Farm inheritance - ILs should give farm to DH now

[farmerswife7]

I'll start by saying I know inheritance is never guaranteed not an entitlement etc and that we are very very lucky with what we do have now and what my DH will inherit.

I will also state I am not from a farming background and my mum rents so inheritance isn't something I have ever considered. I have always stayed out of what is said in DHs family as it didn't seem like my business.

We met with a solicitor recently to get our wills drawn up, mainly in order to have guardianship set out for DC.

We rent our house from ILs at a very reasonable rate. Both ILs are in their late 70s, they live in the main farm house, we live in a smaller older one.

DH works a lot on their farm. Thankfully FIL is still very fit/ active but understandably is slowing down. DH does not get a wage for this, but as I said we have lower rent.

I originally wanted to buy our own house. But this would have an impact on DH's inheritance tax, there is a farm relief scheme, we are in Ireland. So we didn't buy a house. DH also said there is no point as we will eventually inherit the whole farm and will need to live in the main farm house.

Now the solicitor brought it up when we went in and said about it being better for them to sign it over to DH now in case they end up in nursing homes a lot of the land could end up going in fees.

My DH went with my ILs about a year ago to see an accountant who advised that they sign it all over to DH now. They agreed. But then MIL when to a solicitor who advised against it so they didn't.

I'm a little worried about our financial future now. 1st and foremost I do not want ILs to end up in nursing homes. I genuinely do love them and want them around for as long as possible. DH says "they wouldn't go to one ever" but my uncle is currently in one suffering with Alzheimer's I don't think he thought he would go for one.

I mostly just wanted to vent my frustration.

AIBU to want my ILs to give the farm to DH now? They would still live in the main farm house and receive the farm income btw.

I think you're on the right track but I'd nearly set up a new household account that you both pay into, after working out what's needed each month. Otherwise it could seem like he's 'giving you money' as if it's optional, or a favour when he really sees it as your responsibility.

Definitely make him draw a real wage each month. It's the quickest way to see if a business is actually generating money and won't give him the idea that it's all his money to reinvest. What's left in the business at the year end after he draws that wage and pays taxes can be invested in machinery or whatever.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. With a lot of inheritance, there is this desire on the part of older generations to be liked and not make difficult decisions but to just kick the problem down the road enough until it isn't their issue anymore. In contrast, the younger generation can feel it is impolite to ask details or worry about being accused of being grabby.

The consequences can be long lasting though. In the example I gave above about the 3 siblings tied to the one house. If the two siblings that do the caring pass away first, you have a very complex situation of the grandchildren of the original owner coming into the mix as well, creating a legal, logistical and moral nightmare to figure out. Basically because 20 years ago someone wasn't prepared to have a difficult conversation. Thankfully, everyone in the family is lovely and I don't envisage it becoming a financial bun fight. Inevitably, though, the brunt of the situation has fallen to the women in the family to do the hard yards of making it work.

V meaning verse or compare and contrast your individual statements and if/how/why they can be factually correct at the same time.

It would be only usefully to S117 claim for some provision not the full farm.

DH would claim that PIL are
a) currently funding some of his lifestyle and
b) he is due the farm in exchange for work done on the farm.

imagine both DH and BIL were in the same position for (a) and only DH can claim for (b)

Court can do the maths for an annual number

(Expected Holiday let income p.a. less reduced rate rent) +
(Expected open market rental income for Yard less current zero rental charged but funding for sheds is a payment ) +
(Expected open market rental income from land cattle are on less current whatever was agreed / paid over each year)

This gives an annual income euro value.

Only if PIL are loosing income are they choosing to part fund their childs lifestyle.
The Court applys a life expectancy calculation to what both would get if the Estate ( not PIL) "outlived" them.
(Zero by 20 years is still zero)

Court rules (a) is true.
So cash is due to DH and BIL.
The Estate has to pay its debts first, which is the value of the Ruling in (a) and then the remainder is "the Farm".

The Court look at the rental payments a second time as evidence on DH's claim (b) [the farm] and could decide that it is proof the PIL only gave a Mate's Rate discount to DH with zero intention to create a "contract".

Court rules (b) is not true.
PIL's will stands.

@LacyRuby

FYI
Its a pre-probate and time limited issue

No connection just a link to a solicitor who was clever enough to nab the probate www..

https://www.probate.ie/the-succession-act-1965/#:~:text=S117%20merely%20gives%20a%20child,for%20provision%20to%20be%20made.

.