Help! I don't want to pay FIL's bills!

[Blurp]

The background: DH has 3 siblings who live nearby. MIL died a few years ago, so FIL lives alone in the house DH grew up in. They describe themselves as "very close" and have always gone to FIL's twice a week for dinner (just the siblings and their kids, not partners). When MIL was alive, she cooked; since her death, they take it in turns to cook, so DH cooks once every other week. This costs about £25 each time, so about £50 per month.

FIL has recently retired. He has absolutely no savings (MIL was a HUGE spender and just spent it all), and gets only a state pension. He's realised that he can't afford to pay for all the bills. The house has 6 bedrooms, so it's huge, expensive Council tax, expensive to heat etc.

In my head, the solution is that he needs to move somewhere smaller and more manageable. However, DH & siblings are not in favour of this because then they wouldn't be able to go round all at once, certainly not twice a week.

His brother has suggested that they all chip in each month to cover the bills - about £50 each. So including the cost of cooking once a fortnight, we'd be forking out about £100 a month for this.

We could afford it, but we'd be sacrificing other things. For instance, we'd like to move to a bigger house (the kids would love some outdoor space). But that would be very tight financially if we had this extra money to pay each month. We'd also like to start saving some money for the kids each month too - £25 each would build up to a decent amount.

DH agrees with me in principle, but is being put under pressure by his siblings. He said he'd feel bad continuing to go to dinner twice a week if he wasn't paying his share. But he also doesn't want FIL to have to move, thereby possibly meaning that they can no longer all visit together.

There was a vague suggestion at one stage that if FIL didn't have enough space, they'd all take it in turns to go round each others' houses, so we'd host every other week. This won't work because both me and one of the other siblings partners work from home and it would be too disruptive (and anyway, I don't really want a big crowd of people in the house once a fortnight). Again, I feel like I'm getting in the way of the plans.

Any suggestions? Is it unfair of me to say no to us paying money to FIL each month? Or is it reasonable to expect him to live within his means, even if that means moving house?

As he only has State Pension, the house is a bit like a pension pot. A capital pension pot, held in property, which provides no income. Downsizing to release cash is somewhat like other people, with more orthodox pension pots, drawing down capital.

Would this way of thinking change people minds, do you think?

@KenAdams

Whereabouts in the country does your FIL live?

I don't want to be too specific in case I out myself, but North East.

@TheSparklyPussycat

As he only has State Pension, the house is a bit like a pension pot. A capital pension pot, held in property, which provides no income. Downsizing to release cash is somewhat like other people, with more orthodox pension pots, drawing down capital.

Would this way of thinking change people minds, do you think?

That's a good way of thinking about it. I'll drop that in to conversation with DH!

or if they arent fussed about inheritance equity release

(I'm in the NE as well, in Pink Panther county. )

How would he feel about taking in lodgers in some of those 6 bedrooms? Bring in some cash and provide company.

My opinion is that he needs to downsize. If you can't afford to live where you do and it's too big, you move. I'd never expect or want my kids to pay for me to live in a house that's far too big! If he lived on a 2 bed house, family can still visit. I'd not be up for subsidising him.

The detail that has slipped past a bit is that OP has gone to part time work because of their DS’s health problems. So their income is reduced, OP can’t go and earn more and yet they are expected to pay? So she makes all the sacrifices and isn’t even invited? Sod that for a bag of chips.

Honestly, I don’t know what to suggest but from the outside they sound deluded. Life changes, things move on. Your son has a health condition, that’s more important than your father-in-law‘s dining table.

Genuinely could you get your DH to discuss this with a counsellor? Their incredulity might just be the wake up call.

What everyone seems to have missed us that if you were the FiL who is probably thinking that the house is his DC's inheritance and is trying to hang on to it for that reason. But if you were the FiL would you like people telling you to downsize, get equity or just sell it? It's his home. Help him out it's to your advantage in the end after all he's family or doesn't helping family matter anymore?

That’s not helping other than short term, it’s forcing him to become dependent on his adult children. He is in the very fortunate position of having a large asset which he can sell and still afford to buy another smaller property, a lot of pensioners aren’t in that position. Meanwhile OP is not able to downsize and her DS has health problems. Why isn’t the FIL prepared to help the rest of his family by becoming more self sufficient? He’s only in his mid 60’s not 80’s and is fit and healthy.

Who cleans the 6 bed house??

FIL probably does think the house is his main asset and must be preserved for the children. His children have probably also encouraged him to think like this, and he feels that he would be letting everyone down if he sold.

I was recently in the very same position with DM, who clearly believed that she had to hang on to her house come what may. I can't describe the relief on her face when I told her that I disagreed and that her health and well-being were far more important to us than making sure her children inherited the house.

