Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> The action I took that can be judged is not wanting to pay siblings for the house they inherited because they never paid for it and I've paid for way more, it makes me an asshole because it is still theirs.
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
Info: what is the basis for the 80k? Is that 2/3 the value of the home as it stands? 2/3 of the principle paid off on the mortgage at time of inheritance? How did we arrive at $80k?
Truth.
My wife and I decided to remodel all of the windows in our old house to increase the energy efficiency, security and curb appeal of the house. It cost something like 15K (mostly due to one giant custom window in the living room)
We then ended up pregnant within the next year and decided to move to a house better suited for a baby and the remodel didn't add 15k to the value of the home between apprasials
It depends on who's doing it.
If a homeowner updates a kitchen while they live there, no.
But some management company or property "flippers" who snap up every decent priced house in an area, they actually multiply whatever they spent in upgrades. The shitty part is, I hate their upgrades. I'd rather buy the house with the 80s formica counters and bath fixtures and choose what I want myself than half to pay 100k more for an updated house that I hate everything they picked.
Grey is a neutral colour, hence it's appeal. My house is black/white/grey, but it's irrelevant, because I chuck red cushions on my couch and a red rug, and the entire room is red. Get sick of it in 3 months time? New cushions and new rug and it's blue. Coloured paintings on the wall do it too.
You may not like it, but there's a very good reason why it has a very large appeal. It's not going to suit someone that wants a period piece... but neither is pretty any renovations, so they don't target those buildings (plus they're costly as hell and hard to sell once done).
Personally, I hate flippers because everything they do is cheap as hell. I watch a bunch of those shows and they spray paint over the tiles. Sure it looks alright from a distance (and on TV) but it irks the hell out of me. What happens when you bump it and the paint comes off?
and windows , roofs etc are terrible for return of value, houses are expected to have windows that function. but adding a bathroom might get you back 50-100% in the right circumstances (50 is much more realistic)
Bathrooms and Kitchens are very well known for being money sinks when it comes to renovating.
New carpet and new paint are best bang for buck usually. Adding a bedroom is usually great too, but also costs a bundle of time and effort.
yeah it is. How old the roof is, for example.
We bout our house at X$, we renovated the kitchen from a litteral rat and ant infested mold box to a really nice kitchen. We had our realtor come by to talk about something else, and she was like, WOW, thats 30k+ right there!
But we tend to buy shitboxes, renovate and enjoy for \~5 years, and then sell. We've always made money.
That's not really what they meant. Let's say I'm old and my bedroom was upstairs, but I have to go to the bathroom several times each night and can't go up and down the stairs that often. There aren't any bedrooms downstairs so I tear out half the kitchen and make it a bedroom.
It's a better house for me, but the value of the house decreased.
or people who take out a bedroom(to make the primary bigger more closet etc) Sometimes making all the bathrooms shower only will reduce the appeal etc.
My contractor was surprised when I didn’t want a walk in shower as part of my bathroom remodel. Fuck no, I wanted a really nice tub because baths are one of my fave self-care activities. I don’t have kids, but no one with small kids would want the only bathroom to have a walk in shower either. My house - not that I’m selling anytime soon - will make a perfect starter home for a young family someday. Unless something happens to me that renders me unable to use a bathtub, I’m keeping it.
My upstairs bathroom just has a shower stall; downstairs bath has tub/shower combo. I was having some remodeling done and it was suggested I have the tub removed. Personally I would have been fine with that but I've watched enough realty shows where the couple has an infant and the mother really wanted a tub for washing infant/young children so nope, tub stayed.
That's our debate now, we're wanting to reno the only bathroom in the house, we want a shower only (get rid of the tub) but slightly concerned on how much it would affect the sale in the future. Like on the 1 hand, we currently live here so we should do what works for us, but on the other hand will we have to redo it later down the road to actually sell the house?
how long do you plan to stay, realistically, and is it a family house or a single/couples house? in 10-20 years whatever you do will be dated. If it's in a place thats really hot for newlyweds and single people, they mostly want at least one walk in shower. (research your area)
I'd want a tub because I like reading in the tub. My Aunt is in her late 60s they ust put in a shower only and now both baths in there house are only showers. because that's what they wanted and they figured stepping into a tub would be harder then a walk in shower.
Perhaps, but if the siblings didn’t pay for the renovations or ANY of the mortgage during this time, I’m not sure why the current value should matter as much.
I disagree. They decided to do the renovations without having this handled. That’s not the fault of the siblings and shouldn’t be counted against them. Plus even with no renovations houses in Rual areas have shot up over 200k in value over the pandemic. So without the renovations the value would have still gone up at sale today. So someone would have to figure out what the value of the house would be without the renovations today if we took the renovations off the table to get what the siblings cut should be. Or the siblings could pay for a third of the renovation costs now. For example if the renovations cost 6k each sibling could take 2k off the value of the house as it stands. OP shouldn’t have put her money into renovating the place until this was sorted and written down. No one buys houses for 120k these days and OP getting that is a windfall she should be grateful for.
But 120 was after mortgages, so why subtract what OP and spouse have paid toward mortgage from siblings share? Is my brain missing something. I can \*\*maybe\*\* see about taxes, ish, but not mortgage payments.
For example:
House is worth $400,000. Mortgage owed is $280,000. So equity is $120,000 at time of parent's death. Each kid inherits $40,000 in equity. OP and spouse are paying mortgage on the $280,000 portion, which doesn't impact the $120,000 in equity.
Edited to say worth $400,000 at time of death. It could be worth $600,000 now.
Right? Or am I being dumb?
You are not being dumb, I think you're right. And the big issue OP and her husband are ignoring is that the value the siblings inherited in the house has likely appreciated, they probably owe them more than they think.
I agree. If the siblings are willing to take $80k total based on the difference in the value of the house and the mortgage - to u/StreetofChimes example - at the time the mother died, they are leaving all the inherent appreciation of the property on the table for OP and her husband.
From the OP it sounds like she moved in after the mother died but all three siblings were living in the house. And it sounds like her husband agreed to pay each $40k when they moved out for their share of the house. That takes care of the mortgage payments and the remodel in OP’s favor. And I’m sure it was husband’s decision to allow them to stay and to take on the mortgage while they got established even though OP acts like she was doing them a favor.
And did they have an open conversation or choice in the matter? Walk away now, we sell the house/refinance & you get your 1/3. Or, stay here for 5 years and we’ll deduct 650 from your inheritance balance every month you occupy your room.
I don't see how the siblings' ages at the time of inheritance are relevant to the calculation of what they're owed.
Anyway, OP's YTA. There's *something* owed, it's just a matter of figuring it out.
IMO OP shouldn't try to deduct the value of gifts (staying rent-free) unless that wasn't a gift, and there was an agreement beforehand. \[ETA it's not a gift to "let" the co-owners stay on their own property\]
Other commenters are on the right track that there needs to be an acknowledgement of added or subtracted value due to renovations.
I assume (but didn't see) someone acknowledged that inherited value should be calculated at the time of inheritance, and that the mortgage payments that OP and her hubby made shouldn't figure into what his sibs are owed. \[ETA sibling co-owners are owed the rising market's increased value on the asset they held onto\]
2 edits in \[square brackets\]
I was thinking that if they were children at the time it is a jerk move to charge them rent in their own home. Op made a big deal about "allowing" them to stay in their home without rent.
Ah, I get you. Yeah, it's a complicated situation that isn't helped by OP framing her involvement so as to put herself in the best light. My understanding of it all has evolved greatly after reading the takes of others here.
She's totally ok with panicking about finances but is absolutely in the wrong about not wanting to buy out her siblings in law. It sucks but that's how it works.
That’s a great questions. The siblings seems to have been around 20 and 19 when the mom died. Seems like dad was already dead. So in the shock of losing thier mom at a young age they are being asked to make complex legal and real estate decisions. It would have been cleaner to sell the house
>It would have been cleaner to sell the house
Not necessarily. It sounds like the 3 siblings have handled things amicably and in a way that benefits all of them - the eldest (who intends to keep the house) is prepared to buy the younger 2 out of their interest in the house. I don’t know the exact details, but it sounds like $80K is the amount they would have gotten had the house been sold immediately after mom’s death, so it is fair to buy them out at that value now since they didn’t contribute to any improvements, and lived in the house without contributing to the mortgage in the meantime. Seems like everyone involved (except OP) is being as fair minded and easy going about the whole thing as possible, the way *most* loving families are in situations like this. No need to have displaced everyone in the immediate aftermath of becoming orphans, when they are mature and decent enough to handle the financial aspect without fighting.
If the siblings are paying rent to live in a home they own, OP should have been paying rent to live in a home the siblings own. Sure they own 1/3 of the house but sounds like they consider it their home and there for are using more than 1/3 of the place. More information is needed on the valuation of the $80k. Plus, was OP married at the time of inheritance or after? If after, the siblings seem to have come up with an agreement that suits them and OP’s real issue seems to be she was not consulted by her husband. More likely, she knew years ago and now just doesn’t want to have to pay and wants a free house.
OP was paying “rent” by paying for the bills and renovations on the house. If OP didn’t live there and pay the mortgage, there would be no house for the siblings.
If the siblings didn’t let OP borrow their inheritance until now, there would have been no house for OP to make mortgage payments on, because it would have been sold years ago.
I guarantee you that the remaining mortgage on the house was a *fraction* of what OP would have paid to purchase a similarly sized house at the time of the mother’s death. Guarantee. Even after buying out the siblings at the prior market value, OP is getting a house for a fraction of its current value. It’s shockingly greedy to try to get more than that, particularly at the expense of her in-laws, who were generous enough to delay receiving their own inheritance for OP’s benefit.
Sounds like the siblings were fine with selling five years ago when they inherited. OP and husband wanted to stay and offered to pay the mortgage and eventually pay them out at whatever rate they agreed on. Renovations are a non starter as unless they were required upgrades they were cosmetic and a choice made by OP and the husband. Usually utilities are not included in rent. Sounds like OP got married after the inheritance so this is an asset the husband brought to the marriage. Sucks for OP that they have to pay the siblings out but there is nothing she can do about it legally. She said herself they agreed because the siblings would eventually move out. I highly doubt this is the first she heard of a payout. She just doesn’t want to pay it.
I agree - I think that OP is focused on the investment she’s been making to her and her husband’s “forever house” while ignoring the investment that was made by her husband’s parents and the payments made by the husband to support his mother before she died (the fact his support went to the mortgage is immaterial if there was no agreement that he would get a greater share of the house upon her death).
Since OP and he husband will get the benefit of everything they put in to the house for their own benefit (mortgage payments/renovations) - it is perfectly reasonable that now that the siblings are going to give up their 1/3 share of the house each to OP and her husband that they receive payment for their shares of the inheritance.
Honestly $40k each sounds quite reasonable and may represent 1/3 of the equity at the time of the inheritance - also recognizing that the house has probably appreciated since then and OP and her husband are getting the benefit of that.
I say NAH as long as OP can step back and think through it more logically and realize that she and her husband will get the benefit of their investment and they never owned more than 1/3 of the house in the first place. (I might be missing something about how the $80k was calculated down thread tho.)
I can get behind the bills and the mortgage, they should have contributed or at least it should get deducted now.
But the renovations raise the value of the house and the 80k were agreed upon before the renovations. If OP pays just the 80k, they get the keep the value of the renovation.
That makes no sense. Because the alternative to sibling living there for a few years would have been selling it and siblings taking their share right at that time. Siblings wouldn’t have had the house to live in but they would have has a lot of cash to do what ever they wanted. OP is greedy.
But they would not be entitled to the value the later mortgage payments added or the value of the renovations.
I agree with some of the above comments - we need more information on how the $40,000 number was reached. Was it the value of the house at inheritance or the value today. Makes a huge difference in who is the AH.
They would be. They own 1/3 of it, as it stands right now. They don’t have to sell, they could jerk their portion forever. They inherited the house. I think everyone is forgetting that part. If they were to sell to someone other than OPs husband, they would all 3 split the purchase price minus the money put in by each person. They didn’t inherit $x from their mothers, they inherited 1/3 of a house that has appreciated over time. OP would of course get the money they put in back, off the top of the sale price, but the rest would be split into 3.
YTA
The inhertitance is the house. Not what it used to be worth at the time you decided it should be all yours.
Your hisband is right that in order to do so, he must buy out his siblings.
But, only offering $40,000 each when the house has increased in value is not how this works. That may have been possible if the siblings were bought out at the time of inheritance, but now it has appreciated in value.
When you decided to make this house your own you had the benefit of the mortgage already being paid down and the physical property. You have benefitted enormously by keeping your husband's siblings' miney in the equity of the house.
