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.

I took it to mean they would sell their half, either to the BIL or, if he didn't want it, insist on selling the entire property and splitting the proceeds.

Anonymous wrote:Trust me OP, losing a multi-million dollar, multi-generation beach home which you and your siblings will never be able to buy on your own was actually a GOOD thing. In sum, family traditions are pointless and you can always RENT a beach house. Renting is so much better than owning hard appreciating assets in a nation with high inflation and unchecked immigration.

Regards,
Clinically unhappy DCUMs with no family and the multi-millionaire DCUM investors and landlords who paid cash for your dad’s property and make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in passive income off your old family beach house

You sound deranged. What OP wanted to have happen wasn't feasible, full stop. She needed her siblings to help buy out the uncle and stated that she wasn't willing to be the sole purchaser regardless. "Not to mention they likely would have tried to keep using it, right. I didn’t want that dynamic either." That was her choice. To keep the beloved family beach house in the family required other people to contribute their money or equity, and they didn't want to do that. OP's own family are the ones who didn't value the traditions!

There is another PP who is sad that her grandmother sold a beautiful undeveloped oceanfront lot for a pittance; that also is sad, but the grandmother had the right to dispose of her property the way she wished. Again, don't be mad at the person who snapped up the property; it was the grandmother who didn't care about how fun it was to picnic on the dunes or whatever. It's so easy to feel sentimental about other people's money.

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.

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.

Yeah, that person is bizarre and unintentionally funny.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you should have given them their share in cash. This is your fault, not theirs. I assume you couldn’t afford to buy them out?

We all have similar HHIs, so it would have been unfair to put the full burden on me and my husband. It was a very fair price but it wasn’t exactly a small sim; ot would have been a stretch for just us. Not to mention they likely would have tried to keep using it, right. I didn’t want that dynamic either.

So it was your decision not to buy it. Nobody to be mad at but yourself. Get over it.

"to miserable children'

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that the uncle would have gone along with one niece buying. Sounds like the uncle was offering a sweetheart deal to his nieces and nephews (and great nieces and nephews) to keep it in the hands of the larger family. When they balked, it was publicly listed.

Why would uncle care if he was getting money from one niece, or all the nerves and nephews? You’re reaching.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then you should have given them their share in cash. This is your fault, not theirs. I assume you couldn’t afford to buy them out?

We all have similar HHIs, so it would have been unfair to put the full burden on me and my husband. It was a very fair price but it wasn’t exactly a small sim; ot would have been a stretch for just us. Not to mention they likely would have tried to keep using it, right. I didn’t want that dynamic either.

You cannot have it both ways. You had the option to buy out the entire share yourself and be the owner without them, but you didn't because you felt the siblings needed to contribute. That's on you.

No one could've predicted the pandemic and the huge rise in real estate prices 6 years ago. If the pandemic hadn't happened, the house wouldn't have gone up so much.

You need to move on and put it in the past.

There is no evidence that the uncle would have gone along with one niece buying. Sounds like the uncle was offering a sweetheart deal to his nieces and nephews (and great nieces and nephews) to keep it in the hands of the larger family. When they balked, it was publicly listed.

Look, PP, there's only one side misproportioned the other in a semi-hateful and vitriolic light, and it isn't the people in favor of minding one's own business.

We get it. You are mad. It's life.