Notes on issues related to setting up an LLC so that the Farm can be preserved, for a time at least, as a single parcel. (This is Plan B, Plan A was spelled out in the Will and remains an option if Plan B should prove unworkable.)
That's the easy part, it's in the details where things get messy...
Ideally the house is not part of the Farm, but current zoning regulations prohibit the usual house-and-an-acre exclusion, which would ensure that he had a place to live in the worst case. If we're forced to exclude from the Farm the entire 20 acres the house is on, then Steve's share of the remainder is below that of the other brothers', and his parcel then becomes vulnerable to County bullshit regarding Ag-use thresholds.
Must avoid Community Property pollution, care will need to be taken if funds must ever be put into the Farm for any reason. Does spousal sign-off at incorporation time prevent this?
If they are part of the Farm, necessary (perhaps) to keep the wooded portion in Ag use, then they should be formally part of Farm assets, to be managed (and shared) like anything else.
Keep in mind that a 100-acre estate might be far more attractive than a 99-acre parcel with somebody else's house squatting in the middle of it. The house might need to be part of the sale in order to get the sale to happen at all, even if they don't actually want the house. (They could even be planning to raze the house for their helipad or Pony Pavilion, in which case the house's value wouldn't actually factor in to the sale at all, from their point of view. Would Steve then even be entitled to an off-the-top portion? [Yes, he's giving up something of value in exchange, regardless of what they'd do with it.])
It has become clear that nobody involved has the aptitude or interest in Plan B (above). Steve has expressed, on multiple occasions, his intention of living the rest of his life in the house he has inherited, farming what he can. The Jackpot/Exit scenario in Plan B becomes impossible.
OK, back to Plan A. Sort of. Dad's Will called for the farm (Clark county) to be split into five equal-sized parcels: one each to his three sons, one held in common containing the well and barn, and another one held in common to be sold if taxes need to be paid. No accounting was to be made for any relative value difference among the parcels, and especially no accounting for the timber was to be made. This plan was conceived with the mindset that part of the farm would have to be sold to pay taxes, but that is currently not the case. (State law at the time of Dad's passing exempts estates of $2.1M or less from death duties, and the federal threshold is higher. The appraised value of the Estate was less than this. So, no punitive tax load.) Also, this plan comes with the huge headache that would be managing the commonly-held assets on an ongoing basis, a potential minefield of conflict and dissention that lasts 'forever'.
The three beneficiaries have agreed that a clean three-way split is more to their liking, as there is no real necessity for five parcels other than that it provides the (current) maximum number of subdivisions. Neither Jim nor Gene need access to the barn; Gene does not need access to the well; Steve, sooner or later, will need his own well anyway. Moreover, we have all agreed to the rough plan that Gene penciled out, where each son gets his original parcel plus 1/3 of the 2/5 common portion. So long as there is no opposition among the beneficiaries, we can do this instead. (Otherwise I execute the will exactly as written. [Plan A.])
- Jim
- Jim's parcel (A) to the West is the most varied, and has excellent access to the road bounding the entire North side of the original 100-acre parcel, substantial cleared land, the well, and some timber. It contains the Lyons homestead house site.
- Steve
- Steve's parcel (B) to the East has the house and barn, substantial cleared land, and all developed assets such as the orchard, vineyard, greenhouse, garden, driveway, power. It is possibly 1 acre larger than the other two parcels, and has excellent road access. It has negligible timber.
- Gene
- Gene's parcel (C) to the South has a building site with a spectacular view, and considerable assets in timber. It has some cleared land. It does not have good road access, except as mentioned below.
Ignoring road-access issues for Gene, the equal-thirds parcel layout would be:
North
+=====+===========+
| | |
| | |
| | B |
| | |
| | |
| A +-----------+
| | |
| | |
| | C |
| | |
| | |
+-----+-----------+
Because Gene does not trust Steve's likely beneficiaries, he does not want a mere easement to the road. Because Steve does not want additional traffic on his driveway (which is extremely close to the house), especially if Gene should sell his parcel, he also does not want the most natural easement: access to the existing driveway, which already makes it almost all of the way to Gene's parcel. In response, the plan has Gene's parcel include a strip of land out to the road, located between Jim's and Steve's parcels and away from the house, making his the only parcel that is not strictly rectangular. (The other easement possibility, down the East side of Steve's parcel, is not practical due to the topography.) The boundaries between Steve's and Gene's parcels are adjusted accordingly to accommodate this strip; there is no effect on Jim's parcel. Steve's parcel remains rectangular but gets a little narrower in the East-West dimension, and a little deeper in the North-South dimension. Gene's parcel ends up resembling the little flag stuck into a club sandwich: largely rectangular but with a little stick poking out one side to the road. Gene is willing to 'buy' part of Steve's parcel for the road access, in exchange for less of the residual estate funds, if that should be more desirable to Steve.