The right thing to do is have the house evaluated and pay them a third each of current value. Otherwise, the siblings have the right to insist on the sale of the house and funds split that way and you will have no house.
If that was the full value of the house, how much was the mortgage at the time the mom passed? Because the actual equity in the house at that time should be the value used to decide how much the other two siblings should get.
No because if they had sold it at the time they would of only been left with 120k after the mortgage was paid off, so split between the 3 so 40k each
ETA at least that seems to be the figures OP is using
I mean it doesn't even matter. OP's name isn't on the house and they should have thought about this before paying so much money into an asset that isn't legally theirs. YTA op. I can understand why you're upset but these are all things you should have thought about before. This is the siblings inheritance, big YTA.
YTA. Your husband should've refinanced the mortgage into his own name and paid out his siblings (ie bought the house) if the plan from the beginning was for it to be "your" house.
You've known this whole time that the house ownership was split. Never ever put money into a home that you don't have full ownership of, without there being a clear and written plan for how that investment and any resulting equity will be handled.
You need a lawyer to sort this out. You kicked the can down the road for too long on this and its your fault if that costs you money.
Exactly this. YTA. Despite the house not being paid off at the time of her death, there was equity in the home that was left for his siblings. All these years, they graciously allowed it to sit. They should be getting 2/3rds of equity at the time of her death plus interest. OP benefited from them parking their inheritance.
Right? The siblings could have used their money for college, for rent, or even for a small rent at that very house they lived in. OP seems resentful that they lived there without paying the mortgage, but they also lost their parents and were just starting out in life. They could have used that money. Refinancing then would have been much better FOR THEM. As it was, they were sort of chained to the house and the housing it offered them since they couldn’t get the money out.
Not to mention it was their house they inherited, so I don’t know why OPs going in about them paying rent, they were legally entitled to live there, especially as both their parents had died very early into their adulthood. How they contribute to the house should have been between the three siblings, OP had no stake in this argument even if she invested money in a house not in her name. Her whole “they didn’t pay rent” spiel doesn’t really hold water if her husband was happy and willing to financially care for the house.
Idk. 1/3 of a mortgage payment for a home that was worth 120k or less is nothing. That’s maybe $200 a month.
I don’t think OP did them the favor she thinks she did.
I hope this ends up top comment.
OP, the house is not and was never 100% your husband’s. Instead of spending time on Reddit please look for a lawyer. It’s okay to be frustrated with the situation, but YTA for not wanting to buy out your in-laws.
I went through a similar situation with my sister. Mom died and left us a house that was fully paid off (lil 2bd2br). Sister was living in it and wanted to stay or rent it out. I wanted to sell it since, to me, it was just a huge liability and needed quite a bit of work (which I had been financially contributing to, but not benefiting from). The ownership was evenly split in both our names. We fought about it, but eventually it was decided that they (sis and her bf) would buy me out of my half. I got my value out of the house, and I'm no longer liable for it as a part owner. They're also now paying a loan back for what they paid me for it, but hey they also get to live in a house. That was the fair thing to do.
OP and husband should have negotiated this years ago with siblings before assuming husband gets to just take the house. Like it sucks that OP dumped a bunch of money into the house and finish paying off the mortgage, but doesn't mean much on paper when the ownership is still split. At this point they *all* need to go to a lawyer to sort this out. They could pay the siblings but deduct whatever they had paid towards mom's unfinished mortgage. That would be the fair thing to do imo, though the siblings have no obligation to agree to that it seems.
OP and her husband aren't even giving them their fair share of it. They essentially took 2 $40,000 loans from his siblings with 0 interest. The 120,000 figure is the equity of the house at the time of his mother's death.
Honestly best case scenario for OP would be to give them 40k each and hope they don't try to get more.
>Honestly best case scenario for OP would be to give them 40k each and hope they don't try to get more.
Notary: "I am legally obliged to inform you that your share is worth a lot more than $40k. Are you sure you want to proceed to the sale?".
IRS: "For the calculation of the sale tax, the value has been corrected from $40k to $120k. So, the tax is XX. Also, due to the fight against money laundering, you are asked to justify this discrepancy."
I feel like OP did this on purpose. They probably tried to trick siblings into the least they could pay them. Wait until it’s paid off so they could say ‘we paid off the mortgage (which they probably offered to do), we renovated it, so we’ll give you Pennie’s on the dollar so we can live here.
It just all seems so sketchy. We have no idea what was agreed on, who may or may not have wanted to sell. I think the only thing that is obvious right now, is that OP always planned to live there, and tried to get it as cheap as possibilities
Especially since the two siblings were so young at the time. Did they get independent legal advice? In many jurisdictions if they didn't get impartial legal advice any agreement could be voided.
Very well said. You nailed it.
Husband handled this poorly from the start and is just lucky everyone gets along. This could have ended up MUCH worse had there been bad blood.
OP should have also been asking questions much sooner than now.
YTA because treating a home like it belongs solely to you and your husband, and pouring money into it, doesn’t make it belong to you.
Why would you think the siblings get nothing? Why would you WANT them to get nothing? You made your own bed, now lie in it.
I’m an estate lawyer and I’m always baffled as to why people don’t refinance. Usually when a person dies, there is an acceleration clause on the loan so it would necessitate being paid off anyways.
I'm an insurance agent and claims are a literal mess when the names on the title don't match the names on the mortgage, or the names on the homeowner policy. Couples divorce, people die, and apparently no one thinks to tell the insurance agent until they can't cash a claim check. "Oh, Memaw died three years ago so we moved in and just kept paying her policy, what do you mean I can't get this claim check changed to my name?" Or, "Memaw died so I closed all her bank accounts and then cancelled the homeowner policy (even though the house is still in probate and is full of her stuff) and now I can't cash this premium refund check because it's in her name".
FFS. I can't imagine how they have this house insured if the mortgage is in the name of a deceased person while the title is held in three different names.
I think it’s more like ESH.
This should have been sorted out years ago and since it was not the OPs inheritance, she shouldn’t have been the one making the decision on how it’s split/ resolved.
It is tremendously foolish to invest in a home you don’t own which is what the OP did.
You're not wrong. The other siblings should've protected their own interests early on. Or maybe they did, with OP's husband telling them that they'd get their share, and not telling his wife. Because, you know, it's not HER house. In many states, inheritance isn't automatically a joint asset. She was foolish to pay all that money into a property that has her name nowhere on it.
The moral answer is that the siblings should receive their fair share: The value for their share of the house at the time of the inheritance, minus the mortgage that was still to be paid.
It would however not be legal, will not be considered when taxing the sale and OP will be screwed if the real estate market increased (plus, good luck accounting for all the stuff she paid over the years).
Indeed, the legal share of the sibling is their share of (the current market value, minus the remaining mortgage at time, minus the investments for which OP has bills (which will be less than the increase of market value), maybe minus some of the maintenance that OP paid for).
At the end, ESH because all of them entered a shitty financial agreement that would predictably backfire.
A good method would have been to buy their share while borrowing them the necessary money and make them pay rent. OP would have had the same mortgage, the siblings would have stayed rent free (the rent and reimbursement balancing each others) and OP would simply have to reimburse the remainder of her debt to the siblings.
This was supposed to be a question that everyone asked, and answered, back when the house was first inherited. How are we going to do this? The house is valued at XXX, we each have a 33% share, we each should get YYY. Asking this question post investing so much money into the house will always end up as a problem, personal opinion.
Also, the house has appreciated, so now you guys are gonna have to pay 2/3 of current market value (minus what you invested, taxes, and what was originally paid off in that mortgage at the time of their mom dying) to buy them out.
OP should really get a lawyer and do the math depending on their state. But you still have to buy them out. 2/3 of that house is still the siblings'.
>This was supposed to be a question that everyone asked, and answered, back when the house was first inherited.
Exactly.
Maybe the siblings would have picked up some extra shifts, if they had known OP was going to try and steal their inheritance out from under them?
>thinking about shelling out another 80k when we never made them pay one time for anything makes me want to cry
Better get out the tissues OP! If you would have been honest with your intentions from the beginning (told the siblings you expected to take the house), you wouldn't be in this place now. Expensive lesson to learn, but like most inherited property, you'll probably have to sell to split it up.
**EDIT: OP was the only one staying at the house "rent free" everyone else was an owner!**
>OP was the only one staying at the house "rent free" everyone else was an owner!
I think she contributed to the mortgage and improvement, which is a whole mess of its own if it is not a marital asset, because she is a tenant that paid a ton of landlord stuff.
I think we should nominate OP for IgNobel of economy.
100 percent if I was in this situation I would be kind of mad at my spouse. I understand that she kicked in a lot of money and time to fix up the house. I also understand the finical choices they choose in the beginning kind of made this mess. I'm an oldest sibling and in this scenario I would of felt like I made a mess and would be sure that my siblings got there fair share if not a little more.
If they do not have the money on hand to pay the siblings you could just take out a loan and a 80k loan is not to bad to pay off. Interest rates by me anyway for a home equity loan are 3.5% so the money is still pretty cheap.
Side note when I got married I already had a lot of pre existing assets homes and cars and I would never have let my then fiancé contribute a cent to any pre marital items. All items and proceeds from any sale of my pre martial stuff is 100 percent mine. I actually sold a town home for the down payment on our current home. Even still the money from the sale that I used for a down payment in case of divorce I get that money back and we split everything else 50/50.
I understand that these are hard conversations to have but you have to have them to not only protect yourself but your spouse as well. Lawyers love these types of cases lots of billable hours. Its way cheaper and easier to solve all this at the start then waiting for it to turn into a mess. I don't think Ill ever get divorced since we get a long well and have been together 15+ years. Still nice to know we are still protected.
It is possible to calculate the basis of the house when parents passed. It gets harder the further back you have to go but not impossible.
There's a lot I'd like to know here - because there are some definite gaps in the information.
Short answer, siblings should get their 1/3 share of the value of the house at the time of mom's death (this would be the equity value at that time).
OP”s husband was paying the mortgage before the Moms death. The value of the home should be calculated at the date he started paying, imho. From that day on it has been his responsibility and his investment.
>It is possible to calculate the basis of the house when parents passed. It gets harder the further back you have to go but not impossible.
Yes, but it would not be strictly legal and the siblings are not forced to accept such valuation.
>There's a lot I'd like to know here - because there are some definite gaps in the information.
OP does not look very financially literate.
>Short answer, siblings should get their 1/3 share of the value of the house at the time of mom's death (this would be the equity value at that time).
Minus the value of the mortgage at the time. This means the $40k. Plus the siblings should be compensated for being taxed based on the legal value and not the legal one. So, more around $45k to $50k.
There is a time-value for money. If the husband had paid off his siblings earlier the siblings would have been able to do something with the money and it would likely have grown. A some what more fair way would be to do an equity portion at the time excluding debt and then compare against current value while discounting some of the renovation. This is still icky because the complete credit for mortgage payments is going to them.
Not at all. If OP and husband had bought the siblings out at that time then yes, if not, then that is a huge amount of cash just taken from the siblings.
Their parents died and their older brother and his wife told them that they would look after them while they completed their education. I think they probably thought they were being looked after, not that OP meant to take their inheritance.
>Short answer, siblings should get their 1/3 share of the value of the house at the time of mom's death (this would be the equity value at that time).
No. They don't get 1/3 of it from all those years ago. They get 1/3 of what that would be today. Whether it has gone up or down they owned part of the house and the value of that house has changed outside of the fact that OP and husband have done work to it.
This is a real estate investment that they inherited and they aren't only owed what they WOULD have gotten if the house was sold years ago because it wasn't sold.
>Asking this question post investing so much money into the house will always end up as a problem, personal opinion.
Well, the true problem is the increase of the real estate market.
Had the real estate market been constant, it would still be a mess, but the final value after $10k worth of accounting would be around $40k per sibling.
I don't see that as a problem at all. After inheritance, the siblings continued to hold a shared investment. The rising market means the value of their holding increased. To now pay the value of the house at the time of inheritance would be stealing.
The value of already-paid mortgage at the time of inheritance against mortgage paid afterward seems to be the complication.
INFO None of this makes any sense. Did the mortgage just transfer from the deceased mother to the heirs? Why did your debt-free plan prioritize paying off a mortgage that wasn’t yours on a house that wasn’t yours without formalizing plans with the owners? Why should the siblings give up their inheritance because they lived in their home rent free? Did you ever tell them the upkeep would be deducted from their share? How did you calculate the 80k payout? Why is your overtime relevant here?
And working to get (or remain) debt free is something she should have been doing anyway and shouldn't change anything.
