Puzzle about what to leave to children
john hamilton
and a small retail business consisting of two shops.
He has three children, the oldest a girl who knows nothing about business, a
middle son and a younger son. The middle son runs the shop business with his
wife and it requires a lot of 'hands on ' effort. The younger son also works
there, but is not energetic enough to be involved with anything significant.
Without the middle son and his wife's consistant involvent and very hard
work, the business would just run down.
The father is wanting to be fair to all three children in his will, but is
so undecided about what to do that he just cannot make a will.
One can only guess at the confusion and possible ill will which may arise
unless a will or some kind of decision is made.
Would anyone have come across a similar situation before? Grateful for any
advice.
Ron Peterson
The father needs to make sure that he won't be a burden to his
children and provide for his retirement and possible nursing home
care.
I would suggest that the father sell the business to his older son and
buy a lifetime annuity with the proceeds if he is healthy. He than can
give each child the same amount (up to $12,000 gift tax limit?) to
each child with the income that he doesn't spend.
--
Ron
Periander
news:iak1q8$hef$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
...
>
> Would anyone have come across a similar situation before? Grateful for
> any advice.
Asuming that there's no significant familly issues then the best place to
start would be by them all sitting around a table and having a chat on the
subject. Sounds a bit gory but it's probably the best way, that way when
the time comes everyone already knows what he or she will be getting and
because it will have been agreed in advance there will be very little scope
for infighting.
Worked for my family.
--
Regards,
Periander
High Miles
survivors.
There's little likelihood that there will be fighting over nic-nacs or
cookware.
My cremation is paid for, and there's a generous party fund as well.
No loose ends that I can see.
High Miles
No place for emotion when fairness is clearly called for.
If the offspring's behavior warrants nothing - that's what they should
receive.
AndyS
> I've put everything of value in a trust, to be divided equally among
> survivors.
> There's little likelihood that there will be fighting over nic-nacs or
> cookware.
> My cremation is paid for, and there's a generous party fund as well.
> No loose ends that I can see.
Andy comments:
You need to designate which child will carry your head around
so the villagers will know it is safe in your town again......
Andy in Eureka, Texas
Ste
> "john hamilton" <bluesta...@mail.invalid> wrote innews:iak1q8$hef$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
> > Would anyone have come across a similar situation before? Grateful for
> > any advice.
>
> Asuming that there's no significant familly issues then the best place to
> start would be by them all sitting around a table and having a chat on the
> subject. Sounds a bit gory but it's probably the best way, that way when
> the time comes everyone already knows what he or she will be getting and
> because it will have been agreed in advance there will be very little scope
> for infighting.
>
> Worked for my family.
And your coffin has an internet connection, I presume?
Maria
with me. I've met him a few times, but he doesn't like me, in his words,
because he never had a hand in raising me. (I haven't done anything
wrong - he doesn't know me at all).
Do I deserve anything or not, given that I was never given a chance to
'earn' it?
Periander
news:b8143013-0945-45d2...@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
Fuckwit.
--
Regards,
Periander
Ste
Fairness is precisely his question.
> If the offspring's behavior warrants nothing - that's what they should
> receive.
Clearly the business must remain with the middle son, but if the
father has sunk in significant capital and/or labour to establish the
business in the first place, and the middle son has had the benefit of
this, then it is right that something should be returned from the
business to the other siblings - or the middle son should be treated
as having forfeited part (or all, depending on the value) of his
inheritance, having received a valuable endowment from the father
within his lifetime.
And unless a family is already badly fractured, and certainly not
close-knit, giving to each sibling "according to their behaviour" or
"what they have earned", rather than according to rough equality, is a
very bad mistake.
Ste
Lol. Well do you mean it worked for someone else in your family, or do
you mean you're hoping it will work for your beneficiaries when it
comes to actually carving up the pie?
rick carstone
This eventually to die guy needs to do two things and, in
light of his age and of his even if so far only fearfully tentative
desire emotionally to anticipate his eventual death and to plan
realistically for his post-death estate, do so promptly:
First, discuss frankly with his wife and with his children -
you do indicate that they are all functioning adults, right? -
whatever it is that he now presumes would be fair and decide soon
after taking into account such one-with-one or maybe collective
conversations what he concludes would be fair.
