Spouse rights and responsibilities of inherited property

[indebtt]

I guess it seems it may be in my best interest to keep anything from the courts and just hope I can live out my days on the property and maybe quit claim it on my death so as to keep my own kids from having to worry about this, especially where its such a small amount of property. Not worth the cost of filing fees and other costs it seems, if my kids are left with this confusion.

 

[justalayman]

I guess it seems it may be in my best interest to keep anything from the courts and just hope I can live out my days on the property and maybe quit claim it on my death so as to keep my own kids from having to worry about this, especially where its such a small amount of property. Not worth the cost of filing fees and other costs it seems, if my kids are left with this confusion.

i have to apologize for laughing when I read that. Don't know why it struck me so funny but after you posting your situation here and watching it spiral in a kamikaze crash with you simply going;

I hope when I die....


I am so sorry for that.



but unless you want to get really really really into this, you may be right in your thoughts.

 

[tranquility]

I'm not sure how all the little bits an pieces come together here. To me, the key fact is:

We learned from her lawyer that the estate should have been probated at the time of my grandfathers' passing but it was never done.

If true, grandfather's estate needs to be probated before anyone has any rights or responsibilities. From a later post, it seems the term "intestate" was used. If the property was separate property, I believe 1/3 would go to his wife and 2/3 to his children (or descendants of children) with wife having a life estate in the home.

But, nothing really passes unless probate or, if less than $50K in value, an affidavit transfer occurs. If there was a transfer, grandma has gifted her rights to the OP and brother and it is theirs now. If there was not a transfer, the first probate/affidavit must happen and then, probably, the transfer takes place. I say probably as the type of deed and how it was written may be important. While grandmother might be estopped from challenging OP and brothers ownership, it might not have been validly transferred.

As to the taxes, the owners are responsible.

 

[Zigner]

Couldn't it have transferred based on how it was titled?

 

[justalayman]

Couldn't it have transferred based on how it was titled?

maybe but if that was the case, I would presume it was a joint tenancy or such that allowed all interest to go to the wife. If that were the case, there would be no 1/3's of anything the OP and brother would have inherited.

 

[indebtt]

I'm not sure how all the little bits an pieces come together here. To me, the key fact is:
If true, grandfather's estate needs to be probated before anyone has any rights or responsibilities. From a later post, it seems the term "intestate" was used. If the property was separate property, I believe 1/3 would go to his wife and 2/3 to his children (or descendants of children) with wife having a life estate in the home.

But, nothing really passes unless probate or, if less than $50K in value, an affidavit transfer occurs. If there was a transfer, grandma has gifted her rights to the OP and brother and it is theirs now. If there was not a transfer, the first probate/affidavit must happen and then, probably, the transfer takes place. I say probably as the type of deed and how it was written may be important. While grandmother might be estopped from challenging OP and brothers ownership, it might not have been validly transferred.

As to the taxes, the owners are responsible.

Speaking of affidavits, the tax office people said we needed to file an Affidavit of Heirship, which I went through the paperwork and see here.

They value the property at 34k though our insurance says 50k

 

[Zigner]

maybe but if that was the case, I would presume it was a joint tenancy or such that allowed all interest to go to the wife. If that were the case, there would be no 1/3's of anything the OP and brother would have inherited.

You were the one who (first) mentioned a 1/3rd interest. Up until that point, we were talking about the entire "estate" (I'm assuming that the OP meant "house" or "property" and not actually "estate.")

The OP simply responded to your suggestion that step-grandma may have only "owned" 1/3rd.

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3265190]I'm not sure how all the little bits an pieces come together here. To me, the key fact is:
If true, grandfather's estate needs to be probated before anyone has any rights or responsibilities. From a later post, it seems the term "intestate" was used. If the property was separate property, I believe 1/3 would go to his wife and 2/3 to his children (or descendants of children) with wife having a life estate in the home.

from what I read it is a 1/3 life estate to the wife with ownership interest going to heirs.

