Please help me help my parents

[ysette9]

Yes, I am of the belief that real estate taxes are a poor way of funding schools and local services.  Taxation should be on income and not what someone's opinion is of what a house is worth; and it also leads to people, especially senior citizens, being priced out of their own homes due to increases in real estate taxes.

This is what prop 13 in CA, which limits property tax increases to a very modest amount each year, not matter what property values do, is intended to avoid*.  Certainly, the policy has issues and I disagree with some of the ways it applies, but it does mean that 90-year-old Edna doesn't lose her home when her property taxes triple over the course of a handful of years. 

*It's also--perhaps even largely--intended to help companies avoid taxes, which is one of the things to which I object. I figured I needed to acknowledge this, or else the many Prop 13 naysayers, many of whom don't seem to have any connection to CA real estate, swoop in.

As a lifelong Californian living in seattle right now I have opinions on prop 13, as does everyone else. Though there are counties that have agreements in place for transferring property tax basis once, there are still perverse incentives to keep people in place in homes that may not be suitable to them.

[Sandi_k]

Yes, I am of the belief that real estate taxes are a poor way of funding schools and local services.  Taxation should be on income and not what someone's opinion is of what a house is worth; and it also leads to people, especially senior citizens, being priced out of their own homes due to increases in real estate taxes.

The reciprocity now applies to all counties in CA, for two uses over. a homeowner's lifetime.

This is what prop 13 in CA, which limits property tax increases to a very modest amount each year, not matter what property values do, is intended to avoid*.  Certainly, the policy has issues and I disagree with some of the ways it applies, but it does mean that 90-year-old Edna doesn't lose her home when her property taxes triple over the course of a handful of years. 

*It's also--perhaps even largely--intended to help companies avoid taxes, which is one of the things to which I object. I figured I needed to acknowledge this, or else the many Prop 13 naysayers, many of whom don't seem to have any connection to CA real estate, swoop in.

As a lifelong Californian living in seattle right now I have opinions on prop 13, as does everyone else. Though there are counties that have agreements in place for transferring property tax basis once, there are still perverse incentives to keep people in place in homes that may not be suitable to them.

[Log]

Since land is finite and one of the most essential resources a polity has, it is not in the best interest of society for a private party to be able to own property without giving some of that value back to the public. My only beef with property tax is that land value tax would be superior, since taxes on improvements disincentivize developing the land to its highest and best use. As compared to other forms of taxation, taxes on land are efficient and equitable.

Prop 13 is terrible policy from top to bottom. It's regressive taxation that warps market incentives and charges people higher taxes for having the audacity to make sensible decisions like moving closer to a new job or downsizing when their household shrinks.

[partgypsy]

I don't think so. But as she won't talk about her finances won't know until all monies are gone.

[kite]

Last month I got notice that the home insurance would not be renewed unless she put a roof on and fixed some soffit and fascia on the garage.

What? That seems really weird . . . my guess is that she put in an insurance claim on the roof from storm damage. Hail?

I'm guessing this because I've never heard of this level of detail of a reason for non-renewal of a house insurance policy with a requirement for very specific repairs just out of the blue. Insurance companies are understaffed, and while they may make blanket cancellations of entire areas based upon high claims (*cough* looking at you Florida and California), I don't get the impression they have traveling inspectors who don't have enough to do just monitoring the condition of soffit and fascia. So, if I am right, then that is where the money for the repairs is coming from: a recent insurance payout check that she has already deposited.

We’ve been in our home over 30 years. For the first time, our insurance company came out and took photos of the exterior of the home. They sent a notice that someone would be coming to do just that. I’ve heard of other people who were forced by their insurance co to make repairs. A relative in the masonry biz used to get plenty of cracked walk-way replacement jobs that were mandated by insurance. It’s remarkably easy to get a photo of a roof and do a cursory inspection. I can see where it’s in the insurer’s interest to compel upkeep and drop those who are likely to let their properties fall into disrepair. 

[Zamboni]

That's very interesting. In the city where I live, there must be a lot of homes that are uninsurable if cracked driveways and old roofs and wood rot here and there are cause for cancellation.

[Shinplaster]

We're in Canada, so not sure if this is just a thing here.  Our insurance company keeps track of how old a house is for roofing.  A few years ago for previous house, we got a notice saying if we hadn't replaced our roof by a certain time, renewal insurance would be denied.  The time frame was about 25 years, assuming it was the original asphalt shingles.   We had replaced it years before, so were able to give them a copy of the receipt.    We passed along that receipt to our buyer, and she told us her company (a different one than ours) also queried the age of the roof, so she was glad to be able to provide proof that it was new enough.

