Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you interpret the law to find that each beneficiary is entitled to an equal portion of 50% of the equity then you have to play it backwards too. Lets say it’s 2009 in area that crashed and the value declined 40% would the estate be responsible for 40% of the loss in equity? Would the estate be responsible for 50% of back taxes and maintenance that the parents didn’t pay for over the years?

yes of course. which is actually why OP should resolve the situation otherwise House Sibling could let the house go into foreclosure or a tax lien the estate would be tangled up in.

This is our concern especially since we can't tell the mental stability of House Sibling. Last offer from our side in the summer was for House Sibling to get house and the other siblings split the cash funds which are depleted from taxes and lawyers and cost of keeping an estate in limbo for 7 years. While not exact numbers the House Sibling would get $1 mil+ house in major suburb of major metro area (mortgage left is about $100k) and others would walk with $40k/each in cash. House Sibling responded in the fall with letter from lawyer saying that HS would have house and the remaining cash in the estate to cover the expenses not paid by estate over the last 7 years.

Due to thinking this through again we are going to have a call with our lawyer (not estate lawyer) and push the issue. It just needs to end.

Anonymous wrote:Sadly OP here and not a troll. Definitely dribbling out info sorry about that. I am actually just exhausted by it all and hoped there would be ideas here we haven't thought through. The lawyers truly suck. The executor sibling has enabled this for so long that the other siblings (me included) have had to hire our own lawyer. I haven't been close to House Sibling in years, none of us have actually but I think a PP nailed it with borderline personality married to a Big Law narcissist.

I am in the position to wait them out to sell or refinance. Other siblings aren't and if I think about it long enough it is enraging. Parent was clear in will about wishes and not picking one child over another. It really has come down to this one sibling holding up the entire estate.

Thanks for thinking through it. Will update in the next 1-20 years when we figure it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you interpret the law to find that each beneficiary is entitled to an equal portion of 50% of the equity then you have to play it backwards too. Lets say it’s 2009 in area that crashed and the value declined 40% would the estate be responsible for 40% of the loss in equity? Would the estate be responsible for 50% of back taxes and maintenance that the parents didn’t pay for over the years?

yes of course. which is actually why OP should resolve the situation otherwise House Sibling could let the house go into foreclosure or a tax lien the estate would be tangled up in.

Anonymous wrote:If you interpret the law to find that each beneficiary is entitled to an equal portion of 50% of the equity then you have to play it backwards too. Lets say it’s 2009 in area that crashed and the value declined 40% would the estate be responsible for 40% of the loss in equity? Would the estate be responsible for 50% of back taxes and maintenance that the parents didn’t pay for over the years?

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?

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.

It has been going on for 7 years so that is what we are all doing. No one feels entitled to anything but keeping the estate on the deed of House Sibling's house is something that has to be resolved. One sibling had cancer last year (doing fine thankfully). I can't imagine if something happens to a sibling then we are dealing with nieces and nephews regarding this too? What if something happens to House Sibling? The House Sibling spouse isn't named in the will or part of the estate now we would have to deal with that person? What if they stop paying the mortgage or property taxes?

For the probate judge, we have had the same judge the entire time. Just keeps doing continuances which is so frustrating. Not a giant or complex estate. Everything has been liquidated except for this one piece. I am hoping at the next hearing he will order mediation.

Anonymous wrote:So did the parents understand what they were setting up? It would have made more sense to subtract the original amount (50% of house purchase price) plus x% interest per year. This would avoid an unreported loan or gift. It’s odd that the parents expected one of their kids to pay out the equity in their primary residence upon the parent’s death. If the parents never paid 50% of the property taxes or maintenance then it’s a not a full 50/50 investment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is the law, the parents’ original intent as indicated by the deed, and then what is best for long term harmony - and it’s possible none of those is fair.

No one is entitled to an inheritance. While it’s true that the parents’ “investment” in the sibling’s home has panned out well that is mostly luck and timing and is also unrealized gains. The parents could have left that money in a savings account or blown it on Trump NFTs. Claiming an equal portion of the gains seems greedy. Forcing a sibling to move also feels greedy. If I bought my home today, my payment would double!

I think the non-homeowner sibs need to take whatever hangups they have about the homeowner sibling’s success to therapy instead of blowing a ton of money on legal fees out of spite and losing their family in the process. Therapy is expensive, but in an hour for hour basis it is cheaper than a lawyer.

I get it that the final outcome may not be fair or equal. It might not even result in each sib getting every penny they are legally due.

How many total siblings? From the wording, at least 4. The homeowner, OP, and “siblings” = 2 or more.
How much was the original investment? What is that amount, divided equally among siblings, minus however ever much you are about to blow on legal fees?
How much are your family relationships worth to you? Is the money enough to lose a relationship with your siblings and your children with their cousins? Over money?

How can you go willi nilly another relationship if your sibling wants to stiff you out of at least $100K? You can pretend, but there is no relationship there.

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.