Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[mtn]

I dread my mom’s passing. Mainly because I absolutely adore her, but secondarily because she and my (now-deceased) father made me and my two siblings co-executors and, to make matters worse, co-owners on a transfer on death deed for their house. And one of my sisters has resided in said house for > 30 years, and will be very tough to dislodge, despite being completely incapable of caring for said house. She hasn’t even done her own laundry in > 30 years. (Can you imagine having your 83-year-old mother doing your laundry?) Reading these stories doesn’t make me feel better.

It may be tough for you to decide to do it, but I'm pretty sure that legally it's quite straightforward.

https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/trusts-estates/can-a-family-owned-property-be-sold-without-one-members-consent-1641374.html

I bought a house like this last fall, one of several heirs went to the court and the court forced a sale.

So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.

Oh how I hope that that is not my in-laws plans. My FIL mentioned that it was, and I quickly told him about my parents experiences with my grandparents, and not to do that just leave cash if you leave anything. Hopefully he remembered that conversation.

FWIW, my parents experiences were not contested and all siblings did and still do get together wonderfully - but the estate that left real property took about 10 years to settle (other issues on top of the real estate, but that was one of the things drawing it out).

[AMandM]

So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.

Hurray! My father just sold his house!

His entire estate is to be divided equally among us. I actually believe that my sisters and I would have been able to sell the house and split the proceeds completely amicably, but what a PITA, especially since each of lives in a jurisdiction with a different legal system.

[iris lily]

While everyone wants to receive an inheritance, large inheritances are disruptive to society. To protect our society I think it's justified to limit large inheritances. That's why we invented inheritance tax in the first place and it's the nr 1 most important tax in our history. Thanks to inheritance tax the power of the nobility with their huge inherited wealth was decimated in less than 50 years to the point that nobility has become a quirky tradition rather than a class of people who held undeserved wealth and power.

I never heard this explanation before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Very interesting, thanks!

I have heard the  statistic that large pots of inherited wealth dissipate after just a few generations, but I don't believe inheritance tax is the sole controller of that.

Other factors are

1) inheritors spread the wealth over many people, reducing assets per capita
2) inheritors are not as motivated to coddle the assets as were the originators of the wealth—they just wanna spend and enhance their lifestyle
 3) inheritors are not skilled at preserving and growing the assets as were the originators
4) inflation over generations

We have, in my family, an instance of multi generational wealth that started withgrandparents, blue collar people, who worked, invested, and had company stock that did well. Their only child  is cheap as hell and has every dime they ever left him. His child,an only,child, is due to inherit millions. I doubt she has any idea how much is there.

She is a good kid  but I will bet those assets die with her. The preservation of the assets is causing her dad anxiety. But you  know, that is worry of his own making. He should not expect to exert control from the grave.

I look at the huge death tax on the aristocracy in England  and am sad about the toll it takes on great old ancient houses. So many end up in the National Trust because  families cannot afford to keep them. After you’ve sold off acres of farm land and the paintings and fine furniture to pay taxes, there isnt much else you can do to stave off jettisoning the house.

So yeah, death taxes at a high rate is a philosophy consistent with our populist government and generally I am ok with it, but there are downsides to everything and taxation is not the panacea to solve all things.

are you referring to the "populist government" that doubled the estate tax exemption in 2017? That "populist government"?

I think former player’s post, #1992 just a couple above yours, hits all the points of Bernie and Co.’s populist message, you know, the evil “hundreds millions/ billionaires” and maligning wealth that may not have been “honestly come by” and then dissing inheritors who ” didn’t earn it”.

I couldnt have written a better paragraph myself of I trying to express that overall sentiment.

[Villanelle]

My parents are leaving their house to both my sister and me.  Well, I don't think it is specified beyond "everything is split 50.50", but the end result seems the same.

I can only hope she continues to be the reasonable, sane person I think she is, and that neither of us are greedy to the point of nickel and dime-ing one another, when the time eventually comes. 

My own estate is also just set up in terms of money or % shares, which I guess also leave the house somewhat ambiguous.  I would hope that means the executor can sell on the terms she see fit, for the amount she deems appropriate.  But I probably need to ask that of the lawyer.  So thanks for the conversation. 

