Texas Wills / Inheritance Question

Reads to me like the house is split three ways upon his death (if he out lived her more than 60 days) a third to each daughter or their heirs and a third to the son's heirs.

I think that is what grandma wanted or it would have been worded that upon his death it was split between the other children. Not "I give my son for life, WITH remainder of my children equality upon death of my son"....so to HIM and the other children the house would be split when sold.

But I am NOT an attorney.

This is why it is very very important to have things worded very very carefully in a will. My mother told me for years how her property was being divided upon her death and you know what....that was not how her will was worded. And so things she told me for years and years didn't happen because of the wording in the will.

Good luck! Sorry if this isn't what you guys wanted to hear.

ETA: my husband says the exact opposite and it should be split two ways....he agrees with the second lawyer.

I am not sure what the legal outcome will be, but I do know that when my husbands grandmother passed away he and his brother split what would have been his mothers share of their grandmothers inheritance since she had already passed away when they were young. They did not however get her share of the property, only the assets. We could have fought that (and had good legal standing to do so) but we decided the money (even for the very large ranch) was just not worth it. Maybe we were silly for not fighting for our share, but we just are not that interested in money, not enough to start a family feud over anyways.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out but playing armchair attorney, I think that your uncle's children have a claim because this was very poorly written. "My children" does not exclude her son - although he is named in the prior clause, it should have read "my daughters" or more specifically, have listed their names if the intent was for the remainder to pass to just the women. The "his or her heirs" is also sloppy - if the only children were 1 son and 2 daughters, then, this also indicates that *his* heirs are entitled.

However, one could also argue that all of the above is moot because the clause about passing to the grandchildren is dependent on the child passing away less than 60 days after the mother (your grandmother). Given that all of her children outlived her by 10 years, the passage on to the grandchildren would seem to be a moot point.

Overall, it's really too bad that this was so poorly written and is now open to interpretation.

Don't you just love it when family comes out of the woodwork when someone dies with the views of $$$$$$. I have a BIG sore spot about this right now because I just went through probate when my husband died in October.

Even in TX and with a will, you STILL go through probate. Ugh what a mess and everything is public record so get ready for the solicitors to hound you daily to sell the house, help you invest your money, etc. I got hounded (still happens) so badly that I ended up with security cameras around my house, I have been training at a gun range so I am ready if needed plus I got a guard dog. Now, I am not frightened at my home and did not do it for those reasons, my reasoning is simply the non-stop harassment which stems from public records that has my freaking net worth on it. UGH... rant over.

It makes sense to me that the house would go to the 2 sisters to divide but due to the sloppy wording, it is so EASY for someone who wants something to mince words and turn things completely around.

I hope you have a good lawyer. Sending good thoughts your way.

When my grandfather died his estate was left to his 3 children. His one daughter however was deceased. His estate was still split 3 ways but my deceased aunt's portion of the estate went to her children (my cousins). Surely had my aunt been living she would have wanted her portion to go to her kids and not be split between her siblings.

Talking morally, not legally, my opinion is that if your uncle's heirs are his children or wife, then the estate should be split 3 ways. Then your uncle's portion should go to his wife and/or children. If he left his assets to the local PETA organization then they should not have a claim to the house. Surely your grandmother would have wanted your mother and aunt to have the proceeds from the sale of the house and not some arbitrary person or organization.

Good luck! I have seen first hand how an estate dispute can tear a family apart. So sad what money does to people.

It means he can live in the home until he dies, at that point the house is divided as if it happened when she died. So since the three children survived her more than 60 days from her death when your uncle dies it is divided three ways, one third going to his kids if he has any, a third to each sister. If any of the three children did not have children and are not alive when he dies it is divided in half or all to one. Per stripes just means down family lines. Okay, I am paraphrasing the definition

Leaving the house to her son was alright.
If it became his property and was not merely held in trust for his use until his death - then HE gets to say what will happen to HIS property in his OWN will.
If it wasn't his property - then he has no say in what will happen to the property after his death.
(Who paid the taxes on it after your grandmother died?)
There are two estates to be distributed - your grandmothers and your uncles.
Your mother is the executor for your grandmother and I don't know who is the executor for your uncle.
But then again I don't know much about law let alone anything about how they apply in Texas.
The long and the short of it is your Mom is going to need a good inheritance lawyer to help her sort this all out.
If it gets held up in court for a long time - the lawyers will get everything and it'll be settled when there's nothing left to leave to anyone.

I'm glad you have an attorney (hope he or she is very experienced in this type of law). I do think that you need to make your mother painfully aware that it's not really about "doing the right thing". It's about doing what the will dictates. As the executrix, she can be sued by family members if they feel that they aren't getting what they want by the reading of the will. That's the last thing your mother wants.

She needs to be working with the attorney to do this so that she isn't sued. Honestly, there are people who bite the hand that feeds them and you need to try your hardest to make sure she understands this. Don't just "do" this for her. Make sure she doesn't give ANY money to anyone without the lawyer telling her to, and any expenditures need to come out of an estate bank account, not the regular bank account.

I'm so sorry your mother is stuck with this.

