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.

Could you formalise the caring arrangement a bit and on paper 'pay' yourself out of the gift? If there is notionally any of the gift left if, or when your parents go into care add that amount to a pot for care fees.

Gosh I don't think this is complicated at all. I think it's really simple.

OP's parents need care and are putting a sum of money towards ensuring they have lifelong 24/7 care and support. Whatever 35% of the house value is, I bet you anything it's nothing like care fees for 2 people potentially for the rest of their natural lives. Without this money, the care cannot happen. Neither of OP's siblings want this 'job' so they don't get the investment.

This is how they are choosing to spend their money in their lifetimes. It is not inheritance it is their money and they're spending it on wisely ensuring their care.

When the parents die, whatever is left is the inheritance.

It seems fair and worked out with legal assistance.
Very sensible.
Trust in each other is important and you have that.

Your parents need to be the ones to communicate with their other two kids. They should point out that an inheritance is not a given - they are at liberty to spend all their money on themselves, including on an annexe which is in exchange for the care you will be giving free of wages.

They're essentially paying you for care. Sibling is welcome to move closer to their parents and provide care if they want money.

Care home fees locally are anywhere between £4k -£7per month that’s for 1 person. I’m sure there is a second person discount sharing rooms etc but you’ll still be saving them a lot.

Hi OP, I think you may be interested in reading the attached thread that was posted a few weeks ago about a sibling being gifted a large amount of money for a house purchase.

Not precisely the same situation as yours, but a lot of the discussion for the OP centred around how the large gift to the sibling was causing huge emotional pain as it was tied to pretty evident favouritism and generally unqual treatment over years.

I am not suggesting that you are the favourite child as the annex seems to be a very practical solution for your family situation, however it might give you some insight into why your sibling is reacting so strongly.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5052496-large-sum-of-money-being-given-to-sibling?page=1

Your siblings both live abroad so I would say they're very welcome to move closer to your parents and take over the day-to-day help that you're providing in their absence.

When my parents became elderly I wasn't a carer as such (not at first anyway) but I helped with GP and hospital appointments, anything at all that needed a computer or telephone, shopping, minor DIY, gardening etc etc. It doesn't sound like much but one year I kept a diary just out of interest, when I read it now I'm shocked by how much time was taken up with driving backwards and forwards to their house for all the above tasks.
A caring role doesn't always mean literally providing personal care.

I've seen it in other families, where the sibling or cousin swoops in and starts laying down the law on what should be happening and how the person providing the help isn't doing it quite right, before rushing off again because they're just so busy!
Anyone who has ever worked in a care home will tell you how common it is.
But usually when it comes to inheritance those siblings or cousins who couldn't spare the time to help will try to justify why everyone is now equal in terms of money.

Gosh this is so messy.

I'm landing on the YABU side. You say yourself you wouldn't be able to afford this house without the (huge) gift from your parents. I know you're taking on a potentially big caring role, but you are benefitting from that financially.

As is so often commented on here, inheritance and large gifts from parents aren't just about the money, it is often much more about the perception of value and love.

I do think your share should be taken into account in the final reckoning. Giving you a massive gift now and then an equal share on your parents' death isn't fair. Perhaps the adjustment could be done as a monetary amount that doesn't increase with inflation, to make some allowance for the care you will do. You must also remember that you will benefit by having the money potentially much earlier in life than your siblings.

I would also be very very worried about your parents' security in your siblings' shoes and want that tied up legally.

I think it's very difficult to do something like this without causing resentment or worry.

Was it fair of their kids to fuck off abroad though? Where's THEIR demonstration of love and value? Why is it only expected to go one way?

Do you really think it's fair if the OP gives up where she really wants to live, and years of her time and freedom, and then the siblings who did whatever they wanted to do get exactly the same as her because 'inheritance should be equal'?

My auntie had her mum in a care home near her and visited every day. This involved moving her to another care home at one point as her personal needs weren't being met appropriately. My dad and his brother refused to visit her for years because 'she doesn't know us anymore'. On her death, they all got 1/3 but the brothers complained bitterly that their sister (who cleared the whole house of course) got house contents. Gross.