[Imma]

It's easy to say that inheritance money should be taxed. After all, we always tax money every time it changes hands. So why should an inheritance be any different? However...

How does that work with business ownership that is inherited? To pay the tax, would the inheritor have to sell partial ownership of the company or potentially liquidate it entirely? There's probably a simple answer that isn't coming to mind.

Sorry, not trying to make this political. I'm just curious how to approach that counter-argument.

In my country - and I expect in most countries - there is a tax exemption in case you inherit a business and the heir plans to actually take over the business.

@iris lily In my country we never used to have as many grand country houses and estates as there used to be in the UK. Most of those were broken up in the 19th century and I don't believe this is a bad thing. It wasn't like in Downton Abbey. My ancestors used to rent a bit of land from a landowner until they were able to buy. As each village usually had one or two landowners, and everyone knew eachother, the people lived in virtual slavery - if you were kicked off your property for some reason (for example, becoming Protestant/Catholic while the landowner was Catholic/Protestant) you were basically forced to leave the area all your family lived in. When the landowners were starting to sell off, people like my ancestors were able to buy a small property and live the way they wanted to.

There are some tax exemptions to keep forests and other important areas of nature together. From a historical perspective, it's of course important to save the country homes themselves. As far as I know this is generally happening where I live - since the buildings are all monuments they can't be demolished and upkeep is subsidized. I know it's hard work to keep up a house like that, but I don't think people who own a country home should have to pay less taxes because they are burdened with that home. There are plenty of ways for those homes to provide an income (from opening it up to visitors to organizing historical events to turning it into a hotel or a wedding venue). I agree with @shelivesthedream that inheritance tax is making it more difficult for 'regular' people to inherit small homes that have become worth a fortune in recent years. I don't really know how to prevent that - it's happening in my country too. But as I said, tax-free gifting from parents to children is imho making this problem worse. The average home in my country now costs 8x the average income. Tax-free gifting of large sums of money certainly plays a part in this. Homes are scarce but the prices can only go up so much. At some point no one can afford homes anymore and prices will fall. Tax-free giving distorts this process of supply and demand.

[Paul der Krake]

European misfit here. I have a couple old friends and friends of friends who own family castles and manors and similar Large-Ass Historical Buildings (LAHBs for short).

There's really two main problems behind owning such a thing.

#1: It's wildly unprofitable. Assume a single family owns this for now, they're upper middle class, so they don't live in Bumfuck Burgundy, or Bumfuck Yorkshire. They live in Paris or London, where many more fucks are available for consumption. If you're "lucky" there may be enough demand from visitors to have tours that can raise some money. We're not talking 30 EUR per visitor hourly tour of Versailles here, more like 5 EUR per adult kids go free, every other Tuesday and Saturday. It will not come anywhere near covering the trips to and from the LAHB. You also need to maintain relationships with local craftsmen who will incessantly come to help fix whatever is broken this month. Then you'll get a frantic call from your tour guide because some kid ran headfirst into the iron cauldron during a tour and you have to deal with that (at least it's not America so you won't get sued, but it still needs to be dealt with).

#2: Heirs. There is this thing called "indivision". It's arcane and complicated but basically means everyone who owns the thing needs to agree on everything, or nothing gets done. The LAHB may have been the home of this cultured and great ancestor of yours, but guess what, 4 generations later it's now 50 heirs, out of which you're bound to find a bunch of morons without a pot to piss in. And they have a claim to the LAHB just as much as you. They will make it impossible to do anything, either because they don't want to, can't afford to, or just don't like you because 4 generations with countless family branches in the picture you're hardly related at all and there's always resentment lurking below the surface.

tl;dr big ass buildings great to visit, terrible to own. This is why many look like shit.

[Imma]

I don't know a lot about how to run one of those LAHB"s (my family worked downstairs ) but it doesn't make sense to own the building that way - and all be legally liable in case something happens too. It would make way more sense to put the home in a trust or to turn it into a corporation where the owners become shareholders, like a large family business. But of course all owners would have to be on board with that. I don't know about other countries but I'm pretty sure that letting a monument fall into disrepair is illegal in here and would have serious financial consequences.

