Thread: Questions about inheritance and abandoned houses

In the story I am currently working on, I have a particular scenario that I am not sure is realistic or not.

A young boy of grade-school age (I'll call him Nate) lives with his father (let's call him Tom) in an old suburban home in Chicago. Nate's mother died a short time before, and her having come from a very rich family, leaves her husband and son with a large inheritance. Tom begins to exhibit mental illness presumably brought on by the loss of his wife. His illness manifests itself in strange ways, though: he begins hearing and seeing people that aren't there, and he sometimes thinks Nate is a stranger. Over time, Tom's illness grows worse and worse. Eventually he hires someone to stay with them and help take care of Nate, but the father and son grow farther and farther apart.

When Nate is 10, Tom is murdered. (Yes, Nate is an unfortunate kid..!) Nate is the inheritor of his parent's money as well as the house. An executor of estate, a lawyer whom Tom had previously hired, advises Nate to sell or at least rent the house. But Nate cannot bear the thought of losing the house, so they come up with a solution to where the lawyer will send in the property taxes on the house every year, and hire workers to perform occasional maintenance. In return for this, the lawyer collects a small fee out of Nate's inheritance money.

Nate is sent to live in foster care, having no living relatives. Over time, as a teenager, he becomes distracted by life and doesn't pay the house much mind. Finally, he turns 18 and goes off to school out-of-state.

When he is 24, at the story's beginning, he decides to finally sell the house, but before he does he goes back to Chicago to go through the property and maybe find out more about his father's illness, and possibly gain closure about his traumatic childhood with Tom. He arrives at the house and upon going inside finds that it has had some intruders over the years -- smaller items and electronics have been pilfered, and there are cigarette butts and empty beer cans and ragged blankets. But the house is pretty much intact.

I had a couple of questions pertaining to the plausibility of these events.

First, would an executor actually do this kind of service? This is a lawyer that Tom had hired, not a family member or friend. Also, since it is doubtful that a 10-year-old boy would know anything about property taxes or the like, the lawyer would have to be the one to suggest this arrangement.

Secondly, in cases where an orphaned child enters the foster-care system, and that child is the inheritor of a large sum of money, what happens to the money? Who keeps it? Is some of it doled out to the foster parents for the care of the child? Or is it kept somewhere safe until the child turns 18?

Third, the house sits empty for fourteen years. There is minor maintenance work done on it, like the leaves cleaned out of the gutter in the fall, and the lawn is mowed every so often, but I envision it becoming something of a creepy, old eyesore in the neighborhood that the neighbors don't like, but can't really do anything about because it's not falling apart or posing a safety risk or anything. I know that empty houses drive down property values of the surrounding homes, but would there be any city ordinances violated by it just sitting there empty for that long? Would the city move to intervene, seizing up the property or anything?

Finally, would the amount of damage caused by trespassers and delinquent kids I describe be realistic? This is an old suburb of Chicago... a pretty affluent, stately place, not a ghetto, but I wasn't sure about the level of vandalism I had in the story... does it sound believable?

Sorry this post is so long. Any answers or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!

An interesting Question, there would be all sorts of possibilities over here, but I am sure English law is different from US law, so I await an answer from someone more informed with interest.

You might want to look into the duties of an executor. It might be different in the U.S. but as I understand it an executor can only carry out the express wishes of the testator, as specified in the Will. If this applies in the U.S. your scenario falls apart.

Here are some answers to your questions:

First, would an executor actually do this kind of service? This is a lawyer that Tom had hired, not a family member or friend. Also, since it is doubtful that a 10-year-old boy would know anything about property taxes or the like, the lawyer would have to be the one to suggest this arrangement.

Answer: Would an executor do this kind of service? Depending on the moral level of the executor, which can or cannot be a lawyer, he would do the service since it will benefit him, yes? If the executor is a lawyer, then he has more resources to execute this "service."

Secondly, in cases where an orphaned child enters the foster-care system, and that child is the inheritor of a large sum of money, what happens to the money? Who keeps it? Is some of it doled out to the foster parents for the care of the child? Or is it kept somewhere safe until the child turns 18?

Answer: This could be a little long, so please bear with me.

According to Philippine law, which is 80% copied from US law (yeah, Philippine law is a copy-cat, which is no big, since we were a colony of US before anyway), Any minor cannot own any asset, at least in paper. Sure, the mother can give his son an iPad, but the ownership of that iPad belongs to the mother, yes? Now, in case both parents die, the child will not automatically go into foster care and sent to an orphanage. The government will first try to search for a relative that can take care of the child. Only if this option is exhausted can the child be sent to an orphanage.

As for the large sum of money, you have to understand that the statutes of the law take precedence in execution over the desire of the will. In the civil code, there is this thing called "forced heirs," meaning, before a dead guy's wishes are fulfilled, his assets are first distributed to his forced heirs - meaning immediate family. Forced heirs are those mandated by the government to receive some portion of the left wealth to assure some fairness in distribution. Let's take Tom. When his wife died, not all the money will go to Tom. It will first go this forced heirs. But since only Tom and Nate is the immediate family, then all the money is given to them. Now, Tom dies. Tom's immediate family is his son, Nate. But wait! Nate is not yet eligible to own any asset. So his share is frozen in a trust fund by the government. This will now be contested. The succession of forced heirs go from immediate family (child, spouse) to extended family (grandchildren, siblings, parents). Once a member of the extended family contests the eligibility of Nate and wins the case, then the money goes to them instead of Nate's trust fund. Of course, the only sure-fire way to win the case is to have them take custody of Nate. So the siblings or parents of Tom take custody of Nate and gets his money.

Third, the house sits empty for fourteen years. There is minor maintenance work done on it, like the leaves cleaned out of the gutter in the fall, and the lawn is mowed every so often, but I envision it becoming something of a creepy, old eyesore in the neighborhood that the neighbors don't like, but can't really do anything about because it's not falling apart or posing a safety risk or anything. I know that empty houses drive down property values of the surrounding homes, but would there be any city ordinances violated by it just sitting there empty for that long? Would the city move to intervene, seizing up the property or anything?

As we all know from Accounting 101, any patch of land never depreciates. It actually appreciates over time. So the land increases in value. But the structure does not, unless it applies for what is called "historical building." When a structure reaches its 10th birthday, it is now eligible to apply for this status. Once the status is acquired, the building will be forced to be fixed and voila, the town gains a landmark. If, however, the status is not applied for, then it will be a candidate for a "condemned" status. Once it gets the status, the house will be torn down, and marketable assets sold. Scenario A can happen regardless of whether an owner exists or not. Scenario B can only occur with the permission of the owner. If an owner exists, then the law mandates the owner to repair the structure, lest the structure will be demolished.

As for you fourth question, I have not a single idea since I don't live in the US.

Again, sorry for the long post and hope I helped you in some way!

If you have more questions, please do feel free to PM me.