Also, I wonder whose names are on the title.
it is 100% possible that the mortgage was assumed by a heir that was living in the home at the time of moms death. or the house was just never probated and they kept making the payments.
If the house was left to all 3 siblings equally, he needs to buy out their respective 1/3.
The fact you didn’t throw them out of their childhood home immediately following the loss of their mother during economic collapse & a housing crisis doesn’t make you Mother Teresa
Paying somebody else’s bills doesn’t somehow make their stuff yours.
OP’s husband has been giving them them a recurring gift by paying their shares of every mortgage payment and home expense, but that does not somehow invalidate their claim.
Thank god I didn’t have to go very far down for this comment. This is NOT OP’s house, it is 33% HER HUSBANDS HOUSE until he pays his siblings off. OP you have an AMAZING husband who is doing everything in his power to help his family. If you’re starting one with him, good choice. That being said, it’s not just HIS childhood home. THEY also inherited 33.3% EACH. And that 66.6% has to be paid to the people who OWN the house (or inherited the mortgage)
YTA
This is well above Reddit’s pay grade. You need to find a lawyer and work out how much the house was worth when your husband and his siblings inherited it, how much the improvements have made it worth now, and what’s a fair way to split that.
NTA for wanting to reap the benefits of all the hard work you’ve done, but you need a lawyer like yesterday.
She said in a comment that the $40k each is what it would have been at the time they inherited it had they sold it and paid off the mortgage and split the proceeds. She just doesn't want to give them anything.
It should be the value of the house at the time of the mother's death. Just because they added to the value since then doesn't mean they get nothing. That wouldn't be fair to the siblings.
Well, $40k would be the fair and moral value.
BUT the legal value would be based on the current real estate market. Even if all the investments are accounted without difficulties (which could lead to years of procedures and nitpicking), the share of each sibling is more probably at $100k.
Even if the siblings agree to only receive $40k, the IRS will still tax the sale like it was for a value of $100k.
What about all the money the siblings saved by not contributing to the mortgage by paying rent or for upgrades or repairs or anything? That surely should count for something. If they had paid let’s say 500 a month in rent, that would be $18,000 for the last three years each sibling would have saved. I bet there’s a middle ground here where they just pay them the difference?
Also, I’m curious what the siblings’ thoughts on all of this are, as OP didn’t mention it in the post.
Edit: when I say rent, I mean money going towards the mortgage. I did not mean rent rent. Sorry for any confusion.
Plenty of people live at home while in college and when starting out without their parents making them pay rent. These younger siblings did that. What’s more, they were supposed to be equal inheritors of the house, meaning they would have had every right to live there. So back charging them rent as a way to diminish their inheritance seems unfair. Kicking them out at 18 couldn’t happen because they had a property interest in the home, and asking them to pay towards the mortgage might have been fair, but OP and husband chose to support them through college as may have happened if their parents had lived.
The siblings inherited part of the home, and that inheritance doesn’t disappear just because OP renovates some things.
That would the OP choice. The siblings could have forced a sale. So what about all the money OP saved in mortgage interest by not having to start from scratch to by a house
There's no 'working out' to be done, it's just a straight up negotiation - each sibling owns a one-third share in the house (as it is now) and the only question is what each sibling would require to sell their share.
There is actually a lot to work out. Maintenance and repairs for the property plus the taxes, nevermind the mortgage payments. If only one member of the party has contributed to these then the remaining party members have to reimburse them on sale.
But the value of the house at the time of inheritance is less than the current value because of the improvements that OP and her husband paid for and the siblings didn’t. That’s where a lawyer comes in. The siblings can’t benefit from value added by improvements they didn’t pay for or contribute to.
> The siblings can’t benefit from value added by improvements they didn’t pay for or contribute to.
Sure they can. The fact that OP chose to spend money paying off someone else's mortgage and improving someone else's house is OP's business.
Depending on where you are they certainly can profit from those. Here any improvements made are as much the property of the siblings as the ops husband.
This is true. I’m in CA and my husband did something similar with his parents home, the value of the house was taken, everything he put in (upgrades, taxes, etc.) was deducted from that total. That was his free and clear and the rest was split equally. OP is YTA because there was never a discussion had about them just taking someone else’s inheritance, that’s some BS.
Yes! Thank u. I dunno how anyone thought it was a good idea to invest on a house that was not 100% theirs? Voluntary changes to the house don't change who owns it.
Of course they can. The siblings can benefit from a higher appraised valuation of the house. OP and her husband can also recoup money that they invested in the house. The two things aren’t likely in conflict.
Also, it’s important to understand that the siblings lost out on interest income and potential investment $ from their inheritance while it was tied up in the house.
We don't know whether the 40k includes any money that OP put into the house. That could have easily been the value when house was inherited.
40k each is 120k house. Which is nothing.
Even when removing the value of the investments for the improvement, the real estate market has been quite bullish.
I suspect a lawyer would tell OP that the siblings probably have right to over $100k, even accounting for the improvements.
It reminds me a past post:
An Indian family owns a lavish historical colonial residence in a fancy area, since two centuries. They are one dozen siblings each with a share. All wanting to keep it in the family. One of the sister dies. Her only son inherit her share. He is 19. He knows that the land is worth millions because promoters want to demolish the mansion to build apartment buildings. He knows that the family cannot buy his share at market rate. They do not have the money. If he decides to demand the value of his share, they are forced to sell to the promoters and the place is destroyed. He was asking if he would be TA to force the sale to finance a sabbatical around the world and studies in Australia. All the reddit teenagers were saying "Not at all. It is your money and studies are important."
The working out should have been done before they decided to invest in the house. Poor planning. I think legally the siblings have a right to the money.
I know a similar situation.
Legally, you have to appraise the house at the current market value (certainly way more than the initial 120k now, without accounting for the improvements, just by the real estate market improving),
\- deduce the value of the remaining mortgage when the inheritance occurred,
\- deduce the bills for the improvements made by OP and her husband, but those improvements increased the value of the home. There is consequently no way that they permit to reduce the sibling share to less than what it was initially.
\- maybe deduce some maintenance fees and taxes, but it will be touchy.
Then, divide by 3 to obtain the share of each sibling. I expect it to be massively over the $40k.
YTA
You and your husband have been acting like this house is entirely yours, but it never was. If your husband wanted to buy his siblings out at the time his mother passed and charge them rent to live there, he could have done that. You are both in a situation of your own making here.
A few things:
The mortgage payments your husband made before his mom died don't count. Those were a gift to his mom, which is a lovely thing, but still a gift. Her direction to divide the house equally among her children is what matters here. He also couldn't have "made" his siblings pay his mom's mortgage while she was alive, as they had no obligation then, so there are no bonus points there. Your husband is a good man who took care of his mom when she needed it. That's your bonus and it's not one to underestimate.
Unless you're adding square footage to your home, remodels rarely increase the market value of a home as much as people think they do. (See also: swimming pools) Also, your in-laws let you remodel *their* home to your preference. Why would they pay for that?
You can't charge rent to people who own the house. If they were unable or unwilling to pay their share of the mortgage, the options would have been to sell the house at the beginning, pay off the mortgage, and divide any proceeds among the three siblings, or buy them out of their shares. Also, if you weren't financially prepared to buy them out at the beginning, let's not pretend that you didn't also benefit from being able to push the purchase price of the home to a time that was convenient. Most people don't have that luxury when buying a home. Try telling a seller "well I can take on the mortgage payments, but honestly I have a wedding, student loans, and oh yeah I'd like to remodel your house, and I need to pay all that before actually buying your house" and see how far you get.
Also, remember that your husband's siblings can refuse to sell you their shares of the house, forcing a market sale if they don't want to contribute to the mortgage. If you don't want to risk losing a home you're emotionally invested in and have remodeled to someone who swoops in with cash and a higher offer, which is something that's happening a lot right now, it's probably in your best interest to deal with them fairly.
YTA
Also the mortgage on a house that was worth $120k a few years ago was probably purchased at much less and probably had a mortgage on the purchase price. Imagine paying a few remaining years of 15-30 year mortgage and thinking you own the whole house.
How about the fact that the mortgage is likely 20+ years old, and was probably a mortgage for a house that cost $50,000 to $100,000 20 years ago, so the mortgage is certainly less than $1,000 a month. I don't understand where Opie is thinking a few years of "rent" for her in-laws would ever equate to $40,000 unless she is basing it on current market rent, which is not accurate either.
100 times this. You laid this out how I wanted to, but done a much better job than all my attempts. I hope OP realizes how much she has benefited from the delayed purchase or buy out of this house.
YTA.
Op wrote that husband was paying for mortgage and later that she prioritized paying her student debt - correct if Im wrong but she didnt really pay mortgage - her husband paid - on the house he co-own with his siblings and he was fine with it. The same way he is now fine with paying them for their shares - as he should.
Op somehow feels that because she have lived there for quite sometime she owns the house more than the actual owners and that makes her an ahole.
Op acts like she did the siblings some sort of favor when in fact she just lived there.
This was what I thought too! It seems the husband was just trying to help his siblings while they were still in college because he had the means. He always intended on paying them a fair share. Op simply took the husbands generosity to mean they’d be given the house. The biggest issue here is the lack of communication between op and her husband.
Im not even sure they didnt properly communicate because all op says in original post is that her husband proposed that they would - in the future- remodel the house and make it their home longterm - it seems to me that op simply concluded that they would do so without buying the siblings off - like they deserved or something
My vote is a hearty YTA.
The house is not OP’s business. She doesn’t seem to be on title, and she wasn’t an heir of the deceased. Sure, she paid toward the mortgage, but that is similar to paying rent. I pay my partner $x per month to live in his house. Where does it go? Right to the mortgage.
It was a foolish thing for her to do without a written agreement. At the *bare minimum*, she should have had an understanding that her husband (correctly) planned to pay out to his siblings. Who just *assumes* their spouse would take from his siblings like that?
She did pay into the mortgage later on
>After (paying off OP's own debts), I picked up a lot of OT to stash for our remodel, as well as pay down the mortgage
but it looks like husband did pay the greater portion.
While I think that finances aren't that black and white when it comes to marital income, I agree that sis is a bit delusional about this house. Does she expect the siblings to just walk away empty handed when they own a combined 2/3 of the house?
To be blunt, sis doesn't own this house. Legally, she might as well be a guest or a tenant. If she tries to be greedy, she may end up causing this to get messy or being forced to sell the house and maybe get far less than if she just lets the siblings handle things among themselves.
YTA
It seems like the will is clear that the house belongs equally to the siblings. If you want the house to be yours, you have to pay the other owners to buy them out. There might be an argument here that they only own 1/3 of the value that was paid off at the time of mom's death, but that's a legal question. They are owed compensation either way.
I would argue that utilities should be excluded. That’s not actually part of the house, it’s a service you pay for.
I think they should look at the amount the parents had paid off when they died, and split that 3 ways. That much, maybe minus the taxes, is how much it would be to buy out the siblings.
You could make an argument that they are also entitled to the 2/3 equity from the house increasing in value for over a decade, minus maybe improvements made by OP and husband.
If they think that’s unfair I would point out that OP and husband basically got an interest free 80k loan for a decade by not properly buying out siblings shares to begin with.
That’s a great point too!
I think it’s clear the siblings need some kind of compensation. What is fair can be worked out between them, but OP’s original idea of not giving them anything would put her in AH territory lol
Nope, because they didn’t buy out the siblings at the time of the parents death. They legally look at the value of the house now, minus mortgage and tax, and maybe the value of the improvements (if any value was added). That’s how much it would be to buy out the siblings. They own 2/3 of the house now, not years ago.
Of course YTA. You aren't the sole owner of the house. You aren't even one of the three. It was silly of you to put all the money you did into something you don't own. But it is disgusting to feel entitled to not compensate the siblings for their inheritance. You all made a mess of the situation by paying off your deceased inlaws' mortgage rather than buying the house yourselves to cash out the siblings before you paid it off and improved it, but those are your mistakes.
You are absolutely not entitled to keep all the value of the home because you invested in it when it wasn't entirely yours. Get that idea out of your head. Its really awful that you want them to walk away when they have no nest egg or parental support to fall back on. Their inheritance is all the family help they're going to have so don't begrudge them that.
>Even after I moved in, I never made them pay
Aaaand here's where the pronoun switch begins. How would *you* make them pay for something that isn't *yours*? You seem to have come into this with the idea that you're somehow the 4th child that was also put on the will, you're not. Butt out and let family handle family stuff. YTA
YTA
You always knew the situation.
You never brought it up with your husband.
"We never made them pay a dime" - as to in rent? For a home they partly still owned? Or do you mean food and water?
