I definitely urge you to speak to a good estate lawyer. My parents left their estates in such a mess that it is only now slowly getting untangled, and my mother died in 2009.
We were set up in a trust years ago. Changed all my powers of attorney when my husband started showing signs of dementia . Followed the trust plan after my husband died. Consolidating the best I can now. Haven’t seen anything that needs changing.
Regarding the grandchildren--my MIL left a letter for the executor of her will (my husband) asking that he divide the proceeds of a certain insurance policy between all the grandchildren. He was the beneficiary, and when the estate closed, he did send a check to each of them.
Yes, I have given funds to my grandchildren this way. However, i am talking about inheritance. If the grandkids were older, I would name them beneficiaries of my Ira. However the youngest is 8, he would have to move it all out by the time he is 18. Yes , it can be moved to another account, but someone has to do all that accounting.
You are not correct when it comes to CA law. I realize you are trying to offer solutions, but your ideas to basically engage a realtor to create a fake listing is not something that a realtor will do. Anyone who engages a realtor must do so in good faith. If you sign a listing agreement with a Realtor and they bring you a full price offer with any and all terms agreed upon, if you fail to accept, that broker can sue you for the commission that would be due. So, your idea doesn't work. It is fraud. Also, what your advice does not take into consideration is the different tax treatment between inheriting a home and gifting a home. The brother and sister in this scenario have inherited the home. Inheritance comes with a stepped up basis. Meaning their new tax basis is the FMV of the property at time of inheritance. The property tax will adjust accordingly. If the real property was gifted to the kids by the dad before he died, then yes, the property tax would stay low, but then if they ever sold it their capital gains would be based upon their father's tax basis, not a stepped up basis.
Each child inherited an equal share. If there is nothing else to split, and this is the asset, then the son is correct that he is entitled to 50% of the FMV. The question nowadays in CA real estate is what is the "FMV"? Appraised value really doesn't take into account the market that can be crazy. It has been routine for homes to sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars over "list" price and over appraised value. That is the FMV -- what a willing buyer pays a willing seller. To resolve this will take compromise by both siblings. But I would say that if the homes in the neighborhood are routinely selling for significant amounts over list, then this won't be easily resolved because that could mean a difference of six-figures. The current market is so important to understand when it comes to pricing. Anyway, the sister needs to realize that the value could be higher than she wants to pay, and the brother needs to realize that not every sale closes at way above listing price or even at appraised value. It depends, that is why the real estate markets is so variable. Whatever dollar amount they agree on they will both need to compromise some. The brother may need to back away from an expectation of selling significantly over appraised value or even listing amount and he will need to consider the costs of sale, ie the commission that would be paid (assume 6%) and the sister needs to approach this as she would an arm's length transaction. No matter what, the sister is going to have to get a new loan in her name. She can't keep the deceased dad's loan. So, they agree upon a price, they split that price, they jointly pay off the loan with the new loan that the sister is getting, which is going to have to be enough to pay off the loan and pay the net due to the brother. So, if the dad's loan due is $300k, and the home is worth $1,150,000, cost of sale is $70k(estimated), then the sale proceeds are $1,081,000 less the hypothetical loan balance of $300k, would leave a balance of $781,000. Each sibling receives $390,500. Now, the sister needs to buy that home, and is going to have to come up with the $1,150,000 less the cost of sale (in this estimated at $70K because they are going to do the transaction between themselves), so she needs to "pay" $1,081,000 to buy the home from the dad's estate. She can use her share of her inheritance in the home of $390,500 in this hypothetical to bring the balance of new money she needs to come up with to $690,500. With that amount, the original loan is paid off (in the hypothetical of $300k), leaving proceeds of $390,500 to be given to her brother.
That is really poor advice. The UTMA in most states provides that upon reaching age 18 the money belongs to the minor. Colleges count UTMA accounts as assets of the minor when considering student loans and financial aid. Also, when that minor turns 18, if they want to draw all of the money out and buy a fancy car or take a trip around the world, they can do whatever they want with the money. Just because you wanted it to be for college or a downpayment on a house or whatever, you have absolutely zero say in the matter. They money is theirs to do with as they so desire.
Your daughter, as executor, will be entitled to compensation for probating the dad's estate, if she so desires. She gets paid off the top of the estate, and then the balance is split. She doesn't get paid by item handled. If she is trying to reduce the amount owed to her brother by her executor compensation, then she is being greedy. She can't charge her brother for that compensation. She charges the estate, and then there is less to share. And, she will then be required to declare that as income for her personal taxes. She really needs to decide as to what is worth it for her personal situation. By the way, one thing I've not said yet is that the brother can actually go to the probate court and force a sale of the property. He doesn't need to bow to his sister's wishes. He can retain counsel and request the court order the sale of the home. She needs to realize that he has that option.
Under California Probate Code section 10800, the Executor, Administrator, or Personal Representative typically receives statutory compensation based on California law calculated in the following manner:
Now isn't this the pot calling the kettle metal?
What I said about your advice being poor related to your suggestion that someone else put money for their grandkids into an UGMA account. As to the copy and paste, that was for the OP, who was confused about any probate fee that her daughter said she would be earning. It's not worth my time to read every post. Perhaps you can not be such a jerk. The info I provided was accurate as to the question posed.
And if the deceased dad did have the home in a trust, golly, look at the OPs original post. She didn't mention a trust. Rather, the OP talked about probate. And frankly, it makes zero difference as to the question regarding the brother and sister. Your suggestions are completely irrelevant. So what if it is in a trust. The brother can still force a sale. Unless you've been made privy to the actual trust document, you have no friggin clue whether or not the sister, as successor trustee of a trust, is entitled to compensation, as that is all governed by the terms of the trust itself. Get a clue and stop trying to practice law without a license. You are the reason I dislike these forums.
I gave no such advice about a UGMA account, you are obviously having trouble comprehending the thread.
She's completely misinformed here. I won't comment on her professional status or competency.