97 year old Burlingame woman is being evicted from the small home she has rented for 66 YEARS (loan, house)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They weren't double back then. The Bay Area was a backwards small town area back then. Property prices were maybe 50% or less a premium over the average. That would 180,000 aka the median price of fresno.
You are quite mistaken about the values and you can look it up as I did. But that aside, you are avoiding the key issue of revealing to us how you know her circumstances at the tme and over the years.
By the way, the mid-60's was when I arrived in the Bay Area courtesy of Uncle Sam. And it certainly was not a "backwards small town."
I know a 1950s rancher was 10,000 or less in Burlingame with in the time she stayed there.
That's not what I asked you. Do you know anything about her circumstances during her life? No, you don't. And $10,000 was a lot of money back then. Back then, women weren't even allowed to get their own checking account. How do you think she'd be able to get a home loan? Even if she were working (unlikely, but who knows), a receptionist's wage wouldn't cover it, unless she took in a renter.
the mid-60's was when I arrived in the Bay Area courtesy of Uncle Sam. And it certainly was not a "backwards small town."
100% agree.
I was a little kid at the time, but had relatives all over other parts of the Bay Area that we would visit often. Also, my grandparents took me on many all day Sunday drives. I got to see quite a bit. Less traffic and density than today....of course...."backwards small town"...hardly.
It's not clear if the home in question is actually included in the Trust. That comes from a recent article on this story. I did find out that the granddaughter who owned the house was in the process of divorcing Mr. Kantz and he inherited it by default after she was murdered by her boyfriend, Tony McClung. McClung is serving 11 years for voluntary manslaughter.
There are two properties in question. Mr. Kantz is in the process of selling one of them but this one is still in limbo. This home was purchased by Vivian Kruse in 1977 for $133,000. It's now valued at $1,875,000.00. (Marie had already been living there over 20 years by the time Kruse bought the house)
Kantz' attorney, Michael Liberty, stated that Kantz isn't aware of any such oral agreement between his now deceased wife (Pamela) and Marie Hatch. I doubt that but the guy can say whatever now because his wife was the owner and she's not here to state otherwise.
Ms. Hatch's attorney is looking into the possibility of enforcing the oral contract but I haven't found anything updating that information. I do know a lawsuit's been filed but not sure when it goes to court. This could be tied up in the courts for a couple years. I don't know about that but it does seem to give her more time to figure out what she's going to do, if anything. She may die before it's resolved. Hate to think that would happen but I know what happens to people in their 90's and faced with the prospect of leaving a home they've lived in most of their adult life. It's really sad to watch.
It's not clear if the home in question is actually included in the Trust. That comes from a recent article on this story. I did find out that the granddaughter who owned the house was in the process of divorcing Mr. Kantz and he inherited it by default after she was murdered by her boyfriend, Tony McClung. McClung is serving 11 years for voluntary manslaughter.
There are two properties in question. Mr. Kantz is in the process of selling one of them but this one is still in limbo. This home was purchased by Vivian Kruse in 1977 for $133,000. It's now valued at $1,875,000.00. (Marie had already been living there over 20 years by the time Kruse bought the house)
Kantz' attorney, Michael Liberty, stated that Kantz isn't aware of any such oral agreement between his now deceased wife (Pamela) and Marie Hatch. I doubt that but the guy can say whatever now because his wife was the owner and she's not here to state otherwise.
Ms. Hatch's attorney is looking into the possibility of enforcing the oral contract but I haven't found anything updating that information. I do know a lawsuit's been filed but not sure when it goes to court. This could be tied up in the courts for a couple years. I don't know about that but it does seem to give her more time to figure out what she's going to do, if anything. She may die before it's resolved. Hate to think that would happen but I know what happens to people in their 90's and faced with the prospect of leaving a home they've lived in most of their adult life. It's really sad to watch.
