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?

So the meals are separate from the bills and I think it's best to keep the two separate.

I'd ignore the meal costs for now, but focus on paying the bills as that's the more worrying part of this for me as it sets a precedent where the adult DCs subsidise DFIL to live a property he can't afford.

@mummmy2017

Just you wait, be like this and he will replace his wife, not write a will and she will get everything.

This too. Happens so often.

If you choose the house and plan furniture with this situation in mind, then it’s easily possible to host a meal for 20+ in a much smaller house or flat. A large lounge-diner with an extendable table is really flexible (and/or store an extra table in another room); cupboard in the dining space for the extra plates/oven dishes/glasses that won’t fit in the kitchen; emergency chairs.
I have a big family and it’s just what you plan for to be able to fit everyone in. Staying in an unaffordable 6 bedroom house is ridiculous.

@mummmy2017 so OP and her family need to subsidise him - and not move house themselves - on the off-chance of inheriting part of a house in 30-odd years time?

By his age, you will all still be working full time

Some will some won't. I hope to be able to retire at 60 and will get some pension at that age that should allow me to do so. However my own DF became housebound in his mid 60s and FIL passed away in his early 50s so it's not an option to everyone, far from it.

I meant the people who are behaving like mid 60s is too old to cope with moving house @BarbaraofSeville. I'm assuming you're older

[quote Tappering]@mummmy2017 so OP and her family need to subsidise him - and not move house themselves - on the off-chance of inheriting part of a house in 30-odd years time?[/quote]
No I take this to mean that the OP’s DH shouldn’t keep the situation going on the basis of protecting his inheritance because nothing is guaranteed-and it’s actually quite common for widowers to remarry quickly.

It’s nice you have a close extended family, but I agree he will not be able to manage such a big house. Can he even clean it all? (I struggle with our three bed!). Surely a nice smaller house, maybe a modern one with not much maintenance needed, would be much more sensible. If he has lots of stuff filling the house it’s better to start reducing it now (I speak from personal experience). I feel like I’m missing something here. Is it just about fitting a big family around a table or do they stay over too?

I also thought this was likely to be about protecting the house as their inheritance. However, this isn't the best plan to do that anyway. Imagine this: in 10, 15, 20 years when FIL needs full time care, he'll move to a care home, the house will be sold to fund it, and not only will none of the money you've paid towards to the upkeep of the house be acknowledged, most or all of its equity could go into the care fees and not be inherited.

Act now (or now-ish) though, and everyone can get something out of the situation. FIL should give any money he wants to give to his kids sooner rather than later, to avoid it being taken into account for care costs. Plus if he moves before he absolutely has to, he'll be more able to settle somewhere else and make friends. This is what I would do in your situation:

• Look for a flat in a sheltered housing / supported living place. You want the sort where as time goes on and FIL becomes less able, he can make more use of the services they offer. I looked at one for my dad where you could opt in to things like getting laundry done, cleaning and so on, and where there was a restaurant on site so you could cook for yourself or go there to eat. A place like this would be a lot more social and supportive for a widower adjusting to being alone and hopefully he then wouldn't have to move again later. The family can all pop in when they want.
• Agree to pay the bills for a limited period - say the next six months - while you find a place and move him.
• FIL gets some financial advice and gives his kids whatever inheritance he can afford, bearing in mind the new housing situation, in cash now. That should avoid this being clawed back later for care fees as with luck those won't be needed for many years and FIL will live happily in a more supported setting.
• The meals will need to be on rotation at the siblings' houses. You're going to have to suck that up as a pp says (and there are a load of separate family relationship issues to think about here anyway). When they come to yours, you could easily drift in and out, be upstairs working to minimise your time being bantered at.

Can I suggest you also take a good look at how you plan to manage your own family relationships, and your finances, in future? Your finances sound pretty precarious - as a pp said, you're saying the extra £50 could be saved for the kids but then also that you don't have it anyway. Make your own plan for how this can become affordable.

he has a massive house with 5 spare bedrooms going mostly unused (and probably not being cleaned properly). obviously help him to move to a smaller 1 or two bedroom house that would be much more manageable and easier to clean. he could have a big declutter in the process. you can still have guests over in a small house, just make sure it has a biggish living room with lots of chairs.

It is very likely that FIL might remarry. He is young enough to enjoy married life again. And if he does, good luck to him! He'll probably be very happy again and won't need to depend on his children so much for company.

His new wife might bring her own family, so exclusive sibling dinners would probably die out.

I mean don't if they don't support the dad , visit and make him feel wanted, he will be scooped up by some nice kind widow.
He will marry her, as so many of my friend parents don't like living together, and suddenly the step mum will take all.

Do you think they are trying to 'support' him so that he has no time to go dating lovely widows?

