Settle my inheritance row!

[LetMeExplain]

Long story short, my parents signed their house over to me 10+ years ago, under the caveat that they could live there until the end of their days. This house is my inheritance, as stated in their will.
My mum passed away and my dad can’t afford to stay in the house or manage its upkeep any more. He has a disastrous relationship with money and is basically destitute.
I agreed to sell the house and buy a flat for him, to live in rent free, all he has to pay is his cost. He now demands money from me as I am making a profit from the sale of the house. I don’t want to give him any, it’s my inheritance! AIBU?

So if your mum and dad gave you a quarter mil 10 years ago, and you decided that you would use that money to fund your childrens education, after your mum died your dad turned to gambling and alcohol, you'd return the gift to a) pay his creditors; and b) fund gambling and alcohol, would you do it? You'd sacrifice yours and your decedents prosperity?

Really OP, please ignore these cranks.

Try clicking ‘see all’ and reading all of the OP’s posts and at least some of the thread !! Firstly it’s not his house, it belongs to the OP - legally signed over by both parents without coercion. So it’s not elder abuse, this was the OP’s parents wishes, not hers. And in her subsequent posts the OP tells us that her father has racked up debts more than the house is worth. So if she gives either money or the flat to him, his creditors will take it to pay his debts and then he’ll be homeless. So rather than being ‘a disgrace’ the OP is actually the one keeping his head above water. If you can’t be bothered to read the thread there’s an excellent summary of it in the post above your own.

No one would, and they know it. I don’t know why anyone posts on MN for genuine advice any more. It turns into a bun fight where posters ignore what’s actually been said in favour of making things up as they go along. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen OP’s driven off their own threads by the posters who use other peoples’ misery as sport.

Don't know if there's been a name change fail or a random influx of supporters of the OP furiously replying to everybody but it's clear that everybody is "wrong" & your "right" so why not get thread shut down ??

Also forgot to say but.... if things were bad & your father had a money problems & there was a chance of your mother dying first (always a possibility) you realllllly really. Shouldn't have accepted this "offer" of having the house transfered to you & you dealing with this all alone (presumably in order to "protect" your inheritence) but really it's just caused pain & difficulties ontop of giving you a set amount your "supposed" to get even though theres no way of actually knowing in advance what somebody will have left esspecially if theyre bad with money & you don't have proper support right now

The amount of nonsense in this thread is amazing.

OP, turn off notifications.

I have read all her posts and I still feel the same.

I don't see it as her subsidising him, I see the OP's mum as entrusting the financials to her rather than just handing the house over.

In all honesty, if money was entrusted to her and stated by the giver that it was meant as an inheritance, then yes, I actually would expect the reciever to hold it in a sort of trust, invest etc but not to be spent until their death.

I couldn't in good conscience spend the money and I wouldn't see it as mine until both parents in this scenario had passed.

And yes, I agree with you about it being called an inheritance being a huge factor in the complications of how to view it.

It being considered an inheritance, for me, the parents meant for the house/any potential monetary gains etc to benefit them while they were alive but OP to manage it. I don't see it as her being given the entire value of the house come hell or high water.

I also think that in light of the updates of the father's poor financial management that OP would be better off handling things like paying for a weekly shop or supplying small lump sums for a holiday etc rather than handing the entire sum over but I still think that money is not hers to do as she wishes with.

If her mother intender her to manage her fathers finances after her death her and the husband would have enacted a power of attorney, not assigning the house over to OP.

OP owned the house in accordance with both parents' wishes. She shouldn't be expected to return that gift because her dad has subsequently become a financial basket case.

You don't know that at all. Most people would have no idea how to organise these things properly.

OP's mother/father signed the house over BECAUSE of the father's financial habits, he didn't become financially irresponsible after the mother died.

We don't have to agree, that's my view on it and it's no more wrong or right than yours.

I just don't understand why you think that OP should return a gift?

Inheritance doesn't really describe the situation. An asset was gifted under condition that the asset could be used for their lifetimes. That asset is OPs. 100%. She must permit the dad to live there.

