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.

B - give them back maintenance costs but otherwise, they have no right to the property, either visiting or ownership. I would speak to a lawyer about getting a legal document drawn up with the rest of the interested parties in case of any future issues.

The sibling who wants out is being very unreasonable if they don't even want the house to be sold. They are effectively asking for the other siblings to pay for a decision they are making through no fault of the siblings and no additional benefit.
They are basically asking for the goal posts to be moved just for them, especially in light of the 6th who walked away with nothing. Why should they be a special case at everyone else's expense.
They knew the rules when they paid in you can retrospectively reassess that decision when you want out. Not unless you're a dick anyway.

But why should the ones who "walked away" get an equal share, what could be 20 years down the line?
A) the will apparently specifically says NOT to do this so it would be a struggle to enforce
B) the remaining people could have spent a fortune each on maintenance in the intervening 20 years, why should they subsidise the ones who haven't had to pay anything out?

I agree it needs to get sorted ASAP before the poor grandchildren also get drawn into this mess. The idea that the oldest grandchild manages their siblings contributions adds an even further layer of madness. There could be decades between grandchildren ages - how is a young child supposed to contribute? What if younger sibling pays older sibling and older sibling refuses to pass the money on? Or vice versa, younger siblings refuses to pay in but is still entitled to use the property? At some point there will be a mixed generation with some of the original 5 liable but possibly not mentally/financially/physically able to contribute and their neices/nephews taking over.

How will multiple generations of a big family all be able to use the home as a holiday home, who gets first pick of the good weeks, why should the people who lose out still have to pay the same amount for their cousins to have a free holiday etc etc....

Basically it's a clusterfuck waiting to happen!

Oh god you definitely can't pay out one sibling when another has already walked away with nothing.

Exactly what @latetothefisting said.

The only way this could work without dropping a ticking bomb into family relations would be if it had been set up in trust with enough money to cover running repairs and all relations entitled to book it for token money to cover the big maintenance stuff as it arises.

if one sibling wants to take money out of the property my assumption would be that they are going through some financial hardship, or have some other reason to need funds in the short term.

I would focus family discussions on what that need is and how you may, as a group, be able to support. As you have this shared asset and one of you may be in financial straits, is there an equitable way the asset could be used to help (assuming none of you can afford to/want to provide a loan to your sibling) Eg. If the sibling is entitled to 10weeks use of the property a year, could they rent it out those weeks rather than use it, so it can generate some money? Would others allow that sibling to use some of their unused weeks for free to increase that amount if the need is urgent and not ongoing?

Coming up with a better long term plan for children/grandchildren etc would be a good idea. But in the current circumstances I would try and get to the bottom of the need your sibling is trying to fulfill and how you might collectively help.

Blimey, just saw your update that after the children of the couple die the ownership of this house is inherited by the eldest child of each.
So presumably the children of the 6th child who has already walked away get nothing.
The children of the 5th child who seems likely to walk away will get nothing.

If my elder sibling inherited a share of my grandparents house and I didn't, I'd be bitterly hurt.

What a way to create resentment and division in a family! What on earth were your parents thinking?!

Say no to sibling #5 on the basis that #6 has left the set up already under the terms of the will?

The whole situation is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. It was really irresponsible of your parents to leave the house in this way without any sort of accompanying fund to cover expenses.

At some point the house will have to be sold as the situation is untenable. So it seems much more sensible to do so whilst the children of the deceased are still alive instead of passing the problem of ownership and maintenance on to future great great great grand children.

I would focus family discussions on what that need is and how you may, as a group, be able to support.

We think they want the money to put towards buying a house for exclusive use of one of the great grandchildren in the area. So disinheriting their child, to give to their child’s child (who is one of 2 so not sure about the other GGC).

The sixth siblings family are happy with current arrangements as that sibling bought a neighbouring property for their immediate family lines exclusive use. So they don’t mind they don’t have use even though sibling who didn’t contribute still has share.

The GC eldest sibling thing hasn’t really bothered anyone as everyone’s close and gets on. There would probably be a rule about if GC wants out they must offer to sibling.

