Are we BU to BIL/SIL?

[iamsoannoyed]

My DH and his DB jointly took over the family farm when FIL retired.

DH and BIL (DH's DB) have always worked the farm, but when FIL retired he signed it over to them, and they originally split the work 50/50. PIL, DH and BIL reach receive 1/3 of the income of the from the farm (and when PIL pass away, this will increase to 1/2 each).

SIL has health problems, which she has had for a long-time, but has progressed more rapidly over the last 2 years. They have 6 children. Over that time BIL has had to spend more time looking after the children and his wife, which has meant my DH taking over more and more of the work.

This has progressed to the point that it really has become too much for DH to do on his own (we have 1 permanent farm worker and get in another seasonal one). He has been really exhausted last 6 months or so, but it has all been getting on top of him over the last month. He is tired all the time, has no energy to do things with me or the children and so on. BIL now only works sporadically, and frequently has to cancel even when he has agreed to help.

While we totally understand that this isn't anyones fault, and it's not because he doesn't want to work, that doesn't change the impact it is having on DH, and also upon our family life.

We had a long chat about it a few weeks ago, and agreed things can't go on as they are. DH suggested to his DB that we employ another farmworker- FIL thinks this is a good solution, and thought that DB should pay slightly more towards the cost than the rest by slightly reducing the amount he takes out in income. We put this to DB- he flatly refused. We then said we would just share the cost between us all, and all take a little less. DB said no, they couldn't afford to this and if we wanted to take on extra help, we can pay for it. He has also been asking if we can cut expenditure to take more profit out of the business. It can't be done without cutting corners, which DH doesn't want to do and FIL thinks would be foolish.

I am really cross about it- his situation and inability to contribute to the work of the farm is why they need to take on the extra help. It's not his fault, but he is getting an income without actually doing work. DH is really hurt that his DB doesn't seem to care about the impact the situation is having on us.

DH thought it might be a better idea if we bought out BIL share in the farm- that way he'd have cash which he could invest etc and use that to have an income, and DH could run the business the way he wants to. DB has refused this too.

DH and I think the best solution may be either for BIL to buy us out, and we can set up elsewhere or that they sell the farm and we each take our share.

PIL are really upset by this, and FIL in particular feels like he's failed as the farm has been in the family for generations.

BIL says we are trying to punish him for not working, and feels we don't care about him and his family.

I know it would be far better from his point of view if we all just carried on as we are, but from our point of view this is untenable. If it would be for a set period of time (i.e. a few months or a year or so), then it might be different- they are family and we do want to help, but it is not a situation that is going to improve in the forsee-able future. I am not prepared to help out to the extent that it affects my husband's welfare and our family.

His lack of flexibility suggests to me that even if we get over this, sooner or later another problem will raise it's head (e.g. him pushing for cost cutting measures), and perhaps it would be better in the longer term if we went our separate ways. Initially there would be bruised feelings, but I think it's better than long term resentment.

Are we BU to try to force through a change?

Objection oh totally agree, I also get where his mindset probably is coming from though, however much I disagree with it.

Is there a way out if all negotiations fail I.e. Does the legal agreement allow DH to sell his share to a third party?

(Assuming such a person could be found)

I agree, if the arrangement is such that income is split 3 ways from the profits AFTER all other expenses such as salary has been paid - well then DH and FIL need to start taking a salary, even if it's a per hour rate, which would incrementally reduce the portion of profits paid to the three. So DH and FIL experience no loss of income, and BIL's potential salary can go to a farm worker.

"1/2 of the cost of the farm business would be a lot more than £500,000"

I missed that your BIL already own 1/2 of the farm outright? I misunderstood, I though their parents still owned 1/3 (as well as receiving 1/3 of the income) so was thinking they would still have a say in whether another farm hand was employed, etc

I suppose the options remain the same, in any case, and I do still think that selling out to your DH, unless that was what he and his family really wanted to do, is probably not the best option for your BIL and his family, both at this stage in their lives and given their uncertain future.

That would indeed leave the other options you have covered and I think you are wise to pass the handling of that onto an external adviser (who ...a sort of financial mediator?). Is there anything in their original legal agreement about what would happen if the two brother's could not agree on a major issue regarding the farm business? It would seem unlikely that one could force the other to sell (or buy) their share, but equally in a legal agreement you would expect some sort of reference to 'management disputes'. Maybe FIL did retain a vote or, if not, maybe both brothers would agree that he should have a adjudicating vote now.

