Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To pick the bigger/nicer house

425 replies

SiriusBlackDeservedBetter · 25/08/2016 21:47

All names/locations have all been changed.

My Great Uncle had no kids and passed away months ago, recently his solicitor got into contact, which was rather suprising as although he had some money, I didn't think I'd get anything at all.

He's left my sister and I a house each, the issue is with the way his Will is written. It states:

'I leave Rose either the Birchwood house or the Maple house to choose from and then Lily may have whichever one has not been chosen'

This means that I get first pick of 2 houses and then my sister can have whichever one I don't pick.

I don't know why he's written it up like that, we both barely saw or even knew him.

My sister and I both have homes of our own, I have a 2 bed house with 1 DC and she has a 3 bed house with 4 DC.

Birchwood House is absolutely lovely, it's 4 beds, a dining room, a massive garden and it's only 20 mins away from our current location.

Whereas Maple House is an hour and a half away, in a rural area, it's a bungalow with 3 beds.

I want to pick Birchwood house and live in it and either sell or rent out our current property, DSis thinks that that would be really selfish of me as she needs the space more and as her kids are older it would be too disruptive to move them any further then our current location, but I think she could sell Maple House and her current house and upgrade and stay in the area, she argues that I could do the same, which is true.

OP posts:
Lunar1 · 25/08/2016 22:50

Sell them both, then you can both buy something new. This is not worth driving a wedge between you both.

ZippyNeedsFeeding · 25/08/2016 22:51

You aren't responsible for housing your sister's family. You didn't force her to have more children than you. She is still getting a free house.
Take the best one. Your uncle wanted you to have the one you like best.

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 25/08/2016 22:51

If it was me and my sister I wouldn't take the house. I think the terms of the will are unfair.

We would do a deed of variation to make the split financially equal. We would have both properties valued and then whoever gets to live in Birchwood (if that's more valuable) either pays 50% of the difference to the other sister or the other sister has a charge equal to whatever proportion of the current value that amount would be placed on Birchwood (ie sister2 gets bungalow plus a share of Birchwood) so she gets the extra when it is sold. If we both wanted to live in Birchwood we would toss a coin or agree neither of us should have it and look for another house with the proceeds of the sale:

Having been through something similar I'm not just saying this. It is exactly what we would do.

sentia · 25/08/2016 22:51

If you pick the Maple one won't you just resent her for guilting you in to it? I'd pick Birchwood.

I don't think there is a moral imperative here. No one is homeless, no one is struggling financially. It's just who gets the bigger slice of pie type stuff, which is not about "right" and "wrong" at all.

albertcampionscat · 25/08/2016 22:51

I'm guessing the houses are both 'normal' houses, by which I mean that they aren't in acres of parkland, or designed by Le Corbusier, or dating from the 13th century. Just nice, normal, houses that are easy enough to buy if you've got the money. If so, and unless your relationship with your sister isn't worth saving then perhaps you should consider selling both and splitting equally.

Catanddogmake6 · 25/08/2016 22:53

It's not a badly worded will though - it's very clear what the Uncle wished to happen. It's just unfortunate that the other sister doesn't want to follow the wording. Personally I would take the house - from what you have written it's pretty clear your sister would if roles were reversed.

Dontrocktheboat · 25/08/2016 22:53

I think it would be v different if it was a parent appearing to favour one sibling over the other. But in this case it is a distant and (I am imagining) eccentric relative who has chosen to do this for whatever reason - there is not really any emotional fall out, it is basically a free gift out of nowhere. Your sister is not beating herself up because your uncle loved her less . Whereas I think in the example above where siblings split proceeds from a parent's estate that is different.

ivykaty44 · 25/08/2016 22:54

Catania - they could auction the house and bungalow and then if anyone wants to buy it they can - that way sister lily could have the house she wants but it may cost her....though rose would of course benefit from that if it was the case

Liiinoo · 25/08/2016 22:57

The way you phrase it it seems to be a two way choice. Either you get the nicer property or she does. Whichever way you pick someone will lose out. The fact you have posted this as a query seems to indicate you think your sister is somehow more entitled to get the 'nicer' house.
Is this a pattern for the two of you -you stepping aside to give her what she wants? Do you feel less worthy or somehow responsible for her?

All other factors aside your uncle gave you first choice - that gives you a responsibility to him to go with your heart. And if the situation was reversed, would she give up the nicer property for you?

EweAreHere · 25/08/2016 22:59

There's a reason your uncle gave you first choice. Pick the Birchwood house as you will live in it and enjoy it. Your sister should be grateful she has a house now two! she can sell and upgrade to yet another one if she wants to. She is the selfish one for wanting you to do the faffing about with distance and/or selling two houses instead of 1.

