So for the last many years, I've been taking care of my mother who was diagnosed w/ dementia and later on, late onset Alzheimer's.

Over those years, I had no main income and my vehicle fell into disrepair.

I used my mother's car for all her appointments and grocery shopping. I did her cooking as she was no longer allowed to use the stove/oven. Eventually even the microwave was off limits.

Mom passed earlier this year and her trust allowed me to purchase her car for the mean blue book value of 7500. I had to get a signature from each of my other three siblings stating they were giving up their interest in the car knowing that when my mother's house/estate was sold, I would have my purchase of the car taken out of my inheritance.

My question: Why am I having $7,500 taken out (blue book value of car) if I have a 25% interest in the car? I'm buying the car minus my %25 share I would think.

I'm going to ask this of the estate and law firm but then we'll have to pay for that to be looked into resulting in I don't know how much more time/money. Maybe someone can explain it to me here why I don't have a 25% interest in my mother's vehicle but have to pay 100% value.

Thanks,
-dsiets

ETA: No, there are no other binding rules, statements, conditions, or other. I was told the blue book value was $7500 and that would be considered in the final evaluation of Mom's estate distribution.

My thinking would be...you were taking care of Mom, you should be given the car.

Hopefully your siblings appreciate the care and time you provided her.

quote:

Originally posted by TomV:
My thinking would be...you were taking care of Mom, you should be given the car.

Hopefully your siblings appreciate the care and time you provided her.

Thank you for your kind words, Tom. That means a lot.

But what I'm trying to focus on is the fair distribution of the car. Four kids.
If the car is worth $7500, and there are four kids, why do I pay full value if I have a quarter interest in this piece of the estate. ?
This is not put forth by my siblings. It's being put forth by the lady handling the estate.
And I'm gracious to have the car (-) my final inheritance. But some math is bothering me.

I would inform the person that gave you that information that you already have a x% interest in the car and expect the accounting to show that in the adjustment. They may have already considered that.

quote:

Originally posted by sig2392:
I would inform the person that gave you that information that you already have a x% interest in the car and expect the accounting to show that in the adjustment. They may have already considered that.

Yes, but that person informed me that the value was $7500 verbally and did not indicate any other considerations.

The difference comes to less than 2 grand but if I alert them to this discrepancy, I'm not sure it's worth it, even though my car needs $700 in new tires. Every contact w/ the law firm = $$

Put the explanation in writing to them.

Possible they are not thinking it through and in writing might prompt them to do so.

That each have $1875 value of the $7500 car, and if you buy the car, each of the other three heir's is entitled to $1875.

Or, the "balance sheet" can be adjusted to move asset(s)/money as applicable for $1875 to each of the other three from your column, and the car is moved to your column.

IANAL but you are buying it from the trust.The trust will give you back your portion. That is the way it worked for me.

That doesn’t make sense to me.

When we lost my mother, we sold her car and the money was added to the estate.

If you buy the car at the set price, the money should go into the estate and then you should get an equal share of that back assuming the estate is divided equally.

If you are not paying for the car upfront, then the amount of your reduced part of the estate should only be 75% of the price of the car.

On a side note, with you taking care of you mother, why aren’t they selling it to you for $1 and moving on?

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
That doesn’t make sense

It was explained to me that
estates and trusts are handled differently.

You all are making too much sense.

Thank you.

To be fair, everything is being divided equally. While I took care of mom, I was not paying rent so it's been established I was receiving some benefit during that time. One sister mentioned I should be paying $800/mo. while taking care of mom but don't get me started.

My grandmother left her Mini Cooper to her caretaker in her will. My folks didn't want it anyway and the caretaker needed it. But my GM also left her some money, but from the estate, not cash from her checking account. The caretaker refused to move out, so my folks could not get the place cleaned up and ready for sale. And eviction proceedings in NJ don't turn on a dime. My mom finally explained to the lady that she had some money coming, but that it was only after all the estate was settled. So, the longer she squatted in the house, the longer it would be before she got her money. That motivated her. Sheesh.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
That doesn’t make sense

It was explained to me that
estates and trusts are handled differently.