Valuable new information . You refer to the deceased wife Pamela who was in the process of divorce as the granddaughter rather than the daughter, and there were sufficient assets to keep at least the two properties. I'm not saying this means there was a generation skipping trust, but those two points do make that scenario at least somewhat more likely. If this is the case, then Pamela could have been the sole remainderman and could have owned the house outright (Pamela's death 10 years ago = 29 years after the original purchase). If all of the income beneficiaries (parent/parents) predeceased Pamela, then that would trigger the ability for that generation skipping trust to be dissolved. The time limit would come into play if income beneficiaries were still alive when the time limit was reached. If all the above is the case, then Pamela could have created her own living trust and put the property in her living trust and recorded that 'new ownership' with the county. A pour over will can cover assets that the person neglected to put in the living trust. With no mortgage, no title insurance would have been required....no third party check to make sure that title was transferred from one trust to the other properly. Mr. Kantz likely wants to make sure any complications are resolved before the time limit he refers to comes into play with 'the trust' (could be some time frame Pamela put in a revocable living trust if she had one). Getting an offer on the property ASAP would make resolving any complications before the trust deadline more likely. The county isn't liable for any recording mistakes they make, and counties do make mistakes. I know, because this happened within my family in the Bay Area. The revocable living trust was recorded, but two old generation skipping trusts were listed as the owners. This came up when the property was sold. Fortunately, one of the co-trustees of those two old generation skipping trusts was still alive and signed off on the sale...no negative consequences.
I'm thinking Pamela was the sole remainderman of a generation skipping trust, created a revocable living trust, and put the house in it after the death of her last parent, because otherwise the house likely would have had to go through probate and some action likely would have been taken before ten years had passed. If the assets of the estates of Pamela and her parents -- A. Were under the allowed estate tax exemptions at the time of the last parent's death and at the time of Pamela's death, B. Were sufficiently liquid to pay the estate taxes out of liquid assets, or C. There was life insurance in place set up to pay the estate taxes, then any of these would explain why potential estate tax liability wouldn't have forced the sale of the house.
I thought it was stated on a link or a post earlier in this thread that the husband knew that there was an oral agreement that predated his wife's ownership and that his wife had reaffirmed this .
IIRC, someone stated earlier in this thread that real estate agreements in California that are over one year have to be in writing. If that is true, the only way that I can see that Marie Hatch (the 97 year old lady) could have any legitimate claim would be if Marie had a life estate that was part of the 'pre Vivian deed' (when the people who sold the house to Vivian held title), and then Vivian paid cash (no mortgage) for the house, put it in a generation skipping trust, and then Pamela put the house in a trust between the time her last parent died and the time she died, and that no encumbrances triggered a verification of title. That way, if all the transfers were done improperly, the 'pre Vivian title' could be showing as current. However, I don't think such a scenario would be very likely at all. When buying a property that had a 20 year renter in the guest house, I think it much more likely that Vivian would have made herself aware of every detail....which would also be consistent with a verbal agreement between Vivian and Marie. If there was already a life estate spelled out and recorded 'pre Vivian', then it is illogical that Vivian would have ever brought up a verbal agreement. IIRC, someone else earlier in this thread brought up that Vivian may have known that her verbal agreement with Marie wasn't enforceable, and that perhaps she just wanted to create good will and didn't think Marie would live so long.
Hmm...interesting. I thought in San Francisco there was a rental law about when evicting a renter you must live in it for a year? I'd contact a lawyer if I was her, and stay put!
Valuable new information . You refer to the deceased wife Pamela who was in the process of divorce as the granddaughter rather than the daughter, and there were sufficient assets to keep at least the two properties. I'm not saying this means there was a generation skipping trust, but those two points do make that scenario at least somewhat more likely. If this is the case, then Pamela could have been the sole remainderman and could have owned the house outright (Pamela's death 10 years ago = 29 years after the original purchase). If all of the income beneficiaries (parent/parents) predeceased Pamela, then that would trigger the ability for that generation skipping trust to be dissolved. The time limit would come into play if income beneficiaries were still alive when the time limit was reached. If all the above is the case, then Pamela could have created her own living trust and put the property in her living trust and recorded that 'new ownership' with the county. A pour over will can cover assets that the person neglected to put in the living trust. With no mortgage, no title insurance would have been required....no third party check to make sure that title was transferred from one trust to the other properly. Mr. Kantz likely wants to make sure any complications are resolved before the time limit he refers to comes into play with 'the trust' (could be some time frame Pamela put in a revocable living trust if she had one). Getting an offer on the property ASAP would make resolving any complications before the trust deadline more likely. The county isn't liable for any recording mistakes they make, and counties do make mistakes. I know, because this happened within my family in the Bay Area. The revocable living trust was recorded, but two old generation skipping trusts were listed as the owners. This came up when the property was sold. Fortunately, one of the co-trustees of those two old generation skipping trusts was still alive and signed off on the sale...no negative consequences.