Second, if he does not have a relationship with such an
advisor already, find and consult in FACT SPECIFIC DETAIL with an
attorney or, if he is in the U.K., a solicitor or at least an
accountant or sophisticated business advisor experienced in dealing
with these sorts of questions and whose judgment he has reason to
trust
Or maybe he ought do the second alternative first and the
first suggested alternative second. But your apparent assumption that
you or, if he is someone other than you, he will be able to obtain
actually reliable advice beyond suggestions that he consult with his
family, that he find and consult with a knowledgeable and experienced
professional, and that he make a will substantially sooner rather than
later is at best misplaced.
In other words, it is you who says that what you so far post
only allows a reader to guess about later confusion and ill will that
possibly could result if this eventually to die person continues to
feel unable to make a will to the point that he also continues to
choose not to do so. And so if you ask readers for more than the
suggestions above - in particular, about what they might guess about
what only possibly might be fair - you ought reconsider the
rationality of you asking for advice based only on speculation
Perhaps worse or at least as a further complication, the
heading of your posting indicates that you solicit advice mostly from
U.K. related newsgroup respondents although you also post to a
newsgroup whose readers and posters are mostly U.S. based.
But surely this eventually to die guy is at least minimally
aware that estate administration procedures, practices and expenses
and that post-death tax obligations and other financial considerations
not merely are in many way different in the U.K. than in the U.S., and
vice versa, but also can differ from one location to another within
the U.S. or within the U.K.? And if he is not aware of these common
realities, then he should be. But you do not post any information
about where he resides and probably will die or about where his
business is located and you ask for advice anyway.
And, by the way, I refer more than once to this fellow as an
eventually person because folks who are knowledgeable and experienced
in advising people about and in otherwise dealing with the sorts of
issues to which you refer including tenaciously adhered to commitments
for self-paralysis know that such intellectual and emotional stasis
very frequently results more from a fear of dying also not uncommonly
aggravated by a kind of superstition to the effect that making a will
will Seal One's Fate or possibly even Hasten One's Death than from not
having a pretty good sense of what would and would not be fair to
one's heirs.
Of course, too, if the guy is likely to be survived by his
wife, as you seem to suggest he has reason to believe will be so, and
if has no reason to be concerned about what will probably occur in his
business' operation or about estate and income tax obligations or
simply if perhaps also arbitrarily does not want address these issues,
he might make a will leaving his entire estate to her and let her deal
with the possibilities of ill will and confusion after the guy's and
later her deaths.
Or he might want at least to address an issue you imply he
also is avoiding of whether he and you use the word "fair" as if it is
a synonym for financially "equal" even if he does not make a will next
week. He also he might want to remind himself that he might make a
will next and, if he later changes his mind, also change his will by
later making a superseding one.
But also more often than not, delaying a decision results in
substantially more unfairness than making a "wrong" decision.
Confusion aggravated by ill will does occasionally follow an
adult parent's death. This can be so whether or not the parent dies
leaving a will, especially if he or she has not communicated openly
and frankly with the beneficiaries before the will becomes effective
by reason of his or her death. However, mutual fairness and mutually
considerate behavior, as the survivors decide what is and is not fair,
also can result despite what a deceased parent's will provides and
with survivors making financial and related adjustments as between or
among themselves even if not explicitly provided for in the will. But
there also is no way even intelligently to guess only from what you
way which of these alternatives will be most likely for this
eventually to die person.
High Miles
Is there some written or unwritten rule that says each child is
"entitled" to a share ?
> or the middle son should be treated
> as having forfeited part (or all, depending on the value) of his
> inheritance, having received a valuable endowment from the father
> within his lifetime.
>
> And unless a family is already badly fractured, and certainly not
> close-knit, giving to each sibling "according to their behaviour" or
> "what they have earned", rather than according to rough equality, is a
> very bad mistake.
Why would he care about the debris left behind ?
High Miles
> But also more often than not, delaying a decision results in
> substantially more unfairness than making a "wrong" decision.
