Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is going on in my family....happening in the state of Oregon.
Relative dies unexpectedly 6 months ago and leaves a will giving his residence to his two children. He had a live in girlfriend of several years who is currently in the property. She is not named in the will. The residence has significant value.
LIG is in her 70s and had plans to move back to her home state/in with an adult child after the funeral. But she then "changed her mind" because (she said) there are so many memories for her in the home she shared with the deceased.
One of the children has been staying with the other because of financial difficulty and thinks that the house should be sold as soon as possible, proceeds split, and that LIG should be given notice to vacate. The other child has a family to support with a kid of their own about to enter college. In short, they could both use the income from the sale of the property. This individual does NOT want to sell the property and wants LIG to be able to stay as long as she wants, rent free, because this person believes that the deceased would have wanted that. Neither has a significant relationship with LIG and neither lives near the property. Neither has expressed a desire to move into or use the property themselves.
Both children have come to my husband and I to intervene on their behalf as we are close and don't have a vested interest in the property. We set up a consult with an attorney for both of the inheritors who advised drawing up a lease and asking LIG to pay some kind of rent, however minimal, with a hard end date of her occupancy of the house. They are still arguing about the advisability of this.
Any sage advice on this? We are trying to keep our opinions to ourselves and help these relatives work this out.
Don't have a vested interest? Don't provide input.
There are only two people who have a legal say in this, and it should be kept that way.
LIG does not have a relationship with either inheritor. Father lived in a different state. LIG was there when they visited at holidays and all was pleasant but neither child spent time with her outside of these sorts of situation. They did ask her opinion on some of the funeral arrangements and have been speaking with her a lot more since the passing of their dad, but it could be described as cordial yet distant. LIG was not a "grandma" to the children of the inheritor but was known by her first name and as "grandpa's friend." To my view, neither child knows LIG well enough to ascertain whether she will cause problems. She was broken up over the death of her companion but has not made a cash grab. It makes my husband and I suspicious that she has decided to stay in the house after saying she will leave but we are third parties in this situation. Inheriting children lost their mom a decade ago and LIG was installed about 5-6 years ago. Will was created about 8 years ago. It has not been amended since.
LIG has three adult children all living in her home state of Arizona. Apparently one has a substantial property with a casita where she was living before. This child has offered for her to come back and updated the casita for her-- we actually talked to them at the funeral and heard this first hand.
The attorney gave the advice to put a lease in place because one inheritor insisted that they wanted LIG to stay. The other inheritor wants her out ASAP. Neither one has the ready cash to buy the other out (the inheritor who wants LIG out has asked us to lend the buyout cash to them. We are not willing to do that because its a substantial sum we are sure we won't see again.)
Inheritors are co-executors with equal say in what happens.
The house is in a "hot market" and I am not even sure that the deceased realized how "hot" it is/how much the house is worth. The house is adorable and will go quickly with a fresh coat of paint. The inheritors have made lives far away and don't want to go back to this house. Neither one is in a position to landlord from a distance.
If she was getting a free place to live for years, she's probably sitting on a big pile of cash. I doubt poverty is the problem. It sounds like she just wants to go on living there for free.
They're lucky Oregon is not a common law state.
Would it matter much? In theory they could be married and if Dad left his second wife with zilch, she'd be mostly out of luck.
LIG does not have a relationship with either inheritor. Father lived in a different state. LIG was there when they visited at holidays and all was pleasant but neither child spent time with her outside of these sorts of situation. They did ask her opinion on some of the funeral arrangements and have been speaking with her a lot more since the passing of their dad, but it could be described as cordial yet distant. LIG was not a "grandma" to the children of the inheritor but was known by her first name and as "grandpa's friend." To my view, neither child knows LIG well enough to ascertain whether she will cause problems. She was broken up over the death of her companion but has not made a cash grab. It makes my husband and I suspicious that she has decided to stay in the house after saying she will leave but we are third parties in this situation. Inheriting children lost their mom a decade ago and LIG was installed about 5-6 years ago. Will was created about 8 years ago. It has not been amended since.
LIG has three adult children all living in her home state of Arizona. Apparently one has a substantial property with a casita where she was living before. This child has offered for her to come back and updated the casita for her-- we actually talked to them at the funeral and heard this first hand.
The attorney gave the advice to put a lease in place because one inheritor insisted that they wanted LIG to stay. The other inheritor wants her out ASAP. Neither one has the ready cash to buy the other out (the inheritor who wants LIG out has asked us to lend the buyout cash to them. We are not willing to do that because its a substantial sum we are sure we won't see again.)
Inheritors are co-executors with equal say in what happens.