I'm thinking Pamela was the sole remainderman of a generation skipping trust, created a revocable living trust, and put the house in it after the death of her last parent, because otherwise the house likely would have had to go through probate and some action likely would have been taken before ten years had passed. If the assets of the estates of Pamela and her parents -- A. Were under the allowed estate tax exemptions at the time of the last parent's death and at the time of Pamela's death, B. Were sufficiently liquid to pay the estate taxes out of liquid assets, or C. There was life insurance in place set up to pay the estate taxes, then any of these would explain why potential estate tax liability wouldn't have forced the sale of the house.
I thought it was stated on a link or a post earlier in this thread that the husband knew that there was an oral agreement that predated his wife's ownership and that his wife had reaffirmed this .
IIRC, someone stated earlier in this thread that real estate agreements in California that are over one year have to be in writing. If that is true, the only way that I can see that Marie Hatch (the 97 year old lady) could have any legitimate claim would be if Marie had a life estate that was part of the 'pre Vivian deed' (when the people who sold the house to Vivian held title), and then Vivian paid cash (no mortgage) for the house, put it in a generation skipping trust, and then Pamela put the house in a trust between the time her last parent died and the time she died, and that no encumbrances triggered a verification of title. That way, if all the transfers were done improperly, the 'pre Vivian title' could be showing as current. However, I don't think such a scenario would be very likely at all. When buying a property that had a 20 year renter in the guest house, I think it much more likely that Vivian would have made herself aware of every detail....which would also be consistent with a verbal agreement between Vivian and Marie. If there was already a life estate spelled out and recorded 'pre Vivian', then it is illogical that Vivian would have ever brought up a verbal agreement. IIRC, someone else earlier in this thread brought up that Vivian may have known that her verbal agreement with Marie wasn't enforceable, and that perhaps she just wanted to create good will and didn't think Marie would live so long.
Good info, RMESMH. First off, I have to fix a couple of errors in my previous post. The original owner was Vivian Kroeze, not Kruse. My error, sorry. She was the mother to Beatrice who took over ownership in the 70's. When Beatrice died in 2005, Pamela then became the legal owner. She was Beatrice's daughter.
I'm still not clear if there was a Trust set up when Vivian owned the home or if Beatrice set it up when she bought it. In any event, Pamela's untimely death in 2006 created a problem since it's still not clear (in public information) if her sons are listed as beneficiaries in the Trust. I would assume they are, though. I can't begrudge Mr. Kantz for exercising his right secure a future for his sons. I just don't understand why the hurry since the second property is in escrow and the tenant in that home is currently moving. That tenant is in her 50's and has found another place to live.
It's been mentioned in this thread that Ms. Hatch should have just purchased the property. Her former line of work was that of a bakery worker. Not a very high paying job, even back in the 50's. I read that she has one son who is in his 70's with health problems of his own. He lives close by but, from what I've read, lives in a small apartment. Everyone in this situation is living on a fixed income and from the sounds of it, never worked in any sector where they made a huge amount of money. I think a lot of people today think the older generation have created a boatload of wealth for their golden years (which usually aren't gold but rather brass). That's simply not true.
You're right about Vivian and that she may have known the verbal agreement wasn't enforceable but I think this thing went beyond a simple business deal. There was a real friendship that developed and, over time, just transcended to the the next generation and then the next.