>
> Confusion aggravated by ill will does occasionally follow an
> adult parent's death. This can be so whether or not the parent dies
> leaving a will, especially if he or she has not communicated openly
> and frankly with the beneficiaries before the will becomes effective
> by reason of his or her death. However, mutual fairness and mutually
> considerate behavior, as the survivors decide what is and is not fair,
> also can result despite what a deceased parent's will provides and
> with survivors making financial and related adjustments as between or
> among themselves even if not explicitly provided for in the will. But
> there also is no way even intelligently to guess only from what you
> way which of these alternatives will be most likely for this
> eventually to die person.
children are
somehow entitled to be treated fairly according to their views.
Should not necessarily be so.
Fair must be in the mind of the giver, and must be accepted and dealt
with by
the receivers........................or non receivers.
The father's assessment of who deserves what, is all that matters.
Screw hard feelings later.
Adult offspring should be prepared to get nothing and settle for whatever
they received during the parent's life.
High Miles
>> No place for emotion when fairness is clearly called for.
>>
>> If the offspring's behavior warrants nothing - that's what they
>> should receive.
>>
> My Dad is a millionaire, but my Mum never let him have anything to do
> with me. I've met him a few times, but he doesn't like me, in his
> words, because he never had a hand in raising me. (I haven't done
> anything wrong - he doesn't know me at all).
> Do I deserve anything or not, given that I was never given a chance to
> 'earn' it?
>
Entitlement is a myth that should be abolished.
All adults should expect to make their own way, and their own fortunes.
If good luck dictates that we receive unearned wealth, that is to be
celebrated - but not expected or demanded.
Norman Wells
> On 31 Oct, 17:04, High Miles <2blues1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/31/2010 10:25 AM, john hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone any ideas on how to solve this puzzle? A 75 year old man
>>> owns a house and a small retail business consisting of two shops.
>>
>>> He has three children, the oldest a girl who knows nothing about
>>> business, a middle son and a younger son. The middle son runs the
>>> shop business with his wife and it requires a lot of 'hands on '
>>> effort. The younger son also works there, but is not energetic
>>> enough to be involved with anything significant.
>>
>>> Without the middle son and his wife's consistant involvent and very
>>> hard work, the business would just run down.
>>
>>> The father is wanting to be fair to all three children in his will,
>>> but is so undecided about what to do that he just cannot make a
>>> will.
>>
>>> One can only guess at the confusion and possible ill will which may
>>> arise unless a will or some kind of decision is made.
>>
>>> Would anyone have come across a similar situation before? Grateful
>>> for any advice.
>>
>> Leave each what they have earned and deserves.
>> No place for emotion when fairness is clearly called for.
>
> Fairness is precisely his question.
Indeed. But that's solely in the eye of the beholder.
If it was my Will, I'd not involve the sons and daughter at all. It's his
estate, not theirs, and it's frankly none of their business. Any discussion
with them will only lead to acrimony and get them at each other's throats
now rather than later.
I'd be inclined to deal with the ownership of the business now, passing it
over to the eldest son for what the father thinks his share is worth
commercially, getting it properly valued if necessary, and leaving him
unencumbered by it. I'd then leave the estate to be split equally between
the three offspring.
Unless the father has a wife, of course, in which case it should be left
entirely to her.
Maria
Interesting comment - if no child deserves anything merely by the
accident of birth, then why should anyone be concerned with financially
supporting that child? What kind of entitlement would you want to see
abolished?
Evelyn
*****************
That isn't always fair because people aren't always fair. I know of a
family where the father hates his only son, who happens to be a real good
guy, does more for the old man than anybody else. He's been trying to
justify rewriting his will to cut that son out, rather than the original
deal which treated all his kids equally. I do believe in cutting out a
kid who has robbed a parent, harmed them physically, or literally made their
life a hell. But those are true in only a few situations.
Best Regards,
Evelyn
In the stony fastness of the mountains there is a strange market, where one
may barter the vortex of life for boundless bliss. – Milarepa
Evelyn
**************
Sounds to me as though he is punishing you to get even with your mother.
It also sounds to me like your mother did the right thing by giving him no
say in raising you. In fact he sounds like a mean spirited shit.
Evelyn
news:9369900e-963e-4d11...@u17g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
********************
What should be done, is the business should be evaluated professionally at
the time of the father's passing. The son who is keeping the business
should buy out his siblings for a fair price, even if he has to mortgage
things to do so. It should all be handled by outside professionals,
(lawyers) to prevent problems. If the middle son does not agree with this,
then the business should be sold and they should all get their split of it.
