entitled to share proceeds of land sale?

[I'mTheFather]

Nope, just curious. And maybe a little annoyed that you ignored the question from one of the most knowledgeable posters re probate on the site.

He did keep it over a year. How long would he have had to keep it in order for you to be satisfied that he honored the terms of the will?

 

[user163127]

You really don't need to be guessing your Aunt's intention.

Really.

You have absolutely no idea what she was thinking at the time. It's possible that there was a solid rolling of eyes and a muttered "Okay fine...give the little snots $1000 each or something just to shut them up".

I know THAT was not possible. Anyway, I'm not guessing her intentions. I'm not challenging the Will. I've given you portions of the Will, and she clearly did not give my brother the property in a straightforward manner, but instead attached grammar and language, and which deserves some scrutiny.

Based on the language of the Will, my brother would NOT get the proceeds of the sale directly, since the sale would be through the executor. Why should this "detail," the manner in which the property be sold, be of any concern while writing her will? As if my brother was qualified to be an executor of a will but not able to sell a property he inherited THROUGH THE SAME WILL?

Is the Will, or this portion of it, badly worded? If it is WELL worded, then what does this portion of the Will mean?

 

[Proserpina]

I know THAT was not possible.

No, you don't.

Anyway, I'm not guessing her intentions.

Yes, you are.

I'm not challenging the Will. I've given you portions of the Will, and she clearly did not give my brother the property in a straightforward manner, but instead attached grammar and language, and which deserves some scrutiny.

Based on the language of the Will, my brother would NOT get the proceeds of the sale directly, since the sale would be through the executor. Why should this "detail," the manner in which the property be sold, be of any concern while writing her will? As if my brother was qualified to be an executor of a will but not able to sell a property he inherited THROUGH THE SAME WILL?

Is the Will, or this portion of it, badly worded? If it is WELL worded, then what does this portion of the Will mean?

Take it to an attorney.

 

[user163127]

Nope, just curious. And maybe a little annoyed that you ignored the question from one of the most knowledgeable posters re probate on the site.

He did keep it over a year. How long would he have had to keep it in order for you to be satisfied that he honored the terms of the will?

But he didn't keep it for "over a year." He put it on the market right away, which means he "didn't want it." He wasn't able to explore options for use of the land because he lives in California. He put the land up for sale immediately and never intended to use and never wanted it.

 

[user163127]

No, you don't.




Prosperpina, review all my posts. She didn't think of me and my siblings as "brats." This was not her mindset, quite the opposite. She could have given her things away to her friends and cousins (she never married), instead she gave EVERYTHING she had to me and my siblings, and was very close to her only sibling, my father. If he was alive she probably would have given everything to him. She was very devoted to what family she had (me and my siblings), and always said that "blood is thicker than water."

 

[anteater]

Probate closed over a year ago.

If you're thinking my brother's role as executor has ended, that still leaves the matter of the $1,000 in escrow. Neither the executor or his legal advisors game me any deadlines or warnings about forfeiting the $1,000. In fact, if my brother somehow got back the $1,000 that he put in escrow for me, it seems it now can be said that he has failed to satisfy the condition regarding paying each of his siblings $1,000 in order to have ever received the land. Especially because I explained to him, in his role as executor, why I was declining the $1,000, and for which the escrow was established. I told him at the time, "in case you ever sell the property, and there is the potential I may share in the proceeds, I want to keep that option open."

If probate closed, then your brother has been released from his duties as executor. And since you refused the $1,000, it is probably sitting in an account under the court's supervision slowly gathering moss.

Therefore, you have two choices:

1) Consult with an attorney. (And don't make the attorney pull teeth like we have had to.)

2) Contact the Orphans Court to see how to get the $1,000.

 

[Zigner]

But he didn't keep it for "over a year." He put it on the market right away, which means he "didn't want it." He wasn't able to explore options for use of the land because he lives in California. He put the land up for sale immediately and never intended to use and never wanted it.

He DID use it. He used it as a means of making money. Therefor, he DID want it.

I'm sorry you don't like what you're hearing, but you really need to open your mind just a bit.