I do know one person who's family is the heir to a large corporation, started by their great grandfather. The family owns the majority of the shares, the shares are in a trust and the board of the trust makes the decision. The purpose of the trust is to keep the company intact and to provide the heirs with an income. Most heirs don't care much about the company and just collect their free money and that one weird uncle who always fights with everyone can't block important decisions.

[jinga nation]

So. The moral of this story is: do not leave real property to multiple people, unless you hate them and want to punish them.

Hurray! My father just sold his house!

His entire estate is to be divided equally among us. I actually believe that my sisters and I would have been able to sell the house and split the proceeds completely amicably, but what a PITA, especially since each of lives in a jurisdiction with a different legal system.

Smart man.

My dad is clearing his house (a 4 bed, 2 bath is too much for him), after my mum and grandma passed in the last 2 years. He will eventually sell his house and move in with either my sibling or me (we're all local). Sibling and I have told him that neither we nor our kids need his money; we'd rather he use it for travel and his retirement. Any monies left over when he passes will go to his only sister, a spinster overseas. If she passes before him, monies will go to several charities.

[zolotiyeruki]

The average home in my country now costs 8x the average income. Tax-free gifting of large sums of money certainly plays a part in this. Homes are scarce but the prices can only go up so much. At some point no one can afford homes anymore and prices will fall. Tax-free giving distorts this process of supply and demand.

Can you elaborate on why there is such a housing shortage?  I don't know off the top of my head what part of Europe you're from, but for that kind of money, I'd expect there to be all sorts of builders and developers building houses to meet the demand.  What's stopping them?

[Imma]

Long story short: the recession happened. We lost about a decade of building while the population grew.

Long version: due to the crash and very long recovery period, including housing market collapse and high unemployment between 2008 and 2013 most projects were cancelled due to lack of funding and new projects weren't developed. This causes major job losses in the trades, so people find different jobs and young people pursue other careers. I'm in NL where we don't have a lot of space so projects have to be carefully planned and that takes a lot of time/money, we can't just build a few suburbs on former farmland. Recent projects in my city include the redevelopment of the harbour and old factory sites (that are heavily polluted and cost €€€ to build on) and all new buildings are high rise. There's even a plan in development where a high rise building on 'legs' will be built over an old monumental low rise building (they didn't get a permit to demolish). So that stuff takes time and €€€.

Of course only short term demand was affected by the economic crisis, long term people are always going to need homes. We're seeing the first boom of completed projects now because after 2013 developers needed about 5 years to go through planning/permits/finance etc. Pricing has gone way up because there are fewer people in the trades now - again, the first generation of post-crisis tradespeople is arriving on the job market but that took some time. New projects are developed everywhere now, but the economy is slowing so I just hope we don't fall into the same trap again.

Because all of this it only pays off to develop expensive homes. Low and mid income housing is disappearing fast. Some cities require developers to include mid-price homes but this just pushes up the price of the other homes.

[Dicey]

In addition to @Imma's excellent explanation, there are additional factors at play. The rise of airbnb takes property out of circulation. Ditto for the board-and-care industry. Sure, they're still providing housing for people who need it, but it ain't cheap.

Next, stricter rent control shrinks available housing in several ways. Nothing new gets built, because it doesn't pencil out. My FIL owned a cute 10-unit apartment building in Berkeley. It was all studios and one-bedrooms, so it was relatively affordable. As the Landlord fees and paperwork became more onerous, he simply stopped renting out units. Once their longest-term tenant died, he sold the building. You know the new landlord jacked up the rental to cover their higher costs. Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Then there are investors who buy and hold. Lots of them scooped up houses during the crash and are just sitting on them. Most of those properties have doubled or more in value since, so when they do sell, they're not affordable any more either. Thing is, these buyers believe their properties will continue to appreciate at this rate, so not many of them are selling.

Finally: NIMBY-ism plays a role. In my area, developers are building expensive "Stack & Pack" housing near transit, in part because the state is telling them to. People get their knickers in a twist about how greedy the City is and about how much "Things Have Changed". Then they complain that their kids can't afford to live in the town they grew up in, boo-fucking-hoo. Funny, as these buildings come on line*, so far, every one of them is an improvement over what was there before and they fill up fast.

