>>Aside: Inheritences are not taxable (depending on the state) to those who receive them. Since your dh's name is on those accounts and she doesn't have a will, it's not considered an inheritence.That is certainly not true in the state of CA. Anytime someone dies, their assets are part of an estate inherited by someone - whether the joint owner, or otherwise specified heirs. If there is no will or joint ownership, the "rule of inheritance", known as "per stirpes" (which differs by state, BTW), will be followed. And more states are instituting estate taxes, especially as RE and sales tax revenues fall. The true issue is the overall size of the estate and how the state of domicile treats community and joint property. The federal estate tax limits are $2M for 2007/8, $3.5M for 2009, and unlimited for 2010. In 2011 it goes back down to $600K UNLESS Congress does something - which they doubtless will, but there are no guarantees on exactly WHAT they will do. In light of the burgeoning deficits (where oh where did our little budget surplus go?) it is a safe assumption the estate tax will continue, but at a higher level than the old $600K limit. The estate is liable for the taxability of all gifts made on its behalf, prior to final disbursement. Once inherited, it becomes part of the heir's estate, counted in with the heir's personal assets. Whatever gifts the heir distributes, are his/her tax responsibility. Realistically, if the gifts are going to total LESS than the federal estate tax limit for whatever year the Estate Owner dies, there is no tax due on either donor or receiver end. For instance, my MIL's estate is less than $1M. She can give her son $200K, file a report on the gift with the IRS, and nobody will owe any tax even when she dies. Her estate falls under the federal estate tax limits unless Congress does nothing and the limits revert back to the old $600K limit in 2011 and beyond. So as you can see, much depends on WHEN the person owning the assets dies, thus adding to the uncertainty of planning for the future. If you have a very large estate, one way to disburse an inheritance is to use the gift tax laws, currently $12,000 per person. You can even top-load by giving up to five years' of exclusion amounts at one time. In this example, a fond grandparent would disburse $60K for each grandchild, perhaps by funding a 529 plan for each child. In this way, with five grandkids, $300K is removed from the estate for federal estate tax purposes (for the next five yrs; after that they can start gifting again), with no tax liability to anyone. If both grandparents are alive they could each give $12K x 5 and remove $600K from the taxable estate, no small sum. They would want to do this if their estate is large enough that it will trigger estate taxes no matter what Congress does - although if the federal estate tax is eliminated, that strategy becomes unnecessary and I would expect they would revisit the inheritance scenario at that time. As far as the IRA is concerned, she is taking her mandatory distributions, called RMD. Upon inheriting the IRA, your DH should NOT roll this money into his own IRA, but keep it separate. He is required to continue taking the RMDs based upon HIS life expectancy, and yes he will pay income taxes on this. He cannot avoid taxes by rolling it over to his children; the tax liability will only shift to them - but there may be other legal issues here, so he would definitely need to speak to a tax advisor about this. I don't know how one could disclaim an IRA to pass it on to other heirs, but your DH should specifically request the details on how to "stretch" an IRA (that's the technical term, if I recall correctly). Your DH should also remember that there are tax consequences to liquidating the taxable assets of anyone, including an estate. Any profits ARE taxable and no distributions to heirs should be made until the final tax return for the estate is done. In that manner the estate will pay the income tax, not the heir.

