Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

DotLWaT

My sick, demented mind pronounced this as "Dotty La Twat".

I think that, after five years of having my brains licked out through my nose by the Venomous Spaz Beast, I've finally gotten eccentric enough for other people to notice.

[iluvzbeach]

TGS, I may have snorted as I laughed after reading your comment. Hilarious!

[Zamboni]

Awesome. I'm going to start referring to her as Dotty La Twat in my thoughts.

The Moneyist is a treasure trove of drama and bizarre or sad situations.

[Capsu78]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/we-re-headed-for-a-family-feud-my-father-offered-his-3-kids-equal-monetary-gifts-my-siblings-took-cash-i-took-stock-it-s-soared-in-value-now-they-re-crying-foul/ar-AAVHck1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=849b5047f55e46ab956323ad5c89eaf9

An entitlement "Do Over" request.   Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.

[Taran Wanderer]

I saw that. It’s ridiculous. They all got $10,000 (or whatever) back when. Why does it matter what it’s worth today?

[NorCal]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/we-re-headed-for-a-family-feud-my-father-offered-his-3-kids-equal-monetary-gifts-my-siblings-took-cash-i-took-stock-it-s-soared-in-value-now-they-re-crying-foul/ar-AAVHck1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=849b5047f55e46ab956323ad5c89eaf9

An entitlement "Do Over" request.   Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.

Good grief, I can't stand that attitude.  Those who don't invest somehow think of investment gains like lottery money instead of capital-at-risk.

I'm dealing with a sorta-similar attitude in my family, although it's not an inheritance issue yet.

My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died.  After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity.  We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name.  He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates).  This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before.  He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.

Enter SIL.  We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes.  While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches.  I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.

[SwordGuy]

My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died.  After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity.  We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name.  He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates).  This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before.  He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.

Enter SIL.  We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes.  While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches.  I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.

Wow.   I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it.  She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house.  You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month.   Otherwise, STFU.

Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.

[Villanelle]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/we-re-headed-for-a-family-feud-my-father-offered-his-3-kids-equal-monetary-gifts-my-siblings-took-cash-i-took-stock-it-s-soared-in-value-now-they-re-crying-foul/ar-AAVHck1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=849b5047f55e46ab956323ad5c89eaf9

An entitlement "Do Over" request.   Not only would I not budge, but I would openly laugh at my brothers who whined about this.

Good grief, I can't stand that attitude.  Those who don't invest somehow think of investment gains like lottery money instead of capital-at-risk.

I'm dealing with a sorta-similar attitude in my family, although it's not an inheritance issue yet.

My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died.  After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity.  We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name.  He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates).  This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before.  He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.

Enter SIL.  We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes.  While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches.  I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.

It might pay to spend the money for a couple hours with a lawyer, drawing up a contact that clearly shows he is a tenant and they he is in no way a part owner in the property or any equity.  That will make it much more difficult for SIL to try to challenge things when he passes away.  Or just have him sign an annual lease, with the rent listed as a specific dollar amount, that happens to coincide with the mortgage payment.  You can likely find a basic lease online for free or very cheap. 

[Dicey]

I've also heard the IRS does not like when people rent to family members for below-market rates. When you take @Villanelle's excellent advice, be sure to run that past the professional, too.

[former player]

I've also heard the IRS does not like when people rent to family members for below-market rates. When you take @Villanelle's excellent advice, be sure to run that past the professional, too.

Wouldn't it count as a gift, though?  As long as it's below the limits for a gift?

[Zamboni]

The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?

[NorCal]

The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?

So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.

I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes.  Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved.  The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.

[NorCal]

My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died.  After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity.  We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name.  He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates).  This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before.  He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.

Enter SIL.  We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes.  While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches.  I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.

Wow.   I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it.  She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house.  You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month.   Otherwise, STFU.

Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.

Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.

With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.

[SwordGuy]

My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died.  After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity.  We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name.  He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates).  This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before.  He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.

Enter SIL.  We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes.  While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches.  I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.

Wow.   I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it.  She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house.  You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month.   Otherwise, STFU.

Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.

Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.

With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.

Sweet!

I don't blame you at all!