Enjoy your new home.

jacks11 · 25/08/2016 23:00

Imagine all those years ahead of her visiting you in the lovely house that you both want. Same would apply if you let her have it....Your choice, house you really really want or unpoisoned relationship with your sister

But the thing is, her sister is asking OP to give up the nicer, bigger house (as opposed to asking OP to sell both homes and split the proceeds equally) in order than she can live in it. So presumably OPs sister is not worried about "poisoning the relationship" by living in Beechwood herself despite knowing that her sister would love to live there too. Therefore, it stands to reason that it should not poison their relationship if OP choses to live their herself, as it is an action she is prepared to take. Given that, if OP's sister does get very annoyed she is something of hypocrite!

OP also says if roles were reversed her DS would definitely choose to live in the better house.

I think OP should chose the house she wants and have done with it. Or sell both homes and split money equally.

EweAreHere · 25/08/2016 23:01

And the houses are NOT driving a wedge between you as someone suggested. Your sister might be, but not the houses. Tell her to grow up and be thankful for the opportunity she's been given..

MapMyMum · 25/08/2016 23:03

If you want a good relationship with your DSis then sell both and share money equally...

myownprivateidaho · 25/08/2016 23:03

If this was my sister I would be proposing that we sell both and split the proceeds evenly. You have the legal right to choose the biggest. But I personally wouldn't dream of exercising that right.

BackforGood · 25/08/2016 23:04

As there's no close emotional reason for one or the other of you getting either house, and no particular closeness to the relative that has died, then I would get both valued, and then split the proceeds equally - either selling both and splitting the money 50:50, or, if one really wanted to buy the bigger house (as opposed to any other bigger house), then they give the sibling who doesn't, the difference in money.
It's not worth falling out with a close sibling, over the rather priviliged position of both of you being gifted a house.

BoffinMum · 25/08/2016 23:04

I would sell both and split the proceeds as well. Best to keep things fair.

Original poster
SiriusBlackDeservedBetter · 25/08/2016 23:06

I don't mind compensating her or paying her the difference, but it's not money she wants, it's Birchwood and she's not frothing at the mouth being all hysterical, it's just blunt sisterly talk, she doesn't want the hassel of selling 2 properties and then having to search for a suitable home.

With Birchwood, she could move in almost immediately and take her time selling her current home.

And I just think Birchwood is lovely and fits all my requirements, I'd never expected to be able to live in a house so big and if the roles were reversed, DSis would take Birchwood in a heartbeat.

Our Dad, his nephew received a box of paintings great uncle had made as a teen, whereas a cousin of ours, who saw great uncle at least once a year, got absolutely nothing. The Will isn't fair at all, I just got very lucky.

OP posts:
RubbleBubble00 · 25/08/2016 23:07

I'm with others in getting them both valued. Your sister gets bungalow and you pay your sister the difference and you get 4 bed house. Totally fair. You get the house you want and your sister gets the equal in a property to sell and cash from you

Needmorewine · 25/08/2016 23:07

Meh. She's the one who has chosen to have 4 DC in a house that's too small. Go for the one you want.

MakeMyWineADouble · 25/08/2016 23:07

So if the will was worded give op the birchwood house and ops dsis the maple house it would be fine? But because uncle wants op to have a choice it's not?

ADishBestEatenCold · 25/08/2016 23:07

"I would suggest selling both and split the proceeds. I think it's very sad to ruin a relationship over inheritance. Assuming you two get on OK currently. Family is more important than the houses."

This.

Maybe you will choose Birchwood, inform your Great Uncle's solicitor of your choice, and then discover you had only been read the first part of the will ... and that the sister with the lesser value property was also going to get a huge monetary inheritance, too! Grin Grin Grin

Seriously, OP, do you really think you should benefit greatly over your sister, just because of the wording of a will that clearly doesn't rate the enormous value of a close sibling relationship?

Would you want one of your children to do that to the other, 30 years from now?

janethegirl2 · 25/08/2016 23:08

I'd follow the will. He must have had a good reason for wording it as he did.

FriskyFrog · 25/08/2016 23:08

From your posts, it seems you are unaware of any good reason for your great uncle to have favoured you in his will as he has done.

Birchwood house probably seems great because up to now it's been beyond what you can afford.

Since taking the better and more valuable house, when both of you barely knew your great-uncle, will forever damage your relationship with your close sister, the only logical and moral thing to do is sell both, split the money, and both skip happily out into the market for lovely new houses taht you could not previously afford.

Imagine how much good feeling, happiness and a shared sense of luck that would create for you both to share, and how it would deepen your already close relationship.

Then imagine the alternative; arguments, recriminations, resentment and a relationship forever damaged.

To take Birchwood, you would have to be either an idiot or simply love money more than your sister.

GenghisCalm · 25/08/2016 23:08

Take the house you want and live in it and be happy. It is what your sister would do if the boot was on the other foot.

civilfawlty · 25/08/2016 23:09

Once again, I find myself at odds with the majority. OF COURSE your relationship with your sister is more important and OF COURSE it will be forever tainted. Just because they are the terms of the will, it doesn't mean they are right. Sell both, split the proceeds, and you can both buy bigger houses. And what you have already is irrelevant - you've earned it - but this isn't earned and it has the potential to be a poisoned chalice.