More family rifts and miseries happen over dead peoples money. The man in
question is right to try and solve this now before it turns into an
unpleasant scene.
High Miles
who have not been involved.
How do you see any entitlement on the part of the others?
Just because they had the same parents ?
Bullshit.
No misery involved.
Just do the right thing.
Selling successful businesses to appease siblings is lunacy.
All children are NOT automatically due anything, and certainly there is
no "fair" share required.
High Miles
Financial support is more a legal requirement here.
Most consider it a moral obligation.
But once they're grown, and you're dead - what becomes of your wealth
is your business and your decision.
JackPineSavage
"High Miles" <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y6izo.5477$3f....@newsfe12.iad...
Better be careful, Rita and her coven will accuse you of having Republican
ideas.
>
>
>
Evelyn
***************
We may just have to disagree on this one, D. I think it isn't right not to
be fair. Certainly he should slant the deal very favorably in the
direction of the son who works the business.
Ron Peterson
> My Dad is a millionaire, but my Mum never let him have anything to do
> with me. I've met him a few times, but he doesn't like me, in his words,
> because he never had a hand in raising me. (I haven't done anything
> wrong - he doesn't know me at all).
> Do I deserve anything or not, given that I was never given a chance to
> 'earn' it?
AFIK, in the US, if you are an adult, you aren't entitled to any
inheritance. That means that a wealthy parent has some control over
their adult children.
If your father is a "good" person and you are also, then you might
want to establish a relationship with him, but don't expect any
inheritance since he may have other obligations to his current family.
--
Ron
Ste
Yes. It's called "fairness", and flouting the principles of fairness
when it comes to bequeathing large sums is, as I say, a recipe for
tearing a family asunder. And any parent content with leaving that
kind of legacy, has probably been a very poor parent in their
lifetime.
> > or the middle son should be treated
> > as having forfeited part (or all, depending on the value) of his
> > inheritance, having received a valuable endowment from the father
> > within his lifetime.
>
> > And unless a family is already badly fractured, and certainly not
> > close-knit, giving to each sibling "according to their behaviour" or
> > "what they have earned", rather than according to rough equality, is a
> > very bad mistake.
>
> The guy will be dead.
> Why would he care about the debris left behind ?
If you don't care, then make everyone happy by being fair. Blatant and
unwarranted favouritism will act as the final insult to other members
of the family.
Evelyn
news:dfd61419-21bc-41da...@l8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On 31 Oct, 17:44, High Miles <2blues1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/31/2010 12:35 PM, Ste wrote:
>
> Why ?
> Is there some written or unwritten rule that says each child is
> "entitled" to a share ?
Yes. It's called "fairness", and flouting the principles of fairness
when it comes to bequeathing large sums is, as I say, a recipe for
tearing a family asunder. And any parent content with leaving that
kind of legacy, has probably been a very poor parent in their
lifetime.
> The guy will be dead.
> Why would he care about the debris left behind ?
If you don't care, then make everyone happy by being fair. Blatant and
unwarranted favouritism will act as the final insult to other members
of the family.
******************
Hi,
I think you are right, STE. I have a 97 year old father who has always
been a very difficult man. Now with vascular dementia coming on, his
quirks and crazy ways are all exacerbated. He favors this child for a bit,
then that one, then the other one. Whichever of his children is currently
out of favor, he punishes by moving his money around bank to bank, in
accounts which are payable upon his death.
His will leaves equal shares for his kids, but he gets around that with his
habit of moving the money around based on whomever he is angry with at the
moment, and he is ALWAYS angry with somebody, and it is ALWAYS unfair and
based on some sort of craziness of his own making. We long ago realized
this and made a private agreement between ourselves that we would do all we
needed to do in order to keep things fair and equal after his passing, but
you know how that goes....... It might not work out that way.
Fairness is best for all concerned, if it can be had. Human relationships
are basically flawed and always will be. Parents can favor one child over
another for reasons nobody understands. Parents can hate another kid on
sight for the same kind of craziness. Age brings about twisted views of
life. Aging brains don't always perceive or judge clearly.