*Lots of projects were approved but not built during the Great Recession, because they couldn't get financing. It was comparatively cheap and certainly easier to just renew their approvals until the economy recovered, so that's what they did. Now they're building and people are screaming that it's too much all at once. If they paid just a bit of attention to local civics (not politics), they wouldn't be so fucking clueless.

[zolotiyeruki]

Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Wow, that sounds bad.  I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market?  I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position.  I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment.  Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.

With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?

[dandarc]

Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Wow, that sounds bad.  I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market?  I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position.  I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment.  Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.

With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?

And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?

[Dicey]

Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Wow, that sounds bad.  I've heard the tenant rights laws are pretty lopsided, but bad enough to drive landlords out of the market?  I wonder how many other homeowners/potential landlords are in a similar position.  I have a relative who has built up a portfolio of rental homes in the midwest, and even there, with laws that aren't as bad as San Francisco, they've told me stories of the troubles a bad tenant can cause, even in a case of simple non-payment.  Some renters know the legal system inside and out, and have no qualms about squeezing as much free housing as they can out of landlords.

With property as expensive as it is there, why doesn't your friend simply sell the house?

And lose out on all those gains that are going to continue to happen?

Lol, the market could drop precipitously and she'd still be fine.

Reasons:
1. She's emotionally attached to both houses.
2. Her mom was a semi-hoarder, the City house still has a lot in it.
3. She works in the City, so it's convenient to swing by there to/from work.
4. She has a life out in the suburbs that she's reluctant to leave.
5. The house in the City could really benefit from an update before selling, but DIY is not in her skill set.
6. She has plenty of moolah, she doesn't need the rental income or the profit from the sale of the house.

Slightly off-topic, but relevant: She is crazy frugal and could FIRE any time, but she wants the pension and healthcare benefits she has worked for.

[Villanelle]

Regarding the conversation about not leaving a house to more than one person, I thought I'd throw this out there. 

My parents' eldrey neighbors sold their house to one of their two children.  That child and her husband plan to live there someday.  For now, the parents still live there and rent the house.  The agreement is that they can stay as long as they want.  I think they also agreed that when the dad passes away (which is almost certain given the health situations) if the child moves in with spouse, they get the master.  IOW, they have really worked out the particulars. 

It's apparently much more advantageous for all parties, financially.  The kid has the tax benefits of a rental, and the parents' rent is far less than their ownership expenses were.  (Thus making the overall expenses less, in total.)

And of course it removes the difficulty of both of their kids inheriting the house and having to agree on terms for getting rid of it or one of them buying it.

Overall, it seems like the best option *IF* all parties can be trusted and if very specific terms are hashed out in advance. 

[mtn]

Regarding the conversation about not leaving a house to more than one person, I thought I'd throw this out there. 

My parents' eldrey neighbors sold their house to one of their two children.  That child and her husband plan to live there someday.  For now, the parents still live there and rent the house.  The agreement is that they can stay as long as they want.  I think they also agreed that when the dad passes away (which is almost certain given the health situations) if the child moves in with spouse, they get the master.  IOW, they have really worked out the particulars. 

It's apparently much more advantageous for all parties, financially.  The kid has the tax benefits of a rental, and the parents' rent is far less than their ownership expenses were.  (Thus making the overall expenses less, in total.)

And of course it removes the difficulty of both of their kids inheriting the house and having to agree on terms for getting rid of it or one of them buying it.

Overall, it seems like the best option *IF* all parties can be trusted and if very specific terms are hashed out in advance.

This also assumes that there is a child who can afford the house, and that said child actually wants the house.

[wellactually]

My grandpa died in 2009. My grandma then lived with various children (5 siblings including my mom who is the only one not local) for the next few months as she didn't want to stay on their large acreage in the home alone. After about a year, one of my aunts finished out her basement with a separate in-law apartment.

Grandma gave Aunt3 a loan to do the remodel. They had it in writing and Aunt3 paid back on schedule. Grandma now pays small rent to Aunt3. Generally a really wonderful setup giving Grandma privacy but also the option for socialization and help quickly. Still, I don't like the bank of Grandma situation.