Just my thoughts on this ... It's strange and sad how Pamela's death created a scenario where the future of Ms. Hatch's life - especially at her age - would be turned upside down. It's a good business lesson. Friendships are wonderful but consideration has to be made when it comes to property ownership and how it will be handled if the owner suddenly dies.
The grandmother of the 'beneficiary kids' is the one who made the initial promise to the now 97 year old woman. If that grandmother and grandfather had enough assets, they could have had separate generation skipping trusts rather than a one generation revocable living trust, the latter of which usually ends up with the result you indicated above. Why? Because that would reduce the size of their estate for estate tax purposes, as the generation skipping trust would actually own those assets upon their death, the children would be the income beneficiaries of those trusts, and the grandchildren would be the remaindermen. Time limits can be included in such trusts. There CAN be the intent, per the trust documents, that a property be owned 50% by the child (the mother who was murdered in this case) and 25% each by the grandfather's generation skipping trust and the grandmother's generation skipping trust. Remember, for a long time, the estate tax exemption was MUCH lower than it is now.
If the murdered mom was the remainderman of the trust (maybe the great-grandmother lent the grandparents the money to buy the house and insisted on being the one on the title and initiated the trust), one way for the remainderman or remaindermen to be fairly certain the property title is clear of that trust is to sell the property.
It is my understanding that those under the age of majority still can't directly inherit, at least in California...that a trust is necessary. In the absence of a trust??? IDK, I guess there would be a default to a government entity to look out for the interest of the kids . Affluent grandparents in general, if both within a couple are still alive when the youngest grandchild reaches majority for this purpose, may need to change their wills and trust documents to reflect this.
Also, as another poster pointed out, the promise between the grandmother and the now 97 year old lady would have to have been in writing (being over 1 year in duration) to be enforceable.
Wow! Thank you for explaining how it works Trusts are a lot more complicated than I thought and I never even heard of skipping trusts. The oral agreement between the grandmother and the 97 year old lady was okay back in earlier times when a person's word was as good as gold, but these days everything should be in writing. It's a different world we live in now.
Good info, RMESMH. First off, I have to fix a couple of errors in my previous post. The original owner was Vivian Kroeze, not Kruse. My error, sorry. She was the mother to Beatrice who took over ownership in the 70's. When Beatrice died in 2005, Pamela then became the legal owner. She was Beatrice's daughter.
I'm still not clear if there was a Trust set up when Vivian owned the home or if Beatrice set it up when she bought it. In any event, Pamela's untimely death in 2006 created a problem since it's still not clear (in public information) if her sons are listed as beneficiaries in the Trust. I would assume they are, though. I can't begrudge Mr. Kantz for exercising his right secure a future for his sons. I just don't understand why the hurry since the second property is in escrow and the tenant in that home is currently moving. That tenant is in her 50's and has found another place to live.[
If I'm following correctly from above re the timeline (Vivian purchased in 1977 and died sometime before 2005, that Beatrice is Vivian's daughter and Beatrice died in 2005, and that Pamela is Beatrice's daughter and Pamela died in 2006), and given the great additional information you list above, my explanation from my previous post makes even more sense. I'll explain why. IMO, the part of your information above that is most key is that it is not clear in public information (publicly available information) if Pamela's sons are listed as beneficiaries in the trust. This would be consistent with Pamela having her own living revocable trust. Generally, the two main reasons for creating a living revocable trust are - 1. Privacy and 2. To avoid probate. It has been over 20 years since I created my living trust...in the Bay Area, but not in San Mateo County. IIRC, I had to file part of the trust with the county but not the part that revealed assets or beneficiaries. However, people could have learned that I have a living trust by searching public real estate records. In some states, you don't have to file the living trust with a county/the government at all while you (the creator of the trust) are still alive. I'm guessing San Mateo County residents enjoy even more privacy than my old Bay Area county. Bing Crosby was a resident of San Mateo County. He had a living trust. The only reason the public knew that he had a living trust was that trust assets included real estate, and title to that real estate was held in the name of his living trust. Presumably his wife and kids were the beneficiaries of his living trust, but that information wasn't made public, AFAIK. In the scenario on this thread, if Pamela had a living trust and put the Burlingame property in it, all that would be part of the public real estate records as far as the title is concerned is the name of the living trust (which can be anything...even something whimsical), not the beneficiaries. A generation skipping trust often includes the names of the trustees and the beneficiaries as part of the name of the trust.
