I'm not even going to start to argue this one But,the ones I know that stay on the homeplace are the ones that do all the work,and theres ALOT of work,and have BOUGHT the place off the parents then the ones who leave come back and want what they think was theres because they were born there! Boy I could go on and on about what people think is there birth right,sorry I believe that you work for the rights don't get born into them...IMHOtheHiredMansWife said:
At a Loss
- Thread starter S CO rancher
- Start date
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Thats a completely different story. We were talking about when the folks give the place to the kid(s).
And a lot of people give each kid an equal share because to pick one over any other leaves a lot of hurt feelings.
Ok I'll give you that,but also have a hard time seeing where the one that stays home and works the land deserves the same as the ones that don't...often the ones off the place are WAY better off then the ones that stayed home! Sorry,this is a sore spot for us, we bought place from gregs parents...family still thinks its thier place,want royalties ect from wells,always coming and going through things to take home with them,setting up camp in our yard at whim...yada,yada,yadatheHiredMansWife said:
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
The grass is always greener....
"Better off" is a frame of mind. A lot of people (this has been discussed numerous times here on the board) are perfectly happy to take the drop in pay/benefits/etc. to have the opportunity to farm or ranch. But if that opportunity is taken away because the home place won't support everyone and Mom and Dad can't afford to help you buy anything else...?
"Better off" isn't necessarily better.
And I can understand your complaint. I'd be a bit irked, too.
What I meant was "better off" was having more money,because my opinion thats often what it comes down to is money with family members that don't stay on the homeplace,they would be just as happy to sell the place and take the money,no interest in the place.As far as being "Better off" life wise,I pick us 
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
That's my point.
So would a lot of those who are "better off" off the home place.
While I know for a fact there are those exactly like you've described, I also know for a fact that there are those who never wanted anything more in the world than to farm or ranch. And weren't allowed to because there was already another kid who got to run it...
So would a lot of those who are "better off" off the home place.
While I know for a fact there are those exactly like you've described, I also know for a fact that there are those who never wanted anything more in the world than to farm or ranch. And weren't allowed to because there was already another kid who got to run it...
Faster horses
Well-known member
The kids that left home probably have a retirement built up.
Where is the retirement for the one that stayed home? Some
of the places would have had to have been sold long ago if
none of the kids wanted to stay home and work the place.
I know about this scenerio because it happened to a family we know.
Two of the boys went away and had careers, (one a veterinarian and one a teacher.) The oldest stayed on the place, worked with dad and didn't make much while he was there and has no retirement. He is probably worse off financially than either of the others. And make no mistake, the mom and dad could not have handled it by themselves. Now dad has passed away and the same son is there doing the work of two men and he is at least 55 years old now.
So what do you think is fair and proper in that situation?
Where is the retirement for the one that stayed home? Some
of the places would have had to have been sold long ago if
none of the kids wanted to stay home and work the place.
I know about this scenerio because it happened to a family we know.
Two of the boys went away and had careers, (one a veterinarian and one a teacher.) The oldest stayed on the place, worked with dad and didn't make much while he was there and has no retirement. He is probably worse off financially than either of the others. And make no mistake, the mom and dad could not have handled it by themselves. Now dad has passed away and the same son is there doing the work of two men and he is at least 55 years old now.
So what do you think is fair and proper in that situation?
Shelly
Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
I kind of relate to this situation. My husband's brothers and sisters all left the farm to either farm on their own or get paying jobs. My husband came back to the farm at 18 and has stayed ever since. He will be 45 this year. In the father's will, most of the farm is left to us. I'm dreading the day his father dies, because each and every one of them will come back hollering and screaming how the will is unfair to them all. They all will be looking for more than what is divvied out to them through the will. It's going to be a battle, and we may lose.
Faster horses
Well-known member
How could you lose, if that is how he dictated he wanted things to be?
I'm thinking for the first time in my life, that I'm lucky to be an
only child.
My dad passed away last August and there is none of
this dreaded family stuff. He had a will and we abided by it.
I'm thinking for the first time in my life, that I'm lucky to be an
only child.
My dad passed away last August and there is none of
this dreaded family stuff. He had a will and we abided by it.
I totally understand Shelly,my mother-in-law is pallative,and family is already talking about what money she has and where its going..Gregs dad put mineral rights in all his kids names,the rights are on our land...we had siesmic go through and now are putting a well on...Gregs oldest brother wanted the money from the surface activity put into the mineral right account...gregs quiet,kind guy BUT whoa that pissed him off,said no darn way,we bought the land its our money....don't think its going to be a close family after gregs mom passes
Brad S
Well-known member
First, the ol' decide if you want to work here then we'll talk money is a trap. How can you decide if you want to work if you don't know compensation? Well you're stuck in this deal so go into the meeting with "I don't have enough info to decide on employment, but I'd like to consider employment with a little more information.
You're right about gutting a sale. you need "the good stuff" to draw a large crowd. If they want something at fair market price, ask them to help you in the auction. If you have to, blame it on the siblings, say they're afraid you're giving a prospective employer a sweatheart deal.
You're right about gutting a sale. you need "the good stuff" to draw a large crowd. If they want something at fair market price, ask them to help you in the auction. If you have to, blame it on the siblings, say they're afraid you're giving a prospective employer a sweatheart deal.
Cowpuncher
Well-known member
S CO
We have a different problem, but with some of the same reprecussions.
