Should I be worried? Sibling getting overly comfortable in family house....

The_Walker

Niv said:

Isn't this to both your benefit though? Or has she suggested that she will get all proceeds from the house? 

I accept you don't want this done (I don't blame you), but this is why, as others have suggested, you need a proper chat with her about it. 

It doesnt sound like she is getting overly comfortable if she is planning on splitting the house into flats to sell it. Obviously you know all the in's and out's best, but I think you may be misinterpreting her intentions a bit.

I could benefit yes, but only if the project was profitable. I view it as too risky, because we have no experience or contacts in this area. I've watched enough property TV shows to know how these things can run over budget haha

I tried to talk to her about it, raising my concerns etc and she refused to discuss it. She basically shut me down. I then wrote an email stating clearly I was against it and she never replied. It's her attitude and actions that are really unsettling me. 

If the council comes after the house, and they soon might, then yes this is all a redundant issue. 

The_Walker

Niv said:

The_Walker said:

macman said:

That's most unfortunate. I can never understand why people draft wills in this fashion, it creates so many problems of this nature. 

Really? This is the first I've heard of this. So you're telling me I *should* be worried then, because she could simply refuse to leave and though I'd effectively own half the property I'd never be able to realise those funds?

I think its more along the lines of - if the will simply said a equal split of the estate then you could potentially take the savings and valuables and she could have the house (assuming they were the same value), but if it states half the house each then that is not as straight forward.

The savings etc would never equal the value of the house, or yes it could all be much simpler. So does that mean it doesn't matter how they've worded the wills then? The last thing I'd want to do is approach them to re-word their wills. They're both in ill health and of course I'd rather just keep things light and enjoy the last remaining years (if we have that).

MobileSaver

Emily_Joy said:

I am with your sibling - it is her home and she naturally wants to make some improvements - e.g. new double glazed windows, insulation, rewiring, new wallpaper, new kitchen/bathroom etc. 

I completely disagree. Yes it is the sister's home but all of the things you mention require the permission of the home owner, which the sister is not. Indeed the owner (the parents) has specifically told the sister to consult with the OP over major matters and the sister has failed to do this - the sister is already ignoring her agreement with the owner.

The OP should be very wary of agreeing to any "improvements" under the guise of achieving a better sales price. Some builder friends of mine installed a brand new kitchen for a client 2 or 3 years ago, they told me recently they are now back at the same property as it's just been sold and the new owner is ripping out the "old" kitchen and putting in another brand new one!

Yes the OP should obviously agree to any urgent repairs but any renovations are likely to only benefit the sister at the expense of the OP so I would definitely push back on those. If the kitchen/bathroom/windows are perfectly functional but old and tired then leave well alone. The only caveat to this is if an EA who knows the local market says otherwise.

The_Walker said:

The wills state the freehold property will be shared equally, not assets.

That is unfortunate and could prove problematic. Owning "half a house" may sound great in theory but in reality it can be a liability rather than an asset. You still need to pay out every year for ongoing maintenance and insurance but selling half a house on the open market is all but impossible.

Similalry, as pointed out by @macman, if the assets had been shared in the will then the executors have a legal obligation to sell the property if that's what you wanted. However where the property is shared the executors only have a legal obligation to transfer the deeds into both names and you would have to go to court (which could be expensive and slow) to try and force a sale.

DE_612183

I was in a similar position - I left home about 2o years before my parents both passed, my brother stayed and lived in house even though it went to rack and ruin.

My mothers will stated he could live there for ever, but the property could be sold and divided 50/50.

In the end the place was so bad his health suffered and then he agreed to sell the place, he bought a flat with his half.

If he'd have kept the place up tp a decent standard we would have got a lot more for it.

MobileSaver

DE_612183 said:

my brother stayed and lived in house even though it went to rack and ruin. ... If he'd have kept the place up to a decent standard we would have got a lot more for it.

The checking question is would you have been happy to pay half of all the maintenance and renovations costs for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years (so probably tens of thousands of pounds) with the only person benefiting for all those years being your brother? All on the premise that you might get a lot more for the place when it was finally sold (which may not have been until you were in your 70s or 80s.)

I suspect most people probably wouldn't want to be paying out for years for someone else (even if it's their brother) to live a comfy lifestyle.

The_Walker

This is beginning to sound worse by the minute. So she could effectively stay there, but since I'd own half the house I'd be liable to pay half council tax and maintenance? She's already enjoyed decades of virtually rent free easy living, while I haven't. So this really would be the icing on the cake .....