Fair does not always mean equal.

I wonder if the people saying this situation is ok and fair would change their minds if the gift were 1mm, or 2mm? Or even 500k if you are aayjng it’s payment for care work then 500k for running errands and helping with technology sounds like a great job?
im not saying it’s fair to be the one child stuck with all the responsibility, altho I’m sure there were upsides to this ( childcare help, more good quality time together etc ) but it does happen a lot by chance and I suspect the siblings moved overseas when everyone was younger- they didn’t do it to run away from taking care of ageing parents !!! Maybe a seperate conversation needs to be had about whether they need to come back to help , but I’m still not convinced taking 20 pct of the estate and then expecting another 1/3 of 80pct later ( which is essentially half of everything ) is that fair

I would just add that, from OP's posts, it isn't clear how much communication is coming from your parents to your siblings, and how much it has been discussed as a family. I realise that this is not necessarily possible or easy in all families.

My parents have lent a significant sum to a sibling and although there were some "favouritism" feelings about it, it was more easily resolved because they spoke to us before the decision was made, laid out what it would mean in terms of any other financial help in the short-mid term and laid out the solicitor's agreement that they are putting in place to ensure the money remains a loan and doesn't become a gift.

The mock up of rent/buying/care costs sounds like a good idea to show your siblings that this is genuinely the most cost-effective move - and don't forget the everyday stuff too. Even in they don't require live-in care or a home, support quickly racks up. Gardeners, cleaners, window cleaners, home deliveries, home help, meals on wheels, etc., even if they are "independent". However, the onus is on your parents to communicate this with their children, not for you to go to war with your siblings.

I think you need to talk to your parents and te them that a legl document must be drawn up before exchange to save arguments down the line.

It would be a red line for me.

Will your parents be paying towards fuel bills/council tax etc? Those bills will likely be big if the house is big and if your parents like their home warm?

You could agree to charge a notional rent of £500 each month for example - which actually just reduces the amount your parents put into the house by £500 each month. When/if the amount falls to zero they could start paying rent.

Document this to protect you if deprivation of assets rears its head.

Can you afford those high bills or do you need your parents to contribute?

If your parents did give away a large sum of the remainder of their assets (to siblings) then I think you really are in deprivation of assets territory. They have used the money that they have given to you to house themselves but if they give away most of the rest they will be accused of doing it to avoid paying for care - as why else would they do it? They would be choosing to leave themselves without the means to pay for the care that they may need.

I know someone who is trying to get care for the elderly parent who lives with them. Social services know that the parent sold their house and gave away the money to her adult children so are saying no - that the children should fund any care needed.

I think what this thread shows is that what 'fair' means to everyone is different. I think me and my sibling just don't agree on that fundamental point. I don't think it's 'fair' that I'm the only one left in the country, so all the responsibility for caring for my parents falls to me. I also have to be the de facto 'base' in the country, so will have to host Christmas from now until eternity etc. Hosting Christmas doesn't seem like a big deal I know, and it isn't, but it's an example of the role reversal that's been difficult to get my head around. It feels in many ways now that I'm the parent and they're the dependents. And that's not something either sibling has to factor into their lifestyle.

In terms of not being able to afford this house without the contribution from my parents, that is true. But, that's at least partly because there is an entire other house (the annexe) in the garden! It's only a small other house, but it's bumped up the price of the property and if it was a standalone house with a garden it would be worth most of the money they're putting towards the purchase.

I don't think it's 'fair' that I'm the only one left in the country, so all the responsibility for caring for my parents falls to me. I also have to be the de facto 'base' in the country, so will have to host Christmas from now until eternity etc. Hosting Christmas doesn't seem like a big deal I know, and it isn't, but it's an example of the role reversal that's been difficult to get my head around.

These are your choices though. I do the main caring for my Mum even though I live the furthest away, I wouldn't dream of being rewarded financially for doing it.
If I was one of your siblings I think I'd be annoyed too. Why don't you suggest to your parents that they should give a bigger percentage of their estate to your siblings. I think it's unfair for you to get 20% of their worth now plus to expect more when they die.