Without seeing any further working and going on typical per stirpes inheritance rules, your cousins (the deceased brother's children) would split his third of the inheritance upon his death.

So if your uncle had 3 kids, and the property was sold, the proceeds would be distributed approximately:

Your mom 33%
Your aunt 33%
Your deceased uncle's kids 11% 11% 11%

(Hypothetically, say one of the uncle's kids had previously died and left behind two kids of his own. Then those two kids would each get 5.5%)

It is recommended to not use the term 'per stirpes' but to instead be more specific about exactly who and under what conditions, spelled out, because of confusion like this. I assume your mom thinks the 60-day comment means that she and aunt are supposed to inherit 50/50? It may not hold up if there is no further explanation about it in the will because it is quite vague in intent.

Easy to read. If it was deemed legal back then, then his heirs have no standing.

However, that does not mean they won't contest the will and try to get money out of it.

Many people will contest a will simply to the point where the other party finally gets tired of dealing with them and gives up. They offer then some paltry amount to just shut up and go away.

This was her house. She allowed her son to live there as long as he lived. He is gone. His inheritance is gone now.

I think your attorney should just have a hearing and have it ruled on. Period.

A friend of mine was the executor of her mother's will. When her mom died she'd given up her job and moved in to take care of her. Mom went to the hospital and never came home. My friend had the job of going through everything. Her brother's wife is an attorney and she contested the will and even my friend living there.

The judge ordered that everything be put in storage and kept there until this estate could be settled. Again, the mom had written a will and named her daughter, my friend, the executor. The will stated what was to be done with the house, her personal belongings, and everything. The brother's wife simply wanted it all sold and cash handed over to them.

The stuff is still sitting in storage and is costing my friend $80 per month and it's been years. The money from the estate is gone. Has been for a very long time. My friend is under court order to pay for the storage until the case is settled. It's been nearly 15 years now.

She refuses to back down from what her mom wanted. The brother and his wife refuse to go by the will. The judge won't settle it. They've filed for a new judge now.

When I was on a board of directors for a community organization a person in town left their house to the organization to be used for a family or resold, they didn't specify that it had to be used in any way. Their son filed an injunction to stop the organization from taking the house. Our attorney told us that this could be drawn out for years. He suggested that we offer a settlement just to get the person to go away.

We did as he suggested and the son refused to take it. When we went to court the judge felt the offer had been way beyond anything expected so he settled the case in our favor.

Today, I reread your post a couple of times and realize I misunderstood the relationship part. It's the heirs of the brother who lived in the house who died that is challenging the will. ie, there is only one brother. I see the dilemma more clearly.

It seems to me that the brother's heirs have no legal claim on sharing proceeds from sale of house. They can file in court making that claim and it will be up to the court to decide. Is that what his heirs have done?

Court action is expensive. I would compare the cost of going to court with possibility that his heirs could win with the cost of giving his heirs 1/3 of the proceeds of sale of house. I would make a decision based on the likelihood that heirs would win and how much each sister would get in that case as compared to how much each would get if the house sale is only divided 2 ways. I would rely on your mother's attorney's estimate on both.

Sounds complicated to go this way. However, her attorney can simplify this using $ numbers, if he thinks it's possible the heirs will win. When a will is challenged the cost of the attorney hired by the executor is paid from the estate before funds are distributed. Ask your mother's attorney, actually he is the estate's attorney, about paying court costs.

However, the decision to fight the heir's claims involve more than the black and white of money. Emotions influence decisions too. What is important is to recognize them and decide what is most important to the two sisters. What is their goal and how much are they willing to risk to obtain their goal.

I suggest to consider the possibility of reaching a compromise. I would consider mediation. I think the cost would be taken from the estate before distribution.

I would get organized by listing my goal and compromises I might be willing to make. List questions to discuss with attorney about what would help you reach that goal.

I would need to make a sort of flow chart that is based only on $ amounts. Your mother's attorney can help with that. I would also write down an organized list of emotional issues. I would get help from someone who can be neutral to help me know how to make and reach goals. The attorney may be able to also help with finding a counselor to do that. I have to put thoughts in writing because otherwise I go in circles.

For me, having peace and love now would be more important than following my mother's wishes as set out in her will. It's been 10 years and circumstances have changed. It's quite possible, if her mother knew current circumstances she would make a different decision now. My mother would want peace in the family.

My first resonse below may not be helpful.

*****************************

Thoughts about what? If the will has already gone through probate hasn't a judge closed probate? It's been 10 years. On what grounds can your uncle contest the will now.

Your mother has an attorney. Why and what are you researching?

Those are my thoughts. However, I really don't understand the situation you briefly described. I consult with an attorney on legal issues. If I believe he will represent me,.I hire him. When he tells me I can save money by doing some research, I try to do it. But only with specific direction from the lawyer or his office.

It is pretty straight forward. He was able to live in as long he was alive. When he dies the houses goes to the 2 daughters.

Even if he has a will about the house it is invalid since the daughters have vested interest.

IMHO, your uncle's children are entitled to his share of the home. "...with remainder to my children equalliy" which includes him.