The sister wanted everything so her and her family fell out with the younger brother and now they don't speak. Another brother doesn't speak to any of his siblings.
My Dad would never fall out with someone over money, He is the only that is on speaking terms with all his siblings.
It's very sad really, They weren't raised by their parents and they were all very close even coming together to look after their terminally ill brother. All of them staying in the family house and taking turns washing and feeding him, Now they've let money and land get in the way.
I'm very glad my father didn't let it affect his relationships with this siblings.

The lack of a will is a problem too.

An elderly aunt of mine started thinking about it recently - it seems she doesn't have a will so as it stands her brothers and sisters stand to inherent 1/8 of a 1950s bungalow each.

It couldn't be sold easily - it is up a boreen, backing onto a farmyard, sharing a septic tank etc.

Equally no one person wants it as far as I know for the same reasons - it would be a liability for them that would be hard to rent or sell.

CrabRevolution

My mam has 5 living siblings (and a further 2 passed away). Of the 8 of them, 7 grew up on a farm and had to do all the work well explained before. The same 7 got jobs with all my uncles having to more to England in the 70/80s just to find work. The youngest is my aunt, who seemed to have been treated totally different for some reason. She got sent to private school, and was the only one who went to college. While there she got pregnant, and has pretty much lived on benefits since, social housing and all.

Throughout all her troubles and health issues in old age, it's been my Mam and her other sister who have cared for and looked after my Granny, who just makes all sorts of excuses for the favoured youngest Aunt.

No prizes for guessing who'll be getting our grannies house though. I'd say my Uncles, Aunts have seen the favoritism since the day their youngest sister was born, so there's no chance of a falling out really.

It also never ceases to amaze me how people will try and claim some ancient and universal phenomenon is uniquely Irish. Since the first inheritance there has been arguments and fights over inheritances. Isn't that what the prodigal son parable is about?

Jan Laco

My parents relatives on both sides are rife with inheretence disputes. I'll be signing a disclaimer if I'm included in any inheretence as life is too short for that s**t.

intheclouds

When my parents died there was a clear and unambiguous will and no estate outside of a property and some money in the credit union.

What caused strife wasnt greedy beneficiaries, it was the executor who simply sat on his hands and refused to act until we beneficiaries had spent money with solicitors threatening him with court for refusing to act. Took 2 years to get him moving.

He then priced the property not to sell and wasted another year. Eventually he sold the property for a fraction of its value and then claimed "executors" fees of over 25k. My sibling wanted to sue him (he actually charged us for his flight home from a holiday in europe to attend his own brothers funeral), I refused to sue because it would have just wasted more money!

So 3 years later, a property sold for a fraction of its worth and a 25k pay out to a man who did it all because he wasnt happy with how we treated his brother in life.

Moral of the story - dont have anyone as executor who may have a personal reason to make life hard for the beneficiaries.

Even after it was all done and dusted his solicitor refused to actually give us the cheques and it took 4 months of constant phonecalls and eventually turning up in his office and throwing a massive wobbly to get them.

mud

My Dad has explicitly said that he's not leaving anything in his will. I don't know if that applies to just me or my siblings too. I imagine he'll go old-school and leave whatever he has to my two elder brothers. I don't want or care about his estate but I did get hurt when he said that to me. I can guarantee that I won't be in any way interested in what he leaves behind, I totally dread the day I have to face my parents' death. My life hasn't been very successful and maybe that's why he was telling me not to expect anything. Either way it doesn't matter, I have no interest in what he and my Mam have.

Capt'n Midnight

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Since the first inheritance there has been arguments and fights over inheritances. Isn't that what the prodigal son parable is about?

It's much older than that sure didn't Jacob cheat Easu ?

http://www.bricktestament.com/genesis/jacob_and_rebekah_decieve_elderly_isaac/01_gn27_01-04.html

kylith

I foresee ructions in my family's future when an elderly, childless, relative dies. I know who gets the house (not me, but I don't care), and I don't think the other side of the family are going to like it.

Personally I think the elderly relative should flog the lot and spend the rest of their life in the Mediterranian.

