Inheriting house together with sibling...who wants to move in - WWYD?

[Anonymous]

This is a house worth $3M and the schools are bad?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a house worth $3M and the schools are bad?!

Sure. Georgetown, DuPont circle, Logan circle, Kalorama . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I think B sees this as her home at least until retirement"

"Emotional attachment" to the house is BS. I mean, what about Sibling B's emotional attachment to Sibling A? What B should care about is people - people being treated fairly - and not causing resentment between families that could last generations. Who does B think she is? Getting more than her share. no.

If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. Done. Period. Sell.

This. OP, I assume you're sibling A. Politely say that you want to sell the house, and split the money evenly. I doubt sibling A could be that attached -- only living there since high school doesn't make you form that much of an attachment.

[Anonymous]

OP you may be long gone by now, but working with estates I have noticed that among siblings there is always one who feel that the estate is theirs 100%, or they should have more, or that "mom really meant for that sib to..." or that they did more for the deceased (but it is not on the will or anything) It is odd, and these feelings can be quite strong and heartfelt, but still the purpose of the will/ having an estate is to follow will and assume that the person meant what they wrote in the will. In this case 50/50.

[Anonymous]

Tell her to cry into her bud light budget

[Anonymous]

I would absolutely sell the house now if the other sibling can't afford to buy it out. I would say the buyout should be for the assessed value and not whatever the market value is. Sounds like there is enough money flowing here that the sibling without a house should be able to afford something nice even if this one is a bit out of reach. I don't think it's your responsibility to figure out how to help them afford private school and save money for college. Sounds like you are making it complicated for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd sell it and not feel guilty for a minute. The sibling who wants to live in it should be able to find something to buy and live in for $1.5 million. Even in DC that should buy something pretty nice.

Seriously, right? Who wouldn't love a mortgage-free $1.5M house. What a greedy, entitled little sis! And her fiancé is probably a gold digger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what amount of a mortgage could the sibling afford?

Right now? If you count her fiancé's income, maybe up to $500k, but I think even that would be a stretch.

No offense intended, but that is not much at all. At that income I'd question their ability to even pay property taxes and for the proper msintenance on a $3m house.

Is there a chance you could rent the house out for a while? Get her used to the idea of letting it go? It has to go. She can't even come close to affording it. With the money from the sale, she and her fiancé could buy a 1.5m house and own it free and clear. Even in the dc area a 1.5m house can be really nice.

If the City assesses the house at $3M, they're looking at about $31,000 (or $2,600 a month) in real estate taxes. That's pretty much a $500k+ mortgage right there, and doesn't include homeowner's insurance or maintenance. And the sibling living in the house should be paying at least half if not more of that for the privilege to live there.

I think it's obvious what has to be done. The way you handle it (and the personality/temperament of your sibling) can determine whether there are hard feelings or not.

[Anonymous]

Sell asap dc bubble is peaking

[Anonymous]

Your sister would never move out of that house, since then it will be where her kids "grew up" as well. There are going to be hurt feelings, but you need to sell if she can't afford to buy you out — or as others have said, pay the taxes, repairs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling needs to buy you out, but at a good deal. Maybe not market. At least half of what parents bought it for, adjusted for inflation, plus half of what money parents put in.

Why not at market? Why should A lose money on the deal?

I agree with other PPs, if B can't fully buy out A, then they should sell. The only compromise I would possibly consider is to allow B to pay A rent (half of market value) for a period of time (2 years) to save money to buy.

Technically, she is not losing money on the deal. She did not put money into the house and has no sunk costs. It is all windfall for her (taxes is another issue). So she has not lost money but perhaps would not make as much money off the house as she could have.

If it were me, I might let sibling have the house if I could get similar value from other parts of the inheritance. For example, Sibling could have the house if I got a bigger chunk of the other parts of the estate - hopefully cash or annuity

[Anonymous]

To the OP: you either need to sell and divide the proceeds or be willing to sign over the whole house to your sibling.

I think if you try to be the good guy and let your sister move into the house it is going to be a nightmare. Since you would still be on the deed, you could end up being on the hook for property taxes, etc if they don't pay. Then if they don't maintain the property it is going to be a mess and you are going to become resentful.

There's just no good way out of this situation.

I like the earlier suggestion of having the lawyer who is handling the will explain the situation to your sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also - your mother could have made the decision to sell the house to your sister below market, but she didn't.

This is the train of thought I am currently using to try to not feel bad about selling a long-held family asset, when there are distant cousins who would probably want it but can't afford it. My mom was s soft touch, and probably would have given them a good deal. But they never asked, she didn't offer, and while I feel sad about it, not everything can always stay in the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling needs to buy you out, but at a good deal. Maybe not market. At least half of what parents bought it for, adjusted for inflation, plus half of what money parents put in.

Why not at market? Why should A lose money on the deal?

I agree with other PPs, if B can't fully buy out A, then they should sell. The only compromise I would possibly consider is to allow B to pay A rent (half of market value) for a period of time (2 years) to save money to buy.

Technically, she is not losing money on the deal. She did not put money into the house and has no sunk costs. It is all windfall for her (taxes is another issue). So she has not lost money but perhaps would not make as much money off the house as she could have.

If it were me, I might let sibling have the house if I could get similar value from other parts of the inheritance. For example, Sibling could have the house if I got a bigger chunk of the other parts of the estate - hopefully cash or annuity

This approach makes sense if it is possible. If the parents meant for the estate to be split into even parts, then that's what should happen. If it was a case where one sibling was in financial distress and the others were well off, I'd be sympathetic to providing for that needy sibling (unless all the money would go for drugs or gambling). But in this case, I think it would be strange to just give an expensive house to a sibling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling needs to buy you out, but at a good deal. Maybe not market. At least half of what parents bought it for, adjusted for inflation, plus half of what money parents put in.

Why not at market? Why should A lose money on the deal?

I agree with other PPs, if B can't fully buy out A, then they should sell. The only compromise I would possibly consider is to allow B to pay A rent (half of market value) for a period of time (2 years) to save money to buy.

Technically, she is not losing money on the deal. She did not put money into the house and has no sunk costs. It is all windfall for her (taxes is another issue). So she has not lost money but perhaps would not make as much money off the house as she could have.

If it were me, I might let sibling have the house if I could get similar value from other parts of the inheritance. For example, Sibling could have the house if I got a bigger chunk of the other parts of the estate - hopefully cash or annuity

This approach makes sense if it is possible. If the parents meant for the estate to be split into even parts, then that's what should happen. If it was a case where one sibling was in financial distress and the others were well off, I'd be sympathetic to providing for that needy sibling (unless all the money would go for drugs or gambling). But in this case, I think it would be strange to just give an expensive house to a sibling.

Do people bother reading OP's posts? The rest of the estate is not worth anything close to the house.