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.

I agree this was probably done with good intentions, but what about siblings who want to benefit from the house but can’t afford to financially contribute to upkeep? Does the burden then fall to other siblings, who pay more as a result while the poor sibling still gets to benefit from use of the house, or does the “poor” family member get disinherited against their wishes?

Only asking as my brain hurts from thinking about the minefield this is!

Has the sibling that wants out enjoyed the house up til now? I think they must've done from reading the post. If they want to walk away now then they can but they shouldn't expect their parent's bequest to be tailored to their wants. The other 4 siblings who want to hang on to the place shouldn't have to part with it to please the one who wants out. Not when their parents left legally binding instructions as to their request. Can you not raise funds to help with upkeep by holiday letting it out? Air B&B? I vote give them nothing. They don't want to use the house then fine - they shouldn't be allowed to stop the rest of you from doing so.

For disclosure it’s not my parents. I am one of the GC. My parent is tearing their hair out with this and has gone on for 6 months now - no one can agree and so I thought I would ask the committee of MN.

My sibling and I very much do wish to keep the house as do the other GC. I spent my childhood there. I now have a child who I wish to spend there childhood there. It’s a very special place. The kind where people leave their doors unlocked. Everyone in the village knows everyone. The kids roam free and have a care free traditional childhood which I don’t think exists very much in this day and age. All the GC take their children and all value it highly for the above reasons. The value it has is not in its monetary value but in what it gives to us all which is such a rarity in modern times.

Potentially the GGC will value it for the same reason, and as not nuclear but have grown up together closely will visit in family groups and take their children. Maybe not.

It is absolutely bizarre I agree. But it has and does work and nearly everyone wants to keep it going.

Gets my goat when people die and the beneficiaries of the will seem to think they're owed something ( usually money).

Everyone doesn't want to keep it going though.

At least 2 of the 6 don't and that will only get worse further down the line

How can 30 people and their families realistically share 1 house?

Exactly. I appreciate there's a sentimental attachment for some of those involved but keeping it and expecting every future generation to pay is beyond silly. 30 + great grand children won't be able to use it as their grand parents intended and expecting everyone to keep paying and it never to be sold because you liked holidaying there as a kid is bonkers.

Eventually someone has to say enough is enough and it's much better if it's sold and agreed by the children of the deceased than some random grand children further down the line.

Hi @LemonSwan, might there be some benefit in sitting the 5 siblings down with a mediator and trying to find a way forward? Just to get closure, since it's causing stress to your parent.

I think that the legal advice has been that the grumpy sibling has no basis for a claim under the terms of the Will, right? So the missing piece of the puzzle is why they won't accept that and are continuing to request they get a pay out.

In my family there was a huge falling-out over money as people aged (I'm assuming due to GCG in the mix that the original 5 siblings are fairly old?)

In our case, the person making unreasonable demands and cutting everyone off when they disagreed with them ended up diagnosed with dementia within 5 years of the stressful drama... I wonder if that is potentially on the cards in this case?

Incidentally I have friends who have a 'family home', theirs is in the wilds of Scotland, in a village where the family lived for many generations. It is now used for holidays by the generations who never lived there but know and love the place. It's a lovely thing to do, very precious, and not something to lightly throw away over someone's grabby tantrum.

Wish you and your family all the best.

So how it’s worked so far. Summers are split by the 5 for allocation and groups can join or overlap with permission if they want an extended stay.

All over times of the year you just book in the calendar first come first served as there’s not the same demand.

Once you get to 30GGC well yes that’s complicated and that’s why they were going to do eldest of each family; so still a split of 5, or now potentially 4 - and each would have their prime time allocations to use as they see fit or swap with other members.

The house can hold max three families at a time.

Gosh well I hope not! I do love this Aunt/Uncle as much as wishing this drama wasn’t happening.

Perhaps it is the house 🤣 Quite a unique situation! I am sure you know how much then it is valued by us all. Precious indeed.

A tbh

Just asking anyone who may know...not meaning or wanting to derail this thread...I'm just genuinely interested to know.

If I understand you're not actually the DC of the original will maker?
Willing to be corrected.

If so does the original will ever 'die' with those it was left to or does the will state it must be forever as in those known to the will leaver and every future generation.

Not the same but mil wanted to will us her
Mobile home in a fab location, but we said no because it would actually be a bind with financial ties to the tune of 10kpa and only going to increase and then we would have had to upgrade when it was too old for the site etc etc.

