WSJ article on farmily farms interesting read
hinfarm
Posted 2/16/2026 07:53 (#11553253 - in reply to #11552909)
Subject: RE: WSJ article on farmily farms interesting read- their "DUE"?



Amherst WI
Jim - 2/15/2026 18:55

SLC - 2/15/2026 19:26 How do other businesses allocate the shares to non operating heirs? Why should non farming heirs forfeit their due?

QUESTION: Since when do uninvolved kids/heirs have any "due?"

If you're not involved and not interested in the family business why do you have any "DUE"???

Uninvolved kids can be given some kind of modest lump sum of cash in a will, but why should they expect a portion of the business or farm? You can add a clause where they get a share of the net if the business/farm is sold within X number of years.

We love all of our kids but that doesn't mean it has to screw up a business or farm, especially when one (or more) of them chooses to continue the business and is working hard to make it a success. Leaving uninvolved kids a share of a business or farm is just a recipe for conflict among the family for years and works against the ability of the business or farm to succeed/continue as it may in the family in the WSJ article. 

I feel the business goes to those care about it and who chose to work at it. The others can follow their own calling.

Not everything needs to be equal. Love and business/farm are two different things.



I think a lot of non farm heirs feel they have something due because growing up their life was constantly held back or put on hold because of the farm that always came first.

This is probably even more so the case when you use situations like David pointed out but the farm is still going and the “chosen” heir got theirs but the rest either had to leave or were simply drove off.


Top of the page Bottom of the page