But the big house remained under my Grandma's ownership. For a couple years, Cousin1 and family "rented" it. Not sure how much rent was paid during that time, but if Grandma wanted to help her out after a long time of poverty and trying to support 5 kids on very little, that's entirely her decision. She's not naive to it. Then Cousin9 and her fiance "rented" it. I expect they paid some and to be fair, keeping up the property has to be done, so someone living there is helpful if they do the work. Both cousins did take care of the home and used that time to save up and buy homes of their own elsewhere. It's a

Aunt4 decided she and her husband wanted to buy the home from Grandma. They had their home on the market and at some point sold and moved into the home. While they were keeping track of rent owed, the actual transfer of ownership kept dragging on. Finally, my mom (Daughter2), finds out that they have executed a sale with my grandma financing the mortgage at a very very low rate. Aunt4 had already borrowed money in writing from Grandma for Cousin9's wedding and that wasn't paid back yet either.

Grandma is not rich. She could be doing much much better things with her money (like making a freaking market return) and may just want it for whatever she feels like doing. Even more so, she expressly wants her estate divided evenly to the 5 kids. So if she were to pass while this arrangement was in place, Aunt4 would be indebted to the estate and have to refinance quickly to pay back the estate before anything cold be settled. Not a great situation.

My mom was able to get them to both see that it was unnecessary and even risky to have this mortgage owner-financed. It was like 3 years ago, so market rates were great but looked like they might go up soon. Thankfully all saw reason and the mortgage was refinanced. Grandma got her money.

These are all nice people. There were only minor issues when Grandpa died, mostly because he was technically stepdad to oldest three kids. No money involved, just some thoughtless comments.

So so so glad that it appears the Bank of Grandma is closed now.

[partgypsy]

Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He  owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?

[dandarc]

@partygypsy - that reads like a great excuse for your brother to kick mom and sister out of the house. "I no longer feel safe living in the same house as you because it seems like you want me dead . . ."

Is there anything else going on like a disability? Why are they living there?

The recipients can be whoever he wants them to be of course, but without more info, the children are who you'd think of first in this case.

[BabyShark]

Yup, that is absolutely not his problem

[GreenEggs]

Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He  owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?

He should tell his mom that she needs to get life insurance, so they don't starve if she dies.  And the sister needs to get life insurance, so they can hire somebody to feed the dog if she dies.


He should let them cover the insurance bill, and if it doesn't get paid it's their problem.  He should also demand a policy larger than the value of the home, and his children named as beneficiaries of the excess. 

[lhamo]

He needs a written contract with them ASAP delineating what rent they are going to be paying plus whatever else they are responsible for if he is giving them below market rent as a way to help them out.  He should also get his will set up to leave the house to his kids -- in a trust if necessary to keep them one arms length from having to do the dirty work of evicting the others if they want or need to sell the house.  Life insurance, if purchased, should designate his kids and/or the trust as the beneficiary.  They can decide whether or not they want to keep/pay off the house.  He should also make sure any retirement accounts or other assets he has are designated to go to the kids/the trust.

Seriously, these people are NOT going to look out for his kids interests.  It is on him to do that.

[Goldielocks]

Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He  owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?

If you have a valid and vested interest in someone staying alive, you are able to buy life insurance on them.  They would still need to have any medical questions / checks completed, but the mother could absolutely get her own life insurance, on her son's life, as she is living in his home.  Sister probably could, too.

As the kids are minors, the brother would pay for insurance himself, in his name, on his own life, with them named as beneficiaries.

[Imma]

Does your brother already have a will leaving the house to your mother and sister? If not why do they believe they will inherit at all? Who leaves a house to his mother rather than his children? They are tenants. I assume the kids will inherit the house and decide what to do with it. If he died right now it would be a huge burden on the kids because if they want to sell it because they're young and can't afford it, they're going to make their elderly grandma homeless and they'll be considered the bad guys.

[partgypsy]

Brother has no will, but I'm thinking the default inheritance would be it would go to his kids. I guess mom and sis assume they would continue to live in house because? I don't know no where else to live. I guess the issue is, I don't want my mom or sister to move in with me, so I guess figuring out some kind of back up plan is not terrible? My brother however has told me that he plans after his youngest starts regular college or finishes college (next 2-4 years), he is going to downsize by selling house and renting. Which means they will need alternate housing sooner than later. He's told this to them too. Unless his plan has changed since last time he talked about it (last summer).