I'm in a friend's will. I get the dog!

rainbowtrout

CrabRevolution wrote: »

It also never ceases to amaze me how people will try and claim some ancient and universal phenomenon is uniquely Irish.

No, not uniquely Irish, but there is a culture of home ownership in Ireland which is not as prevalent in other European countries e.g. Germany, Switzerland etc. So I'd imagine the whole who will get the house is less of an issue when it's a life time lease. That's not to stay there wouldn't be disputes over splitting other assets and money. Also Ireland is still a largely rural agrarian country with many small farms and people living off those small farms. The farms are too small in the main to be split and for those to make a viable living off the smaller portion so it makes sense to keep the farm together, but then it's only left to one person which as other posters have mentioned can be a bone of contention.

In other countries where farming is more industrialised there probably aren't the same number of people leaving small farms that barely support one family but will be farmed by the next generation nonetheless.

smurfjed

25K for the role of an executor has got me thinking...... what is an executor legally allowed to charge for?

smurfjed

Double post... no function to delete it.

noaddedsugar

My Grandmother died recently. She had 4 living children, she left everything to one of them. My dad was hurt because it felt like she didn't give a toss about him. She was quite open in her favouritism towards the person she left it all to and I think this just proved to my dad that he wasn't imagining it. There was no other reason for her to leave it all to my aunt(my aunt didn't do any caring for her or anything like that). It hasn't caused problems between the siblings but my dad is incredibly hurt and it has soured the way he remembers his mother.
My dad doesn't need the money and doesn't care about the money, he just wanted a mention. A sign that she cared about him that she never gave in life I suppose.

Spanish Eyes

noaddedsugar wrote: »

My Grandmother died recently. She had 4 living children, she left everything to one of them. My dad was hurt because it felt like she didn't give a toss about him. She was quite open in her favouritism towards the person she left it all to and I think this just proved to my dad that he wasn't imagining it. There was no other reason for her to leave it all to my aunt(my aunt didn't do any caring for her or anything like that). It hasn't caused problems between the siblings but my dad is incredibly hurt and it has soured the way he remembers his mother.
My dad doesn't need the money and doesn't care about the money, he just wanted a mention. A sign that she cared about him that she never gave in life I suppose.

That's horrible for your Dad, and presumably the other 2 omitted siblings aswell.

Some mothers are narcissistic, and choose targets to destroy whilst favouring one. It is reality, but thankfully only in a small number of cases. But for your Gran to take that to her grave. Honestly.

Still, we don't know the full story either.

intheclouds

smurfjed wrote: »

25K for the role of an executor has got me thinking...... what is an executor legally allowed to charge for?

They are allowed charge for their time, so for example if you used up a days annual leave doing executor stuff you could charge for a day's work.

They are allowed charge for expenses incurred so for example if you had to travel to a different county and stay over you could charge for travel, hotel, food.

They can charge for professional services that they employ such as use of an accountant or solicitor.

All of the above is fair enough. Our guy went well above and beyond that (advised by his solicitor no doubt).

roosterman71

My old lad is one of 5 kids my grandparents had. He is the oldest. He was kept home to farm and deal in scrap and cut timber and save turf (basically, do the jobs my grandfather was involved in - the family business), while the other 4 were sent to college to get educated. All 4 are professionals with great jobs (doctors/teacher/financials) - my dad is a small farmer. By time my grandfather died, all that was left was his land (the other work had ceased as time passed).

There was no will.

My aunts then decided to sell the land. The vote was 4:1 against my dad. He was raging. He stayed to work to pay for their education. He was the only one to stay within 50 miles of the family home. He got 20% of the proceeds after 50+ years work. He was told his father had said "don't give <name> anything" by my aunt and was lucky to get what he did. Needless to say, he wasn't, and isn't happy, and the family is ripped apart.

Now, my own situation is not the same. I worked on our farm (and grandfathers and grand uncles) since I was a nipper. It's the way it was, and had to be. And its the way it still is. My sibling moved out when they were 19, and haven't ever lived at home since (~17 years). They now live in America, but they plan to come back eventually. We were both put through school and college. I've a good job, and I come home every weekend to do the jobs that need to be done. My annual leave days are mostly used cutting hay/silage and the like.

