
Originally Posted by
JudyKayTee
Does your aunt profit or lose from either option - as per oral agreement or by dividing the estate into equal parts?
It breaks down like this:
Heir: aunt uncle OP
Home $62,000 $20,667
Other lot $35,000 -$6,333
Stocks $27,000 -$14,333
Total $124,000
Share $41,333
(Sorry, but my Excel document doesn't transport to this site properly formatted.)
Based upon the numbers OP gave us, the entire estate would be worth $124,000. Each person's rightful share would be 1/3 of that, or $41,333. Thus the original deal gives "Aunt" $20,667 more than she is rightfully entilted, and gives OP $6,333 more. Why "Uncle" ever agreed to this is puzzling, unless he just was trying to be a nice guy.
The problem with each person getting 1/3 of the real property is this: Ownership in common is impractical, especially in the case of absentee ownership. One person will end up getting more use and enjoyment of, for example, the house, and the other two owners will feel cheated. If I were "uncle" I would never agree to be an absentee in-common owner. Sooner-or-later, they, or their heirs will want to split the property up. Might as well do it now while it is in probate.
"Aunt" got the best part of the deal but feels she cannot afford it because of the taxes. If she was the sole heir to just the home, she would still have to find a way to pay the taxes. So what should probably be done is to sell the everything and give each one his or her share (as calculated above). Alternatively, "Aunt" might want to take the house and look into the posssilbility of getting a reverse mortgage.