The dad signed the documents to, so unless he was being willfully negligent, his intentions to make the gift matched the mother. This isn't something you do in 5 minutes, a solicitor would have explained the process and implications to the father. If they talked about budgeting etc. a solicitor worth their salt would talk about POAs etc. He didn't have to sign, he chose to. Assuming it was jointly owned not tenants in common, when the mother died he would have owned the entire house. But he decided he wanted the daughter to have it.

The wise mother knew the daughter would manage the house/money better than the profilgate father and the wise mother has been proved right to thank goodness the property is in the daughter's name. The father made his bed.

The father does seem to have a right to live in the property until he dies however in the country where the property is no matter what his own level of personal debts so unless he chooses to mvoe out he probably has a legal right to stay (just as on plenty of second marriages couples make a will that their respective children get the house but only after the spouse died who can remain in it until they die which is a massive problem if an old man has married someone younger than the chidlren of his first marriage I suppose as they don't get the house for 50 years etc)

because from what I gather the will has written in it that the property remains in the hands of the parents until both of them die despite it being in her name and at the time of their passing (both of them) that it becomes entirely hers, no strings attached.

She is not 'giving back the gift', she is providing for her father with money from the house that her mother and father paid for.

She will still have a house/unit to sell when her Dad dies, just not the one he was in.

I don't think that her parents really thought through the possible implications and outcome apart from the parents both being able to stay in the house until they died. If they had, I am sure they would have included a clause regarding what would happen in the even the house was sold or the parents relocated prior to death for some reason.

I have no doubt it was signed over in good faith that the house would be their forever and last home and that it would only go fully to OP at the time of their death. I am also in agreeance with others that it was likely signed over to save OP's father losing it rather than simply to give it to OP.

The father has now moved for various reasons and it throws a spanner in to the entire deal. My moral compass says that the right thing to do is to see the house as hers only once the parents both pass. That's all there is to it.

It already was hers (before it was sold), it is not in her parents hands or anything else. They had given up all claims on the property and sale proceeds save for the right to live there while they are alive. If they intended ownership to pass to OP on death they'd have just left it to her in a will.

People seem to have a weird thing about property for some reason. Bricks and mortar and all that, first people to suggest buy to lets as a savings vehicle.

It is a similar arrangement to gifting money into a discounted gift trust or wealth preservation trust, the settlors, in this case the parents, make a gift and in their lifetime have access to 'income' (not technically income but simplifying) but have no access to the principle sum. Would you advocate the OP who in an alternative world was beneficiary of a trust that distributes on their death, relinquish their entitlement because one of the two settlors became a basket case and changed their minds?

@Everanewbie

I don't need you to agree with me and you don't need me to agree with you. We are complete strangers on the internet who will never meet who have differing opinions on a subject that actually doesn't concern either of us.

I've explained my reasons, I've actually answered something similar to your question in a previous post and I don't need to continue further with you.

It's ok to agree to disagree. Not everything is black and white. Legally you are right, morally, in my mind you are wrong. That's all there is too it. Let it go.

Even if he is terrible with money, it's HIS MONEY. An inheritance is money that is left over when someone passes. He shouldn't have to live destitute because you're greedy. If there happens to be any leftover, it's yours. If not, he needed the money to survive.

I am amazed by the number of posters simply glossing over the appalling financial abuse her father has put his family through to arrive at this situation. And particularly the fact that the OP has said that that behaviour is still going on. And yet people are blaming her for everything and urging her to disregard her mothers wishes by now just giving him the money. Which will either go to his creditors or be wasted like the rest.

What would be immoral here is for the OP to give him the money in full knowledge of his recklessness, and watch him throw it away after the years she’s spent trying to save him from himself. What then ? Sell the flat, so he can waste the proceeds because it’s his ‘right’ ? And when there’s nothing left, what then ? Given his history, why are people not reading the information in the OP’s subsequent posts and applying more critical thinking as to why he has no money, instead of blaming the OP ?

You’re missing the point though. OP isn’t disputing his right to live in the property. He couldn’t afford to stay in the house because seemingly he’s still engaged in money wasting, so the OP sold it and bought him a flat so he could manage. He’s not satisfied with that and wants the profits too. And most people on the thread think she should simply hand it over and watch him waste it.

