This is why wills are important
I just had to share this with you all as a cautionary tale. My late aunt was widowed in her thirties and had two children with her husband. A few years later she met and 'co-habitated' with my uncle (my mom's brother). They never married but were together for over 30 years. They actually died within a year of each other with my uncle dying first.
Anyway, the issue is that her first husband had two properties that are now worth a boat load of money with San Fransico and all. But, both my aunt and her first husband died without a will. It wasn't an issue for my aunt because she was married and no one tried to take the properties from her. She rented one out and retired to FL with my uncle later in life. The other one, my cousin was living in with her family. But now, that she has died her two older siblings are claiming and taking both properties for themselves and leaving nothing for my other 3 cousins. They are trying to impose rent onto my cousin living in one of the properties and threatening eviction. They are actually in court about the matter. It is just so sad how money is making both of sides not talk to each other.
I mean I do not know what the outcome of the entire thing will be. But, my cousin was on the phone with me last night in tears because she thinks that her older 'half' siblings are being selfish and greedy. They do not even live in San Francisco anymore whereas she does. She is concern that she will have to pay crazy rents or even have to leave San Francisco. The thing is I can see the other side as well as, this was their dad's properties even before his marriage. The retirement condo that my uncle and aunt had in FL they are selling and splitting equally though. But, this is just a big mess. I though I'd put it on StepTalk because it's kind of step related.
I'm confused. She had two
I'm confused. She had 2 kids with her first husband and 3 with your uncle?
I'm sorry yes, 2 kids with
I'm sorry yes, 2 kids with her first husband and 3 with my uncle.
I agree with the wills. My
I agree with the wills. My wife and I set it up right after marriage. Currently (as in this is going to end in divorce soon), SD is entitled to my wife's savings before we got married. Biodaughter gets the entire shared estate.
In this case though, all properties should have been in the aunt's belonging after her husband died, and absent a will, that gets divided equally among her children. The "first family" is going to get wrung in court.
It sounds like what needs to
It sounds like what needs to happen is that there may need to be a probate for the SF's estate... with no will, it's likely that there is a prescribed set of distributions in the law.
Then.. once that is done.. a probate for mom's estate.
I am guessing that the bio kids of the SF would be entitled to a share of that real estate.. but so would your mom.. then HER probate would have that same set of rules applied.. and her shares would then likely be split between HER bio kids
In the end.. your cousin got a pretty big benefit by living in those properties. I'm fairly certain that no matter how it is sliced.. that they will not end up living there "for free".. if at all. It may be that they are due some portion of that property through their mother's probate.. and if the balance of the owners want to rent.. then perhaps that credit will allow their rent to be somewhat less than the stepkids want it to be.. and the stepkids share is likely going to be somewhat less than they think it is.
Definitely get them to a lawyer.. because I don't think it seems right that your mom loses out on her ability to have a share of those assets.. just because she didn't file paperwork. it may require two layers of probate though
I think you misunderstood. My
I think you misunderstood. My aunt and uncle are both dead. My aunt had two sets of children, the older set father had some property that they do not want to share with the younger set who had a different father. The property was in the deseased first husband's name until recently the older siblings tried to put the property in their name as their father's surviving hiers. This isn't about my mom, who either way doesn't have a claim to anything.
Sorry.. in explaining it.. I
Sorry.. in explaining it.. I may have made it confusing.
I understand that aunt and uncle are both dead.. what I am trying to explain is that even though parties are deceased.. they may need to go back and do a probate for the property in question (and any other assets that should have gone through probate... and didn't)
the original holder of the real estate's probate would go first.. and the real estate would pass through to heirs according to any will/legal distribution that is ordered in probate law of the state.
THEN... your aunt's share would flow through HER probate process (a new probate if the property never went through it with her).
a good estate atty should be able to advise on how your state would work this.
I'm not sure what the situation will be if the skids would have been entitled to a share in ownership of that real estate.. and the cousin got free benefit all those years of rent.. I don't know if it would mean she would owe them something for that or not.
I have to say- with your aunt
I have to say- with your aunt experiencing what it was for her husband to NOT have left a will outlining everything, how selfish and stupid of her was to do the same damn thing herself...normally one learns a valuable lesson out of that.
It may be that the aunt wanted the property disposed of, as per
law, but did not want to directly disinherit her younger kids (of give them less). it may be she promised her first DH they woudl be taken care of
First family children see
First family children see this as their dad's property, so they see it as theirs.
Second family children view it as their mom's property, and feel they should get a share.
The question, to me, is how is the property titled? My thought with no will for anyone is: If just the first husband's name was on it, then it goes to children of first marriage. But, if aunt were a joint owner with right of survivorship, then all of her children would get a share.
In my state, the sale of the property would not have just gone through. Here, there are papers (forms) that need to be filed with the state (even if there is no tax due) before a house can be sold after an owner dies. Since the aunt didn't have a will, and didn't change the property title, it would have ended up in probate court automatically.
