Argument still raging about housing the outlaws!
Discussion
Further to my original thread here...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The argument is still going on, with the goalposts being moved on us on a weekly basis, and the latest suggestion from the siblings in law being that we should compensate them for any uplift in value the barn has over the period, and accept a much reduced contribution to the costs of housing the inlaws due to the deflation of the costs over time (a net present value of our costs).
Anyway, long and the short of it is we are plumb out of patience and think the only way forward is to get a third party to look at the situation, and recommend a sensible level of contribution from the outlaws for us to house them.
So the question is, can anyone recommend a company or individual who would be able to take on the work? If no actual suggestions, what sort of organisations do this sort of work (solicitors, property consultants etc?).
Thanks for all the interesting contributions on the original thread, and here's hoping for some more equally valuable insights!
Cheers all
Schmokin1
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The argument is still going on, with the goalposts being moved on us on a weekly basis, and the latest suggestion from the siblings in law being that we should compensate them for any uplift in value the barn has over the period, and accept a much reduced contribution to the costs of housing the inlaws due to the deflation of the costs over time (a net present value of our costs).
Anyway, long and the short of it is we are plumb out of patience and think the only way forward is to get a third party to look at the situation, and recommend a sensible level of contribution from the outlaws for us to house them.
So the question is, can anyone recommend a company or individual who would be able to take on the work? If no actual suggestions, what sort of organisations do this sort of work (solicitors, property consultants etc?).
Thanks for all the interesting contributions on the original thread, and here's hoping for some more equally valuable insights!
Cheers all
Schmokin1
Hi guys!
Bit late for the don't do it suggestions, we already bought the place.....!
The inlaws don't really understand the ins and outs of the financial side of things and are broadly butting out of any discussion, while making noises to the effect that we should give a bit to get a bit, IWSWIM. That, however is a bit difficult when we think we pitched the level of contribution the inlaws should make at the minimum level we felt comfortable with, so if we give a bit, we are effectively paying the siblings to look after the inlaws! Probably naively we weren't expecting to be 'bargained' down for every penny.
Anyway, long and the short of it is we are stil so far apart on what is the correct level of chipping in for the costs, that we need to get some sort of professional involved to make a call on what is reasonable, and it has to be a disinterested third party so the opinion carries a bit of gravitas....
So, any suggestions for either the sort of person/firm we should engage, or actual recommendations welcome. Hit man recommendations also welcome if the situation is not resolved in a few weeks!
Bit late for the don't do it suggestions, we already bought the place.....!
The inlaws don't really understand the ins and outs of the financial side of things and are broadly butting out of any discussion, while making noises to the effect that we should give a bit to get a bit, IWSWIM. That, however is a bit difficult when we think we pitched the level of contribution the inlaws should make at the minimum level we felt comfortable with, so if we give a bit, we are effectively paying the siblings to look after the inlaws! Probably naively we weren't expecting to be 'bargained' down for every penny.
Anyway, long and the short of it is we are stil so far apart on what is the correct level of chipping in for the costs, that we need to get some sort of professional involved to make a call on what is reasonable, and it has to be a disinterested third party so the opinion carries a bit of gravitas....
So, any suggestions for either the sort of person/firm we should engage, or actual recommendations welcome. Hit man recommendations also welcome if the situation is not resolved in a few weeks!
Steve H said:
It's never too late to change direction or make it clear that you are willing to.
If the figure you originally came up with is the minimum you considered acceptable then don't shift, don't ask for outside advice, don't negotiate with the siblings who are offering to do nowt to look after their parents and just seem to be interested in protecting their inheritances.
I'd be making it clear to the outlaws and their offspring that this is the only way you can afford to do it. Tell they are still welcome to look at other options elsewhere.
You'd need your other half onside to make this work but nothing else is going to, if the independant guy agreed with you the siblings would still say it's not right, if he says the contribution should be lower then you're forced to take less than you consider acceptable; neither one is going to give you any peace and quiet.
ETA. The "we don't understand the financial stuff" part is a copout, safe bet that they just don't want to have to make a decision against the other kids because of the grief they will get. Peacemaking at your expense.
