Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would probably consider having mom sell the current apartment once she's sure she no longer wants to live there and then paying rent to sister and her husband to allow them to afford a larger apartment, if the goal is for mom to live with sister and her husband. No downpayment assistance, though.

Assuming this is an apartment that is paid off except for the monthly fees, though, it's also worth considering whether it's cheaper for her to stay there and have someone to help with the various upkeep tasks. It may well be.

This. Your mother needs her assets to be accessible for her own needs, including long term care. If she needs a nursing home it will be a disaster to have her money tied up in a house.

I think the posters attacking OP are ridiculous. Why should a 70 year old need to subsidize this purchase for her child when she doesn’t have money for herself.

There's a complete disconnect here. You raise valid points regarding whether this is a good ides *for the mother*. But that has nothing to do with why people are attacking OP. Her concern here is pretty apparently only for her inheritance, and what she can get for her kids, not for what is best for her mother. *That* is why she's being attacked.

BINGO!

For those who missed it, the tipoff was when OP said:

Needless to say, I’m deeply concerned about what such an arrangement would do to my future inheritance, and I somehow don’t see my sister’s motivations as 100% altruistic. (I’m sure she’d love $1 million invested in a shared townhouse.). But I can also see how such a living arrangement could be beneficial for my mom.

The conflict here, in OP's own words, is between OP's "deep concern" for her future inheritance vs. a living arrangement that could be beneficial for OP's mom.

Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with OP wanting clarity on the inheritance point. Although her mother can do what she wants, it's a major family financial issue that affects multiple people. For example - if her sister buys the house and will inherit the whole thing (leaving OP with nothing) then OP likely would be justified in paying a smaller share of her mother's support needs if they arise. It's also important that her mother understand the implications of continuing to have all her assets in real estate, and the inheritance implications. The "say nothing about inheritance" crowd fails to realize that people don't always think this stuff through clearly so it has to be talked about. And, by attempting to stake a claim to their mother's assets now, OP's sister is really the one who started off acting in an entitled way. OP has no moral obligation to remain silent here.

The one who is going to live with and care for the mother is the entitled one? Only on DCUM.

Absolutely. It's not clear if OP's mother even wants or needs the sister's help at this point. Apparently the mother is basically fine in her apartment, but the sister (substantially for her OWN benefit) wants her to move out and buy new property together. It's absolutely fair for the child who does the bulk of the eldercare work to get a bigger share of the inheritance, but it's not at all clear that that's what's going on here. And it's premature too. Who knows if the sister will actually do the work when the time comes.

What’s best for the mother is probably to move in with the local daughter. I think she should sell the apartment and that you and your sister should be joint owners of your sister’s house. You have liquidated your mom’s assets in advance of needing Medicare. Your mom takes some of the money she currently used for her $3k maintenance fee and pays your sister rent. This rent covers the groceries and untilitiss and your sister’s time caring for your mom. At some point in the future, your sister buys out your portion of the house or sells it and you cash out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multigenerational is nice when it works, but I think it is best when the child owns the house and the parent either pays rent to the child or lives there for free. When the parent owns the house and the child moves in, then the house can be forced to be sold when the parent dies by other siblings who now have inherited 1/x of the house. I have seen this happen in areas where housing costs have gone sky high and the sibling who was living in the house and taking care of the house and the parent, and paying property taxes, utilities, etc, cannot afford to buy out the siblings because although they moved in when the house cost 200k, it is now worth 1.5 million. It is better for all involved if the house is owned by the child and the parent pays rent toward them of whatever amount that is agreed. Then if the parent needs more care (and my own father is in this situation) the money is there to pay for that.

^^^ also the same situation if the mom buys an apartment WITH the sibling, like in OP's situation. If they own the apartment 50/50, then on the mom's death, the OP would then own 1/4 of the sister's apartment, and it doesn't sound like the mom's estate would have enough in it for the sister to use her share to pay off the OP or the 1/4 the apartment. But if the mom gives the sister the money to buy the apartment and is not on the deed, then if she needs significant care within X number of years, the sister would have to cough up the money because medicaid would force the mom's money to be paid back to her.

OP is right to be concerned.

Also if OP's mom's money is completely tied up in the sibling's apartment, then both the mom and the dd are stuck in a situation that could deteriorate. The mom would not be financially able to move out if she is unhappy there, and the dd would not be able to move her out if she is no longer able to care for the mom.

