Feeling like the only sane person in the room
April 25, 2021 12:09 AM
My in-laws are making what seems to me to be unwise financial decisions and we're too entangled with them personally to cut loose and let them make their own mistakes. How can we not be made crazy and/or broke by this?
There are a number of parties here: me, my spouse S, her sister and her husband (IL) and her parents (P). A little background on all of our situations:
S and I are pretty comfortable financially, living modestly, both employed, no children. This puts us in a position to provide some of the support described under P's circumstances.
IL live in a less modest manner than ourselves but some of that (considerably larger house, out in a pricey exurban neighborhood) may be what they see as necessary for their two young children. The sister is a highly trained professional whose job probably pays considerably more than mine or S's but not orders of magnitude more. The brother-in-law has a great many skills and a good work ethic, but limited explicit credentials, and is employed but not happily and is struggling to find a different position.
P are both semi-retired, planning transition to full retirement. They do not have large savings, and are in the midst of moving from a further away town to be closer to all of us. One of P has significant motor disabilities and uses a wheelchair. Finding a home suitable for this parent's needs has been difficult: few rentals really accommodate the necessary elements for his comfort, and we're working on getting a house built to purpose --- and "we" here is S and me, who do have the savings for a down payment on something we hope can both provide for them and be at least a reasonable enough investment on our part that later, whether we live in it ourselves or sell it we can consider it money well-spent. The expectation is that they will be paying us rent to the extent possible. This is something we can afford to end up significantly in the hole on if that's how things end up turning out.
There have been two recent issues which have come up which have given me a real sinking feeling about how closely we are aligned with this whole crew, financially and emotionally (S is very close to her family, or we probably wouldn't be as actively involved here as we are).
First incident: as part of the discussions with the family, basically convincing them to let us do them this favor, S pointed out that with interest, taxes, and insurance covered from rent, we'd be breaking even, and even parts of the rent going towards principal paydown are, from an equity standpoint, profit for us, so they shouldn't feel bad about this investment on their behalf. This sat very well with P but less well with IL, who felt that by profiting from their parents, we were essentially poaching the inheritance. My responses to this (not said to IL, but discussed with S), ranged from "we're laying out an enormous amount at not-inconsiderable risk to make this good thing for the family happen, and you're fretting that we're skimming a bit off the top for our trouble" to "if you want to go halfsies on the downpayment and on the profit with us, you can; we'll lend you the money if you need it" to "would you rather have us skimming a little off the top of a modest rent, or a complete stranger skimming a lot off the top of a larger rent? 'Cause we don't have to do this, you know." Cooler heads (S's, specifically) prevailed, and I was induced to draw up a contract specifying that net rent revenues above and beyond property tax, income tax, interest, insurance, and maintenance would be recorded, and that on P's departure from the house this quantity would be split with IL (I have a sneaking suspicion this number is actually going to end up being zero, or even negative; because I'm a nice guy, the contract specifically does not hold them liable for half if the final total is negative). And that seemed to mollify them. But this seemed a very weird dynamic I couldn't wrap my head around, that they couldn't separate the business from the personal, and that we're trying to handle this in a businesslike fashion (P paying us rent for a service we're providing; a transaction we are handling amicably and generously, but nonetheless a transaction) while they're seeing the rent being paid as entangled with the wholly distinct matter of inheritance. And, as Sayre's Law would have it, we know ---- and they must know --- that the quantities involved in this particular discussion (unlike the purchase of the house itself, which is a quite large transaction) are going to end up being piddling indeed.