[former player]

My FIL turned out to have zero retirement plans other than working until he died.  After his wife passed, we helped him buy a house near us where he could live semi-comfortably between social security and rolling his former home's equity into an annuity.  We covered the $60K down payment on his new house with the deal that he covered the mortgage payments, but the house and the loan are in our name.  He's effectively renting from us at cost (which is well below market rates).  This has actually worked out quite well, as he can live close by, and he has a level of financial stability he didn't have before.  He also gets to spend time with the grandkids, and we have a built-in babysitter on occasion.

Enter SIL.  We just heard that SIL is insanely jealous that she doesn't get to share in the equity gains from this house when he eventually passes.  While I could care less what SIL thinks, she does have a way of creating drama with everything she touches.  I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years to come.

Wow.   I would suggest you tell her to cough up her own cash for a down payment, buy a different house for your dad and convince him to move into it.  She can undertake the all the risk to that money if your dad doesn't keep the house up or the market is way down when it comes time to sell or rent the house.  You'll then gladly sell the house you bought with your own money or rent it to strangers for way more cash per month.   Otherwise, STFU.

Jeesh, but I just have zero patience with people like this.

Even better, we had asked SIL to contribute to the house or moving expenses when he was moving. She refused at the time, as she claimed to not have the money at the time.

With the benefit of hindsight, I am incredibly grateful she said no, as I’d hate to be in any type of business relationship with her.

Sweet!

I don't blame you at all!

bib is the perfect answer to any future griping from SIL about wanting a cut.

[iluvzbeach]

@former player, what the heck is bib?

[former player]

@former player, what the heck is bib?

bit in bold

[Zamboni]

Oh, that's such a responsible definition of bib.

I was guessing "bring it, bitch." So then I thought, no, former player would never be so crass, we must search urban dictionary!

Which led to:
Bib
A coward. Someone who won't take risks. They have no nuts and their scrotum is nothing but a bib for their penis.

OMG, I loooove learning!

 

[shadesofgreen]

Oh, that's such a responsible definition of bib.

I was guessing "bring it, bitch." So then I thought, no, former player would never be so crass, we must search urban dictionary!

Which led to:
Bib
A coward. Someone who won't take risks. They have no nuts and their scrotum is nothing but a bib for their penis.

OMG, I loooove learning!

That is funny!

[Ladychips]

@former player, what the heck is bib?

bit in bold

I reread the bit in bold in the previous post several times trying to figure out what bib meant.  When I finally figured it out, I felt like the star idiot in a far side cartoon. MMM Forum...keeping me humble!

[jeninco]

The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?

So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.

I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes.  Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved.  The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.

Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.

[shureShote]

The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?

So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.

I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes.  Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved.  The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.

Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.

This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.

So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?

How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted,  but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?

Thanks.

[iluvzbeach]

We do something similar as jeninco for a family member of ours. In our case the person does not pay any rent, ever, but they do pay utilities. Our insurer covers the property as if it’s a rental property, even though they know it is not. We have a written “occupancy agreement” that we worked with an attorney to draw up and our family member is required to keep a renters policy for their contents. We drew up the occupancy agreement so that it is clear we can still access the property at any time and to also make it binding in that no one else is permitted to live there aside from our relative and her one small dog.

[shureShote]

Thanks. This must be common enough that insurers have a page on it.

[NorCal]

The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?

So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.

I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes.  Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved.  The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.

Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.

This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.

So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?

How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted,  but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?

Thanks.

The way to think about it is a categorization issue. This type of property will be categorized differently depending on who’s looking at it. An insurance company will think of it like a rental property and insure it as such. The IRS will say “it’s not a business” (which is what they really care about). I don’t even recall how the mortgage broker classified it, but I seem to remember they were looking into categorizing it as a primary residence, since my FIL was involved in the purchase decision.

[jeninco]

The IRS's stance doesn't make any sense . . . they own the property, and can rent it for any amount that they see fit. Or, they can own property and choose to let it sit empty, as many people do. The only way I see the IRS have any complaint is if they are trying to write off an annual loss on the property that they are intentionally renting below market value. I'm not an accountant, though, so what do I know?

So we do have a rental contract. Both my wife and FIL are attorneys, so documenting everything was pretty natural to them.

I ran this by a tax professional as well. Essentially, they told us that we shouldn’t treat it as a rental property for tax purposes.  Although they didn’t explicitly frame it this way, I believe the gap between fair-market rent and BMR rent is too small to get into taxable gift territory, and IRS rules explicitly forbid deducting expenses when BMR rent is involved.  The IRS doesn’t want people deducting business losses on things that aren’t actually a business.

Yeah, the last bit -- we bought a house for my BIL to live in, and he pays rent sometimes, when he can. (To be clear, we're fine with that: the goal was to get him safely housed.) At the advice of our tax professional, we don't treat it as a rental property, as what he's paying is pretty far below market rates.

This is quite interesting to me, no experience with it. Got a couple inquiries.

So the money he is able to pay is basically just like a gift?

How does insurance work? If he has renter’s insurance (doesn’t seem likely with what you posted,  but assume anyway) and you have normal homeowners, is there a potential for a problem if something happens?

Thanks.

The way to think about it is a categorization issue. This type of property will be categorized differently depending on who’s looking at it. An insurance company will think of it like a rental property and insure it as such. The IRS will say “it’s not a business” (which is what they really care about). I don’t even recall how the mortgage broker classified it, but I seem to remember they were looking into categorizing it as a primary residence, since my FIL was involved in the purchase decision.

Yeah, probably this. I blessed the arrangement in the first place, but MrInCO takes care of the details. I think the IRS probably doesn't care, as long as we're not claiming that it's a business thing.

[Catbert]

^^^ I suspect it should be treated like a vacation/second home.  If you itemize you can deduct property taxes and mortgage interest (subject to SALT limitations) but nothing else.  When you sell, you'll owe regular capital gains tax.

[AMandM]

I'm curious about this, too, as we may be in a similar situation in the future. Do you report the rent as "additional income" and pay income tax on the whole amount (no deductions)?

[Zamboni]

^Not a tax professional here, but I can't imagine why you would claim it as income if a family member is paying part of a mortgage on a home you own. Especially if you are letting them stay in your house for below market value, on paper it would likely come out as a net loss if it was treated as rental income (remember there are things like depreciation on appliances, maintenance costs, etc. that landlords can write off as deductions.)

[SwordGuy]

^Not a tax professional here, but I can't imagine why you would claim it as income if a family member is paying part of a mortgage on a home you own. Especially if you are letting them stay in your house for below market value, on paper it would likely come out as a net loss if it was treated as rental income (remember there are things like depreciation on appliances, maintenance costs, etc. that landlords can write off as deductions.)

If it's treated as a business, the IRS will tax them on what they SHOULD HAVE charged for rent instead of what they actually are charging for rent.   And that's fair because if they are renting it out at well below market value, it's a family charity thing instead of a business, i.e., it would be a sham business if they treated it as one.

Only a tax accountant could tell them which option would be better dollar-wise.

[jeninco]

^Not a tax professional here, but I can't imagine why you would claim it as income if a family member is paying part of a mortgage on a home you own. Especially if you are letting them stay in your house for below market value, on paper it would likely come out as a net loss if it was treated as rental income (remember there are things like depreciation on appliances, maintenance costs, etc. that landlords can write off as deductions.)

If it's treated as a business, the IRS will tax them on what they SHOULD HAVE charged for rent instead of what they actually are charging for rent.   And that's fair because if they are renting it out at well below market value, it's a family charity thing instead of a business, i.e., it would be a sham business if they treated it as one.

Only a tax accountant could tell them which option would be better dollar-wise.

Haha, yes. MrInCO had a long conversation with our tax accountant about how to handle it, so I assume we're all on the up-and-up (because those two are SUCH crazy rule-followers).

I pay the utilities -- the family member has only SSDI income to use for his other expenses.

It's interesting, because it sounds in writing like we're totally being taken advantage of, but we went into this eyes wide open, the family member has done his level best to hold up his end of the deal, and we're comfortable with making sure that he's housed and warm (as opposed to dying of exposure on the street during a depressive episode). To forcibly drag this somewhat back nearer the original topic, MrInCO's dad left a little $ to be used to care for this family member who has declined to spend it so far.  I guess it's not "drama" if we don't make it into some, though!

[Taran Wanderer]

I guess it's not "drama" if we don't make it into some, though!

It’s actually kind of refreshing to hear your story after the many examples of selfish and short-sighted behavior. Your family member is fortunate to have people so thoughtful and caring.