I wouldn't change anything. I couldn't give a toss if I'm left nothing. Who the hell cares? I'm home here now when I could be out with the lads watching Leicester being crowned, or off doing something, anything. But I'm just as happy here watching my parents snooze by the fire. Better off here with them - I'll miss it when they are gone.

Inheritance rows are a nightmare

PLL

Does anyone know what the story is with the contents on a deceased house. Particularly if there is no will. I couldn't give a flying fúck about getting assets or money from my dad. However there is things I would want like a shirt and silly stuff like that. I would hate for his girlfriend who I don't like to start taking stuff out as I imagine she would (they don't live together - have previously but like their own space).

I know that might sound a bit bitchy but it would genuinely hurt if she took everything personal to me dad. She and her kids can have the house and everything but if she took all his personal effects I'd by banging on her door like a deluded grieving banshee. It would break me up.

P. Breathnach

intheclouds wrote: »

They [executors] are allowed charge for their time, so for example if you used up a days annual leave doing executor stuff you could charge for a day's work....

Lay executors are not allowed charge for their time. They can charge for expenses incurred, and there is a reasonable argument to be made to be reimbursed for lost earnings if, for example, a day's unpaid leave from work had to be taken to deal with matters to do with the estate.

P. Breathnach

PLL wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with the contents on a deceased house. Particularly if there is no will. I couldn't give a flying fúck about getting assets or money from my dad. However there is things I would want like a shirt and silly stuff like that. I would hate for his girlfriend who I don't like to start taking stuff out as I imagine she would (they don't live together - have previously but like their own space).

I know that might sound a bit bitchy but it would genuinely hurt if she took everything personal to me dad. She and her kids can have the house and everything but if she took all his personal effects I'd by banging on her door like a deluded grieving banshee. It would break me up.

If there is no will, then a girlfriend who does not live with him almost certainly has no right to any of his assets.

There might be some grey area if they had jointly purchased some things, and the easiest option there is to let her have any such items.

RobertKK

I got my inheritance when I was aged 20, my father qualified for the pension but it was the non contributory pension, so he transferred the farm and gave me the house with the condition they could live there for the rest of their lives.
My mother only had one brother alive and he was not married with no other close relations and he had a house and farm, which my sister was given by him before he died as well.
It was sensible planning for the future.

It was good to get the inheritance early as my mother and then my father needed professional care, and having transferred everything when they were well and long before any care was needed, it meant with the fair deal scheme the state didn't qualify to take any of the inheritance.

I know of cases where it is all very messed up and bad planning by the parents have caused resentment within the family. A lot of the stuff that causes problems could be avoided. It is sad to have a friend tell you they were treated badly because they were not the favoured sibling.
I don't know what some are thinking by doing this.

Spanish Eyes

PLL wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with the contents on a deceased house. Particularly if there is no will. I couldn't give a flying fúck about getting assets or money from my dad. However there is things I would want like a shirt and silly stuff like that. I would hate for his girlfriend who I don't like to start taking stuff out as I imagine she would (they don't live together - have previously but like their own space).

I know that might sound a bit bitchy but it would genuinely hurt if she took everything personal to me dad. She and her kids can have the house and everything but if she took all his personal effects I'd by banging on her door like a deluded grieving banshee. It would break me up.

As someone else said, if there is no will, the GF is entitled to NOTHING, except assets in joint names. But you'd probably need to get into the house QUICK. Sorry, I know your Dad would have died at that stage, I didn't mean to sound so bad.

Any chance you could ask for the little things now at all while your Dad is still with you? Just to have one or two items anyway, in case the SH1t hits the fan later.

handlemaster

Solicitors while administration the will can pay themselves as much as they like. Be aware of this. Always ask for a break own of fees first before proceeding with a will after a death. You do not have to use the solicitor within which the will was signed / placed or in the care of.

Shint0

PLL wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with the contents on a deceased house. Particularly if there is no will. I couldn't give a flying fúck about getting assets or money from my dad. However there is things I would want like a shirt and silly stuff like that. I would hate for his girlfriend who I don't like to start taking stuff out as I imagine she would (they don't live together - have previously but like their own space).

