Phew, it’s quite interesting what reactions this situation and possible decisions trigger in some users here and how emotionally charged many write.
One could almost think THEY themselves would have to decide. From that perspective, I will now only address the factually important points.
Still, of course, thanks for the lively discussion.
I haven’t been able to read from the answer yet why it’s important to the father that the house stays in the family. That shouldn’t matter to him in his new apartment – so why is it not? – this motive should be looked at.
Actually quite obvious – he built it himself and now doesn’t want strangers living in it but prefers to pass it on directly to his descendants.
By the way, that’s also a reason why I’m looking for a solution where sooner or later we appear as homeowners. The siblings have no interest in ever moving into the house.
hm
The mother has the right of first refusal. If the house is sold, only with her consent!
That is correct.
However, she has no interest in the house anymore and would prefer to receive the cash value from it.
Therefore, a solution where we buy the house directly from her and pay her out would be to her advantage.
“Completely fine” is not exactly close to “accepted” or “desired” for me either.
The father’s wish is to pass the house on to the children.
Better?
Without maintenance the value of the house decreases.
That is not true.
Put exaggeratingly, a house in downtown Munich would very likely still gain value even without major maintenance or at least not lose value.
Everything written further confirms my opinion. Buy house at market price and peace on all fronts. If that’s not possible or wanted, distance yourself from the whole project. You can already tell what the mood will be like from the greedy brother.
I now see it the same way.
The question is now how to realize the whole thing since, as written, we cannot buy the house completely at market value + renovation.
My idea would be as follows:
The house value is determined, let’s say as an assumption 600,000.
We buy it for 400,000, the difference of 200,000 is to be regarded as an advance inheritance.
My father buys himself a nice apartment from that money (400,000 - 240,000 remaining debt = 160,000 /2 = 80,000 for each parent) and his savings, ideally also worth about 200,000, which is directly guaranteed to one of the siblings after his death. I think you can probably guess by now which sibling I mean (-:
According to his argumentation, the apartment property would then also increase in value in the future, from which he would again benefit.
The third sibling is also guaranteed 200,000, at the latest on the occasion of inheritance, only then the remaining inheritance is divided by 3.
Of course, there is a risk here that at the time of inheritance the 200,000 from both parents may no longer be available.
How this can be better regulated, I still have to think about.
Unless you possibly have an idea? Maybe that the money would be paid by us brothers in case of emergency??
My mother would benefit in this scenario by being paid out directly and therefore, so to speak, no longer having anything to do with the house, just as she wishes.
Which side is the mother even on? What is her relationship to the father and all the others involved? She’s nicely sitting on the long lever with a veto right.
see above