[marion10]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

[Sugaree]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works. 

[mm1970]

In addition to @Imma's excellent explanation, there are additional factors at play. The rise of airbnb takes property out of circulation. Ditto for the board-and-care industry. Sure, they're still providing housing for people who need it, but it ain't cheap.

Next, stricter rent control shrinks available housing in several ways. Nothing new gets built, because it doesn't pencil out. My FIL owned a cute 10-unit apartment building in Berkeley. It was all studios and one-bedrooms, so it was relatively affordable. As the Landlord fees and paperwork became more onerous, he simply stopped renting out units. Once their longest-term tenant died, he sold the building. You know the new landlord jacked up the rental to cover their higher costs. Very recently, a friend's father died, leaving her his pre-prop 13, paid-for house in a desirable part of San Francisco. The rent control laws are so pro-tenant that she is afraid and refuses to rent it out, just as her father did when he moved into a fancy Senior Living complex a couple of years ago. It costs her very little to own, so she merely checks on it regularly and spends the night there when it's convenient, but she has her own house in the suburbs. That's seven bedrooms for one person.

Then there are investors who buy and hold. Lots of them scooped up houses during the crash and are just sitting on them. Most of those properties have doubled or more in value since, so when they do sell, they're not affordable any more either. Thing is, these buyers believe their properties will continue to appreciate at this rate, so not many of them are selling.

Finally: NIMBY-ism plays a role. In my area, developers are building expensive "Stack & Pack" housing near transit, in part because the state is telling them to. People get their knickers in a twist about how greedy the City is and about how much "Things Have Changed". Then they complain that their kids can't afford to live in the town they grew up in, boo-fucking-hoo. Funny, as these buildings come on line*, so far, every one of them is an improvement over what was there before and they fill up fast.

*Lots of projects were approved but not built during the Great Recession, because they couldn't get financing. It was comparatively cheap and certainly easier to just renew their approvals until the economy recovered, so that's what they did. Now they're building and people are screaming that it's too much all at once. If they paid just a bit of attention to local civics (not politics), they wouldn't be so fucking clueless.

Excellent explanation and analysis.  Bravo!

[SwordGuy]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works.

That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.

I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.

[scottish]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works.

That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.

I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.

As they/we should be...

When you sponsor a relative to become a permanent resident of Canada, you must:

meet set income guidelines
agree in writing to give financial support to your relative and any other eligible relatives coming with them:
beginning on the date they become a permanent resident
for up to 20 years (depending on their age and how you’re related)
The person you sponsor must sign an agreement saying they will make the effort to support themselves. This includes sponsored dependent children 18 or older. Dependent children under 19 don’t have to sign this agreement.

[Villanelle]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works.

That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.

I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.

But that would be being on the hook for immigrants someone *else* sponsors, no?  Uncle sponsors, dies, and then his sister would become responsible (or fears she would).  Seems to me like that would be akin to inheriting someone else'd debts, debts which you didn't sign for or agree to. 

[Paul der Krake]

Depends on how the form was filled. There are ways to show "family support" when people live under the same roof. It's co.plicated, but unless someone signed a document there is no implied expectation of support. The form number is I-864, if you're curious.

We filed that form years ago, my wife is technically still on the hook for me.

[partgypsy]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits. 

[GreenEggs]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.

It seems like you need to start an "Are you an enabler?" thread.  :( 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

the problem is I'm not going to let my mother and or sister become homeless. I don't think I could live with myself. That said, they are not really taking responsibility for their lives. For one they both smoke and refuse to quit. They both don't take care of their health in other ways. I know I couldn't accept my sister being on the streets, but I know I would also feel resentment because they are not doing what they need to do to be healthy, responsible adults. There is this thing called depression. Also anxiety. They both have something going on where regular life seems to overwhelm them. The only good thing was after my brother died, my mother lost around 30 pounds because she wasn't eating as much (she and my brother lived together and they would have meals together). It was actually healthy for her to lose weight but she needs to also take care of herself. I don't really understand them. I work full time, have my two kids more than half time, also work on my house, have friends and hobbies, but they can't seem to get anything done (mother moved in September; still hasn't unpacked or gone through 90% of stuff she moved). I don't know how they organize their time but its seems -disorganized. My brother and also niece live pretty structured lives because they either work full time, or both are in school and work. But my sister and Mom are on their own orbits.

