It's an inheritence one...

[InheritenceArguments]

I'm one of three siblings, the oldest if that makes any difference. My parents sold the family house last year and moved close to me and DH, renting for the moment. Neither of them are in great health, and over the last year or so I've been helping them with various different things and have been to plenty of hospital appointments with both of them.

Me and DH need to move away from where we live at the moment, we can't afford a big enough place here and we want to move further out. My parents want to stay close to us, for the help and also to spend time with our kids.

I said I could only really carry on giving them the level of support I am at the moment if they were really close by - otherwise it's just going to be a nightmare. Someone (I can't honestly remember if it was me, DH or them) suggested me and DH buy a house with an annexe for them to live in.

We have discussed this at length and all set out boundaries etc. We are now weeks away from exchanging on a move to a new house with an annexe. We've put in approx 65% of the cost (mortgage) and my parents are gifting us the rest of the money on the understanding they will have an (unofficial) lifetime interest in the annexe and it's entirely theirs do with as they want. Also, if they need a live-in carer at any point they can have a bedroom in the main house, as the annexe is a one-bed.

My sister and brother both live abroad. Neither of them would want our parents to move in with them in this sort of arrangement. Neither of them currently own a house. One of them doesn't seem bothered about it all, and one of them is furious. Thinks it's entirely unreasonable that my parents aren't gifting them the same sum and they're furious.

My parents have suggested that they give each sibling a sum that represents about 35% of the amount they're giving me, when they buy a house. The angry sibling is somewhat placated, but still angry and thinks they should get exactly the same amount as I'm getting, regardless. They have suggested that when my parents die, they and my other sibling should get any money that hasn't been spent on care fees whereas I think it should be split equally.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what I think because it's my parent's decision - but AIBU? I'm taking on a huge responsibility. We also had to buy a house with an annexe that suited my parents - it isn't the house or the location me and DH would have liked, in an ideal world.

Against the grain but I can understand why your sibling feels it isn’t fair.

if they hadn’t moved, would the family house have been split 3 equal ways when they die? If so why wouldn’t that still be the rough allocation of assets.

Of course there may be no inheritance, and your parents are entitled to spend it how they want but it sounds like there is a sizeable amount and you should be aiming for as similar to equal as possible.

Why can’t you buy your house, where you want it to be, they buy one very close.
theirs is sold and all assets split when they die (hopefully not for a very long time!)

If the only workable way is for an annex then it should be partly in their name (ie they own 35% of the property). I understand why it would go in your name but I personally think tax avoidance and hiding wealth in that way to avoid care fees is pretty low, though I accept a lot of people do it.

It sounds like the sibling hasn’t handled things very reasonably. But if the sibling is only getting upset now you have almost completed on the house did you really do all this without discussing it with them? I’d be upset too if I was your sibling.

And finally if the only way you will accept is that they give you the large sum of money then that absolutely should be equalled up in any other assets if they die - you still want your third of anything left after you’ve taken 1/3 of a very large house?! That’s not reasonable.

it sounds like you think that you deserve your parents money if you support them. Yet your support should be because of love, not because you are being paid to do it.

If her parents die within 7 years of gifting this money and run up big care bills then there could also still be a risk of deprivation of assets and money owed.
This isn’t the case, you are muddling up inheritance tax and deprivation of assets which can be checked for any amount of years.

What if you and your DH both die have you changed your wills so your parents get a lifetime tenancy in the house?

You really need to protect your parent's home in every circumstance.

Who are guardians to your children? They could sell the home from under your parents feet and make them homeless should anything happen to you and your DH.

I can also see where the siblings are coming from, obviously the parents can do what they want with their money but the
siblings arent being unreasonable to be upset.

They probably wouldn’t be able to choose the care home if it was council funded though.

Not the same. Spouse or dependent relative can stay. Not non dependent adult children.

“If the only workable way is for an annex then it should be partly in their name (ie they own 35% of the property). I understand why it would go in your name but I personally think tax avoidance and hiding wealth in that way to avoid care fees is pretty low, though I accept a lot of people do it”

@RobinBobbing This is offensive quite frankly. OP, anyone who suggests that you’re “low” by moving your parents in with you to care for them, and that you’re motivated by tax and care fee avoidance has no idea what they are talking about and has never lived through it. You dont even want the annexe…. You just don’t want to have to travel to meet their needs.

I'm not sure how the situation is really much different to forward paying the rent they’d otherwise have been paying to live somewhere else close by?

This is complex, and I think you are not on safe ground regards deprivation of assets and potentially inheritance tax. I can also understand your sibling being a bit miffed.
can you afford to buy a house with an annex on your own? Then your parents can pay you rent and perhaps a regular amount for help?

Whist is your and your husband divorce? Then their housing becomes vulnerable?

We've actually just done this too OP - we moved in at the end of last year. The financial set-up is a little different here, we opted for a Trust instead.

