Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with the majority here that house sibling is disgustingly greedy and clearly the parents intended for the estate to own part of the house.

My question is maybe a silly one, but if the estate owns part of the house and they're tenants in common, couldn't the other siblings just... move in? Wouldn't that force house sibling to settle things properly as per the letter of the law? A childish game to play, sure, but might force the hand of house sibling. Also realise this is likely not practical, but do wonder if there's an avenue to be pursued there.

I'd rent out the estate's half to a hobo for cheap. See how high and mighty biglaw spouse likes having riff raff in their home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sibling needs to reimburse the estate for that amount and then everything is split equally. I would not quit claiming it without them reimbursing me or buying it from the estate.

I opened this thread when it's 8 pages long, and this was the first post after the OP. It's the right answer - perhaps the only right answer.

If the sibling won't go for this, OP, then partition and be damned the consequences.

I think logic doesn't work with OP's sibling and BigLaw BIL. BIL is manipulating the situation to his benefit. I am guessing he blackmailed the parent into paying half and continuing to pay. Parent tried to solve it with the deed, but now BIL is just pulling the same thing on the siblings.

Yeah, after I read the rest of the thread, it's easy to see why the obvious solution hasn't worked.

OP, the last compromise you offered would have cost you and your other siblings tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The House Sibling is definitely greedy, but he is doing this because (i) the longer the estate stays open, the longer the estate is responsible for 50% of the mortgage and other expenses, and (ii) he does not believe you will take steps to enforce a partition. For 7 years, he's been right, and it's apparent that this will continue until you do. So, you have a choice to make: (i) allow this situation to continue indefinitely, (ii) give HS what he wants and be done with him, or (iii) force the executor/estate lawyer to take aggressive steps to close the estate, which means suing for partition. I'd definitely choose the third option, and I'd also do as others suggest and find a new lawyer who experienced in this type of litigation - it's a very niche specialty. I have been a BigLaw litigator for almost 30 years, and I wouldn't handle a case like this - I'd find someone who specializes in it.

Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law probably lays out how to deal with it. This is a property and estate law issue.

You guys should follow the law and the estate plan and the deed.

Consult a good estate attorney and follow what he advises.

If the sibling owns the house, he's under no obligation to gift you guys money from his share of liquid assets of inheritance.

If he doesn't own it, he needs to pay the estate for its share. Siblings are under no obligation to quit claim.

This is probably a simple legal issue. Figure out what the right legal answer is and follow it. No one needs to gift anyone anything on either side.

-Attorney

Well, obviously, and the OP understands that, because she referred to partition. She's looking for creative ways to solve the problem without resorting to that.

- Another attorney, who is not a pedantic nudge.

After 7 years - there is no creativity. And the house sibling clearly has dug in.
There is not an option of saving relationships.
Partition and close out this part of your lives.

Thus far the judge has been unwilling to pressure HouseSib. OP, I think you need an aggressive lawyer and a request for a new judge.

So sorry for this whole situation. Sounds horrible and exhausting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hot take is that all the siblings are being greedy here. If your parents were alive you wouldn’t be fighting over their money, but now that they’re dead you ALL feel so freaking entitled that you’re destroying your relationships with each other.

However you were supporting yourself before the inheritance came into play, just keep doing that and consider any money coming your way as a bonus to be grateful for, which is what it is.

So just let the one sibling get away with stealing from the estate?

+1. OP, you need a competent and aggressive lawyer. I know top of top ivy league lawyers from the best firms, and I also know bottom of the bottom lawyers, that barely squeak by. By choosy and scrutinize carefully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law probably lays out how to deal with it. This is a property and estate law issue.

You guys should follow the law and the estate plan and the deed.

Consult a good estate attorney and follow what he advises.

If the sibling owns the house, he's under no obligation to gift you guys money from his share of liquid assets of inheritance.

If he doesn't own it, he needs to pay the estate for its share. Siblings are under no obligation to quit claim.

This is probably a simple legal issue. Figure out what the right legal answer is and follow it. No one needs to gift anyone anything on either side.

