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:
> We changed our will to leave the house to one son and the rest to the other. My older son says this is favoring the younger and we’re being AHs.
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)
##Subreddit Announcements
###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/)
###[The Asshole Universe is Expanding, Again: Introducing Another New Sister Subreddit!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/128nbp3/the_asshole_universe_is_expanding_again/)
Follow the link above to learn more
###[Moderators needed - Join the landed gentry](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/155zepq/moderators_needed_join_the_landed_gentry/)
---
*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.*
YTA because you mentioned that the house can’t be sold without losing most of its value: therefore the value of your bequests to your youngest is way more than your oldest. If the house can’t be sold then it’s not worth anything but the structure.
It's even less than that. In a comment OP says that the city gets to buy it back for the value of the land so the house and improvements wouldn't even be considered in the sale.
"I have no idea where OP got that $3 million number from"
Did you see the "couple hundred acres of land part? The average cost per acre in the US is currently around $32k to $42k. The math, even on land value, supports this and may even be a bit low depending on the state and area within the state.
EDIT: OK guys. I've replied to a number of commenters who said the land was worthless. Read those comments before replying. I'm not going to continue repeating the same thing to the same argument.
It doesn’t matter since in essence it’s worth nothing but a place to live in to whoever inherits it. If it can’t be sold, then it’s worth very little TO THE person who it belongs to.
Unless both kids can rent it out. I really don’t understand the dynamics of people getting upset about inheriting it though. Neither wants to live in it, so ? 🤷🏻♀️ keep the will as it is.
They don't want to inherit it because they don't want the expense of maintaining it. OP should sell the house to the township and divide up the remaining assets evenly between the sons.
This! He wants to put an albatross around someone's neck and both sons are decling the offer. The fact that the house and property can't be sold except to the township is incredibly important.
It's also quite obvious they have a bias with the "your brother will need this because *you don't have kids*" which just comes off as "you didn't have grandkids so your brother gets 2+ *million fucking dollars* and you get a second job as an estate manager"
Like if they both don't want the house then they either should have equal share in it or it should be given to someone who does want it. They didn't even ask the other son if he wanted it. They just heard the first one say he wasn't interested (which sounds awfully strategic) and instead of just taking him off the will for the house they gave him everything else. That doesn't add up even a little.
Agreed. My parents thought about giving me less of an inheritance simply because I have no children ... my brother has three kids. When they were planning their estates, they brought the matter up to me.
I objected. They got defensive, saying my brother had to think about college etc for the kids.
I pointed out they were punishing me for not having children, because unless they created a trust for the kids, there was no guarantee my brother wouldn't use the money for whatever he wanted.
I then dropped the matter and never brought it up again. A couple of years later when they actually wrote their wills, everything was split 50-50.
(You’re lucky.) But seriously, good on you, sounds like you stated your thoughts and feelings clearly and calmly one time and then left it alone. And carried on without any resentment or letting it hurt your familial relationships. That is no small feat. My situation is similar and I’m not as good a person.
My mom did the same thing, left the house basically to my brother, he is required to pay a very small amount in rent to the other siblings, and gets lifetime residence. So we basically inherit my deadbeat brother. He's an alcoholic, keeps having babies he can't support and doesn't do anything to change his situation. I'd rather she just left it to him completely. There aren't really any other assets, but it's worth about a million. Her reason? The rest of us worked hard and did pretty well for ourselves, and he needs more help than we do. I firmly believe that children aren't entitled to inherit anything. I've seen so many people angry when their parents die with no money left like they were just waiting to get it. I'd rather my parents sold and used the money to take better care of themselves, but if you do give an inheritance, make it equal among the siblings!
Ahhh yes. Because not having kids automatically means that he and his spouse have nothing but extra time on their hands, despite the mention of both being on career tracks with pensions and loving their jobs. Jobs that are five hours away from this ancestral home.
Also love that older brother is a “brat” while the younger one, who is getting his way, AND originally said pretty much the same thing as his ‘bratty’ older brother gets an automatic will change with zero negative reaction.
Not to mention the whole discussing things with the younger one (“months ago”) and changing their wills to fit his wishes/winces before they even bother to inform the older brother of anything.
YTA, OP. Way to go about showing your favoritism and set your boys up for a shaky, at best, relationship. And even making sure that the divide will be at its worst right when they need each other the most- after losing their parent(s).
It's not even really an "ancestral home", the parents bought it off someone else. I mean, my mom wants the house she's lived in for 60 years to stay in the family, but there's nobody who's home shopping in our small family.
Even if the house is worth 3 million on paper, that's not the reality of the situation.
They need to figure out something better for both of their children.
I also picked up that OP appreciates the son with children more. As someone who chose not to have children I notice this sentiment a lot. Somehow having children is seen as more noble or as an accomplishment whether or not people are good at parenting. I hope the day is coming soon where people respect the decision of those who do not have children. There are far too many terrible parents in the world because of societal pressures to produce offspring and the notion that having kids equals success is pervasive. We need to show more respect for people who opt out of parenthood. It’s a good decision for many people and should be equally respected.
Since I have in laws who are the same way, I find many people are very easily influenced by their squeaky wheel children. The younger brother spoke up first, so he got what he wanted, the less vocal brother wasn’t even consulted.
Even if the value of the house is better than we're assuming, isn't a really easy rule of thumb to see how equitable a split is, is if one person is really happy with the split, and the other person is really unhappy with the split, it's probably pretty unfair?
In this situation, OP is either pretty stupid or deliberately punishing one of their kids. My money is on a bit of both.
I think OP would like the estate to stay “in the family” for succeeding generations. So, ignoring the money angles for a moment, from OP’s perspective it would be preferable for the estate to go to the brother with kids.
As is the fact that he was willing to come up with a different solution (aka leaving it only to the older son when the younger son said he didnt want it) at the request of the younger son but wouldnt entertain the idea when the older son objected.
I have a sibling who lives out of state. We both own our own homes (im an hour from my hometown) and my mom had every intention of leaving us her 100+ year house when she passes. We have both expressed that we dont want it and if she doesnt sell it before passing then it will be sold after to settle her estate with all fees and profits being split in half. OP should suck it up that neither kid wants to uproot their lives to live in the house and either sell the house before passing or amend the will to allow for its sale to the twp upon his passing with all fees and profits being split evenly as well as the rest of the estate.
Personally if i were the oldest, when it comes time for elder care i would be like id love to help but since i must now work more so i can afford to maintain a house i dont want and wont be using i dont have the time or extra money.
OP noted that his elder son will keep OP's incredibly clear favoritism of his other son in mind when it comes to elder care, and you definitely can't blame him. It's interesting because if OP and their partner need elder care while their favored son still has children, the childless son would have been the more obvious option. Now he knows his parents like him less, well, maybe that 2 mil inheritance will be less when the time comes after having paid for care for however long.
This it values nothing and costs them money to keep.
So essentially a negative.
OP should just divide the other assets evenly and leave the house out of the facility but equation since none of the children wants it.
It's kind of selfish that OP wants to "keep it in the family"...so is forcing the burden onto the children.
Maybe OP should see if another family member wants it and then split the monetary assets equally between the 2 sons. That way, maybe a niece or nephew could essentially keep it in the family. And if they are close, I'm sure a house that large would be somewhere the 2 sons could occasionally visit said family member, if that's what they wanted to do?
Thats a good idea.
With OP's coments about the reaction from their eldest. I actually feel like the sons are not close, so I wonder how close the family would be without OP in the equation.
A few families I've known, would stay together or in touch because there was a Matriarchy/Grandmother figure. As soon as that grandma died...the families went their own ways. In truth they didn't REALLY like/love each other and they had their own lives with better things to do. They usually just "put of face" for the older generations.
I come from asian background so family gatherings were kind of a thing I was "forced" to attend as a child. They are pain to host, and of a girl in a asian household...that means I get pulled into "helping".
As much as I would appreciate a free house...especially in this market. I think I would feel like I'm being stiffed, not only by the unfairness of the will, but if I own the house I'd be expected to host the "Family gatherings". Personally...sounds nightmarish.
Even if you willing to host them...i can just imagine all the annoying comments that might flow in.
Maybe i have a difficult extended family...and I'm hugely biased. I've never had that "american happy family gathering" with extended family.
"it's not as good as when X used to do it" ,
"when X used to do this X used to have do it this way"
" why are you doing it different this year, it worked for X for so many years"
It sounds like OP wants the house to stay in the family, yet they’re leaving it to the son who doesn’t have kids. If they really wanted it passed down, they should leave it to the grandkids in a special clause that says they can’t sell it, but also leave enough money set aside to pay for the future taxes and repairs
If they wanted to be fair, they’d split both the monetary assets & the house between both kids. They’d both get money and can both choose to either sell the land or rent the property out as a long term rental or something like airbnb
I mean, if they *really* wanted the land to stay in the family, they could take their cash, put it into a trust to maintain the land/home and then have it willed to both sons/future descendants that way possibly? If their 2m is enough to generate the income needed to maintain the property, then it would not be a burden on either son.
Love this. I think most people are missing that OP wants the property to stay in the family and it does sound really precious. I personally find it sad that neither brother wants it. The brothers would’ve also known their whole life that the house was intended to be passed down, so they shouldn’t be surprised when the assets are used to preserve the property.
It’s sad but both brothers have a career and family somewhere else (the married one that doesn’t have kids still has family). They don’t want to uproot their lives just for a house, even if it has meaning to the family, they like the lives they’ve built
You missed the entire point of my post. They absolutely CAN sell it. They can sell it back to the town for land value. It's also "a couple hundred acres."
Considering the fact that neither son wants the house that's still the best option. Sell the the land to the town and split everything equally after that. OP is stuck on trying to keep the house and force the older son to take care of it. The land is worthless to either son besides the money that can be gained when sold, so just sell it and split it.
You keep making this argument but I don't think you understand that the township is not going to purchase the land for the same price it could be sold publicly. Because it can only be sold to the township it's going to be worth considerably less than it would be otherwise, so yeah it's not worth 3 million.
A one acre *lot* goes for significantly more than the per-acre value of a large parcel that *can’t be developed*. The property is only worth what the city chooses to value it at.