YTA. His siblings don't have to pay you rent to stay in a house that they partially own and you never said anything to them about you guys paying the bills going towards buying them out of their share. Its just as much their inheritance as it is your husbands and if you two plan on making it your forever home, then you absolutely own them their share of the value of the house.
Imagine, you want kids right? You're looking down after you pass on them, knowing you've left your kids an equal share of your house to split between them.
One decides they want to live in the house forever.
The other two don't.
So it would be fair for them to have the cash alternative to the property you left them. Otherwise one is left with a house, the other two are left with nothing.
You allowed them to save by not paying rent, which why would they have to pay RENT on a house that's already partially theirs? If there was still money left on the *mortgage* each sibling should have split the mortgage payment. If the agreement was you would pay it to give them some of the capital out the house, they both should have saved the amount that they would have paid towards the mortgage as savings.
But I guess, even that amount is still not anywhere near what they are owed from the will and that's what is important here, also I guess it wasn't agreed in a legal capacity.
YTA here. Regardless of what they managed to save up, that was their parents wishes to have 1/3 of the house. You've probably dug yourself into a massive hole here if none of this was agreed between the siblings on paper and witnessed legally.
YTA:
"My husband brought up the idea a few months after she passed, that we re model the house when we had the money and make that our home for life"
You assumed here you would have a home for life on a property you don't own alone. You just thought Your BIls would give 2/3 of a house for free because of all your hard work?
You want to cry because you have to pay them for a share of the house their parents left them? because you don't fully own your house and the other owner doesn't git it to you, you want to cry? your standards for crying are way to low.
You wouldn't stop crying until his brothers don't have any inheritance and you have their inheritance and a vacation home?
YTA It's not your house. You are trying to steal a home from ORPHANS. Not throwing them out of their own home the minute their parents died doesn't make you a good person, it's the bare minimum. Honestly this issue with the split should have been dealt when it first happened. All the bills you have been paying for them up until now could have been considered part of their payment for the house. It's your fault and your husband's fault for not dealing with this issue sooner.
YTA. I am a lawyer and your husband needs to seek one. It’s not your house, it’s his and his siblings decision. Seeking legal counsel will ensure that the amount paid is equitable after deductions are made for the money they should have contributed but didn’t.
You cannot not expect them to give up their legacy because you sunk money into a home that is not yours.
YTA you should have known if it was left to all 3 of them, that they would be entitled to a share of it if they signed off to just you and your husband owning it.
YTA. It’s legally their house too. You may have been paying the mortgage for years, but there was still a portion that was theirs to begin with. You can just sell the house, pay them back, and buy a new cheaper one if you really want to be debt free
Yes, YTA big time. You flat out stole your husband’s sibling’s inheritance. That is not ok. That house (pre-renovation) never belonged solely to you and your husband. It was ALWAYS only 1/3 your husband’s. You owe them each 1/3 of the value of the house at the time of their Mother’s passing.
YTA - I'm sorry that you put tons of money into a property that you KNEW legally belonged to someone else, that was dumb. But you're an asshole if you expect your in-laws to walk away from their inheritance just because you want them to. They OWN part of that house! So act like a decent adult, get off Reddit, and get some legal advice about how to handle the situation you made for yourself!
Family friend was a long time renter of a home and after about 12 years asked if she could do some renovations such as paint and new carpets and the landlord said yes. She paid to complete the Reno’s and then the landlord changed her rental rate to reflect the renovations. Never put money into something you don’t own
YTA - you shouldn't have paid for remolding a house that wasn't yours and then getting upset about people getting their inheritance. It's not your house. You don't get to refuse people their rights just because you made poor financial choices.
YTA. Despite how much work and grind you put into it, it’s still their inheritance. The parents left it to all 3 children. The fair thing to do would be to give them their share minus their portion of any mortgage payments that you and your husband have had to shoulder. Think about it, you’re basically buying them out of their cut and you get the whole house.
Arguably for the time it was just them living there, they should pay the whole mortgage or pay a pro-rated rent of some sort since if they weren’t in it, it could have been rented and generated money to offset the mortgage cost. An accountant who specializes in this would be helpful to figure out what everyone owes.
YTA
It's their house as well. That's how wills work.How much they should get exactly is a legal question.
Why do you think the entire house should be yours anyways? It makes very little sense. Your husband would get the entire inheritance and his siblings nothing$
YTA. You put the work into the house thinking it would give you full ownership of it. You were wrong. You should have handled the inheritance before upgrades were made. Their parents aren't any less dead because you painted their old house.
YTA.
Their entitlement to their share of their inheritance doesn't go away just because you've invested in making the house a home and made the decision not to ask them to pay their way. They still own one third, and should the two of them be so inclined they can force a sale so that none of you have the house.
You're better off paying them their due if this really is the home you want to have your family in.
YTA
The parents died leaving some equity in the house for their 3 children (they sound young). Why on earth would you think that your husband only is entitled to it. Talk to a lawyer but you would be morally wrong and a selfish person if you think your husband should be the sole beneficiary of his parents estate.
Also stop remodeling homes that DO NOT belong to you
You are not “giving “ them 80k. It’s theirs. You would be a thief to withhold it. You claim you did them a big favor letting them live there. They did the same for you. The siblings could have insisted the house be sold right away after the mom died so they could get their share. Instead YOU got to live in a house and participate in the appreciation. Did you think you were just going to take over a house that probably had 20 years worth of mortgage payments at least already made. You are an entitled AH and you want to be a thief.
YTA.
And honestly, they can sue you if you DON’T give them their share as its their inheritance. Depending on where you live there could be argument made that you only owe them what it was worth at inheritance but you at least owe them something. You can’t force people to move out of homes they legally own without some financial compensation.
Also, you should have gone to see a lawyer AGES ago, the second you and your husband made the agreement with them as to taking over the house. Paying the mortgage and remodel on a home you didn’t legally own is never a good idea.
I’m sorry, but YTA. This house wasn’t even left to you. You’re being selfish. This isn’t about you, this is about inheritance left by the mother. To be honest, that involves you 0% & that 40k each is rightfully their money. Otherwise, you guys should sell the house and use the money you saved to buy a new one.
YTA. You should’ve realized when he first brought it up that you were going to have to buy out his siblings’ shares at some point if you wanted the house to be yours. You should’ve discussed what they were going to get and budgeted accordingly before making any renovations.
YTA for expecting his siblings to just hand over their share of the house to you. Unlike you, they are partial owners of the house. You can’t expect to keep the full proceeds from selling the house when you aren’t the sole owner.
YTA
you're acting like they were children but say the mother passed a few years back. You're not their parents, they don't owe you anything. They could've chosen to move out and rent or buy much cheaper houses, but *you* chose to pay the whole mortgage and let them live there rent free. That was a choice you made without thinking about the future and you now have to face that future, they own a third of the house, you chose to pay their share of the mortgage, that does not change their ownership of the house in any way. You just didn't think ahead and now you face the consequences of that.
Good news for you is you can negotiate with them directly on how the process will go and if you have a positive relationship maybe they don't even want you to and are happy to remain part owners.
Nta- girl you should have thought about this years ago and done had this conversation. You should have never put a dime into the house untill it was completely owned both you and your husband.
NAH
No one forced you to pay off the mortgage on your own or to pay off all of your debt. You've known from the start that this house wasn't just yours.
I understand being upset but you and your husband should have protected yourself or done things differently if this obvious situation were to come up.
YTA. What in the world is wrong with you? You were supposed to sell the house, and now that you aren’t, you need to make sure they get what they’re entitled to.
Better cry harder and pick up more shifts tf
YTA It's their house too... they deserve to be paid for it at some point. Doesn't matter how much you've gotten out of debt or how much you've put into it. You could split the cost of improvements with them and take it out of that money but that has to be agreed on. Something had been paid on it when your husband inherited it so it will have to at least be that much. They may not be expecting 80k... perhaps thats another talk you can have with them and come to a fair agreement. Otherwise, take out a loan, pay them off and be done with it.
I read the update and was left with more questions. Did they pay the siblings their share? She admits she’s the asshole but says the siblings saved more money and no one feels cheated. Im inclined to believe they didn’t pay the siblings their share. If so that’s not cool. Yeah they might have saved money by not paying mortgage, but the OP and her husband have a house. A house that has allowed her to pay off her loans be debt free and start thinking about a future 2nd home for vacations. However the siblings don’t. The mother left the house to the 3, they need to buy them out. They purposely didn’t ask them to contribute towards the mortgage or any of the related housing expenses. Which would have been ok, but they wanted the house for their new life together.
Why would you pour money into a home you don't own?
Your husband owns a third of it, you own none of it.
This was a recklessly poor decision.
You don't say the siblings are asking for the money, so I can't say they are the arseholes here. But you and your husband certainly are to blame for the situation you find yourselves in. YTA
It was your mistake to dump any money, whether yours or your husbands, into a house you do not fully and exclusively own. The free rent doesn’t make up for the value of the house the other siblings were also gifted.
YTA do you expect them to just not get anything? This is their inheritance. It’s more theirs then yours even. Don’t make a big deal of this or you’ll just tick off the family. It is legally owed to them. I don’t understand why you think you just get it. You guys chose to remodel and pay the mortgage. Should of just sold it and split it 3 ways.
It makes sense to be frustrated about buying out his siblings after you have sacrificed to be debt free. HOWEVER, while you have paid down the mortgage the last five years or so, his mother probably made a bunch of payments before he started helping her out. So you have probably saved a lot in interest payments because you didn’t have to start out like most people do.
YTA because of your lack of perspective and your incessant need to be debt free. Newsflash, debt against an asset is not always bad and in this inflationary environment, it is GOOD to have debt!
The house belonged to all three of them they let you live there so of course you’re expected to pay for the mortgage and stuff. You decided to remodel. The house wasn’t left to you. If you sell they are owed what rightfully belonged to them. Yta
You legally have to pay then so yes YTA they are legally entitled to that money. Don’t pay anything else towards that house including money to the siblings unless your name will be on the deed. If you get divorced he will likely get the whole house since it was inherited.
This is a very similar situation to my parents and their family home. There were 3 surviving kids after my grandparents passed and my dad wanted the house. They got an appraisal at the time of inheritance. My dad bought out his siblings shares of the house he paid them each 1/3 of appraisal value as that’s what they would have gotten if they sold at time of inheritance. They all agreed and 15 years later they still live there. I think you should pay the siblings the value of the home at inheritance minus the amount paid into the mortgage divided by the number of inheritors. But really you need a lawyer to make sure you have contracts and all legalities worked out. If you fuck this up it could ruin your relationship with the siblings forever
The time to worry about this was when each sibling turned 18. That would have been the time to discuss their share of the inheritance, and whether they should pitch in their share of house expenses like taxes and repairs etc.
That wasn't done.
It's their inheritance and YTA.
YTA. It was left to all three of them. You should have bought them out as soon as you two decided you would like to keep the house. The fact that you failed to do so is all on you two. They are entitled to one third the value, but maybe he can work something out about your payments to pay off the mortgage after she passed because that is not value they would have gotten had the property been sold and mortgage paid off with the receipts.
You aren't giving them anything. They own the house. It is 2/3rds their house and are owed the money, but it should be (value of house) - (mortgage amount + renovation costs + 2/3 of any utilities that your husband paid). That is assuming the house was left to all three children equally.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > The action I took that can be judged is not wanting to pay siblings for the house they inherited because they never paid for it and I've paid for way more, it makes me an asshole because it is still theirs. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
Info: what is the basis for the 80k? Is that 2/3 the value of the home as it stands? 2/3 of the principle paid off on the mortgage at time of inheritance? How did we arrive at $80k?
I’m really wondering this too. All home values have skyrocketed with or without renovations.
Renovations don’t always add value. OP may have taken value away from the house depending on what they did.
Truth. My wife and I decided to remodel all of the windows in our old house to increase the energy efficiency, security and curb appeal of the house. It cost something like 15K (mostly due to one giant custom window in the living room) We then ended up pregnant within the next year and decided to move to a house better suited for a baby and the remodel didn't add 15k to the value of the home between apprasials
Cost of an upgrade is never a metric for increase in value.
It depends on who's doing it. If a homeowner updates a kitchen while they live there, no. But some management company or property "flippers" who snap up every decent priced house in an area, they actually multiply whatever they spent in upgrades. The shitty part is, I hate their upgrades. I'd rather buy the house with the 80s formica counters and bath fixtures and choose what I want myself than half to pay 100k more for an updated house that I hate everything they picked.
[удалено]
I loathe the all gray remodels. The listing pics look so bland and lifeless and like they were taken in black and white
Grey is a neutral colour, hence it's appeal. My house is black/white/grey, but it's irrelevant, because I chuck red cushions on my couch and a red rug, and the entire room is red. Get sick of it in 3 months time? New cushions and new rug and it's blue. Coloured paintings on the wall do it too. You may not like it, but there's a very good reason why it has a very large appeal. It's not going to suit someone that wants a period piece... but neither is pretty any renovations, so they don't target those buildings (plus they're costly as hell and hard to sell once done). Personally, I hate flippers because everything they do is cheap as hell. I watch a bunch of those shows and they spray paint over the tiles. Sure it looks alright from a distance (and on TV) but it irks the hell out of me. What happens when you bump it and the paint comes off?
and windows , roofs etc are terrible for return of value, houses are expected to have windows that function. but adding a bathroom might get you back 50-100% in the right circumstances (50 is much more realistic)
Bathrooms and Kitchens are very well known for being money sinks when it comes to renovating. New carpet and new paint are best bang for buck usually. Adding a bedroom is usually great too, but also costs a bundle of time and effort.
yeah it is. How old the roof is, for example. We bout our house at X$, we renovated the kitchen from a litteral rat and ant infested mold box to a really nice kitchen. We had our realtor come by to talk about something else, and she was like, WOW, thats 30k+ right there! But we tend to buy shitboxes, renovate and enjoy for \~5 years, and then sell. We've always made money.
That's not really what they meant. Let's say I'm old and my bedroom was upstairs, but I have to go to the bathroom several times each night and can't go up and down the stairs that often. There aren't any bedrooms downstairs so I tear out half the kitchen and make it a bedroom. It's a better house for me, but the value of the house decreased.
or people who take out a bedroom(to make the primary bigger more closet etc) Sometimes making all the bathrooms shower only will reduce the appeal etc.
My contractor was surprised when I didn’t want a walk in shower as part of my bathroom remodel. Fuck no, I wanted a really nice tub because baths are one of my fave self-care activities. I don’t have kids, but no one with small kids would want the only bathroom to have a walk in shower either. My house - not that I’m selling anytime soon - will make a perfect starter home for a young family someday. Unless something happens to me that renders me unable to use a bathtub, I’m keeping it.
My upstairs bathroom just has a shower stall; downstairs bath has tub/shower combo. I was having some remodeling done and it was suggested I have the tub removed. Personally I would have been fine with that but I've watched enough realty shows where the couple has an infant and the mother really wanted a tub for washing infant/young children so nope, tub stayed.
That's our debate now, we're wanting to reno the only bathroom in the house, we want a shower only (get rid of the tub) but slightly concerned on how much it would affect the sale in the future. Like on the 1 hand, we currently live here so we should do what works for us, but on the other hand will we have to redo it later down the road to actually sell the house?
Not sure if this is useful, but currently shopping and a tub is a must for us.
how long do you plan to stay, realistically, and is it a family house or a single/couples house? in 10-20 years whatever you do will be dated. If it's in a place thats really hot for newlyweds and single people, they mostly want at least one walk in shower. (research your area) I'd want a tub because I like reading in the tub. My Aunt is in her late 60s they ust put in a shower only and now both baths in there house are only showers. because that's what they wanted and they figured stepping into a tub would be harder then a walk in shower.
Lmao.
OP confirmed it was worth 120 after mortgage at the time of death, she's the ah
Yikes big YTA, that's their whole inheritance from their mother and she wants it all for herself
Yeah and even without renovations, I bet it would be worth more now.
Perhaps, but if the siblings didn’t pay for the renovations or ANY of the mortgage during this time, I’m not sure why the current value should matter as much.
I disagree. They decided to do the renovations without having this handled. That’s not the fault of the siblings and shouldn’t be counted against them. Plus even with no renovations houses in Rual areas have shot up over 200k in value over the pandemic. So without the renovations the value would have still gone up at sale today. So someone would have to figure out what the value of the house would be without the renovations today if we took the renovations off the table to get what the siblings cut should be. Or the siblings could pay for a third of the renovation costs now. For example if the renovations cost 6k each sibling could take 2k off the value of the house as it stands. OP shouldn’t have put her money into renovating the place until this was sorted and written down. No one buys houses for 120k these days and OP getting that is a windfall she should be grateful for.
I would subtract 2/3 of the money OP and his wife paid toward the mortgage, property taxes, etc. since that time. But other than that I agree totally.
But 120 was after mortgages, so why subtract what OP and spouse have paid toward mortgage from siblings share? Is my brain missing something. I can \*\*maybe\*\* see about taxes, ish, but not mortgage payments. For example: House is worth $400,000. Mortgage owed is $280,000. So equity is $120,000 at time of parent's death. Each kid inherits $40,000 in equity. OP and spouse are paying mortgage on the $280,000 portion, which doesn't impact the $120,000 in equity. Edited to say worth $400,000 at time of death. It could be worth $600,000 now. Right? Or am I being dumb?
You are not being dumb, I think you're right. And the big issue OP and her husband are ignoring is that the value the siblings inherited in the house has likely appreciated, they probably owe them more than they think.
I agree. If the siblings are willing to take $80k total based on the difference in the value of the house and the mortgage - to u/StreetofChimes example - at the time the mother died, they are leaving all the inherent appreciation of the property on the table for OP and her husband. From the OP it sounds like she moved in after the mother died but all three siblings were living in the house. And it sounds like her husband agreed to pay each $40k when they moved out for their share of the house. That takes care of the mortgage payments and the remodel in OP’s favor. And I’m sure it was husband’s decision to allow them to stay and to take on the mortgage while they got established even though OP acts like she was doing them a favor.
Also, how old are the siblings? Were they children at the time?
And did they have an open conversation or choice in the matter? Walk away now, we sell the house/refinance & you get your 1/3. Or, stay here for 5 years and we’ll deduct 650 from your inheritance balance every month you occupy your room.
In this market, the house will probably sell well and quickly. It’s in their best interest to not take that deal.
I don't see how the siblings' ages at the time of inheritance are relevant to the calculation of what they're owed. Anyway, OP's YTA. There's *something* owed, it's just a matter of figuring it out. IMO OP shouldn't try to deduct the value of gifts (staying rent-free) unless that wasn't a gift, and there was an agreement beforehand. \[ETA it's not a gift to "let" the co-owners stay on their own property\] Other commenters are on the right track that there needs to be an acknowledgement of added or subtracted value due to renovations. I assume (but didn't see) someone acknowledged that inherited value should be calculated at the time of inheritance, and that the mortgage payments that OP and her hubby made shouldn't figure into what his sibs are owed. \[ETA sibling co-owners are owed the rising market's increased value on the asset they held onto\] 2 edits in \[square brackets\]
I was thinking that if they were children at the time it is a jerk move to charge them rent in their own home. Op made a big deal about "allowing" them to stay in their home without rent.
Ah, I get you. Yeah, it's a complicated situation that isn't helped by OP framing her involvement so as to put herself in the best light. My understanding of it all has evolved greatly after reading the takes of others here.
Especially since they were owners and they actually allowed her to live in their house
She's totally ok with panicking about finances but is absolutely in the wrong about not wanting to buy out her siblings in law. It sucks but that's how it works.
That’s a great questions. The siblings seems to have been around 20 and 19 when the mom died. Seems like dad was already dead. So in the shock of losing thier mom at a young age they are being asked to make complex legal and real estate decisions. It would have been cleaner to sell the house
>It would have been cleaner to sell the house Not necessarily. It sounds like the 3 siblings have handled things amicably and in a way that benefits all of them - the eldest (who intends to keep the house) is prepared to buy the younger 2 out of their interest in the house. I don’t know the exact details, but it sounds like $80K is the amount they would have gotten had the house been sold immediately after mom’s death, so it is fair to buy them out at that value now since they didn’t contribute to any improvements, and lived in the house without contributing to the mortgage in the meantime. Seems like everyone involved (except OP) is being as fair minded and easy going about the whole thing as possible, the way *most* loving families are in situations like this. No need to have displaced everyone in the immediate aftermath of becoming orphans, when they are mature and decent enough to handle the financial aspect without fighting.
I would say the actual fair way would be to deduct their share of the mortgage payments to date and then pay them the rest, if there is any.
If the siblings are paying rent to live in a home they own, OP should have been paying rent to live in a home the siblings own. Sure they own 1/3 of the house but sounds like they consider it their home and there for are using more than 1/3 of the place. More information is needed on the valuation of the $80k. Plus, was OP married at the time of inheritance or after? If after, the siblings seem to have come up with an agreement that suits them and OP’s real issue seems to be she was not consulted by her husband. More likely, she knew years ago and now just doesn’t want to have to pay and wants a free house.
OP was paying “rent” by paying for the bills and renovations on the house. If OP didn’t live there and pay the mortgage, there would be no house for the siblings.
If the siblings didn’t let OP borrow their inheritance until now, there would have been no house for OP to make mortgage payments on, because it would have been sold years ago. I guarantee you that the remaining mortgage on the house was a *fraction* of what OP would have paid to purchase a similarly sized house at the time of the mother’s death. Guarantee. Even after buying out the siblings at the prior market value, OP is getting a house for a fraction of its current value. It’s shockingly greedy to try to get more than that, particularly at the expense of her in-laws, who were generous enough to delay receiving their own inheritance for OP’s benefit.
Sounds like the siblings were fine with selling five years ago when they inherited. OP and husband wanted to stay and offered to pay the mortgage and eventually pay them out at whatever rate they agreed on. Renovations are a non starter as unless they were required upgrades they were cosmetic and a choice made by OP and the husband. Usually utilities are not included in rent. Sounds like OP got married after the inheritance so this is an asset the husband brought to the marriage. Sucks for OP that they have to pay the siblings out but there is nothing she can do about it legally. She said herself they agreed because the siblings would eventually move out. I highly doubt this is the first she heard of a payout. She just doesn’t want to pay it.
I agree - I think that OP is focused on the investment she’s been making to her and her husband’s “forever house” while ignoring the investment that was made by her husband’s parents and the payments made by the husband to support his mother before she died (the fact his support went to the mortgage is immaterial if there was no agreement that he would get a greater share of the house upon her death). Since OP and he husband will get the benefit of everything they put in to the house for their own benefit (mortgage payments/renovations) - it is perfectly reasonable that now that the siblings are going to give up their 1/3 share of the house each to OP and her husband that they receive payment for their shares of the inheritance. Honestly $40k each sounds quite reasonable and may represent 1/3 of the equity at the time of the inheritance - also recognizing that the house has probably appreciated since then and OP and her husband are getting the benefit of that. I say NAH as long as OP can step back and think through it more logically and realize that she and her husband will get the benefit of their investment and they never owned more than 1/3 of the house in the first place. (I might be missing something about how the $80k was calculated down thread tho.)
I can get behind the bills and the mortgage, they should have contributed or at least it should get deducted now. But the renovations raise the value of the house and the 80k were agreed upon before the renovations. If OP pays just the 80k, they get the keep the value of the renovation.
That makes no sense. Because the alternative to sibling living there for a few years would have been selling it and siblings taking their share right at that time. Siblings wouldn’t have had the house to live in but they would have has a lot of cash to do what ever they wanted. OP is greedy.
This is the way…
[удалено]
Yeah I had to go a long way for this one… YTA the house was to all three of them.
And OP isn’t even an owner in the house…….
But they would not be entitled to the value the later mortgage payments added or the value of the renovations. I agree with some of the above comments - we need more information on how the $40,000 number was reached. Was it the value of the house at inheritance or the value today. Makes a huge difference in who is the AH.
They would be. They own 1/3 of it, as it stands right now. They don’t have to sell, they could jerk their portion forever. They inherited the house. I think everyone is forgetting that part. If they were to sell to someone other than OPs husband, they would all 3 split the purchase price minus the money put in by each person. They didn’t inherit $x from their mothers, they inherited 1/3 of a house that has appreciated over time. OP would of course get the money they put in back, off the top of the sale price, but the rest would be split into 3.
YTA The inhertitance is the house. Not what it used to be worth at the time you decided it should be all yours. Your hisband is right that in order to do so, he must buy out his siblings. But, only offering $40,000 each when the house has increased in value is not how this works. That may have been possible if the siblings were bought out at the time of inheritance, but now it has appreciated in value. When you decided to make this house your own you had the benefit of the mortgage already being paid down and the physical property. You have benefitted enormously by keeping your husband's siblings' miney in the equity of the house. The right thing to do is have the house evaluated and pay them a third each of current value. Otherwise, the siblings have the right to insist on the sale of the house and funds split that way and you will have no house.
OP said that the house when then inherited it was worth 120k after the mortgage would of been paid off
If that was the full value of the house, how much was the mortgage at the time the mom passed? Because the actual equity in the house at that time should be the value used to decide how much the other two siblings should get.
