Important, I get this wrong, no sporty car for me ever!

[schmokin1]

Rangeroverover said:

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

Got these covered. Don't mind fixing the odd washing machine! Ground rules about not coming over without an appointment are established! The two buildings are detached, are side on so don't even really overlook each other, have separate access, and I can't really complain about sharing garage space as there is loads and they have been storing some of my stuff for years anyway.....

We are looking at the issue of providing them with a safeguard in the event we split up and have to sell.

[schmokin1]

DonkeyApple said:

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 tts.

Unfortunately, the sibling who objects to the proposed arrangement is an accountant, but still maintains the "it's your idea so you pay for it" position!

[TheLordJohn]

schmokin1 said:

Unfortunately, the sibling who objects to the proposed arrangement is an accountant, but still maintains the "it's your idea so you pay for it" position!

I don't even know him, and I'm not at all involved, but that attitude makes me want to squash his head with my hands.
Genuinely don't know how people put up with such fking bellends.

[DonkeyApple]

schmokin1 said:

Unfortunately, the sibling who objects to the proposed arrangement is an accountant, but still maintains the "it's your idea so you pay for it" position!

He is partly right. You pay for the annex and you rent it out. If your in-laws want to be the tenants then that is their idea and they pay for it.

If the in laws pay for the annex then it is theirs and belongs to their estate when they pop off.

Just ensure that the annex is legally rentable or some smart arse, like an accountant for example, will point out that you should never have charged rent etc.

But do remember that if it isn't your money that builds the annex then it isn't yours.

[walm]

DonkeyApple said:

But do remember that if it isn't your money that builds the annex then it isn't yours.

Rubbish.
It would be totally up for debate.
Clearly OP would remain on the deeds.
It would be up to the siblings to argue that the funds weren't a gift to the OP.

[DonkeyApple]

walm said:

DonkeyApple said:

But do remember that if it isn't your money that builds the annex then it isn't yours.

Rubbish.
It would be totally up for debate.
Clearly OP would remain on the deeds.
It would be up to the siblings to argue that the funds weren't a gift to the OP.

And they've already kicked off before anything has happened so that's very clearly the case. In their eyes it would belong to them once their parents have done the right thing and died as soon as possible. It's irrelevant who is on the deeds. If it's built with their inheritance they will want their third of it. They've already made it very clear that this is how they are thinking

[walm]

DonkeyApple said:

walm said:

DonkeyApple said:

But do remember that if it isn't your money that builds the annex then it isn't yours.

Rubbish.
It would be totally up for debate.
Clearly OP would remain on the deeds.
It would be up to the siblings to argue that the funds weren't a gift to the OP.

And they've already kicked off before anything has happened so that's very clearly the case. In their eyes it would belong to them once their parents have done the right thing and died as soon as possible. It's irrelevant who is on the deeds. If it's built with their inheritance they will want their third of it. They've already made it very clear that this is how they are thinking

I know all that - I am just saying that "it isn't yours" is a vast over-simplification.
The in-laws could just put something in writing to the effect of "it's a gift" (in lieu of rent) and the siblings could FRO!

[schmokin1]

walm said:

DonkeyApple said:

But do remember that if it isn't your money that builds the annex then it isn't yours.

Rubbish.
It would be totally up for debate.
Clearly OP would remain on the deeds.
It would be up to the siblings to argue that the funds weren't a gift to the OP.

I'm not even sure it would be up for debate. IIRC any improvement to a property is owned by that property owner, irrespective of who paid for it. Obviously there might be a gift with reservation question on it, as the outlaws would benefit from said improve,net, but I don't think ownership of the asset would be in question. If it was a gift with reservation in terms of whether it fell back in to the estate, then a specific clause in the will that it is a gift would cover it I think?

[blindswelledrat]

Interesting thread and funny how different families can be. We had an identical situation with the opposite reaction. My sister was going to convert for my mum at her own cost, and we all insisted that my mother paid as she would have the hassle when my mother got less mobile etc and would be doing us all a massive favour.

OP, why are you averse to charging them rent instead? Nothing at all wrong with your way (except the sibling thinks so) but renting it out to them would be completely unarguable because you could show that you could easily rent it out to someone else hence you were only charging them exactly the lost benefit to you? Put in simpler terms it makes the cost/benefit to you much more clearly calculable