[MyOtherBrotherDarryl]

Those of you who subscribe to The Chronicle of Higher Education can get a deep dive via its front page today:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-priest-a-dress-a-college-oh-my

Everyone else will have to settle for this:

https://wtop.com/dc/2022/05/judge-forces-catholic-university-to-halt-auction-of-wizard-of-oz-dress/

Basically, the niece of the priest who was CUA's president at the time contends that the dress was her uncle's personal property and that she therefore deserves to inherit as his oldest surviving descendant. This claim has temporarily stopped the sale of the dress at auction, intended to raise money for the university's drama program.

The university has countered with documentation stating that clergy sign vows of poverty and therefore own no personal property. They add that many former staff and students recall the president's representing the dress as owned by the university when he showed it to them. Twenty-seven members of the niece's extended family have also signed a letter insisting that the dress belongs to CUA.

From the Chronicle article:

"Even if Barbara Hartke did have claim to the dress, as Catholic’s lawyers point out, 'her claim to the estate can only be (at most) one-fifth, so to satisfy her interests, the dress would need to be sold.' Hartke had six siblings, five with living descendants."

Greed knows no time.

[Villanelle]

Somewhat odd that he didn't have a will.  I wonder if that was kind of "never got around to it" or if it was because he considered himself to own nothing. 

[TomTX]

Somewhat odd that he didn't have a will.  I wonder if that was kind of "never got around to it" or if it was because he considered himself to own nothing.

I've been doing a bit of reading on the Catholic vow of poverty (primarily The Journal of Catholic Legal Studies) - and it turns out to be rather complex, including whether it is a "simple" or "solemn" vow (the latter being more restrictive.) The need for a will and a "patrimony" (basically a trust where an inheritance is held either in case of leaving the priesthood/monastery/etc or for relatives to inherit) is emphasized. It's also noted that legal contracts should be drawn up for transfer of property, not just a religious vow.

If the vow isn't a legal contract and there is no will, I can definitely see the argument that possessions should be distributed to family members per the laws of the state in question.

Not claiming that's how it will shake out, just that there does seem to be grounds for the argument being made.

[AMandM]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/13/dorothy-dress-wizard-oz-lawsuit/

This article from the Washington Post seems to say that Fr. Hartke passed the dress along to someone else while he was still alive. If that's correct, then even it it was a gift to him personally, it wasn't part of his estate.

[TomTX]

That does seem to tip the balance toward the Church. Hard to judge for sure without getting validated evidence, witnesses, etc.

Anyway, it was interesting looking into how complex the question of a vow of poverty can be.

[Capsu78]

That does seem to tip the balance toward the Church. Hard to judge for sure without getting validated evidence, witnesses, etc.

Anyway, it was interesting looking into how complex the question of a vow of poverty can be.

Yes, sort of like my later in life Aha observation moment when I realized "Non Profit" does not mean "no money is involved".

[MayDay]

I am light on details because I really didn't want to delve deeper, and even if I had, I wouldn't trust the info anyway.

20+ years ago, FIL moved in with his mother (GMIL) because of her failing house. He cared for her for ~10 years and took care of all house maintenance and repairs in exchange for getting to live in the house until he died.

10 years ago she moved in with her daughter (sister of FIL). Aunt makes noises every so often about how FIL should move out so they can sell the house.

GMIL dies a month ago. FIL has a will saying he can live in the house. Aunt has a newer will saying it should be sold. FIL was never told about the newer will and has put significant money into the house (somewhat stupidly IMO).

Now aunt is forcing FIL to buy or move, and FiL says aunt is dead to him. And is apparently buying the house for around 100k.

The whole thing is just messy messy messy. I assume both sides are to blame - FIL for assuming a 20 year old deal was still good with nothing to back it up (looking in it was obvious how this would go), and Aunt for possibly influencing the will.

Of course the other factor is that it would make sense for a 75 year old who lives alone to buy a condo instead of a 3 story (with basement) house in the Cleveland snow belt.....

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Stay tuned for chapters 2 and 3, featuring MIL and my GPA, both of whom have similar arrangements about staying in a house after a spouse dies. Hopefully theirs are better legally defined.

[ATtiny85]

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.

[former player]

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.

If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it.  If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house.  Is that a better outcome?  It's certainly not the mustachian one.

[Sugaree]

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.

