Important, I get this wrong, no sporty car for me ever!
Discussion
ukwill said:
As others have said - borrow the additional money required to make the annex habitable, then rent it to the outlaws. This is (imo) the only sensible way forward.
And just accept that the siblings will always see that rent as their inheritance being given to their sister instead of them. Unfortunately, it seems the die is cast for her relationship with her siblings. If they are bickering while the parents are still alive then she won't be seeing them after the parents are gone and the unpleasant fights during probate. However, this may be a good thing. Their children get the massive benefit of growing up with their grandparents and you are shot of scabby elements of the family.
By looking after your in-laws you are saving your wife's siblings a fortune as they won't have to fork out or have to see their inheritance eroded by care home fees. They will probably take whatever free cash your in-laws have on the basis that you're looking after their parents.
This is what my brother did - he was very keen for me to buy my mother a house to live in, rent free (which I did), he then liberated all her savings.
My advice, would be to develop the annex at your expense (it will add to the value of your home) and charge them a small rent - which is your gift to them.
This is what my brother did - he was very keen for me to buy my mother a house to live in, rent free (which I did), he then liberated all her savings.
My advice, would be to develop the annex at your expense (it will add to the value of your home) and charge them a small rent - which is your gift to them.
If levy full market value. The siblings are going to accuse you of stealing all the inheritance anyway and never speak to you again once probate is completed. Why be out of pocket as well?
They've shown their true colours and they will never accept that you've saved them care home fees that would have taken all the inheritance anyway.
As said, if you really have to do this then you have to build the annex yourself and to a legal standard that it could be rented in the open market and then charge the inlaws the market rate. If the siblings want their parents to pay less then they can chip in with the rent to do so.
They've shown their true colours and they will never accept that you've saved them care home fees that would have taken all the inheritance anyway.
As said, if you really have to do this then you have to build the annex yourself and to a legal standard that it could be rented in the open market and then charge the inlaws the market rate. If the siblings want their parents to pay less then they can chip in with the rent to do so.
I don't think this ends well for you, OP. Whatever solution you come up with will cause arguments with the wife's siblings.
I'm going through this with my brother and mother.
She recently chose to move closer to me. I am now responsible for her care, it would seem, and that suits my brother to a tee, as he has probably seen her fewer than 10x in the last decade. He really avoids her like the plague. However, whenever I am forced to make a decision on her care (she has had several health problems that have required hospitalisation, a serious house fire and two collapses in the home in the last year), he avoids the discussion but criticises my decision.
He obsesses about his inheritance but as far as I'm concerned there will be none - it will all go on care fees (my mother is getting increasingly dotty and less able to care for herself). I don't really mind about being on call for her 24/7 and I don't want any financial gain for it - she brought me up for 18 years, I owe her some of my time and effort. What I don't want is to take flack for it.
So you have to ask yourself if you will mind cleaning up very unpleasant stuff (I can't bring myself to even describe what I have had to do for my mother) and then be told that you are in the wrong by your wife's siblings or that "you are being paid for it". It almost certainly will happen.
I'm going through this with my brother and mother.
She recently chose to move closer to me. I am now responsible for her care, it would seem, and that suits my brother to a tee, as he has probably seen her fewer than 10x in the last decade. He really avoids her like the plague. However, whenever I am forced to make a decision on her care (she has had several health problems that have required hospitalisation, a serious house fire and two collapses in the home in the last year), he avoids the discussion but criticises my decision.
He obsesses about his inheritance but as far as I'm concerned there will be none - it will all go on care fees (my mother is getting increasingly dotty and less able to care for herself). I don't really mind about being on call for her 24/7 and I don't want any financial gain for it - she brought me up for 18 years, I owe her some of my time and effort. What I don't want is to take flack for it.
So you have to ask yourself if you will mind cleaning up very unpleasant stuff (I can't bring myself to even describe what I have had to do for my mother) and then be told that you are in the wrong by your wife's siblings or that "you are being paid for it". It almost certainly will happen.
I have to agree - only sensible way is to pay the upfront cost yourself and then charge rent (market price or lower depending how you want to go about things). If the parents pay the cost of renovating then your house goes up in value, which is of benefit to you. Thus the siblings are unhappy since they are losing out somewhat. You say you will pay them a fair cost, but they don't have any way of proving that/ knowing what it is. Not to mention you have an issue with equity for paying them the lump sum they get if the inheritance is shared equally.
