Two siblings forced the sale of our inherited beach house and I can't get over it

[Anonymous]

I think people are being a little hard on OP. Yes, they should let it go, but I understand having a strong emotional attachment to a place where you spent a lot of fun times with family. the place I used to go every summer as a kid was bought by someone and just demolished. it makes me very sad to know I'll never be able to go there again or show it to my kids.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is being hard on OP for having a strong emotional attachment or being sad.

It's for blaming others that don't want the same thing, being angry that siblings won't give her money, and weird classist attacks that people were critical in the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you should have given them their share in cash. This is your fault, not theirs. I assume you couldn’t afford to buy them out?

We all have similar HHIs, so it would have been unfair to put the full burden on me and my husband. It was a very fair price but it wasn’t exactly a small sim; ot would have been a stretch for just us. Not to mention they likely would have tried to keep using it, right. I didn’t want that dynamic either.

It is what it is. At the buyout, you would have had them sign a document on the terms of use, including fair market rent for comparable properties. Yes, it sucks, but if you are not going to buy out, then there is nothing you can do and need to let this go.

I’m the OP. I think this and also the person above who wrote similar sounds great in theory. I’d love to read a copacetic real world example of this happening after a pair of siblings enjoyed free access and use of a property for 40 and 50 plus years. It gives me anxiety just thinking about it. Of course in retrospect it’s easy to say I wish my husband and I did just that. There’s just really no good reason we couldn’t have kept the same arrangement my dad and uncle had. They honestly never argued about anything. It was all very chill and there was always happy family members there. Big house, lots of beds, lots of laughs. Breaks my heart.

I mean, one big reason is the attitude you display on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Just to be clear -- is someone really implying that you have to own a beach house to create good memories and a happy childhood for your children? Really, or am I misreading how the dichotomy is set up?

I'm not sure that people without beach houses are confined to mortgagor children. That's ... an odd take.

I assume people who did not grow up with access to family vacation homes don’t really understand, so it’s easy to be dismissive about the experiences, memories and traditions. A rental is not the same thing, not even close. And also, if you’re miserable and hate where you’re from or are estranged from family, it’s even easier to be dismissive about all of this.

Beach houses, and family businesses, tend to work out well when one person (or a married couple) own them and have the ultimate say on how they’re run/used.

Once ownership passes on to a group of siblings, that’s when the problems typically start. I expect that when my FIL dies, one of the four siblings in my wife’s family will force a sale of the Delaware beach house.

+1

Nailed it - you own it, you have the say - you don't own it, well then you do NOT have the say.

I think it’s also important to have one person who has a final say on how a piece of property is run and managed. Maybe there are family properties out their being run smoothly by 4 siblings. I’ve never encountered one, though.

I honestly think two people is the maximum -- four is a mess. I think my in-laws are going to leave a house to their four kids, and it's going to be a $h!t-show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is being hard on OP for having a strong emotional attachment or being sad.

It's for blaming others that don't want the same thing, being angry that siblings won't give her money, and weird classist attacks that people were critical in the thread.

It sounds like they didn't want the same thing at that precise time but then came to regret it. OP said her two siblings continue to rent beach homes in the same area. Rentals on the ocean can easily cost over $10k a week. Do that a few times a year and it doesn't take many years to blow most of the six figures* in cash you received from the sale.

* sales price - 6% broker - 50% uncle / 3 siblings = Six figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Just to be clear -- is someone really implying that you have to own a beach house to create good memories and a happy childhood for your children? Really, or am I misreading how the dichotomy is set up?

I'm not sure that people without beach houses are confined to mortgagor children. That's ... an odd take.

I assume people who did not grow up with access to family vacation homes don’t really understand, so it’s easy to be dismissive about the experiences, memories and traditions. A rental is not the same thing, not even close. And also, if you’re miserable and hate where you’re from or are estranged from family, it’s even easier to be dismissive about all of this.

Beach houses, and family businesses, tend to work out well when one person (or a married couple) own them and have the ultimate say on how they’re run/used.

Once ownership passes on to a group of siblings, that’s when the problems typically start. I expect that when my FIL dies, one of the four siblings in my wife’s family will force a sale of the Delaware beach house.

+1

Nailed it - you own it, you have the say - you don't own it, well then you do NOT have the say.

I think it’s also important to have one person who has a final say on how a piece of property is run and managed. Maybe there are family properties out their being run smoothly by 4 siblings. I’ve never encountered one, though.

I honestly think two people is the maximum -- four is a mess. I think my in-laws are going to leave a house to their four kids, and it's going to be a $h!t-show.

Drama level depends on the sq ft of the house, number of full baths and parking spaces. If OP's beach house was always "chill" or whatever word she used, presumably it was on the large side. A smaller beach house that can realistically only accommodate five or six people is going to lead to drama because only one family at a time can comfortably use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is being hard on OP for having a strong emotional attachment or being sad.

It's for blaming others that don't want the same thing, being angry that siblings won't give her money, and weird classist attacks that people were critical in the thread.

It sounds like they didn't want the same thing at that precise time but then came to regret it. OP said her two siblings continue to rent beach homes in the same area. Rentals on the ocean can easily cost over $10k a week. Do that a few times a year and it doesn't take many years to blow most of the six figures* in cash you received from the sale.

* sales price - 6% broker - 50% uncle / 3 siblings = Six figures.