"Think of it as an investment, as one day your husband will inherit."

In this day and age no inheritance is a certainty and expecting an inheritance from a man in his mid 60s with possibly another 30 years to go, siblings, tax, care costs, potential marriages, and potential changes of mind, make it a very risky investment indeed.

Also, it doesn't matter if OP is dependent on her OH or not- presumably they both contribute to their own household in some way and if she is financially dependent on her DH that makes it even worse.
Why should their scarce resources be spent on paying the bills for someone who is not being financially prudent - when they have their own family, their own mortgage and their own pensions to worry about?

OMG I just read that this man is in his mid-60s I thought he was some poor old lonely soul in his 80s. Basically they are doing this twice a week thing as they want to, not because its necessary.

This is a non-problem - he sells the house, gets something smaller, has cash to spare. I think you are right OP when you say there is much more to this, its a lovely idea to get together but the thinking behind it isn't benign and as you also say, the older siblings manipulate the situation.

FIL needs to downsize, not just because of the cost of maintaining a large house like that but also because of practicality. Who cleans and maintains the house now? If FIL does the bulk of it, what happens if/when one day he isn't able to do it anymore?

My MIL and FIL used to have a big house - five bedrooms, two reception rooms, big kitchen, conservatory, big garden... But in their mid-sixties they began to realise that looking after all this was getting harder. Then MIL had a fall and could not climb stairs anymore. So they downsized to a 2-bed bungalow with open-plan kitchen-diner-living room and a mostly paved courtyard. They were sad to give up the house they had raised their children in, but the new house is so much easier for them, not to mention cheaper! They love their bungalow now. And they still can fit in 18 people for Christmas dinner!

Haven’t rtwt, but I believe there are things called restaurants, where large families can meet up for meals together...?!
And if FIL downsized, there would be lots of spare cash for meals.

How big a house does fil need to host these dinners?

@Babdoc

Haven’t rtwt, but I believe there are things called restaurants, where large families can meet up for meals together...?! And if FIL downsized, there would be lots of spare cash for meals.

Other thing is, DH taking the kids to a restaurant twice a week would cost a fortune! Plus, DH and I can't afford to eat out much at the moment, so I'd be pretty pissed off if he started doing it twice a week without me!

Would be MUCH cheaper for everyone to take FIL out to the pub.

Your husband needs to consider priorities for his wife and child too. I suppose that the siblings suggesting this have enough surplus funds so that they can afford this without affecting their other priorities.

It is not equal if one sibling can afford to do this without any impact to them, but the other has to squash all future plans for their family to support this.

@justilou1

Would be MUCH cheaper for everyone to take FIL out to the pub.

I don't think so - say £20 a time (DH meal, 2 kids, plus drinks), that's £40 a week, best part of £150 a month. We just don't have that kind of money, without cutting back on other things. I've already cut out quite a few luxuries as we're looking to get a bigger house - I'd be fairly annoyed if that was all undone by DH going to the pub twice a week.

It sounds rather like he should not have retired. He is in his 60s and in good health - if he wants to stay in an enormous house then she should stay at work, there is no 'retirement age' and he can't afford to.

He should downsize.

Someone mentioned equity release. I would advise DO NOT DO THIS. I am currently supporting someone at work - their parents did this. Now the parents have died, the cost of the interest on the equity loan is MORE than the value of the house when sold. There will be no inheritance. Even if there had been value, the charge of the property means the company can force the sale just to get their money back quickly.

Hope it all gets sorted out, OP.

@woollyheart

Your husband needs to consider priorities for his wife and child too. I suppose that the siblings suggesting this have enough surplus funds so that they can afford this without affecting their other priorities.

It is not equal if one sibling can afford to do this without any impact to them, but the other has to squash all future plans for their family to support this.

The other siblings are all 2-income households (and all got free childcare from MIL when their kids were young). In our house, DH works full time, and I'm self-employed. I had built up a decent business, but when DS was small he had a number of health issues which meant that he had quite a few appointments to go to, and also made it trickier to find childcare, so I ended up going very part-time. I basically just did enough work to keep the business going for existing clients, but couldn't take on any new work. Now that DS is much better and at school, and DD is due to start pre-school in September, I've been trying to build things back up a bit, but it hasn't been easy with Covid etc.

DS still has appointments (though not as many) which means it'll be difficult for me to return to full-time work, so the plan is that I'll work while DD is at pre-school (currently this may be only 2 days a week), and when DH has them at his dad's house. But realistically, we're budgeting based on DHs income only for the next few years, as mine is very much dependant on outside factors.

The other siblings don't have any financial concerns at all.

If he has 5 spare bedrooms, perhaps he could take in lodgers.