Scenario

[LemonSwan]

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.

Sell and share it out or give the 5th a portion back of what has been paid in maintenance

who legally owns the house?

Sell it.

You’ve honoured your parents wishes for years. You state it’s more burden now than the holidays you get out of it. In addition you need to think what happens longer term does the siblings share get inherited by children, are they then burdened with the maintenance or other siblings meant to pick it up?

Sibling who wants out walks away with nothing. But, if you sell in the future, sibling who walked away and sibling 6 get a share of sale proceeds.

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

This is very weird from a PP. If one sibling no longer wants to be responsible for the upkeep of the house, then of course it's their option to walk away with nothing.

Or they can keep the status quo going.

No one is suggesting that the house is sold and the grumpy sibling gets nothing - THAT would be outrageous, but is not in question.

OP, in your shoes I'd follow the Will and do nothing. If the grumpy sibling needs money for a specific purpose then can the other siblings with capacity loan or gift them some cash to assist with their need? But nothing to do with the house?

Really wish you a good outcome here, it's tricky but I don't think grumpy sibling has a leg to stand on.

I'm no help sorry, but intrigued as to what is the plan for the house when those who inherited it pass away? Or if everybody decided to walk away?

I think they have to walk away with nothing.

I would discuss whether a trust can be set up so future generations can choose to opt in and start paying a 6th share of maintenance and then benefit from holidays etc.

Perhaps you can consider that in future of it's sold the "silent" siblings descendants get a smaller share of they house value.

There may come a time when no one wants the burden.

The downside is that it's likely those with money end up inheriting the bulk several generations in the future as they kept up with running costs.

Why on earth would you wish for your sibling to walk away with nothing?

who legally owns the house?
House is legally owned by the 5

In addition you need to think what happens longer term does the siblings share get inherited by children, are they then burdened with the maintenance or other siblings meant to pick it up?
The original plan was for the eldest of each sibling to take their place as legal house owner, and manage contributions for their family (their siblings and offspring).
After all this there is talk of it going into trust and every beneficiary being named individually and all equally responsible for maintenance costs.

It is a weird set up but it worked until now. 3 Generations of people enjoy this house. It really is a treasured family home. The 5 siblings, their offspring, and the offsprings offspring. It really has special place in so many’s hearts.

Really tough one.

Interesting scenario though. I am intrigued by the house and the set up and all the siblings.... I can very much see the appeal of why your parents did it. How lovely for them to envision their kids, grandkids, great grandkids enjoying the house forever more (I'm imagining some beautiful, grand Cluedo style mansion, please tell me I'm right??)

But I can also see it's not working and it is a hassle.

I take on board the posters saying that relationships with siblings should trump dead parents wishes, but ultimately I think the poster above has it correct. I don't think the sibling is entitled to anything.

It is what it is - you contribute to the house or you don't. But you don't get monetary compensation.

What does the sibling need money for? Maybe there's someway the siblings could help that doesn't involve the house?

I'm also intrigued! When the six siblings die, who owns it ? Is it jointly owned by all the grandchildren ? And everyone traipses along for their alloted holiday , like having a time share.

A.

The sibling who wants the share paid at this point knew the score and chose to pay maintenance etc. presumably to this point they've used the property. The fact he or she has changed their mind doesn't equate to an entitlement to be reimbursed.

Your clients will makes the position clear. You'll be on a slippery slope if you start to effectively varying the terms of the will.

I would add that as to the current value, it isn't as simple as just getting a valuation and splitting it. The actual value is arguably 1/5 (or 1/6 if you go down that route as surely you'll need to include the other sibling?), would be what an independent purchaser would be willing to pay for 1/5 or 1/6 share in the property. Even if the house of being sold in its entirety is £600k (for ease of calculations), that wouldn't necessarily equate to £100k each (based on 6 of you). The actual "market price" of that share is likely to be far far lower.

I vote for option A, the will specifically says how the situation is to be dealt with - and no one wants to sell.

Parents will, not clients!

Well they can’t ask for a monetary share as the will/trust doesn’t allow for one and you can’t all afford to give them one anyway.

so they need to walk away.

If no one else wants to sell then sibling has to walk away with nothing

But it's a very odd arrangement and not one I'd be willing to foist on my children.

You're just setting up future falls out among the siblings of your children

You're not going to like this but l feel your parents have been extremely stupid or extremely selfish, I can't decide which. Irrespective of what your siblings say I'd suspect at least 4 would be prepared to sell up.
You have implied that the home is a finacisl drain and the odd weekend away does not warrant the expense. One sibling (at least) has been unable to contribute their 'fare share'.
Option 1
For financial reasons I think you need tosell but they'd be a lot of guilt around this. I suggest a couple (at least) of you get legal advice and see if there's a way selling could be presented as a fait acomplete. If you can agree that you had to sell, you had no choice, that will alleviate some of the guilt. Once you've let that go plan some 'tarting up' and then have an open day viewing. Have a wonderful get together in the summer (parents anicersary) and thank them for the happy memories.
Option 2
Rent it out and set up a business. Use the rental money for ongoing maintenance and refurbishment.
Option 3
(Assuming not contributing wontvaffect share) Opt out of paying for any further upkeep. This will increase others burdens till they drop out too. Ultimately that will force the sale.
Option 4
4 siblings agree to buy out 5th. This will be for less than 1/5th to reflect admin costs and fees etc.

It might be worth considering too how the house will be 'shared' when one of you dies.

"So it’s essentially a monetary burden greater than the value of a free holiday a year rather than a monetary asset."

This part of your opening post is very significant. It was very unfair of the parents to leave a financial burden.

No doubt this was a special place for the couple and probably for their five children - treasured family holiday memories? It may have been very well intentioned to keep the house in the family for future generations, but realistically, that's only relevant now for the five children of the couple. Once the five children are elderly and retired with no income, it's only a financial burden that they won't make much use of. Once you get down to grandchildren and beyond, the family significance is lost - they could choose to holiday there or anywhere else in the world.

If it was me/my siblings/my family, I'd propose that each sibling/family enjoys one last holiday in the house if they want to, then sell the house and split the money between the five.

Relieve yourselves of the financial burden and remember your parents in other ways.

To add to above -
The siblings should consider their relationship with each other to be more important than the wishes of the parents, who I've assumed are deceased and won't know the outcome.
If one sibling needs the money, the honourable thing to do is to prevent them from walking away with either nothing (as per bizarre clause of parents will) or less than they deserve.
If you sell the house it becomes a financial gift, rather than the financial burden it currently is.

I'm erring on the side of fact which is, frankly your parents could have left nothing at all, donated the house to the national trust or someone else if they wanted.

The parents left the house to be kept in the family to use not sell for a reason and that was their dying wish.
Since the beginning, a monetary pay off was never an option for them which the disgruntled sibling surely know full well, they can't turn around years later and pretend they didn't know they couldn't have a pay out.

Your sibling who contributed didn't have to did they, was it voluntary?
Or did all the siblings agree to split the costs and some accepted the arrangement more begrudgingly than others?
Presumably seeing as they've used and loved and enjoyed the house they should be grateful for what they got and not expect more.

I would sell it. Possibly leave it a year to allow everyone to have one last holiday in it and say goodbye.

Why on earth did the parents think this was a good idea! Seems like very little gain for a whole amount of stress and financial loss. Surely most people would prefer their children to a) have some monetary benefit and b) a good relationship with their siblings unaffected by such a potentially awkward situation

As you say there is the potential for it to end badly in so many ways....while will says there is not a monetary interest at some point there has to be as it won't stay in the same 5 people forever. If they all had five kids that could conceivably be 25 people with a shared interest in this place and how would they ever be able to enforce who pays maintenance and how much etc.

What if the others start refusing to pay maintenance like the one who "didn't have the funds" - at some point someone will have to pay for it and why should they then subsidise the others?

I think they have to walk away until the point that the house needs to be sold ie when the other siblings agree.
At that point everyone gets an equal share including the ones who walked away.
It needs to be sold before it becomes a burden to the grandchildren as well. The longer this goes on the more people are stuck with the financial burden of a house they never wanted

Once you get down to grandchildren and beyond, the family significance is lost - they could choose to holiday there or anywhere else in the world.

The grandchildren very much wish to keep the family house. It wasn’t their home but it very much was going ‘home’. All the grandchildren spent most of their childhood summer holidays there, and now take their children (the great grandchildren).

It is bloody bonkers isn’t it 🤣 But it has and does weirdly work besides the now sibling issue.

There’s also the issue of the siblings child, which I haven’t mentioned as it’s all complicated. They are essentially disinheriting them and they might not be happy about that but no one has asked as it’s just adding another layer.

A.
It was stated clearly in the will that if you didn't want the financial burden you could walk away but you couldn't force your siblings to buy you out. I don't think it's fair to force your siblings to buy you out.

If everybody wanted to sell that would be different but one if five can't force a sale. I don't see why they should get their maintenence money back either. They had use of the house while they paid maintenance. They can stop using and stop contributing but can't take back their contributions.

It's perfectly acceptable to ask the Grandchildren and great children if they want to step up and take up that share of the original sibling the are related to instead. At least it gets (potentially) split over more people as it goes down the inheritance line.