Random

BIL and DH both worked on the farm since leaving agricultural college (and worked on the farm part-time during studies/as older teenagers, and full-time during holidays). BIL is 3 years older than DH.

None of us have any intentions of cutting BIL/SIL loose and ignoring them from that point on. We have tried to keep things going as long as we can, but it is no longer possible.

It's easy to say "do whatever needs to be done to support BIL as he's in a terrible situation"- we'd all love to be in a position to do that, but the reality is more nuanced. I agree that their situation is awful and I can only imagine how hard it is for them. However, it isn't just about BIL and his family and their needs- I also have to look out for the welfare of my DH and our family unit. We all have to consider the needs of PIL.

If things don't change soon, I fear my DH's health will suffer- then what will BIL do if DH couldn't work the farm? Or what if my DH makes a mistake due to fatigue, and injures himself (or worse), or causes injury to someone else? I'm not willing to put him at risk to help out his brother, however sad the situation.

I think there may be ways which could be win-win, but I think it is going to take a lot of persuasion to get BIL to agree. He doesn't particularly like the idea of out-side help for his wife and he doesn't want to end up with less income- and I know it is possible that he may have good reason for this. Nevertheless, he can't have it both ways. Hence going down the route of independent advisor. I hope we can find a solution that meets all our needs, but we cannot accept a route which looks after 1 set of needs, whilst ignoring the needs of the other 2 parties involved, nor one which threatens the well-being of the business.

Puzzled

He doesn't appear to have had any plans as to what to do either now or in the future- it's been a bit of on-going crisis management and we have all fallen into a routine really. So to be fair, no-one has forced him to come up with a plan either- DH has just been knuckling down and getting on with things. I think BIL just assumed we would keep doing this indefinitely, and nobody has said otherwise. I think this has ended up in a sort of "can't see the woods for the trees" situation. I'm not trying to lay all the blame on BIL- none of us planned very well. But we are where we are, and things need to change. BIL is not accepting on this.

He wanted us all to take more money out- I assume this was because he wanted more and knew he would not be allowed to take more money than everyone else.

Westmoreland

I understand it better now than I did- he's just so resistant to change or asking for help (well, not just BIL- he's just worst than the rest!). Although I grew up in a rural area, not from farming stock. They really are a law unto themselves at times.

Generally, I take a back seat (sure that's obvious) on the business side- it's not my area of expertise (although I am quite handy when it comes to lambing) and I try not to interfere in their arrangements. Perhaps I should have put my foot down earlier, and made DH do something about it- but as I said before, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

BIL is going to take a look at the personal assistant idea you suggested- he's not keen, but I don't know how much of that is just resistance to change/the unknown.

Thanks for your help.

As you have suggested, even if this problem is alleviated, it isn't going to be solved in the long term easily and if the partnership continues, then further problems will arise as he years pass. Leaving the farm equally is fair but doesn't take into account the problems running a family business like this.

My own experience and observation of many families in similar situations is that it might be best to make a very hat decision to come to some arrangement where one brother buys the other out, or the farm is sold and you each buy your own smaller unit. I suppose this could wait until fil's death if it would upset him too much, but I don't foresee a comfortable family relationships under the circumstances.

A hard decision not a hat one. It is a tough situation to be in.

None of us have any intentions of cutting BIL/SIL loose and ignoring them

I don't think anyone thought for a moment that you would

You seem to have a very fair and balanced view of it all, but clearly BIL thought this could go on indefinitely, didn't consider solutions, struggles to accept anyone else's and feels that the only needs are his own

I'm just glad that someone's there to push for change ...

He will drag his heels for as long as you let him. He will lose out in any change that he agrees to, but it's not fair and he has to accept that. Until you force the issue, things won't change.

Hopefully you have now set the ball in motion.

I hope BIL comes around to the personal assistant idea. It doesn't sound at all practical to refuse to have any outside assistance for SIL - does she need constant care? He can't possibly do all that plus childcare plus work out of the house full-time (although I realise he's not doing that work right now). What does SIL think of the idea of outside help? Surely she has to acknowledge that she needs help and it can't be her husband 24/7.

At least the kids aren't tiny (his kids, I mean) - not like having a toddler in the house who needs someone looking after them full-time. Shame the 18 yo isn't necessarily keen on joining the farm, but that's life.

Good luck, OP! Hope you manage to come up with a decent solution for your DH and for your BIL.

A quick update on this- and more advice needed!