Yes. They didn't want to. Other people get to make choices, even if they are bad ones. Learn what a boundary is.

AND OP blamed them for not wanting the same thing she did
AND OP was angry that they didn't make their money available to her
AND OP made weird classist attacks against other posters

None of that is just "being sad" or "having a strong emotional connection." It's just "being a giant royal dick."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is being hard on OP for having a strong emotional attachment or being sad.

It's for blaming others that don't want the same thing, being angry that siblings won't give her money, and weird classist attacks that people were critical in the thread.

It sounds like they didn't want the same thing at that precise time but then came to regret it. OP said her two siblings continue to rent beach homes in the same area. Rentals on the ocean can easily cost over $10k a week. Do that a few times a year and it doesn't take many years to blow most of the six figures* in cash you received from the sale.

* sales price - 6% broker - 50% uncle / 3 siblings = Six figures.

Can you imagine how much it would cost to have an ongoing negotiation about managing shared vacation property with someone who couldn't let anything go?

Sometimes the cheapest way to pay for something is money. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling that OP is angrier about the fact that her siblings wouldn't even consider and discuss co-ownership of the beach house, than if they had all sat around the table, discussed the options, the pros and cons, and then came to a conclusion.
The outcome would have been the same and the house would have been sold, but at least OP would have been listened to.

OP is the sentimental one of the 3 siblings and the other 2 should have dealt with the situation with a bit more tact - even if they said no to co-ownership.

No. No one is entitled to anyone listening to their reasons. People are allowed to say no without a discussion.
And given that both siblings said no and OP's behavior in this thread and her pouting over not getting her way is very telling.

Siblings were right not to go into coownership with Op and to tell her no.

[Anonymous]

OP, where was the house? Just curious. Fwiw, not the same scenario but relatable, we had an opportunity 2-3 times to buy in hamptons, one opportunity was a real gem, but we didnt think far enough ahead because we were too young, and to this day we remember our lost opportunities, that we could have had a really nice place there, three hundred feet from the beach! It was just a huge lot then, and we could have bought it if we went after it. I guess that is life, full of regrets, many different kinds.

But yes, I really sympathize with you and the loss of the beach house that was in your family for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is being hard on OP for having a strong emotional attachment or being sad.

It's for blaming others that don't want the same thing, being angry that siblings won't give her money, and weird classist attacks that people were critical in the thread.

It sounds like they didn't want the same thing at that precise time but then came to regret it. OP said her two siblings continue to rent beach homes in the same area. Rentals on the ocean can easily cost over $10k a week. Do that a few times a year and it doesn't take many years to blow most of the six figures* in cash you received from the sale.

* sales price - 6% broker - 50% uncle / 3 siblings = Six figures.

If you invest well then no you don't blow through that money so fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you should have given them their share in cash. This is your fault, not theirs. I assume you couldn’t afford to buy them out?

We all have similar HHIs, so it would have been unfair to put the full burden on me and my husband. It was a very fair price but it wasn’t exactly a small sim; ot would have been a stretch for just us. Not to mention they likely would have tried to keep using it, right. I didn’t want that dynamic either.

It is what it is. At the buyout, you would have had them sign a document on the terms of use, including fair market rent for comparable properties. Yes, it sucks, but if you are not going to buy out, then there is nothing you can do and need to let this go.

I’m the OP. I think this and also the person above who wrote similar sounds great in theory. I’d love to read a copacetic real world example of this happening after a pair of siblings enjoyed free access and use of a property for 40 and 50 plus years. It gives me anxiety just thinking about it. Of course in retrospect it’s easy to say I wish my husband and I did just that. There’s just really no good reason we couldn’t have kept the same arrangement my dad and uncle had. They honestly never argued about anything. It was all very chill and there was always happy family members there. Big house, lots of beds, lots of laughs. Breaks my heart.

Do you know for sure they never disagreed? You were a kid. And you want a house that's always full of happy family members, but you only want it if your siblings paid -- if they didn't, you didn't want them to come. So you wouldn't get those full houses full of loving people. Your dad and uncle no doubt had guests who didn't pay for the house (including their own adult children) which is likely one reason that it felt so great.

Yes, OP if they had good boundaries then they kept you out of disagreements. Also, as PP mentioned, you want the house to be full of happy extended family. You do realize your siblings are separate people with their own thoughts and feelings right? You could not force them to spend their money and then force them to arrive happy each summer. You are really rigid in your thinking. My mom is like this. She has wasted so much time obsessing over how she thinks things should and must be that she has spoiled memories of her and repelled people. You don't want to be become this bitter. Be better OP. Get help.

[Anonymous]

You should have bought them out. Your fault.

[Anonymous]

If you want a vacation home, buy one.

Oh what’s that, you can’t afford one? OK. I guess we’re in the same boat, which is no boat, because I can’t afford a boat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you should have given them their share in cash. This is your fault, not theirs. I assume you couldn’t afford to buy them out?

We all have similar HHIs, so it would have been unfair to put the full burden on me and my husband. It was a very fair price but it wasn’t exactly a small sim; ot would have been a stretch for just us. Not to mention they likely would have tried to keep using it, right. I didn’t want that dynamic either.

So it would have been unfair to put the burden on you and your DH for something only you and your DH want.

Your middle name should be 'Self-centered'.