AIBU to think this was really cheeky?

[madwoman37573]

This happened a couple of years ago so isn't really relevant to my life anymore. However I never really spoke about it to anyone except DH. Being fairly new to mumsnet and as it came up last week just through conversation I thought I would get an objective opinion as it's always bugged me.
Basically DPs are not very good with money (I know it's not my business it is up to them what they spend their money on.)
However due to this and having an interest only mortgage when they came to retirement they still owed a lot on the house. At first they said they would have to downsize. However DM didn't want to leave the family home.
Apparently my DP then had a brilliant solution. They asked me and DB to buy the house off them for a substantially reduced price. Basically enough to pay off the remainder of their mortgage and have enough left over to top up their pension. We would just have to let them stay there.
AIBU to find this cheeky and basically asking me and DB to pay their debts for them.
We said no their reply initially was it means we won't get much of an inheritance as if that would be our fault then.
In the end they did the equity release. Which is fair enough it's their house/money. They have already spent most of the money on holidays etc. AIBU to also think though if we had agreed then watching them spend the money like this would have seriously annoyed us as we would have effectively been paying for it?

I don't think it was cheeky to suggest, nor was it unreasonable for you to decline.

It wasn't cheeky of them to ask and would probably have been a good move for you if you could have afforded it.

I actually think it was a good solution all around.

they'd be ok. you'd own a /another house. they could have paid a small amount of rent to cover insurance or breakdowns. it's have been a win win and I think i would have done it for my parents if I was given the chance.

Of course you wouldn't have been paying for it. They would have sold their house. You would then have owned a house. Bought cheap. Not cheeky at all.

Probably sensible not to have gone for it as their might have been all sorts of other issues, (rent, maintenance, care costs etc) but the basic suggestion was not unreasonable.

Actually that wouldn't have been a bad deal for you all. You get the house at a much reduced rate and value keeps escalating. They aren't signing over an escalating value asset in howcwr many years, for what was a minor fixed sum now. They are right your inheritance will be greatly reduced due to it.

How they spend it I don't see as your problem.

Had you been able to afford it and give them a lifetime tenancy it would have been very beneficial, especially if they need nursing care and whatever value they do own in the house will need to go to that.

How is it cheeky you would have had a house worth a lot more?

Thanks everyone guess I saw it in too much of a negative light. I think maybe the reason for that is there is no way me and DB could have afforded it and then paid our own mortgage/bills. In fact I don't think it could have happened as I doubt the bank would have lent us the money on top of our own mortgages.

It was daft to ask if they knew you couldn't have afforded it

However it was a very good idea if you could have. I am unsure of their age, but say you owned it for another 30 years, the value escalation could have been huge, and of course it would have been yours to sell. You would have had a capital gains impact but it would still have likely been very beneficial for you.

On the downside the equity firm now own a percentage of the house, and their percentage, like your parents, will escalate. If they become ill a house sale could be forced to pay nursing home fees, with the equity firm taking their percentage.

As such, it could wipe out your inheritance. Hopefully not. But their suggestion would have meant it could not be sold for nursing home fees and uou both would have owned it all between you and then sold and released the escalated funds.

In fact I'd go so far as saying asking you both was the morally right thing to do before selling it to a equity release firm, due to the potential wipe out of inheritance they knew it would result in.

I'm not sure it would have worked anyway, unless they paid you market rent. If they needed to go into care, say, it could be assessed that it was still - at least partially - their asset if they weren't paying rent (or a peppercorn rent) and you had bought it at under market value. You could have found yourself a lot more out of pocket.

Wouldn't you have come out best out of the deal? When they took out an interest only mortgage, presumably house prices were much lower. So you'd have been ensuring that your inheritance was protected. Now you get fuck all.

The only thing if you had bought the house at far below the market value is that if your parents needed to go into care withing the next 7 years then it could have been classed as deprivation of assets.

Sounded like it would have been a wise thing to do. You pay a greatly reduced price on the house, and pay no inheritance tax I assume when your parents do pass. I'd have done this for my parents as it sounds like a win win situation for all.

I agree with others...would have been a good idea. If it were possible. How they chose to spend their proceeds, would of course have been up to them. But you would have acquired the asset, which would have no doubt continued to appreciate in value.
All elementary now of course!