I hear you and agree on the copping out a bit from the outlaws, but I think they are a bit naively hoping it will all get sorted out without them having to decide "against" anyone...If the figure you originally came up with is the minimum you considered acceptable then don't shift, don't ask for outside advice, don't negotiate with the siblings who are offering to do nowt to look after their parents and just seem to be interested in protecting their inheritances.
I'd be making it clear to the outlaws and their offspring that this is the only way you can afford to do it. Tell they are still welcome to look at other options elsewhere.
You'd need your other half onside to make this work but nothing else is going to, if the independant guy agreed with you the siblings would still say it's not right, if he says the contribution should be lower then you're forced to take less than you consider acceptable; neither one is going to give you any peace and quiet.
ETA. The "we don't understand the financial stuff" part is a copout, safe bet that they just don't want to have to make a decision against the other kids because of the grief they will get. Peacemaking at your expense.
Edited by Steve H on Saturday 30th April 07:55
We probably naively were hoping the siblings would listen to reason, and thought we were making progress with one of them, but he just turned round and said we should share any uplift in value of the barn over the next20 years, even though we own it and we see the contributions from the outlaws as just that, a contribution to costs, it just needs to come as a lump in advance so we don't have to borrow another huge chunk of cash (I don't like carrying the amount of mortgage I have now, let alone another 120-150 grand...)
MrChips said:
^ I'd also agree that's the best solution but there's no guarantee that the OP spending £X amount on converting the annex will lead to an equivalent rise in the value of the plot.
I think the siblings are working on the assumption that if the parents invest their money in the conversion, that the investment would be worth much much more in years to come... But what if that isn't the case?
I think if the rent situation isn't possible (despite being the best solution) then how about:
In laws fund the development, it's recorded as a gift to your wife, and when the inevitable happens years down the line, the gift is deducted from any inheritance still due to come her way. If the inheritance due is lower than the gift, then you pay the difference back into the estate... Assuming that the plan is to divvy up the estate in equal portions.
This is exactly what we think shouldn't happen because that is, net, us just paying for the barn and the outlaws living in it rent free for up to 25 years!I think the siblings are working on the assumption that if the parents invest their money in the conversion, that the investment would be worth much much more in years to come... But what if that isn't the case?
I think if the rent situation isn't possible (despite being the best solution) then how about:
In laws fund the development, it's recorded as a gift to your wife, and when the inevitable happens years down the line, the gift is deducted from any inheritance still due to come her way. If the inheritance due is lower than the gift, then you pay the difference back into the estate... Assuming that the plan is to divvy up the estate in equal portions.
Hi all
I wasn't keen on the rent option initially because I didn't want to carry a load more debt and a heap of money would go out of the estate to pay interest, and I would be passing on that cost to the outlaws, leaving less all round for any final inheritance for all three siblings.
This is the way I had hoped it would work:
Outlaws pay above sum up front, in advance, as a contribution to our costs of buying a bigger property than we otherwise would have, ie one with an annex (it's our capital that is used to buy the property, the outlaws do not own any portion of the property, nor are we offering to sell any portion, as I don't see why we should stump up a lump sum to the siblings when the outlaws vacate the annex, just to stay on a property we currently own). This lump sum enables us to convert the barn, and the outlaws would have a pretty strong say in the spec and finishes, as a side benefit of paying up front. If you want to call the up front payment as payment in lieu of rent, fair enough, I don't see it makes much difference...The benefit is as above, no extra debt for us or for the outlaws no extra interest to be covered, against piecemeal payments.
Once barn is ready, outlaws sell house, freeing up capital for an equal split of however much they want to release. This split does not involve deducting from our share any money we had up front. The up front money is a contribution to costs, not an advance of inheritance, the split comes after these costs are covered.
The outlaws effectively get a lifetime lease, we would take no payment while they are in there, and also pick up the cost of renovating the barn to rentable standard when they vacate (remember this might be after 20 years or more). Also remember we are committing to provide them with accom for the period and can't just sell up and move willy nilly!