Chances are that it won't go on care home fees. Mostly people don't go into care homes.

It is a well-intentioned plan that has the potential to go horribly wrong. You said in one of the comments you wouldn't be providing personal care, what will you do if your parent is struggling with double incontinence and only receives 4 visits from a carer per day? The costs of live-in care are very high, you're talking £2k minimum per week, and would need to be funded out of your parents' savings, it is not something that LA would fund. As others mentioned, there is the risk that if your parents do need care, their "share" in the home would be seen as part of their overall assets and would be included in the calculations. So if hypothetically they gifted £100k, the LA will treat it as if they still have the money and would expect that all of this is used up until the £23.5k limit of savings. Yes, you may get "lucky" and your parents may only need light-touch support, but even that will be emotionally exhausting and draining past a certain stage. Dealing with someone who has dementia is a whole different level of hell I would not wish on anyone and no amount of money can compensate for that.

There are the offspring that do the graft and there are the offspring that sit back and pick up the cheque.

You are the one they are the other.

If you die tomorrow who owns the house.

You'll be the one doing everything. Buying new undies, taking out their rubbish, ferrying them here there and everywhere , washing their soiled clothes. Having them over for dinner, socialising with them etc etc. Whilst it's completely lovely and you will no doubt be grateful, it's easy for the siblings not to realise. For them it's a 20 mins on the phone once a week and 48 hours over Xmas. They can't possibly understand all that you do and will have to do to take care of them. My auntie did it all and I still don't think my mum realises as I lived closer and visited more than she did!
What you are doing is totally fair - they could always swap!

This is reasonable and correct for the siblings to see it from this POV.

Current frothing from siblings - no.

All of this. I am the one who mentioned deliberate deprivation. I used to work for the NHS in the community and the next bit I am going to say sounds horrible but its true. The deliberate deprivation thing has been going on for years....at least the last 30, maybe longer BUT as councils have become more strapped for the cash, they have been applying it more and also more stringently. I retired 14 years ago and we were seeing it happening then as more people were living longer and there was more call for support from the council budget. The assessment process doesn't go through an independent body and the council don't have to prove the decision although it does have to stay within the rules of the scheme. Yes you can appeal but I don't think many cases get the decision reversed or at least didn't to my knowledge. Also, which no one has mentioned, if the money they will spend won't result in any ownership of the house for your parents, it can be deemed a gift and they will have to survive for 7 years after the gift for you to avoid IHT. I won't say whether its a good idea or not or whether your sibs are being reasonable or not but do check carefully what you are doing...also do you realise that a separate dwelling whether connected to the house or not will be liable for separate council tax....not sure if this has already been mentioned.

Her DH will own it & OP naively thinks that even if he gets remarried & has more kids, he’ll keep her parents living with him because he’s “honourable”.

OP seems to have overlooked his new partner / wife having any say in the situation & what would happen if her DH was forced into making a choice between any new partner / new kids & her parents. Somehow I can’t see him being willing to split up with a new partner & live apart from any new children just to keep his ex in laws living with him but that’s just my opinion. Personally I think if he was truly honourable then he’d absolutely prioritise any new partner / new children.

So if you were caring for them and you died would he be happy to then become their carer?
I'm widowed. This happened to me. Not sharing a property but becoming the carer. The point of contact. The person who ordered the incontinence pads and dealt with the care agency and the GP and adult social care. Worrying about it while on holiday etc. What happens if they need a home but refuse. Again, this was the situation i was in. It was hard work. Heartbreaking at times.

My mother and my PIL all had live-in carers at different stages and whilst it is a huge help in some ways, it is not like outsourcing being a child of a disabled parent to someone else. The parent still leans on you hugely and you still find yourself devoting substantial parts of your daily time to sorting things out for them.

You absolutely need to put something in place to protect your parents if you predecease your husband, OP. I had it in my will for my mum.