The rough appearance of the three parcels is, then:
North North
+=====+=+=========+ +=====+=+=========+
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | B | | | | B |
| | | | | | | (+ $$) |
| | | | | | | |
| A | | | OR | A | +---------+
| | +---------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | C |
| | C | | | (- $$) |
| | | | | |
+-----+-----------+ +-----+-----------+
(The nasty ASCII sketches are not to scale, and are meant only to
illustrate the rough shapes and orientations of the parcels.)
Other issues:
The intent is that the farm continue operation as before, as much as is possible, until such time as somebody changes his mind, sells, or dies. Beyond, even.
What I want out of the lawyer:
I already have the death certificates and the Letters Testamentary, this was pushed through by my father's own attorney, as her last act on his behalf. There are no conflicts among the beneficiaries, we are all in agreement with what is to come.
We have determined that we shall divide the farm into three parcels, A, B, and C, one each for the sons named above. Steve will continue to farm all parcels for the forseeable future, as he has been since even before Dad's passing; the house and barn are on Parcel B. This keeps the land in the land-use classification, meaning we can afford to keep it. The intent is that the farm continue operation as before, as much as is possible, until such time as somebody changes his mind, sells, or dies. Beyond, even.
What I need is help taking care of the real estate. Mostly rural. I can do everything else that is not already done. (The bank accounts and other investments I have left 'til last, once all other expenses and accommodations have been taken care of, so that any final rebalancing can occur.)
What I want out of the lawyer:
Further details can be provided if this looks like something you might be interested in.
I sent the above to: https://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/earl-william-jackson-jr-815895 and https://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/bonnie-marino-blair-830044 on Wednesday, July 20, 2022.
Contacted Tuesday, May 23, 2023, left message.
Contacted Tuesday, May 23, 2023. John Meier, in office. (Field surveyor Jim Hannon.) $5-8k? They expect it to be simple, as it's above parcel minimum.
We have come up with a division plan that satisfies both the Will and the three beneficiaries. Notable features of the three proposed equal-area parcels, listed in beneficiary birth order:
- Jim
- Jim's parcel (A) to the West is the most varied, and has excellent access to the road bounding the entire North side of the original 100-acre parcel, substantial cleared land, the well and its water right, and some timber. It contains the Lyons homestead house site.
- Steve
- Steve's parcel (B) to the East has the house and barn, substantial cleared land, and all developed assets such as the orchard, vineyard, greenhouse, garden, driveway, power. It also has excellent road access. It has negligible timber.
- Gene
- Gene's parcel (C) to the South has a building site with a spectacular view, and considerable assets in timber. It has some cleared land. It does not have good road access, except as mentioned below.
(The nasty ASCII sketches are not to scale, and are meant only to illustrate the rough shapes and orientations of the parcels.)
Ignoring road-access issues for Gene, the equal-thirds parcel layout would be:
North
+=====+===========+
| | |
| | |
| | B |
| | |
| | |
| A +-----------+
| | |
| | |
| | C |
| | |
| | |
+-----+-----------+
Because Gene does not trust Steve's likely beneficiaries, he does not want a mere easement to the road. Because Steve does not want additional traffic on his driveway (which is extremely close to the house), especially if Gene should sell his parcel, he also does not want the most natural easement: access to the existing driveway, which already makes it almost all of the way to Gene's parcel. In response, the plan has Gene's parcel include a strip of land out to the road, located between Jim's and Steve's parcels and away from the house, making his the only parcel that is not strictly rectangular. (The other easement possibility, down the East side of Steve's parcel, is not practical due to the topography.) The boundaries between Steve's and Gene's parcels are adjusted accordingly to accommodate this strip; there is no effect on Jim's parcel. Steve's parcel remains rectangular but gets a little narrower in the East-West dimension, and a little deeper in the North-South dimension. Gene's parcel ends up resembling a mailbox flag, with the stick going out to the road.
