Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Inheritance AIBU

257 replies

WayfaringStranger · 16/02/2017 21:26

I am neither the mother nor the adult children but this situation is causing a shitstorm in our family. I've changed a few details to make this less identifiable. Mother has sadly been diagnosed with a terminal illness. She's in the process of sorting out her affairs. She has a few grand in savings but a property worth around £200k. She split from the children's father when they were little and they've seen neither hide nor hair of him.

There are two adult children in their late 20s. DD is married with a baby. They struggle financially, not unusual for a young couple with a child. DS is disabled (physical and mental health problems), cannot work and has never moved out of the family home.

Mother told the children of her intention to split everything down the middle. DD and her husband will be able to use her half as a deposit and get a mortgage. DS is not going to be able to afford to buy in the area. He feels he cannot move out the area because he'll lose the support from the extended family. He is terrified about moving out of the home he has lived in all his life. He worries it might make his mental health problems worse. Mother then proposed giving him lifetime tenancy. DD feels this is unfair as it ties up her inheritance. Neither sibling are particularly close but both see each other's point of view.

My gut feeling is that DS needs financial advice to ensure financial security for him. I think the house should be sold after their mother has gone. I think DD needs to agree to give her brother some time to adjust.

OP posts:
JoanofNark17 · 17/02/2017 12:31

How would be pay that rent? With what?

I think we need to agree here that there is no simple answer, and the family need individual impartial advice.
Those pretending that its simple and anyone who doesn't simply say "give him the house" are evil bastards are missing the point by a mile, and showing their own issues.

Timeforteaplease · 17/02/2017 12:37

Completely agree that they need some proper advice. This is is an awful situation for all of them.

emsler · 17/02/2017 12:38

Cannot believe the heartlessness of people here who seem to think being disabled is some kind of bonus. Vile.

DH's brother is disabled. We fully expect FIL to ensure BIL is provided for in his will first and foremost and if there's anything left, it will be split between us and SIL. If there isn't, that's fine. I couldn't stand living in a nice house knowing that I was only able to do so because my BIL was suffering.

Nobody is entitled to their parents' money.

GloriaGaynor · 17/02/2017 12:40

The posters urging humanity are not the ones missing the point, nor are they saying the situation is simple.

The ethics are straightforward, the logistics more complex, but not impossible to resolve.

Trying to spin emphasis on consideration and integrity as 'issues' is particularly odious.

JoanofNark17 · 17/02/2017 12:42

Your own version of "humanity" and "ethics" are just that, your own. You are not a superior being here, no matter how much you shout at others for what you think is wrong with them.

There is no simple answer here, and no reason for you to attack others the way you have,

GloriaGaynor · 17/02/2017 12:52

I don't think ethics are relative or rather relativist, I they are are objectively definable.

I have criticised selfishness and inhumanity and I make no apology for that. But equally I applaud the compassionate posters on this thread.

Somerville · 17/02/2017 12:53

Another consideration that I think many people are missing is that if the mother does as she initially planned, and splits her estate equally between her two children, this could be challenged in the courts if it can be argued that the dependant son is not sufficiently provided for. Rulings like this under the Inheritance Act (provision for family and dependants) have increased a lot in recent years, and no win no fee legal firms are springing up to represent people.

It really is not as simple as '50/50 split is fair, end of' like some PP's seem to be suggesting.

The mother needs specific and detailed advice from experts.

VirgilsStaff · 17/02/2017 13:26

I find the level of selfishness and self interest on this thread totally horrifying.

Indeed, Gloria - I'm glad I'm not the only one somewhat disturbed by the "50/50 end of."

JoanofNark17 · 17/02/2017 13:27

I don't think ethics are relative or rather relativist, I they are are objectively definable

They are by their very nature relative, and not objectively definable.

To suggest otherwise is absurd.

CaptainHarville · 17/02/2017 13:46

I think giving lifetime tenancy is effectively dumping issues on the DD. My parents bought my brother a house but he couldn't maintain it. Worse than that he wouldn't say anything until the problem was massive. So a small leak would be left for months and months by which point the repair costs were huge. He didn't do a thing to the garden so clearing it became a major job.

I would get a lot of advice. That £100000 could be used to provide an income for the DS to top up his benefits. If its in a trust or maybe left to the DD to invest to give an income to her brother. They need to maximize his entitlements to benefits.

Socksey · 17/02/2017 13:59

Seriously guys... a lifetime tenancy with the sister as a co-owner is adding to her financial difficulties as she will have a financial responsibility towards the property's upkeep and also need to pay the extra 3% stamp duty when she is finally able to buy her own place... it needs to be either sold and the proceeds used as the mother sees appropriate or put in the brothers name and that way it won't affect the sister (especially if she is not to benefit from it and only to be encumbered by it)

olderthanyouthink · 17/02/2017 14:02

socksey if it's in the brothers name who's going to pay for/organise repairs?