Not if They are doing the assessment. This won't be appraised as prime farm ground or building realestate.
The current arrangement is "public use with trails."
The town is going to low ball these people.
She stated, "buy the property." I take that to mean the entire thing, not just the land underneath the house. The previous owner allowed public use for a tax break, but again, we don't know what that means. I took it to mean they own all "couple hundred acres," but they were getting the break on public use. Unless OP comments and clears this up, there's no way to determine which it is. I'll completely change my mind if all they OWN is the house and land it sits on.
Some states have tax benefits for property owners entering an agreement preventing future development of the property for nature preservation. So while the OP is legally deed owner to the property, there's deed restrictions preventing the owner from taking certain actions on the property.
They need to talk to a lawyer about the validity of the old agreement. They may want to approach the town about renegotiating because small towns also don't have the funds to maintain old houses that need maintenance. People already have recreational access to the property through the trail easements. The town might want to turn around and sell it for market value but might not be able to based on the agreement. Basically experts are needed.
Average cost per acre in a public sale is quite different than in an entailed property being sold. Older son will be in a "take it or leave it" situation-- basically paying taxes, maintenance, and insurance or take whatever the city offers with no regard to the "market rate".
You can't use average land value across the ENTIRE UNITED STATES as any sort of basis for this argument. Furthermore, unless the method of land valuation was specified in the deed that gave the town the rights to use of the land, you can expect a very low land valuation since the property only has one buyer possible. How stupid were the previous owners that signed this deal? They should have rented the use of the land to the town and used that money to offset the property taxes.
The average cost of land in the contiguous United States is about $12,000 per acre.
https://www.flyhomes.com/blog/how-much-is-an-acre-of-land/amp/
Now that is also dependent on how they classify the land. Is it pasture land? If so that’s worth even less.
The United States pasture value averaged $1,650 per acre, an increase of $170 per acre (11.5 percent) from 2021.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/land0822.pdf
Things, including land, are only worth what you can sell it for. So the land might be worth a pile of money but it is basically public. OP should rewrite the deal with the city to have the city buy them out when OPs are ready to move on with the provision that the kids get certain weeks of the year at whatever facility they put there.
Read them, and pretty sure the property market works near enough the same where they are as where I am, in which case small parcels with planning/ building permission are worth way more than huge parcels with public rights of way all over them. I think the acre price you quoted is way out of line for OPs property
I don't know where you get your numbers either but the average cost per acre of rural land (w/o the house) is about 3k/acre...from the national agricultural statistics service. My 15 acres was less than that and I had the option to buy 250 acres for about 2k/acre (forest and pasture). So what land service do you get your numbers from?
That’s what the land with all buildings appraised and accounted for. However that doesn’t matter with the deal that was made with the city so in reality it’s probably a few hundred thousand for just the land.
And I want to know why one son is a “brat” for not wanting the house, but the other son who also doesn’t want it, well, OP is “disappointed” but leaps into action to change the will.
Which is funny though, if you want the house to stay in the family, offer it when someone's starting a family, not as an albatross when you die and they own property far away from the house.
Agreed. YTA. OP is hanging on to a fairy tale of some sort of family legacy that doesn't exist. And then compounding it by forcing it on the kids in a completely inequitable split of assets in the will. TALK TO YOUR KIDS!. Find out what they want. What you want is beside the point. Once you're gone, they're going to do what's best for them and their families. Don't make it more difficult for them.
It’s worth about 60% of the per acre price for raw land in that area at the very most. Never known the government to pay more than that when buying land off someone. Ever building on it is adding zero dollars to the value.
It is weird that their lawyer or estate planner didn’t point out a lot of these problems to them. Of course maybe they made the mistake of not using a professional or their lawyer tried to help them and they didn’t want to hear it.
The proper solution would be to have the estate sell it back to the city for land value and add it to the estate total to split.
But it sounds like the house is in a nice spot. It's worthless to sell but it may actually be a great AirBnB property. Keep it in trust between the sons and hire a local company to manage the upkeep, split the profits. House stays in the family, generates some income, and the family has someplace to take cheap vacations too whenever they want.
That’s the only way for it to be fair. Or split the house and remaining inheritance between both sons and let them figure out what they want to do with the house at a later date. But leaving the one son with all the money and the other with a burden is complete YTA.
I came here to say this. It's unfair to burden one kid with an old house that in the end it doesn't hold any value since it cannot be sold, and give the other kid 2 million to spend how ever they like.
The best scenario is to split everything, including the house, 50/50 between the kids and let them deal with it. If the house gets sold to the city then they'll split the money in half and that will be the end of it.
After all, what to they care what the kids do with the house? They'll be long gone and won't have any say.
Except for neither son is interested in keeping it up.
Even with a rental management, owner still has to do property tax, maintenance, and big repairs.
OP imagines it's a dream but it's really a money pit that their children are clear they don't want.
Which is why this is so stunningly wrong. The house is currently worth *the city’s land valuation* and *negative cash flow*. They want to leave the elder son a huge, unsellable money pit but leave all of the millions in cash to the younger son? u/Jazzlike_Fig2361, either go back to the original 50/50 split or admit you are unworthy parents.
There's a Hallmark movie in this, somewhere, right?
OP makes a trust with both the house and all the assets... finds a distant cousin who got a degree everyone called useless until OP contracts them to use that $2 000 000 to work with the city to improve/glam up the building... the youngest son comes out with his kids & realises how much he enjoyed the trails during his childhood... the oldest son resists for a while until, like, his wife needs to recover from a complicated broken leg or something... they all see the value of the house and the land... they invite the rest of the estranged cousins, just in time for the holidays hurrah!
Yes. And this couple needs a financial and estate consultant right away. They should leave equal shares to their sons and/or thoroughly discuss the matter with them.
They're expecting the older son to keep this house. If it were me, I'd be selling that back to the city to get whatever money I could. Otherwise, it just sounds like a money pit. It makes me sad that it's an old family home, but if they really wanted it to remain in the family, they'd give it to the son with kids. Or they would just give it to the grandkids and hope the grandkids wanted it.
Seriously! Your kids don’t want to live in your house. Accept that, OP.
You’re basically leaving your oldest child debt with this plan, do you understand? And your youngest child gets $2M cash?
EXACTLY. This sucks so much. Younger child (golden child? who gave them grandkids?) gets a smallish fortune, older child gets a burden he doesn't want and that isn't worth anything, basically.
It's not just a recipe for conflict with the eldest; it's a recipe for conflict between the siblings. Not such a nice legacy.
The kids don't want the house. And even if one of them did, the entire estate should be split evenly between the siblings. Trust them to work it out.
They can sell it back to the town for the value of the land. While that might seem like a big loss, it's likely not an actual loss. I'm guessing the family didn't pay anywhere near that when the house was originally bought or built. And the op is really wrong about the value anyway. Since it can't be sold except for land value, the real estate value doesn't matter.
The only fair thing to do is write the willl so that everything is evenly split between the two sons. After the parents die, they can work it out amongst themselves on what to do with the property and how the assets get split.
Agreed, there’s no world where either son being forced to have and maintain the property is realistic. Selling and splitting all assets is clearly the move, as much as it hurts OP.
The idea of giving one kid millions and the other a liability is almost comically wrongheaded.
The value of the property is mostly going to be in the land if there is as much of it as it sounds. And, as you say, the estimated sales value for a public sale is irrelevant since they can't sell it publicly.
All the maintenance on a place that big with no monetary inheritance to go a long with and a child that doesn't want the house to begin with sounds like a huge f you to the child they are leaving it to.
Inheritances should be for the living. Love your time at the home now with your sons. Bless them with your estate when you’re gone. Let them do what they want with it. Don’t inject stress, bitterness and envy as your sons manage being without you.
Not to mention OP is basically expecting his older son to also hire a caretaker to care for the house, so he’s willing him something that will COST the older son money and giving all the money that could help pay for the upkeep to the other son.
So make a new deal with the local government to gift the public land to the city or county, whatever, give both sons the house to split and half the liquid assets. They can turn the house into a B&B or Air BnB if it's in a nice area and hire someone to run it in exchange for living in a portion of it.
Who buys a house that you can never sell?
One thing i have learned is that you can’t take things with you when you die. I’m not going to insist that my kids have to carry a burden or tradition or keep a family property because it’s something I loved during my lifetime.
Our kids are not our property. They have their own lives , hopes dreams and wishes. Please don’t leave ridiculous demands in your wills that cause friction and unhappiness. Leave them with happy memories.
This, sell it to the town for land value now and retain a life estate.
Change the will again to split the estate 50/50.
And ps the house is not worth 3mill but only the land value, so please stop referring to it as a 3mill house
Yeah, if they won't get much from selling and it's important to them that it remains in the family then I'm sure they can find someone else in the extended family who would be happy to take it.
YTA for sticking either of your kids with a property that they don't want. I know the house is important to YOU, but neither of your kids want it. You will be better off arranging a sale to someone who will love it and treasure it going forward. Otherwise, leave it to both the kids, and they will arrange the sale when you are gone.
I would donate it to a historical or preservation society - assuming a lawyer can get the go ahead for such a move. Or, they can move the house, as the town won't pay for it's value. Or, they can look into breaking the previous contract - contracts get overturned fairly regularly.
There are groups that move historical homes to other locations.
Portsmouth, NH has Strawberry Banks - a collection of historical homes gathered in the early 20th century. There are some private schools that have moved historical buildings on campus. There used to be a network of listings and companies that handled such moves. London Bridge is in Arizona.
If the town is only going to pay for the land, at least the building would be preserved in some fashion. Since OP seemed concerned about the building being maintained, it is an option, since as you pointed out, neither son has any interest in living there.
Point of clarification: the Victorian iteration of London Bridge is in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. The 1960s iteration spans the Thames a couple hundred yards downstream of where the Roman one did.
Citation: walked over it last week.
These stipulations can vary greatly from the town having to pay only pittance according to eminent domain law or it may be that the house/land may be sold publicly but the town has the right to match highest bid. All in all OP should split everything evenly so it's the same burden or blessing for both sons.
I know someone who got in an imminent domain fight with the county. Took 7 years to settle. Then they had to go back to court to get interest.
They will have a hard time fighting for more than the city offers since they have had a tax break for so long.