When you get to the GGC inheriting it’s going to get more complex as they aren’t nuclear in the same way as the original GC.

I agree with this.

Yes, it would be nice to have the option of selling property (or the equivalent in this case, selling one's shares in a property for the monetary value), but that's not actually the situation here. All beneficiaries inherited USE of a specific property, with no inbuilt terms for selling up. This means that unless everyone agrees on selling up, it's simply not an option that this sibling has. It would be nice, but it's actually not one of their options. They don't "have shares", they have use of a property.

The whole thing is a really selfish set up tbh. Leaving an asset with no monetary value but considerable maintenance costs. Forcing that burden on future generations with no thought or care for financial and relationship implications.

The family dynamics of "not wanting to sell" and "keeping to the wishes of the will" are really manipulative imo.

The parents left the house to be kept in the family to use not sell for a reason and that was their dying wish. And now they are dead and gone, and not paying for the upkeep - so really it doesnt matter any more.

I would hate this, its controlling and quite frankly already causing issues

@TibetanTerrah
manipulative! thats the word I was looking for!!

I think it's a bonkers set up and your parents were short sighted.

Sounds like the house costs more than it makes. If it is rentable, perhaps one option is everyone reduces use, it's rented out more to pay for upkeep so burdening others less. If someone wants to use more than the agreed usage (eg one week and a weekend per year) then they pay a 'nominal' amount that goes into the upkeep pot.

Yes this is it for me. They’re trying to claim something they haven’t inherited (ie monetary value) - what they inherited was use of the house, offset by having to pay maintenance costs.

It sounds like the original will was clear on what would happen in the scenario in question, but the sibling just doesn’t like the terms.

Yes this is it for me. They’re trying to claim something they haven’t inherited (ie monetary value) - what they inherited was use of the house, offset by having to pay maintenance costs.

The house is owned by all the children though so once sold which will happen eventually there will be monetary value to the property. Its not some sort of last man standing situation where once 5 siblings have walked away the last one gets to keep it all.

This. Or give them the 20k spent on maintenance to soften the blow

Sounds like a milestone round you, your siblings and future generations neck to me.

Your parents bought a house and willed it that forever more you've all got to maintain it, whether members/future members can afford it or not.
I'd rather my children spent their own money how they want rather than dictate after my death how part of it is to be spent.

What happens if it comes down to only one person being able to afford the upkeep...will all still own it?

Its not as clean cut as that though. That 20k has increased the value/slowed down the depreciation of the property, so the other 4 benefit from the extra profit/reduced loss if that sibling hadn't put in that 20k.

Honestly I can't believe their legal counsel didn't warn them of the possible consequences of this ridiculous will.

Sibling may have gone along with it in the beginning and been financially in a position to do so. But circumstances change and this is one hell of a millstone to leave around the neck of your children, your children's children AND your children's children's children! The most sensible one is the 6th sibling not committing to this lunacy from day 1.

Not helpful but this would make a great book!

Gosh calling the original parents manipulative is a bit much.

Every one has the choice to take the deal or not - beneficiary use for maintenance cost.

Theres 6 siblings, c. 15 GC, and around c. 30 GGC so one man left standing is unlikely to happen in anyone’s living life. Unless of course there’s a precedent to get money from it, in which case that might start an unstoppable ball.

The sinking is being so unreasonable and unfair given the picture you're describing in your updates.

Theres 6 siblings, c. 15 GC, and around c. 30 GGC so one man left standing is unlikely to happen in anyone’s living life. Unless of course there’s a precedent to get money from it, in which case that might start an unstoppable ball.

It is manipulative though. Your parents have basically beholden all future generations of the family to partake in this nonsense. The 6th sibling seems the most sensible for spotting how daft the whole thing is and stepping back from day 1. Do you honestly not see how ridiculous it is that this property will be the joint responsibility of great great great grand children etc who will probably never have met each other?

Sorry OP, I just can't imagine leaving an expensive asset with zero value to my children and future generations that I will never even meet and think its okay to just hand them a financial burden for the rest of their lives in the name of being sentimental