 

[Zigner]

I think my aunt's intent was that if my brother didn't want the land, that it should be sold and the proceeds divided among the nieces and nephews (who are my siblings), which is how she divided everything else up, according to her "share and share alike" philosophy which appears directly in her Will.

I agree. But your brother did want it, so the point is moot.

Look - your aunt probably screwed up. But her intent is communicated by her will. If she intended something different, then she should have said something different.

 

[justalayman]

user163127;3273766]You can "want to keep it," and you can "want to sell it."

the criteria was not that he wanted to KEEP it. Only whether he WANTED it or not so your nuance issue is irrelevant.

 

[Stephen1]

How long was brother required to retain the land? Forever? Never selling, giving, or otherwise transferring it?

In retrospect, maybe brother should have offered to sell it, at fair market rate, to OP. OP could have used the $1,000 as part of the down payment. But he didn't nor was he tasked by the will to retain it in the family.

 

[user163127]

How long was brother required to retain the land? Forever? Never selling, giving, or otherwise transferring it?

In retrospect, maybe brother should have offered to sell it, at fair market rate, to OP. OP could have used the $1,000 as part of the down payment. But he didn't nor was he tasked by the will to retain it in the family.

I actually thought of that myself, even at the time, why not offer the land to me or my siblings. Like I said, we do communicate with email - you'd think he might tell me "hey bro, I sold that damn property out in the country, hi five."

Since when do people only do what is "legally required?" He's my brother, and until the Will there were no issues between us, we always got along very well. He's evidently become very alienated from me and I don't know why.

 

[Zigner]

Since when do people only do what is "legally required?" He's my brother, and until the Will there were no issues between us, we always got along very well. He's evidently become very alienated from me and I don't know why.

This is a legal board. He did what was legally allowed and required. The rest of your issues are interpersonal issues and not properly addressed by this forum.

 

[user163127]

How long was brother required to retain the land? Forever? Never selling, giving, or otherwise transferring it?

In retrospect, maybe brother should have offered to sell it, at fair market rate, to OP. OP could have used the $1,000 as part of the down payment. But he didn't nor was he tasked by the will to retain it in the family.

In this context, given the extra language, it just seems that "want" means "want to keep," such that you would not put it on the market while the Will is still in probate." I just see that as "not wanting" even though everyone else seems to disagree. There's just a nuance to the language of the Will that only I seem to get, but then again I knew the deceased all my life and none of you do. It may be true that you're all using ownership as being cut and dried, as things are generally understood, but is it possible that the deceased rejected the "common meaning of things" in this case and thought her grammar would be sufficient? Is it possible that you're all taking her words and making them fit your standardized, "let's not be too thoughtful" view of things?

 

[Zigner]

In this context, given the extra language, it just seems that "want" means "want to keep," such that you would not put it on the market while the Will is still in probate." I just see that as "not wanting" even though everyone else seems to disagree. There's just a nuance to the language of the Will that only I seem to get, but then again I knew the deceased all my life and none of you do. It may be true that you're all using ownership as being cut and dried, as things are generally understood, but is it possible that the deceased rejected the "common meaning of things" in this case and thought her grammar would be sufficient? Is it possible that you're all taking her words and making them fit your standardized, "let's not be too thoughtful" view of things?

Too bad auntie didn't SAY that "want" means "want to keep". All we (and the courts) have to go on is her black and white written wishes.

 

[LdiJ]

In this context, given the extra language, it just seems that "want" means "want to keep," such that you would not put it on the market while the Will is still in probate." I just see that as "not wanting" even though everyone else seems to disagree. There's just a nuance to the language of the Will that only I seem to get, but then again I knew the deceased all my life and none of you do. It may be true that you're all using ownership as being cut and dried, as things are generally understood, but is it possible that the deceased rejected the "common meaning of things" in this case and thought her grammar would be sufficient? Is it possible that you're all taking her words and making them fit your standardized, "let's not be too thoughtful" view of things?

No, its not possible at all. This is a very cut and dried situation. Your brother accepted his inheritance. He then chose to sell the land he inherited.

You are trying to interpret a word in a different manner from its legal meaning. There is no way legally that the word "want" can be interpreted as "want to keep".