# Inheritance and the Dead Hand -- How Much Control?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 20, 2002, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036 "2002-12-20T15:56:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036/21 "2002-12-20T22:23:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Random \*
> \*\*The family loses the farm to taxes. [Bad] \*\*
Fortunately, in such cases, it is often possible to persuade a judge to break the trust, since the consequences are so obviously contrary to the intent of the trust.
My papa did this, back in the 70’s: his Great-Grandfather had put the land into a trust, to be divided up among the male heirs, but with the restriction that none of the land could ever be sold. Unfortunately, the entire ranch was about to go up for auction because of taxes. My dad went before a judge, and not only broke the trust, so that some of the land could be sold to raise money to pay the back taxes so we could keep the rest (yay!) but also to arrange for the land to be divided among both male and female heirs (yay!) and **retroactively** (really big yay: several nice elderly ladies suddenly became land-owners!)
Trinopus
---
### Author:  [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2002, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036/22 "2002-12-20T23:28:48Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TaxGuy \*
> \*\*
> **Random**
>
> OK, I think I need to cogitate more on your points, because they are different than **Mighty** ’s points. You may be right: giving someone the right to possess something but not sell it may be a bad thing. However, this is different than giving someone an income interest in a trust instead of the corpus outright (at least where the corpus is cash or an equivalent).
>
> However, note that the stuff you said at the end of you posts isn’t correct. The state can always take the property by eminent domain, Lord Doofus’s wishes notwithstanding. \*\*
Re: Eminent domain: True, the state can take land for a public purpose, and parks and hospitals would qualify under this test. Private uses (such as the big employer I mentioned, or a new residential development) are often beyond a state’s eminent domain powers. (The Illinois Supreme Court recently struck down the governmental taking of land to provide needed parking for an important area employer, because the public purpose test was not met.) Bottom line is that a state cannot redistribute land at will, even if the end use is more desireable.
---
### Author:  [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2002, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036/23 "2002-12-20T23:32:24Z")
Cite for above: [http://www.dcba.org/legal/case\_law0602.htm](http://www.dcba.org/legal/case_law0602.htm)
(I suggest that this limit on govermental power is a Good Thing.)
---
### Author:  [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036/24 "2002-12-20T23:33:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by wireless \*
> \*\*I just have to say that the concept/image of “Doofus Manor” created in my head by **random** ’s post has had me chuckling all through the rest of this thread! \*\*
Always glad to amuse!
---
### Author:  [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2002, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036/25 "2002-12-20T23:37:16Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TaxGuy \*
> \*\*Be a tax lawyer then, man. If you do corporate or business transactions then you’ll get paid to change the name, address, and dollar amounts on reams of documents. And don’t get me started on litigators . . . \*\*
Them’s fightin’ words, pardner.
Besides, (how shall I say this?) tax lawyers tend not to be the most charismatic people in the world. 😃
---
### Author:  [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2002, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036/26 "2002-12-20T23:47:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Trinopus \*
> \*\*Fortunately, in such cases, it is often possible to persuade a judge to break the trust, since the consequences are so obviously contrary to the intent of the trust.
>
> My papa did this, back in the 70’s: his Great-Grandfather had put the land into a trust, to be divided up among the male heirs, but with the restriction that none of the land could ever be sold. Unfortunately, the entire ranch was about to go up for auction because of taxes. My dad went before a judge, and not only broke the trust, so that some of the land could be sold to raise money to pay the back taxes so we could keep the rest (yay!) but also to arrange for the land to be divided among both male and female heirs (yay!) and **retroactively** (really big yay: several nice elderly ladies suddenly became land-owners!)
>
> Trinopus \*\*
Yup. And the second thing that your judge did (adding the female heirs as beneficiaries) was to strike down a trust provision that was considered to be contrary to public policy, even if that’s what the settlor wanted. Offhand, I remember two famous examples of this. One was the provision in Cecil Rhodes’ will or trust which created the Rhodes Scholarships. Originally, these were limited to white males. This restriction was long ago eliminated.
Another was a 1800’s era bequest which created a public park (in Atlanta, IIRC) on the condition that it be for the use of whites only. When the city opened the park to all, the settlor’s heirs sues to get the land back. The court essentially rewote the will and rejected the heirs’ claim, even though it was pretty obvious that this was contrary to the dead guy’s intent.
In a broader sense, this concept is part of the overall policy of subordinating the will of someone no longer alive to the general public good.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inheritance-and-the-dead-hand-how-much-control/144036.md?page=1)