I know that might sound a bit bitchy but it would genuinely hurt if she took everything personal to me dad. She and her kids can have the house and everything but if she took all his personal effects I'd by banging on her door like a deluded grieving banshee. It would break me up.

This reminded me a little of the battle between Robin William's children and his wife of three years. Bitter disputes played out in public like that are embarrassing to watch.

handlemaster

roosterman71 wrote: »

My old lad is one of 5 kids my grandparents had. He is the oldest. He was kept home to farm and deal in scrap and cut timber and save turf (basically, do the jobs my grandfather was involved in - the family business), while the other 4 were sent to college to get educated. All 4 are professionals with great jobs (doctors/teacher/financials) - my dad is a small farmer. By time my grandfather died, all that was left was his land (the other work had ceased as time passed).

There was no will.

My aunts then decided to sell the land. The vote was 4:1 against my dad. He was raging. He stayed to work to pay for their education. He was the only one to stay within 50 miles of the family home. He got 20% of the proceeds after 50+ years work. He was told his father had said "don't give <name> anything" by my aunt and was lucky to get what he did. Needless to say, he wasn't, and isn't happy, and the family is ripped apart.

Now, my own situation is not the same. I worked on our farm (and grandfathers and grand uncles) since I was a nipper. It's the way it was, and had to be. And its the way it still is. My sibling moved out when they were 19, and haven't ever lived at home since (~17 years). They now live in America, but they plan to come back eventually. We were both put through school and college. I've a good job, and I come home every weekend to do the jobs that need to be done. My annual leave days are mostly used cutting hay/silage and the like.

I wouldn't change anything. I couldn't give a toss if I'm left nothing. Who the hell cares? I'm home here now when I could be out with the lads watching Leicester being crowned, or off doing something, anything. But I'm just as happy here watching my parents snooze by the fire. Better off here with them - I'll miss it when they are gone.

Inheritance rows are a nightmare

off topic but why dont you tell them how much they mean to you

4ensic15

intheclouds wrote: »

They are allowed charge for their time, so for example if you used up a days annual leave doing executor stuff you could charge for a day's work.

They are allowed charge for expenses incurred so for example if you had to travel to a different county and stay over you could charge for travel, hotel, food.

They can charge for professional services that they employ such as use of an accountant or solicitor.

All of the above is fair enough. Our guy went well above and beyond that (advised by his solicitor no doubt).

An executor can only charge if the will provides for it. IF the executor delegates work to a professional that person can charge.

Shint0

RobertKK wrote: »

It was good to get the inheritance early as my mother and then my father needed professional care, and having transferred everything when they were well and long before any care was needed, it meant with the fair deal scheme the state didn't qualify to take any of the inheritance.

That's actually a very important point about the Fair Deal Scheme. It can be a long drawn out process if affairs are not in order and somebody needs care straight away unless they have been hospitalised and hospitals can arrange payment to a nursing home until the Fair Deal Scheme application is processed. Otherwise somebody can be waiting months and trying to get documentation of assets together at that stage only delays the process further.

Edited to add transfer of assets has to have taken place 5 years prior to the application for Fair Deal.

intheclouds

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Lay executors are not allowed charge for their time. They can charge for expenses incurred, and there is a reasonable argument to be made to be reimbursed for lost earnings if, for example, a day's unpaid leave from work had to be taken to deal with matters to do with the estate.

Grey area apparently (so my solicitor said), you can argue that a days annual leave IS worth something, so you can charge for it.

smurfjed

My sister has decided that despite two professional house valuations, she thinks that the house is worth more than the valuations and if we don't agree with her, she then wants her share of the house ownership transferred into her name. To what end i have no idea as what can she do with 25% of a house?

intheclouds

4ensic15 wrote: »

An executor can only charge if the will provides for it. IF the executor delegates work to a professional that person can charge.

They can charge for expenses incurred. Our guy charged for a flight home from Spain to his own brothers funeral.

Sure, we MAY have been able to sue him for some back but that would have cost us more money.

Having been through years of problems with it I can categorically tell you that by the time you see what the executor has charged for your only recourse is to waste more money by suing him. No one is regulating people who are executors. It took us TWO years to force him to act at all!