Anonymous wrote:Multigenerational is nice when it works, but I think it is best when the child owns the house and the parent either pays rent to the child or lives there for free. When the parent owns the house and the child moves in, then the house can be forced to be sold when the parent dies by other siblings who now have inherited 1/x of the house. I have seen this happen in areas where housing costs have gone sky high and the sibling who was living in the house and taking care of the house and the parent, and paying property taxes, utilities, etc, cannot afford to buy out the siblings because although they moved in when the house cost 200k, it is now worth 1.5 million. It is better for all involved if the house is owned by the child and the parent pays rent toward them of whatever amount that is agreed. Then if the parent needs more care (and my own father is in this situation) the money is there to pay for that.

^^^ also the same situation if the mom buys an apartment WITH the sibling, like in OP's situation. If they own the apartment 50/50, then on the mom's death, the OP would then own 1/4 of the sister's apartment, and it doesn't sound like the mom's estate would have enough in it for the sister to use her share to pay off the OP or the 1/4 the apartment. But if the mom gives the sister the money to buy the apartment and is not on the deed, then if she needs significant care within X number of years, the sister would have to cough up the money because medicaid would force the mom's money to be paid back to her.

OP is right to be concerned.

Multigenerational is nice when it works, but I think it is best when the child owns the house and the parent either pays rent to the child or lives there for free. When the parent owns the house and the child moves in, then the house can be forced to be sold when the parent dies by other siblings who now have inherited 1/x of the house. I have seen this happen in areas where housing costs have gone sky high and the sibling who was living in the house and taking care of the house and the parent, and paying property taxes, utilities, etc, cannot afford to buy out the siblings because although they moved in when the house cost 200k, it is now worth 1.5 million. It is better for all involved if the house is owned by the child and the parent pays rent toward them of whatever amount that is agreed. Then if the parent needs more care (and my own father is in this situation) the money is there to pay for that.

Anonymous wrote:What happens if mom needs to go to assisted living? Think broken hip, dementia, etc. Will the home have to be sold? What happens if sis's marriage splits up? Lots of problems here. You, your mom and sister need to see an attorney.

This. I think OP's sister wrote the previous thread about buying a house with mom.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I grew up in a mother-daughter house, and now my ILs live with me. In all cases, there were other siblings involved.

In both cases, the siblings NOT living with their parents basically gave up their right to the house/proceeds. This was bc, in both cases, the sibling living with the parents also took on most expenses related to that arrangement, whether it be food, or transportation. or medical care. Any money remaining in the estates, outside of the house, was split among all siblings.

That said, we have not yet run into a case where a parent needed serious medical care that drained down assets. Nor did anyone have to go to assisted living/nursing home. So that burden has not yet hit.

I'm not OP, but I can see something like this in my future. In the end, it seems to be a matter of trust in the parents and siblings to do the "right thing." And to hope all agree on what that means in terms of any residual assets. A "first world" problem of course. But when parents show favoritism or what one child views as poor judgment along the way, it affects that trust. Plus as people age, their once clear judgment can change, especially if illness or dementia is a factor. Likewise, when siblings always seem to have their hands out in their 30's, 40's, 50's, that isn't a pattern that's likely to change. I've seen a sibling "hide" money in a divorce settlement and then live with my parents expense free, so financially speaking, I have reason to doubt my sib's altruism when the time comes to address my parents' care and/or estate.

OP, I grew up in a mother-daughter house, and now my ILs live with me. In all cases, there were other siblings involved.

In both cases, the siblings NOT living with their parents basically gave up their right to the house/proceeds. This was bc, in both cases, the sibling living with the parents also took on most expenses related to that arrangement, whether it be food, or transportation. or medical care. Any money remaining in the estates, outside of the house, was split among all siblings.

That said, we have not yet run into a case where a parent needed serious medical care that drained down assets. Nor did anyone have to go to assisted living/nursing home. So that burden has not yet hit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would probably consider having mom sell the current apartment once she's sure she no longer wants to live there and then paying rent to sister and her husband to allow them to afford a larger apartment, if the goal is for mom to live with sister and her husband. No downpayment assistance, though.