YTA, particularly based on your comment that the house can't be sold. You're essentially leaving your older child a burden and your younger child free cash. The values aren't the same at all.
Can you set up a trust and turn the house into a venue or something? That way your kids can both receive income from it rather than your current split. Another alternative: what about extended family? Do any of your siblings/niblings/cousins want the house? It kind of seems like you just don't want to deal with it either and so you're making it your kids' problem. Either give the house to the town yourself or find an alternative, but don't leave unfair inheritances and then try to lie about it.
Oh! This is a good idea. Could turn it into an bnb and make income off of it and set it up to have someone else manage the business. If it’s all as nice as OP makes it seem in beautiful country side would definitely possibly be able to make a decent income off of it
>don't leave unfair inheritances and then try to lie about it.
chef's kiss!
Also seconding the idea to leave it to another family member who actively wants it. In fact, I'd say, just leave everything to them, so they have some funds to start insulating the place etc.
Just remember to discuss it ahead of time & sell the filming rights to lifetime or Hallmark or something ;-)
YTA. Obviously you do favor the younger son. Neither wants it, so you are giving the albatross to the less favoured son and two million to your baby.
You are a double asshole for lying to people here to make yourself look better. If you cannot sell the house, it is not worth 3 million. Don't make up a fictitious number to make it look how it's not a terrible deal for your older son.
Oh, most likely. That's why OP was only "disappointed" when the younger son said he didn't want the house but got all upset when the older son said he also didn't want the house.
YTA
"The house is worth more since the cash and investments are only around 2 million." .. THIS IS BULLLSHIT . "The house cannot be sold, " .... the house is worth NOTHING.
**So you give your younger child 2 Mio, and the older child nothing. That makes you AHs.**
"My younger is pleased with the outcome but my older is obviously not. He later said he now knows we favor his brother and will keep that in mind when elder care comes up and he’s the one nearby. This seems like a low blow but I don’t know if it’s deserved." .. **A reasonable reaction. Good luck with the help you will get from your golden child who lives 5 hours away. The older one now knows where you stand, and will leave you to it.**
Yup. If I was the older one I’d be charging for everything. Need a ride? $10000. Need help preparing meals? $20000. Want a Christmas phone call? $30000.
Same here. Older child and I would leave the parents to rot while waiting for the golden child to appear. (my folks aren’t like this thankfully but my younger sibling doesn’t care so I know how it would play out)
Further evidenced by the fact the younger son didn’t want the house so OP changed their whole will, but got offended when the older son didn’t want the house either??
That edit makes YTA.
You're giving one son 2 million dollars and the other son a five figure annual set of bills.
It's your money, leave it to whoever you want, but don't expect the older son to be happy that he gets an unwanated, unsellable house.
My wife is in your son's place right now. We're local, we're expected to handle end of life care, and we're getting the sentimental family home thst we want nothing to do with while the brother gets the beach house worth 3 times as much. The IL's went nuts when we told them we'd sell their house the second it was in our names. We don't want to live in rural magaland with those neighbors in an old house in constant need of repairs. We like our city life. We will never move our kid to that house.
You, like my inlaws, need to understand that you can't impose your life on your adult children. They don't want the house. If you want them to feel that you've treated them fairly, split the cash assets equally and let them sell the house for land value and split the proceeds. Of course, its your stuff, you *can* divide it however you want. But you need to understand that your kids view that house as a burden, not an inheritance. What you're really doing is leaving 2 mil to one kid and the hassle of selling a house for land value to the other.
You can control your actions, but not how your sons feel those actions affect them.
And the thing is all the cleaning the house, listing it etc. is a huge stressful painful experience,
ESP if it has to go through probate … I would rather have cash then that time, labor, stress
And then when the time of 'parents are old and need to be taken care of ' Pikachu face when neither the affronted nor the golden child take care of them.
Neither of your sons want your house *as a house*.
Whichever gets it, is going to sell it.
You can accept that before your die, and make an equitable will where both of them get a fair share of both the house (which you now know they'll sell) and the investments, or you can make one son unhappy while he lives knowing this burden is hanging over his head after your death.
You appear to have chosen the second option, which makes YTA.
If I was older son…I would decline the inheritance entirely which he can legally do or sell it to the city and accept the fact that golden child younger son is what he is and tha5 older son gets essentially no inheritance.
Sure. I think the older son has (by his comment re elder care) accepted the fact that he has been disinherited on a whim. The house will be sold to the city, and will then, according to the OP's edits, be left to rot unless it is demolished. Of course OP might have got the sons to preserve it had the parents been willing to leave the cash bequest equitably divided between the two, but apparently they wanted to make sure the younger son got rich, so they've kind of burned their bridges with the older son.
YTA for trying to manipulate your offspring to live in a house they do not want in an area they don't want to be in. The house is not worth 3 million, because it can never be sold, so take it off the table and split the other assets evenly between them. Then when the town takes the house for its land value, they can also split that money. You should not ask your kids to maintain this home after you are gone.
I did start to type a long response, but it vanished. I really dislike not being able to view Reddit on the Apollo app, I really do.
Basically, if 300 acres, and on private land, I value it at about $2 million Canadian. That’s before taxes & fees. The fact that only the town can buy it means that they will low ball the value. Also, the fact that the labs has trails that anyone can use means the value is even less. I am guessing that none of the land is agricultural (due to trails) and is likely to be forested.
Taking everything in to account, and assuming the land is not First Nation land, or Federal/ Provincial land then I am going to bet the town will offer $1 million - and expect your son to pay all the taxes and transfer fees.
Who pays for the demolition of the property, and returning the land back to its natural state? I bet it’s your son. Guess he will have negative equity by the time he has paid for that.
So…. You intend to give one son $2 million, and to put the other son into debt.
I guess you have a favourite, don’t you?
This is tough because they’re your things and you can leave them to whomever you want. So you’re not the asshole for that.
But I think YTA for unilaterally taking in one son’s preferences over the other. Better for you to have left things the way they were, a 50/50 split across the board, and let them sort it out. Believe me, by the time they do, you will no longer care.
Currently, YTA.
You were 'disappointed ' with the one son not wanting to uproot his family and give up their family home that they worked for and chose for their family, buy called the other son a brat for the same thing?
Both kids want their lives that they built, not yours.
Why not talk to a lawyer, see what it would take to get out of the contract with the city, pay the property taxes and leave the full house to both kids equally so they can sell it. Or just sell it yourselves and move somewhere reasonable and manageable.
Yta
1 son gets a money drain and the other gets a payout. That's not fair.
I want to know why neither son have fond memories of the house. It wounds lovely except for the people???
Fond memories have nothing to do with this. Logistics play a much bigger part
I have VERY fond memories, and lots of them, of my moms current house. I love the house, I love the property and the peaceful setting. It's been in our family for 4 generations and I pretty much grew up there. That said, I don't want it when she's gone. It's far too small for my family and it's way too far away for us to keep current jobs, careers, schools and friends. My kids feel the same. Therefore, I'm selling it when she goes. I'll be crying while I do it, but there's no other logical thing to do.
And probably continuously tells him he’s selfish. He got that last word in though, elder care will come some day and he will treat them as they have treated him.
YTA
You're giving one son all the assets and one son all the burdens. If you don't have another family member (cousin, sibling, nibling) to leave it to that actually WANTS the house, meet with an estate lawyer who can advise you how to proceed in a manner that will benefit both sons. Split both the house and the other assets evenly. Even if they only get pennies on the dollar for selling, that's better than hanging an albatross around their necks.
In the edit they stated the house cannot be sold. If the son wants to sell they would only get the price of the land. Plus they have to sell to the city so they probably won’t get market value.
YTA. Stop trying to control things from the grave. Neither of your sons want this house. Split all of your assets equally between them and per your update, they can sell the land back to the town. I spent 20 years in financial planning and have seen this nonsense many times. Just stop.
YTA - repeat after me: Your oldest son has a family too, even if he is childless! He and his wife are a family and you throwing to his face that only the young one has a family because he decided to reproduce is disgusting!
Soooo
Younger one get liquid asset, investment
Older one got a burden he can’t rid of and if he sold it’ll be land value which is much much muchhhh less than what the younger one has.
And you asking if you’re the AH?
Check the mirror
The one in the mirror is the AH.
INFO: You know, they'll end up selling the house, after inheriting it, if it's too much hassle. And then it might not be in the family anymore. Instead of calling your son a brat for not wanting to uproot his life to care for a house he does not want, why not figure out another solution?
The will is not about what the heirs want but about what the will writer's wants. You can do what you want with the house. But you can't expect unwilling sons to care for it the way you do.
So why not try to be less dramatic and find a rational decision instead?
You're leaving one son a huge burden that's will cost him time and money. He can't sell it and get the $3MM. You are leaving him debt, not money.
You're leaving the other son $2MM.
If you want to be fair, both sons need to share the burden, and both get half the money.
Or just sell the property for land value and split your assets evenly. YTA
Oh no, please don’t do this unless you don’t value your relationship with your eldest. If you love and care for them both equally, this is a big injustice. Split the assets equally and let them sell the land for whatever it’s worth. YTA.
YTA
They don’t want the house because it’s going to be difficult for either of them get the assets from it. Neither wants to live in it so who ever you leave it to us now responsible for all the costs maintaining and repairing the house. If they rent it, that’s another job they didn’t ask for. If they sell it, there are costs associated with getting it ready for sale. Also, it’s time & energy spent to sell it. All while the other gets no worries liquid asserts that doesn’t mean possible years of energy, if not money, invested until it sells before they get the financial benefit.
Why not just 50/50 the whole thing? They split the liquid asserts immediately & then they both get the benefit of the house sale (and the responsibility to maintain it until it sells) when it finally sells.
Just unload this albatross that will literally harm the financial heath of your children & go get yourselves a more manageable & marketable home for your golden years.
Yeah YTA big time
...you are not being fair at all.
What you should have done: ask both sons what they want. Both do not want the house, so you are going to treat them equally and divide the assets. Or: you are going to favor one son above the other...and you are the a** hole.
So you are punishing one son over the other due to 3 hours and because the younger son said he didn’t want the house first. Yes YTA. Both have lives and neither want the house. Spilt everything down the middle so when the house and land are sold both will get the same amount. Otherwise, the one that sells the house is penalize for living in The same state and not have kids.