But, nothing really passes unless probate or, if less than $50K in value, an affidavit transfer occurs. If there was a transfer, grandma has gifted her rights to the OP and brother and it is theirs now

.but intestacy with community property and sole ownership in to the decedent results in wife gaining only a 1/3 life estate with ownership going to descendants/heirs. If she was a co-owner, then remaining share goes to heirs and presuming a 50/50 split between decedent and wife, brothers would inherit a 1/4 share each (presuming they are the actual heirs and only heirs due anything).

 

[indebtt]

i have to apologize for laughing when I read that. Don't know why it struck me so funny but after you posting your situation here and watching it spiral in a kamikaze crash with you simply going;

I hope when I die....

I am so sorry for that.

but unless you want to get really really really into this, you may be right in your thoughts.

No offense taken, I was chuckling as I was typing it too.

 

[Zigner]

from what I read it is a 1/3 life estate to the wife with ownership interest going to heirs.



.but intestacy with community property and sole ownership in to the decedent results in wife gaining only a 1/3 life estate with ownership going to descendants/heirs. If she was a co-owner, then remaining share goes to heirs and presuming a 50/50 split between decedent and wife, brothers would inherit a 1/4 share each (presuming they are the actual heirs and only heirs due anything).

UNLESS the property was titled in such a way that it transferred outside of probate...and that's what it sounds like to me.

 

[tranquility]

from what I read it is a 1/3 life estate to the wife with ownership interest going to heirs.



.but intestacy with community property and sole ownership in to the decedent results in wife gaining only a 1/3 life estate with ownership going to descendants/heirs. If she was a co-owner, then remaining share goes to heirs and presuming a 50/50 split between decedent and wife, brothers would inherit a 1/4 share each (presuming they are the actual heirs and only heirs due anything).

From Texas probate code 38:

(b) Intestate Leaving Husband or Wife. Where any person
having title to any estate, real, personal or mixed, other than a
community estate, shall die intestate as to such estate, and shall
leave a surviving husband or wife, such estate of such intestate
shall descend and pass as follows:
1. If the deceased have a child or children, or their
descendants, the surviving husband or wife shall take one-third of
the personal estate, and the balance of such personal estate shall
go to the child or children of the deceased and their descendants.
The surviving husband or wife shall also be entitled to an estate
for life, in one-third of the land of the intestate, with remainder
to the child or children of the intestate and their descendants.

 

[justalayman]

UNLESS the property was titled in such a way that it transferred outside of probate...and that's what it sounds like to me.

so why would the woman's lawyer mention inheriting 1/3 shares and the like? and if the OP and brother inherited 1/3 shares each, why is it they did not become aware of the ownership until wife transferred her remaining share?

The surviving husband or wife shall also be entitled to an estate
for life, in one-third of the land of the intestate, with remainder
to the child or children of the intestate and their descendants.

1/3 life estate only with remainder to the child or children so, OP and brother (if only heirs) would have already each owned a 1/2 interest in the ownership interest and a 2/3 share of the life estate interest.


I suspect it's one of those questions that will never be answered, at least here.

 

[Zigner]

so why would the woman's lawyer mention inheriting 1/3 shares and the like?

Where did the OP say s/he had? I missed it...

 

[indebtt]

Where did the OP say s/he had? I missed it...

While I appreciate the details everyone is trying to get from me to figure out intestate sharing of this.... I was thinking this was clear ownership with my brother and I at this point due to the tax office billing us and removing the step-grandmothers name off the tax rolls.

I know things dont seem to be finalized in everyones' eyes here, and just maybe it isnt, after seeing all the posts. My question devolved from asking about a spouse rights/shares to the estate to am I and my brother even the legal owners of the estate at this point which has really gotten me wondering about all this, but I cant afford a lawyer to figure out the details of that.

So, that being said ... IF it were perfect and my brother and I own it, (the estate), after being gifted to us, my question still falls back to my original post of this :



Question : Does my brothers' wife now share responsibilities of the estate ... taxes and all.

Thanks all

 

[indebtt]

It means that if a person leaves something to Bob, it becomes Bob's property, not Bob and his wife's.

I kind of think that if Zigner is correct, my question was answered and it's appreciated.