Follow
Share

My father is deceased and mother 93 I provide in home care for her. When my father passed away it left home to my mother. She could not afford to pay for the 60,000.00 owed on the home so my sister from a previous marriage took out a loan and payed the mortgage off. my mother now lives there rent free. my question is this when my mother made out her will she stated that in the event of her passing the property would be shared by her 3 children 2 of which were from a previous marriage. Now that my sister has paid off the mortgage and all is in her name is the property still divided between the 3 of us if she passes? she says no and wants to sell the property as soon as my mother passes to pay her back for what she had to borrow. the property was valued at 130,000 she paid off 60,000 mortgage. she says that since all is in her name she is entitled to the whole amount . and my mothers will is no longer in affect.

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Jessiebell and igloo are correct. You will have to see who is on the deed. If she is not on the deed, then the right thing to do is to compensate her for her investment $60k+ and then sell the property and split the proceeds. If sister owns outright, she is not obligated to split, but may once she recoups her investment and selling expenses.

Sometimes sibs don't know what's in the will. That's my case. I'm 56 and have not seen a notarized copy because my parents were so secretive.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Jessie & igloo - all true, every word ypu say. One is left to wonder what the two non-loan sisters were thinking.

However, my meaning, the crux of the issue that I was speaking to is when a family member does something without making it clear the expectations are, it has a tendency to look and feel suspicious. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, etc.

Doing things unilaterally without some kind of agreement, understanding or at least explanation doesn't work, never, EVER and there will ALWAYS be hard feelings. When you're dealing with the financial aspect of your ill family, even when its just amongst the family, everything should be done with strict records and everything on the table, just like it would have to be done for the court if it were a conservatorship. if they couldn't have reached a private agreement, this is a case where conservatorship may have been in order. Ugly but true.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

So true, Igloo. I didn't even consider taxes, insurance, closing costs, or future costs of repairing and selling the house. I doubt that Sister will make much money at all -- just recoup what she has tied up in making sure Mother had a place to live.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

I just got out my crystal ball and here is what it said:

Sissy - "OK family, the mortgage cost me $ 71K and the rest of you could have gotten a loan / mortgage / gone into debt to do this...but you didn't. I underwrote the risk and I am due the reward."

"If you two want the house, then make me whole on my investment including
taxes, insurance, etc.; utilities & maintenance; & comparable rent lost. Also there will need to be an independent appraisal done as the tax assessor value is I believe incorrect and too high. My costs are 113K: 71K loan; 20K house items, 15K in lost rental, 7K appraisal, Realtor commission, title,survey closing etc.

House sells "as is" 117K - everybody gets $ 1,333.33. Bad feelings till 2040.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

I have a more sympathetic view here. When your mother was faltering financially, your sister stepped up to the plate to make sure she had a place to stay that your mother loved. The money she invested paying the principal and interest of the loan could have been invested in other ways and made money for her. I see her gesture as a kind one. It was a lot of money that she put in to paying off the loan. Now, if all the siblings had put in to paying off the loan, I would think it unfair. I do not know the length of the loan, but if it was a long time, the interest would be substantial. Not knowing the details, I can't say if the sister was manipulating to get the house and doing something that was very generous. I am glad that your mother was able to stay in her home, which would have been difficult if Sister had not stepped up to the plate.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

THIS is the type of thing that experts begin referring to as "FAMILY DYNAMICS" and it is unilateral decisions like this (on what part of your sister without consideration to you and another sibling) that gets under people's skin and really causes the anger.

My cousin was his father's but not his mother's son. There was a sister who was the mothers but not the father's daughter. There was one sister who was mutual and a deceased son who was mutual. The father had died many moons before but the mother (my auntie) what on to sustaining dementia. Daughters did not participate in their moms care, other than occasional visitation, because neither could stand to see their mother "that way". So the full responsibility fell to the son and his wife. They lovingly saw to it that's what was needed, was done.

But mom, typical of dementia, didn't like being told what to do, and so the anger of the disease limitations fell onto the son who was always there to support her, but whom she considered with suspicion as bossy and controlling (LAST thing he is!) and the one thing she remembered was that he wasn't HER son. That was just her rage, he never stopped doing for her.

In one of her angry and suspicious (paranoid) phases, she asked the husband (a lawyer) of the mutual daughter to redraft her will, cutting out the caretaking non-bio son! She was not diagnosed at that time, all those looking back, they realize now that she had dementia then. So the new will was prepared. That didn't stop the son (and his wife) who continued the responsibilities of caretaking.

Come to auntie's death, the sisters chose to ignore the will splitting everything in half between them, and instead split everything in thirds the way they will have been originally written. I, as a caretaker, felt that even THAT was unfair because of how much cousin and wife sacrifice to care take, but that's not the point of the story.

THE POINT IS THAT FOLKS CAN STILL CHOOSE TO DO WHAT'S "RIGHT" EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE LAW ON THEIR SIDE TO DO IT ANOTHER WAY THAT MAY NOT BE JUST OR MORAL.

Your sister made is magnanimous gesture of paying off the house to ease your moms financial burden. And I presume put the name in her house for some formality of the loan, but made the (overt or secretive?) decision that that meant the house was hers, apparently unilaterally without discussing with the other two of you what the long-term implications of that meant. Maybe SHE didn't think of it at the time and became calculating about it later, or maybe she quietly planned it that way all along. No way for me to know that with what you've stated so far.

What should have happened is a separate agreement between the three of you that at such time your mom passed, the loan amount plus interest would be deducted from the value of the house as an expense and reimbursed to the sister who got the loan. The remaining proceeds should have been split 3 ways. If that have been written up, then that would have been the LEGAL way to do it and hopefully all three would be happy, no one blindsided. But I guess you didn't do that because you trusted her to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, magnanimous loan sister has decided NOT to do things the RIGHT way, but instead she has LEGAL right to do this, which may very well change your relationships forever.

BLINDSIDED! What a shame.

Things done are not always RIGHT even if they ARE legal.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Of course your sister should be paid her portion of the investment, in addition to her third of the inheritance.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Sissy is correct. If mom sold the property and there was follow-through on the legal on the property so that there was a deed of trust or quit claim done from mom to Sissy and filed in your county's land records; then Sissy is 100% the owner of the home. She owes nothing to anyone.

Mom now has no ownership and whatever she put in her will regarding that property ages ago is no longer valid. It would be like if mom sold her car to a neighbor and the title was transferred on the auto to the neighbor. It's the neighbor's property now even if they drive your mom to Target. That is just a nice gesture...like Sissy allowing mom to live at the home rent-free.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Jessebelle is right, if Sis is on deed solely then it's her's..

Did your Mom sell property to your Sis?
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

BTW, she probably paid much more than $60K because of the interest on the loan.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

When you wrote that "all is in her name," did you mean the house is in your sister's name? If she is the person on the deed, then yes, it would be hers when your mother dies. In fact, if her name is on the deed as the sole owner, it is hers now and she is letting your mother stay for the rest of her life.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

No. She gets her 60 grand back, then you split rest 3 ways.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.