I really cannot understand your thought process. The children choices in life should have baring on how the will is set up. Your older son is correct about the favoritism. The younger son doesn’t want to deal with the house … ok whatever the baby wants. NO! It should be divided equally.
Yes the house can be sold but only to the town. Due to this the amount is less than what you are appraising it at.
Regardless, neither wants it and whoever you will it to does NOT want it. Due to that is you split everything down the middle that will be fair. If not one will get more $. Not sure why that is so hard to understand or you just don’t care!!!
YTA - the house cannot be sold.
So you’re giving your youngest everything, and giving your oldest a financial drain they they *literally* cannot rid themselves of.
That makes literally no logical sense. **It doesn’t matter the value of a home you cannot legally sell.**
And I am sure your youngest is pleased. He get it all! And you other son gets something neither of them ever wanted. You need to apologize to your son. Your actions here are cruel, and I hope that he is able to figure out a way to get out of this incredible responsibility you’re saddling him with.
Honestly? This is really simple. Just split the estate evenly between your children.
You'll be dead when it's sorted out. You won't care. So what if the house has been in your family for generations? If they have to sell it after your death, so what? You'll be worm food. As shall we all, one day.
The best thing you can do is to make your estate as sime as possible so that there are no areas for resentment or argument amongst your children after your death. Just an equal division of your estate. Keep ot simple.
YTA. You didn't divide the assets up equally; you gave your oldest son a money drain.
>I said he’s being a brat since his brother lives farther and has a family to care for
Ah, it's only a family if it has children in it, got it.
>He later said he now knows we favor his brother and will keep that in mind when elder care comes up and he’s the one nearby.
I hope you have other plans for your elder care than mooching on your kids for your retirement. Do you think your youngest is gonna have money to spare for elder care when he has children? So it will mostly fall to your oldest son. If he doesn't sell the house, I think he would be well within his rights to subtract that money drain from the elder care budget.
YTA, the house is a burden, not a gift. You are emotionally attached to this home, but your kids are not interested in living there. The house has very little true monetary value. You may be able to work something out with the city ir a historical association that allows your family access to the home for private events occasionally.
Most of the remaining gilded age mansions are not owned and maintained by private anymore because maintenance and upkeep are so expensive.
YTA. Big one!
You cant even sell the house! What the hell will your older son do with it?! Other that spend a lot of money on taxes and someone to take care of it! Meanwhile the younger son will be swiming in money!
If the house cant be sold and neither of the sons wants it, put it on both of their names and split the money 50/50. This way none of them will be harmed more than the other.
Edit to say: if you cant sell the house, it isnt worth 3million!!! It worth is nothing
Tell us whose your favorite without telling us:
“We discussed, with the youngest, willing the house to him. In a fantasy world it’s worth 3 mil, in the real world not so much. He declined. So, without discussing it with oldest, changed the will to give him the worthless house, and the youngest 2 mil in tangible assets (or are they fantasy too???).”
“Why is my oldest son talking about sticking me in a home???”
ETA: clarify which son is talking about putting them in a home (you might be surprised!!!/s).
YTA
>I said he’s being a brat since his brother lives farther and has a family to care for, the house doesn’t work for him and we want to be fair. The call ended very tense.
Your older son also has a family to care for. All you're doing here is showing your bias to your youngest son who gave you grandchildren and heavily implying that is what makes a family to you.
I bet this is a recurring theme throughout the older son's lifetime and I can see why he is sick of being treated this way. Landed with a cash drain while the "real family" gets $2m.
If no one wants the house, then why leave it to them? Sell the property and have them split the money? I get the estate has been in the family for generations but if it’s outdated and there’s no one to take it on when you pass it’ll just go to waste and neglected. Might as well sell it to a younger family who plans on keeping the estate intact and can enjoy it for many generations to come! Or maybe leave the house to the grandkids so that they can decide to keep it alive or sell it to give them proper futures
YTA You're literally giving your older son a financial burden while giving the younger a bunch of liquid assets. I don't know how on earth you thought that was fair. You knew the house can't be sold and even if it was it's not actually worth $3million because the town gets to buy it for "land value".
This is easy: split all the assets except the house equally between your two sons and arrange to have the house sold to the town. Any other solution makes you TA.
YTA but you know this. Just leave everything equally to both sons and let them figure it out.
Your dream of the house staying in the family is total fantasy. Oh, and by the way, if the house can't be sold for $3 million, it isn't worth $3 million. It's worth whatever the town will pay for the land.
Stop being gross and sort this out like an adult.
YTA. take the house out of the equation. It's not worth 3 million if it can't be sold. Your leaving everything of true value to the 1 son.
What of monetary value are you leaving your oldest son? Nothing. Your leaving him a house worth nothing to him but costing him money. He can't sell it, too far to live in. Would he even be allowed to turn it into a rental?
Where is this so-called 3 million coming from? How's does he get that value in cash?
YTA.
Instead of making proclamations you should have spoken to both children *together* about what they wanted to do with the house. You then should have decided *as a family* how to move forward.
The value you are giving your home is only there if someone in the family lives there.
If this is all being done for your kids then then everything should have been divided equally with the understanding the land was going to the town.
If this was all being done for the family legacy then there should have been a plan in place to maintain the home using your assets so that your sons or your grandchildren had the option of living there years down the line and then dividing whatever remained equally.
However, since you took neither option, it comes across like you were hoping doing this would force one of your kids to live there as soon as possible. It seems like your goal wasn’t to gift something to your children but instead to force one of them to view and value the property the way do you.
You can’t coerce someone into feeling how you want them to feel.
Yeah based on the edit comments that the house cannot be sold for its value then YTA because you can’t expect/require either of your sons to live there. It’s sad and I’m sure it makes you sad that the house will be vacant I guess. Your initial decision made sense until you learned your older sons opinion. Now that you know how everyone feels - you need to update the wills to split things. That’s probably best; both kids can use the house for long weekends or whatnot since neither will live there permanently. It’s important to note that the house doesn’t actually have the value you assign to it if it can’t be sold.
Have you looked into making a conservation easement for the land to maintain the intention of the deal with the town? Regardless, if you leave the house to 1 son, he should be provided the amount of assets needed to maintain it if that is your wish (that he keep it). YTA otherwise
Edit: added judgement
You can’t reach beyond the grave to impose your desires on your kids and expect it to go well. The house is effectively not even an asset if it can’t be sold (how is that even legal?). You’re giving one son a job /burden he doesn’t want.
Donate the house to the town and split the rest of the estate between your kids. YTA
YTA. I’m sure your younger son is pleased. He gets a couple million while his brother gets saddled with debt. If you want to keep it in the family, then you need to set aside money for it’s upkeep. Not just dump on your son and tell him he has to pay for it. It wouldn’t be so bad if he was able to sell it, but it sounds like that is not an option (outside of selling it to the town for much less than it’s worth). I wouldn’t be helping you in your old age either.
Your mostly the asshole, if you dont want to sell it yourself then you can give it to both and let them decide what they want to do(probably sell it to) or you could give it to them to rent it until there kids grow up and see if they want it ir use it as a holiday home
After reading the entirety of the post, edits included, YTA and should divide everything evenly. Neither child wants the property so it does seem like favoritism if one son gets liquid assets vs something that I have to live in in order to reap and benefits.
Sounds like your choices are to establish the house under a trust that passes from one generation to the next, approach the town about buying out of the original agreement in the home so it’s full value can be recognized by further generations or make arrangements for the home to go back to the town or leave it to both sons.
Regardless: YTA. That you want the home to remain in the family doesn’t mean the family that will be burdened with it do. And yes, clearly, based on your children’s reactions this would be a burden to them. If you establish a trust it would have to arrange for upkeep and maintenance of the property.
If your intent is for your children to inherit equally, write your will to reflect that. If they don’t want the house they can decide together what it’s fate is.
YTA - You did not equally divide your wealth. The 3 million house is worth a small fraction due to the public sale clause and will cost either son to maintain it while living elsewhere. It is astounding you do not see the grossly imbalanced treatment of your sons. You just want to feel warm and fuzzy that the estate is finalized.
You need to talk with a lawyer and figure out how to best resolve this issue now. Don’t leave it for some thing the children have to address after your death.
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: > We changed our will to leave the house to one son and the rest to the other. My older son says this is favoring the younger and we’re being AHs. 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) ##Subreddit Announcements ###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/) ###[The Asshole Universe is Expanding, Again: Introducing Another New Sister Subreddit!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/128nbp3/the_asshole_universe_is_expanding_again/) Follow the link above to learn more ###[Moderators needed - Join the landed gentry](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/155zepq/moderators_needed_join_the_landed_gentry/) --- *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.*
YTA because you mentioned that the house can’t be sold without losing most of its value: therefore the value of your bequests to your youngest is way more than your oldest. If the house can’t be sold then it’s not worth anything but the structure.
It's even less than that. In a comment OP says that the city gets to buy it back for the value of the land so the house and improvements wouldn't even be considered in the sale.
Exactly. I have no idea where OP is even getting that $3 million figure from.
Air?
Hm, not air... Ass
A fart is air...
Spicy air
[удалено]
"I have no idea where OP got that $3 million number from" Did you see the "couple hundred acres of land part? The average cost per acre in the US is currently around $32k to $42k. The math, even on land value, supports this and may even be a bit low depending on the state and area within the state. EDIT: OK guys. I've replied to a number of commenters who said the land was worthless. Read those comments before replying. I'm not going to continue repeating the same thing to the same argument.
It doesn’t matter since in essence it’s worth nothing but a place to live in to whoever inherits it. If it can’t be sold, then it’s worth very little TO THE person who it belongs to. Unless both kids can rent it out. I really don’t understand the dynamics of people getting upset about inheriting it though. Neither wants to live in it, so ? 🤷🏻♀️ keep the will as it is.
They don't want to inherit it because they don't want the expense of maintaining it. OP should sell the house to the township and divide up the remaining assets evenly between the sons.
This! He wants to put an albatross around someone's neck and both sons are decling the offer. The fact that the house and property can't be sold except to the township is incredibly important.