DS also had the same insurance company demand that they get a new hot water heater.  Anything over 10 years and they will not insure for water damage, even if it was caused by something other than the water heater.   I had never heard of that either!    We now own a condo townhouse, and when we notified the agent that we had replaced the hot water tank (our decision, not theirs) we were told the age factor didn't apply for townhouses.   They didn't care how old our tank was.  Makes no sense - water damage is water damage.

[Cassie]

That’s interesting about Canada but I have owned many houses in the USA and never had an insurance company inquire about the age of the roof, etc.

[SunnyDays]

I'm in Canada too and my company wants to know the age of both the roof and the water heater.  However, they've never demanded replacement at any age.  My shingles aren't too old, but the heater is much more than 10.

[RetiredAt63]

Canada - Ontario - My last house had an oil furnace.  My insurance company was OK with it, but to get insurance the new owners had to replace the oil tank (well past replacement date) and went for propane instead.  The oil tank was inside the basement, the propane tank is outside. There is no natural gas available in that area, it is propane, oil, or electricity. 

[jrhampt]

I'm in the US (on the shoreline) and the insurance company wants to know age of roof.  Newer roofs get better rates.  I suspect that insurance companies will get more picky about this stuff as the effects of climate change drive rates up and cause insurers to drop out of some markets altogether.

[lutorm]

We've been looking at homeowner's insurance in Sweden and there, they don't care about the condition of the roof because damage from a leaking roof is not covered. Although storm damage is, so I'm not sure how that works out.

[former player]

I still think it's weird that a roof in North America is only expected to last 20 years.  I'm disappointed if one of mine needs attention in under 100 years, it means either inferior materials were used or the build wasn't good enough.

[Metalcat]

I still think it's weird that a roof in North America is only expected to last 20 years.  I'm disappointed if one of mine needs attention in under 100 years, it means either inferior materials were used or the build wasn't good enough.

They last about 10 years here

[jrhampt]

Expected roof lifespan here is about 30 years for an asphalt shingle roof, longer for slate, not sure about metal roofs.  Why so short in Canada?  Heavy snowfall? 

[RetiredAt63]

Expected roof lifespan here is about 30 years for an asphalt shingle roof, longer for slate, not sure about metal roofs.  Why so short in Canada?  Heavy snowfall?

Weather in general.  At my last house (farm country Ontario where the winds sweep across the fields)  the south-facing side needed new shingles long before the north side did.  It got the sun and the wind and the brunt of the storms (they basically came from the west but hit the south side much more strongly than the north side).  I've seen the same for painted siding, one or two sides will weather much faster than the others.

Of course Metalcat is talking about Newfoundland, where the storms are that much stronger.

[wenchsenior]

Yeah, we just had a hailstorm involving fist sized chunks, so the whole area is getting new roofs. The roofer was here doing inspections this morning and he pointed out that the side facing NW definitely has seen more wear in the past 20 years since we roofed last.

[Zamboni]

Well, a lot of changes are happening on the Dad and SM front. Without going into too much detail, mostly because I barely know anything about it, SM has found a senior community for them to move into. So they are moving soon.

Pros:
The new place looks much better than their current living situation in terms of safety.
It is geographically close to their existing network of friends.
It is their choice and they both seem happy about it.
They are going to retire and finally stop working, which is good given that their health problems have been interfering with working consistently.

Cons:
Given what I know about their finances, they cannot afford this for any extended period of time.

[Metalcat]

Expected roof lifespan here is about 30 years for an asphalt shingle roof, longer for slate, not sure about metal roofs.  Why so short in Canada?  Heavy snowfall?

Lol, I'm in NE coastal Newfoundland, which is not at all representative of the rest of Canada. There are hurricane winds here half the year that will rip a whole roof off of a house.

I'm not living in a normal place. There's a reason even Canadians won't generally move here.

[Omy]

Well, a lot of changes are happening on the Dad and SM front. Without going into too much detail, mostly because I barely know anything about it, SM has found a senior community for them to move into. So they are moving soon.

Pros:
The new place looks much better than their current living situation in terms of safety.
It is geographically close to their existing network of friends.
It is their choice and they both seem happy about it.
They are going to retire and finally stop working, which is good given that their health problems have been interfering with working consistently.

Cons:
Given what I know about their finances, they cannot afford this for any extended period of time.

So this is a rental and they will sell their current home and blow throw the equity pretty quickly?