We have had some independent advice (I wasn't at meeting, so relying on what I've been told) and the outcome is that we have a number of options:

1. each person takes a wage for the work they do, and all "share-holders" then take a reduced income from the profits. This would allow us to employ extra people as necessary to cover BIL's absence with minimal impact upon the business or our income. It would slightly reduce PIL, as FIL works sporadically/part-time, essentially. It would significantly reduce BIL income if he did not work. This is the most financially sensible according to advisor.
2. The business employs workers as required and pay them a wage (but DH/BIL/FIL would not count in this)- this is worked into the running costs of the business and our income would come out of profits.
3. BIL comes back to work and they employ someone in a carer/assistant. This would be part-funded between the local council and BIL/SIL.
4. One or other of the brothers buys the other out, or the farm is sold and the money split.

BIL and SIL not keen on the carer/assistant idea, as they don't want a "stranger" in the house until absolutely necessary (and in their eyes, they are not at that point yet). They are also not keen on option 1) as this reduces their income- BIL would still like to take more money out at present, so is definitely not up for any option which may reduce his income significantly.

This leaves us with option 2) or 4). DH and FIL not keen on option 2) as for various reasons relating to tax etc this is less secure. BIL also stated again he wants to take a bigger income, with less invested back in the business. DH and FIL don't agree this is good for the business and may well affect long-term profitability/sustainability. So this caused another large row- BIL feels they are ignoring his needs and wishes. DH and FIl feel BIL is only thinking of his needs and ignoring the fact that the business needs to be secure for the future.

I am more and more leaning towards forcing a buy out/sale. DH not keen, PIL really want to avoid it. I don't know what to advise.

Any suggestions?

What a headache. How can he keep insisting on an income with doing no bloody work?

At least you have a range of options.

BIL needs to realise that he either works on the farm and is paid, paying for a cheaper carer, or he stays at home and loses his income, but keeps a share of the profits.

In many ways he's had it too good for too long. If he was anything other than family he would have had no pay at all for work not done.

I think dh and FIL need to sit him down and give him the ultimatum of carer, no salary, or selling. Realistically it has to be one of those three options. And asking for additional profit with the precariousness of British farming right now is insane.

Since BIL is being so stubborn dh and FIL are going to have to risk upsetting him.

It's a horrible situation. I was running this past a farmer earlier, I don't know anyone who would risk leaving a farm to more than one child, due to the potential for imbalance and it ruining a family. You have my sympathy.

Personally I thought (1) sounded pretty sensible - and that was before I got to the bit about the advisor recommending it too

Sadly it appears that BIL will mulishly oppose anything except the status quo, no matter what the effect on your OH, the business or anything else. As we've all said before, his situation is deserving of great sympathy and nobody wants to be unkind, but he simply cannot expect to carry on in this selfish manner, demanding to be the only one considered

So while (1) could work if he's prepared to be reasonable, if he can't or won't then I see no alternative to the sale and buy out, which would at least settle it once and for all

how can he not see that taking too much profit now will damage the business? seems he just wants to run it into the ground and get what he can.

option 1 and the carer seem very reasonable to me. or the buyout.

it would be an incredible shame to loose a farm that's been in the family for generations.

Option 1 or the buyout. Of course BIL won't like it - it means he stops getting money for free. You're going to have to deal with the fallout though, because the alternative is your DH continues to work to support two families.

He can't keep taking and taking out of the business , without putting anything back in . That way lies disaster , because every business , regardless of how well it's doing , needs constant investment . Tractors break down , combines catch fire , buildings need new roofs , or drainage , or grain stores rebuilding . If he keeps draining the farm of its profit , he'll end up putting three families into hardship , and no one will be able to help him then. He can't have his cake and eat it and make trifle out of it as well .

The sensible option has to be option 1, surely ? It might be the impetus to focus the bil's mind as well .

I think you need to put all four options to him and say that he needs to choose one. There will not be a continuing of the status quo, and there is not further negotiation. He chooses one of the four options by a certain date (to allow him to seek his own independent legal advice if he chooses) or you will be enforcing option number x (whichever you and PIL feel is the best). I would do it legally through a legal office so that it is crystal clear that you are not mucking around and you will not accept him dragging his feet and not pulling his weight in the business.

He simply cannot continue to take money from a business at the level he is without putting some effort in. You need to also consider the impact on your husband's health. It will do none of the family any good if he burns himself out and gets ill, or if he injures himself due to rushing/cutting corners/exhaustion. It's never pleasant to have to give a family member an ultimatum like this, but time's up and he needs to step up and fulfil his part of the bargain.

Just another thought - has your PIL formally handed over any ownership of the farm, or is it just a case of the brothers will only formally inherit ownership upon his death? If so, could your PIL change their will so your DH inherits the farm and the brother gets a lump sum in exchange?