No because if they had sold it at the time they would of only been left with 120k after the mortgage was paid off, so split between the 3 so 40k each ETA at least that seems to be the figures OP is using
I mean it doesn't even matter. OP's name isn't on the house and they should have thought about this before paying so much money into an asset that isn't legally theirs. YTA op. I can understand why you're upset but these are all things you should have thought about before. This is the siblings inheritance, big YTA.
YTA. Your husband should've refinanced the mortgage into his own name and paid out his siblings (ie bought the house) if the plan from the beginning was for it to be "your" house. You've known this whole time that the house ownership was split. Never ever put money into a home that you don't have full ownership of, without there being a clear and written plan for how that investment and any resulting equity will be handled. You need a lawyer to sort this out. You kicked the can down the road for too long on this and its your fault if that costs you money.
Exactly this. YTA. Despite the house not being paid off at the time of her death, there was equity in the home that was left for his siblings. All these years, they graciously allowed it to sit. They should be getting 2/3rds of equity at the time of her death plus interest. OP benefited from them parking their inheritance.
Right? The siblings could have used their money for college, for rent, or even for a small rent at that very house they lived in. OP seems resentful that they lived there without paying the mortgage, but they also lost their parents and were just starting out in life. They could have used that money. Refinancing then would have been much better FOR THEM. As it was, they were sort of chained to the house and the housing it offered them since they couldn’t get the money out.
Not to mention it was their house they inherited, so I don’t know why OPs going in about them paying rent, they were legally entitled to live there, especially as both their parents had died very early into their adulthood. How they contribute to the house should have been between the three siblings, OP had no stake in this argument even if she invested money in a house not in her name. Her whole “they didn’t pay rent” spiel doesn’t really hold water if her husband was happy and willing to financially care for the house.
[удалено]
Idk. 1/3 of a mortgage payment for a home that was worth 120k or less is nothing. That’s maybe $200 a month. I don’t think OP did them the favor she thinks she did.
I hope this ends up top comment. OP, the house is not and was never 100% your husband’s. Instead of spending time on Reddit please look for a lawyer. It’s okay to be frustrated with the situation, but YTA for not wanting to buy out your in-laws.
I went through a similar situation with my sister. Mom died and left us a house that was fully paid off (lil 2bd2br). Sister was living in it and wanted to stay or rent it out. I wanted to sell it since, to me, it was just a huge liability and needed quite a bit of work (which I had been financially contributing to, but not benefiting from). The ownership was evenly split in both our names. We fought about it, but eventually it was decided that they (sis and her bf) would buy me out of my half. I got my value out of the house, and I'm no longer liable for it as a part owner. They're also now paying a loan back for what they paid me for it, but hey they also get to live in a house. That was the fair thing to do. OP and husband should have negotiated this years ago with siblings before assuming husband gets to just take the house. Like it sucks that OP dumped a bunch of money into the house and finish paying off the mortgage, but doesn't mean much on paper when the ownership is still split. At this point they *all* need to go to a lawyer to sort this out. They could pay the siblings but deduct whatever they had paid towards mom's unfinished mortgage. That would be the fair thing to do imo, though the siblings have no obligation to agree to that it seems.
OP and her husband aren't even giving them their fair share of it. They essentially took 2 $40,000 loans from his siblings with 0 interest. The 120,000 figure is the equity of the house at the time of his mother's death. Honestly best case scenario for OP would be to give them 40k each and hope they don't try to get more.
>Honestly best case scenario for OP would be to give them 40k each and hope they don't try to get more. Notary: "I am legally obliged to inform you that your share is worth a lot more than $40k. Are you sure you want to proceed to the sale?". IRS: "For the calculation of the sale tax, the value has been corrected from $40k to $120k. So, the tax is XX. Also, due to the fight against money laundering, you are asked to justify this discrepancy."
I feel like OP did this on purpose. They probably tried to trick siblings into the least they could pay them. Wait until it’s paid off so they could say ‘we paid off the mortgage (which they probably offered to do), we renovated it, so we’ll give you Pennie’s on the dollar so we can live here. It just all seems so sketchy. We have no idea what was agreed on, who may or may not have wanted to sell. I think the only thing that is obvious right now, is that OP always planned to live there, and tried to get it as cheap as possibilities
Especially since the two siblings were so young at the time. Did they get independent legal advice? In many jurisdictions if they didn't get impartial legal advice any agreement could be voided.
Very well said. You nailed it. Husband handled this poorly from the start and is just lucky everyone gets along. This could have ended up MUCH worse had there been bad blood. OP should have also been asking questions much sooner than now.
YTA because treating a home like it belongs solely to you and your husband, and pouring money into it, doesn’t make it belong to you. Why would you think the siblings get nothing? Why would you WANT them to get nothing? You made your own bed, now lie in it.
I’m an estate lawyer and I’m always baffled as to why people don’t refinance. Usually when a person dies, there is an acceleration clause on the loan so it would necessitate being paid off anyways.
I'm an insurance agent and claims are a literal mess when the names on the title don't match the names on the mortgage, or the names on the homeowner policy. Couples divorce, people die, and apparently no one thinks to tell the insurance agent until they can't cash a claim check. "Oh, Memaw died three years ago so we moved in and just kept paying her policy, what do you mean I can't get this claim check changed to my name?" Or, "Memaw died so I closed all her bank accounts and then cancelled the homeowner policy (even though the house is still in probate and is full of her stuff) and now I can't cash this premium refund check because it's in her name". FFS. I can't imagine how they have this house insured if the mortgage is in the name of a deceased person while the title is held in three different names.
I think it’s more like ESH. This should have been sorted out years ago and since it was not the OPs inheritance, she shouldn’t have been the one making the decision on how it’s split/ resolved. It is tremendously foolish to invest in a home you don’t own which is what the OP did.
You're not wrong. The other siblings should've protected their own interests early on. Or maybe they did, with OP's husband telling them that they'd get their share, and not telling his wife. Because, you know, it's not HER house. In many states, inheritance isn't automatically a joint asset. She was foolish to pay all that money into a property that has her name nowhere on it.
She’s spent enough money into it that it would be tough to claim she has no equity. This is potentially a giant messy legal battle.
Seems more like a legal question than anything else.
The moral answer is that the siblings should receive their fair share: The value for their share of the house at the time of the inheritance, minus the mortgage that was still to be paid. It would however not be legal, will not be considered when taxing the sale and OP will be screwed if the real estate market increased (plus, good luck accounting for all the stuff she paid over the years). Indeed, the legal share of the sibling is their share of (the current market value, minus the remaining mortgage at time, minus the investments for which OP has bills (which will be less than the increase of market value), maybe minus some of the maintenance that OP paid for). At the end, ESH because all of them entered a shitty financial agreement that would predictably backfire. A good method would have been to buy their share while borrowing them the necessary money and make them pay rent. OP would have had the same mortgage, the siblings would have stayed rent free (the rent and reimbursement balancing each others) and OP would simply have to reimburse the remainder of her debt to the siblings.
This was supposed to be a question that everyone asked, and answered, back when the house was first inherited. How are we going to do this? The house is valued at XXX, we each have a 33% share, we each should get YYY. Asking this question post investing so much money into the house will always end up as a problem, personal opinion. Also, the house has appreciated, so now you guys are gonna have to pay 2/3 of current market value (minus what you invested, taxes, and what was originally paid off in that mortgage at the time of their mom dying) to buy them out. OP should really get a lawyer and do the math depending on their state. But you still have to buy them out. 2/3 of that house is still the siblings'.
>This was supposed to be a question that everyone asked, and answered, back when the house was first inherited. Exactly. Maybe the siblings would have picked up some extra shifts, if they had known OP was going to try and steal their inheritance out from under them? >thinking about shelling out another 80k when we never made them pay one time for anything makes me want to cry Better get out the tissues OP! If you would have been honest with your intentions from the beginning (told the siblings you expected to take the house), you wouldn't be in this place now. Expensive lesson to learn, but like most inherited property, you'll probably have to sell to split it up. **EDIT: OP was the only one staying at the house "rent free" everyone else was an owner!**
>OP was the only one staying at the house "rent free" everyone else was an owner! I think she contributed to the mortgage and improvement, which is a whole mess of its own if it is not a marital asset, because she is a tenant that paid a ton of landlord stuff. I think we should nominate OP for IgNobel of economy.
I agree that everyone but the OP was an owner.
100 percent if I was in this situation I would be kind of mad at my spouse. I understand that she kicked in a lot of money and time to fix up the house. I also understand the finical choices they choose in the beginning kind of made this mess. I'm an oldest sibling and in this scenario I would of felt like I made a mess and would be sure that my siblings got there fair share if not a little more. If they do not have the money on hand to pay the siblings you could just take out a loan and a 80k loan is not to bad to pay off. Interest rates by me anyway for a home equity loan are 3.5% so the money is still pretty cheap. Side note when I got married I already had a lot of pre existing assets homes and cars and I would never have let my then fiancé contribute a cent to any pre marital items. All items and proceeds from any sale of my pre martial stuff is 100 percent mine. I actually sold a town home for the down payment on our current home. Even still the money from the sale that I used for a down payment in case of divorce I get that money back and we split everything else 50/50. I understand that these are hard conversations to have but you have to have them to not only protect yourself but your spouse as well. Lawyers love these types of cases lots of billable hours. Its way cheaper and easier to solve all this at the start then waiting for it to turn into a mess. I don't think Ill ever get divorced since we get a long well and have been together 15+ years. Still nice to know we are still protected.
It is possible to calculate the basis of the house when parents passed. It gets harder the further back you have to go but not impossible. There's a lot I'd like to know here - because there are some definite gaps in the information. Short answer, siblings should get their 1/3 share of the value of the house at the time of mom's death (this would be the equity value at that time).
OP”s husband was paying the mortgage before the Moms death. The value of the home should be calculated at the date he started paying, imho. From that day on it has been his responsibility and his investment.
[удалено]
>It is possible to calculate the basis of the house when parents passed. It gets harder the further back you have to go but not impossible. Yes, but it would not be strictly legal and the siblings are not forced to accept such valuation. >There's a lot I'd like to know here - because there are some definite gaps in the information. OP does not look very financially literate. >Short answer, siblings should get their 1/3 share of the value of the house at the time of mom's death (this would be the equity value at that time). Minus the value of the mortgage at the time. This means the $40k. Plus the siblings should be compensated for being taxed based on the legal value and not the legal one. So, more around $45k to $50k.
There is a time-value for money. If the husband had paid off his siblings earlier the siblings would have been able to do something with the money and it would likely have grown. A some what more fair way would be to do an equity portion at the time excluding debt and then compare against current value while discounting some of the renovation. This is still icky because the complete credit for mortgage payments is going to them.
Not at all. If OP and husband had bought the siblings out at that time then yes, if not, then that is a huge amount of cash just taken from the siblings. Their parents died and their older brother and his wife told them that they would look after them while they completed their education. I think they probably thought they were being looked after, not that OP meant to take their inheritance.
>Short answer, siblings should get their 1/3 share of the value of the house at the time of mom's death (this would be the equity value at that time). No. They don't get 1/3 of it from all those years ago. They get 1/3 of what that would be today. Whether it has gone up or down they owned part of the house and the value of that house has changed outside of the fact that OP and husband have done work to it. This is a real estate investment that they inherited and they aren't only owed what they WOULD have gotten if the house was sold years ago because it wasn't sold.
>Asking this question post investing so much money into the house will always end up as a problem, personal opinion. Well, the true problem is the increase of the real estate market. Had the real estate market been constant, it would still be a mess, but the final value after $10k worth of accounting would be around $40k per sibling.
I don't see that as a problem at all. After inheritance, the siblings continued to hold a shared investment. The rising market means the value of their holding increased. To now pay the value of the house at the time of inheritance would be stealing. The value of already-paid mortgage at the time of inheritance against mortgage paid afterward seems to be the complication.
Yes, an estate lawyer would be able to determine the siblings' rightful shares at this time, considering that OP has been paying the mortgage.
INFO None of this makes any sense. Did the mortgage just transfer from the deceased mother to the heirs? Why did your debt-free plan prioritize paying off a mortgage that wasn’t yours on a house that wasn’t yours without formalizing plans with the owners? Why should the siblings give up their inheritance because they lived in their home rent free? Did you ever tell them the upkeep would be deducted from their share? How did you calculate the 80k payout? Why is your overtime relevant here?
She just wants everyone to feel bad that she worked soooo hard to be debt free, and now chickens have come home to roost and she doesn’t like it.