Due to the topography where the three parcels meet, some boundary modification in that area might be necessary in order to make a driveway to Gene's parcel practical.
The rough appearance of the three parcels is, then:
North
+=====+=+=========+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | B |
| | | |
| | | |
| A | | |
| | +---------+
| | |
| | |
| | C |
| | |
+-----+-----------+
Other issues:
The intent is that the farm continue operation as before, as much as is possible, until such time as somebody changes his mind, sells, or dies. Beyond, even.
I accounted for 3 days to perform the initial fieldwork and another 2 days to set property corners. I'm hoping that your neighbors to the south would potentially let us set GPS points near your south line which we could use for our traverse along your south line which will be much more efficient than starting in your field to the north and making a traverse loop.The title of the property is still in Grandparents' names. (Jim/Marian) So that'll need clearing up.
Sent death certificate to victorycapitalinvest@vcm.com They say to call after 5-7 business days.
Called National Financial Services, LLC. (800) 801-9942 about RNQ-056243
Will need a snail-mail exchange of paperwork to arrange for transfer.
They E-mailed instructions to follow.
Called Clark Co. clerk's office: (564) 397-2292 regarding a fresh copy of Letters Testementary. Clerk's office said they don't expire. (As I thought, also.)
Have to re-petition the court, essentially starting over. They suggested (564) 397-2268 law library, helpers? Time to call Janna again? I left a message on Janna's phone.
and sent it to her. Contact info:convert -type grayscale -threshold 25% /tmp/IMG_1626.jpg /tmp/lt.jpg
Amela Caluk
VP, Operations Manager
Estate Servicing Operations
Bank of America
T 602.379.8815 M 480.826.6343
amela.caluk@bofa.com
Good news, if it works out!
She believes the current problem is that there are two actual court documents that I got: The 'Letters Testamentary) (1 page) dated 2018, and a 'Certificate of Transcript and Recording' (1 page), two copies dated 2018, 2023. The 2023 Transcript, the only one new enough for them to use, refers to a 2020 Letter, which I don't have. The copy I personally picked up at the Clark County courthouse last month was two pages: the first a copy of the 2018 Letter, and the second a newly-created Transcript, dated 2023, referring to a 2020 Letter. Could this have been a mistake by the clerk?
I'm leaning towards the latter. I went there in person, and paid $5 for two pages that appear relatively unrelated? Gotta be a mistake.
Upon reflection I called the courthouse and talked to the clerk's office. The handwritten May 8, 2020 date on the second page is completely spurious, and looks like a mistake made by the deputy clerk I was dealing with, in person, at the time. No date associated with this case is any of May, or 8, or 2020. (Had I noticed/suspected it could have been cleared up right then and there. But... who knew?) It should have been October 19, 2018—the date of the original filing.
But it gets even worse. The court, on its own, decided in September that the estate is now closed, due to 'inactivity' (and getting a freshly-dated copy of the Letters clearly doesn't count as activity) so I cannot even get a reprint. Not without a new petition to the court re-opening the estate.
So, either the other bank will allow me to open an estate account based on their prior acceptance of my paperwork, or there will be a (probably lengthy, and expensive) delay.
Argh! Cluster fuckage to the max! I called Janna, and she's willing to do the necessaries. If I don't hear from her before the end of next week (Oct 6) I should call back.
Capsule summary, so far:
Gene says of the Lewis Co. property: "As to the valuation of the land—now that gets interesting. The current valuation by the assessors office is a whopping $1,100.00. Helps keep the taxes down. I believe this is how they now value timber property-dump the assessed value and charge the same amount as everyone else—just mils per smaller value. They seem to boost it up about $100 every five years or so."
"What could it be sold for? I could justify a pretty wide range on that number. Seems to me that the assessor ranged from 15K to 63K in five years then dropped it to 42K. Then they changed how timber was assessed and it dropped to 1K. On the other hand, 5 acres of flat field down near Tauscher Road is now listed for 150K. With internet and doubtless other ameneties, but lacking the abundant surface water everywhere. Aint nothin that contains dirt that is cheap anymore. That is a whole different kvetch."