And day to day care needs providing for too?

GloriaGaynor · 17/02/2017 14:03

They are by their very nature relative, and not objectively definable

In that case to invoke Godwin's Law the gas chambers suited some people and Hitler didn't murder me personally.

JoanofNark17 · 17/02/2017 14:13

Really bad, not to mention offensive, example. Clearly you have the moral reasoning of a 5 year old.

Socksey · 17/02/2017 14:20

Olderthankyouthink absolutely... it will end up the sister but the other issue for her is that now she is struggling financially but hoping to eventually buy... and if she is also and owner then she is going to be paying for all the repairs (which the bank will look at in its mortgage decision) and also be liable for an extra 3% stamp duty on the price of her own home... hence the reason that I suggested selling might be best for all involved... from the mother who may need the money in the short term to the long term needs of both siblings... just because she is currently able bodied, doesn't mean that she has access to endless sums of money...

GloriaGaynor · 17/02/2017 14:23

Again, offensive because you don't like the implications.

It's because your own moral reasoning seems so simplistic that I used such a clear example.

If all ethics are relative there's no such thing as right and wrong, no such thing as human rights, medical ethics, legal ethics, political ethics etc. We can tear up the Geneva convention and forget about war crimes.

carefreeeee · 17/02/2017 14:23

I'd prioritise the disabled son - but get good advice because just leaving him with a run down house to manage on his own might not end well for him either. It's be nice to arrange things so that he won't be too reliant on state benefits which are getting more difficult to claim, especially if he won't have help to do that in future.

It'd be nice to leave the daughter something, and obviously it'd be a big help to her to get 100,000 towards her deposit, but she can probably look after herself if needed. The grandchild is lower on the list really - its up to the child's parents to provide for their own child in my view.

Oliversmumsarmy · 17/02/2017 14:29

I said it was a measly amount to sell your soul for

No you didnt

When you first mentioned it you said

And for a measly 100 grand - Its not that much money No mention of selling your soul untill a few people had pulled you up on it .

For those who want the db to stay in the flat then how will he pay for it. The op has said he could get a flat with the £100k and he would then have help with support and his presumably disability payments etc. He wouldn't have to worry too much about renovating stuff for the foreseeable future.

The problem with him having a 2 bed place also leaves him open to someone who might not have his best interest at heart moving in and taking over.

I think whatever the outcome the flat will have to be sold if it is in such a bad state of repair. Neither the db or the ds have any money to do it up.

The £100000 would help the ds's family. And £100000 would help him into a more manageable home

JoanofNark17 · 17/02/2017 14:31

If all ethics are relative there's no such thing as right and wrong, no such thing as human rights, medical ethics, legal ethics, political ethics etc. We can tear up the Geneva convention and forget about war crimes

No. It's because they are relative that we need the geneva convention, or war crime trials. We wouldn't need to agree human rights or make laws if ethics weren't relative.
Even my 7 year old knows that there are no absolute wrongs or rights.

Is killing wrong?

brasty · 17/02/2017 14:33

Renovating is not the issue. Any flat will need ordinary repairs. Heating systems break, plumbing springs a leak.

olderthanyouthink · 17/02/2017 14:40

socksey so you're saying rather than own the flat which would make it more difficult to buy, she should just pay for repairs to a flat only her bother owns?

That seems really unfair to me, that would mean that she may end up with financial and practical responsibilities to him. If things are tight right now, imagine paying mortgage, looking after her place and looking after his place.

Socksey · 17/02/2017 14:47

olderthankyouthink ... no... I'm saying that it should be sold and the proceeds used to do what the mother needs and then split as to the mothers wishes after... I don't think the sister should take on the financial burden of a house she doesn't own or be a co-owner of a house that she has responsibility for but not benefit until her brothers death as it would be and encumberance both in its maintenance and that she would then also need to pay more stamp duty when she is finally able to buy her own home as she will already be a property owner...

Oliversmumsarmy · 17/02/2017 14:48

Renovating is not the issue. Any flat will need ordinary repairs. Heating systems break, plumbing springs a leak.

If the right flat is chosen those things might not occur for years and by that time the dd by buying her own place might be in a better position to help him out

GloriaGaynor · 17/02/2017 14:57

I never said there was such a thing as absolute right and wrong. Simply that morals can be objectively defined and agreed upon. We can arrive at a kind of consensus.

If that wasn't possible there could be no Geneva Convention. Which is in fact needed because mankind has a tendency to inhumanity. It's not as if war criminals in the main don't know the difference between right and wrong, simply that they don't care or think they will get away with it.

brasty · 17/02/2017 15:10

I would not want to take on financial responsibility for my brother.

Swipe left for the next trending thread