I need objective views over a family dispute.

[Just Blue]

I don't mind telling anybody but first explain me why it matters who I am in all this, please.
I really don't see why it would matter.

Because if you are not a legal party in this legal matter, you are unlikely to have all the facts. You are likely posting based on 3rd hand information. Which means that any guidance you get is useless. It is also unwise to post on the very PUBLIC internet about a legal issue that LEGALLY has nothing to do with you.

Now do you understand why it matters who you are in all this?

 

[Cpw vuk]

Because if you are not a legal party in this legal matter, you are unlikely to have all the facts. You are likely posting based on 3rd hand information. Which means that any guidance you get is useless. It is also unwise to post on the very PUBLIC internet about a legal issue that LEGALLY has nothing to do with you.

Now do you understand why it matters who you are in all this?

Yes. I am Son 1 and have all the information needed about this story since Day 1.

 

[Cpw vuk]

Edited Original Post saying I am Son 1.

Also edited out this part:

"Important part of the story is:
. Dad has EXTREME oblivious irresponsible immature mentality (like mentally 16yo)
. Son 1 has PRONOUNCED oblivious irresponsible immature mentality (like mentally 19yo)
. and Daughter is more of a responsible go-getter."

Cause it seems like people focused too much on that part in a legal way, which wasn't my intention.

 

[Cpw vuk]

Dad gifted the money to daughter who bought property for herself.


Son 1 had no legal say so. Daughter was the only owner.


Daughter profited handsomely.

Daughter was contemplating sharing her money? That was nice of her.


Daughter gifted people money. That was nice.


Without a written contract, Daughter owns it all and owes NO ONE anything. Statute of frauds.

It was very nice of her.
It's great to read that.
Thank you for your help.

 

[not2cleverRed]

As Son 1, I believe my assessment of the situation is pretty damn objective.

It is not.

You might have first hand knowledge of some of the facts, but your personal opinion colors your understanding of them.

You are on a legal advice forum, asking whether you, your half brother, and father have a legal claim to some money; whether your sister perpetrated a fraud upon you.

You feel taken advantage of. And jealous. That comes through.

What makes you think that your "irresponsibility" is a valid excuse? Being a man child is legally fine, but it in no way relieves you of legal adult responsibilities. YOU knew what was going on. You did not seem to disagree at the time. There was no fraud perpetrated.

 

[Cpw vuk]

It is not.

You might have first hand knowledge of some of the facts, but your personal opinion colors your understanding of them.

You are on a legal advice forum, asking whether you, your half brother, and father have a legal claim to some money; whether your sister perpetrated a fraud upon you.

You feel taken advantage of. And jealous. That comes through.

What makes you think that your "irresponsibility" is a valid excuse? Being a man child is legally fine, but it in no way relieves you of legal adult responsibilities. YOU knew what was going on. You did not seem to disagree at the time. There was no fraud perpetrated.

So your conclusion is Daughter owns everything.
Dad, Son 1 and Son 2 can only move forward and try to forget.
Gotcha.
Thanks.

 

[Cpw vuk]

What makes you think that your "irresponsibility" is a valid excuse? Being a man child is legally fine, but it in no way relieves you of legal adult responsibilities. YOU knew what was going on. You did not seem to disagree at the time. There was no fraud perpetrated.

Valid excuse for what? ...
I only mentioned that point to explain regular sane people reading this thread and who could never be able to relate, how can some people let a situation go to hell so badly without ever even taking care of it.
I never mentioned it in a legal way.

 

[LdiJ]

No, it doesn't matter.
I'm not asking you to speculate on who you believe is objective or not.
But to read a situation as already stated objectively, and draw conclusions off it.
May I be any of these characters, it won't change what you can make of the situation one single bit.

Bottom line: Daughter owns all of the property legally, unless a constructive trust can be proven. I would be expensive to attempt to prove that in court.

Morally, daughter probably should get a larger share than the others because she has taken the responsibility for the assets and covering the expenses of the assets. She has also paid all of the taxes on any earnings of the assets since everything is in her name. I suspect that the profits of the trailor park and/or the house were not all that high. People tend to not realize just how many expenses are involved in being a landlord.

Whether that larger share means that brother 1 should get nothing more, and brother 2 only $55,000 depends on the actual value of the assets, not the speculative value. For example, she would not have netted $180,000 from the sale of the house.

 

[Cpw vuk]

It is not.

You might have first hand knowledge of some of the facts, but your personal opinion colors your understanding of them.

You are on a legal advice forum, asking whether you, your half brother, and father have a legal claim to some money; whether your sister perpetrated a fraud upon you.

You feel taken advantage of. And jealous. That comes through.

What makes you think that your "irresponsibility" is a valid excuse? Being a man child is legally fine, but it in no way relieves you of legal adult responsibilities. YOU knew what was going on. You did not seem to disagree at the time. There was no fraud perpetrated.

So would you say Daughter owes Son 2 one third of 2011 money? Or Nothing at all?

 

[Cpw vuk]

Bottom line: Daughter owns all of the property legally, unless a constructive trust can be proven. I would be expensive to attempt to prove that in

Do you think a legal team could fight for both Sons' interests against a later percentage of what they can get back?
Or only for regular lawyer fees. Which we will never be able to pay.

Btw Daughter will agree even today that initial $160k investment from 2011 was for the 3 children. She never denied that point.

 

[stealth2]

Do you think a legal team could fight for both Sons' interests against a later percentage of what they can get back?
Or only for regular lawyer fees. Which we will never be able to pay.

Btw Daughter will agree even today that initial $160k investment from 2011 was for the 3 children. She never denied that point.

You would need to discuss that with a lawyer.

 

[Cpw vuk]

Morally, daughter probably should get a larger share than the others because she has taken the responsibility for the assets and covering the expenses of the assets. She has also paid all of the taxes on any earnings of the assets since everything is in her name. I suspect that the profits of the trailor park and/or the house were not all that high. People tend to not realize just how many expenses are involved in being a landlord.

How about the fact that she pocketed rents from tenants for years, while the rest of the family thought they also were due this money?
How about the fact that she lived rent free for years, while the rest of the family had to pay a rent?

 

[LdiJ]

So your conclusion is Daughter owns everything.
Dad, Son 1 and Son 2 can only move forward and try to forget.
Gotcha.
Thanks.

I don't think that any one is suggesting that you just walk away. However, you do need to understand the legal realities of the situation. She has offered $55,000 to brother 2 so of course brother 2 should not walk away from that.

 

[Cpw vuk]

You would need to discuss that with a lawyer.

Would you advice a RE lawyer from Florida (where initial investment/deal was made) or NC (where assets are today)?

 

[not2cleverRed]

So would you say Daughter owes Son 2 one third of 2011 money? Or Nothing at all?

See post number 5.