Website for Columbia River Carbonates subset for agricultural stuff. (Google them directly at columbia river carbonates for access to other fields such as paper coatings, concrete, etc if you are interested.) https://micronaag.com/
They have ag. crop specialists that can work out dosing, fertilizer blends, etc. All you need to know to use their products well.
Peter Mahrt is the maintenance manager at CRC. Do not have contact info, but who you want is:
Gudrun Mahrt
Agriculture Sales and Development Manager
Direct: 360-225-4108
E-Mail: gmahrt@carbonates.com
Gene also states that if you mow/harvest wrong you can kill your yields. Timothy hay should be cut early, so that the seeds stay in the head and improve the protein content. But not too late or too low to the ground, else a low second growth will not have time to mature and re-seed itself before winter sets in. (Too too late and it will have re-seeded itself from the first growth, but the hay quality will be poor.) Do it right and it's self-seeding, 'perpetually'. Do it wrong and the timothy dies off, leaving only lesser grasses.
Seeding with less-expensive rye also isn't the savings it might appear, because you have to seed heavier with rye than with timothy even in the best of conditions.
The difficulties with the original lawyer (and the bank) have been sorted out, and we're actually ready to proceed with the project, if you're still up for it.
I did not hear anything back, casting a wider net.This ping worked, Hannon will review our account and contact me Monday. To Janna:The difficulties with the original lawyer (and the bank) have been sorted out, and we're actually ready to proceed with the project, if you're still up for it.
I had not heard back from you, so in spite of my father's directive to utilize you for 'the other side', so to speak, this has gone on far too long so we have secured other counsel, and the probate has been successfully re-opened and the Estate account (the gating factor for paying for the real estate work) has been opened.Thank you, anyway. Be well.
Signed and mailed back the agreement form to AKS Engineering & Forestry. (Surveyor. Estimate in the $21k range.)
Thanks for sending the agreement, we received it. I'll work on getting this prepped and scheduled, we'll likely start field work in a week or so, I'll let you know the date when we're coming out.
Sorry for the delay , we have one more day of field work to get the boundary sorted out, I have the crew scheduled for 12/20.I sent the note to Steve. Anything like this should not have happened, nor does it sound like something he'd tolerate.One thing to note, the crew mentioned that on the last day they were at the property they saw what looked like some kids on the property aiming rifles in their direction. I’m not sure if the kids live there or if they were visitors but please let them know not to do that.
Steve asked what was going on regarding the alleged rifle-pointing, and one of the guys acted a bit sheepish and said it was 'taken care of'. The gentleman in question is a combat veteran, and could perhaps be having a bit of PTSD on this matter, which is certainly understandable and we sympathize with his circumstances. Steve got him to point out exactly where he thought he saw a 'scope reflection', which was the middle of the back yard. (A rather unlikely place for such an occurrance, given the nature of the property.)
Steve assured them, and me, that he did not do anything like this, nor would he have done, nor would he tolerate any of his guests to misbehave in this way. I believe him. His guests are using the property to ride motorcycles, and would not wish to jeopardize the arrangement. They are under fairly stringent supervision.
However, stories and rumors of this sort have a way of growing legs, and we do not want this to contribute toward any kind of tragic armed response in the future where law enforcement might be tempted to shoot first and ask questions later. It happens, and we don't want it to happen here.
If you could look into this a bit further, and write back with the result of your investigation we would appreciate it. We have no intention of causing trouble for anyone, but we would like a response to this that we could file in the unlikely event that things need further clarification later.
Thank you.
Received $8,712.39 bill from AKS, including 37 hours of field work. Much less than estimated. Is this a complete and final bill? It says for services "through 11/30", so I imagine not.
I talked with the crew and they mentioned that kids were a couple hundred yards away and they didn't have a crystal clear view, I think they were somewhat going off intuition based on seeing people in a prone shooting position and something that looked like a rifle. I'll take your word for it that it wasn't what they thought and consider the matter closed.andIn other news, they got enough data to resolve the boundary of the property, I'll reach out to you next week to discuss the layout for the segregation.
I think for the line marking/monumentation portion of your project we will use a different crew and start with a clean slate. If Steve has any questions or concerns let him know he is welcome to reach out to me.
As I said, I'll take your word for it that it wasn't what they thought and consider the matter closed.