Like Dorothy, I don't believe anyone is absolutely entitled to any
particular legacy. It is your money and yes, you should decide what to do
with it and who to leave it to. But in the event of leaving this life, the
best thing to do is to be as fair and dispassionate and generally decent
about these things as possible. Human emotions are too variable and not to
be counted upon. Even your own.
Talking with the children together as adults is still the very best course
of all. Discussing the dilemma and all the ramifications of this or that
scenario cannot be underestimated in importance. Who knows? They may
decide together to cede the business completely to the son who runs it and
agree to disavow any rights to it, all by themselves!
Even the best plans can be misunderstood, thwarted, and people can still be
taken advantage of.
I knew three sisters, and their mother owned a house she wanted to leave to
them all equally. Her will stated that any of her kids who needed a home
could live there. The house couldn't be sold till they all signed off on
it.
The mother did this, knowing that two of her daughters had secure lives and
owned homes, but one did not. She wanted to protect the one who didn't.
One sister didn't care and said it was fine. So the poor sister lived in
the home, but the mean sister fought her tooth and nail for years trying to
get her out, but she was protected by the will.
The mean sister did everything she cold to torture the poor sister. She
even moved into the house herself, to continue putting pressure on her.
Finally the poor sister had to agree to sell, because she just couldn't
stand the misery she was dealing with. (The third sister died, so she was
out of the picture). So only the mean one and the poor one were left to
battle it out. They sold the house, finally. The poor sister had to
move.
What made it even worse, was that the poor sister, like her mother, played
the piano and composed music, and she found a Steinway piano for a
ridiculously small price, and bought it for her mother. After the mother
died, the mean sister, (who didn't even know how to play) also forced the
sale of that piano, so she could get "her share" of the mother's ownership
of that piano.
Of course, the mean sister pissed away all the money she got, but the poor
sister invested wisely in another piece of property and has been doing OK.
The mean sister continued to hound her for loans and other financial help,
for years on end. She still tortures her in any way she can, even now that
money and inheritances are no longer an issue.
So being specific about certain things in a will that one might think would
be simply "understood" by ones children is wise, because there is always
some kind of sibling rivalry going on underneath, and they may not be decent
about it with each other when the time comes.
The worst fights I have ever seen in families seem to always involve dead
peoples money. Better to be safe and specific, rather than trust them to
be fair.
Tickettyboo
> Anyone any ideas on how to solve this puzzle? A 75 year old man owns a
> house and a small retail business consisting of two shops.
>
> He has three children, the oldest a girl who knows nothing about
> business, a middle son and a younger son. The middle son runs the shop
> business with his wife and it requires a lot of 'hands on ' effort. The
> younger son also works there, but is not energetic enough to be
> involved with anything significant.
>
> Without the middle son and his wife's consistant involvent and very
> hard work, the business would just run down.
>
> The father is wanting to be fair to all three children in his will, but
> is so undecided about what to do that he just cannot make a will.
>
> One can only guess at the confusion and possible ill will which may
> arise unless a will or some kind of decision is made.
>
> Would anyone have come across a similar situation before? Grateful for
> any advice.
I have read the thread and I must be missing the point here. If this
person is interested in fairness then I would assume that each of the
children have been getting a salary commensurate with their input and
position within the business. If that is the case then I really can't
see any problem. Many people work hard for a company, working is (or
should be) a straight exchange - you give of your
time/effort/abilities and in return your employer pays you the going
rate for the job.
After that, what he does with his money is up to him. Leave the
offspring equal shares of any estate/ go and spend it now and have some
fun/ give it to the offspring now, while he can have the pleasure of
watching them being helped by some extra cash/ leave it to a local
charity, whatever.
If you have to ask in a newsgroup about what to do with your own money
and how it will affect your own children then there is something not
quite right.
--
Ticketty᧧
john hamilton
"Tickettyboo" <ticke...@mail2oops.com> wrote in message
news:8j7le6...@mid.individual.net...
==========================================================================
you make too many assuptions. its not my money and not even my family
rick carstone
wrote:
>> Is there some written or unwritten rule that says each child is
>> "entitled" to a share ?
>
>Yes. It's called "fairness", and flouting the principles of fairness
>when it comes to bequeathing large sums is, as I say, a recipe for
>tearing a family asunder. And any parent content with leaving that
>kind of legacy, has probably been a very poor parent in their
>lifetime.