From the legal advice we received at the time, from multiple sources, the intent when moving in is key to whether it's deprivation of assets. If you're moving in with the knowledge that your parents are likely to need care in the foreseeable future and you want to avoid fees, then it's deprivation of assets. If however, you have genuine reasons for the move - which you do - and you're not just doing it to avoid the fees, then you shouldn't be at risk for being classed as deprivation of assets.

The fact is that this is the only way you can continue to provide care for your parents. You have very valid reasons for making this decision which can be demonstrated.

Yes, it's harder in some ways being constantly on call. But also in other ways it's SO much easier being able to pop into the annexe than trek across the other side of the town when there's a small problem. If my mum's light bulb blows then I can stay in my pjs and dressing gown, and sort things out in five minutes. Even if she only lived a few streets away (which would be hard to organise unless you were lucky to find two properties close to each other) it's still a massive faff to have to get dressed, get in the car, drive over there etc.

If you're the type of person who can cope with providing care to elderly parents, an annexe is a great solution. It's not for everyone, but it works for us.

I understand it's tricky with siblings because money is a delicate issue. But a PP suggestion of costing out the care you are providing would be an interesting exercise. Care packages cost hundreds, or sometimes even a couple of thousand, every week. If you weren't providing that, your parents would have to pay that money out, leaving less for your siblings anyway.

Hopefully your parents have many years left. And if they do, by providing care to them, you'll be ensuring that there is some inheritance left for your siblings. If you hadn't been willing to step up and provide the care, there's a very good chance there would be no inheritance left for anyone after they'd paid out thousands in care fees over the years.

You might well be benefitting financially from a bigger house, but there's a cost to you too. Your time is valuable, and it's a fair trade when everything is considered. I actually suspect that in the end, the money that you'll have saved your parents in care fees will come to far more than you'll have gained financially. Your time has a value and this is something that's often ignored.

I have siblings/step-siblings and they won't benefit financially from this house, and they aren't named in the Trust. I don't feel bad because I have already spent many, many hours of my life supporting my DM and my stepdad while they barely manage a birthday card or phone call. We didn't make this move for financial reasons either - I was moving house to give my DC a bedroom each and my DM/stepdad wanted to stay close. This was the solution we found and honestly, there's no regrets.

I can see why they're upset. You and your DC have already got a closer relationship with them and it could be seen as bribed your parents into paying 35% of your home... Which no doubt you'll keep when they die plus get 1/3 of everything else on top.
They may also feel you're the favourite, and might, if circumstances were different and they were living close have been happy to do the care.
35% of a house with an annex round here would almost certainly be into the 100k s of pounds and we're not the most expensive area.

I would feel very differently if my parents approached one of my siblings and asked for this than if one of my siblings said to my parents "if you don't pay towards a house with an annex then we'll move away from you and won't do any more care."

That's not really how the OP describes it though. She says that they need to move and can't afford to buy locally. She also says that logistically she can no longer provide care unless her parents are really close by - and that's perfectly reasonable. It's really, really hard to provide lots of care even when it's a relatively short car trip. You're constantly going back and forth and just end up with no quality of life.

It sounds as if OP and her parents had a chat and collectively came up with the idea of the annexe. She didn't twist their arm or approach them with some devious scheme to wangle a bigger house out of them.

Genuinely, what's the alternative to the annexe? OP moves to a place she can afford and can no longer provide care to her parents? That seems to be the only option. Neither of her siblings want to provide care, and neither are willing to have the parents live with them.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say I can't continue to provide care if it involves me constantly trekking between two houses. The OP will be saving her parents quite literally thousands and thousands of pounds in care fees by providing care to them via the annexe. Time has a value and I bet that when everything reaches its natural conclusion, if OP placed a value on the hours she will spend caring, she'll have sacrificed more financially than she's gained.

The siblings needs to understand that OP's time has a value, and that by providing care, it equates to many thousands of pounds of saved money for the parents - of which they'll receive a healthy share via inheritance.

If the siblings don't like it then they're welcome to step up and provide the live-in care themselves - but funnily enough they're not so keen on that idea. Wonder why?!

I don't really understand why, given that your parents have already sold their house and are renting, they couldn't have just moved close to your new house (in another rental property)? The current plan seems to have so many disadvantages (pissing off your siblings, muddying the waters when it comes to inheritance because some of their money is tied up in your house, possible deprivation of assets, you and DH living in a house that isn't the one you would otherwise have chosen, you and DH ending up with an empty/pointless annexe if your parents eventually need to move to a care home). It all just seems unnecessarily complicated, and I can see why your sibling feels annoyed.

Well, are your siblings annoyed enough to provide the care themselves? Long term caring rips your life and earning capacity to shreds and should be compensated by those who sit back and let it happen.

All the people on this thread who are talking about parents buying nearby aren’t the ones answering the fall alarm at 3 in the morning in December, are they?

