Hi !

If a parent dies intestate and leaves land... and maybe some small monies.
And the 2 daughters have historical conflict for years, and do not speak.
1 daughter completely in poverty. Other daughter can pay taxes on land
That is left. Does it go to probate?. in state land is in?
Or into probate where one daughter resides, or other daughter?
And how would land be divided equally... if one daughter has no money
To pay taxes?

If there is money left.. and probably not much... maybe 3,000 to each daughter.
Would court set up payment of taxes by keeping that 3,000 dollar.. to make
Sure taxes are paid for next 10 years ?

Any ideas?

Does it go to probate?

Yes.


in state land is in?

Actually, in the state where the decedent lived. Is this a different state than the location of the land?


And how would land be divided equally... if one daughter has no money
To pay taxes?

The probate process would pass title to half of the (net, after payment of claims of estate creditors) value of the estate to each daughter (assuming there are only these two heirs). How the poor daughter is to maintain her inheritance (paying property taxes) is a problem she has to solve independently of probate.


Would court set up payment of taxes by keeping that 3,000 dollar.. to make
Sure taxes are paid for next 10 years ?

No, not likely.

Thanks !

The decedent resided in another country. What do you think happens then?

The land is not where the daughters live, but in a different state.

When I said "where the decedent lived", I was giving you the short answer. Actually what you look for is "domicile", which can be complicated. Again, in a nutshell, which state did the decedent last live in? Is this different than the state where the land is located?

It is of no consequence where the daughters live.

Hi !
Yes... two different places. One state is where the land is. The parent lived
In a totally different state at time of purchase. Minnesota is where land is.

Hi !
yes...two different places. One state is where the land is. The parent lived
in a totally different state at time of purchase. Minnesota is where land is.

Assuming he/she was an American citizen, his/her domicile would normally be the place where a probate case would be filed.

Domicile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law)) is the last state where a person is and, at the same time has the intent that such place be that person's permanent home.

For example, if the person (let's call him John) was in New Mexico, on January 1, 2000, and at that time intended that that place be his permanent home indefinitely, John would have been domiciled in NM. If, on June 5th of that year, John moved to Idaho, but expected some day to return to live in NM, he would still be a NM Domiciliary. Then, on December 13th, he moved to Michigan, said to himself "this is my home now.", and for good measure, registered to vote and bought a residential fishing license, Michigan would be his domicile. Then, on December 25th, he moved to New Zealand. Whatever his intent there, for domicile purposes, I would say he remained a Michigan domicilliary. On January 1st, 2003, John dies intestate. His estate should be probated in Michigan.
(note: dates in this hypothetical example are merely to establish a sequence and have no other significance)


Minnesota may, however, have provision for ancillary administration.

Back to your real-life situation: It may make more sense to sell the land, paying any back property taxes owed at the time of death, and divide the remaining proceeds between the daughters.

What needs to happen, is for the estate to be submitted for probate. The Probate court will then assign an executor or administrator of the estate. That person will be responsible for determining the heirs according to the laws of succession where the deceased was last domiciled. They will then work out an equitable distribution of the estate.

If one daughter wants to keep the property, she may have to buy out the other daughter's interests.

Thank you !

Given all that,. let me clarify a bit with a hypothetical situation.

Lets say that the parent lived in Indiana, before he moved to France..
He lived in France for 35 years. As the parent became quite
Aged, he/she usually stated
That he would like to move to where the eldest daughter resided,
Which was California, lets say. And further, he/she had no desire
To move back to Indiana. And he/she also felt fine staying in France
Forever. But, if things could be worked out, a move might be okay.
If factors concurring with a move were too hard to work out, the parent was content to stay in France forever there after.

Before he moved to France, ( lets say a year before )... he purchased land
In Minnesota.

Is his last domicile Indiana... or where he hoped to move ? ( but he/she never
Made it, because they became disabled in France and had to stay there... for various
Good reasons)

Since becoming disabled, lets say, France government took over all finances. France
Right now, says, that they could not sell that land to add to the estate.
However, they paid all taxes. France says, they do not
Know how they would handle an intestate situation with out of France property.
And that it may just be turned over to the daughters. The eldest then, would
Be given responsibility for that.( France law )

What should the eldest do, considering she lives in California, lets say.
Any ideas.

Instead of posting "let's say" info which only complicates the question, why not simply post the circumstances (we have no idea who you are/where you are) and let the experts give an opinion based on the actual circumstances?

Any opinions based on "what if's" are worthless.

The only part of your post that has any bearing is the France's disposition of the property. If the deceased was living in France and being supported by French social services, they may have a right to the property. If they decline to exercise that right, then the executor of the estate can distribute the property.

What should the eldest do, considering she lives in California, lets say.
Any ideas.

Get on the phone with an attorney in Minnesota. It appears that for intestacy purposes the decedent may have been domiciled in Indiana, but it's quite possible that it's not nearly as complicated (in relation to conflict of laws issues) as my previous comments may indicate. The Minnesota attorney should have a good idea of what needs to be done.

The hypothetical I mention is analogous to the situation.
But the states and country are renamed... except
The state where the actual land is... is the correct state.
And no, the parent did not depend on the country's social
Services... the parent used his/her own pension, etc.
The country probably will not keep the land. This has
Been conveyed already.
Thanks for your help !