By renting you cover the costs and get any gain when selling and so there is no argument over how much the parent's investments have changed in value. You also get the benefit of not having to worry about possible divorce in your family/ the parents dying early and what you have to cover in a lump sum to the other family members. It is more expensive in terms of rent etc, but potentially saves a lot in lawyers if there is arguments about how much was put into the conversion/ what the current market price is.
I'm in a kind of similar situation with the family at the moment, but everyone is happy with the way it is done. My brother and I am helping my mum out with providing money so she can get a better house due to limited money now (due to limited income she needs to pay the house outright and so any extra money means a nicer home for her). This money is then related to a % of the value at the time of buying. When it is sold we then get the same % back before the money is divided between all the kids equally. In reality all the money will probably go on care since it's not that much, but the % increase/ decrease is agreed with everyone now, so saves arguments later. If it's too complicated to work out who is benefiting and by how much then it is going to create problems.
By renting you cover the costs and get any gain when selling and so there is no argument over how much the parent's investments have changed in value. You also get the benefit of not having to worry about possible divorce in your family/ the parents dying early and what you have to cover in a lump sum to the other family members. It is more expensive in terms of rent etc, but potentially saves a lot in lawyers if there is arguments about how much was put into the conversion/ what the current market price is.
I'm in a kind of similar situation with the family at the moment, but everyone is happy with the way it is done. My brother and I am helping my mum out with providing money so she can get a better house due to limited money now (due to limited income she needs to pay the house outright and so any extra money means a nicer home for her). This money is then related to a % of the value at the time of buying. When it is sold we then get the same % back before the money is divided between all the kids equally. In reality all the money will probably go on care since it's not that much, but the % increase/ decrease is agreed with everyone now, so saves arguments later. If it's too complicated to work out who is benefiting and by how much then it is going to create problems.
Move the folks in, tell the siblings to get bent and enjoy the years you have before they pop off and the fireworks begin.
The idea of people claiming inheritance whilst the people in question are still alive is quite frankly sickening and I would happily take the option of not having those people in my life. The most important thing should be what the folks want and what they can afford and how that fit with your need to provide it. All of which can be determined between you and then clearly communicated (with any legality unfortunately required) to the vultures.
The idea of people claiming inheritance whilst the people in question are still alive is quite frankly sickening and I would happily take the option of not having those people in my life. The most important thing should be what the folks want and what they can afford and how that fit with your need to provide it. All of which can be determined between you and then clearly communicated (with any legality unfortunately required) to the vultures.
Hitch78 said:
Move the folks in, tell the siblings to get bent and enjoy the years you have before they pop off and the fireworks begin.
The idea of people claiming inheritance whilst the people in question are still alive is quite frankly sickening and I would happily take the option of not having those people in my life. The most important thing should be what the folks want and what they can afford and how that fit with your need to provide it. All of which can be determined between you and then clearly communicated (with any legality unfortunately required) to the vultures.
The thing is if the parents pay for a nice renovation on part of the house for the OP then if he is not moral he could well be the person going off with all the extra money and the family view him and his wife as being the sickening ones. Just depends what "side" you are on - hence trying to make it as simple as possible in terms of money now/ money later. I don't think it has been organised in a clear manner of from the way the OP is describing it - he seems to be expecting the family members to trust that he will do the right thing (and is ignoring the practicalities in terms of how will he get the money if the parents die in a year or two/ what happens if he has to move/ divorce etc). "Things will work out in the end" and "trust me" is not the way to go about this type of thing IMO.The idea of people claiming inheritance whilst the people in question are still alive is quite frankly sickening and I would happily take the option of not having those people in my life. The most important thing should be what the folks want and what they can afford and how that fit with your need to provide it. All of which can be determined between you and then clearly communicated (with any legality unfortunately required) to the vultures.
walm said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Not in the slightest - what possible business of mine would how my father spent his money be?
Do I really have to spell it out?Perhaps your father had always intended to split everything equally between you and your brother but (like the OP) was putting money into the property up front in order to cover 20 years rent.
But with the unexpected death and no adjustment to his will your brother has just trousered potentially six figures that your father would have intended to go to you.
holes as family members.superkartracer said:
walm said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Not in the slightest - what possible business of mine would how my father spent his money be?
Do I really have to spell it out?Perhaps your father had always intended to split everything equally between you and your brother but (like the OP) was putting money into the property up front in order to cover 20 years rent.