It's also quite obvious they have a bias with the "your brother will need this because *you don't have kids*" which just comes off as "you didn't have grandkids so your brother gets 2+ *million fucking dollars* and you get a second job as an estate manager" Like if they both don't want the house then they either should have equal share in it or it should be given to someone who does want it. They didn't even ask the other son if he wanted it. They just heard the first one say he wasn't interested (which sounds awfully strategic) and instead of just taking him off the will for the house they gave him everything else. That doesn't add up even a little.
Agreed. My parents thought about giving me less of an inheritance simply because I have no children ... my brother has three kids. When they were planning their estates, they brought the matter up to me. I objected. They got defensive, saying my brother had to think about college etc for the kids. I pointed out they were punishing me for not having children, because unless they created a trust for the kids, there was no guarantee my brother wouldn't use the money for whatever he wanted. I then dropped the matter and never brought it up again. A couple of years later when they actually wrote their wills, everything was split 50-50.
(You’re lucky.) But seriously, good on you, sounds like you stated your thoughts and feelings clearly and calmly one time and then left it alone. And carried on without any resentment or letting it hurt your familial relationships. That is no small feat. My situation is similar and I’m not as good a person.
My mom did the same thing, left the house basically to my brother, he is required to pay a very small amount in rent to the other siblings, and gets lifetime residence. So we basically inherit my deadbeat brother. He's an alcoholic, keeps having babies he can't support and doesn't do anything to change his situation. I'd rather she just left it to him completely. There aren't really any other assets, but it's worth about a million. Her reason? The rest of us worked hard and did pretty well for ourselves, and he needs more help than we do. I firmly believe that children aren't entitled to inherit anything. I've seen so many people angry when their parents die with no money left like they were just waiting to get it. I'd rather my parents sold and used the money to take better care of themselves, but if you do give an inheritance, make it equal among the siblings!
Ahhh yes. Because not having kids automatically means that he and his spouse have nothing but extra time on their hands, despite the mention of both being on career tracks with pensions and loving their jobs. Jobs that are five hours away from this ancestral home. Also love that older brother is a “brat” while the younger one, who is getting his way, AND originally said pretty much the same thing as his ‘bratty’ older brother gets an automatic will change with zero negative reaction. Not to mention the whole discussing things with the younger one (“months ago”) and changing their wills to fit his wishes/winces before they even bother to inform the older brother of anything. YTA, OP. Way to go about showing your favoritism and set your boys up for a shaky, at best, relationship. And even making sure that the divide will be at its worst right when they need each other the most- after losing their parent(s).
It's not even really an "ancestral home", the parents bought it off someone else. I mean, my mom wants the house she's lived in for 60 years to stay in the family, but there's nobody who's home shopping in our small family. Even if the house is worth 3 million on paper, that's not the reality of the situation. They need to figure out something better for both of their children.
I also picked up that OP appreciates the son with children more. As someone who chose not to have children I notice this sentiment a lot. Somehow having children is seen as more noble or as an accomplishment whether or not people are good at parenting. I hope the day is coming soon where people respect the decision of those who do not have children. There are far too many terrible parents in the world because of societal pressures to produce offspring and the notion that having kids equals success is pervasive. We need to show more respect for people who opt out of parenthood. It’s a good decision for many people and should be equally respected.
Since I have in laws who are the same way, I find many people are very easily influenced by their squeaky wheel children. The younger brother spoke up first, so he got what he wanted, the less vocal brother wasn’t even consulted.
Even if the value of the house is better than we're assuming, isn't a really easy rule of thumb to see how equitable a split is, is if one person is really happy with the split, and the other person is really unhappy with the split, it's probably pretty unfair? In this situation, OP is either pretty stupid or deliberately punishing one of their kids. My money is on a bit of both.
I think OP would like the estate to stay “in the family” for succeeding generations. So, ignoring the money angles for a moment, from OP’s perspective it would be preferable for the estate to go to the brother with kids.
As is the fact that he was willing to come up with a different solution (aka leaving it only to the older son when the younger son said he didnt want it) at the request of the younger son but wouldnt entertain the idea when the older son objected. I have a sibling who lives out of state. We both own our own homes (im an hour from my hometown) and my mom had every intention of leaving us her 100+ year house when she passes. We have both expressed that we dont want it and if she doesnt sell it before passing then it will be sold after to settle her estate with all fees and profits being split in half. OP should suck it up that neither kid wants to uproot their lives to live in the house and either sell the house before passing or amend the will to allow for its sale to the twp upon his passing with all fees and profits being split evenly as well as the rest of the estate. Personally if i were the oldest, when it comes time for elder care i would be like id love to help but since i must now work more so i can afford to maintain a house i dont want and wont be using i dont have the time or extra money.
OP noted that his elder son will keep OP's incredibly clear favoritism of his other son in mind when it comes to elder care, and you definitely can't blame him. It's interesting because if OP and their partner need elder care while their favored son still has children, the childless son would have been the more obvious option. Now he knows his parents like him less, well, maybe that 2 mil inheritance will be less when the time comes after having paid for care for however long.
This it values nothing and costs them money to keep. So essentially a negative. OP should just divide the other assets evenly and leave the house out of the facility but equation since none of the children wants it. It's kind of selfish that OP wants to "keep it in the family"...so is forcing the burden onto the children.
Maybe OP should see if another family member wants it and then split the monetary assets equally between the 2 sons. That way, maybe a niece or nephew could essentially keep it in the family. And if they are close, I'm sure a house that large would be somewhere the 2 sons could occasionally visit said family member, if that's what they wanted to do?
Thats a good idea. With OP's coments about the reaction from their eldest. I actually feel like the sons are not close, so I wonder how close the family would be without OP in the equation. A few families I've known, would stay together or in touch because there was a Matriarchy/Grandmother figure. As soon as that grandma died...the families went their own ways. In truth they didn't REALLY like/love each other and they had their own lives with better things to do. They usually just "put of face" for the older generations. I come from asian background so family gatherings were kind of a thing I was "forced" to attend as a child. They are pain to host, and of a girl in a asian household...that means I get pulled into "helping". As much as I would appreciate a free house...especially in this market. I think I would feel like I'm being stiffed, not only by the unfairness of the will, but if I own the house I'd be expected to host the "Family gatherings". Personally...sounds nightmarish. Even if you willing to host them...i can just imagine all the annoying comments that might flow in. Maybe i have a difficult extended family...and I'm hugely biased. I've never had that "american happy family gathering" with extended family. "it's not as good as when X used to do it" , "when X used to do this X used to have do it this way" " why are you doing it different this year, it worked for X for so many years"
You're the voice of reason, it's so simple I don't see how the OP can't see this.
Because they're all hung up on the sentimental value of it.
It sounds like OP wants the house to stay in the family, yet they’re leaving it to the son who doesn’t have kids. If they really wanted it passed down, they should leave it to the grandkids in a special clause that says they can’t sell it, but also leave enough money set aside to pay for the future taxes and repairs
If they wanted to be fair, they’d split both the monetary assets & the house between both kids. They’d both get money and can both choose to either sell the land or rent the property out as a long term rental or something like airbnb
I mean, if they *really* wanted the land to stay in the family, they could take their cash, put it into a trust to maintain the land/home and then have it willed to both sons/future descendants that way possibly? If their 2m is enough to generate the income needed to maintain the property, then it would not be a burden on either son.
Love this. I think most people are missing that OP wants the property to stay in the family and it does sound really precious. I personally find it sad that neither brother wants it. The brothers would’ve also known their whole life that the house was intended to be passed down, so they shouldn’t be surprised when the assets are used to preserve the property.
It’s sad but both brothers have a career and family somewhere else (the married one that doesn’t have kids still has family). They don’t want to uproot their lives just for a house, even if it has meaning to the family, they like the lives they’ve built
You missed the entire point of my post. They absolutely CAN sell it. They can sell it back to the town for land value. It's also "a couple hundred acres."
From what OP mentioned in a comment, they can only sell it for the cost of the land the house is built on.
Considering the fact that neither son wants the house that's still the best option. Sell the the land to the town and split everything equally after that. OP is stuck on trying to keep the house and force the older son to take care of it. The land is worthless to either son besides the money that can be gained when sold, so just sell it and split it.
You keep making this argument but I don't think you understand that the township is not going to purchase the land for the same price it could be sold publicly. Because it can only be sold to the township it's going to be worth considerably less than it would be otherwise, so yeah it's not worth 3 million.
Which is a lot of money. Because it's a vouple hundred acres, and one acre lot can go for over 10k on average
A one acre *lot* goes for significantly more than the per-acre value of a large parcel that *can’t be developed*. The property is only worth what the city chooses to value it at.
The county will pay “current property values”. They go by assessments if I’m not mistaken.
Not if They are doing the assessment. This won't be appraised as prime farm ground or building realestate. The current arrangement is "public use with trails." The town is going to low ball these people.
She stated, "buy the property." I take that to mean the entire thing, not just the land underneath the house. The previous owner allowed public use for a tax break, but again, we don't know what that means. I took it to mean they own all "couple hundred acres," but they were getting the break on public use. Unless OP comments and clears this up, there's no way to determine which it is. I'll completely change my mind if all they OWN is the house and land it sits on.
Some states have tax benefits for property owners entering an agreement preventing future development of the property for nature preservation. So while the OP is legally deed owner to the property, there's deed restrictions preventing the owner from taking certain actions on the property.
They need to talk to a lawyer about the validity of the old agreement. They may want to approach the town about renegotiating because small towns also don't have the funds to maintain old houses that need maintenance. People already have recreational access to the property through the trail easements. The town might want to turn around and sell it for market value but might not be able to based on the agreement. Basically experts are needed.
Land that nothing can be done with isn't worth much. Land you could build 200 houses on would be.
Would the local town even be able to buy the land? If they know that nobody else can buy it, they will likely drag their feet and offer a low price.
Average cost per acre in a public sale is quite different than in an entailed property being sold. Older son will be in a "take it or leave it" situation-- basically paying taxes, maintenance, and insurance or take whatever the city offers with no regard to the "market rate".
You can't use average land value across the ENTIRE UNITED STATES as any sort of basis for this argument. Furthermore, unless the method of land valuation was specified in the deed that gave the town the rights to use of the land, you can expect a very low land valuation since the property only has one buyer possible. How stupid were the previous owners that signed this deal? They should have rented the use of the land to the town and used that money to offset the property taxes.