-Attorney

Well, obviously, and the OP understands that, because she referred to partition. She's looking for creative ways to solve the problem without resorting to that.

- Another attorney, who is not a pedantic nudge.

After 7 years - there is no creativity. And the house sibling clearly has dug in.
There is not an option of saving relationships.
Partition and close out this part of your lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to tell you, I wouldn’t care about this at all. If it’s a house that is the home of my sibling, but my parents helped pay for it, I would want to transfer it to them in the easiest way that satisfies the legal requirements of probate or whatever.

I don’t care at all about me and my siblings getting an equal inheritance. I think if people are at the point where they want someone to move to a new house over that, the family was already “broken.”

I agree that it’s sad that the other sibs want to force the sale of a family’s home to get their hands on a little bit more money. But the parents structured the ownership of the house the way they did, and it’s weird that the sib who lives in the house isn’t even willing to forego their share of the cash inheritance in exchange for getting to keep the house. Just seems so grasping. Maybe the best thing to do is everyone just wait it out until the sib eventually downsizes or otherwise decides they’d like to sell, and everyone gets their fair distribution then? Just thinking about it in terms of interpersonal fairness - I don’t pretend to know how this stuff works legally. So obviously yes consult an atty to see if there are any pitfalls and make sure sib doesn’t do anything dumb, like accidentally put a tax lien on the house or something.

This. Everyone involved is looking for what they perceive as their fair share, and the other side perceives as a windfall.

As a compromise, I would probably suggest that the sibling pay back the amount the parents paid (or deduct it from the rest of their portion of the estate), and forego the equity. But if the sibling who lives there pushes back, you tell him that you'll just have to go by the letter of the law, which may mean he'll have to sell the house.

The best thing here is to follow the law as it affects the will/trust. Then there is no worry about the “perceptions” of the beneficiaries- there is just the reality of following the law involved. Any compromise at this point will cause unnecessary loss to one or some of the beneficiaries.

Anonymous wrote:Stop being afraid of “BigLaw BIL.” Does not mean he’s right or the law agrees with him. It’s probably not even his practice area. My DH has definitely made empty threats on firm letterhead hoping to resolve something quickly in his favor (nothing like this!) but didn’t have any plans to actually sue or anything.

At this point I wouldn’t care if the estate had to pay a different better lawyer. Doesn’t sound like you will see any money without a new lawyer anyway.

+1

At this point I’d just be so pissed off and hire a way better lawyer. They’re going to be paid by the estate anyway and HS is being a petty a$$. I wouldn’t even care if he was forced to sell in order for the estate to have the funds to pay the new lawyer.

I agree with the poster above. When you interact w, oppose so many biglaw attorneys the luster really wears off.

Stop being afraid of “BigLaw BIL.” Does not mean he’s right or the law agrees with him. It’s probably not even his practice area. My DH has definitely made empty threats on firm letterhead hoping to resolve something quickly in his favor (nothing like this!) but didn’t have any plans to actually sue or anything.

At this point I wouldn’t care if the estate had to pay a different better lawyer. Doesn’t sound like you will see any money without a new lawyer anyway.

Completely agree with the majority here that house sibling is disgustingly greedy and clearly the parents intended for the estate to own part of the house.

My question is maybe a silly one, but if the estate owns part of the house and they're tenants in common, couldn't the other siblings just... move in? Wouldn't that force house sibling to settle things properly as per the letter of the law? A childish game to play, sure, but might force the hand of house sibling. Also realise this is likely not practical, but do wonder if there's an avenue to be pursued there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to tell you, I wouldn’t care about this at all. If it’s a house that is the home of my sibling, but my parents helped pay for it, I would want to transfer it to them in the easiest way that satisfies the legal requirements of probate or whatever.

I don’t care at all about me and my siblings getting an equal inheritance. I think if people are at the point where they want someone to move to a new house over that, the family was already “broken.”