If this is your presumptive and preferred approach in drafting
your will, so be it. Certainly it is your prerogative to define
"fairness" as if "equality" if that is what you will to do. But even
if so, there are many scenarios and relationships in connection with
which what is and is not treatment that will be "equal" can be a
complex and even fairly debatable matter requiring much evaluation
than merely doing an arithmetical division of assets.
Even what would be an "equal" such division itself often
requires more thought than relying on an assumption that a simple
arithmetical division is even possible and would suffice to achieve
"equal" treatment.
Indeed, this thread's original posting is illustrative in this
connection: to be "fair" must the eventually to die parent (if he
eventually does make a will) direct in his will that the business he
owns be liquidated so that his will's executor can do this sort of
arithmetic? or if the parent leaves the presently illiquid business
to some combination of his wife and one of his adult sons, will his
will have provided for a valuation method that "fairly" leaves some
other asset of "equal" value to his other surviving beneficiaries?
would it be "fair" to require the sale or other liquidation of the
business to achieve such arithmetic (appparent) certainty? or if the
will if ever made is drafted in a manner that will required the son
who wants to keep the business to buy-out the other childrens' and the
surviving wife's "equal" share, will the deceased also have directed a
mode of valuation and dispute resolution that will not end up
depleting estate assets perhaps almost entirely with the result that
the deceased wiill not have been "fair" to any of these persons? or
and as others have commented about earlier in this thread, will the
father's investment of labor and capital in the business before his
death warrant his making some sort of will directed adjustment? or
if the father while alive gives or sells the business to the business
operating son, would the other adult children or the father's wife
have some sort of post-death claim against the estate in connection
with what they allege to be the father's extravagant over-generousness
to that son? etc., etc....
And what about the father whose wife died earlier and who will
die probably leaving an estate worth just a bit more than $900K and
who has three children - one now a partner at a Wall Street law firm,
one a neurosurgeon married to another successfully practicing
physician, and the third a physically or mentally long-time disabled
and unemployed and so not income generating person? Would it be
"fair" in the interest of trying to achieve "equality" to leave $300K
to each? How would providing only and so entirely for the third of
these survivors so that the first two are left nothing constitute
being a "poor parent" for all or, for that matter, for any of them?
Periander
news:6c1037c3-0c6b-4d8c...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
I meant that you were a fuckwit
--
Regards,
Periander
Ste
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 07:05:42 -0400, "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Is there some written or unwritten rule that says each child is
> >> "entitled" to a share ?
>
> >Yes. It's called "fairness", and flouting the principles of fairness
> >when it comes to bequeathing large sums is, as I say, a recipe for
> >tearing a family asunder. And any parent content with leaving that
> >kind of legacy, has probably been a very poor parent in their
> >lifetime.
>
> If this is your presumptive and preferred approach in drafting
> your will, so be it. Certainly it is your prerogative to define
> "fairness" as if "equality" if that is what you will to do. But even
> if so, there are many scenarios and relationships in connection with
> which what is and is not treatment that will be "equal" can be a
> complex and even fairly debatable matter requiring much evaluation
> than merely doing an arithmetical division of assets.
>
> Even what would be an "equal" such division itself often
> requires more thought than relying on an assumption that a simple
> arithmetical division is even possible and would suffice to achieve
> "equal" treatment.
Of course, "fairness" cannot always be achieved with crude arithmetic.
But arithmetic fairness should normally be the starting point, with
deviations from it justified specifically.
> Indeed, this thread's original posting is illustrative in this
> connection: to be "fair" must the eventually to die parent (if he
> eventually does make a will) direct in his will that the business he
> owns be liquidated so that his will's executor can do this sort of
> arithmetic? or if the parent leaves the presently illiquid business
> to some combination of his wife and one of his adult sons, will his
> will have provided for a valuation method that "fairly" leaves some
> other asset of "equal" value to his other surviving beneficiaries?
