Okay, so here is the situation: My father owns about 16 acres of land. My grandparent's gave this to him because they were right-wing radicals who believed that paying property taxes violated their constitutional rights, and so they didn't pay taxes and almost lost the entire land to the IRS! My father paid the taxes and saved the land, and they signed it over to him, with the provision that they have a 'life time estate', meaning they both have the right to live on that land. Fast forward twenty years later: My grandparents divorced and both moved off the property. They divorced mainly so my grandmother could get her previous husband's social security, which was higher. My grandfather was diagnosed with alzheimers and eventually dies. My grandmother can't live on the property by herself but doesnt want us to sell it either because of memories. He's selling it anyway behind her back and not letting her know. Is this wrong?! She's suicidally depressed and wants to cling to the past!
2007-09-25 14:53:24 · 7 answers · asked by hrgirl1701 4 in Family & Relationships ➔ Family
It should be noted that my grandmother has been obsessed with my grandfather (or I should say step-grandfather since he's not my grandfather by blood), and they actually had a horrible marriage which was actually abusive! But now she's acting like it was wonderful and she wants to pretend that she can live out there again. She thinks the banks are going to go under and that we'll need to flee to the country! A lawyer told us that since she's divorced and can't live out there, the lifetime estate is voided, so legally he CAN sell it. The problem is, would it be wrong to do so?! She's very unreasonable about this and tends to scream and throw a fit when you try to even discuss it with her!
2007-09-25 14:58:05 · update #1
Most definitely he should sell it behind her back.
I think she will always have an irrational reaction to what happens with that property and so a reasonable and responsible person needs to step up to the plate and handle it.
2007-09-25 16:09:20 · answer #1 · answered by srsly 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both the questioner and the responders manifest the general moral and ethical bankrupcy of our monumentally hypocritical CHRISTIAN society.
From the data given,it is absolutely legally un-equivicable that the grandmother can live or have access to this land as long as she lives period.
If there was such a binding aggreement made between your father and grandmother made AFTER HE HAD PAYED THE BACK TAXES ,then your father knew EXACTLY not only the legal but moral obligation he had created.
Some of the inane responders have gone on about the grandmother having no legal rights because she/they did not pay the land taxes BUT that is totally irrelevant as the contract guaranteeing the grandmother excess to the land WAS MADE AFTER THE TAXES WERE PAID AND THE FATHER KNEW EXACTLY THE NATURE OF THE GUARANTEE HE GAVE THE GRANDMOTHER IN EXCHANGE FOR THE LAND .
The fact that the grandmother may be an abused / deluded wife etc etc etc etc is TOTALLY irrelevant to her legal contractual right to have access to the land.the fact that she may be un-able to live on the land DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER ABROGATE HER RIGHT TO LIVE ON THE LAND AND HAVE ACCESS TO IT WHETHER OR NOT SHE CHOOSES TO EXCERCIZE HER LEGAL RIGHTS OR NOT !!!!
Additionally ,the fact that the grandmother at some point divorced does not terminate her legal rights under the agreement for such agreements are always made on an individual bases eventhough the agreement itself is done for one or many.
On the moral/ethical issue,the same conclusion must be drawn in favour of the grandmother .
From the little details given,one could "legalize" the selling of the land by going through the legal process of declaring the grandmother incompetent and then having another named individual act in the grandmother's interests which could see the land being sold both in a legal and moral manner .
What we have here is a too normal situation where morality and ethics are either thrown overboard or a pathetic attempt at justifying illegal/immoral behaviors is made all to get a person's hands on something of value.
Pathetic.
2007-09-26 00:04:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
She has absolutely no say in the matter.
I can't believe that she did not want to pay taxes but is quite happy to collect Social Security. I thought she was anti - government.
She needs to be in an institution so professionals can care for her.
Sounds like a good idea to sell the property and get away from a lot of bad memories.
2007-09-25 15:49:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your father has every right to sell the land. Grandma needs to deal with it, she lost her rights to the land over 20 yrs ago by not paying the legal taxes and your dad stepped up for them and allowed them to stay. It's done and now in the past.
2007-09-25 15:13:27 · answer #4 · answered by lucidwillow 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
look lad, is it ok (under the regulation) for a minor such as you to tension a vehicle in the country you reside? it would desire to not be and your dad took a vise determination to sell it so as which you will not ruin the regulation by using making use of it. in case you get into undertaking, then your dad will additionally be dragged into it on account which you're a minor and he needs to evade that to boot. Take it undertaking-free and anticipate some greater years till you grow to be a considerable. at that ingredient your dad would even help you to possess a vehicle.
2016-12-17 10:29:33 · answer #5 · answered by cosner 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its morally wrong in my opinion, and it sounds illegal too, since he agreed to letting her live on the property if she wants to for the rest of her life, which means he can't sell it until she dies.
2007-09-25 14:57:53 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
So don't discuss it. Its your dad's property and he should do what he wants. He doesn't need her permission.
2007-09-25 15:09:14 · answer #7 · answered by tjnstlouismo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