So a little education on flood zones - simplified for understanding: The important ones are "A" "V" or "X" based on FEMA's FIRM maps for 1% chance, aka 100-year-flood or base flood. X means not in a flood zone. I have a friend who is waterfront seawall on the west side of Tampa Bay and his house is X (although his pool is in the flood zone). So you can be waterfront and not in a flood zone. V (and variations beginning with V) are the coastal zones where there may be wave action and unobstructed winds. These are the "stilt homes" found on the barrier islands such as the Outer Banks or St Pete Beach (and elsewhere, but that's the familiar site on the news). If you enclose the stilts under the house, you have to have breakaway walls or vents - basically the requirements are different for V homes. My neighborhood has one row of "V" homes that are on the outside of the canals, facing west across a big bay, so they are subject to the higher winds and building waves coming across. A (and variations beginning with A) are the other flood zones, more along the lines of rising water. Building code is set for the maps at the time, so that the lowest living level (determined by your elevation certificate) cannot be below your BFE (base flood elevation from the FIRM). In my county, you can be miles from the water and still in an A flood zone - you have to check the maps. The big problem is that the FIRMs change all the time so you might not be in a flood zone one year, and then the next you are suddenly in one because the lines were re-drawn. They are not obvious. My home is -3 (my lowest living elevation is 8' and my BFE is 11'). In the 50 years these canal homes have been here, the water has never risen over the seawalls. In the 7 years we've lived here, the water has risen just awash over the dock a few times during tropical storms - and our dock is about 2-3 feet below the top of the seawall and 6-7 feet below our lowest living level. So it's difficult to believe that flooding will be an issue here, but that's the same thing that those folks in NJ and NY thought during Hurricane Sandy - although if you live on a barrier island, well, you should know what you're getting into. So, the issue that came up with the flood insurance homeowner's protection act during the past year, is that a lot of homes were built to the current code at the time, before the FIRM was in place. The maps were drawn and new flood insurance rates reflected homes not built to current code. While some people say that their prior rates had been "subsidized", I say that we were "grandfathered" because there are lots of "old code" issues that we don't correct every time a house sells and gets insurance. We grandfather the electric, the pool safety equipment, the roof, etc, so I think it's fair to "grandfather" the elevation, too. I make this argument because of the randomness of the FIRM - each year, more folks suddenly learn they are in a flood zone and need to buy flood insurance that they never needed before, and it sure would be nice if they were grandfathered based on the building code when the house was built. (I don't think anywhere is hardly ever un-designated flood). Even if you are already in a flood zone, you may find that the new FIRM has raised your BFE and now your flood insurance may double or triple (or worse). Also note: The NFIP flood insurance max is $250K. I'm not sure what the point is for a $1.8M house (back to the OP). Another note: FEMA flood zones ARE NOT the same as hurricane evacuation zones. I've had plenty of people say they are fine because they are in the "B" zone, and I know they're talking about the evacuation level, which are labeled "A" for the first evacuees, then "B" and "C". Evacuation zones are based on travel routes and other factors, so that the barrier islands evacuate early due to bottlenecks at the bridges and such. Those with direct access to highways will evacuate last. Those have have to drive through "worse" flood zones to get out will evacuate early even if their homes are on high ground (like my friend in the first example - he's an "A" evacuation even though his house is X) Tierra Verde, where the $1.8M house is located, is an "A" evac zone.

We have home in Florida in an HOA and the people on the board are decent and responsive---much better than most of the neighbors who try to evade the HOA deed restrictions and are frankly nutty as so many people in FL seem to be. We had previous home in neighboring TX town and Board there was fair--only made one really bad mistake when they let family everyone like build new fence after their house burned and they had to rebuild from ground up. They rebuilt same plan but put in 10 ft ceilings vs 8 on second floor and wanted taller fence to balance out design...bad move for two houses who faced that fence... There have been legitimate reasons to grant variances in this current subdivision in the past and some variances that were questionable--either because they were granted or were refused. The problem is not so much with the rules themselves---but as mentioned --with the people enforcing them... We travel too much back and forth to be Board members. My husband would be great--calm, fair, doesn't jump,to conclusions...I am too plain-spoken.

My husband and I met with him yesterday hoping to get a better timeline. There is another delay so instead of July we are looking at August. It's really not our decision making that is delaying as we're done with the major decisions. When I asked him for a timeline of when things are going to be ordered and completed for better idea we received a vague answer. When I asked him about tiles for kitchen/fireplace and lighting (which I completed selection over 2 months ago) he couldn't really give an answer other than "Don't worry I'll take care of it." That has been the answer to many things. I don't know what else to do other than wait and hope he follows through. I'd be concerned and I'd make sure he has lien releases for you to see. Like JDS said, make sure you have a paper trail to give him. Reading between the lines, it sounds like he's hurting for cash.