How long until they're evicted and out on the streets? Prepare yourself for this and work hard to shore up your boundaries in the meantime.

[RetiredAt63]

Expected roof lifespan here is about 30 years for an asphalt shingle roof, longer for slate, not sure about metal roofs.  Why so short in Canada?  Heavy snowfall?

Lol, I'm in NE coastal Newfoundland, which is not at all representative of the rest of Canada. There are hurricane winds here half the year that will rip a whole roof off of a house.

I'm not living in a normal place. There's a reason even Canadians won't generally move here.

Yes, Newfoundland gets it every year.  The rest of Canada just gets it every so often.  Decades ago we were living on the western end of Montreal Island.  A strong wind came off Lake St. Louis, broke telephone poles, lifted roofs off houses, and lifted our metal shed and deposited it upside down several feet away without knocking over the bicycles that were inside.

[RetiredAt63]

Well, a lot of changes are happening on the Dad and SM front. Without going into too much detail, mostly because I barely know anything about it, SM has found a senior community for them to move into. So they are moving soon.

Pros:
The new place looks much better than their current living situation in terms of safety.
It is geographically close to their existing network of friends.
It is their choice and they both seem happy about it.
They are going to retire and finally stop working, which is good given that their health problems have been interfering with working consistently.

Cons:
Given what I know about their finances, they cannot afford this for any extended period of time.

So this is a rental and they will sell their current home and blow throw the equity pretty quickly?

How long until they're evicted and out on the streets? Prepare yourself for this and work hard to shore up your boundaries in the meantime.

It sounds good but Omy has hit the nail on the head. 

Seriously, if my rent was coming from the income from investing the proceeds of my house sale, I would be living in a studio apartment.  Renting with a lifestyle close to a house is expensive.  Seriously, my rent is more than my daughter's mortgage payment.

[Zamboni]

Yes, I'm afraid that is what will happen.

I did a little investigating on the prices on where they are going, because honestly it sounded like a fairly high end, full service community when they told me about it. I won't go into all of the amenities, but the list is long, and it's an "all-inclusive." Club Med for seniors, basically, with a month-to-month lease.

Their combined social security is probably $2K+ shy of the estimated monthly cost to live there, give or take a bit, and they have no retirement accounts. So they will backfill with the proceeds from selling their house. Did I mention the existing mortgage on their house is still almost exactly the amount they borrowed to buy it nearly thirty years ago? So they have some market appreciation, but we are not talking about a grand or expensive home.

[partgypsy]

Damn. Sounds like they are still in denial, or some slick salesperson got to them. If it was one of those situations, where you give them the equity of the house and soc sec, and then done, I would understand. But this has trainwreck written all over it.

[G-dog]

Damn. Sounds like they are still in denial, or some slick salesperson got to them. If it was one of those situations, where you give them the equity of the house and soc sec, and then done, I would understand. But this has trainwreck written all over it.

Or it’s another angle for SM to try to separate friends and relatives from their $$ - because they could get evicted as poor old retired people. Hard to believe the facility didn’t do a  proper credit check. 

[partgypsy]

Damn. Sounds like they are still in denial, or some slick salesperson got to them. If it was one of those situations, where you give them the equity of the house and soc sec, and then done, I would understand. But this has trainwreck written all over it.

Or it’s another angle for SM to try to separate friends and relatives from their $$ - because they could get evicted as poor old retired people. Hard to believe the facility didn’t do a  proper credit check.

Really! It seems almost unconsciousable. But then again when my boss was literally dying, she signed to get a timeshare, with the salespeople saying, this will be something you can leave as a legacy to your kids, etc etc. Disgusting.

[Zamboni]

^^One of their cards had "credit check" included which showed that their credit scores are in the low 700's, so not completely fantastic but also not terrible, at least a few months ago. They have a ton of debt, but lots of Americans do, and SM's bankruptcy was too long ago to show up on the recent records, I'm sure. IF they actually pay off all their debts (and that's a big IF because I don't think SM intends to do that), then the amount of money that will be left from the sale of their home will be quite modest, but it won't be zero.

I hope the facility didn't do a unrealistic sales pitch that will set them up to fail. It definitely does have a "sales office" and it's a for-profit chain with facilities in nearly every state and some pretty slick looking marketing materials.