Or drying the urine soaked carpet before they go home because of the reason the fall alarm went off in the first place?

I am going to be in this situation soon, except I already own my own house outright and if my DSib’s, who haven’t set foot in my DP’s house in 15 years care to have an opinion, it had better be “yes dear” and nothing else.

Yes, it's back breaking, life breaking work loooong term. You and your siblings will hate each other at the end of it anyway. Because they've left you, quite literally, cleaning up the shit.

Be careful what you wish for. Having a big house funded to a large degree by your parents might seem like a good idea now but, in the event either or both of your parents become ill, you will be brought to your knees. It can be an absolutely hellish situation and one that no amount of money can compensate for.

If I were your parents I’d call sibling to say ‘we are SO touched by your display of love and affection. I assure you if you were regularly present and offering the level of support your sister does that we would happily enter into this arrangement with you. We don’t begrudge your move, we just ask that you recognise this represents a great value deal to us and we are looking forward to it very much. If your sister moved away as they would have had to do without our commitment, we would have had to engage carers for regular visits and support to retain our quality of life, I’ll let you do the maths to work out that actually your sister is clearly saving us money, and quite a bit of it assuming we live beyond another few years as we and hopefully you too very much hope is the case! I do however appreciate your insistence on being scrupulously fair between our children, i hadn’t thought of it that way so we will look at making it up to her in our will.’

then after hanging up I’d mutter take that you avaricious little twat.

@InheritenceArguments YABVU for several reasons

1. Not having a full legal agreement of what ifs. Not just divorce but what if you can’t cope, what if you want to downsize, what if you fall out etc.
2. Consider making it an interest free loan where each month £x rent is deducted from the loan. This keeps the money side clean and transparent.
3. Deprivation of assets, the LA can go back a long time as there is no limit. The 7 year rule is for inheritance tax only.

I say this as someone in your siblings position who warned against it and now is in the middle of a shit show sorting it out with relationships broken beyond repair.

Money can bring out the worst in people or people struggle to get their heads around what's happening and ask legitimate questions. Also unless you are doing it it's hard to understand how all consuming it can be caring for elderly parents. You haven't said what a third of the house price is money wise and what percentage of their estate this is. I also think although grabby it's fair to think that money will ultimately pass to your children not their children or potential children which can make a massive difference life chance wise for the young people. Childhood jealousy raises its head also. ultimately I'd hope they'd understand how much worry you've saved them by living with parents but it's fair enough they have some questions about it.

I doubt any solicitor would be happy for two people to put a substantial amount of money into a property where they intend to live but have no legal protection.

Pay for some proper legal advice from a solicitor who specialises in Trusts.

We've got a legally binding agreement that if we divorce, the money from my parents stays with me. If I die, it will go to DH but on the basis that if he remarries or has more children the money will be inherited (if there is any of it left...) by our DC, not any DC he has with future partners or any SC

Did you draw that up yourselves? How does it protect your parents if you die?

I’m one of three siblings and we have a similar set up. Parents sold their house and gifted large chunk of cash to youngest sibling and her partner who then purchased a property with an annexe for parents. The deal is youngest sibling is responsible for care of parents and in return she keeps all money from sale of house in the future. Parents gifted myself and the other sibling a smaller chunk of cash.

We’re all very close and all felt this was fair. In fact, I genuinely cannot see how your siblings might object. They need to put a price on the responsibility of care!

It’s all well and good to say that OP is going to provide care and therefore will essentially “earn” the 35% , but that is dependent on how long it works for. What happens if this set up only works for a few months or a year or two? Eg if the parents die? In that case, the arguments for this financial set up don’t seem as clear cut - OP still gets 35% of her house paid off, and 1/3 of the inheritance.

Also, what if they end up needing to go into care sooner than expected? Things can change quickly, eg a nasty fall. A few months of caring for them at home, and OP still gets 35% of her house paid, but her siblings likely get no inheritance because it still goes on care home fees, and perhaps her parents end up in a lower quality setting due to a significant chunk of their funds being tied up in OP’s house.

As a sibling, I also wouldn’t feel comfortable with the lack of formal protections for my parents in this set up.

My Mother needed nursing care and only managed to remain in her home by having carers in twice a day and my sister living with her and caring for her. For the last couple of years she was completely bed ridden and needed full nursing care. My sister had to do some pretty awful stuff just washing pee covered sheets was the least of it. She inherited Mums house, my siblings kicked off but the entire amount would have been gone in fees. There is more to the story but overall my Mother was petrified of going in to a home so regardless of some dubious financial dealings she got her wish.

MIL is the last alive, I am not doing any care so she will be going in to a home, just like I will not expect my DS to have me as sad as that is I have seen how people are robbed of their lives with caring responsibilities.

In all our financial plans we have factored in zero inheritance and that’s the issue people factor it in and then when it doesn’t go their way they get annoyed. It is completely foolish to rely on an inheritance.