Flugelhorn

The_Walker said:

This is beginning to sound worse by the minute. So she could effectively stay there, but since I'd own half the house I'd be liable to pay half council tax and maintenance? She's already enjoyed decades of virtually rent free easy living, while I haven't. So this really would be the icing on the cake .....

IF someone stayed there and was "the resident" they would be liable for the council tax. Theoretically she would have to pay you rent for your "half" but it some cases there is just an agreement that the resident sibling maintains the property at their cost. 

MobileSaver

The_Walker said:

This is beginning to sound worse by the minute. So she could effectively stay there, but since I'd own half the house I'd be liable to pay half council tax and maintenance? She's already enjoyed decades of virtually rent free easy living, while I haven't. So this really would be the icing on the cake .....

You wouldn't have to pay council tax as your sister would be liable for that since she's the one who lives there.

You would potentially be liable for urgent maintenance as that may be in your interest to ensure it gets done. You wouldn't be liable for any WIBNIF (Wouldn't It Be Nice IF) stuff unless you wanted to contribute.

One benefit of having half a house is that you are just as entitled as your sister to move back in and live there (or to allow a friend/lodger to live there assuming there are at least two bedrooms) which may make your sister look at the arrangement a little differently to now...

Brie

The_Walker said:

Brie said:

But all of this is getting ahead of the situation.  It's possible the house may need to be sold to pay for your parents' care before they die and then your sister would have no choice but to move out and find a place of her own.  If they are in local authority funded care then potentially they could take possession of the house to sell making your sister homeless as she's under 60 (at least that's what the LA do in our area).  And if they didn't insist on an immediate sale then there'd be a lien put on the house so when your parents do die the sale of the house will be enforced with the council getting their cut before either of you.  

Yes, the council may well require the sale of the house. 

Interesting you mention the age 60. If she did reach the age of 60, would that change things then?

OK - so what we were told is that as my MiL had to go into care and would eventually need to be fully funded by the LA they could force the sale of our house as MiL had contributed to the cost of buying it.  So even though I was paying all the bills, that my OH & I had paid the majority cost of the house the LA would willfully make us homeless to get the portion needed to pay for MiL's care.  By homeless they meant we would have to immediately put the house on the market for sale and walk away with our portion of the cash as soon as the LA was satisfied we had a suitable buyer.  So we didn't get the option of picking a good time to sell or to get a good price. All down to the LA.  So as MiL had the ££ to fund for some months nothing was immediate but as soon as the LA had to pay a penny they would force a sale.  

All of this changed as soon as I mentioned my age - I had just turned 60 - and then it was a case of "no we won't force a sale but we will put a lien on the house".  They w/couldn't specify an amount for the lien as "that would be determined at some future date".  But essentially we would be allowed to continue to live in the house for the next 200 years or whatever but when it eventually would be sold the undetermined portion would need to be paid to the LA before any other money was distributed in any fashion.  

So if you were in our area and sister was, say, 55 then a sale could be force at the point the LA starts any funding for either parent.  If she was 59 & 11 months and LA funding started when she was 60 then it would be a lien on the property.  As I understand it that could also mean that they would insist on payment of any debt when the second parent dies which in itself would likely force the sale of the home assuming neither of you had the money to pay the debt.  Normally you wouldn't have to pay your parents' debts but the house is their asset so they have the means to pay so pay they must.

As for her doing any renovations....you say you don't know how she would fund this.  So how would she pay an architect/planner?  And subsequently how would she pay for the actual building work?  She might manage to get plans drawn up without paying but I truly doubt anyone in the construction industry would start any work whatsoever without some sort of down payment.  If she doesn't have that then it ain't gonna happen!

Emily_Joy

MobileSaver said:

Emily_Joy said:

I am with your sibling - it is her home and she naturally wants to make some improvements - e.g. new double glazed windows, insulation, rewiring, new wallpaper, new kitchen/bathroom etc. 

I completely disagree. Yes it is the sister's home but all of the things you mention require the permission of the home owner, which the sister is not. Indeed the owner (the parents) has specifically told the sister to consult with the OP over major matters and the sister has failed to do this - the sister is already ignoring her agreement with the owner.

When I read stories like that I think of my brother. I would certainly let him to do any upgrades within reason especially if they are easy to reverse. 

However, it is now clear that the sister wants to make alternations that are (1) not necessary (2) expensive at the moment (3) could decrease the value of the house (4) might be difficult to reverse. If I were the OP I would most definitely be very concerned and looking at to stop it.