It doesn't make sense to me that they can make it work financially for very long, even with absolutely no other expenses. No new clothes or shoes, no personal mobile phones, no buying gifts, no buying crafting supplies, etc. Some mustachians can do that, but that is just not realistic for Dad and SM based upon past behavior. On the one hand SM is completely delusional about her financial situation, but on the other hand she's aware enough that it's bad to try to hide things and lie. She literally told both her friend and me that money in their savings account was money that she had "worked really hard to save up" . . . and then I looked at their actual records and saw that it wasn't money that had accumulated over time, it was in fact a credit card cash advance she took the month before. I know my Dad is delusional, because he just has faith that she will take care of the financial side of things and it will all be fine.

Another concern I have is that something tells me there are "hidden" fees and expenses related to living at this place that haven't been taken into account. It is an apartment and utilities are "included" but they will still have to pay towards utilities . . . many apartments are doing this now, having residents pay for water, trash, electricity, cable etc. as a bill that just gets tacked on each month by the landlord as a convenience. It is often glossed over in a way that lead people into thinking things are included in the "rent" that are indeed included but as an extra charge. At least that's been my experience recently helping other family members rent apartments. So when the brochures all have hedging language of "starting at $XXXX" in the pricing section for literally every single thing, I think more questions should be asked. And then there are personal expenses like pet food, haircuts, shampoo, laundry soap, snacks, coffee, various subscriptions, etc.  It all adds up . . . and "the cat needs her expensive mail-order food because she throws up if you give her the regular cat food from the grocery store!"

The last windfall they received, which was only a little more than a year ago, was burned through and then the CC's were immediately racked back up and new cards were even opened. It was not the first windfall they've received and they did the same thing every time. So, I'm not optimistic that the money from their home sale will be preserved in a way that allows them to have it for facilities costs down the road. But maybe one of their rich friends will die and leave them an inheritance? Wouldn't be the first time.

They also seem to have some projection that they are going to make bank by selling their excess belongings. This is another area where at the moment Dad and SM are all upbeat, all the money that will be raised by an estate sale. A nice lady from a service came by and she is going to take care of their estate sale for them, isn't that great! They do have a ton of "stuff," so I'm sure they'll get something from a sale, so of course I was fully supportive of their idea to sell their stuff. But most of their stuff is hobby or entertainment related or run-of-the-mill living things like kitchen items. No valuable art, jewelry, tools, or antiques that I'm aware of, though. In fact a lot of their stuff is in pretty bad shape.

I'm trying not to be too negative because they both seem so delighted this is happening. I'm glad my Dad is upbeat about it because some people leave their homes kicking and screaming. They do need to sell their home, everyone seems to agree on that. In a way I am relieved because the community they are going to is one of those places where seniors can start in an "independent living" situation and transition into nursing care or memory care as needed. So at least they will meet some people now during meals, playing games, and other activities, and I hope the money lasts long enough for my Dad to stay in place as his health continues to decline. Am I delusional too?

[Zamboni]

Really! It seems almost unconsciousable. But then again when my boss was literally dying, she signed to get a timeshare, with the salespeople saying, this will be something you can leave as a legacy to your kids, etc etc. Disgusting.

Yeah, I remember that being said to my former in-laws when I was with them at a time-share sales pitch with them. "And you can even leave your points to your heirs! Isn't that a great benefit!" MIL couldn't wait to buy the points. FIL died just a couple years later but MIL thankfully has lived a good long time and hopefully she has met the duration of her obligation to that whole mess.

Of course there is a "maintenance fee" associated with the points, and yes you can use the points towards your vacation, but you also have the option to buy more points each year if you need to "upgrade". Isn't that flexibility to upgrade great!

I hope that law is on the side of the heirs on that timeshare inheritance thing. If a timeshare ever tries to come after me to pay fees for some "points" or any other BS I inherit, then they won't get anything in response but letters to cease and desist from my lawyer friend. He probably needs the work, and he's my friend, so that would be the silver lining to the whole situation.

Anyway, yes, when I keep seeing language in the facility brochures where my dad is going that has wording like "flexible options" and "upgrades" and "starting at . . . " it raises all kind of red flags for me.

[Metalcat]

Am I delusional too?

Yeah...a little, lol.

Just to be clear, if they sell their house and pay off their debts, they worn have much money left over. However, you don't think they intend to pay off their debts, so they'll just let them go into collections and then maybe declare bankruptcy??

So they're going to pay for this place worn your dad's income I assume?

But this place is so expensive, you don't think his income will totally cover it??

Then there's all the spending your step mom is likely to do, especially if she has cash in the bank from the sale of the house, which she isn't paying towards debts.

So how long they can afford to stay there will depend on how quickly she burns through whatever they get from selling the house/their crap???