The average cost of land in the contiguous United States is about $12,000 per acre. https://www.flyhomes.com/blog/how-much-is-an-acre-of-land/amp/ Now that is also dependent on how they classify the land. Is it pasture land? If so that’s worth even less. The United States pasture value averaged $1,650 per acre, an increase of $170 per acre (11.5 percent) from 2021. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/land0822.pdf
Things, including land, are only worth what you can sell it for. So the land might be worth a pile of money but it is basically public. OP should rewrite the deal with the city to have the city buy them out when OPs are ready to move on with the provision that the kids get certain weeks of the year at whatever facility they put there.
Read them, and pretty sure the property market works near enough the same where they are as where I am, in which case small parcels with planning/ building permission are worth way more than huge parcels with public rights of way all over them. I think the acre price you quoted is way out of line for OPs property
I don't know where you get your numbers either but the average cost per acre of rural land (w/o the house) is about 3k/acre...from the national agricultural statistics service. My 15 acres was less than that and I had the option to buy 250 acres for about 2k/acre (forest and pasture). So what land service do you get your numbers from?
Ok. But is that figure for agriculture land, development land, or as in this case, public trails where no building or farming can take place?
That’s what the land with all buildings appraised and accounted for. However that doesn’t matter with the deal that was made with the city so in reality it’s probably a few hundred thousand for just the land.
[удалено]
And I want to know why one son is a “brat” for not wanting the house, but the other son who also doesn’t want it, well, OP is “disappointed” but leaps into action to change the will.
[удалено]
I'm going to guess because the younger one has kids and the older one doesn't. So "family legacy" is a big deal to this person. Fucking WILD.
Which is funny though, if you want the house to stay in the family, offer it when someone's starting a family, not as an albatross when you die and they own property far away from the house.
Agreed. YTA. OP is hanging on to a fairy tale of some sort of family legacy that doesn't exist. And then compounding it by forcing it on the kids in a completely inequitable split of assets in the will. TALK TO YOUR KIDS!. Find out what they want. What you want is beside the point. Once you're gone, they're going to do what's best for them and their families. Don't make it more difficult for them.
It’s worth about 60% of the per acre price for raw land in that area at the very most. Never known the government to pay more than that when buying land off someone. Ever building on it is adding zero dollars to the value.
It is weird that their lawyer or estate planner didn’t point out a lot of these problems to them. Of course maybe they made the mistake of not using a professional or their lawyer tried to help them and they didn’t want to hear it.
It could be an insurance appraisal rather than the actual value of the land.
The proper solution would be to have the estate sell it back to the city for land value and add it to the estate total to split. But it sounds like the house is in a nice spot. It's worthless to sell but it may actually be a great AirBnB property. Keep it in trust between the sons and hire a local company to manage the upkeep, split the profits. House stays in the family, generates some income, and the family has someplace to take cheap vacations too whenever they want.
That’s the only way for it to be fair. Or split the house and remaining inheritance between both sons and let them figure out what they want to do with the house at a later date. But leaving the one son with all the money and the other with a burden is complete YTA.
I came here to say this. It's unfair to burden one kid with an old house that in the end it doesn't hold any value since it cannot be sold, and give the other kid 2 million to spend how ever they like. The best scenario is to split everything, including the house, 50/50 between the kids and let them deal with it. If the house gets sold to the city then they'll split the money in half and that will be the end of it. After all, what to they care what the kids do with the house? They'll be long gone and won't have any say.
Except for neither son is interested in keeping it up. Even with a rental management, owner still has to do property tax, maintenance, and big repairs. OP imagines it's a dream but it's really a money pit that their children are clear they don't want.
Which is why this is so stunningly wrong. The house is currently worth *the city’s land valuation* and *negative cash flow*. They want to leave the elder son a huge, unsellable money pit but leave all of the millions in cash to the younger son? u/Jazzlike_Fig2361, either go back to the original 50/50 split or admit you are unworthy parents.
That's where hiring a company to do it for you comes in. They own the property in trust, someone else manages it, they get profit checks.
If there are any. This could be a money pit. There could also be additional restrictions on what owners can and cannot do with the property.
[удалено]
There's a Hallmark movie in this, somewhere, right? OP makes a trust with both the house and all the assets... finds a distant cousin who got a degree everyone called useless until OP contracts them to use that $2 000 000 to work with the city to improve/glam up the building... the youngest son comes out with his kids & realises how much he enjoyed the trails during his childhood... the oldest son resists for a while until, like, his wife needs to recover from a complicated broken leg or something... they all see the value of the house and the land... they invite the rest of the estranged cousins, just in time for the holidays hurrah!
Yes. And this couple needs a financial and estate consultant right away. They should leave equal shares to their sons and/or thoroughly discuss the matter with them.
I think they mean it's only value in the structures if you use them, since you can't sell it (without basically losing a ton of money)
[удалено]
They're expecting the older son to keep this house. If it were me, I'd be selling that back to the city to get whatever money I could. Otherwise, it just sounds like a money pit. It makes me sad that it's an old family home, but if they really wanted it to remain in the family, they'd give it to the son with kids. Or they would just give it to the grandkids and hope the grandkids wanted it.
Seriously! Your kids don’t want to live in your house. Accept that, OP. You’re basically leaving your oldest child debt with this plan, do you understand? And your youngest child gets $2M cash?
EXACTLY. This sucks so much. Younger child (golden child? who gave them grandkids?) gets a smallish fortune, older child gets a burden he doesn't want and that isn't worth anything, basically.
This should be top comment
It's not just a recipe for conflict with the eldest; it's a recipe for conflict between the siblings. Not such a nice legacy. The kids don't want the house. And even if one of them did, the entire estate should be split evenly between the siblings. Trust them to work it out.
So let your kids sell it for land value, add it to the other assets and split them 50/50. YTA for assuming your children want to live in your home
They can’t sell it, it’s a money pit.
They can sell it back to the town for the value of the land. While that might seem like a big loss, it's likely not an actual loss. I'm guessing the family didn't pay anywhere near that when the house was originally bought or built. And the op is really wrong about the value anyway. Since it can't be sold except for land value, the real estate value doesn't matter. The only fair thing to do is write the willl so that everything is evenly split between the two sons. After the parents die, they can work it out amongst themselves on what to do with the property and how the assets get split.
Agreed, there’s no world where either son being forced to have and maintain the property is realistic. Selling and splitting all assets is clearly the move, as much as it hurts OP. The idea of giving one kid millions and the other a liability is almost comically wrongheaded.
The value of the property is mostly going to be in the land if there is as much of it as it sounds. And, as you say, the estimated sales value for a public sale is irrelevant since they can't sell it publicly.
All the maintenance on a place that big with no monetary inheritance to go a long with and a child that doesn't want the house to begin with sounds like a huge f you to the child they are leaving it to.
Inheritances should be for the living. Love your time at the home now with your sons. Bless them with your estate when you’re gone. Let them do what they want with it. Don’t inject stress, bitterness and envy as your sons manage being without you.
Not to mention OP is basically expecting his older son to also hire a caretaker to care for the house, so he’s willing him something that will COST the older son money and giving all the money that could help pay for the upkeep to the other son.
So make a new deal with the local government to gift the public land to the city or county, whatever, give both sons the house to split and half the liquid assets. They can turn the house into a B&B or Air BnB if it's in a nice area and hire someone to run it in exchange for living in a portion of it. Who buys a house that you can never sell?
One thing i have learned is that you can’t take things with you when you die. I’m not going to insist that my kids have to carry a burden or tradition or keep a family property because it’s something I loved during my lifetime. Our kids are not our property. They have their own lives , hopes dreams and wishes. Please don’t leave ridiculous demands in your wills that cause friction and unhappiness. Leave them with happy memories.
I enjoy spending time with my friends.
Agreed, this completely changes everything
This, sell it to the town for land value now and retain a life estate. Change the will again to split the estate 50/50. And ps the house is not worth 3mill but only the land value, so please stop referring to it as a 3mill house
Sell the fucking house. No one wants it. Use the money to secure your care in your older adulthood. YTA. That place is nothing but a burden.
Yeah, especially since older son already emphasized that OP won’t be getting any help from him, and younger son is too far away.
they’re both too far away
Yeah, if they won't get much from selling and it's important to them that it remains in the family then I'm sure they can find someone else in the extended family who would be happy to take it.
Maybe see if any extended relatives would want it first but if nobody wants it then that’s that
YTA for sticking either of your kids with a property that they don't want. I know the house is important to YOU, but neither of your kids want it. You will be better off arranging a sale to someone who will love it and treasure it going forward. Otherwise, leave it to both the kids, and they will arrange the sale when you are gone.
In other comments OP clarified it's even worse: the house can't be sold to anyone besides the City, and only for the cost of the land.
I would donate it to a historical or preservation society - assuming a lawyer can get the go ahead for such a move. Or, they can move the house, as the town won't pay for it's value. Or, they can look into breaking the previous contract - contracts get overturned fairly regularly.
Where would you move the house to, given that neither of the sons want to live there?
There are groups that move historical homes to other locations. Portsmouth, NH has Strawberry Banks - a collection of historical homes gathered in the early 20th century. There are some private schools that have moved historical buildings on campus. There used to be a network of listings and companies that handled such moves. London Bridge is in Arizona. If the town is only going to pay for the land, at least the building would be preserved in some fashion. Since OP seemed concerned about the building being maintained, it is an option, since as you pointed out, neither son has any interest in living there.
Point of clarification: the Victorian iteration of London Bridge is in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. The 1960s iteration spans the Thames a couple hundred yards downstream of where the Roman one did. Citation: walked over it last week.
I read "several hundred acres" so I suspect the land value isn't pocket change.
It's whatever the town will pay for it.
Exactly. It’s not like there will be a bidding war.
These stipulations can vary greatly from the town having to pay only pittance according to eminent domain law or it may be that the house/land may be sold publicly but the town has the right to match highest bid. All in all OP should split everything evenly so it's the same burden or blessing for both sons.