The sum we are asking for up front is about 1/3 of what the open market rent would be over a 20 year period. The outlaws are in good health, and at least one of them could be expected to live another 20 years. We said to the siblings if they both die or have to go into care homes in short order then we will pay back a sensible amount pro rata- I don't have a problem with that because we could then rent it out to cover our costs.
Anyway, we might have to go down a develop it ourselves and charge some rent model, or call the initial payment an interest free loan to be progressively written off as the years tick by, if we can't get any sensible agreement with the siblings....
If we have to get a mediator, fair enough (hence this follow,up thread) but either way the missus and I have to be reasonably happy with the financial arrangement or it won't happen.....
Cheers all
Schmo
I wasn't keen on the rent option initially because I didn't want to carry a load more debt and a heap of money would go out of the estate to pay interest, and I would be passing on that cost to the outlaws, leaving less all round for any final inheritance for all three siblings.
This is the way I had hoped it would work:
Outlaws pay above sum up front, in advance, as a contribution to our costs of buying a bigger property than we otherwise would have, ie one with an annex (it's our capital that is used to buy the property, the outlaws do not own any portion of the property, nor are we offering to sell any portion, as I don't see why we should stump up a lump sum to the siblings when the outlaws vacate the annex, just to stay on a property we currently own). This lump sum enables us to convert the barn, and the outlaws would have a pretty strong say in the spec and finishes, as a side benefit of paying up front. If you want to call the up front payment as payment in lieu of rent, fair enough, I don't see it makes much difference...The benefit is as above, no extra debt for us or for the outlaws no extra interest to be covered, against piecemeal payments.
Once barn is ready, outlaws sell house, freeing up capital for an equal split of however much they want to release. This split does not involve deducting from our share any money we had up front. The up front money is a contribution to costs, not an advance of inheritance, the split comes after these costs are covered.
The outlaws effectively get a lifetime lease, we would take no payment while they are in there, and also pick up the cost of renovating the barn to rentable standard when they vacate (remember this might be after 20 years or more). Also remember we are committing to provide them with accom for the period and can't just sell up and move willy nilly!
The sum we are asking for up front is about 1/3 of what the open market rent would be over a 20 year period. The outlaws are in good health, and at least one of them could be expected to live another 20 years. We said to the siblings if they both die or have to go into care homes in short order then we will pay back a sensible amount pro rata- I don't have a problem with that because we could then rent it out to cover our costs.
Anyway, we might have to go down a develop it ourselves and charge some rent model, or call the initial payment an interest free loan to be progressively written off as the years tick by, if we can't get any sensible agreement with the siblings....
If we have to get a mediator, fair enough (hence this follow,up thread) but either way the missus and I have to be reasonably happy with the financial arrangement or it won't happen.....
Cheers all
Schmo
walm said:
You have answered the question yourself about why you have to "stump up a lump sum... just to stay on a property we currently own"... because they might die far in advance of "spending" the equivalent value of rent.
e.g. Outlaws spend £150k doing up the annex and die a year later.
You are sitting pretty on a property you own but is far better than otherwise.
You missed the bit about us paying it back pro rata if this very thing happens!e.g. Outlaws spend £150k doing up the annex and die a year later.
You are sitting pretty on a property you own but is far better than otherwise.
Otherwise, I agree with you but charging them rent will be a non starter too as that will be "profiting"!
superlightr said:
jezzzzzzzzzzzusssssssssss FFS how is this topic still going?????????? How is this topic number 2 poke my eyes out pleaasssee and biatch slap me.
The OP has had so many of the same suggestions made - fund it yourself and rent it to them otherwise you are feking MAD
flogging a dead horse, punching thin air head against a wall, blood out of a stone.
losing the will to live........
There is a bit of thread drift going on, I only asked for recommendations on who might advise us! You have the option of closing your eyes while reading the thread though...The OP has had so many of the same suggestions made - fund it yourself and rent it to them otherwise you are feking MAD
flogging a dead horse, punching thin air head against a wall, blood out of a stone.
losing the will to live........
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff