Prior to your 3 p.m. bedside conference with Mr Algren,
a bit of background about 1/2 interest in tenancy in common
which has been incorporated (perhaps inappropriately) into
the "Marion Namenwirth Trust Agreement dated December 11, 2015."

The difference between a joint tenancy and a tenancy-in-common:
1. If A places $1000 of A's money into a joint tenancy with B,
a) A does not make a gift in any amount to B.
b) A retains his ownership interests.
c) B has the right to liquidate the joint tenancy
d) When B liquidates the joint tenancy these ownership interests
   are preserved. 
e) B's appropriation of the joint tenancy without A's consent is theft.
f) B's appropriation of the joint tenancy with A's consent is a gift from A to B.

2. If A purchases a house for $1000 and places it into a tenancy-in-common with B, 
a) A must specify the proportion. 
b) B's receipt of a 1/2 interest, would constitute a gift of $500. 
c) Neither A nor B can sell the whole house
d) Neither A nor B can sell his interest in the house without the other's consent.
   This constraint seems to me eminently rational, because if B sold his interest
   to A's arch enemy, B could foil A's enjoyment of A's 1/2 interest.

Quite possibly in the last 50 years, the law has changed. (The most recent rage
has been condominium law about which I know nothing.) When I drafted the trusts
for our real estate, (Konnarock, 174, Lisbon, Nantucket) I was under the impression
that a gift of even 1% interest in a tenancy-in-common would require a new deed
with the co-signatures of all existing holders of interest in such a tenancy-in-
common. The conundrum: gifts of large interests in real estate tenancies-in-common 
are subject to gift/estate taxes; gifts of small interest in real estate tenancies-
in-common require the consent of all persons then holding tenancies. That is the
rationale for our real estate trusts which have as of now never been challenged
in court.

To return to the Dane County Wisconsin farm:

a) I believe the transfer of Marion's 1/2 tenancy-in-common interest into the
"Marion Namenwirth Trust Agreement dated December 11, 2015." is invalid when
it purports to transfer that interest e.g. to Klemens B. Meyer, Trustee 
without a deed co-signed by Barbara Namenwirth. !! Don't make this argument 
to Mr. Algren, it might generate thousands of dollars of legal fees !!

b) Obviously if Barbara and Micha and Felicia Ananda Lawrence Macindoe with
husband and children are fond of each other without reservation, Marion's bequest
will cause no problems. But such intra-family harmony (as we know only too well)
is not to be taken for granted.

c) My proposal, subject to "help" from Mr Algren or the TOD deed lawyer, and
subject to further delving into Wisconsin law, is, when it's time for Marion's 
estate to be settled, to provide Felicia Ananda Lawrence Macindoe with two
deeds, one deed signed only by yourself as Trustee (or Executor) of Marion's estate,
and the second deed to be co-signed (and presumably endorsed) by Barbara 
Namenwirth as the tenant-in-common whose enjoyment of the property will be
affected by the transaction. Mother and daughter may quite possibly fight
out among themselves, how to proceed; but the Trustee will have fulfilled
his obligations.

All this only FYI. Don't mention it to Marion, it might make her uncomfortable.
Don't mention it to Mr. Algren. It's beyond him; and as for me, 
[12] et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimisimus debitoribus nostris 
(Matt 6)