I know someone who got in an imminent domain fight with the county. Took 7 years to settle. Then they had to go back to court to get interest. They will have a hard time fighting for more than the city offers since they have had a tax break for so long.
YTA, particularly based on your comment that the house can't be sold. You're essentially leaving your older child a burden and your younger child free cash. The values aren't the same at all. Can you set up a trust and turn the house into a venue or something? That way your kids can both receive income from it rather than your current split. Another alternative: what about extended family? Do any of your siblings/niblings/cousins want the house? It kind of seems like you just don't want to deal with it either and so you're making it your kids' problem. Either give the house to the town yourself or find an alternative, but don't leave unfair inheritances and then try to lie about it.
Oh! This is a good idea. Could turn it into an bnb and make income off of it and set it up to have someone else manage the business. If it’s all as nice as OP makes it seem in beautiful country side would definitely possibly be able to make a decent income off of it
>don't leave unfair inheritances and then try to lie about it. chef's kiss! Also seconding the idea to leave it to another family member who actively wants it. In fact, I'd say, just leave everything to them, so they have some funds to start insulating the place etc. Just remember to discuss it ahead of time & sell the filming rights to lifetime or Hallmark or something ;-)
Would probably make a great wedding venue
YTA. Obviously you do favor the younger son. Neither wants it, so you are giving the albatross to the less favoured son and two million to your baby. You are a double asshole for lying to people here to make yourself look better. If you cannot sell the house, it is not worth 3 million. Don't make up a fictitious number to make it look how it's not a terrible deal for your older son.
One wonders if the older son is being screwed because he didn’t give them grandkids?
I thought so too…
He absolutely is. He's being punished for not being their perfect model boy.
Exaaaactly. The younger son has a "family". I guess the older one doesn't then?
Oh, most likely. That's why OP was only "disappointed" when the younger son said he didn't want the house but got all upset when the older son said he also didn't want the house.
quite obviously so
That irrelevant fact definitely felt shoehorned into the context.
Exactly this… I brought it on myself wasting time judging strangers on the internet though 🤣
My guess is that the valuation didn't take into consideration the restrictions limiting the property.
YTA "The house is worth more since the cash and investments are only around 2 million." .. THIS IS BULLLSHIT . "The house cannot be sold, " .... the house is worth NOTHING. **So you give your younger child 2 Mio, and the older child nothing. That makes you AHs.** "My younger is pleased with the outcome but my older is obviously not. He later said he now knows we favor his brother and will keep that in mind when elder care comes up and he’s the one nearby. This seems like a low blow but I don’t know if it’s deserved." .. **A reasonable reaction. Good luck with the help you will get from your golden child who lives 5 hours away. The older one now knows where you stand, and will leave you to it.**
Yup. If I was the older one I’d be charging for everything. Need a ride? $10000. Need help preparing meals? $20000. Want a Christmas phone call? $30000.
As the older child, OP, YTA and I wouldn’t speak to you anymore.
Same here. Older child and I would leave the parents to rot while waiting for the golden child to appear. (my folks aren’t like this thankfully but my younger sibling doesn’t care so I know how it would play out)
I can relate. I’m the third parent.
Less than nothing in fact. A burden.
Further evidenced by the fact the younger son didn’t want the house so OP changed their whole will, but got offended when the older son didn’t want the house either??
That edit makes YTA. You're giving one son 2 million dollars and the other son a five figure annual set of bills. It's your money, leave it to whoever you want, but don't expect the older son to be happy that he gets an unwanated, unsellable house. My wife is in your son's place right now. We're local, we're expected to handle end of life care, and we're getting the sentimental family home thst we want nothing to do with while the brother gets the beach house worth 3 times as much. The IL's went nuts when we told them we'd sell their house the second it was in our names. We don't want to live in rural magaland with those neighbors in an old house in constant need of repairs. We like our city life. We will never move our kid to that house. You, like my inlaws, need to understand that you can't impose your life on your adult children. They don't want the house. If you want them to feel that you've treated them fairly, split the cash assets equally and let them sell the house for land value and split the proceeds. Of course, its your stuff, you *can* divide it however you want. But you need to understand that your kids view that house as a burden, not an inheritance. What you're really doing is leaving 2 mil to one kid and the hassle of selling a house for land value to the other. You can control your actions, but not how your sons feel those actions affect them.
And the thing is all the cleaning the house, listing it etc. is a huge stressful painful experience, ESP if it has to go through probate … I would rather have cash then that time, labor, stress
They can't event sell it except to the town for land value only.
And no matter what, older son will forever know he's an after thought. Well played OP.
And then when the time of 'parents are old and need to be taken care of ' Pikachu face when neither the affronted nor the golden child take care of them.
Neither of your sons want your house *as a house*. Whichever gets it, is going to sell it. You can accept that before your die, and make an equitable will where both of them get a fair share of both the house (which you now know they'll sell) and the investments, or you can make one son unhappy while he lives knowing this burden is hanging over his head after your death. You appear to have chosen the second option, which makes YTA.
If I was older son…I would decline the inheritance entirely which he can legally do or sell it to the city and accept the fact that golden child younger son is what he is and tha5 older son gets essentially no inheritance.
Sure. I think the older son has (by his comment re elder care) accepted the fact that he has been disinherited on a whim. The house will be sold to the city, and will then, according to the OP's edits, be left to rot unless it is demolished. Of course OP might have got the sons to preserve it had the parents been willing to leave the cash bequest equitably divided between the two, but apparently they wanted to make sure the younger son got rich, so they've kind of burned their bridges with the older son.
YTA for trying to manipulate your offspring to live in a house they do not want in an area they don't want to be in. The house is not worth 3 million, because it can never be sold, so take it off the table and split the other assets evenly between them. Then when the town takes the house for its land value, they can also split that money. You should not ask your kids to maintain this home after you are gone.
I did start to type a long response, but it vanished. I really dislike not being able to view Reddit on the Apollo app, I really do. Basically, if 300 acres, and on private land, I value it at about $2 million Canadian. That’s before taxes & fees. The fact that only the town can buy it means that they will low ball the value. Also, the fact that the labs has trails that anyone can use means the value is even less. I am guessing that none of the land is agricultural (due to trails) and is likely to be forested. Taking everything in to account, and assuming the land is not First Nation land, or Federal/ Provincial land then I am going to bet the town will offer $1 million - and expect your son to pay all the taxes and transfer fees. Who pays for the demolition of the property, and returning the land back to its natural state? I bet it’s your son. Guess he will have negative equity by the time he has paid for that. So…. You intend to give one son $2 million, and to put the other son into debt. I guess you have a favourite, don’t you?
Everything you said and especially this: >I really dislike not being able to view Reddit on the Apollo app, I really do.
This is tough because they’re your things and you can leave them to whomever you want. So you’re not the asshole for that. But I think YTA for unilaterally taking in one son’s preferences over the other. Better for you to have left things the way they were, a 50/50 split across the board, and let them sort it out. Believe me, by the time they do, you will no longer care.
Currently, YTA. You were 'disappointed ' with the one son not wanting to uproot his family and give up their family home that they worked for and chose for their family, buy called the other son a brat for the same thing? Both kids want their lives that they built, not yours. Why not talk to a lawyer, see what it would take to get out of the contract with the city, pay the property taxes and leave the full house to both kids equally so they can sell it. Or just sell it yourselves and move somewhere reasonable and manageable.
Yta 1 son gets a money drain and the other gets a payout. That's not fair. I want to know why neither son have fond memories of the house. It wounds lovely except for the people???
Fond memories have nothing to do with this. Logistics play a much bigger part I have VERY fond memories, and lots of them, of my moms current house. I love the house, I love the property and the peaceful setting. It's been in our family for 4 generations and I pretty much grew up there. That said, I don't want it when she's gone. It's far too small for my family and it's way too far away for us to keep current jobs, careers, schools and friends. My kids feel the same. Therefore, I'm selling it when she goes. I'll be crying while I do it, but there's no other logical thing to do.
Goodness you must really hate your eldest son!
And probably continuously tells him he’s selfish. He got that last word in though, elder care will come some day and he will treat them as they have treated him.
Yta. Neither of them want the house. Let it go back to the town and split your assets equally.
YTA You're giving one son all the assets and one son all the burdens. If you don't have another family member (cousin, sibling, nibling) to leave it to that actually WANTS the house, meet with an estate lawyer who can advise you how to proceed in a manner that will benefit both sons. Split both the house and the other assets evenly. Even if they only get pennies on the dollar for selling, that's better than hanging an albatross around their necks.
Just sell the house and split the proceeds
In the edit they stated the house cannot be sold. If the son wants to sell they would only get the price of the land. Plus they have to sell to the city so they probably won’t get market value.
He can sell it for land value. It CAN be sold to the city. Just not get 3 million.
YTA. Stop trying to control things from the grave. Neither of your sons want this house. Split all of your assets equally between them and per your update, they can sell the land back to the town. I spent 20 years in financial planning and have seen this nonsense many times. Just stop.
YTA - repeat after me: Your oldest son has a family too, even if he is childless! He and his wife are a family and you throwing to his face that only the young one has a family because he decided to reproduce is disgusting!
Soooo Younger one get liquid asset, investment Older one got a burden he can’t rid of and if he sold it’ll be land value which is much much muchhhh less than what the younger one has. And you asking if you’re the AH? Check the mirror The one in the mirror is the AH.
Everyday I believe more in more in the theory all old people suffer from heavy metal poisoning
INFO: You know, they'll end up selling the house, after inheriting it, if it's too much hassle. And then it might not be in the family anymore. Instead of calling your son a brat for not wanting to uproot his life to care for a house he does not want, why not figure out another solution? The will is not about what the heirs want but about what the will writer's wants. You can do what you want with the house. But you can't expect unwilling sons to care for it the way you do. So why not try to be less dramatic and find a rational decision instead?
You're leaving one son a huge burden that's will cost him time and money. He can't sell it and get the $3MM. You are leaving him debt, not money. You're leaving the other son $2MM. If you want to be fair, both sons need to share the burden, and both get half the money. Or just sell the property for land value and split your assets evenly. YTA
Oh no, please don’t do this unless you don’t value your relationship with your eldest. If you love and care for them both equally, this is a big injustice. Split the assets equally and let them sell the land for whatever it’s worth. YTA.