It seems like you need to start an "Are you an enabler?" thread.  :(

That won't meet her needs. What might work better is a thread about how not to become an enabler. It's not an open and shut thing like many people think. It is very difficult to deal with a terrorist who has a high value hostage.

[SunnyDays]

Wanted to get people's feedback what people thought of this. My brother is a single Dad (one kid launched, one kid entering college, still living there because going to community college). He  owns a house (has a mortgage) and my mother and my sister moved in with him. My mother is paying for groceries, my sister other then help feed the dog, some chores does nothing to contribute. They are now both nagging my brother to get life insurance, so that if he died at the least they could pay his house off. He doesn't want to do it because according to insurance, the money has to come out of his account. Mom and sis say of course they are going to pay for the insurance, but then it's a pain to make sure they keep up with it.
The other thing I think is weird, if he gets insurance shouldn't the recipients be say his daughter, rather than his non-dependent mother and sister? My sister esp says they will be "up a creek" " no where to live" if something happens to brother, but at the same time I'm thinking, that's not his problem?

What good what it do your mother/sister to be able to pay his house off, even assuming his kids would allow that?  If they are making next to no financial contribution to their living situation now, how would they afford property taxes, insurance, utilities, up-keep etc?  Plus, if he died without a will, I believe that his children would end up getting the house, and unless they're prepared to pay for the housing costs and let the relatives live there for free, it will be sold anyway.

Your mom and sister need to be told that in the event of your brother's death, they will need to support themselves, so they had better have a plan in place for that.  Surely one of them, if not both, have some kind of income?  Pension, disability, actual jobs?  And if your brother has no will (why not?) he is setting his whole family up for misery should he die before he downsizes. 

In any event, you are not responsible for 2 adults.  If I were you, I would make sure they knew now what I was prepared to contribute to their living situation (if anything).  If they are simply sponging off your brother because he allows it, I would contribute precious little.

[Villanelle]

You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves.  And that includes them not being homeless.

I would insist on 100% taking over their finances, and in exchange for that I would guarantee them a studio apartment to share.  But if they weren't willing to accept my terms, then clearly that means they aren't that concerned, in which case I'd wish them luck.  Clearly, they aren't that desperate for help if they aren't willing to accept it on the terms it is offered.  Which is fine. 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves.  And that includes them not being homeless.

I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.

[zolotiyeruki]

The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"

[SwordGuy]

The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"

More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."

[Goldielocks]

Your mother and your sister do no have to live with you if they are not in your brother's house. They can find their own housing/

This. 

My uncle is currently in the process of trying to sponsor his girlfriend/fiance and her two kids' visas to move here from central America.  My mother is somehow concerned that if he dies that she will become responsible for this woman and her kids.  I'm like that's not how that works.

That depends on the country they are moving to and the process used to get their approval to immigrate.

I've read stories that some Canadians **are** on the hook for providing for some immigrants they sponsor.

Absolutely correct.  This includes things using the sponsor's income when applying for student loans.

But the mother is not the sponsor, the husband is.  So if she does not sign anything, she is not responsible.  The sponsor will need to show enough assets to qualify, and that is partly so that if he dies before a couple of years, they will be provided for.

[mm1970]

You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves.  And that includes them not being homeless.

I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.

Ah this makes me sad, remembering some of what you've been through there.

[Sibley]

You can't want anything more for someone than they want it themselves.  And that includes them not being homeless.

I think I may have to stencil that across my ass. Particularly since my darling daughter prefers homelessness over an honest life.

Life is the best teacher. You did your best. Now, she has to figure things out for herself.

[auntie_betty]

The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"

More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."

Or, more pithily:

Not my circus. Not my monkeys.

[ducky19]

The way I've heard it is "you can't care about someone else's problems more than they do"

More accurately, "Don't care about someone else's problems more than they do."

