Estate Problems

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many posters would give up their jobs and homes for the "benefit" of living rent free with elderly parents. OP, don't be an asshole. The sibling should get more because the other siblings were not fair or equal about the split of duties.
Some of the posters here remind me of my family, which is not a compliment....

But the sibling isn' t asking for just a larger share. He.wants it ALL.

He's a thief.

[Anonymous]

My elderly parents moved out of their house and let my DB2 and his family move in. Our parents moved back to their native country and DB2 assumed the mortgage and all house maintenance, property taxes, etc ever since, 4 yrs ago. It was obvious that our parents intended DB2 to get the house. None of this bean counting, "I want my fair share" infighting. DB1 and I are fine with it. Our parents are deceased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My elderly parents moved out of their house and let my DB2 and his family move in. Our parents moved back to their native country and DB2 assumed the mortgage and all house maintenance, property taxes, etc ever since, 4 yrs ago. It was obvious that our parents intended DB2 to get the house. None of this bean counting, "I want my fair share" infighting. DB1 and I are fine with it. Our parents are deceased.

They moved out. Your DB2 was most likely added to the deed. And the will? OP's sib paid the mortgage after they died and the will had divide the assets equally. The will rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH's parents died a few years ago. One of his siblings took up residence in the family home during the last years of their life and afterwords as a pseudo caregiver but also lived for free most of the time. After their death DH and the other kids let the sibling continue to live at the residence but they all remained equal owners on paper. The sibling just assumed the mortgage because they could afford it at the time. Fast forward and sibling can no longer afford it (neither can anyone else) and wants to sell and is trying to get the other beneficiaries to sign over the property and forfeit their share. Everyone has different priorities and financial situations. WWYD?

Who was/is the executor? I guess the estate is closed. The sib living in the household might have had some sort of family exemption on inheritance tax since he was living in the household [state dependent]. But that doesn't mean he gets the house unless it is in the will. When infirm were the parents in the house or assisted living and nursing homes? Did help come in to deal with skilled nursing or assisted living needs like toileting and bathing and mobility [transfers from bed to wheelchair]?

If NO to performing assisted living functions then the sib who wants the house has really no standing. Far different from living with an elderly parent who can walk and toilet and bath independently where you might clean, weed, shop, cook, change light bulbs, driving to doctor appointments, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My elderly parents moved out of their house and let my DB2 and his family move in. Our parents moved back to their native country and DB2 assumed the mortgage and all house maintenance, property taxes, etc ever since, 4 yrs ago. It was obvious that our parents intended DB2 to get the house. None of this bean counting, "I want my fair share" infighting. DB1 and I are fine with it. Our parents are deceased.

They moved out. Your DB2 was most likely added to the deed. And the will? OP's sib paid the mortgage after they died and the will had divide the assets equally. The will rules.

Agree about the will. If your brother expected extra compensation for the "home care" beyond the free rent, he should have worked that out with the parents. Who then would have communicated to the other kids that sibling gets the house because of that. I personally think sibling is being greedy and lived in that house because he didn't have anywhere else to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP you are missing the point. The other sibs have no obligation to give him their shares of the house. It's that simple. They should not be shqned into doing so or blackmailed. Either the son took care of the parents out of love-- in which case nothing more is owed.to him-- or he did it.expecting compensation. If he had a compensation claim, he shoukd have made it years ago against the estate.of the second parent who died. He chose not to do so--most likely because he realized he really didn't do enough to.warrant.compensation beyond the free rent and whatever side.money he was probably getting from the parents were alive.

you are also missing a point (a different point though it were). the mortgage payments/upkeep post-death were/are an obligation on all the siblings equally. assuming the estate is not actually closed and it is some sort of trust then the proper (not getting into any moral issues) resolution is sell the house, mortgage payments get reimbursed to the payee as an expense and the remainder gets split equally.

asking for more than that (by the sibling) is wrong. not taking into account the benefit they all gained by he/she paying the mortgage and increasing equity etc is less wrong but still not quite right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would say sell the house and split anything leftover equally. The money that was spent paying the mortgage is not relevant, consider it rent. They'd have to pay some rent to live anywhere, why do they get to live rent free in that house?

If they had not been able to pay originally, the house would have been sold or rented at that point, what's the difference?

I agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP you are missing the point. The other sibs have no obligation to give him their shares of the house. It's that simple. They should not be shqned into doing so or blackmailed. Either the son took care of the parents out of love-- in which case nothing more is owed.to him-- or he did it.expecting compensation. If he had a compensation claim, he shoukd have made it years ago against the estate.of the second parent who died. He chose not to do so--most likely because he realized he really didn't do enough to.warrant.compensation beyond the free rent and whatever side.money he was probably getting from the parents were alive.

you are also missing a point (a different point though it were). the mortgage payments/upkeep post-death were/are an obligation on all the siblings equally. assuming the estate is not actually closed and it is some sort of trust then the proper (not getting into any moral issues) resolution is sell the house, mortgage payments get reimbursed to the payee as an expense and the remainder gets split equally.

asking for more than that (by the sibling) is wrong. not taking into account the benefit they all gained by he/she paying the mortgage and increasing equity etc is less wrong but still not quite right.

No, the ongoing monthly expenses of the home such as mortgage and maintenance are the responsibility of the sole occupant, when it is jointly owned. The other sibs don't owe him anything because he got the full benefit of exclusive use of the residence during that time period after the parents' death.

[Anonymous]

My mother was in a situation where she was more financially stable then her sister. When their parents died, the two were supposed to split assets 50/50. My mom decided to walk away from the house. She took a couple pieces of jewelry and a small amount of cash, but her sister took everything else. Their relationship, which was never good, deteriorated to nothing. Still, my mom does not regret it for a moment. Sure, if they had sold the house and split the assets she would have been able to buy herself something really nice, taken a nice vacation, paid off her childrens college loans. She could have used the money to be more comfortable... of course. But her sister needed it more. And that seemed most appropriate given the situation.

My point, sometimes walking away from the inheritance is the right thing to do.