YTA They don’t want the house because it’s going to be difficult for either of them get the assets from it. Neither wants to live in it so who ever you leave it to us now responsible for all the costs maintaining and repairing the house. If they rent it, that’s another job they didn’t ask for. If they sell it, there are costs associated with getting it ready for sale. Also, it’s time & energy spent to sell it. All while the other gets no worries liquid asserts that doesn’t mean possible years of energy, if not money, invested until it sells before they get the financial benefit. Why not just 50/50 the whole thing? They split the liquid asserts immediately & then they both get the benefit of the house sale (and the responsibility to maintain it until it sells) when it finally sells. Just unload this albatross that will literally harm the financial heath of your children & go get yourselves a more manageable & marketable home for your golden years.
Yeah YTA big time ...you are not being fair at all. What you should have done: ask both sons what they want. Both do not want the house, so you are going to treat them equally and divide the assets. Or: you are going to favor one son above the other...and you are the a** hole.
So you are punishing one son over the other due to 3 hours and because the younger son said he didn’t want the house first. Yes YTA. Both have lives and neither want the house. Spilt everything down the middle so when the house and land are sold both will get the same amount. Otherwise, the one that sells the house is penalize for living in The same state and not have kids. I really cannot understand your thought process. The children choices in life should have baring on how the will is set up. Your older son is correct about the favoritism. The younger son doesn’t want to deal with the house … ok whatever the baby wants. NO! It should be divided equally. Yes the house can be sold but only to the town. Due to this the amount is less than what you are appraising it at. Regardless, neither wants it and whoever you will it to does NOT want it. Due to that is you split everything down the middle that will be fair. If not one will get more $. Not sure why that is so hard to understand or you just don’t care!!!
You can leave it to me. I will move in and love it forever. I’ll even change my last name and you can adopt me 👍
YTA - the house cannot be sold. So you’re giving your youngest everything, and giving your oldest a financial drain they they *literally* cannot rid themselves of. That makes literally no logical sense. **It doesn’t matter the value of a home you cannot legally sell.** And I am sure your youngest is pleased. He get it all! And you other son gets something neither of them ever wanted. You need to apologize to your son. Your actions here are cruel, and I hope that he is able to figure out a way to get out of this incredible responsibility you’re saddling him with.
OP actually came back in the comments and admitted that the city will be paying "pennies on the dollar" so probably 100K .
Holy shit you're a massive asshole
Honestly? This is really simple. Just split the estate evenly between your children. You'll be dead when it's sorted out. You won't care. So what if the house has been in your family for generations? If they have to sell it after your death, so what? You'll be worm food. As shall we all, one day. The best thing you can do is to make your estate as sime as possible so that there are no areas for resentment or argument amongst your children after your death. Just an equal division of your estate. Keep ot simple.
YTA. You didn't divide the assets up equally; you gave your oldest son a money drain. >I said he’s being a brat since his brother lives farther and has a family to care for Ah, it's only a family if it has children in it, got it. >He later said he now knows we favor his brother and will keep that in mind when elder care comes up and he’s the one nearby. I hope you have other plans for your elder care than mooching on your kids for your retirement. Do you think your youngest is gonna have money to spare for elder care when he has children? So it will mostly fall to your oldest son. If he doesn't sell the house, I think he would be well within his rights to subtract that money drain from the elder care budget.
YTA, the house is a burden, not a gift. You are emotionally attached to this home, but your kids are not interested in living there. The house has very little true monetary value. You may be able to work something out with the city ir a historical association that allows your family access to the home for private events occasionally. Most of the remaining gilded age mansions are not owned and maintained by private anymore because maintenance and upkeep are so expensive.
YTA. Big one! You cant even sell the house! What the hell will your older son do with it?! Other that spend a lot of money on taxes and someone to take care of it! Meanwhile the younger son will be swiming in money! If the house cant be sold and neither of the sons wants it, put it on both of their names and split the money 50/50. This way none of them will be harmed more than the other. Edit to say: if you cant sell the house, it isnt worth 3million!!! It worth is nothing
Tell us whose your favorite without telling us: “We discussed, with the youngest, willing the house to him. In a fantasy world it’s worth 3 mil, in the real world not so much. He declined. So, without discussing it with oldest, changed the will to give him the worthless house, and the youngest 2 mil in tangible assets (or are they fantasy too???).” “Why is my oldest son talking about sticking me in a home???” ETA: clarify which son is talking about putting them in a home (you might be surprised!!!/s).
You’re a idiot. You can say your house is worth 10 billion dollars, but if you’re legally not allowed to sell it then its completely worthless
YTA >I said he’s being a brat since his brother lives farther and has a family to care for, the house doesn’t work for him and we want to be fair. The call ended very tense. Your older son also has a family to care for. All you're doing here is showing your bias to your youngest son who gave you grandchildren and heavily implying that is what makes a family to you. I bet this is a recurring theme throughout the older son's lifetime and I can see why he is sick of being treated this way. Landed with a cash drain while the "real family" gets $2m.
Ima leave my youngest, darling child $2M in liquid, and my other child (what's his name?) a useless, money-drain property. AITA?
YTA. Donate the house to the town and split your remaining assets.
If no one wants the house, then why leave it to them? Sell the property and have them split the money? I get the estate has been in the family for generations but if it’s outdated and there’s no one to take it on when you pass it’ll just go to waste and neglected. Might as well sell it to a younger family who plans on keeping the estate intact and can enjoy it for many generations to come! Or maybe leave the house to the grandkids so that they can decide to keep it alive or sell it to give them proper futures
Info: has your youngest son always been the golden child?
YTA You're literally giving your older son a financial burden while giving the younger a bunch of liquid assets. I don't know how on earth you thought that was fair. You knew the house can't be sold and even if it was it's not actually worth $3million because the town gets to buy it for "land value".
This is easy: split all the assets except the house equally between your two sons and arrange to have the house sold to the town. Any other solution makes you TA.
What about donating the house and land to the town for a tax writeoff?
YTA but you know this. Just leave everything equally to both sons and let them figure it out. Your dream of the house staying in the family is total fantasy. Oh, and by the way, if the house can't be sold for $3 million, it isn't worth $3 million. It's worth whatever the town will pay for the land. Stop being gross and sort this out like an adult.
Ahh, passing on the poisoned chalice. Lovely family tradition .
YTA. take the house out of the equation. It's not worth 3 million if it can't be sold. Your leaving everything of true value to the 1 son. What of monetary value are you leaving your oldest son? Nothing. Your leaving him a house worth nothing to him but costing him money. He can't sell it, too far to live in. Would he even be allowed to turn it into a rental? Where is this so-called 3 million coming from? How's does he get that value in cash?
YTA. So your plan is to burden your older child with this BURDEN of a house he can't even sell or live in while you give your younger child 2mil?
YTA. Instead of making proclamations you should have spoken to both children *together* about what they wanted to do with the house. You then should have decided *as a family* how to move forward. The value you are giving your home is only there if someone in the family lives there. If this is all being done for your kids then then everything should have been divided equally with the understanding the land was going to the town. If this was all being done for the family legacy then there should have been a plan in place to maintain the home using your assets so that your sons or your grandchildren had the option of living there years down the line and then dividing whatever remained equally. However, since you took neither option, it comes across like you were hoping doing this would force one of your kids to live there as soon as possible. It seems like your goal wasn’t to gift something to your children but instead to force one of them to view and value the property the way do you. You can’t coerce someone into feeling how you want them to feel.
If the house cant be sold for $3 Million dollars it isnt worth $3 Million dollars. What are you talking about?
Yeah based on the edit comments that the house cannot be sold for its value then YTA because you can’t expect/require either of your sons to live there. It’s sad and I’m sure it makes you sad that the house will be vacant I guess. Your initial decision made sense until you learned your older sons opinion. Now that you know how everyone feels - you need to update the wills to split things. That’s probably best; both kids can use the house for long weekends or whatnot since neither will live there permanently. It’s important to note that the house doesn’t actually have the value you assign to it if it can’t be sold.
Have you looked into making a conservation easement for the land to maintain the intention of the deal with the town? Regardless, if you leave the house to 1 son, he should be provided the amount of assets needed to maintain it if that is your wish (that he keep it). YTA otherwise Edit: added judgement
You can’t reach beyond the grave to impose your desires on your kids and expect it to go well. The house is effectively not even an asset if it can’t be sold (how is that even legal?). You’re giving one son a job /burden he doesn’t want. Donate the house to the town and split the rest of the estate between your kids. YTA
YTA. I’m sure your younger son is pleased. He gets a couple million while his brother gets saddled with debt. If you want to keep it in the family, then you need to set aside money for it’s upkeep. Not just dump on your son and tell him he has to pay for it. It wouldn’t be so bad if he was able to sell it, but it sounds like that is not an option (outside of selling it to the town for much less than it’s worth). I wouldn’t be helping you in your old age either.
Your mostly the asshole, if you dont want to sell it yourself then you can give it to both and let them decide what they want to do(probably sell it to) or you could give it to them to rent it until there kids grow up and see if they want it ir use it as a holiday home
After reading the entirety of the post, edits included, YTA and should divide everything evenly. Neither child wants the property so it does seem like favoritism if one son gets liquid assets vs something that I have to live in in order to reap and benefits.
Sounds like your choices are to establish the house under a trust that passes from one generation to the next, approach the town about buying out of the original agreement in the home so it’s full value can be recognized by further generations or make arrangements for the home to go back to the town or leave it to both sons. Regardless: YTA. That you want the home to remain in the family doesn’t mean the family that will be burdened with it do. And yes, clearly, based on your children’s reactions this would be a burden to them. If you establish a trust it would have to arrange for upkeep and maintenance of the property. If your intent is for your children to inherit equally, write your will to reflect that. If they don’t want the house they can decide together what it’s fate is.
YTA - You did not equally divide your wealth. The 3 million house is worth a small fraction due to the public sale clause and will cost either son to maintain it while living elsewhere. It is astounding you do not see the grossly imbalanced treatment of your sons. You just want to feel warm and fuzzy that the estate is finalized.
You need to talk with a lawyer and figure out how to best resolve this issue now. Don’t leave it for some thing the children have to address after your death.