How to split inheritance years after the death?

Manxman_in_exile

mjm3346 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ah - OK - brain fade! 

For some reason I read "/0.7" as multiplying by 70% rather than dividing by 0.7

But for brain fade I would have just given the third beneficiary 2/7ths and split the remainder equally between 4 and 5

Maybe it's still brain fade, but how would you do the distribution to the first two beneficiaries  ten years ago, and deal with the others now?  I'm still struggling to get my head round it...

The first ones don't get anymore and the 0.7 is working the other shares up to take care of the balance which is only shared between the 3 remaining

That's what "But for brain fade I would have just given the third beneficiary 2/7ths and split the remainder equally between 4 and 5" does.  As I said, I misread "/0.7" as "*0.7".

Manxman_in_exile

getmore4less said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ah - OK - brain fade! 

For some reason I read "/0.7" as multiplying by 70% rather than dividing by 0.7

But for brain fade I would have just given the third beneficiary 2/7ths and split the remainder equally between 4 and 5

Maybe it's still brain fade, but how would you do the distribution to the first two beneficiaries  ten years ago, and deal with the others now?  I'm still struggling to get my head round it...

The other way to do the calculation for 345 is  4/14 5/14 5/14 which is what you suggest. 

Works out the same. 

I know.  It's just that taking away 2/7ths and then splitting the remainder equally between the other two seemed intuitively more direct and simpler to me, involving fewer calculations, than multiplying (or dividing! ) all three shares by 0.7  In my experience people have difficulty coping with the idea of dividing by a number less than one.  Maybe I'm one of them!

Likewise I didn't want to get into 5/14ths or, as I would prefer, 2.5/7ths!

As I say, to me it seemed much simpler to deal in 7ths than to start dividing by 0.7  I'm sure others will think the opposite...

EDIT:  Sometimes it's easier - and neater and more natural -  to look at distributions in terms of fractions rather than %ages  (eg 1/3rds rather than 33.3333...3333%)

Manxman_in_exile

naedanger said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ah - OK - brain fade! 

For some reason I read "/0.7" as multiplying by 70% rather than dividing by 0.7

But for brain fade I would have just given the third beneficiary 2/7ths and split the remainder equally between 4 and 5

Maybe it's still brain fade, but how would you do the distribution to the first two beneficiaries  ten years ago, and deal with the others now?  I'm still struggling to get my head round it...

The split ten years ago could have been problematic because there could have been arguments over the valuation of particular assets.

Presumably beneficiary 1  took assets that they were happy with ...  Likewise beneficiary 2.
...
And presumably beneficiaries 3 to 5 were each happy at that time that beneficiaries 1 and 2 were (at least in aggregate) being permitted to take the share that they were taking.

...

(If at this point beneficiaries are unhappy with what the others got ten years ago then tough. The time to have objected to that split was ten years ago.)
...
 I expect there are other technical and practical considerations, e.g. especially given the estate has been managed as a business for ten years (which I expect is quite uncommon).

Yeah.  Those are the sort of issues that would concern me.

It seems a recipe for discontent as I can see that either the original two beneficiaries or the remaining three could easily argue that either the original distribution or the proposed current one was/is wrong depending on what had happened with asset values and how the "business" had prospered over the last ten years.  (The first two might have less cause for complaint if the business had prospered because of what the remaining three had done).

It just seems a particularly daft way of leaving your estate - not that I suppose that that is so unusual.  I'd be interested to know if this was a DIY will.

naedanger

Manxman_in_exile said:

naedanger said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ah - OK - brain fade! 

For some reason I read "/0.7" as multiplying by 70% rather than dividing by 0.7

But for brain fade I would have just given the third beneficiary 2/7ths and split the remainder equally between 4 and 5

Maybe it's still brain fade, but how would you do the distribution to the first two beneficiaries  ten years ago, and deal with the others now?  I'm still struggling to get my head round it...

The split ten years ago could have been problematic because there could have been arguments over the valuation of particular assets.

Presumably beneficiary 1  took assets that they were happy with ...  Likewise beneficiary 2.
...
And presumably beneficiaries 3 to 5 were each happy at that time that beneficiaries 1 and 2 were (at least in aggregate) being permitted to take the share that they were taking.

...

(If at this point beneficiaries are unhappy with what the others got ten years ago then tough. The time to have objected to that split was ten years ago.)
...
 I expect there are other technical and practical considerations, e.g. especially given the estate has been managed as a business for ten years (which I expect is quite uncommon).

Yeah.  Those are the sort of issues that would concern me.

It seems a recipe for discontent as I can see that either the original two beneficiaries or the remaining three could easily argue that either the original distribution or the proposed current one was/is wrong depending on what had happened with asset values and how the "business" had prospered over the last ten years.  (The first two might have less cause for complaint if the business had prospered because of what the remaining three had done).

It just seems a particularly daft way of leaving your estate - not that I suppose that that is so unusual.  I'd be interested to know if this was a DIY will.

I suspect all the beneficiaries are either quite pragmatic or get along well with each other. Even then I wouldn't want to administer an estate for anything like that lengh of time unless I was doing it professionally.

By the way, I agree that sometimes it is easier to get the answer than see quite what was done to get it. 

theoretica

If beneficiaries 3 4 and 5 are in agreement about the split they want, it will be much easier.  There is a lot to think about beyond dividing the pot into 14ths.

How much will they be dividing the physical property and how much selling it and dividing money? Who takes responsibility for selling the properties/accepting prices, what happens about the share of the person taking property if others sell for more or less than hoped, are they going to sell them with tenants in place, as tenants naturally leave or try to get the tenants out? 

getmore4less

chances are this will included minors, the latter 2 being dated would support that.

Keeping the properties in the trust might have been an easy option over liquidating and investing elsewhere.