What everyone seems to have missed us that if you were the FiL who is probably thinking that the house is his DC's inheritance and is trying to hang on to it for that reason. But if you were the FiL would you like people telling you to downsize, get equity or just sell it? It's his home. Help him out it's to your advantage in the end after all he's family or doesn't helping family matter anymore?

The issue with this is that in years to come if Fil needs care then the house will be seized as an asset to pay for the care. If he wants to keep it as an inheritance then he needs to look at forming some kind of trust where the house is passed on to the offspring but he has the right to live in it until death or care home etc. Or he down sizes and pays a lump sum to children if that is what he wishes or again ties the smaller property up in a trust.

Sounds as if there needs to be more conversation around what Fil long term plans may be and how that is expected to be paid for.

If he wants to keep it as an inheritance then he needs to look at forming some kind of trust where the house is passed on to the offspring but he has the right to live in it until death or care home etc

That doesn't work. The 7 year inheritance tax thing doesn't count if the FiL keeps living there rent free, as they are considered the "beneficial owner". I'm not sure, but I think the rent they pay has to be a reasonable amount too, not just a peppercorn rent.

That doesn't work. The 7 year inheritance tax thing doesn't count if the FiL keeps living there rent free, as they are considered the "beneficial owner". I'm not sure, but I think the rent they pay has to be a reasonable amount too, not just a peppercorn rent.

I wasn't thinking of the inheritance tax issue rather the fact that if its not his property he can't be forced to sell it to pay for care fees. The family could pay bill after bill for years thinking they would get it back in the end in the form of the house but if the house is in Fil name it will be classed as his asset to pay for care fees if needed. It does highlight that the family may need professional advice to move forward.

I wasn't thinking of the inheritance tax issue rather the fact that if its not his property he can't be forced to sell it to pay for care fees.

I'm not sure how I feel about being required to contribute to the care fees of someone who chose to remain in a 6 bedroom house whilst his own DC, who can ill afford it, pay his living costs.

I'm in the generation who are potentially going to be required to continue to pay for the care of the generation above whilst simultaneously paying extra into an insurance style fund to pay for our own care.

Why shouldn't FIL sell the big house, buy a smaller one, spend some of the proceeds buying an annuity and also give his children some capital now - I'm sure that if OP is trying to buy a bigger house then £10-£20k now will mean alot more to their family than a bigger sum in 20-30 years time.

If in due course his home is sold to fund care then it doesn't matter as much if the DC have already had something. It might also reduce the potential of vulture-circling amongst the siblings in future years if they aren't expecting to receive much more.

If he sells the property and has any form of means tested benefits, pension credit for instance or council tax benefit, he will lose them and be expected to use the money from the house.

I think its a lovely thing to do!

I think in some things you write you sound kind of ill feeling towards him if i am honest.

My parents have been good to me and one day i can only wish i could repay the favours as its what we should do if we can.

Although i cant see why he couldn't downsize and kids still spend time there for dinner.

Thats silly

What's to stop him selling up, buying 2 smaller properties, and letting one. That's a small income. That saves the family from propping him up financially. He keeps his self respect (I'd really push that bit🙊).

For those eying up his property, it's still there.

He's a grown man. He can make his own decisions. But so can you, OP. Don't be pressured by others who don't have your family's best interests at heart.

They describe themselves as "very close" and have always gone to FIL's twice a week for dinner (just the siblings and their kids, not partners)

Yet the partners are expected to contribute their family money and time to keep FIL's inheritance safe for his children and grandchildren - cos i bet you the partners won't even see their contributions to these 'family' meals back let alone anything else.

I think what they're doing is extremely rude and insulting to the partners - apparently you're not 'family' even though your kids are......

YANBU and make it clear to DH you will support him in putting his foot down.

A simple "we'd love to but we're actually committed to buying a larger house ourselves as we're desperately short on space so unfortunately we cannot afford to chip in" should suffice

There's no reason why he can't downsize to a 3 bedroom with a good sized kitchen and dining room. I suspect the siblings are thinking of preserving their inheritance more than they are thinking of FIL.

I think the FIL could downsize and just prioritise finding a house with a big enough dining area for a table for 6. Most 1930's semis would do accommodate this easily, even if they haven't been extended, so this is not a big ask.

But I also think you have to leave this one up to your DH and support him whichever way it goes. Supporting GPs is just something that has to be done sometimes.

6 bedroom house and struggling for money? Get 5 lodgers or downsize or alternatively you guys move in if you're wanting a bigger house?

But I also think you have to leave this one up to your DH and support him whichever way it goes.

Fuck that! If that was my husband I'd be telling him if he signs up to this he can piss off and live in the house he's paying for.

He needs to live in his means,not be dependent on you. His choices were made when MIL spent it all when alive - thats his issue not yours. Dont get pressed into hosting the meal - esp as partners arent included.