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.
"But who knows; maybe some of them or their children turn out to be losers and may eventually want to touch this property. Therefore, I need a way beyond moral persuasion to control this property permanently."
Do you really not see how terrible the OP is being?
He is being WONDERFUL. I can't imagine how anyone could have a problem with it. I have no idea where you're coming from mocking a man for trying to do something wonderful for his family at no cost to you. If I had to explain your position, I could not put a single word after "because".
Just some antedontal info. My dad's friend, now about 80 has been enjoying a cabin on a lake his parents left him and his brother. Brother has lived in California for 50 years or more (we are in Minnesota) My dad's friend, Joe has paid taxes, upkeep and renovations since forever. Brother has been back to Minnesota a few times but not in the last 25-30 years. California brother never paid for any taxes etc.
California brother died a few years ago now his widow is asking to be bought out on his brother's half of cabin. Joe's brother never asked to be compensated or bought out for his half ever. It's a now very widely popular lake, expensive piece of property. He so far has just ignored any requests and doubts his SIL has the were withal to follow going to court over this.
Joe was always hoping to leave the place to his 3 daughters... That's the end of this story, so far anyway.
It seems that you have to establish ownership of the property in order to set up a trust or other legal instrument to negate the time limit on not probating the estate. You've come full circle.
The OP needs to also consider that he is handing over a perpetual property tax liability to his descendants. If he doesn't set aside assets to fund the taxes in perpetuity, its going to become an issue in the future. The only certainties are that not all of his descendants will want to split this bill in an equitable way (nor should they want to) and that this will create conflict.
I think his best bet is to deed a small lot with the actual building to a single descendant that is most likely to honor his wishes. The surrounding property should be given to a land conservancy that specifies allowable uses for his descendants. Also, realize that not all land conservancy's require that land return to a natural state. I've heard of some that allow the land to be conserved for its original use (such as farming with a $1 annual 99 year lease to the desired party).
In order to do this, the OP would have to wait 20+ years for his kids to grow up, and then to see which one, if any, was interested in keeping the property. Also, the OP has said he wants it to be passed down and made use of beyond his children's generation, and even their children's generation. Even if he waited 50 years for his kids to grow up, have kids, and for his grandkids to grow up, to see which of the grandkids had a strong interest in the property, he couldn't control what would happen to the property after that generation. Generation-skipping trusts (which are about avoiding probate taxes for one generation) don't go further than 2 generations, AFAIK, or perhaps as another poster said--no further than any generations in existence at the time the trust was established.
The OP needs to also consider that he is handing over a perpetual property tax liability to his descendants. If he doesn't set aside assets to fund the taxes in perpetuity, its going to become an issue in the future. The only certainties are that not all of his descendants will want to split this bill in an equitable way (nor should they want to) and that this will create conflict.
I think his best bet is to deed a small lot with the actual building to a single descendant that is most likely to honor his wishes. The surrounding property should be given to a land conservancy that specifies allowable uses for his descendants. Also, realize that not all land conservancy's require that land return to a natural state. I've heard of some that allow the land to be conserved for its original use (such as farming with a $1 annual 99 year lease to the desired party).
Good suggestion.
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.
