Due to stuff going on with dmil I’ve been doing research on contracts with the elderly

which the owners of the farm Kathryn wants are. One of the ways the heirs could monkey wrench the entire deal is both the husband and wife are over 60-65 (depending on the state, that number can change). If one of the heirs decides they want more money, or the farm itself they can claim Kathryn put “pressure” on the couple for the deal. We all know that wouldn’t be the case, but the way elder abuse laws are written they could claim it and possibly win. Then she is out any money, repairs, or equipment she has put into the farm.
Also, some of the reasons I have heard LC’s list against it are liability issues. Because Kathryn would be in a contract with them if some one got hurt—highly possible on a working farm—technically she could be sued as “partial” owner, but she would not be able to get insurance to protect herself on that property because she was not the titled owner of said farm. Same goes for if someone claims they got bad hay, or other farm product from the legal owners.