I apologize for this taking so long, please see attached for a review copy sketch of the segregation.I excluded the road right-of-way from the area calculation, it looks like the road was officially established as public right-of-way in 1914 (looking back through our correspondence you had mentioned that it may have been an easement). I made the flagpole portion 30-feet wide, you might be able to get away with narrower but it could restrict future uses.
I'm generally available Monday, Wednesday and Thursday next week to review this over the phone. We may want to round off the southwest corner of Parcel 2 to make driveway placement easier for Parcel 3. Let me know if you'd like to review a map with elevation contours.
The place where the three parcels come together is a little further SW than we were holding in our minds, and my Parcel 3 brother (Gene) is concerned about the topography of the driveway that would ensue. The corner is kind of down in a hole. Quote:I have no objection to a rounding of the corner if they break out their big surveying tools and figure out how much an inch or two variance of the border between us turns into an easier corner. Shouldn't take much. I have no desire to make a narrower drive.Any ideas?
Gene not entirely happy with the shape change to C, and the nature of the riparian terrain he picked up, but it's not like there was a lot of choice here.
The rough appearance of the three equal-sized parcels is, finally:
North
+=======++========+
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || B |
| A || |
| || |
| | \_______+
| | |
| | |
+-------+ C |
| |
+-----------------+
We have finally got the survey for the Cathey estate (farm) segregation done, by AKS Engineering, and need to actually get the segregation executed and convey the three resultant Clark county parcels to their respective new owners, along with the Pacific and Lewis county parcels. Is this something your office does or, if not, do you have a recommendation? We had at one time started talking with Landerholm, but that never went anywhere due to our being unready at the time.Other issues/complications:
Thanks!
- There is a water right on one of the parcels that I want to keep.
- We need an easement across one of the parcels, for continued farming and possibly utilities purposes.
- The original parcel was never officially conveyed to its sole heir, my father. It appears to still be owned by my long-deceased grandparents.
I believe a meeting would be in order. There are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out in the message you sent below. It would take hours for me to respond adequately to your message in a written format. Maybe later this week.?...or next week....which might work better on my calendar...although I could probably try to squeeze something in this week on Wednesday around 1:30 p.m....or Thursday at 2:30. Let me know what might work best for you.
As you may recall, I live in Spokane. I am just fine with a Zoom or FaceTime meeting, or even a plain phone call if necessary. I have not been as on top of this as my brothers would like, and I need to get things moving, so this week would probably be preferable. My schedule is pretty flexible, so any time should work. Shall we pencil in Wednesday at 1:30? Thank you.
Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. would work. Would you like to call my office at that time? Sure. I will call the (360) 693-5883 number at that time. Thanks! I look forward to your call.
Some additional information that may be of use. A crappy ASCII sketch of the subdivided 100-acre parcel:andNorth +=======++========+ ===COUNTY ROAD=== | || | | || | | || | | || B | | A || | | UUUUU | | | \_______+ | | | | | | +-------+ C | | | +-----------------+The 33-acre parcels are of equal size. The "U"s mark where a privatized power line crosses. This was, at one time, supplying utility power to the (defunct) homestead site on A. The lines are still there, but supplying 220V power to the well on A. They're clearly on power-company poles, but I think they were privatized in the 1950's. This is unclear, and possibly irrelevant, but this is the most natural place for the PUD to again bring power to any building on Parcel A, and also the most natural place for an easement across C's flagpole driveway. Parcel B is the active farmer's, and contains the barn and equipment storage, and should Parcel C be sold out-of-family, farmer B still needs official access to Parcel A without having to go out to the county road and around. Hence, easement.My grandparents were James Edward and Marion S. Cathey. Marion died in Clark county, and I believe so did Grandpa Jim. (In 1959, on Marion's birthday.) I believe Marion was Jim's sole heir. Marion's will is attached.
The water right concerns the well that fed the two (at the time) households on the property. It is stated that way on the right, that it's for feeding up to two households. I don't have a copy in my possession at the moment. It's filed on the farm. (Parcel B.)
The well (on Parcel A) is still feeding the remaining household on Parcel B, but a new well on B has been dug and is in the process of being deployed. The well on A is being kept, of course, for use on A. If C wants water, he's got to make his own arrangements.