> would it be "fair" to require the sale or other liquidation of the
> business to achieve such arithmetic (appparent) certainty? or if the
> will if ever made is drafted in a manner that will required the son
> who wants to keep the business to buy-out the other childrens' and the
> surviving wife's "equal" share, will the deceased also have directed a
> mode of valuation and dispute resolution that will not end up
> depleting estate assets perhaps almost entirely with the result that
> the deceased wiill not have been "fair" to any of these persons? or
> and as others have commented about earlier in this thread, will the
> father's investment of labor and capital in the business before his
> death warrant his making some sort of will directed adjustment? or
> if the father while alive gives or sells the business to the business
> operating son, would the other adult children or the father's wife
> have some sort of post-death claim against the estate in connection
> with what they allege to be the father's extravagant over-generousness
> to that son? etc., etc....
These are all difficult questions. As I've said, in my view there can
be no case for interfering with the business that the middle son now
runs. It is right that this stays with him as a going concern, given
his own investment in and reliance on the business. From there, it's
simply a case of "compensating" the other children. If the business is
wildly profitable, and the estate small, then it may be right to say
that the middle son gets nothing. On the other hand, if the business
produces only a modest income, whereas the estate is extremely large,
then there may be little if any deviation from the arithmetically
"fair" distribution. That's how I'd approach the matter, anyway.
rick carstone
wrote:
...............
>
>Of course, "fairness" cannot always be achieved with crude arithmetic.
>But arithmetic fairness should normally be the starting point, with
>deviations from it justified specifically.
Even not crude arithmetic can lead to results some
beneficiaries might believe to be unfair. For instance, when a parent
while alive had given assets directly or indirectly to one or more of
several children, such as substantially differing amounts for
schooling or for medical including psychiatric expenses, then directs
as close to practicable even if comparatively easy to compute
arithmetic equality in a will. And yet this sort of thing for persons
leaving a more than only nominal estate may be common.
But assuming you here say "justified" primarily in the sense
of what the will-maker justifies to himself or to herself bearing in
mind that we are referring to one's exercise of one's own "will" which
will then be reflected in the document referred to as that, we do not
disagree about a starting point.
In addition, you would be correct to infer from my earlier
comments in this thread that the reason for my "primarily"
qualification in this connection above is that, especially for the
sorts of relationships and scenarios involving adult children as
intended beneficiaries about which this thread's original poster
asked, it usually is very desirable but maybe too often not done that,
when still able to do so, the eventually to die will maker communicate
openly with including by listening to his or her intended primary
beneficiaries.
To the extent my earlier comments questioned or objected to
what others said, it was merely to suggest that there is not any sort
of uniformly let alone rigidly applicable generally required moral or
ethical or law constrained rule about these subjects in the UK or in
the US.
Tickettyboo
>> Tickettyߺº
> ==========================================================================
>
> you make too many assuptions. its not my money and not even my family
Whether its your family or you are offering advice to the person,
asking a variety of newsgroups to pass an opinion on what 'might'
happen if someone we don't know does or doesn't leave money to a family
we don't know seems odd. Valid opinions would need to be based on
knowledge of the people.
--
Tickettyߺº
john hamilton
==========================================================================
even more 'useless' assumptions. that i'm going to offer advice... they can
read for themselves (but difficult for them to post).
Also one doesnt have to know particular people to have a helpful idea about
something in 'principle', or in 'general'.
i bet you have even more 'assumptions' ready to go.......yawn
Michaelangelo
>
> even more 'useless' assumptions. that i'm going to offer advice...
> they can read for themselves (but difficult for them to post).
>
> Also one doesnt have to know particular people to have a helpful idea
> about something in 'principle', or in 'general'.
>
> i bet you have even more 'assumptions' ready to go.......yawn
Perhaps if you had posted all the relevant information originally
people wouldn't have to make assumptions. For example, it's already
been pointed out to you that you posted to UK and US groups. Laws of
inheritance are not universal throughout the UK and not necessarily in
line with those in the US. Some (a lot?) of clarification is needed if
people are to give reliable advice and avoid having to make
assumptions.
--
Michaelangelo
No good deed goes unpunished
www.flickr.com/photos/mikenagel
Self-catering, holiday accommodation for disabled people:
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk
john hamilton
"Michaelangelo" <mike...@lineone.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:8jaacs...@mid.individual.net...
Thank you, but all the relevant information has been posted in the question
and it's not just a 'legal' issue is it? The 'bare bones' were given to try
to clarify the *essence* of the situation, so to speak.