It seems that you are unlikely to get BIL to voluntarily agree to one of his less preferred options 1 or 3, FIL and your DH do not feel 2 makes good business sense, and nobody is very keen on 4.

Maybe the first aim should instead be for BIL and DH to agree to (legally) give FIL a 'vote', so that there are three people having an equal say on policy decisions.

It might be very difficult for BIL to actually refuse to give his father (back) equal voting rights (something that a proper legal adviser possibly should have insisted he retain, way back when he was gifting his farm to his sons).

That being done, the three of them vote on the options resulting from the independent advice.

thanks all- I agree, BIL will have to accept change of some sort. The status quo is not sustainable.

I genuinely think that the easiest way would be an assistant/carer for SIL, freeing up BIL to work. I am really not sure why they are so set against it, as both have said they realise they will probably need a carer eventually anyway.

That said, my understanding of the advice given is that they would be better off converting to option 1) regardless of whether BIL came back to work or not. So I feel that both of these options should be pushed for.

My real issue is that even if we get this sorted out, I feel sooner or later the fact that DH and BIL have very different ideas about how the business should be run will rear it's ugly head again and we'll be back to square one. Each time this happens, more bitterness will build up and they'll end up falling out completely. Which makes me wonder if option 4), while heartbreaking, may be the best long-term option. Or perhaps we could offer to buy a further % so DH would have the controlling share and BIL would have both the lump sum and still have an income from the business. Or would that mean the worst of both worlds for BIL?

Chris I suspect the reason it was split equally was that FIl thought BIL doesn't have a good business head and he thought my DH would be a good counterbalance to this and allow the business to run better.

ADish

I think that is another option- but I suspect as BIL already knows what FIl will vote for he will not be keen. Although I take your point that he may find it very hard to justify a refusal to give his father back voting rights/shares. They could each give back 5%, so FIL would have 10% share and the deciding vote in any dispute. The only issue I can see with this is what happens when FIL dies/ if he becomes incapacitated?

He's very lucky that his family's bad fortune has been matched by this windfall. Either pure, capitalist rent (capital/ an asset working for him and his family so they can care for each other), OR an almost guaranteed income, a working life with his father and brother, his wife's needs taken care of, leaving him free to cherish her, not just "care for" her.

Not everyone has an asset which works as hard. Cash savings depreciate, thanks to low interest rates and inflation

However, if your DH or FIL have an accident, it will be game over and out into the work of negative savings rates, high cost of living and family breakdown, for you all.

It's terribly sad, and I feel very sorry for you all.

"My real issue is that even if we get this sorted out, I feel sooner or later the fact that DH and BIL have very different ideas about how the business should be run will rear it's ugly head again"

This is insightful, I think ... you are right and, of course, no one knows how things will develop in the future.

"They could each give back 5%, so FIL would have 10% share and the deciding vote in any dispute"

A good idea. It could even be 1%! I seem to remember hearing of something called a 'voting share' being a possible solution in a similar disagreement. Indeed I think this would be harder for BIL to refuse and something that FIL and DH might be more comfortable about pushing hard for, especially as no-one can predict how FIL might vote on future issues.

I have a long term illness we have considered dh giving up work to care for me however we can't afford that. So we are going to use my dla to hire cleaners. My mum comes round when she is not working and we struggle through or if I'm really bad she changes her shifts to weekends to care for me. I am very lucky to have my mum but I do not expect this kind of help. This is the reality of how most people have to deal with severe illness they find a way to muddle through. I have friends who help out with cleaning too. Basically I survive on the goodwill and charity of others. But I always remember that it is given freely and I have no right to expect this if it were withdrawn then my husband would have to give up work. It's very simple.

Your bil is taking this piss well and truly. Tbh if you employ someone else it should all come out of his wages. Bil will be hard pushed to find another job willing to pay him to not work. It's very sad sil has ms but that's not your responsibility. I don't think it's fair for dh to be bought out I think either bil should pay for the hired help or bil should sell up. I think your dh and fil need to be firmer with him.

Yes, whilst BIL may hate the idea of giving FIL a legal voice, would he actually be man enough to turn him down to his face?

It's very odd that BIL is so blind to the inevitable consequences, i.e. That either dh gets ill and can't work and the farm goes under, or dh has to push for a sale.

Not wanting a stranger in the house, when SIL needs the help and support, is a weak reason to see a whole business fold. The carer would be someone SIL felt comfortable with, and would only be a stranger for a short time.