In your situation I'd just sell up.

Yes correct crumpleton. I am a GC.

The water tightness of the will has surprised everyone tbh. It does state future successors as eldest GC of each child.

There was talk of a trust so I assume if the 5 wish to all overturn then they can.

I imagine the sentimentality of the attachment (to what does sound like a wonderful place) will decrease exponentially as each of the original children dies and the younger generations balance nice holidays somewhere repetitive and not of their choosing against cold hard cash to put towards life's expenses.

I would think once the original owners' children's generation sadly die, things will get even messier very quickly. What a conundrum.

This is so bonkers . Fair play to the sibling who walked away.

If nobody else wants to sell then the maintenance costs should be split equally by those that want to retain it. The sibling that walks away pays nothing.

My concern is for GC. Presumably the siblings that walk away are removing the inheritance from their GC. If so, are GC of an age where they can choose to step in instead of their parents or could they choose to at a later date?

Presumably it all depends on the terms of the trust where GC are concerned.

It is bonkers 🤣. Maybe won’t work out for the GGC who knows. But we have hopefully another 40-50 years before that becomes an issue.

So for now it’s this immediate issue of the original sibling that needs resolving - hopefully reasonably and morally adequately.

I am going to leave voting open and come back and tally up results later this evening.

Sale is not an option available for voting.

Thank you wise MNetters.

My XH had a share in a house like this. It was a huge issue during our divorce. Absolutely worthless, yet showed as an asset. Really more of a huge money pit.

I would let the sibling walk away with no financial obligations. I wouldn’t buy the sibling out at this time.

honestly, I would sell the damn thing, but if they wont, what is the plan for when there are no longer enough people willing to waste money on it? That discussion should happen sooner than later.

Oh and when I say issue in the divorce, I mean the court rejected our settlement because it looked like an asset even though it wasn’t an asset. It cost a ridiculous amount of legal fees explain that I wanted nothing from the house and that was totally fair.

The aspect I find difficult - and what I imagine is causing upset - is the disregard of the financial value. The original couple made a will giving inheritance of the use of the house, and the inheritors and their successors can choose to walk away from that. But no-one can deny that there is a financial value to that asset and I'm surprised they were not asked to consider that when making the will.

The house was inherited by six, they each owned a sixth of a house. One walked away with nothing, the remaining five own a fifth of the house, they are now financially worth more than the sixth sibling.
Supposing one of those siblings were in debt and having assets repossessed, their fifth share of that house would be considered a financial asset. Or supposing one was getting divorced, part ownership of the house would have to be considered in a settlement. The financial element of the ownership can't just be disregarded because those who are not in financial need want to keep the use.

For that reason, if my sibling were in financial need, I could not allow them to walk away from owning a fifth of a house, leaving them with nothing and me with ownership of a now quarter of a house. That's bonkers and selfish.

I can't imagine any fair solution other than to sell it and for each of the six children to profit equally. Perhaps it can be bought by all grandchildren who want to own part of it.

I would ask the others to buy my share or to sell the house

I agree that it’s not a milestone and actually sounds wonderful to me! No one NEEDS to take the deal of a share in a family holiday home. Just like all the people saying that parents money is theirs and they don’t need to give it to children - why should OPs parents have sold their beautiful holiday home just because one of the children might want cold hard cash? That wasn’t the gift! The gift was the family holiday home.

A

It is the sibling who is trying to change the situation for their own benefit, without (it seems) much care for the disruption they are causing. They knew the set up and you say it has worked for a while.

They can't have what they want. That is that.

It is unfortunate if this is causing tension but it is the sibling who is choosing to cause that tension, by attempting to upend the agreed-upon status quo, without having any legal standing to do so.

It's an extremely difficult situation and one in which only a solicitor may be able to advise.

What about.

All parties continue to own the house.

The party that wants to walk away can walk away from the obligation of ongoing costs (and have no right to ongoing use).

If the grandchild is now an adult maybe the burden of the ownership could be passed down a generation early (if that is what the grandchild wants?)

If the property is eventually sold by agreement of all parties then maintenance costs paid by the other individuals is refunded to those who paid, proportionately out of the cost of the sale.

I think at some point the house will have to be sold though (regardless of what the will says) as this could go on forever! And the maintenance costs may never be recouped by the price of the sale??