[WSBAPT] Clause in Trust that Prevents Forced Sale of Real Estate?

Sat Jul 31 15:21:34 PDT 2021

Thank you, Phil, for that very thorough commentary.  On more than one occasion I’ve had parents come in for EP and tell me something along the lines of - they want to keep “the cabin” on “the island” (or wherever) in “the family” with a “small trust fund” to pay for everything.  This usually requires a conversation very similar to what you summarize in your post, although I am not as thorough as you are. >From now on I think I’ll just forward your email to them and add: “What he said.”

Jim Dolan

===================

Jones Butler Dolan, PS

 <http://www.jbdolan.com> www.jbdolan.com

 <http://www.jonesbutlerdolan.com> www.jonesbutlerdolan.com

Mount Vernon

P.O. Box 2784

415 Pine Street 

Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Telephone: 360-336-2939

Facsimile: 360-336-2949

Stanwood

P.O. Box 458

10027 - 269th Place NW (SR 532)

Stanwood, WA 98292

Telephone: 360-629-3833

Facsimile: 360-629-6253

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Philip N. Jones
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 2:27 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Clause in Trust that Prevents Forced Sale of Real Estate?

This is a very bad idea.

When clients tell me that they want to leave their vacation house to all of their children, this is what I say:

It is usually not a good idea to leave a vacation house to the children in a trust, or in an LLC, or as tenants in common, or otherwise, unless you build in a mechanism that allows one or more of the children to exit without suffering a significant economic loss.  Here’s why:  Some of th small “trust fund” to pay for everyting.e children don’t want it, some of them don’t live close enough to use it, some can’t afford to pay their share of the upkeep, and some don’t get along with the others.  And any cash fund you might leave with the house would have to be ginormous in order to pay the taxes, insurance, and upkeep over a period of many years.  Much better to leave it to the ones who really want it and are willing to pay to maintain it.  That is often accomplished by either leaving it outright to the ones who want it, and leaving cash or other assets to the ones who do not, or by allowing the ones who want it to use their share of the estate to buy out the ones who do not want it.  Put that language in the will or the trust, so that the personal representative or trustee will have the power to wheel and deal in order to get a good result where everyone is happy. Don’t assume that the children will work out an agreement to distribute the house to the correct children, because one child will invariably refuse to agree.  In short, leaving the house to all of them will often cause unnecessary family conflict.  The parents might be sentimentally attached to the house, but their children will thank you for not locking the children into a situation that will cause them unnecessary problems and family strife.

I once had a client who told me, “We have children (who we dearly love) who do not get along.  We have a vacation cabin (which we dearly love), and so we are going to force our children to get along by leaving the cabin to all of them.”

Egads.  Sigh.

Some of the mechanisms that you might build into your estate planning documents:

Allow any one child to require the others to buy him/her out at an appraised price.  If they decline to do a buy out, require that the house be placed on the open market.

Give each of the owners a right of first refusal in case one owner wants to sell to an outsider.

Allow any child to name a price, and then let the other children decide whether to be a buyer at that price or a seller at that price.  This is called a flippable offer.  It keeps everyone honest.  Remember when you were a kid, and you would cut a donut in half and then your sibling would select which half to take?  It’s the same principle.

Allow any one child to place the house on the open market, keeping mind that the other siblings might be the buyers.

Stipulate that any sale between or among the siblings be at full value, with no discount, or possibly a small 5% or 10% discount.  Be very specific about whether a discount will be employed; if you merely state “fair market value,” the buying child will insist that fair market value necessarily must reflect a minority discount.  Be sure to resolve that debate in your documents, in advance, very clearly.  Debate over.

Everyone should come out even, or close to even.  That’s how you maintain family harmony, not by locking the kids into a house they don’t want with siblings they don’t like.  The kids will think you are a genius.  Their parents will initially be unhappy with your suggestion, but you ought to be able to explain the pros and cons (summarized above), and they will most likely come around, one hopes.

Phil Jones

Philip N. Jones

Duffy Kekel LLP

900 S.W. Fifth Ave. Suite 2500

Portland, OR 97204

pjones at duffykekel.com <mailto:pjones at duffykekel.com> 

(503) 226-1371 – office

(503) 853-1482 – cell

(503) 226-3574 - fax

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>  <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> > On Behalf Of Inge Fordham
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 12:58 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: [WSBAPT] Clause in Trust that Prevents Forced Sale of Real Estate?

Colleagues,

I have a client who wants to transfer the family house into a revocable living trust, which will instruct that the house go to each of three children (to share equally) upon his demise.  The client is asking whether we can include language in the trust stating that none of the children can force the sale of the property.  It would seem you might be able to include language regarding right of first refusal but I wouldn’t think you could prohibit one of the children from filing a partition action to force the sale.  Has anyone dealt with this specific issue?

Thank you in advance,

Inge A. Fordham | Attorney

Fordham Law, PLLC

3218 Sixth Avenue | Tacoma, WA 98406

Office: (253) 348-2657 | Mobile: (206) 778-3131

www.fordhamlegal.com <http://www.fordhamlegal.com>  

Confidential Communication: This email is sent to a recipient on behalf of an attorney/law firm, and is information intended exclusively for the individual, entity or company to which it is sent.  This communication may contain proprietary, privileged or confidential information or may otherwise be legally exempt from disclosure other than to the intended recipient.  If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or otherwise disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email or other communication and delete all copies of the message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20210731/d55e9acc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14126 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20210731/d55e9acc/image001.png>