Second incident: P sold their house back in their hometown. Hooray! They're flush with cash over the short term now, and apparently have decided that we're all (P, IL, and us) going to go on a family vacation to celebrate. I don't actually have any personal objections to spending a week with them; it's not the vacation I would necessarily choose, but I'm emotionally on board with the idea. Financially and logistically, though, this seems like a complete clusterfuck. We're seeking a house for 8 people, handicapped-accessible, in desirable summer-vacation locations for a week, with the cost split evenly over the three parties. Presumably S and IL are going to take time off to do this (my work is slow enough during the summer that it's a non-issue for me). Somehow, our several pets (all three parties have a few) need to find people to look after them (and our ordinary practice, dumping them on each other, is not feasible if we're all going). Basically, although I have no problem with the notion of spending a week in their company in a nice place, it looks like it's going to be a pain in the ass in some ways and expensive enough to be financially more than a little unwise for the other parties who are financially a bit more precarious than S and I are. Yes, P have a nice chunk of change now, but that's supposed to be going towards moving, towards their current rent until the house we're building is done, and towards future rent once that house is built. It seems that P aren't thinking much towards the future and are dragging the rest of us along with their folly, and S isn't comfortable telling them it's a bad idea. And I get that family is hard to work with, and hard to say "no" to, but this is really deeply frustrating, that important mutual decisions are being made outside of our review and put forwards as fait accompli. Given that walking away is not an option for S, how do we get along with these dynamics?
These are all nice people but they've got clear flaws which are making me crazy and S only slightly less crazy. We have no desire to be cruel but we want control over our own lives, and we would like them to spare a thought for us in the cooperative ventures we are entering with them at no small trouble to ourselves.
There are a number of parties here: me, my spouse S, her sister and her husband (IL) and her parents (P). A little background on all of our situations:
S and I are pretty comfortable financially, living modestly, both employed, no children. This puts us in a position to provide some of the support described under P's circumstances.
IL live in a less modest manner than ourselves but some of that (considerably larger house, out in a pricey exurban neighborhood) may be what they see as necessary for their two young children. The sister is a highly trained professional whose job probably pays considerably more than mine or S's but not orders of magnitude more. The brother-in-law has a great many skills and a good work ethic, but limited explicit credentials, and is employed but not happily and is struggling to find a different position.
P are both semi-retired, planning transition to full retirement. They do not have large savings, and are in the midst of moving from a further away town to be closer to all of us. One of P has significant motor disabilities and uses a wheelchair. Finding a home suitable for this parent's needs has been difficult: few rentals really accommodate the necessary elements for his comfort, and we're working on getting a house built to purpose --- and "we" here is S and me, who do have the savings for a down payment on something we hope can both provide for them and be at least a reasonable enough investment on our part that later, whether we live in it ourselves or sell it we can consider it money well-spent. The expectation is that they will be paying us rent to the extent possible. This is something we can afford to end up significantly in the hole on if that's how things end up turning out.
There have been two recent issues which have come up which have given me a real sinking feeling about how closely we are aligned with this whole crew, financially and emotionally (S is very close to her family, or we probably wouldn't be as actively involved here as we are).
First incident: as part of the discussions with the family, basically convincing them to let us do them this favor, S pointed out that with interest, taxes, and insurance covered from rent, we'd be breaking even, and even parts of the rent going towards principal paydown are, from an equity standpoint, profit for us, so they shouldn't feel bad about this investment on their behalf. This sat very well with P but less well with IL, who felt that by profiting from their parents, we were essentially poaching the inheritance. My responses to this (not said to IL, but discussed with S), ranged from "we're laying out an enormous amount at not-inconsiderable risk to make this good thing for the family happen, and you're fretting that we're skimming a bit off the top for our trouble" to "if you want to go halfsies on the downpayment and on the profit with us, you can; we'll lend you the money if you need it" to "would you rather have us skimming a little off the top of a modest rent, or a complete stranger skimming a lot off the top of a larger rent? 'Cause we don't have to do this, you know." Cooler heads (S's, specifically) prevailed, and I was induced to draw up a contract specifying that net rent revenues above and beyond property tax, income tax, interest, insurance, and maintenance would be recorded, and that on P's departure from the house this quantity would be split with IL (I have a sneaking suspicion this number is actually going to end up being zero, or even negative; because I'm a nice guy, the contract specifically does not hold them liable for half if the final total is negative). And that seemed to mollify them. But this seemed a very weird dynamic I couldn't wrap my head around, that they couldn't separate the business from the personal, and that we're trying to handle this in a businesslike fashion (P paying us rent for a service we're providing; a transaction we are handling amicably and generously, but nonetheless a transaction) while they're seeing the rent being paid as entangled with the wholly distinct matter of inheritance. And, as Sayre's Law would have it, we know ---- and they must know --- that the quantities involved in this particular discussion (unlike the purchase of the house itself, which is a quite large transaction) are going to end up being piddling indeed.