Assuming this is an apartment that is paid off except for the monthly fees, though, it's also worth considering whether it's cheaper for her to stay there and have someone to help with the various upkeep tasks. It may well be.

This. Your mother needs her assets to be accessible for her own needs, including long term care. If she needs a nursing home it will be a disaster to have her money tied up in a house.

I think the posters attacking OP are ridiculous. Why should a 70 year old need to subsidize this purchase for her child when she doesn’t have money for herself.

Because said child will then be providing housing and care for the mother in the city that mother wishes to reside. Who knows exactly what mom’s “modest” pension is, our source of information is a bit biased.

DP. I suspect that the minute mom's care gets too hard, sister will want her in assisted living but will expect OP to share the costs. Sister sounds pretty greedy to me. OPs mom would be better off selling the apartment when the time comes, but keeping the proceeds to help.her in her old.age, not to subsidize an adult child.

100+

Hi op!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would probably consider having mom sell the current apartment once she's sure she no longer wants to live there and then paying rent to sister and her husband to allow them to afford a larger apartment, if the goal is for mom to live with sister and her husband. No downpayment assistance, though.

Assuming this is an apartment that is paid off except for the monthly fees, though, it's also worth considering whether it's cheaper for her to stay there and have someone to help with the various upkeep tasks. It may well be.

This. Your mother needs her assets to be accessible for her own needs, including long term care. If she needs a nursing home it will be a disaster to have her money tied up in a house.

I think the posters attacking OP are ridiculous. Why should a 70 year old need to subsidize this purchase for her child when she doesn’t have money for herself.

There's a complete disconnect here. You raise valid points regarding whether this is a good ides *for the mother*. But that has nothing to do with why people are attacking OP. Her concern here is pretty apparently only for her inheritance, and what she can get for her kids, not for what is best for her mother. *That* is why she's being attacked.

BINGO!

For those who missed it, the tipoff was when OP said:

Needless to say, I’m deeply concerned about what such an arrangement would do to my future inheritance, and I somehow don’t see my sister’s motivations as 100% altruistic. (I’m sure she’d love $1 million invested in a shared townhouse.). But I can also see how such a living arrangement could be beneficial for my mom.

The conflict here, in OP's own words, is between OP's "deep concern" for her future inheritance vs. a living arrangement that could be beneficial for OP's mom.

Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with OP wanting clarity on the inheritance point. Although her mother can do what she wants, it's a major family financial issue that affects multiple people. For example - if her sister buys the house and will inherit the whole thing (leaving OP with nothing) then OP likely would be justified in paying a smaller share of her mother's support needs if they arise. It's also important that her mother understand the implications of continuing to have all her assets in real estate, and the inheritance implications. The "say nothing about inheritance" crowd fails to realize that people don't always think this stuff through clearly so it has to be talked about. And, by attempting to stake a claim to their mother's assets now, OP's sister is really the one who started off acting in an entitled way. OP has no moral obligation to remain silent here.

The one who is going to live with and care for the mother is the entitled one? Only on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:OP is right to ask questions. Tying up an aging person’s finances in jointly owned real estate could be a giant mess on many levels. It’s not just the inheritance, but how the mother can access her assets when/if she needs to for her own care. Having that money tied up in a house she owns with her daughter could be really problematic. The inheritance issue is valid too. OP’s mother needs to be correctly advised that certain forms of title could mean the house goes 100% to only one child. Finally I think of scenarios like - the co-owner sister passes away and her husband remarries, and the property now goes to the second wife!

yep it is a mess and not straightforward. Her mom should consult an estate planning attorney before doing anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would probably consider having mom sell the current apartment once she's sure she no longer wants to live there and then paying rent to sister and her husband to allow them to afford a larger apartment, if the goal is for mom to live with sister and her husband. No downpayment assistance, though.

Assuming this is an apartment that is paid off except for the monthly fees, though, it's also worth considering whether it's cheaper for her to stay there and have someone to help with the various upkeep tasks. It may well be.

This. Your mother needs her assets to be accessible for her own needs, including long term care. If she needs a nursing home it will be a disaster to have her money tied up in a house.

I think the posters attacking OP are ridiculous. Why should a 70 year old need to subsidize this purchase for her child when she doesn’t have money for herself.