*because from what I gather the will has written in it that the property remains in the hands of the parents until both of them die despite it being in her name and at the time of their passing (both of them) that it becomes entirely hers, no strings attached.

She is not 'giving back the gift', she is providing for her father with money from the house that her mother and father paid for.

She will still have a house/unit to sell when her Dad dies, just not the one he was in.*

If that were the case she would’t have been allowed to sell it. And if the property remained in the fathers’ hands why did the OP come in for such a bashing for not helping him out with the upkeep, and instead opting to downsize ? It’s either hers or it isn’t, and if it isn’t she has no obligation towards his expenses. If it is, she has every right to hang on to the profit because there will be maintenance costs. She says he’s destitute. She says he’s still engaged in the behaviour that’s led to him being destitute. It’s never stopped. And handing a lump sum of money to a financial abuser, to my mind, is just as reckless.

The house belonged to Op, signed over to her by her mum and dad. Her mum wanted to do this because she knew that, left alone, dad would piss everything up the wall and lose the house eventually. Obviously dad agreed at the time.
The agreement was that they would live there until the end of their days, paying for the upkeep and running costs. The intention of this was to give Op's parents somewhere to live that the dad couldn't jeopardise by continuing on the destructive spending path that had affected his family for many years. It would also mean that Op was gifted the house at that point in time, rather than inheriting nothing when her parents were gone. But it was clearly and legally gifted to her.
Op's dad, who is still completely irresponsible with money and in debt, couldn't afford to keep up the original arrangement. So Op sold the house and brought a flat for dad to live in, in an attempt to provide a roof over his head that he could afford. As Op owns the flat it's a place that he can live in that can't be taken and sold to pay off his debt.
Op's dad now wants her to hand over the remaining equity from the sale of her house to him. He probably thinks he can go on a spending spree, as is his habit. However his debts are larger than the money that Op has banked from the house sale. So the reality is that he would get nothing, because his creditors would take it, and Op would have given him her money for nothing.

How any of this adds up to elder abuse or any of the other nasty stuff being thrown at Op is beyond me.

Yep. These things have been pointed out ad nauseam throughout the thread, but still people persist in blaming the OP. It’s not her fault her dad is destitute - it’s his own continuing reckless behaviour that’s caused it. The OP has acted exactly in accordance with the terms of the gift - she’s keeping her dad from drowning in the consequences of his debt and providing a home for him, and there’s no obligation to give him anything from the profit. Especially when she knows she can kiss it goodbye - either to his creditors or his continued recklessness. You wouldn’t reward a child for wasting money by giving them more to waste. How is this any different ?

If you were correct in the assumption that the will dictates that the property remains in the parents hands, then it would have been lost to the fathers’ creditors long ago.

I suspect she already has turned off the notifications by page 26 or so since I didn't get an answer to my question, and I don't blame her. I only hope she didn't let those that insist she's a money-grabbing, abusive daughter get inside her head.

If you're still reading OP, clear your conscience. You've done nothing wrong but protect your father from himself. And 10 years ago when he and your mother made the decision to sign the house over to you, he must have agreed. To give him the money would invalidate a possible purpose in doing that. Just see to his needs since he's incapable of sensibly caring for himself. If he continues to squander his money foolishly, then that's on him, but at least he has a paid for (by you) roof over his head.

The mistake you made was using the word 'inheritance'. Too many people jumped on only that and ignored everything else you said, even adding things you didn't say.

Most people would have no idea how to organise these things properly.

Maybe not, but the legal advice they took on signing the house over would have looked at all the alternatives and the solicitor would have fulfilled their legal duty to point out the pitfalls. So the father would have known exactly what he was agreeing to, and yes, he was financially abusive before her mother passed but the fact that he remains so makes it important that the OP doesn’t enable him further by giving him more money to waste.

I think you’re a horrible person. I hope dad gets an attorney. U took advantage of your parents. U won’t be happy, what goes around comes around. You will pay one way or the other.

Have you actually read the thread ?