Second incident: P sold their house back in their hometown. Hooray! They're flush with cash over the short term now, and apparently have decided that we're all (P, IL, and us) going to go on a family vacation to celebrate. I don't actually have any personal objections to spending a week with them; it's not the vacation I would necessarily choose, but I'm emotionally on board with the idea. Financially and logistically, though, this seems like a complete clusterfuck. We're seeking a house for 8 people, handicapped-accessible, in desirable summer-vacation locations for a week, with the cost split evenly over the three parties. Presumably S and IL are going to take time off to do this (my work is slow enough during the summer that it's a non-issue for me). Somehow, our several pets (all three parties have a few) need to find people to look after them (and our ordinary practice, dumping them on each other, is not feasible if we're all going). Basically, although I have no problem with the notion of spending a week in their company in a nice place, it looks like it's going to be a pain in the ass in some ways and expensive enough to be financially more than a little unwise for the other parties who are financially a bit more precarious than S and I are. Yes, P have a nice chunk of change now, but that's supposed to be going towards moving, towards their current rent until the house we're building is done, and towards future rent once that house is built. It seems that P aren't thinking much towards the future and are dragging the rest of us along with their folly, and S isn't comfortable telling them it's a bad idea. And I get that family is hard to work with, and hard to say "no" to, but this is really deeply frustrating, that important mutual decisions are being made outside of our review and put forwards as fait accompli. Given that walking away is not an option for S, how do we get along with these dynamics?
These are all nice people but they've got clear flaws which are making me crazy and S only slightly less crazy. We have no desire to be cruel but we want control over our own lives, and we would like them to spare a thought for us in the cooperative ventures we are entering with them at no small trouble to ourselves.
In my mind these are two separate issues. The vacation makes no sense to me, but you will never convince them otherwise. It is a couple of thousand dollars of relative tax. At least you might have a good time.
The house, you are going way above and beyond. If it were me, I would tell IL that either they are in for half of everything, or out for all of it. You were right in thinking that. Why you did not verbalize it is confusing to me. I would go so far as to rather pay rent to a 3rd party for the parents (P) down the line if you have to than give your IL a risk free upside on rent.
The concept of inheritance that IL have that you are profiting and taking it is so flawed both logically and morally that I too would be outraged. You are taking risk. A lot of it actually. Why not just set the rent to equal mortgage and taxes and expenses? Then no one can claim you are profiting. Either this is an investment that your generation can make together or it is a gift/handout to P.
The problem is also that if IL is looking for an inheritance, are they going to monitor all of P's spending? What if they want to go out for a nice dinner. but their money is projected to run out in 3 years? Say no? Come on.
You're in a no win situation. But, you already recognize that. To me the best way to mitigate this is to align your interests with IL. To do that, either they go half in with you all around on the house or P rent a house in the open market and you invest your money elsewhere. Just set aside some money for the likelihood that you will be supporting P for some period of time in the future.
You should not be penalized for living modestly or for not having the expenses of having kids. The fact that IL has larger expenses is a choice they made and continue to make. If they cannot afford to go half on the house including half of the downpayment or building costs, they can pledge part of the equity in their large suburban house to you to cover their half.
Once one party is taking risk while both parties get reward, there is a conflict that will always be hanging over your heads and will affect the relationship. Once someone starts looking at a parent or relative as an inheritance, they will be questioning spending of every dollar.
The whole thing is FUBAR. I would rather spend money on rent to a 3rd party than get tangled up in finances with people who think like your ILs.
posted by AugustWest at 1:21 AM on April 25, 2021
The house, you are going way above and beyond. If it were me, I would tell IL that either they are in for half of everything, or out for all of it. You were right in thinking that. Why you did not verbalize it is confusing to me. I would go so far as to rather pay rent to a 3rd party for the parents (P) down the line if you have to than give your IL a risk free upside on rent.
The concept of inheritance that IL have that you are profiting and taking it is so flawed both logically and morally that I too would be outraged. You are taking risk. A lot of it actually. Why not just set the rent to equal mortgage and taxes and expenses? Then no one can claim you are profiting. Either this is an investment that your generation can make together or it is a gift/handout to P.