Or, more pithily:

Not my circus. Not my monkeys.

Ha! I always say, "not my rodeo, I'm just a clown".

[NeverTooLate]

I have really been pushing my mom to write a will because I am afraid we will end up in this thread as embarrassing stories.  My parents are eventually getting a divorce and us children (three of us) don't really expect anything from my dad but at the minimum my mom will end up likely leaving two houses.  The problem is one of the houses my sister lives in, rent free, and not paying property taxes or anything like that.  This has already been the situation for 7 years and could easily be the case for 10-30 more years (essentially however long my mom lives).  Houses similar to that one rent for about $1400 a month.  Plus my sister half finishes projects while also not having the money for repairs so it definitely is in worse condition than when she moved in.  At this point her free rent alone has far outpaced any kind of financial help me and the other sister got.

So if my mom leaves the houses and enough cash then yes my sister could afford to buy out my and my sister's stake.  But if it is only houses then essentially we would have to kick her out or just give up a huge chunk of our inheritance.  I don't feel as if my mom owes us anything and if she spent everything I would be fine but honestly I wouldn't be cool without not getting a share while my sister gets a very substantial inheritance. 

It took me awhile to figure out a career and I am doing okay but definitely not in a high paying field.  Half my salary goes to retirement but I can't see any scenario where I could easily say no to money (and the other sister has always worked jobs that doesn't pay great so she definitely will need something for retirement) - because you never know when you need money for medical issues.

I keep asking my mom to figure out what she wants to have happen - and then make sure everyone knows - so there is no unpleasant surprises that ends up causing rifts.  The whole thing is just incredibly frustrating because although I love my sister and she is a great person in a lot of ways I don't think she realizes how much money my mom could be earning in returns if she invested that house money.

[Dave1442397]

But if it is only houses then essentially we would have to kick her out or just give up a huge chunk of our inheritance.

Or you could just sell the house, split the proceeds, and let your sister buy/rent a smaller place that she can actually afford to live in.

My neighbor went through something like this when her mother died. Her brother was living with their mother, and the mother's will said that the brother would be allowed to live in the house as long as he wanted. Three years later, my neighbor found out that her brother hadn't been paying property taxes (approx $700/mo), hadn't done any maintenance, and was about to lose electricity for non-payment of utility bills. Also, the township was going to auction off the tax lien.

She had to pay all the back taxes and utilities, get him out of the house, clear out all her mother's possessions, paint the whole interior, and put the house up for sale. She said it was the worst thing her mother could have done with the house, and they were lucky not to lose it. Her brother is in a one-bedroom apartment that he can afford, and everything turned out fine in the end, but only after a lot of stress and hassle that could have been avoided.

[kina]

If you could move past the financial inequality, you might avoid a whole lot of stress by getting your mother to leave the house FreeloadingSis is in to her, as her share of the estate, and the remainder to be divided between you and other sister.

That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).

It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.

[Kris]

If you could move past the financial inequality, you might avoid a whole lot of stress by getting your mother to leave the house FreeloadingSis is in to her, as her share of the estate, and the remainder to be divided between you and other sister.

That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).

It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.

This was my first thought, too. It is what I would probably do.

Also consider that if she is letting the place go to hell, if you decide to get her out and then sell, you’ll be in the position of having to fix it up before putting it on the market. More stress and more money spent.

[kina]

If you could move past the financial inequality, you might avoid a whole lot of stress by getting your mother to leave the house FreeloadingSis is in to her, as her share of the estate, and the remainder to be divided between you and other sister.

That way, you would not be responsible for paying taxes or upkeep. It becomes FreeloadingSis's responsibility and hers alone. She's already received quite a bit of her 'inheritance' in advance over the years (this assumes you are giving us the complete story and she hasn't been an unpaid servant for your mother for all this time).

It saves you from possible years of trying to 1)get her out while she further runs down the place 2)have her buy you out, or 3)evict her.

This was my first thought, too. It is what I would probably do.

Also consider that if she is letting the place go to hell, if you decide to get her out and then sell, you’ll be in the position of having to fix it up before putting it on the market. More stress and more money spent.

exactly.