Am I understanding correctly?

[Zamboni]

^Pretty close understanding.

Only new thing is that they have both officially declared they are retired and not going to work any more. This is completely new as just a month ago my Dad had said he sincerely wanted to continue working. But he can't . . . his health is just too inconsistent. Social security now is their only income: ~$4K a month combined total.

Personally, if it was me in their debt situation, I would immediately pay off all debts upon receipt of the proceeds from the sale of the home. Clean slate. So maybe they will do that? But they probably won't.

If they don't pay off their debts in a lump sum when they get the proceeds from the home sale, then the minimum monthly payments on their debt adds up to 47% of their after-tax social security income. And that was the amount before credit card interest rates went up, so the minimum monthly payments are probably a little worse now. That leaves ~50% of an already pretty small number to pay monthly expenses, which means they only have $2K a month to live on from their income. Unfortunately, in the three random non-vacation, non-holiday months I examined from last year, they spent over $11K per month, on average. Only about $3.5K per month was for their home, utilities, and food. The rest was completely discretionary spending.

What if they move and then declare personal bankruptcy? Does declaring bankruptcy mean you don't have to pay the revolving debts? I have no idea how it rally works. Even if they declare bankruptcy and somehow manage to avoid paying all consumer debt (credit cards and personal loans and home improvement loans), then my projection shows they will run out of that lump sum money in 4.5 - 6 years of paying the minimum rates for room and board at the community they are moving into. That is depending upon two things: 1. a quick sale of the home at the Zillow projected sales price range, and 2. staying within that ~$4K social security for their monthly discretionary expenses (snacks/coffee, clothes, entertainment, and all optional things like feeding critters and going to the dentist). That's a much slower burn rate than they had last year, but it's still totally luxurious. Or they could pay the minimums on their debts each month instead of being shameless deadbeats and put the remaining $2K towards their monthly expenses.

The projection is also assuming that they are able to maintain "independent living" and that there aren't rent increases or hidden facilities/nursing fees associated with their new community. I don't think that those are realistic assumptions since they both already need some level of help with personal care tasks already, and of course it is a normal expectation that the price for room and board will increase over time with inflation. Probably they will only be able to sustain this new arrangement financially for more like 2-3 years. I hope at least that long. Then what?

I'm not going to tell them any of my thoughts on this. Clearly their minds are made up, and selling the home and selling most of their belongings now is a win.

[lhamo]

This is an incredibly cynical take on things, but....

I have  sneaking suspicion one reason stepmom is now suddenly willing to move to such a community is that she thinks it might be easier for her to meet a wealthier old man there.  She may be willing to wait to start anything up until your dad dies, but I'm pretty sure she will find a way to leech herself onto somebody with ample resources at some point. 

What she may not realize is that most retirement communities are skewed heavily female, and the single men in them are in high demand.  I wouldn't put it past her to declare at some point that she is bisexual if/when she realizes that demographically it might be easier to find a wealthy woman to support her...

[Metalcat]

Wow, so they won't even have his income anymore???

I would assume they'll just stop making payments on the debt then. If stepmom has gone through bankruptcy before, I wouldn't be surprised if this is her next logical step.

Once there's no more credit available to get, what's the use of a good credit score? With the equity in the house already liquidated, new rental accommodations secured, it seems like a probable next move.

[SunnyDays]

This is an incredibly cynical take on things, but....

I have  sneaking suspicion one reason stepmom is now suddenly willing to move to such a community is that she thinks it might be easier for her to meet a wealthier old man there.  She may be willing to wait to start anything up until your dad dies, but I'm pretty sure she will find a way to leech herself onto somebody with ample resources at some point. 

What she may not realize is that most retirement communities are skewed heavily female, and the single men in them are in high demand.  I wouldn't put it past her to declare at some point that she is bisexual if/when she realizes that demographically it might be easier to find a wealthy woman to support her...

I was thinking along these lines myself, but only that it would expose her to more potential "lenders" with a new set of friends.  But a new guy, well, you'd better keep a close eye on your dad, Zamboni!  It did sound in past posts like she was possibly setting him up for a sudden death.

They're very lucky that Debtors Prison is a thing of the past.

[Cassie]

Once one of them dies the other only gets the highest of the two SS checks. When my friend moved into a nice apartment that was both independent living and assisted living he had to show his bank statements to prove he had enough money to pay for 5 years.

[Zamboni]

Wow, so they won't even have his income anymore???

