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.

Yep. Similar sibling conflicts happen when it comes to looking after elderly parents, how they should be looked after, which sibling does what for the parent(s) and how often. Not to mention inheritance issues in general, even when there is no beach house

Original post details the dad and uncle co-owned the home (likely inherited from their parents), “no drama,” house was full of cousins all summer. Wow, such conflict. Sell and do your own thing, says Beltway loners estranged from their flyover state families.

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.

Yep. Similar sibling conflicts happen when it comes to looking after elderly parents, how they should be looked after, which sibling does what for the parent(s) and how often. Not to mention inheritance issues in general, even when there is no beach house

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My inlaws have a beach house in the Rehoboth, OC area. My husband and I have already agreed, when the time comes, we are not going to split it with our BIL and his wife as we travel to too many other places. The taxes alone aren't worth it for the 2 times a year we go.

Is this fabricated? Because you’re trying to come across as smug and well traveled but you’re bragging about putting something very stupid on record with your in-laws. Congrats on a permitting your in-laws to give your BIL and wife 100% of the beach house instead of 50% — which won’t impact the rest of the estate, of course.

I think they mean they won't buy it together with them when the ILs decide to sell. At least that's how I read it. Not taking half in an estate would be dumb.

The owners are going to sign 100% ownership of that beach house over to the son who uses it because the smug “well traveled” daughter in law ran her mouth. She thought she sounded so smart and sophisticated but she actually played herself and her husband out of a very valuable share of property.

Yes, the parents undoubtedly are monitoring DCUM for anonymous posts in order to determine how to divide their assets.

Tell me, is this sort of stupidity catching, or were you born with it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those low class Bush and Kennedy families are so dumb for keeping oceanfront land in the family for generations. Don’t they know you can rent at a variety of places on Airbnb and stay in hotels?

For most of us, it’s at least a century too late to join the Patrician class and pick up waterfront property for a relative pittance. And, I guaranty those properties are owned by a family trust, with clearly defined control rules in the trust document.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't ask for sibling advice here. DCUM is terrible with siblings conflicts.

I must have missed the part where OP was asking for advice on how to repair relations with her siblings. I only read the part where she is still pissed that they wouldn't bankroll her fantasies of owning a joint beach house.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't ask for sibling advice here. DCUM is terrible with siblings conflicts.

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My inlaws have a beach house in the Rehoboth, OC area. My husband and I have already agreed, when the time comes, we are not going to split it with our BIL and his wife as we travel to too many other places. The taxes alone aren't worth it for the 2 times a year we go.

Is this fabricated? Because you’re trying to come across as smug and well traveled but you’re bragging about putting something very stupid on record with your in-laws. Congrats on a permitting your in-laws to give your BIL and wife 100% of the beach house instead of 50% — which won’t impact the rest of the estate, of course.

I think they mean they won't buy it together with them when the ILs decide to sell. At least that's how I read it. Not taking half in an estate would be dumb.

The owners are going to sign 100% ownership of that beach house over to the son who uses it because the smug “well traveled” daughter in law ran her mouth. She thought she sounded so smart and sophisticated but she actually played herself and her husband out of a very valuable share of property.