There's a complete disconnect here. You raise valid points regarding whether this is a good ides *for the mother*. But that has nothing to do with why people are attacking OP. Her concern here is pretty apparently only for her inheritance, and what she can get for her kids, not for what is best for her mother. *That* is why she's being attacked.

BINGO!

For those who missed it, the tipoff was when OP said:

Needless to say, I’m deeply concerned about what such an arrangement would do to my future inheritance, and I somehow don’t see my sister’s motivations as 100% altruistic. (I’m sure she’d love $1 million invested in a shared townhouse.). But I can also see how such a living arrangement could be beneficial for my mom.

The conflict here, in OP's own words, is between OP's "deep concern" for her future inheritance vs. a living arrangement that could be beneficial for OP's mom.

Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with OP wanting clarity on the inheritance point. Although her mother can do what she wants, it's a major family financial issue that affects multiple people. For example - if her sister buys the house and will inherit the whole thing (leaving OP with nothing) then OP likely would be justified in paying a smaller share of her mother's support needs if they arise. It's also important that her mother understand the implications of continuing to have all her assets in real estate, and the inheritance implications. The "say nothing about inheritance" crowd fails to realize that people don't always think this stuff through clearly so it has to be talked about. And, by attempting to stake a claim to their mother's assets now, OP's sister is really the one who started off acting in an entitled way. OP has no moral obligation to remain silent here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would probably consider having mom sell the current apartment once she's sure she no longer wants to live there and then paying rent to sister and her husband to allow them to afford a larger apartment, if the goal is for mom to live with sister and her husband. No downpayment assistance, though.

Assuming this is an apartment that is paid off except for the monthly fees, though, it's also worth considering whether it's cheaper for her to stay there and have someone to help with the various upkeep tasks. It may well be.

This. Your mother needs her assets to be accessible for her own needs, including long term care. If she needs a nursing home it will be a disaster to have her money tied up in a house.

I think the posters attacking OP are ridiculous. Why should a 70 year old need to subsidize this purchase for her child when she doesn’t have money for herself.

There's a complete disconnect here. You raise valid points regarding whether this is a good ides *for the mother*. But that has nothing to do with why people are attacking OP. Her concern here is pretty apparently only for her inheritance, and what she can get for her kids, not for what is best for her mother. *That* is why she's being attacked.

BINGO!

For those who missed it, the tipoff was when OP said:

Needless to say, I’m deeply concerned about what such an arrangement would do to my future inheritance, and I somehow don’t see my sister’s motivations as 100% altruistic. (I’m sure she’d love $1 million invested in a shared townhouse.). But I can also see how such a living arrangement could be beneficial for my mom.

The conflict here, in OP's own words, is between OP's "deep concern" for her future inheritance vs. a living arrangement that could be beneficial for OP's mom.

Anonymous wrote:OPs mom and sister should talk this through with an elder care attorney or financial planner who is well-versed in issues around elder and long-term care, for all the reasons PP mentioned (needing assets for possible future care as mom ages).

I agree OP's mother should sit down with professionals (financial planner and a lawyer) and discuss options and pros/cons. Lots at stake and we arent the best experts.

I think this is pretty simple:

If they still own the house when your mom dies, her share of the contribution (say she put $500K down) is half yours and half your sister's. So your sister would need to buy you out of $250K if she intends to remain in the house, or you could become 1/4 owner of the house (or whatever it breaks down to being) and when it does sell then you cash out. You need to write this up though, because it needs to be determined if you are getting just your mom's initial investment back or if you are becoming an investor yourself, benefitting from a share of its eventual appreciation. If the house moves forward, you should neutrally bring this up to everyone and ask if this is something they can discuss now to avoid awkwardness later.

If they sell the house before your mother dies, then your mother gets back the investment and it was a loan to your sister. No biggie.

If your mother ends up needing expensive care, or god forbid, you and your sister have to contribute to her care, then it's a moot point anyway. I suppose you could argue that your sister needs to contribute more of a share because she got "free" house of of it, but in the end, if people are struggling and bills need to be paid, the people who have the cash pay them and the people who don't don't. I think you handle this by making sure you don't live above your means in the first place (i.e. if they get a super fancy $$$$ house that sucks up all the funds between them, that is a really bad decision that could potentially affect your later: the goal here should be to plan for everyone's best interests in the future...not pool all money to buy the best house now without setting aside money for the years ahead).