We had to get advice from Dave Ramsey on how to handle a family member holding our inheritance hostage – hear what he said

One of the most frustrating things to do with family is navigating any kind of inheritance coming down. Few things can pit family members against family members more than trying to figure out how to move forward if there isn’t a legally enforceable will or a company that two members of the same family own. 

This is exactly the case with someone who called into Dave Ramsey’s show, indicating that he and his sisters own 47% of a business their father started with his brother. Unfortunately, the uncle who is running the company is playing funny business and holding their inheritance hostage. 

The Family Situation 

With around $9 million at stake, this individual calling into Dave’s show is trying to figure out what steps they can take to calmly resolve the situation before it breaks up the family. With a 47% stake versus a 52% ownership level in favor of the uncle, the individual calling into Dave also works for the business as a “second vice president” and sits on the board of directors with his mother. 

We also learn that the business was taken private in the 1980s and is now an S-Corp. The caller indicates that the company does around $1.8 million in business annually and has “significant commercial real estate assets.” His goal is to make sure everyone who is supposed to get at least some portion of the father’s share walks away with a “bag of money.”

The focus is on the pre-tax amount of $9 million, with multiple family members vying for a piece of the pie. The uncle doesn’t appear to be planning to sell the company or the commercial real estate assets, but is stonewalling against the money owed as part of the inheritance. 

Dave’s Advice

Dave’s immediate advice is unsurprisingly frank as this individual needs to get some legal advice, as the uncle doesn’t seem to want to make any deals for the father’s share. This is especially true considering the board of directors is “stacked” against the family in favor of the uncle and his wishes. 

Any recommendation of pursuing legal advice can’t come lightly, but this is a very real scenario given the uncle’s unwillingness to move on any money matter. Dave isn’t wrong in that the caller should at least explore what a dissolution of the business partnership would look like and how that would affect the inheritance. However, if this is an option, and a judge gives the okay to move forward with a dissolution of the partnership, the family can take this ruling back to the uncle and force his hand. 

Of course, Dave also hopes there is an opportunity here to not destroy the relationship with the uncle. As a result, Dave hopes this individual has legal advice to avoid continuing with the uncle doing whatever he wants. This is why Dave wants the caller to sit down with his uncle and establish clear deadlines, as whatever is being done now doesn’t move the uncle in any direction. There is no question that going to court could end up in losing the inheritance altogether, but hopefully they can call the uncle’s bluff. 

This individual should go directly to his uncle and tell him he has two different paths in front of him. The first path is the easy way and has a positive resolution for everyone who is owed a payout, and it doesn’t cause the uncle any legal headaches. The second option includes a “nuclear button,” in which they all end up in court, potentially causing the business to fail altogether. 

Ultimately, Dave’s point about the current status quote not working is spot on. After three years, it’s borderline ridiculous. Someone has to blink and do something different to resolve this inheritance matter. This makes his advice about going with a lawyer spot on in that it is a last resort and will cost everyone more money, but if the uncle isn’t willing to play ball, it’s the only move left.