Sounds like it never legally
Sounds like it never legally changed hands. If they were married at the time it may have gone to the wife since they were married when he died. It is complicated if the real estate had been separate property, especially if there were several properties, not just a marital home. All the kids' opinions are moot; a probate case would need to be opened for the first husband's death and the property transfered, then a second probate for the second death. Nothing is going to transfer without approval from the court. In the meantime it is the duty of the administrator of the estate ti collect fair rent on the properties and ensure they are maintained.
I think it depends on the
I think it depends on the prevailaing laws of the state. In many states with right of survivorship ownership goes to the surviving spouse following probate if there is no Will.
I would think that the prior relationship children in this case are going to have the biggest challenge since their father had no Will and all of his property likely became the property of the surviving spouse upon his death. The one child has possession of the home as she is the long term resident.
All of the kids need to lawyer up quickly and defend their interests. A good attorney will be critical in the outcome.
I think you mistaken
The property was seperate property, and it does not all go to the surviving spouse in CA. The younger childfren can be evicted. At least one of the younger children contacted an attorney and was told she could either buy out the older ones or move
It is hypocritical on ST, that it is unfair if the money of the stepfather ends up only (or primarily) with his kdis, but it is fair if the moeny of the stepmother only goes to her kids. On ST, It is OK for moms kids to live in a family home after they are adults, but not dad's kdis.
IMHO the fair thing is for
IMHO the fair thing is for all of the kids to split the estate equally. Or.... apply the laws of the state (CA) and let the chips fall where the Judge decides.
Both of the deceased in this case failed their heirs miserably.
A Will does not take that much to create. They both should have had one.
Now it will likely be a shit storm of monumental proportions for all of the kids. Both SDad's and SMom's.
The Older Kids want state law to govern
If a person is happy with how state law will handle things, they do no need a will. Op has said nothign to indicate that this distribution is not what either parent wanted.
The only clear failure in my mind was that the aunt did not wirte a letter to her younger kids explaining that only 1/3 oft the estate was hers to distribute. Her choice was to give all the 1/3 to her younger kids, disinhering the older ones, which she may not have wanted to do, but in any event that would only give the younger ones 1/9 each of the total estate. The mom did not have ownership rights to give all kids 1/5. The mom should have told the kids while she was alive that the living arragnments were temporary and they should be saving for a new place.
I doubt it will be a shit show. The younger ones have already consulted an attorney who told her she has to buy the place if she wants to live there. Yes, the younger one(s) has obtained a temporary injunciton, there will be a hearing, but even HER attonrey thinks she has no rights. It is only when STEPDADS money goes only to his kids they scream unfair.
The older ones have been kind and patient. They could have demanded that the properties be partitioned and sold years ago but did not.
If these were a STEPDAD's kids who lived at home after age 18, they would be derided as moochers.
The estate is apparently quite large and the younger ones will get a small percent (pp above went through the percents, but the younger ones get 1/5 of 1/3). They should be looking for a small condo. They won't be living in luxury like they used to, but they will be better off than most people. Unless they want to squander it all on legal fees.
Unless I missed something
Unless I missed something I don't know how you see it that way.
It doesn't matter that the Aunt was never married to the younger kids father. She was mother to all kids involved and it is her property. She inherited the property from her first husband so it is hers to pass down and leave to ALL children. Even if she was married to the second guy it still would not matter because she died last so it all still would be hers to leave to her children. It works that way in most states I have seen.
If there were steps, no blood relation at all to the mother maybe what you are saying might be true but they are all blood to the mother. Dead people do not own anything it must say in some paperwork or by some default that it is hers even if it is in his name still. That makes it hers, part of her estate and her estate should be split 5 ways and I don't see how it could be any other way. She is equally all of their mother.
I don't think you are correct
Under CA law, the property was SEPERATE property and goes 1/3 to wife, 2/3 to kids, the OLDER kids of the first father. No it does not go 100% to wife It was never her property to give away (the 2/3). If her first husband wanted her to have it all, he could have written a will.
I agree, it does not matter that she never remarried.
Wait so what you are all saying
Wait so what you are all saying is that the wife never inherited the property?? Then who did? It couldn't have been left to chance for 40 years without any closure as to who was supposed to maintain it?
If this is also the case then, if the wife was never entitled to it then it should be pretty easy now. The older kids would go to court and get it if it is solely their fathers and they are his only heirs. Since it is not that easy that tells me there is a missing piece here to this story. Somebody, be it the wife or the state would have cleared this up 40 years ago upon the husbands death so part of this story is not clear.
Wills are great they make clear what the intentions are
And I wonder sometimes if the message is clear in the lack of a Will as well. Sometimes a person doesn't know how to address these things and so they leave it for those left behind to duke it out. I will have to read all of the posts but far far as I see it they are all children of your Aunt no steps at all. She acquired this property through her first husband and had it 40 years. They all knew of the property growing up as hers.
I truly think that it should be divided 5 ways and yes the sibling should have first choice to buy before a stranger but not at a lower cost. It is not fair to the others. She has lived rent free and therefore that is her break on cost already.
It is sad, very sad!! I have been through this myself with my siblings and my cousins went through almost the exact same thing as you are describing. It is gut wrenching at times and the wounds are sometimes ever lasting.