The house is in a "hot market" and I am not even sure that the deceased realized how "hot" it is/how much the house is worth. The house is adorable and will go quickly with a fresh coat of paint. The inheritors have made lives far away and don't want to go back to this house. Neither one is in a position to landlord from a distance.
While leases generally do not carry an obligation to renew with a tenant, you don't want to open yourself up to the possibility of the lessee stating the landlord's choice was retaliatory, etc. especially with the history she has living in the unit and nature of the relationship w/ the deceased.
Again, I'd stay out of it and not offer any advice. Each inheritor is polar opposite the other in their desires and there is no way this will preserve your relationship with both by contributing anything in this situation.
It seems reasonable enough that the inheritor who wants LIG to stay in the house would be willing to buy the other inheritor out equal to half the amount the property is worth. Then the other inheritor needing the $ can move on with life.
Seems like it is a win-all situation...
Wondering who pays the property taxes, utilities, maintenance on the property at that point though? Seems like the LIG should have some financial responsibility at that point.
The attorney gave the advice to put a lease in place because one inheritor insisted that they wanted LIG to stay. The other inheritor wants her out ASAP. Neither one has the ready cash to buy the other out (the inheritor who wants LIG out has asked us to lend the buyout cash to them. We are not willing to do that because its a substantial sum we are sure we won't see again.)
I don't understand this. It seems that the person who wants to sell doesn't need any cash, and it's the person who wants the girlfriend to stay who would need to buy the other heir out. I suppose if they really want to they could look into getting a mortgage to buy the sibling out.
For that matter, if it were presented to the LIG that she can stay if she buys the house from the estate she could decide to do that, but I suspect she might hightail it down to Arizona.
I don't understand this. It seems that the person who wants to sell doesn't need any cash, and it's the person who wants the girlfriend to stay who would need to buy the other heir out. I suppose if they really want to they could look into getting a mortgage to buy the sibling out.
For that matter, if it were presented to the LIG that she can stay if she buys the house from the estate she could decide to do that, but I suspect she might hightail it down to Arizona.
The inheritor who wants to sell understands that the one who doesn't is having some deep seated guilt about kicking out a 70-something woman who made their dad happy in the last years of his life. The logic was that if this inheritor had the cash for a buy out, they could do the "dirty job" that their sibling didn't want to do, sell the house and give everyone some of the proceeds. Theoretically. Inheritor on team LIG doesn't necessarily NOT want the money from the sale, and could use the money from the sale, but doesn't have the stomach to be the bad guy. So inheritor on team evict is willing to take on that role. Neither has the money to buy the other out.
(snip) For that matter, if it were presented to the LIG that she can stay if she buys the house from the estate she could decide to do that, but I suspect she might hightail it down to Arizona.
Actually, that sounds like a win-win situation.
If GF really wants to stay she can buy the house and stay (and then, of course, it is her responsibility to pay the taxes, manage the maintenance, pay the insurance, mow the grass, shovel the snow, etc. etc. not the inheritor's responsibility)
But, I bet that the GF suddenly decides that she really wants to move to Arizona and live in the house that her daughter has prepared for her.
The inheritor who wants to sell understands that the one who doesn't is having some deep seated guilt about kicking out a 70-something woman who made their dad happy in the last years of his life. The logic was that if this inheritor had the cash for a buy out, they could do the "dirty job" that their sibling didn't want to do, sell the house and give everyone some of the proceeds. Theoretically. Inheritor on team LIG doesn't necessarily NOT want the money from the sale, and could use the money from the sale, but doesn't have the stomach to be the bad guy. So inheritor on team evict is willing to take on that role. Neither has the money to buy the other out.
Someone is having guilt, more than likely, for not being a caretaker for their parent or for not spending time with them, not for asking the companion to now vacate the home as it is not her home.
I suspect there was a slight age difference between the father and his companion. I also suspect there's more to the story, that you may not be privy to.
They'll need to figure this out, sooner than later and it is out of your hands. I'd advise them, to kindly leave you out of it and that they act accordingly to the will. An attorney can take the role of the "bad guy,"
Someone is having guilt, more than likely, for not being a caretaker for their parent or for not spending time with them, not for asking the companion to now vacate the home as it is not her home.
I suspect there was a slight age difference between the father and his companion. I also suspect there's more to the story, that you may not be privy to.
They'll need to figure this out, sooner than later and it is out of your hands. I'd advise them, to kindly leave you out of it and that they act accordingly to the will. An attorney can take the role of the "bad guy,"
Oh come on. Why does two plus two have to always equal 17 on this forum? Are we reading the same posts? Are you a psychiatrist by chance? No? Then please keep your armchair diagnosis out of the equation. Were you not the person who claims that the shaky offer you presented on a house was not accepted because the seller accidentally saw you? This post about all of your assumptions and conclusion jumping really takes the cake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