Yes, there is some truth to that. The lady handling the estate is also the trust/executor.

And just to keep on topic, Mr. Monkey hit the nail w/ $1,875 being my interest.

Once I alert the law firm on this topic regarding 4 of us, and they all put their lawyer heads together because they didn't fathom this whole idea of 1 of 4 having their own interest in a particular piece of the estate, how much are they going to charge while they go to lunch?

This is where you all say, "About $1,875"

Are the assets in the trust part of her estate or are they separate? Are there beneficiaries to the trust? what does the trust say if you choose not to buy the car?

quote:

Originally posted by dsiets:

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
That doesn’t make sense

It was explained to me that
estates and trusts are handled differently.

Yes, there is some truth to that. The lady handling the estate is also the trust/executor.

Ok, i can understand that.

Do the math for them. Write to the firm indicating that you already own 25% of the $7500 vehicle which would be $1875, and that therefore you should be paying $5625 to the estate as your proper contribution.

Don't argue with them, simply send them the math for them to plug into the settlement.

I sent them the math.

If they have any confusion, I've got a trunk trust monkey of my own.
I just hate that I have to point this simple crap out to them. And at what hourly expense?

I'll let you know what they say.

I went through this about two years ago.

There are 5 siblings in my family.

If anyone owed the estate money it was paid back in full from our first draw of money from the bank accounts. Money back in the trust. A couple of brothers who’s kids had refinanced their student loans with my parents. My parents wanted to do this for the grandkids interest free.

Then the next pot of money was split 20% each from the sale of 2 houses and the repayments to the trust.

With us you got your % of inheritance on one of the payouts but if you got an asset that was in the trust you had to pay in full for the asset but it comes back to you in the end.

My family gets along well and nobody tried to pull anything shady.

My oldest brother was the executor so maybe different in your situation.

Props to you brother for doing everything on the up and up. He probably saved you all a lot of money.
My family, that was not an option.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Do the math for them. Write to the firm indicating that you already own 25% of the $7500 vehicle which would be $1875, and that therefore you should be paying $5625 to the estate as your proper contribution.

Don't argue with them, simply send them the math for them to plug into the settlement.

Let's assume he doesn't take the car, so that net value of the trust is everything else + the car valued and sold to someone else for $8,000 to make the math simple.

When they divide the trust between the four people, everyone gets 1/4 of everything else + 1/4 of $8,000 which is $2,000.

Let's compare that to dsiets keeping the car and paying only 3/4 of the $8,000 to the trust. Everyone still gets 1/4 of everything else + 1/4 of $6,000 which is what dsiets paid to the trust for the car. So dsiets gets 1/4 of the $6,000 he got back and he has the car.

The second way gets dsiets his 1/4 share of the car to begin with plus 1/4 share of the $6,000 of what he paid to the trust. That's double dipping and he's shorting out the other three.

If he wasn't going to get part of the $6,000 that he paid for the car, then that would be fair but it's a more convoluted bookkeeping and needing to keep separate records for the set asides. That's why I think it's a cleaner method that if anyone wants to get an asset from the trust before its divided, that they buy the asset for its value to the trust and after everyone has had their pick of the assets and paid into the trust, then the trust's assets can be liquidated into cash and divided evenly by 4.

Another way to look at this is that you're going to divide a poker pot four ways. You see a single $100 bill that you want. You say, I want that single $100 bill and since I own 25% of that, I'll just take that and pay $75 to the pot. And after you put in the the $75, you divide the pot 4 ways. You're shorting the 3 other people a total of $25 because you're taking 25% of the $75 that you put in after you already claimed your 25% of the $100 bill.

I'm just here for the math, not for the family dynamics.