Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Scenario

126 replies

LemonSwan · 09/02/2023 12:11

5 people jointly own a house. Inherited from their parents. Currently used as a joint holiday home for all the family.

1 person wants their monetary share of the house.

Legally due to the way the will was set up they have no monetary entitlement to the value of fifth of the house. The will stated that their ownership of the house was not as a monetary value and if they did not want to use, own or contribute to maintenance costs of the house then they could walk away but could not take any value. This has been confirmed by a lawyer as true and apparently would likely stand in court.

But said person wants money from the house and has contributed maintenance for a number of decades totalling to around 20k. So has every other person bar sibling who did not have any funds.

So what would you think is fair?

To summarise: Legally the entitlement is zero. But morally this is a group of siblings and this is having a real impact on family relations so everyone is trying to be reasonable.

Further difficulties arise from the fact the house is pretty much impossible to value until they actually sell it due to its odd location. And the remaining do not want to sell it as it was the parents last wishes the house stays in the family for their and future generations use. So it’s essentially a monetary burden greater than the value of a free holiday a year rather than a monetary asset.

There’s also the issue of what people can actually afford to give, which is not a fifth of the house for all siblings. And even if they could scrape it together it or some siblings covers others - it sets a precedent which overrides the will and then anyone could do the same going forward. In worst case scenario leaving the final person essentially having bought the house bit by bit in order to fulfill the parents wishes of keeping it in the family - which was expressly against the wishes of the parents. They did not want their offspring to have to do that.

What is the mumsnet answer please?

A - Give nothing
B - Give maintenance costs back
C - Give 5th of original monetary value at time of inheritance
D - Give 5th of guessed current monetary value now
E - Some combination of above or something else
F - Court should decide.

OP posts:
Dacadactyl · 09/02/2023 12:15

I would do E.

Or sell the house if everyone is happy to do this. The wishes of my deceased parents wouldn't enter into my thoughts on this. A good relationship with my siblings would be of paramount importance to me, so if the way to maintain this was to sell up, I'd do this. What my parents wanted to happen would have no bearing on it.

Dacadactyl · 09/02/2023 12:16

Sorry, I meant I'd do D. Or sell up.

Clusterfunk · 09/02/2023 12:18

I’d sell up to be honest and split 5 ways. One way or another, this is going to be a financial burden that will gradually fall more and more on certain siblings.

It sounds harsh, but the wishes of those long dead and past caring shouldn’t make the lives of those still living more difficult.

Technonan · 09/02/2023 12:18

Sell the house. The wishes of the parents have been honoured, but the legacy is now becoming a burden. As long as the joint owners are in agreement, then selling seems the bes toption.

Botw1 · 09/02/2023 12:20

Sell

sarahc336 · 09/02/2023 12:20

Yes once one goes and claims their money I bet anything a second sibling would then want out to cash in. I think it's best to sell and just split it fairly

Original poster
LemonSwan · 09/02/2023 12:24

No one else wants to sell at all. They have hopefully a decade or two of life left, coming into retirement when they were hoping to be able to visit more.

OP posts:
RosaDeInvierno · 09/02/2023 12:25

Sell iy

RosaDeInvierno · 09/02/2023 12:25

**it

ThatWardrobe · 09/02/2023 12:27

Out of those options, A) nothing - given that the maintenance costs have been broadly equal between the siblings over the years. If it goes to court, that's just more money paid out for no good reason.

I'm with the posters above though, selling sounds like the best option now - you've all enjoyed it for decades and surely, if it's become a money pit, your parents wouldn't want you all burdened by that. It might take ages to sell if it's an odd location though.

Dacadactyl · 09/02/2023 12:28

@LemonSwan they may not want to sell it but that is the only fair way, unless you get the house valued and buy your sibling out at current estimated market value.

Do you really expect your sibling to get nothing or be happy with 20k? That would be outrageous.

If you struggle to raise a 5th of current market value, then you should sell.

