Anonymous wrote:Sorry OP back here. We have plenty of lawyers now and in creating this mess including one parent (set up will and trust), siblings and spouses of siblings. Other real estate was part of will which was either directly addressed in will or has been sold.

The entire estate can't be closed out until agreement is reached on what to do with the home. The sibling residing in the home has rejected all offers to settle including owning the house outright but not getting share of the cash (equity in home is 5x what split cash would be). They are demanding home outright and equal split of cash. This has infuriated some of the siblings so to partition we go.

We actually used to all be very close.

Hot mess. It is a good reminder to all that making one of your kids your executor could be a terrible move.

Oof. What is House Sibling’s possible rationale for getting a bigger share? Are they arguing that they put money into the house and deserve more than 50% of it on an equitable basis?

But at the end of the day, zero sympathy for House Sibling. I live in a house effectively controlled by my MIL’s future estate - about 1/3 of the current value was contributed by her as a loan when we bought it. I have always known & accepted that we may have to sell depending on MIL’s preferences or however the estate shakes out. I’m grateful that through her providing me leverage I got to live in a house I never could have afforded otherwise and will eventually get a nice chunk of money for the appreciation! It would seem unfair if the executors forced us to move on very short notice, but otherwise, I’m a grown-up and went into this with my eyes open.

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

I think any sibling who tries to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from a parent's estate is a broken person and not one you can have a healthy relationship with.

The executor has a legal duty to the estate and needs to hire a lawyer. The sib doesn't have to move, they can buy out the estate's share. Or the money can be trued up in other ways. It's only by them failing to reach a fair agreement that an issue like a court order for partition could come into play.

OP, I would not kick the can down the road, this should be resolved now so the estate can be settled. Your parent CHOSE to become part owner of the house and it's an asset of the estate. I am guessing this sib has always tried to steamroller people, but your parent did not capitulate and merely gift one child a large sum. Respect their wishes.

Anonymous wrote:Current value shouldn’t matter. David the amount of the original loan (if it was a loan) by the number of sibling shares. Subtract the one share for the sibling that lives there from this amount. The remaining share amount is the value to be covered by liquidated estate assets. For example if they paid 100k then in order for the sibling living in the house to inherit $$ the estate needs to be paying over $75k per sibling.

this

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We tried that and sibling rejected it. Our last offer was house outright but sibling is insisting on house and equal split of cash which is a bridge too far for some siblings.

Judges just keep doing continuances which is annoying.

This seems pretty clear cut that the estate will get 1/2 the current value of the house. It seems like sibling would end up worse off by going to court than accepting this offer. What does the estate’s attorney say?

OP here. We tried that and sibling rejected it. Our last offer was house outright but sibling is insisting on house and equal split of cash which is a bridge too far for some siblings.

Judges just keep doing continuances which is annoying.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry OP back here. We have plenty of lawyers now and in creating this mess including one parent (set up will and trust), siblings and spouses of siblings. Other real estate was part of will which was either directly addressed in will or has been sold.

The entire estate can't be closed out until agreement is reached on what to do with the home. The sibling residing in the home has rejected all offers to settle including owning the house outright but not getting share of the cash (equity in home is 5x what split cash would be). They are demanding home outright and equal split of cash. This has infuriated some of the siblings so to partition we go.

We actually used to all be very close.

Hot mess. It is a good reminder to all that making one of your kids your executor could be a terrible move.

Settle with how ever much the parents gave to that child for the house and then each sibling gets 1/2 that amount from the estate and then everything else is divided. If they don't agree to that let a judge decide.

Sorry OP back here. We have plenty of lawyers now and in creating this mess including one parent (set up will and trust), siblings and spouses of siblings. Other real estate was part of will which was either directly addressed in will or has been sold.

The entire estate can't be closed out until agreement is reached on what to do with the home. The sibling residing in the home has rejected all offers to settle including owning the house outright but not getting share of the cash (equity in home is 5x what split cash would be). They are demanding home outright and equal split of cash. This has infuriated some of the siblings so to partition we go.

We actually used to all be very close.

Hot mess. It is a good reminder to all that making one of your kids your executor could be a terrible move.

Current value shouldn’t matter. David the amount of the original loan (if it was a loan) by the number of sibling shares. Subtract the one share for the sibling that lives there from this amount. The remaining share amount is the value to be covered by liquidated estate assets. For example if they paid 100k then in order for the sibling living in the house to inherit $$ the estate needs to be paying over $75k per sibling.

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

Anonymous wrote:What's written is all that's important. Written, documented, and legal. Opinions, guesses about intent --- none of that matters. None of that should be taken into consideration. The executor hires an estate attorney to determine the outcome. Legal is legal.

This. I would just follow the law.

Why do people write these posts without complete sentences? Your post is too hard to follow.

Maybe House Sibling is way overextended and freaking out that they aren’t able to buy out the estate right now, high earning or not. Can the other sibs work out some kind of payment plan, keeping up with market interest rates?

But definitely don’t let them bully tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars out of your hands that are rightfully yours!

Greed and a sense they can wear the others down, probably, PP.

The current value of the house is half the House Sibling’s, half the estate’s. So if the house was bought for $1 million and your parents contributed $500,000 toward that price, the estate’s share is now $1 million. The House Sibling gets an equal share of that estate amount, so if there are three siblings, the House Sibling gets $1.333 million and each of the other two siblings gets $333,000. That’s what’s fair. The parents obviously meant for half the value of the house to become part of the estate, or they would’ve handled the whole thing very differently and they would have invested that $500,000 or whatever it is and some other way that would have increased in over time as an investment.

If there’s some wrinkle like capital improvements (ex. House Sibling put in $100,000 for renovations, which in turn increased the house value), House Sibling should be reimbursed for that.

Why does House Sibling think the other two should just sign away their share of the house?

Anonymous wrote:What was the agreement when your parents gave the sibling the money? Was it a gift? Loan?

The estate is on the deed. It was a co-ownership of the house.