I agree that it’s sad that the other sibs want to force the sale of a family’s home to get their hands on a little bit more money. But the parents structured the ownership of the house the way they did, and it’s weird that the sib who lives in the house isn’t even willing to forego their share of the cash inheritance in exchange for getting to keep the house. Just seems so grasping. Maybe the best thing to do is everyone just wait it out until the sib eventually downsizes or otherwise decides they’d like to sell, and everyone gets their fair distribution then? Just thinking about it in terms of interpersonal fairness - I don’t pretend to know how this stuff works legally. So obviously yes consult an atty to see if there are any pitfalls and make sure sib doesn’t do anything dumb, like accidentally put a tax lien on the house or something.

This. Everyone involved is looking for what they perceive as their fair share, and the other side perceives as a windfall.

As a compromise, I would probably suggest that the sibling pay back the amount the parents paid (or deduct it from the rest of their portion of the estate), and forego the equity. But if the sibling who lives there pushes back, you tell him that you'll just have to go by the letter of the law, which may mean he'll have to sell the house.

House Sibling is married to a BigLaw lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sibling needs to reimburse the estate for that amount and then everything is split equally. I would not quit claiming it without them reimbursing me or buying it from the estate.

I opened this thread when it's 8 pages long, and this was the first post after the OP. It's the right answer - perhaps the only right answer.

If the sibling won't go for this, OP, then partition and be damned the consequences.

I think logic doesn't work with OP's sibling and BigLaw BIL. BIL is manipulating the situation to his benefit. I am guessing he blackmailed the parent into paying half and continuing to pay. Parent tried to solve it with the deed, but now BIL is just pulling the same thing on the siblings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to tell you, I wouldn’t care about this at all. If it’s a house that is the home of my sibling, but my parents helped pay for it, I would want to transfer it to them in the easiest way that satisfies the legal requirements of probate or whatever.

I don’t care at all about me and my siblings getting an equal inheritance. I think if people are at the point where they want someone to move to a new house over that, the family was already “broken.”

I agree that it’s sad that the other sibs want to force the sale of a family’s home to get their hands on a little bit more money. But the parents structured the ownership of the house the way they did, and it’s weird that the sib who lives in the house isn’t even willing to forego their share of the cash inheritance in exchange for getting to keep the house. Just seems so grasping. Maybe the best thing to do is everyone just wait it out until the sib eventually downsizes or otherwise decides they’d like to sell, and everyone gets their fair distribution then? Just thinking about it in terms of interpersonal fairness - I don’t pretend to know how this stuff works legally. So obviously yes consult an atty to see if there are any pitfalls and make sure sib doesn’t do anything dumb, like accidentally put a tax lien on the house or something.

This. Everyone involved is looking for what they perceive as their fair share, and the other side perceives as a windfall.

As a compromise, I would probably suggest that the sibling pay back the amount the parents paid (or deduct it from the rest of their portion of the estate), and forego the equity. But if the sibling who lives there pushes back, you tell him that you'll just have to go by the letter of the law, which may mean he'll have to sell the house.

Anonymous wrote:The sibling needs to reimburse the estate for that amount and then everything is split equally. I would not quit claiming it without them reimbursing me or buying it from the estate.

I opened this thread when it's 8 pages long, and this was the first post after the OP. It's the right answer - perhaps the only right answer.

If the sibling won't go for this, OP, then partition and be damned the consequences.

Anonymous wrote:The law probably lays out how to deal with it. This is a property and estate law issue.

You guys should follow the law and the estate plan and the deed.

Consult a good estate attorney and follow what he advises.

If the sibling owns the house, he's under no obligation to gift you guys money from his share of liquid assets of inheritance.

If he doesn't own it, he needs to pay the estate for its share. Siblings are under no obligation to quit claim.

This is probably a simple legal issue. Figure out what the right legal answer is and follow it. No one needs to gift anyone anything on either side.

-Attorney

Well, obviously, and the OP understands that, because she referred to partition. She's looking for creative ways to solve the problem without resorting to that.

- Another attorney, who is not a pedantic nudge.