When people can't grasp this, or have no idea where the question is coming
from; they seem to want to make up a huge amount of totally unnecessary
spurious stuff. Witness the detailed post of Rick Carstone 31 October, and a
few other similar type of posts.
I believe the expression is: 'Biting your own tail'.
Cynic
<2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>We - as children - deserve nothing, merely by the accident of birth.
Yes we do. All children deserve and are entitled to receive a
reasonable upbringing by parents who provide them with adequate care
and a similar standard of living as they enjoy themselves.
That continues until the child is expected to be self-sufficient,
which in the UK will be shortly after finishing full-time education,
at which stage the child should not *expect* any further support or
help from parents.
--
Cynic
RobertL
> On Oct 31, 10:25 am, "john hamilton" <bluesta...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anyone any ideas on how to solve this puzzle? A 75 year old man owns a house
> > and a small retail business consisting of two shops.
> > He has three children, the oldest a girl who knows nothing about business, a
> > middle son and a younger son. The middle son runs the shop business with his
> > wife and it requires a lot of 'hands on ' effort. The younger son also works
> > there, but is not energetic enough to be involved with anything significant.
> > Without the middle son and his wife's consistant involvent and very hard
> > work, the business would just run down.
> > The father is wanting to be fair to all three children in his will, but is
> > so undecided about what to do that he just cannot make a will.
> > One can only guess at the confusion and possible ill will which may arise
> > unless a will or some kind of decision is made.
> > Would anyone have come across a similar situation before? Grateful for any
> > advice.
>
> children and provide for his retirement and possible nursing home
> care.
>
> I would suggest that the father sell the business to his older son and
> buy a lifetime annuity with the proceeds if he is healthy. He than can
> give each child the same amount (up to $12,000 gift tax limit?) to
> each child with the income that he doesn't spend.
There's no tax on gifts in the UK except perhaps if you die within 7
years of making them in which case they might be subject to
inheritence tax.
But in any case, there's no limit if it's a "regular gift out of
income". As long as he has spare income he can gift it to anyone as
long as he does it as a regular pattern. It does not become part of
his estate and will not be subject to IHT even if he dies within 7
years.
Robert
Evelyn
*************
What a charmer you must be to live with!!!!!! :-(
--
Cynic
Michaelangelo
>
> Thank you, but all the relevant information has been posted in the
> question and it's not just a 'legal' issue is it?
No, it's not *just* a legal issue but there is a possible legal issue
which may be of profound importance in attempting to answer your
original question. I mentioned that there is one part of the UK where
the gentleman's children would have an irrefutable claim on his
moveable estate. If the gentleman lives in that part of the UK and if,
as you seem to indicate, he is the owner in whole or in part of the
retail business then he needs to know that the business, or whatever
part of it he owns, forms part of his moveable estate and all three of
his offspring are entitled to their share. None of his children are
obliged to claim there share but they would have an absolute right do
so and if they do the business may have to be sold in order to meet
those claims.
I presume the gentleman is a widower or divorced as you make no mention
of a spouse. If he has a spouse who survives him, she too would have an
irrefutable claim on part of the moveable estate.
Given the gentlemen's advanced years he should be talking to his legal
advisor without delay. Among other things the livelihood of the middle
son and his wife is at stake. This is far too important an issue to be
tossed around in Usenet in this way.
High Miles
> "Cynic" wrote in message news:4cd02f19.21695031@localhost...
>
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:57:51 -0500, High Miles
> <2blue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> We - as children - deserve nothing, merely by the accident of
>> birth.
>
> Yes we do. All children deserve and are entitled to receive a
> reasonable upbringing by parents who provide them with adequate care
> and a similar standard of living as they enjoy themselves.
>
> That continues until the child is expected to be self-sufficient,
> which in the UK will be shortly after finishing full-time education,
> at which stage the child should not *expect* any further support or
> help from parents.
>
>
>
> *************
>
>
> What a charmer you must be to live with!!!!!! :-(
>
But then....................................I'm a right old bitch m'self.
Have 'em.
Raise 'em.
Then dump 'em unless you need 'em.
Or - as in my case - they're grand people who are fun to be with.
Evelyn
*************
Hi D,
If you ask me, that is the BEST scenario of all, and the real "name of the
game" in raising kids.