What do you think?

Pee

The parents of three siblings who are now in their early sixties passed away leaving the house equally between the three children. Two of the children were living some distance away, both married with now adult children and good jobs. One of the children lived nearby, also with a child who is now adult, and moved into the house to help with mother and then carried on living in the property, doing some additional work to the property with the sisters tacit agreement. This child, A, did a series of part time and poorly paying jobs was divorced and did not remarry. They had sold their house to move in with mother, this would have been about seven years ago.

The three siblings want to share the property between them fairly. A has no pension, continues to work in poorly paid jobs but has enough in savings to buy the others out at a market rate.

A has always lived in the property rent free, but spent over £25,000 on improvements.

The question is, what would be fair? Should the £25,000 be ignored, because of the rent free seven years? Should the £25,000 be paid out to A and the remainder split three ways? Should the £25,000 multiplied by the increase in house prices and then the remainder split 3 ways?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts

gibboelli

Well if I'd been one of the other siblings I'd of told A to stay in the house as it's theirs just as much as their mothers. Maybe in the future in A wants to mo9ve out then think about property splitting, with that £25,000 given straight back before any splitting of the rest of the profits.
But I'm a very fair person :P

Glitzkiss

The £25,000 should not be ignored in lieu of A living there rent free for 7 years. My understanding is A was caring for the mum and maintaining the house during that time and therefore providing a service. If A hadn't been there the house may have been sold to pay for care and/or the repairs/improvements carried out by mum and therefore the estate.

smartpicture

sloughflint wrote: »

Are you mentioning the low paid work/lack of pension because this was a direct result of caring for the parent? Are we talking loss of earnings?

I agree with the significance of this. Of course if the low earnings were a result of caring for mum, this should be taken into account. But if, for arguments sake, it was because she didn't try as hard at school or work, or made different life choices before caring for mum came into the equation, then why should the siblings be penalised because they have made a career for themselves? But on the other hand, if they weren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to look after mum and the other one was, then there should be a cost attached to this.

It might be easier to involve a thrid party to mediate, because inevitably the 3 siblings will see the same events differently, or attach different importance to them. It's a shame that these things weren't discussed while the mum was still alive.

BuddyBonthenet

Pee wrote: »

The parents of three siblings who are now in their early sixties passed away leaving the house equally between the three children. Two of the children were living some distance away, both married with now adult children and good jobs. One of the children lived nearby, also with a child who is now adult, and moved into the house to help with mother and then carried on living in the property, doing some additional work to the property with the sisters tacit agreement. This child, A, did a series of part time and poorly paying jobs was divorced and did not remarry. They had sold their house to move in with mother, this would have been about seven years ago.

The three siblings want to share the property between them fairly. A has no pension, continues to work in poorly paid jobs but has enough in savings to buy the others out at a market rate.

A has always lived in the property rent free, but spent over £25,000 on improvements.

The question is, what would be fair? Should the £25,000 be ignored, because of the rent free seven years? Should the £25,000 be paid out to A and the remainder split three ways? Should the £25,000 multiplied by the increase in house prices and then the remainder split 3 ways?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts

Given that they have always worked in part time poorly paid jobs, I'm not clear how the sibling in the house could have the savings to buy out the other two, as well as having spent £25,000 on repairs.

My first reaction if I were one of the other two siblings would be that if I didn't need the money (and that is the impression I get from what you have said about the other two siblings, but I'd be wary of just assuming this) then I would say she could stay in the house for as long as she wants and she would be responsible for the upkeep during that time. If she wants to leave or dies then the house would be split then equally between the three siblings or their heirs).

*Maya*

I think that the mother's wishes to divide her estate equally should be respected.

Susan_Frost

I think the fact that they have different earning powers, pensions, lifestyles, etc. should be taken out of the equation. They are in their sixties so have all had a chance to make their ways in life.

Presumeably because A sold their own house to move in 7 years ago, this money will have been invested so is why they can now buy parents house cash. It will have earned interest in that time, and although rates have fallen recently, so have house prices so the parents home will now be valued less. They & daughter have also lived rent free.

They sound like an amicable family so, although A may have been on hand to help mum on a daily basis, it does not mean the other two have never helped out, or that A could not go out to work. The arrangement does not sound "in exchange for the house" in any way.

If it had been agreed to share the cost of improvements, then A would still have paid nearly £8,500 as their share.

I think an even split should be put on the "table" and if anyone gets a sense of unfairness, then it should be said and talked around.

I would suggest just a 3 way split as parents have stated in their will. A can buy out the other two if they want to stay there.

ailuro2

3 way split is what is wanted by parents, so that is what should happen.

Nothing worse than petty squabbling over something left to you by someone who died, it doesn't show ANY respect to their memory, fighting over material things..


If A wants to buy the other two out, then get three quotes from estate agent's and take the average, then stick to that figure. Or sell the house and give everyone their share.

Being low paid is A's tough luck - just cos their siblings did better in their careers it doesn't mean they deserve any less from the parents......


Some might argue they deserve more because A has been sitting rent free and bill free for years...:p

I get the feeling you want an answer that A should get more than the others, your post imho is a bit biased towards 'poor old A' but A could end up homeless if they aren't careful, the other siblings could insist on the sale of the house. Keep things amicable and wish the other siblings well for having a more secure pension.

MAybe A should take the money and buy a smaller, cheaper to run home in preparation for retirement?;)

belfastgirl23

I would go for a three way split personally and assume that A's caring duties more than covered any potential 'rent'. If A felt it was fair for the £25k or a share of it to also be repaid I think I'd swallow that as well, again on the basis that they have done the heavy lifting for a long time in terms of caring. Assuming of course that neither of the other siblings are desperate for the cash.

Floss

I think a 3-way split should be carried out. After all, £25,000 over 7 years equates to approximately £300 a month......less than would have been paid out in rent for another home. The fact that "A" moved in to help care for their mother is balanced by the likelihood that if they had not, the house would have probably been sold to cover care costs and we would not be having this discussion.....and they would have then paid out over £25k in accomodation costs.

Pee

A's low earning is not related to caring for mother, that was a lifestyle choice. A moved in to care for the mother for a relatively short period, about a year, the rest of the time A has been living there alone. A does have enough savings to buy out the other 2, just, but it would leave no further savings. The money saved has obviously not gone up in value by anywhere near as much as the house has over that same period.

Thanks for all of your opinions. The three get on well, and are anxious to treat one another fairly but it is interesting to have some other views on what is fair in the circumstances.