I would assume they'll just stop making payments on the debt then. If stepmom has gone through bankruptcy before, I wouldn't be surprised if this is her next logical step.

Once there's no more credit available to get, what's the use of a good credit score? With the equity in the house already liquidated, new rental accommodations secured, it seems like a probable next move.

Hmmm, yep. Actually the idea of bankruptcy was floated to me by SM last time I was there and I had to explain that having that on your credit record makes it very difficult to rent an apartment, which is what SM told me her plan is when Dad dies. Last time she declared bankruptcy she still kept her house until my Dad came in the picture, so I guess she hadn't thought of that aspect?

So apparently that got her butt moving into "new plan" mode. because it's only been less than a month that got discussed, and she immediately changed to "sell now and rent ASAP mode."

This is an incredibly cynical take on things, but....

I have  sneaking suspicion one reason stepmom is now suddenly willing to move to such a community is that she thinks it might be easier for her to meet a wealthier old man there.  She may be willing to wait to start anything up until your dad dies, but I'm pretty sure she will find a way to leech herself onto somebody with ample resources at some point. 

What she may not realize is that most retirement communities are skewed heavily female, and the single men in them are in high demand.  I wouldn't put it past her to declare at some point that she is bisexual if/when she realizes that demographically it might be easier to find a wealthy woman to support her...

This an excellent take, and thank you for making me smile with that last bit.  I was thinking more like @SunnyDays, but a future as a lipstick lesbian is always a possibility, I suppose.

[ysette9]

It sounds like the are on a very new path to disaster. But it is their path and their decisions and their money/debts. I think you have a good head and a good heart, but really you can only sit back and watch.

[partgypsy]

Honestly, they should: declare bankruptcy. Discharge the cc debts. Only After that is all settled, sell the house and downsize. They way they are doing this is way stupid. As soon as they sell house,that money is considered available to pay debts. When if it is locked in primary home, essentially off limits.

[Sibley]

Zamboni, stay out of it. There's nothing you can do. Just keep your distance from the whole mess.

[mspym]

Zamboni, stay out of it. There's nothing you can do. Just keep your distance from the whole mess.

Hard agree. Even now, you are too involved in all of this. Let them make the stupid choices they are going to make and do not touch this. Nod and smile at their plans, support your brother, maintain a relationship with your dad. Don’t get into the weeds.

(And I say this as a total stickybeak, fascinated by the slow-rolling disaster)

[Zamboni]

Yeah, they've got a plan, nothing for me to say or do.

I did volunteer to help some with unpacking after they move. I can't be there until a few days after, so maybe there won't be much left to unpack, though. Between now and then I'm really busy and thankfully I have a conflict the day of the move, as moving day itself is always awful and stressful. I hope they've hired a good team of movers, but I'm not going to even ask.

They don't have money. They actually have negative money. So, carrying the cost of the new "full service" place and covering the mortgage can't go on for very long. Also, the local market is starting to look pretty saturated and peak selling season just passed. Not gonna comment to them. We'll see I guess.

[cleverscreenname]

Damn. Sounds like they are still in denial, or some slick salesperson got to them. If it was one of those situations, where you give them the equity of the house and soc sec, and then done, I would understand. But this has trainwreck written all over it.

Or it’s another angle for SM to try to separate friends and relatives from their $$ - because they could get evicted as poor old retired people. Hard to believe the facility didn’t do a  proper credit check.

Really! It seems almost unconsciousable. But then again when my boss was literally dying, she signed to get a timeshare, with the salespeople saying, this will be something you can leave as a legacy to your kids, etc etc. Disgusting.

My frugal parents somehow bought 3 timeshares ("We're just going for the free dinner"), and were told they have survivability clauses that cause them to transfer to us when they pass. I said Hell No (I've seen them pay more in fees than the entire cost), and convinced them to hire professional help to cancel them. The only reason they had them this long is because my mom hadn't received a high enough offer to sell them yet, HA! The other way around, by the time they were done with all 3, they paid several K to the "dissolve" company.

[iris lily]

Damn. Sounds like they are still in denial, or some slick salesperson got to them. If it was one of those situations, where you give them the equity of the house and soc sec, and then done, I would understand. But this has trainwreck written all over it.

Or it’s another angle for SM to try to separate friends and relatives from their $$ - because they could get evicted as poor old retired people. Hard to believe the facility didn’t do a  proper credit check.

Really! It seems almost unconsciousable. But then again when my boss was literally dying, she signed to get a timeshare, with the salespeople saying, this will be something you can leave as a legacy to your kids, etc etc. Disgusting.

My frugal parents somehow bought 3 timeshares ("We're just going for the free dinner"), and were told they have survivability clauses that cause them to transfer to us when they pass. I said Hell No (I've seen them pay more in fees than the entire cost), and convinced them to hire professional help to cancel them. The only reason they had them this long is because my mom hadn't received a high enough offer to sell them yet, HA! The other way around, by the time they were done with all 3, they paid several K to the "dissolve" company.

I have never understood. How those  contracts can transfer over to the  next generation automatically without the next generation’s agreement, signature, or acceptance. I just don’t get that.

[former player]

Damn. Sounds like they are still in denial, or some slick salesperson got to them. If it was one of those situations, where you give them the equity of the house and soc sec, and then done, I would understand. But this has trainwreck written all over it.

Or it’s another angle for SM to try to separate friends and relatives from their $$ - because they could get evicted as poor old retired people. Hard to believe the facility didn’t do a  proper credit check.

Really! It seems almost unconsciousable. But then again when my boss was literally dying, she signed to get a timeshare, with the salespeople saying, this will be something you can leave as a legacy to your kids, etc etc. Disgusting.

My frugal parents somehow bought 3 timeshares ("We're just going for the free dinner"), and were told they have survivability clauses that cause them to transfer to us when they pass. I said Hell No (I've seen them pay more in fees than the entire cost), and convinced them to hire professional help to cancel them. The only reason they had them this long is because my mom hadn't received a high enough offer to sell them yet, HA! The other way around, by the time they were done with all 3, they paid several K to the "dissolve" company.

I have never understood. How those  contracts can transfer over to the  next generation automatically without the next generation’s agreement, signature, or acceptance. I just don’t get that.

They are contracts that don't have an end date, are an asset/liability of the estate and pass to the heirs alongside all the other assets and liabilities.  The executors/administrators have to pay off the debts of the estate and then transfer anything of value that is left to the heirs, including time share contracts - which are nominally of value.

Sometimes heirs can disclaim part or all of an inheritance.  But the executors/ administrators would still need to find a home for the time share contracts or find a way to end the contracts, otherwise they would be personally liable for the rising debts on the contracts if they were left in the estate and all the other assets had been distributed.

(Piece of advice: never sign a contract that doesn't have an end date or a way to get out of it if it goes wrong.  The only exception to this is buying land: timeshare contracts look like a purchase of land but aren't.)

If you are the executor of an estate that has more debts than assets I'd look into whether it's legally possible to refuse to act.  Otherwise you have to sell all the assets for the best price possible and distribute the proceeds to the debtors and there will be rules about how that should be done and who gets paid first.  If you are next of kin to someone who dies with more debts than assets and haven't been appointed executor then run, don't walk: not your job to volunteer as debt collector for the people stupid enough to have lent money to the dead deadbeat.

[cleverscreenname]

Thank you for that thorough explanation. I saw a few similar things when I yahood it, looks like you have a rather limited length of time to dispute the automatic transfer from the estate to heirs.

[slappy]

Ugh. My mom has a timeshare that she loves. I am not looking forward to inheriting it.

[Zamboni]

If you are next of kin to someone who dies with more debts than assets and haven't been appointed executor then run, don't walk: not your job to volunteer as debt collector for the people stupid enough to have lent money to the dead deadbeat.

This is excellent advice that I may need. I should print it and put it on my refrigerator.

If SM dies first, then my entire angle on their whole situation may change as I'll try to get Dad out of whatever mess I can. He just seems like a willing pawn in the queen's game at this point. I'd call it a gambit, but that would be complimentary to the point of being unrealistic. He's not blameless, but he has also been somewhat clueless of late, and he trusts her much more than she deserves either out of love or out of Stockholm Syndrome.

Unless my Dad dies first and then SM has the organizational skills to actually change her executor to one of her biological sons . . . that would be the simplest for me.

Until then, they've put me on the hook. I think. Maybe. I've definitely been shown that will. But maybe she keeps two sets of books for their wills just as she does for their finances?

I did by accident see she has duplicate medical powers of attorney. The one she showed me lists my Dad first and then me next (I don't want it and I didn't sign it . . . I don't know if I have to sign it in their state, but it has to be signed by all parties in my state . . . I was never asked to sign anything.) But then I saw another one signed and dated by her at the same time that lists one of her biological sons first, then my Dad. I don't think she wants my Dad to do it, but her other two sons don't talk to her at all, so I guess she has the one biological son who tries to help her and then Dad's her next best option? Lol. She's so consistently inconsistent.

Look at me <--- the eternal optimist

[iris lily]

Damn. Sounds like they are still in denial, or some slick salesperson got to them. If it was one of those situations, where you give them the equity of the house and soc sec, and then done, I would understand. But this has trainwreck written all over it.

Or it’s another angle for SM to try to separate friends and relatives from their $$ - because they could get evicted as poor old retired people. Hard to believe the facility didn’t do a  proper credit check.

Really! It seems almost unconsciousable. But then again when my boss was literally dying, she signed to get a timeshare, with the salespeople saying, this will be something you can leave as a legacy to your kids, etc etc. Disgusting.

My frugal parents somehow bought 3 timeshares ("We're just going for the free dinner"), and were told they have survivability clauses that cause them to transfer to us when they pass. I said Hell No (I've seen them pay more in fees than the entire cost), and convinced them to hire professional help to cancel them. The only reason they had them this long is because my mom hadn't received a high enough offer to sell them yet, HA! The other way around, by the time they were done with all 3, they paid several K to the "dissolve" company.

I have never understood. How those  contracts can transfer over to the  next generation automatically without the next generation’s agreement, signature, or acceptance. I just don’t get that.

They are contracts that don't have an end date, are an asset/liability of the estate and pass to the heirs alongside all the other assets and liabilities.  The executors/administrators have to pay off the debts of the estate and then transfer anything of value that is left to the heirs, including time share contracts - which are nominally of value.

Sometimes heirs can disclaim part or all of an inheritance.  But the executors/ administrators would still need to find a home for the time share contracts or find a way to end the contracts, otherwise they would be personally liable for the rising debts on the contracts if they were left in the estate and all the other assets had been distributed.

(Piece of advice: never sign a contract that doesn't have an end date or a way to get out of it if it goes wrong.  The only exception to this is buying land: timeshare contracts look like a purchase of land but aren't.)

If you are the executor of an estate that has more debts than assets I'd look into whether it's legally possible to refuse to act.  Otherwise you have to sell all the assets for the best price possible and distribute the proceeds to the debtors and there will be rules about how that should be done and who gets paid first.  If you are next of kin to someone who dies with more debts than assets and haven't been appointed executor then run, don't walk: not your job to volunteer as debt collector for the people stupid enough to have lent money to the dead deadbeat.

Thanks, useful!

In many cases, it must be difficult to assess as a potential executor, whether the estate has more assets than liabilities until you actually adopt the role of executor to get your hands on the facts of the estate.

[FireLane]

I have never understood. How those  contracts can transfer over to the  next generation automatically without the next generation’s agreement, signature, or acceptance. I just don’t get that.

They can't. You have to accept an inheritance, and you can disclaim it if you don't want it.

But in some states, staying at an inherited property or paying for its bills out of your personal funds is considered acceptance, and then you can no longer disclaim ownership. I'm sure sleazy timeshare companies try to trick heirs into doing one of those things.

[iris lily]

I have never understood. How those  contracts can transfer over to the  next generation automatically without the next generation’s agreement, signature, or acceptance. I just don’t get that.

They can't. You have to accept an inheritance, and you can disclaim it if you don't want it.

But in some states, staying at an inherited property or paying for its bills out of your personal funds is considered acceptance, and then you can no longer disclaim ownership. I'm sure sleazy timeshare companies try to trick heirs into doing one of those things.

To the Bolded: as I read former player’s explanation, it seems that the timeshare is part of the entire estate, so you can’t always accept an inheritance piecemeal. In other words, you can’t exclude the timeshare but take the real estate, the car and the cash.

And the fact of the executor, then becomes responsible for the timeshare contract is horrifying. Good God.

It seems to me that people who generally are not good with money would have timeshares, and the estate may not be robust enough to prop up those timeshare contracts. But I could be wrong about that. The one timeshare I know of among my friends is part of a pretty hefty estate.

[Zamboni]

I'm trying really hard right now to not let my SM's shenanigans cause a further wedge between my Dad and me. There was no wedge at all until her more recent machinations, so the good thing is that the foundation is solid. It is easier said than done, though, that is for sure.

My goal this week is to get through and be helpful to him while minimizing my damage from her. Watching a bunch of videos are narcissists operate has been really helpful. I've also started reading Dante's Inferno. Frauds go to the 8th circle of hell, while the treacherous go to the 9th circle of hell. So, by Dante's moral compass, con artist and traitors are worse people than murderers and rapists. Isn't that interesting?