But with the unexpected death and no adjustment to his will your brother has just trousered potentially six figures that your father would have intended to go to you.
holes as family members.hole in your family, then it's you. 
I did this a few years ago. I bought a house jointly with my partner that had a stable block suitable to be converted to an annexe.
I bought the in laws house at a discount of £100k, let it for a few years then sold it.
The cost of converting the stables was about £50k, the inlaws pay £220 per month towards utilities as its all on one account as I didn't want a risk of 2 x council tax.
The "Must Haves"
They have to be able to come and go without you seeing each other, we have totally seperate living and outdoor space, front doors etc, the only shared thing is a double garage, they keep their fiat panda in it and take up more space than my range rover. Other than that we can go days without seeing each other.
Think through what would happen if you and your partner were to split up, inevitably this would also cause the parents to move also. My in laws are both mid late 80s, the difficult bit will be when/if they can no longer drive or if they require care
Draw the line very early on about seeing each other, I never just walk into their house and vice versa. Small things will annoy you, mother in law is a hoarder and will not let me employ a cleaner so the kitchen that I spent time and money on is now in a really crappy state, lights are left on all over the house while they are out.
Mother in law seems to think that I am the RAC for any appliance she has that doesn't work.....would I do it again, if I'm honest I wouldn't
I bought the in laws house at a discount of £100k, let it for a few years then sold it.
The cost of converting the stables was about £50k, the inlaws pay £220 per month towards utilities as its all on one account as I didn't want a risk of 2 x council tax.
The "Must Haves"
They have to be able to come and go without you seeing each other, we have totally seperate living and outdoor space, front doors etc, the only shared thing is a double garage, they keep their fiat panda in it and take up more space than my range rover. Other than that we can go days without seeing each other.
Think through what would happen if you and your partner were to split up, inevitably this would also cause the parents to move also. My in laws are both mid late 80s, the difficult bit will be when/if they can no longer drive or if they require care
Draw the line very early on about seeing each other, I never just walk into their house and vice versa. Small things will annoy you, mother in law is a hoarder and will not let me employ a cleaner so the kitchen that I spent time and money on is now in a really crappy state, lights are left on all over the house while they are out.
Mother in law seems to think that I am the RAC for any appliance she has that doesn't work.....would I do it again, if I'm honest I wouldn't
Forgot to mention........re siblings, a very quiet conversation once took place between my sister and my father where he mentioned that one is not required to leave everything equally or indeed at all to ones kids.........inevitably he did, however it did cause my sister to wind her neck in
ukwill said:
As others have said - borrow the additional money required to make the annex habitable, then rent it to the outlaws. This is (imo) the only sensible way forward.
This seems like the most straightforward solution and struggle to see how the siblings could object unless the parents are currently in some mythical rent free property which requires not maintenance or other bills.My granny moved into a cottage which was effectively an annex to my aunt's house and paid rent the whole time she was there, why wouldn't she?
Ben
BigBen said:
This seems like the most straightforward solution and struggle to see how the siblings could object unless the parents are currently in some mythical rent free property which requires not maintenance or other bills.
People generally are morons.In particular they don't understand the first thing about finance.
Right now the siblings see their parents living in exactly that mythical rent-free property because they OWN THE HOUSE.
The whole concept of opportunity cost is 100% beyond them.
So all they see is THEIR INHERITANCE (the house) getting sold and then slowly whittled away by rent payments.
The fact that the parents should be able to invest the capital from the house sale in order to generate enough to cover rent isn't something the siblings could possibly begin to comprehend.
walm said:
People generally are morons.
In particular they don't understand the first thing about finance.
Right now the siblings see their parents living in exactly that mythical rent-free property because they OWN THE HOUSE.
The whole concept of opportunity cost is 100% beyond them.
So all they see is THEIR INHERITANCE (the house) getting sold and then slowly whittled away by rent payments.
The fact that the parents should be able to invest the capital from the house sale in order to generate enough to cover rent isn't something the siblings could possibly begin to comprehend.
My father has constantly warned me over the years that children can be monumental tIn particular they don't understand the first thing about finance.
Right now the siblings see their parents living in exactly that mythical rent-free property because they OWN THE HOUSE.
The whole concept of opportunity cost is 100% beyond them.
So all they see is THEIR INHERITANCE (the house) getting sold and then slowly whittled away by rent payments.
The fact that the parents should be able to invest the capital from the house sale in order to generate enough to cover rent isn't something the siblings could possibly begin to comprehend.
ts.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff