Tbh you are just kicking the can down the road. With the added advantage that sons business has to pay rent so can't save enough to generate any capital to buy farm and daughters get a poor return on their investment. Meanwhile since no one actually owns it no one can use it as security for borrowings.I've seen farms put into a trust with one sibling farming it and (from memory) paying rent or on a percentage of profit. Seemed quite sensible, but I suspect that it could be quite complicated to get set out properly.
With good arable land valued at 14000 + euros acre i would love your suggestions on how the gullible son who stayed at home working for keep and pocket money is going to pay off his siblings given that the returns from farming are totally at odds with the price of land.
16 is the age to tell them, in fact earlier before school options are taken might be better.
No one said they have to start working at home at 16, just that they should be told the truth.
Cant speak for NZ and but over here the older generation put great emphasis on continuity that the farm would stay in the family and each generation would add and expand it.Mark Twains advice still holds good and men of my fathers generation considered land as the only wealth worth having. The were very aware of the need to pick a sucsessor who would carry on the business of and protect it for the future. My old fella would have laughed at the concept of fairness . He would say life is never fair and only a fool expects it to be. He was a product of his time very hard on everybody but hardest of all on himself.There you go you've found the reason siblings get jealous. From their side they see someone that. Never had to leave home, never had to go and build a career or take a large financial risk as its still the parents farm. Basically done a low paid gfw job as its still the parents farm, never bought a house or paid bills and at the end of it all you get an asset that far exceeds anything you could have got yourself. It doesn't matter (to them) that you plan to hand it to the next generation. They see you sitting on an asset that you COULD sell if you wanted to or needed to.
A several million dollar farm is not in their eyes the same as a house deposit or help with uni fees.
I'm not saying its right, its just how they see it, especially if there isn't huge debt on the place.
Ireland is a bit different, since you burnt the landlords out.Cant speak for NZ and but over here the older generation put great emphasis on continuity that the farm would stay in the family and each generation would add and expand it.Mark Twains advice still holds good and men of my fathers generation considered land as the only wealth worth having. The were very aware of the need to pick a sucsessor who would carry on the business of and protect it for the future. My old fella would have laughed at the concept of fairness . He would say life is never fair and only a fool expects it to be. He was a product of his time very hard on everybody but hardest of all on himself.
This is a disscussion that would take a whole day on the high stool to resolve and probably never will suit everyone fortunately for me i came out the right side of the farm inheritance issue but i know of several farmers struggling with big loans over family settlements.
Depends on timescale. Not everyone's is the same. My dad was at retirement age by the time I'd finished uni. He told me I didn't have to milk cows, but if I didn't do it at that point, the herd was going, cause he had kept it warm for me as long as he was going to. So I had to choose between travelling/working away, and coming back full-time at 22.
Extremely bold move and full credit for doing it, I hope the investments in other projects were successful.There is 48 years between my father and I, and I'm an only son. When i was about 7 my father sold off around 300acs of out lying farms and reinvested it in other projects. Leaving the home farm of 80acs. The reason was he didn't know I was interested in/going to farm. He didn't want it to be a noose round my neck if it wasn't for me. If it was my thing he would sell up the other businesses and get back in. That was a very bold move of a man of over 50 who only knew how to farm to venture into the unknown.
But did it work?There is 48 years between my father and I, and I'm an only son. When i was about 7 my father sold off around 300acs of out lying farms and reinvested it in other projects. Leaving the home farm of 80acs. The reason was he didn't know I was interested in/going to farm. He didn't want it to be a noose round my neck if it wasn't for me. If it was my thing he would sell up the other businesses and get back in. That was a very bold move of a man of over 50 who only knew how to farm to venture into the unknown.
There are usually at least 3 sides to a story, one from each side and then the truth.Article in fwi this week I see they have concluded the case in favour of parents and the sister
56 year old brother whose worked on farm all those years and lived in caravan on farm now fully disinherited
Sister took sides with parents funnily enough telling court that the brother didn't like cows! She would say that wouldn't she when she stands to inherit
Any on here know more? Maybe brother would have preferred to go more profitable arable work strategy like lots of Lincolnshire farmers and motivation continually stymied by 'it's aye been' attitude of parents?
I always think there are 2 sides to a story and fear he's been done wrong by another set of elderly parents and conniving sibling with empty promises
It would have needed to be a fair business to have kept pace with capital growth on farmland in last 20+ years.Did what work?
The ultimate retribution from beyond the grave.Ok. For sake of argument, what do folks think about deliberately splitting your assets unevenly between your children, if one or more has behaved poorly towards you or other siblings, or has against advice married someone of low quality who is likely to be a threat to the family, or the family assets, for example?
Assume for simplicity that none of them work for the family business.
Ok. For sake of argument, what do folks think about deliberately splitting your assets unevenly between your children, if one or more has behaved poorly towards you or other siblings, or has against advice married someone of low quality who is likely to be a threat to the family, or the family assets, for example?
Assume for simplicity that none of them work for the family business.
Surely the aim has to be to better the family, the farm is just a vehicle.If the family's intention is to keep and better the farm, I'm struggling to see what is gained by paying a bank the farm's value in interest payments every generation.
I agree, but bettering the family may mean that fair doesn't necessarily mean financially equal splits.Surely the aim has to be to better the family, the farm is just a vehicle.