If Pamela had her own living trust, it's great that she would have gotten her ducks in a row fairly quickly...after her mother's death and before her death the next year. I'm also betting that, given the other property that had a renter in her 50s, and that estate taxes never forced a sale, that there were other assets and that Vivian created a generation skipping trust with Beatrice as the income beneficiary and Pamela as the remainderman. Pamela could then have dissolved Vivian's trust after Beatrice's death, and put the Burlingame property in the name of her own living trust.
My living trust doesn't impose any deadlines, and neither do any of the living trusts that I'm familiar with within my family. That said, generation skipping trusts can impose deadlines, and I haven't heard of any law that would prevent such provisions for living trusts. Given the particular situation of this 'thread family', I'd think a deadline would make sense. Mr. Kantz lived out of the area, so disposal of trust real estate assets would be more difficult as a part of a daily routine. With that in mind, perhaps Pamela wanted to have in place that all trust assets be liquidated before her kids would likely enter college, with the kids likely living with their dad until then in the event of her death. It is my understanding that legal separation doesn't exist in California unless both spouses agree, so the lack of more references to 'in the process of divorce' isn't surprising.
Quote:
You're right about Vivian and that she may have known the verbal agreement wasn't enforceable but I think this thing went beyond a simple business deal. There was a real friendship that developed and, over time, just transcended to the the next generation and then the next.
Just my thoughts on this ... It's strange and sad how Pamela's death created a scenario where the future of Ms. Hatch's life - especially at her age - would be turned upside down. It's a good business lesson. Friendships are wonderful but consideration has to be made when it comes to property ownership and how it will be handled if the owner suddenly dies.
I imagine Vivian, Beatrice, and Pamela all assumed Pamela would outlive both Marie and the other 'cottage mate'. Remember what happens when someone assumes or people assume . I agree with you though, the current situation is sad...and also regrettable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. You refer to the deceased wife Pamela who was in the process of divorce as the granddaughter rather than the daughter, and there were sufficient assets to keep at least the two properties. I'm not saying this means there was a generation skipping trust, but those two points do make that scenario at least somewhat more likely. If this is the case, then Pamela could have been the sole remainderman and could have owned the house outright (Pamela's death 10 years ago = 29 years after the original purchase). If all of the income beneficiaries (parent/parents) predeceased Pamela, then that would trigger the ability for that generation skipping trust to be dissolved. The time limit would come into play if income beneficiaries were still alive when the time limit was reached. If all the above is the case, then Pamela could have created her own living trust and put the property in her living trust and recorded that 'new ownership' with the county. A pour over will can cover assets that the person neglected to put in the living trust. With no mortgage, no title insurance would have been required....no third party check to make sure that title was transferred from one trust to the other properly. Mr. Kantz likely wants to make sure any complications are resolved before the time limit he refers to comes into play with 'the trust' (could be some time frame Pamela put in a revocable living trust if she had one). Getting an offer on the property ASAP would make resolving any complications before the trust deadline more likely. The county isn't liable for any recording mistakes they make, and counties do make mistakes. I know, because this happened within my family in the Bay Area. The revocable living trust was recorded, but two old generation skipping trusts were listed as the owners. This came up when the property was sold. Fortunately, one of the co-trustees of those two old generation skipping trusts was still alive and signed off on the sale...no negative consequences.
.
She was the mother to Beatrice who took over ownership in the 70's. When Beatrice died in 2005, Pamela then became the legal owner. She was Beatrice's daughter. 
. Affluent grandparents in general, if both within a couple are still alive when the youngest grandchild reaches majority for this purpose, may need to change their wills and trust documents to reflect this.
. I agree with you though, the current situation is sad...and also regrettable.