SoCunningYouCanStickATailOnItAndCallItAFox · 09/02/2023 12:28

I suspect the deceased parents envisaged wonderful holidays for generations. But the lives of the living matter more than the wishes of the dead (though we should do everything we can to honour them).
So given the house is a money drain (disproportionate to the benefits, do the family even want to go there on holiday?) and that can't be a burden equally carried by all, it will prevent many future disputes to all agree to sell and split.
No one can know whether future generations will have enough money to cover this responsibility so it's a painful process of attrition to cling on to the dream until things are so desperate your hands are forced.
If the person who wants their share has looked to the future and can see they won't use it, can't afford it etc I can see why they want out. It seems unfair they should want to take a slice as they go (given the will) but even if they didn't do that it would be a source of contention that the other siblings have something they don't, even if they quietly feel that and don't voice it.
I think the wishes were unrealistic and put everyone in a difficult position.

Brefugee · 09/02/2023 12:29

If they don't want to sell it, and nobody can afford to "buy out" the 20k the one who wants money, then it's difficult.

so either that one walks away with nothing. That was always going to be a danger. Or the others see how much they can get together to give to the one who wants the money.

Or they suck it up and sell it. Because right now it just goes to last man standing. And what if they have remarried and it goes to their new spouse, and then their children? Or partially the new spouse and the children of first marriage?

Selling it gives everyone some cash, maybe not as much as they want, to spend on holidays to the area if they want?

Dead people's wishes? come into it as a secondary thing IMO

theemmadilemma · 09/02/2023 12:29

If no one wants to sell then abide by the will.

Anything else, any other monatary exchange, sets a precedent for furture sibilings to follow and a horrible mess. They can walk away now from the buden of maintance having enjoyed the property until now.

Eastereggsboxedupready · 09/02/2023 12:29

Surely the person paid 20k knowing there was no monetary value?
Their choice to pay up..
One person didn't pay so they could have said no also.

Pay them nothing imo.

Original poster
LemonSwan · 09/02/2023 12:30

Sorry I should have also mentioned.

Their is a sixth sibling. Who followed the will to the letter. So walked away with no monetary value initially. And has no interest in the house.

This is making people think it shouldn’t be the market value option. And that was why the lawyer said would likely stand. As then they too would be entitled to a portion if they were to claim.

OP posts:
Dacadactyl · 09/02/2023 12:31

@LemonSwan then sell up and split it 6 ways.

Original poster
LemonSwan · 09/02/2023 12:31

It’s a mess I agree! But selling really isn’t an option - am not sure even sibling who wants value wants that.

OP posts:
theemmadilemma · 09/02/2023 12:32

LemonSwan · 09/02/2023 12:30

Sorry I should have also mentioned.

Their is a sixth sibling. Who followed the will to the letter. So walked away with no monetary value initially. And has no interest in the house.

This is making people think it shouldn’t be the market value option. And that was why the lawyer said would likely stand. As then they too would be entitled to a portion if they were to claim.

Even more reason. No money should exchange hands.

Rumplestrumpet · 09/02/2023 12:33

I think the will is very clear. You didn't inherit through monetary value of the house. You inherited USE of the house for as long as you and your children want it. Upkeep costs come with that.

So if one sibling no longer wants to contribute to the upkeep of the house then they can walk away. They haven't lost anything they didn't have to start with. Hopefully they have nice memories of time spent there. They have no right to monetary compensation.

SoCunningYouCanStickATailOnItAndCallItAFox · 09/02/2023 12:33

Family arbitration sounds needed. All 6 siblings and the will need to be considered in the round. Everyone heard and a decision reached, but the politics sounds delicate at best so I think arbitration.

Rumplestrumpet · 09/02/2023 12:35

I'm shocked by all three people saying "sell" - they're not allowed to sell it. Their parents gave them use ofnthr house, not its monetary value.

Sibling who wants out is not entitled to anything, just like the previous sibling who pulled out at the start.

ditalini · 09/02/2023 12:35

The will was clear. No monetary value and the sibling can walk away owing nothing further.

If 4 out of 5 want to keep the property then the fairest thing to do is abide by the terms of the will.

If you decide to bow to the minority preference (do you think family relations will be good once sibling has their way? Sounds like it's going to be strained whatever happens), then the sale should be split 6 ways as otherwise it would be unfair on 6th sibling who abided by the terms of the will.

Note to anyone thinking of doing similar in their will: Just don't.

TomatoSandwiches · 09/02/2023 12:35

A or F it truly is the only fair way for everyone concerned as far as I can see.

Dacadactyl · 09/02/2023 12:35

I can't even begin to imagine the fall out from this crazy will.

You need a family meeting and you need to KNOW with 100% certainty what people will accept.