August 11, 2017 at 9:20 am #696918Northern StarGuest
I think the LW is using the property as an excuse, because nothing about her story regarding the inheritance and name requirement makes sense.
Fyodor has her pegged.August 11, 2017 at 9:45 am #696919LisforLeslieGuest
I can see where the capital of a trust is bound by some kind of condition but once property is turned over, isn’t it now owned by the inheritor? I mean, if my some person leaves me 100 acres of land in Florida – don’t I own that and can’t I control that as I need to? Sell or build or turn it into a armadillo farm? I can’t imagine that any will written decades ago – transferring property – can’t be broken now. Why are there no estate attorneys here to give us real information?August 11, 2017 at 10:05 am #696920SkyblossomParticipant
I think the property can be both an excuse and a real situation at the same time.
Often if a person gives their reason for doing something and another person considers the real reason invalid then the person comes up with other reasons that the second person will have more trouble declaring invalid.
This highlights that the two of them are in no way ready for marriage.August 11, 2017 at 10:27 am #696921Ruby ThursdayGuest
@ListForLeslie, property law is filled with a bunch of outdated rules that people still use to restrict who can inherit. For example, a person may be given access to the property throughout their lifetime, but that access reverts to the original owner at time of death or if that person violates a covenant of the deed. Physical possession of the land is not always the same as ownership. While I cannot speak to the specifics of her situation (or any situation, because real property is the worst), a covenant restricting inheritance only to an individual with the family name is likely enforceable if the family executed it correctly. It’s also possible that the deed can be changed to accommodate future generations. In short, no. Just because someone gives you access to a specific property does not always mean you can do whatever you want with it. It all depends on the legal documents tied to the land.
If LW is truly concerned about the inheritance issue, she should consult an story asap. It’s possible her children could inherit without the last name. It’s also possible that giving the children two last names would not be sufficient to satisfy the covenant. In the end, an estate lawyer could not resolve this issue without looking over the actual documents.August 11, 2017 at 2:47 pm #696935dinocerosParticipant
The weird part to me, though, is that if it doesn’t go to a member of the family (or with the last name), it can be sold. So, why not just sell it to the member of the family who doesn’t have the last name? At that point, if it’s sold, it seems like it should no longer be under the rules from original owner.August 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm #697402carolannMember
Ron is right it will be difficult to have that long of a name. When I divorced my first husband I wanted to use my first name, middle (because my first and middle name are used as my “first” name) and maiden hyphenated with my married last name. I had issue with the dmv/ss who said I could do whatever, but only so much would fit on my license.