The problem is also that if IL is looking for an inheritance, are they going to monitor all of P's spending? What if they want to go out for a nice dinner. but their money is projected to run out in 3 years? Say no? Come on.
You're in a no win situation. But, you already recognize that. To me the best way to mitigate this is to align your interests with IL. To do that, either they go half in with you all around on the house or P rent a house in the open market and you invest your money elsewhere. Just set aside some money for the likelihood that you will be supporting P for some period of time in the future.
You should not be penalized for living modestly or for not having the expenses of having kids. The fact that IL has larger expenses is a choice they made and continue to make. If they cannot afford to go half on the house including half of the downpayment or building costs, they can pledge part of the equity in their large suburban house to you to cover their half.
Once one party is taking risk while both parties get reward, there is a conflict that will always be hanging over your heads and will affect the relationship. Once someone starts looking at a parent or relative as an inheritance, they will be questioning spending of every dollar.
The whole thing is FUBAR. I would rather spend money on rent to a 3rd party than get tangled up in finances with people who think like your ILs.
posted by AugustWest at 1:21 AM on April 25, 2021
AugustWest's answer is focused on the risk that P won't be able to pay rent, and that you will lose a lot of money. My gut reaction was the exact opposite--assuming P are able to pay rent, enough to be close to breaking even on yearly revenues, this would stand to be a very good deal for you financially.
I don't think AskMe is going to be able to judge who's being reasonable or unreasonable here, since we don't really have enough info to know how likely it is that you'll profit from this. Sure, irresponsible family members being propped up by more sensible relatives is a thing, but greedy bastards exploiting their family while characterizing it as a "favor" is frankly also a thing.
Your wording about the offer to split with IL is a little unclear to me. You say "go halfsies on the downpayment and profit", but does that mean the (potential) profit on yearly revenues, or the future profit on the house itself, i.e. sharing equal ownership/equity? You mention a contract that shares only the yearly profits. If you offered to share ownership, that would be eminently fair. But if you offered only to share the yearly profits, while keeping all the equity for yourself, then you would indeed be effectively poaching the inheritance.
Anyway, despite the opposite gut reaction, I have the same suggestion as AugustWest. Either go in as fully equal partners or not at all. Doesn't even matter whether you're being exploited or doing the exploiting, clearly IL's opinion on that question is not the same as yours, so the drama will continue.
posted by equalpants at 2:02 AM on April 25, 2021
I don't think AskMe is going to be able to judge who's being reasonable or unreasonable here, since we don't really have enough info to know how likely it is that you'll profit from this. Sure, irresponsible family members being propped up by more sensible relatives is a thing, but greedy bastards exploiting their family while characterizing it as a "favor" is frankly also a thing.
Your wording about the offer to split with IL is a little unclear to me. You say "go halfsies on the downpayment and profit", but does that mean the (potential) profit on yearly revenues, or the future profit on the house itself, i.e. sharing equal ownership/equity? You mention a contract that shares only the yearly profits. If you offered to share ownership, that would be eminently fair. But if you offered only to share the yearly profits, while keeping all the equity for yourself, then you would indeed be effectively poaching the inheritance.
Anyway, despite the opposite gut reaction, I have the same suggestion as AugustWest. Either go in as fully equal partners or not at all. Doesn't even matter whether you're being exploited or doing the exploiting, clearly IL's opinion on that question is not the same as yours, so the drama will continue.
posted by equalpants at 2:02 AM on April 25, 2021
Unless you’re charging P above-market rent, anything you have left after paying immediate expenses, any accumulated equity, or any increased home value over time, have absolutely nothing to do with potential future inheritance. Your in-laws are arguing that you should give them cash because you have cash on hand while they’ve spent theirs, and you’re going along with it to keep the peace. It’s emotional extortion, obscured by a bunch of senseless rationalizations.
posted by jon1270 at 3:31 AM on April 25, 2021
posted by jon1270 at 3:31 AM on April 25, 2021
So if I’m understanding this correctly, your plan is to buy this house for P, rent it to them for just enough to cover the bills, and then hopefully you’ll make some profit by selling it when P are no longer using it. You may possibly make a tiny profit off the rent, assuming there are no major repairs or expenses that need to be covered during these years.