Our ranch in Eastern Colorado is fairly large, but not really profitable. Our son in the military wants to take over in a few years when he completes his service. His military pension will be more than the ranch makes in a poor year.
Taking his situation into account, we have decided to sell the ranch and give our son and daughter each half of whatever is left after the vultures are fed.
Our reasoning is that Daughter-in-Law is not a rural person and almost certainly would not be able to cope with endless days of cold wind in the winter and less than palatial accomodations. Our daughter and son-in-law have no real desire to ranch and no clue as to how things work.
We will give each of the kids half since neither ever worked on the ranch. I doubt that our daughter could even find the place.
I am hoping that someone will buy the place, cattle, equipment ald all and continue with what we were working for.
We have a different problem, but with some of the same reprecussions.
Our ranch in Eastern Colorado is fairly large, but not really profitable. Our son in the military wants to take over in a few years when he completes his service. His military pension will be more than the ranch makes in a poor year.
Taking his situation into account, we have decided to sell the ranch and give our son and daughter each half of whatever is left after the vultures are fed.
Our reasoning is that Daughter-in-Law is not a rural person and almost certainly would not be able to cope with endless days of cold wind in the winter and less than palatial accomodations. Our daughter and son-in-law have no real desire to ranch and no clue as to how things work.
We will give each of the kids half since neither ever worked on the ranch. I doubt that our daughter could even find the place.
I am hoping that someone will buy the place, cattle, equipment ald all and continue with what we were working for.
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
There's no easy answer. that's what I was driving at in my first post...
Shelly
Well-known member
Faster horses said:
My husband and I are the outsiders of the family. There's been bad feelings between him and his siblings for awhile now. If they want to, they could band together and contest the will, and they could win. Husband's dad has been sliding with Alzheimers for a few years now, they could say we coerced him into putting the will to our advantage. My thoughts on the whole deal is, we are the ones who stayed, we are the ones who worked the land and raised the cattle. We, by rights, should get the most out of the estate.
Faster horses
Well-known member
When you get a will made, it says above the signature something about 'being of sound mind' and there have to be witnesses.
I don't think they would stand a chance breaking that will if it was
signed, witnessed and dated. Let them spend A LOT of money finding out.
Death seems to bring out the best and the worst in families. I don't get it.
I don't think they would stand a chance breaking that will if it was
signed, witnessed and dated. Let them spend A LOT of money finding out.
Death seems to bring out the best and the worst in families. I don't get it.
the_jersey_lilly_2000
Well-known member
It also has alot to do with who is in charge of having the will probated. Executrix (sp) ??
I know in Texas anyone can be named Executrix and if they don't want to do it, then the paper the will is written on is worthless, and nothin in the will is put into effect.
Mr Lilly had a great aunt and uncle.....the uncle was his grandads brother. They had no children. He had alot of land, and quiet a bit of money, in his will it was all to be divided among his neices and nephews upon her death. She was to live off the interest until that time. She was the executrix and never had the will probated. In the end, when she died, none of the land or money was given to the nieces and nephews, but was given to a neice on her side of the family.
The only way to avoid that kind situation is to not let anyone in the family be executrix. Let the attorney do it. Then at the time of death, he's bound by law to probate it.
We are in a situation that's all set up. Mr Lilly has one brother, who's not interested in ranching at all. They've already surveyed the land and they both know which piece is theres. We don't run any cows on his side. If we never start then we won't hafta worry about cuttin back the herd when we take actual posession of the property. Helps too that there's a highway runnin right down the middle....ours on one side, his on the other side. Will also states that if his brother doesn't want his piece of land and wants to sell, it must be offered to Mr Lilly for whatever the value is stated per acre on the tax roll. Not what outrageous prices the land is goin for around here. upwards of 6000 to 10000 an acre, and it's valued on the tax rolls at 1200 an acre. Not that we'd be able to come up with that even, but that's how they did it. Suits them both fine.
I know in Texas anyone can be named Executrix and if they don't want to do it, then the paper the will is written on is worthless, and nothin in the will is put into effect.
Mr Lilly had a great aunt and uncle.....the uncle was his grandads brother. They had no children. He had alot of land, and quiet a bit of money, in his will it was all to be divided among his neices and nephews upon her death. She was to live off the interest until that time. She was the executrix and never had the will probated. In the end, when she died, none of the land or money was given to the nieces and nephews, but was given to a neice on her side of the family.
The only way to avoid that kind situation is to not let anyone in the family be executrix. Let the attorney do it. Then at the time of death, he's bound by law to probate it.
We are in a situation that's all set up. Mr Lilly has one brother, who's not interested in ranching at all. They've already surveyed the land and they both know which piece is theres. We don't run any cows on his side. If we never start then we won't hafta worry about cuttin back the herd when we take actual posession of the property. Helps too that there's a highway runnin right down the middle....ours on one side, his on the other side. Will also states that if his brother doesn't want his piece of land and wants to sell, it must be offered to Mr Lilly for whatever the value is stated per acre on the tax roll. Not what outrageous prices the land is goin for around here. upwards of 6000 to 10000 an acre, and it's valued on the tax rolls at 1200 an acre. Not that we'd be able to come up with that even, but that's how they did it. Suits them both fine.
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
Me too.
Unfortunately, there's rarely anything "iron clad" about a will in any state. They're easily challenged, and unfortunately, all too often changed or ignored.
Unfortunately, there's rarely anything "iron clad" about a will in any state. They're easily challenged, and unfortunately, all too often changed or ignored.