How to split up a car?

[Neilk]

Originally Posted by the

Exactly. She gave $15,000 of value to one of the kids 7 years ago, at which time the other 2 received nothing, zip, nada.

If the idea is "fairness," i.e., equal distribution to the 3 siblings, then at the time the $15,000 car was given to one sibling 7 years ago, $15,000 should have been put into each of the other 2 siblings' imaginary "inheritance accounts" at that time.

It surprises me that so many think it is fair to just ignore that, or that the other 2 should only get some nominal additional amount now that the rest of Mom's assets are being distributed to the kids.

The other 2 should receive at least an additional $15,000 each, more than the Buick sibling. That money was put into their "accounts" 7 years ago. Now they are entitled to it - that is fair.

Well it would help to hear about everybody's circumstances. It's possible that the other 2 got something else over those 7 years in place of the car. Was anybody clamoring over the car while she was alive? Too many family dynamics to really make a good decision, but my initial comment still stands.

[the]

Originally Posted by Tishabet

Both of my parents are alive. If they decide to give my brother a car, isn't that their right? I would never dream of standing up and saying, "Hey, you gave him a car! Where's MY car? It's not FAIR!!"

Sure, that's their right.

But, IMO, it's not really fair to the siblings, though. I suppose people have different definitions of fairness.

My parents, through the years, have given things to the adult (or semi-adult) children (they bought our cars until we were out of college, for example). But they always did so evenly.

I will be the same with my kids when they are adults - anything I give to one, the others will receive the same, or the same value. To me, that is only fair.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by the

If the idea is "fairness," i.e., equal distribution to the 3 siblings, then at the time the $15,000 car was given to one sibling 7 years ago, $15,000 should have been put into each of the other 2 siblings' imaginary "inheritance accounts" at that time.

Where is Moses to weigh in on this weighty matter? He is the most Solomon like of the OT regulars...

Mother was the arbiter of "fairness" in this case. While she could - she did what she did for her own good reasons.

But to translate her intentions into dollars and sense and some kind of balance sheet is silly...

[gprsh924]

Originally Posted by the

Sure, that's their right.

But, IMO, it's not really fair to the siblings, though. I suppose people have different definitions of fairness.

My parents, through the years, have given things to the adult (or semi-adult) children (they bought our cars until we were out of college, for example). But they always did so evenly.

I will be the same with my kids when they are adults - anything I give to one, the others will receive the same, or the same value. To me, that is only fair.

My parents received things much differently than their siblings (in that they got much less because they were/are more successful and need less). They somewhat attempt to distribute things to my sister and I evenly, but if they don't, so what? It is their decision to use their resources how they see fit. My sister gets to drive the 2001 Xterra (that I put some money into through upgrades and maintenance when I drove it for a year). I have to drive the rusty 93 525. Fair? Technically, no, but my dad bought both cars so he damn sure gets to decide what he is going to do with them.


*I'm pretty much just playing devil's advocate above, I actually prefer the Bimmer because it is way more convenient/comfortable for my 300+ mile trips back and forth to school. I should also get a lot of seat time in the M3 this summer as my dad will probably prefer to take the older car to the airport.

[KaptKaos]

I think the $15k "value" of the car 7 years ago is moot. The value of the vehicle now is $4k. Yes, the one child had the benefit of the car during that time, but so what? Parents rarely treat their kids fairly.

The value of the asset at the time of death is $4k. If you want to split that, then that's fine. The asset (Buick) depreciated over time, there is not much you can do about that.

Here's an example to think about. Let's assume it's a house, not a car. Let's say the house appreciated over 7 years from $100k to $150k. The sibling that was living in the house for those years, paying the upkeep, taxes, insurance, etc... Would you expect to split $100k 3-ways with the extra $50 going to the sibling that lived in the house for 7 years or $150k 3-ways?

The problem is that the asset, the Buick, depreciated.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by rouxroux

Hmmm...How to split up a car?

wisdom needed here.....


wait for it.....


Answer is:


Solomon says SAWZALL!!!!!!!

I was going to say cutting torch. The problem is you've got 3 people so you can't do the "I'll cut it and you choose first" routine.

[Laneco]

The Buick was given away to your sibling well before your mother's death. The Buick does not belong to anyone but the person your mother gave it to. Her gift to them, period. It is their car - to keep - to trade - to push off a cliff. Theirs.

Let it go and move on.

angela

[Dueller]

Mother (or her agent) gave sibling the USE of a car 7 years ago. Inter vivos gift separate from the current estate. It is now worth $4K and an asset of the estate. Transfers through the estate are causa mortis gifts. Sibling with the car preserved the asset through maintenance and insurance if you need a rationalization for their 7 year "windfall."

If the sibling wants the car let them have it. Value at $4K as part of their inheritance...otherwise sell it and place the $4K into the estate assets.

Other two siblings need to lbe gracious and let this go out of respect for their departed mother.

[Superman]

The appropriate value to use for this car would be its value at the time of Mom's death. The party that has the car should place it in the pool, like all the other assets. If that person, or a different sibling, wants the car....then that's part of the distribution.

[Fellowship]

A bit more information:

The mother was put into the nursing home due to mental and physical issues, she did not knowingly give the car away.

Since she was unable to drive the car, one of the siblings asked if they could drive the car versus just having it sit in a parking lot. They did not want to purchase a new car at time.

It was not clear if the mother would be able to use the car in the future.

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by Fellowship

A bit more information:

The mother was put into the nursing home due to mental and physical issues, she did not knowingly give the car away.

Since she was unable to drive the car, one of the siblings asked if they could drive the car versus just having it sit in a parking lot. They did not want to purchase a new car at time.

It was not clear if the mother would be able to use the car in the future.

You obviously were not the one who got use of the car. Did you or the other sibling protest the use of the car? Has this been a bone of contention in the family?

Consider this. Had you stored the car commercially what would it have cost? And what would it be worth at the time of her death had no one used it? Why wasn't it sold? Was it addressed within the four corners of the will?

Look you could go round and round over this. AT BEST we're talking about an $11,000 dispute here. Divided 3 ways that's $3,666.66 per sibling. You want to tear your family apart over principle and fairness? Seems pretty petty to me even if that was the only estate asset.

[KaptKaos]

Originally Posted by Fellowship

A bit more information:

The mother was put into the nursing home due to mental and physical issues, she did not knowingly give the car away.

Since she was unable to drive the car, one of the siblings asked if they could drive the car versus just having it sit in a parking lot. They did not want to purchase a new car at time.

It was not clear if the mother would be able to use the car in the future.

Doesn't change anything IMO. It's worth $4k now as a part of the estate. That's it.

What answer are you looking for? You don't seem to like the ones you are getting.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by Superman

The appropriate value to use for this car would be its value at the time of Mom's death.

Correct. That's not my opinion, that's what the law says.

I am very fortunate. When I had to deal with estate issues with my two sisters, we all were generous with each other. We went through the house giving things to each other- "You deserve that" type of stuff. No squabbles, no hurt feelings, just the best "Christmas" ever.

When it came to the major financial issues, there were still no arguements. Major hurdles, but we discussed the best way to procceed, came to agree fairly quickly. Somehow, we all remained very level-headed during a very difficult time.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by Fellowship

A bit more information:

The mother was put into the nursing home due to mental and physical issues, she did not knowingly give the car away.

Since she was unable to drive the car, one of the siblings asked if they could drive the car versus just having it sit in a parking lot. They did not want to purchase a new car at time.

It was not clear if the mother would be able to use the car in the future.

Why not give us all the relevant information up front?

Probably because you want us to just say "Hey! That's not FAIR!!!" well...even if it wasn't 'fair' I think it would be far more important that your mother died (my condolences) than you got bilked by your sibling out of $1300.

[teenerted1]

wow i never would have thought a 7yr old Buick was worth $4k

needless to say my sister's college education sure cost more than mine did and the difference sure wasn't made up in the car they bought me while i was away at college. but i sure am not going to bring this up when we have to split things up one day. we know they loved us equally and things like this have never come up and i doubt they ever will. maybe we are just lucky.

getting petty about since they did the insurance and the maintenance these past 7 years i bet that might be equivalent to the depreciation over time. and if the law says it has to be at time of death then there is your answer. sell the car and split the cash 3 ways. why did you wait till now to bring this up? you have had 7yrs to settle this issue.

[speedracing944]

I guess there is a benefit to growing up poorer than dirt and not owning anything other than a shirt on your back when you leave home at 18. I have been spared the trouble of fighting over a Buick or wondering if my BMW is worth as much as my sisters Xterra.

Life is to short to worry about preferential treatment parents dish out.

I am truly sorry for your loss.

Speedy

[stomachmonkey]

Would we be having this discussion if mother lived another 5 years and the car was either a) already traded in and gone or b) now worth nothing.

My mother has given far more to my brother than she has to me. it's her money, he needs it, I don't. She has provisioned for us equally in her will. I'm OK with that.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by rouxroux

Hmmm...How to split up a car?

wisdom needed here.....


wait for it.....


Answer is:


Solomon says SAWZALL!!!!!!!

Personally I prefer a plasma cutter!

But the sawzall with a number of "torch" blades is very cost effective.

[legion]

Do it old-school.

Oxyacetylene.

[legion]

Seriously.

Have you hit probate yet? The judge will probably tell you what you need to do.