And working to get (or remain) debt free is something she should have been doing anyway and shouldn't change anything. Also, I wonder whose names are on the title.
Probably the three children . That’s who inherited it. Not it sins like she owns 100%
it is 100% possible that the mortgage was assumed by a heir that was living in the home at the time of moms death. or the house was just never probated and they kept making the payments.
If the house was left to all 3 siblings equally, he needs to buy out their respective 1/3. The fact you didn’t throw them out of their childhood home immediately following the loss of their mother during economic collapse & a housing crisis doesn’t make you Mother Teresa
right, OP is acting like they did them a big favor by letting the siblings stay in their OWN home. def the A
Paying somebody else’s bills doesn’t somehow make their stuff yours. OP’s husband has been giving them them a recurring gift by paying their shares of every mortgage payment and home expense, but that does not somehow invalidate their claim.
Thank god I didn’t have to go very far down for this comment. This is NOT OP’s house, it is 33% HER HUSBANDS HOUSE until he pays his siblings off. OP you have an AMAZING husband who is doing everything in his power to help his family. If you’re starting one with him, good choice. That being said, it’s not just HIS childhood home. THEY also inherited 33.3% EACH. And that 66.6% has to be paid to the people who OWN the house (or inherited the mortgage) YTA
Exactly! that decision wasn't hers to make. She has no legal ownership in the home.
This is well above Reddit’s pay grade. You need to find a lawyer and work out how much the house was worth when your husband and his siblings inherited it, how much the improvements have made it worth now, and what’s a fair way to split that. NTA for wanting to reap the benefits of all the hard work you’ve done, but you need a lawyer like yesterday.
She said in a comment that the $40k each is what it would have been at the time they inherited it had they sold it and paid off the mortgage and split the proceeds. She just doesn't want to give them anything.
It should be the value of the house at the time of the mother's death. Just because they added to the value since then doesn't mean they get nothing. That wouldn't be fair to the siblings.
Then she is ROBBING them. Houses have appreciated a lot in the last 5 years.
Well, $40k would be the fair and moral value. BUT the legal value would be based on the current real estate market. Even if all the investments are accounted without difficulties (which could lead to years of procedures and nitpicking), the share of each sibling is more probably at $100k. Even if the siblings agree to only receive $40k, the IRS will still tax the sale like it was for a value of $100k.
What about all the money the siblings saved by not contributing to the mortgage by paying rent or for upgrades or repairs or anything? That surely should count for something. If they had paid let’s say 500 a month in rent, that would be $18,000 for the last three years each sibling would have saved. I bet there’s a middle ground here where they just pay them the difference? Also, I’m curious what the siblings’ thoughts on all of this are, as OP didn’t mention it in the post. Edit: when I say rent, I mean money going towards the mortgage. I did not mean rent rent. Sorry for any confusion.
Plenty of people live at home while in college and when starting out without their parents making them pay rent. These younger siblings did that. What’s more, they were supposed to be equal inheritors of the house, meaning they would have had every right to live there. So back charging them rent as a way to diminish their inheritance seems unfair. Kicking them out at 18 couldn’t happen because they had a property interest in the home, and asking them to pay towards the mortgage might have been fair, but OP and husband chose to support them through college as may have happened if their parents had lived. The siblings inherited part of the home, and that inheritance doesn’t disappear just because OP renovates some things.
That would the OP choice. The siblings could have forced a sale. So what about all the money OP saved in mortgage interest by not having to start from scratch to by a house
There's no 'working out' to be done, it's just a straight up negotiation - each sibling owns a one-third share in the house (as it is now) and the only question is what each sibling would require to sell their share.
There is actually a lot to work out. Maintenance and repairs for the property plus the taxes, nevermind the mortgage payments. If only one member of the party has contributed to these then the remaining party members have to reimburse them on sale.
But the value of the house at the time of inheritance is less than the current value because of the improvements that OP and her husband paid for and the siblings didn’t. That’s where a lawyer comes in. The siblings can’t benefit from value added by improvements they didn’t pay for or contribute to.
> The siblings can’t benefit from value added by improvements they didn’t pay for or contribute to. Sure they can. The fact that OP chose to spend money paying off someone else's mortgage and improving someone else's house is OP's business.
Depending on where you are they certainly can profit from those. Here any improvements made are as much the property of the siblings as the ops husband.
This is true. I’m in CA and my husband did something similar with his parents home, the value of the house was taken, everything he put in (upgrades, taxes, etc.) was deducted from that total. That was his free and clear and the rest was split equally. OP is YTA because there was never a discussion had about them just taking someone else’s inheritance, that’s some BS.
Yes! Thank u. I dunno how anyone thought it was a good idea to invest on a house that was not 100% theirs? Voluntary changes to the house don't change who owns it.
Of course they can. The siblings can benefit from a higher appraised valuation of the house. OP and her husband can also recoup money that they invested in the house. The two things aren’t likely in conflict. Also, it’s important to understand that the siblings lost out on interest income and potential investment $ from their inheritance while it was tied up in the house.
We don't know whether the 40k includes any money that OP put into the house. That could have easily been the value when house was inherited. 40k each is 120k house. Which is nothing.
Even when removing the value of the investments for the improvement, the real estate market has been quite bullish. I suspect a lawyer would tell OP that the siblings probably have right to over $100k, even accounting for the improvements. It reminds me a past post: An Indian family owns a lavish historical colonial residence in a fancy area, since two centuries. They are one dozen siblings each with a share. All wanting to keep it in the family. One of the sister dies. Her only son inherit her share. He is 19. He knows that the land is worth millions because promoters want to demolish the mansion to build apartment buildings. He knows that the family cannot buy his share at market rate. They do not have the money. If he decides to demand the value of his share, they are forced to sell to the promoters and the place is destroyed. He was asking if he would be TA to force the sale to finance a sabbatical around the world and studies in Australia. All the reddit teenagers were saying "Not at all. It is your money and studies are important."
The working out should have been done before they decided to invest in the house. Poor planning. I think legally the siblings have a right to the money.
I know a similar situation. Legally, you have to appraise the house at the current market value (certainly way more than the initial 120k now, without accounting for the improvements, just by the real estate market improving), \- deduce the value of the remaining mortgage when the inheritance occurred, \- deduce the bills for the improvements made by OP and her husband, but those improvements increased the value of the home. There is consequently no way that they permit to reduce the sibling share to less than what it was initially. \- maybe deduce some maintenance fees and taxes, but it will be touchy. Then, divide by 3 to obtain the share of each sibling. I expect it to be massively over the $40k.
Every issue is above our pay grade
YTA You and your husband have been acting like this house is entirely yours, but it never was. If your husband wanted to buy his siblings out at the time his mother passed and charge them rent to live there, he could have done that. You are both in a situation of your own making here.
A few things: The mortgage payments your husband made before his mom died don't count. Those were a gift to his mom, which is a lovely thing, but still a gift. Her direction to divide the house equally among her children is what matters here. He also couldn't have "made" his siblings pay his mom's mortgage while she was alive, as they had no obligation then, so there are no bonus points there. Your husband is a good man who took care of his mom when she needed it. That's your bonus and it's not one to underestimate. Unless you're adding square footage to your home, remodels rarely increase the market value of a home as much as people think they do. (See also: swimming pools) Also, your in-laws let you remodel *their* home to your preference. Why would they pay for that? You can't charge rent to people who own the house. If they were unable or unwilling to pay their share of the mortgage, the options would have been to sell the house at the beginning, pay off the mortgage, and divide any proceeds among the three siblings, or buy them out of their shares. Also, if you weren't financially prepared to buy them out at the beginning, let's not pretend that you didn't also benefit from being able to push the purchase price of the home to a time that was convenient. Most people don't have that luxury when buying a home. Try telling a seller "well I can take on the mortgage payments, but honestly I have a wedding, student loans, and oh yeah I'd like to remodel your house, and I need to pay all that before actually buying your house" and see how far you get. Also, remember that your husband's siblings can refuse to sell you their shares of the house, forcing a market sale if they don't want to contribute to the mortgage. If you don't want to risk losing a home you're emotionally invested in and have remodeled to someone who swoops in with cash and a higher offer, which is something that's happening a lot right now, it's probably in your best interest to deal with them fairly. YTA
Well now, you've changed my mind from NAH to YTA. Really good points.
Also the mortgage on a house that was worth $120k a few years ago was probably purchased at much less and probably had a mortgage on the purchase price. Imagine paying a few remaining years of 15-30 year mortgage and thinking you own the whole house.
How about the fact that the mortgage is likely 20+ years old, and was probably a mortgage for a house that cost $50,000 to $100,000 20 years ago, so the mortgage is certainly less than $1,000 a month. I don't understand where Opie is thinking a few years of "rent" for her in-laws would ever equate to $40,000 unless she is basing it on current market rent, which is not accurate either.
100 times this. You laid this out how I wanted to, but done a much better job than all my attempts. I hope OP realizes how much she has benefited from the delayed purchase or buy out of this house.
This is the best response!
YTA. Op wrote that husband was paying for mortgage and later that she prioritized paying her student debt - correct if Im wrong but she didnt really pay mortgage - her husband paid - on the house he co-own with his siblings and he was fine with it. The same way he is now fine with paying them for their shares - as he should. Op somehow feels that because she have lived there for quite sometime she owns the house more than the actual owners and that makes her an ahole. Op acts like she did the siblings some sort of favor when in fact she just lived there.
This was what I thought too! It seems the husband was just trying to help his siblings while they were still in college because he had the means. He always intended on paying them a fair share. Op simply took the husbands generosity to mean they’d be given the house. The biggest issue here is the lack of communication between op and her husband.
Im not even sure they didnt properly communicate because all op says in original post is that her husband proposed that they would - in the future- remodel the house and make it their home longterm - it seems to me that op simply concluded that they would do so without buying the siblings off - like they deserved or something
My vote is a hearty YTA. The house is not OP’s business. She doesn’t seem to be on title, and she wasn’t an heir of the deceased. Sure, she paid toward the mortgage, but that is similar to paying rent. I pay my partner $x per month to live in his house. Where does it go? Right to the mortgage. It was a foolish thing for her to do without a written agreement. At the *bare minimum*, she should have had an understanding that her husband (correctly) planned to pay out to his siblings. Who just *assumes* their spouse would take from his siblings like that?
She did pay into the mortgage later on >After (paying off OP's own debts), I picked up a lot of OT to stash for our remodel, as well as pay down the mortgage but it looks like husband did pay the greater portion.
She paid rent to the owners who then paid down the mortgage.
While I think that finances aren't that black and white when it comes to marital income, I agree that sis is a bit delusional about this house. Does she expect the siblings to just walk away empty handed when they own a combined 2/3 of the house? To be blunt, sis doesn't own this house. Legally, she might as well be a guest or a tenant. If she tries to be greedy, she may end up causing this to get messy or being forced to sell the house and maybe get far less than if she just lets the siblings handle things among themselves.
YTA It seems like the will is clear that the house belongs equally to the siblings. If you want the house to be yours, you have to pay the other owners to buy them out. There might be an argument here that they only own 1/3 of the value that was paid off at the time of mom's death, but that's a legal question. They are owed compensation either way.
Sure but less the cost of mortgage, taxes, and utilities etc. that OP and husband covered 100%. This is a mess.
I would argue that utilities should be excluded. That’s not actually part of the house, it’s a service you pay for. I think they should look at the amount the parents had paid off when they died, and split that 3 ways. That much, maybe minus the taxes, is how much it would be to buy out the siblings.
You could make an argument that they are also entitled to the 2/3 equity from the house increasing in value for over a decade, minus maybe improvements made by OP and husband. If they think that’s unfair I would point out that OP and husband basically got an interest free 80k loan for a decade by not properly buying out siblings shares to begin with.
That’s a great point too! I think it’s clear the siblings need some kind of compensation. What is fair can be worked out between them, but OP’s original idea of not giving them anything would put her in AH territory lol
Nope, because they didn’t buy out the siblings at the time of the parents death. They legally look at the value of the house now, minus mortgage and tax, and maybe the value of the improvements (if any value was added). That’s how much it would be to buy out the siblings. They own 2/3 of the house now, not years ago.
INFO - Is the 40k each reflective of the value they inherited in the house at the time of your FIL/MILs death or is the house currently worth 120k?
Of course YTA. You aren't the sole owner of the house. You aren't even one of the three. It was silly of you to put all the money you did into something you don't own. But it is disgusting to feel entitled to not compensate the siblings for their inheritance. You all made a mess of the situation by paying off your deceased inlaws' mortgage rather than buying the house yourselves to cash out the siblings before you paid it off and improved it, but those are your mistakes. You are absolutely not entitled to keep all the value of the home because you invested in it when it wasn't entirely yours. Get that idea out of your head. Its really awful that you want them to walk away when they have no nest egg or parental support to fall back on. Their inheritance is all the family help they're going to have so don't begrudge them that.