The original 160-acre Lyons homestead was purchased by my grandparents James and Marion in the 40's. Grandpa passed in 1959. Grandma, unbeknownst to the rest of the family, sold off 60 acres for a pittance in the early 70's, IIRC. She passed in the late 70's, and the remaining 100-acre parcel should have transferred to my father George, their only living child, but apparently did not, as the surveyors found James/Marion still listed as owners of record. George passed in 2018, after his wife, our mother, and then Covid happened right before I (the executor) was going to get serious with the estate, which stopped everything.The value of the estate, at George's passing, was below the State and Federal tax thresholds.
It is still a single 100-acre parcel, but the surveying for partitioning into thirds, according to George's Will (and our intentions) has been done, and legal descriptions for the three pieces have been created. Heirs are George's three sons, James/Marion's only three grandchildren: Jim (James), Steve (Stephen) and Gene. Gene and I are both married; Steve is a widower, and also has two ex-wives. We all have children, who are not interested parties because the three primary heirs were living at the time of George's passing.
The Will called for 5 20-acre (minimum-sized) parcels, but this had been done primarily so that one parcel (in the back) could be sold to pay inheritance taxes, which at the Will conception time would have been relevant, and significant. This was no longer necessary due to tax law changes over the years. The original plan had the three heirs holding in common this parcel and the parcel that had both the barn and well on it, but that adds significant complexity to the heirs' lives, which none are interested in. The 3-way split maintains the equitability of the original Will, with no ongoing inter-heir complications. The barn ends up with the farmer, on the parcel with the house and all other improvements; he was going to need his own well anyway, eventually. All three heirs, the only interested parties, agreed to this modification early on. The original Will made no provision for road access for the three (now one) parcels that did not abut the county road. The current plan (originally Gene's work) and survey cover this. I believe only a utility/farming easement is necessary to complete the set.
The separate Lewis county parcel goes to Gene, and I get the Pacific county parcel. Steve got the house, and is living in it and continuing to farm the 100 acres. We must keep it in land-use (agriculture, silviculture) in order to afford to keep it. Parcels above the 20-acre minimum facilitates this.
He also states that the segregation can be filed by the surveyors, and if it goes through (depending on how fussy the county is at that time) that will simplify things immensely. A non-judicial agreement among the heirs may be all that is necessary if title is already 'ours'.
In the worst case we'd have to re-open a combined probate for James and Marion, and get the property conveyed into George's estate. From there I can get it conveyed to the heirs.
The Lewis and Pacific county parcels are no-brainers.
I am to:
According to the lawyer we've been using, it is likely that the segregation paperwork (vs conveyance) can be filed by you, there should be no need for a lawyer (and his fees!) to get that part done. Ownership, such as it is, would remain unchanged, and be dealt with a little later. (Dealing with the whole James and Marion thing promises to be fun.)Letter to Gene:Is this making any sense? Is this something you can do?
The lawyer thinks that the whole farm ownership thing is pretty interesting. Worst case scenario we have to open James and Marion's probates again. (We hope this is not necessary, and it may not be.)Gene's reply:Do you have death certificates for them?
Nope. Even if I did, they would not be certified copies which you would probably need for legal purposes. To get that you would also need to have certified copies of Dad's and your birth certificates to prove the relationship. They have gotten sticky about making such things available. Once upon a time you just showed up and asked.I can tell you that : Grandpa-
James Edward Cathey, born 31 July 1890 in Whipple Creek Wa. Married 16 June 1919 to Marian Shirley McGinnis. Died 15 November 1959 at Veterans Hospital, Vancouver Wa. Dr Herbert Doren presided over funeral, buried in Park Hill Cemetary, Vancouver WA on 18 November 1959.Probably the dept of Health in Clark County would have the records for Dad. Grandma and Grandpa births (if needed) would be at: For deaths outside of Clark County prior to 2017, or any Washington State death filed from 1907-2001, visit the Washington State Center for Health Statistics website or call them at 360-236-4300 or toll-free, 800-525-0127. (Same for death certs.) If you need their parents' names I can get that to you too.Grandma- Born 15 November 1895 in Kalamazoo MI, died Woodland Wa on 5 November 1978.
If the estate trust was fully encompassing, Dad could dispose of it through his Will. If not, and it is Grandma's Will that prevails then Dad's will becomes less pertinent and leaves the state and lawyers in charge. Not a fan.