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.
Since the property was never probated, and the troublesome relative has already received a portion of the property - they may very well not be entitled to anything in a forced sale. Just a guess considering the idea of selling the property is to fairly compensate all parties.
Basically, the status of the land within the estate hasn't been settled and possibly none of the 'parcels' has been property deeded to heirs. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to threaten legal action on the entirety of the land.
The dissident grandson probably sees the designation of environmental protection of some of the land as a scheme for to keep the real estate taxes depressed and to make it unattractive for development. Since the land was originally farmland, taxes were already very low for residential use. But that was probably due to change since you say it's now in the middle of the town.
The best way to maximize the value would be to consolidate the land and to enter into a limited partnership with the developer to receive the proceeds when the property or its components are sold off as projects complete. The wetlands could be set aside for park and recreational use, while allowing the development on the remaining land to get a higher FAR for townhouses and condos.
That's the opposite of what most of us want. The idea is to keep the property out of the hands of development. It ids just this one person who thinks he is going to make a fortune.
What the 12 people want to do is noble, but what right do they have to force the last one to not sell?
You guys should be thinking of a solution that meet both goals, rather than simply fighting the law suit. When a solution is found, the law suit goes away.
I can think of a couple of directions:
-- Have the land professionally appraised, then the 12 people buy out the share of the 13th person.
-- Carve out a piece to fetch enough to pay the 13th person.
-- Put the word out there, I bet someone will contribute if you set it in stone that the land will be conserved forever.
These events happened decades ago. It may also be that the plots now legally belong to the respective relatives via uncontested, open land occupation and use.
Depending upon the way title to the land is actually held, he may have very little power at all.
What he is asking for is a partition...typically when that occurs you have an appraiser come in to give a value to the land as a whole. Once fair market value is established special circumstances are then considered. In this case I see the wildlife easement where the development rights were sold to the state crushing the value of that property. The remaining property may be rife with other problems that would reduce the fair market value. Such things would be cost of survey, overlapping improvements, chance of litigation as multiple family members lay claim to various parts of the land, etc.
When its all said/done the appraiser is going to drastically lower the value of the property based upon the other issues. It is highely unlikely a judge will actually order the property partitioned. Rather the judge will allow the other family members to buy out this other relative, at the value established by the appraiser after all the things that lower the cost are taken into consideration. Most likely this relative is going to end up getting far less than you have already offered.
This is just my guess as to how it may be handled.
Basically, the appraiser said lots are worth $100k to $120k so long as it is buildable. I don't quite buy that in this case, but that is not my decision to make. According to the judge and the lawyer, it all gets sold. Family has first dibs to buy any land they want, but you still have to figure out how to finance that part. And ultimately the courts and lawyers and all other people get their share out if the proceeds first.
So that is our strategy - show him how little he is going to end up getting if he continues. The fact that this argument seems to have such little sway with him tells me that he has something else up his sleeve.
If the state has an endangered plant species law with some teeth to it, and some listed species were found on the property, it would make it worthless for development. Just a thought.
This may have more value for him and his family in the long run. Even if the property doesn't get developed now, he now has legal ownership of part of the land.
So he has claimed that they are willing to settle for one of thee lots, which everyone else seems agreeable to. That was last Friday. Only I just found out that he met with the lawyer/commissioner who is handling the case through the court this morning on the property, without informing anyone else. I am trying to tell myself he was probably just meeting with him to try and slow him down, only I really don't believe that.
So, we had made a deal with that family that they were willing to settle for that lot, only everyone had to agree to it. Everyone else said they agreed. On the phone, anyways. Then, one other family decided that they did not want to settle and in fact want it all to be sold as well (we know they have been talking because of certain things that were said, but that is beside the point). so now we have to come up with a way to settle this. Selling off two lots is going to end up having to put at least one remaining family in a bad spot, so the fighting begins all over again.
Anyway, so I just purchased my father's house and land. Haven't even made the first payment yet. There is quite a bit off land associated with it. One of our neighbors has now initiated talks about wanting to purchase some of it (there is some commercially zoned land there). Enough that it would give me the money to buy out those two shares. Only the question then comes up, how do I work that out having just gotten a mortgage? Talking to the appraiser, he said the land value doesn't count that much in the valuation he put on the property. Can I just adjust the mortgage? I would have enough that I could pay down some of the principle. Or would we have to pay off that mortgage and get a new one? And is that even possible if you only just took out a mortgage?
Oh vey, this is getting complicated.
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.