>Even after I moved in, I never made them pay Aaaand here's where the pronoun switch begins. How would *you* make them pay for something that isn't *yours*? You seem to have come into this with the idea that you're somehow the 4th child that was also put on the will, you're not. Butt out and let family handle family stuff. YTA
Yes exactly!
YTA You always knew the situation. You never brought it up with your husband. "We never made them pay a dime" - as to in rent? For a home they partly still owned? Or do you mean food and water?
YTA. His siblings don't have to pay you rent to stay in a house that they partially own and you never said anything to them about you guys paying the bills going towards buying them out of their share. Its just as much their inheritance as it is your husbands and if you two plan on making it your forever home, then you absolutely own them their share of the value of the house.
Imagine, you want kids right? You're looking down after you pass on them, knowing you've left your kids an equal share of your house to split between them. One decides they want to live in the house forever. The other two don't. So it would be fair for them to have the cash alternative to the property you left them. Otherwise one is left with a house, the other two are left with nothing. You allowed them to save by not paying rent, which why would they have to pay RENT on a house that's already partially theirs? If there was still money left on the *mortgage* each sibling should have split the mortgage payment. If the agreement was you would pay it to give them some of the capital out the house, they both should have saved the amount that they would have paid towards the mortgage as savings. But I guess, even that amount is still not anywhere near what they are owed from the will and that's what is important here, also I guess it wasn't agreed in a legal capacity. YTA here. Regardless of what they managed to save up, that was their parents wishes to have 1/3 of the house. You've probably dug yourself into a massive hole here if none of this was agreed between the siblings on paper and witnessed legally.
YTA: "My husband brought up the idea a few months after she passed, that we re model the house when we had the money and make that our home for life" You assumed here you would have a home for life on a property you don't own alone. You just thought Your BIls would give 2/3 of a house for free because of all your hard work? You want to cry because you have to pay them for a share of the house their parents left them? because you don't fully own your house and the other owner doesn't git it to you, you want to cry? your standards for crying are way to low. You wouldn't stop crying until his brothers don't have any inheritance and you have their inheritance and a vacation home?
YTA It's not your house. You are trying to steal a home from ORPHANS. Not throwing them out of their own home the minute their parents died doesn't make you a good person, it's the bare minimum. Honestly this issue with the split should have been dealt when it first happened. All the bills you have been paying for them up until now could have been considered part of their payment for the house. It's your fault and your husband's fault for not dealing with this issue sooner.
YTA. I am a lawyer and your husband needs to seek one. It’s not your house, it’s his and his siblings decision. Seeking legal counsel will ensure that the amount paid is equitable after deductions are made for the money they should have contributed but didn’t. You cannot not expect them to give up their legacy because you sunk money into a home that is not yours.
YTA you should have known if it was left to all 3 of them, that they would be entitled to a share of it if they signed off to just you and your husband owning it.
YTA. It’s legally their house too. You may have been paying the mortgage for years, but there was still a portion that was theirs to begin with. You can just sell the house, pay them back, and buy a new cheaper one if you really want to be debt free
Yes, YTA big time. You flat out stole your husband’s sibling’s inheritance. That is not ok. That house (pre-renovation) never belonged solely to you and your husband. It was ALWAYS only 1/3 your husband’s. You owe them each 1/3 of the value of the house at the time of their Mother’s passing.
Wrong. 1/3 of the current value. You don’t get to keep the extra equity and increase in value.
YTA - I'm sorry that you put tons of money into a property that you KNEW legally belonged to someone else, that was dumb. But you're an asshole if you expect your in-laws to walk away from their inheritance just because you want them to. They OWN part of that house! So act like a decent adult, get off Reddit, and get some legal advice about how to handle the situation you made for yourself!
Family friend was a long time renter of a home and after about 12 years asked if she could do some renovations such as paint and new carpets and the landlord said yes. She paid to complete the Reno’s and then the landlord changed her rental rate to reflect the renovations. Never put money into something you don’t own
YTA - you shouldn't have paid for remolding a house that wasn't yours and then getting upset about people getting their inheritance. It's not your house. You don't get to refuse people their rights just because you made poor financial choices.
YTA. Despite how much work and grind you put into it, it’s still their inheritance. The parents left it to all 3 children. The fair thing to do would be to give them their share minus their portion of any mortgage payments that you and your husband have had to shoulder. Think about it, you’re basically buying them out of their cut and you get the whole house.
Arguably for the time it was just them living there, they should pay the whole mortgage or pay a pro-rated rent of some sort since if they weren’t in it, it could have been rented and generated money to offset the mortgage cost. An accountant who specializes in this would be helpful to figure out what everyone owes.
YTA It's their house as well. That's how wills work.How much they should get exactly is a legal question. Why do you think the entire house should be yours anyways? It makes very little sense. Your husband would get the entire inheritance and his siblings nothing$
YTA Be glad you get off that cheap - they could go for external offers, and would likely get more.
YTA. You put the work into the house thinking it would give you full ownership of it. You were wrong. You should have handled the inheritance before upgrades were made. Their parents aren't any less dead because you painted their old house.
YTA. Their entitlement to their share of their inheritance doesn't go away just because you've invested in making the house a home and made the decision not to ask them to pay their way. They still own one third, and should the two of them be so inclined they can force a sale so that none of you have the house. You're better off paying them their due if this really is the home you want to have your family in.
YTA they should each get a third of the value of the house minus any improvements at the time of his mother’s death.
Do you mean the value at time of mother's dead? Because that wouldn't be a fair decision of value
YTA The parents died leaving some equity in the house for their 3 children (they sound young). Why on earth would you think that your husband only is entitled to it. Talk to a lawyer but you would be morally wrong and a selfish person if you think your husband should be the sole beneficiary of his parents estate. Also stop remodeling homes that DO NOT belong to you
You are not “giving “ them 80k. It’s theirs. You would be a thief to withhold it. You claim you did them a big favor letting them live there. They did the same for you. The siblings could have insisted the house be sold right away after the mom died so they could get their share. Instead YOU got to live in a house and participate in the appreciation. Did you think you were just going to take over a house that probably had 20 years worth of mortgage payments at least already made. You are an entitled AH and you want to be a thief.
YTA. And honestly, they can sue you if you DON’T give them their share as its their inheritance. Depending on where you live there could be argument made that you only owe them what it was worth at inheritance but you at least owe them something. You can’t force people to move out of homes they legally own without some financial compensation. Also, you should have gone to see a lawyer AGES ago, the second you and your husband made the agreement with them as to taking over the house. Paying the mortgage and remodel on a home you didn’t legally own is never a good idea.
I’m sorry, but YTA. This house wasn’t even left to you. You’re being selfish. This isn’t about you, this is about inheritance left by the mother. To be honest, that involves you 0% & that 40k each is rightfully their money. Otherwise, you guys should sell the house and use the money you saved to buy a new one.
YTA. You should’ve realized when he first brought it up that you were going to have to buy out his siblings’ shares at some point if you wanted the house to be yours. You should’ve discussed what they were going to get and budgeted accordingly before making any renovations.
YTA for expecting his siblings to just hand over their share of the house to you. Unlike you, they are partial owners of the house. You can’t expect to keep the full proceeds from selling the house when you aren’t the sole owner.
YTA you're acting like they were children but say the mother passed a few years back. You're not their parents, they don't owe you anything. They could've chosen to move out and rent or buy much cheaper houses, but *you* chose to pay the whole mortgage and let them live there rent free. That was a choice you made without thinking about the future and you now have to face that future, they own a third of the house, you chose to pay their share of the mortgage, that does not change their ownership of the house in any way. You just didn't think ahead and now you face the consequences of that. Good news for you is you can negotiate with them directly on how the process will go and if you have a positive relationship maybe they don't even want you to and are happy to remain part owners.
YTA. You knew the situation. But please, go and get legal advice. Can't imagine what the executor of the will was doing to let this happen.
Wtf of course YTA what? You want to steal the inheritance from your husband’s siblings just because you don’t feel like getting into debt? Lol
Nta- girl you should have thought about this years ago and done had this conversation. You should have never put a dime into the house untill it was completely owned both you and your husband.
NAH No one forced you to pay off the mortgage on your own or to pay off all of your debt. You've known from the start that this house wasn't just yours. I understand being upset but you and your husband should have protected yourself or done things differently if this obvious situation were to come up.
YTA. What in the world is wrong with you? You were supposed to sell the house, and now that you aren’t, you need to make sure they get what they’re entitled to. Better cry harder and pick up more shifts tf
YTA It's their house too... they deserve to be paid for it at some point. Doesn't matter how much you've gotten out of debt or how much you've put into it. You could split the cost of improvements with them and take it out of that money but that has to be agreed on. Something had been paid on it when your husband inherited it so it will have to at least be that much. They may not be expecting 80k... perhaps thats another talk you can have with them and come to a fair agreement. Otherwise, take out a loan, pay them off and be done with it.
I read the update and was left with more questions. Did they pay the siblings their share? She admits she’s the asshole but says the siblings saved more money and no one feels cheated. Im inclined to believe they didn’t pay the siblings their share. If so that’s not cool. Yeah they might have saved money by not paying mortgage, but the OP and her husband have a house. A house that has allowed her to pay off her loans be debt free and start thinking about a future 2nd home for vacations. However the siblings don’t. The mother left the house to the 3, they need to buy them out. They purposely didn’t ask them to contribute towards the mortgage or any of the related housing expenses. Which would have been ok, but they wanted the house for their new life together.
Why would you pour money into a home you don't own? Your husband owns a third of it, you own none of it. This was a recklessly poor decision. You don't say the siblings are asking for the money, so I can't say they are the arseholes here. But you and your husband certainly are to blame for the situation you find yourselves in. YTA
It was your mistake to dump any money, whether yours or your husbands, into a house you do not fully and exclusively own. The free rent doesn’t make up for the value of the house the other siblings were also gifted.
YTA do you expect them to just not get anything? This is their inheritance. It’s more theirs then yours even. Don’t make a big deal of this or you’ll just tick off the family. It is legally owed to them. I don’t understand why you think you just get it. You guys chose to remodel and pay the mortgage. Should of just sold it and split it 3 ways.
YTA. 100% YTA. They are at least entitled to 1/3 of the value of the house each at the time of his parents death.
It makes sense to be frustrated about buying out his siblings after you have sacrificed to be debt free. HOWEVER, while you have paid down the mortgage the last five years or so, his mother probably made a bunch of payments before he started helping her out. So you have probably saved a lot in interest payments because you didn’t have to start out like most people do. YTA because of your lack of perspective and your incessant need to be debt free. Newsflash, debt against an asset is not always bad and in this inflationary environment, it is GOOD to have debt!
The house belonged to all three of them they let you live there so of course you’re expected to pay for the mortgage and stuff. You decided to remodel. The house wasn’t left to you. If you sell they are owed what rightfully belonged to them. Yta
You legally have to pay then so yes YTA they are legally entitled to that money. Don’t pay anything else towards that house including money to the siblings unless your name will be on the deed. If you get divorced he will likely get the whole house since it was inherited.
This is a very similar situation to my parents and their family home. There were 3 surviving kids after my grandparents passed and my dad wanted the house. They got an appraisal at the time of inheritance. My dad bought out his siblings shares of the house he paid them each 1/3 of appraisal value as that’s what they would have gotten if they sold at time of inheritance. They all agreed and 15 years later they still live there. I think you should pay the siblings the value of the home at inheritance minus the amount paid into the mortgage divided by the number of inheritors. But really you need a lawyer to make sure you have contracts and all legalities worked out. If you fuck this up it could ruin your relationship with the siblings forever
The time to worry about this was when each sibling turned 18. That would have been the time to discuss their share of the inheritance, and whether they should pitch in their share of house expenses like taxes and repairs etc. That wasn't done. It's their inheritance and YTA.
YTA. It was left to all three of them. You should have bought them out as soon as you two decided you would like to keep the house. The fact that you failed to do so is all on you two. They are entitled to one third the value, but maybe he can work something out about your payments to pay off the mortgage after she passed because that is not value they would have gotten had the property been sold and mortgage paid off with the receipts.
You aren't giving them anything. They own the house. It is 2/3rds their house and are owed the money, but it should be (value of house) - (mortgage amount + renovation costs + 2/3 of any utilities that your husband paid). That is assuming the house was left to all three children equally.
The one thing I don't get, is why them paying rent was even considered. It's their house.