If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it.  If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house.  Is that a better outcome?  It's certainly not the mustachian one.

I dunno.  Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money. 

[former player]

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.

If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it.  If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house.  Is that a better outcome?  It's certainly not the mustachian one.

I dunno.  Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.

If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.

[Sugaree]

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.

If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it.  If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house.  Is that a better outcome?  It's certainly not the mustachian one.

I dunno.  Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.

If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.

In this case, I'd leave it to aunt who wanted it so badly.  Or to the local fire department to use for training.

In my own case, I've told my parents on several occasions that I will, under no circumstances, deal with their timeshares.  I will turn it down.  As will, I assume, my brother.  At that point, it's up to the timeshare company's lawyers to deal with. 

[Villanelle]

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.

If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it.  If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house.  Is that a better outcome?  It's certainly not the mustachian one.

I dunno.  Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.

If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.

There are many, many people and organizations that would be happy to have a house full of crap.  If you called them and offered to deed the house to them--crap contents and all--I am quite sure there would be a taker and the house would not be "left to rot".

That said, I'd likely accept the inherited house and call an organization to come take care of the contents.  If it is decent stuff, there are companies that will hold an estate sale, take much of the profits, and then haul off everything else.  If there isn't much of value, a charity might be interested, but if not, you can pay someone to haul it away.  Then you just have to deal with the sale, not the cleaning out.

There's no reason to take on the cleaning out of a home if someone doesn't want to, just to get a few extra dollars.  I don't see how that's different that not taking a job someone doesn't want to do.  If they pay isn't worth it, don't do it.  How is it mustachian to do work you dread doing (clearing out the house) in order to earn money you don't need?

[Dee18]

My mother paid about $1500 to have my parents' house cleared out after we had moved cherished items to her new senior living apartment and given others to family and friends.  That included delivering the best stuff to the Habitat store, my dad's favorite charity. 

[scottish]

Heh, we included some of the (older, more worn) furniture with the house after my parents passed away.

Habitat's a great place though.

[less4success]

Tangentially related to this thread, I just found out that there are businesses that troll probate records and offer cash advances on inheritances to potential beneficiaries. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of these stories was triggered by such a loan, indirectly...

[former player]

There's two different issues going on with an inheritance.  One is being executor/administrator and dealing with the legal side.  The other is dealing with the practical side.

If you are the nearest relative and executor/inheritor of a house and "simply refuse the whole deal" then the administration of the estate goes undealt with and the house and contents get left to rot, unless someone else with an interest starts a legal action over it all.

If you deal with the legal side then you are to some extent going to also have to deal with the practical side because 1) you are going to have to search the house for legal and ownership documents to make sure the legal side is properly dealt with and 2) you (if you inherit) are going to be responsible for things like property taxes and utility bills.  You could always leave everything else to rot, of course.

If you decide to deal with the practical side as well as the legal side you can get someone else to do the practical side but you still need to find them and agree terms, which is hardly "refusing the whole deal".   And even then if you don't do the job of properly employing someone -scoping out the work, understanding the terms of the offer from the contractor, negotiating the deal - then you are not being mustachian.

It used to be the case that most people died owning very little - houses were rented, physical belongings were useful and got parcelled out among relatives, no shares were owned and money in the bank was below the levels at which formal administration of an estate would be needed.   Now with more property owned and fewer relatives to deal with it all managing a death is becoming a different scale of problem, and it's one it is not easy to duck out of doing.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

And selfishly when FIL dies this house will now be our problem to empty and sell instead of someone else's!

Doesn’t have to be. Start working on spouse now to simply refuse the whole deal.

If FIL dies while still living in the house then somebody has to empty and sell it.  If not the nearest relatives, then it probably gets turned over to a house clearance company who will charge a lot and maybe make even more depending on what's in the house.  Is that a better outcome?  It's certainly not the mustachian one.

I dunno.  Mustacianism, to me, is being able to opt out of dealing with crap because I don't need the money.

If it's your nearest relatives who have died and you are a responsible member of society then it is your "crap" to dealing with, rather than throwing a tantrum and saying "won't" and hoping someone else (who did you have in mind?) will deal with it - or just you could just leave the house and contents to rot, I suppose.

I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. Worst case you would be ceding the house, land, and everything in it to the government (right?) How is this throwing a tantrum or screwing over society?