But you could also just buy a house somewhere, rent it out to a stranger for more than the cost of the mortgage, and be making profit off the rent all those years, and then later sell it for profit.
So in actual fact, you are losing money by doing this for P. You are not “stealing the inheritance”, you are donating potential future profits to P. And if you weren’t doing this, P would be paying (likely higher) rent to strangers all these future years, possibly/probably leaving no inheritance at all.
posted by MexicanYenta at 3:46 AM on April 25, 2021
But you could also just buy a house somewhere, rent it out to a stranger for more than the cost of the mortgage, and be making profit off the rent all those years, and then later sell it for profit.
So in actual fact, you are losing money by doing this for P. You are not “stealing the inheritance”, you are donating potential future profits to P. And if you weren’t doing this, P would be paying (likely higher) rent to strangers all these future years, possibly/probably leaving no inheritance at all.
posted by MexicanYenta at 3:46 AM on April 25, 2021
Tell your siblings in law that you completely understand their point of view and won’t interfere with the care of their parents any more. Therefore they are now responsible for accomodating, paying and looking after their parents in their old age. They clearly know better after all.
posted by Jubey at 4:11 AM on April 25, 2021
posted by Jubey at 4:11 AM on April 25, 2021
You say you're trying to handle this in a rational/sane/business-like fashion, but you also nearly offered to lend them their half of a theoretical downpayment even though they make more than you, and you currently have a contract giving your in-laws half of equity/profit with no risk (and in fact, you are taking all the risk if there is a loss). Why not just give it as a gift to your parents-in-law and have them cover the mortgage/utilities/maintenance?
You don't say if what culture you are from, but in my world (South Asian diaspora), the concept of charging parents rent in their old age is anathema. People do it, of course, but it's a major source of family tension, and there is an underlying assumption that anyone who would even think of doing that must be out to take advantage. I speak from experience.
And, as Sayre's Law would have it, we know ---- and they must know --
I've never heard of Sayre or his law, but I just looked it up. I can almost guarantee that they do not know that whatever amounts you are talking about are "piddling" compared to inheritance. Particularly if they are not great with money to begin with. (May I propose basalganglia's law? The greater the certainty you have that someone else knows something that you know, the less likely they are to actually know it. With Vizzini's corollary: Never go against a Silician when death is on the line.)
posted by basalganglia at 4:22 AM on April 25, 2021
You don't say if what culture you are from, but in my world (South Asian diaspora), the concept of charging parents rent in their old age is anathema. People do it, of course, but it's a major source of family tension, and there is an underlying assumption that anyone who would even think of doing that must be out to take advantage. I speak from experience.
And, as Sayre's Law would have it, we know ---- and they must know --
I've never heard of Sayre or his law, but I just looked it up. I can almost guarantee that they do not know that whatever amounts you are talking about are "piddling" compared to inheritance. Particularly if they are not great with money to begin with. (May I propose basalganglia's law? The greater the certainty you have that someone else knows something that you know, the less likely they are to actually know it. With Vizzini's corollary: Never go against a Silician when death is on the line.)
posted by basalganglia at 4:22 AM on April 25, 2021
basically convincing them to let us do them this favor
P have a nice chunk of change now, but that's supposed to be going towards moving, towards their current rent until the house we're building is done, and towards future rent once that house is built.
The stuff with IL aside, it does not seem very fair to first convince P to accept the specific help you've decided to offer and then second use that specific help they had to be convinced to accept as an argument for how they get to spend their money.
posted by solotoro at 4:31 AM on April 25, 2021
P have a nice chunk of change now, but that's supposed to be going towards moving, towards their current rent until the house we're building is done, and towards future rent once that house is built.
The stuff with IL aside, it does not seem very fair to first convince P to accept the specific help you've decided to offer and then second use that specific help they had to be convinced to accept as an argument for how they get to spend their money.
posted by solotoro at 4:31 AM on April 25, 2021
P are getting on in years, one of them is significantly disabled, they’re leaving their home because they need to be nearer to their children, and they’re planning for a financially scary future.
For heaven’s sake, let them have their fun family vacation.
posted by FencingGal at 5:22 AM on April 25, 2021
For heaven’s sake, let them have their fun family vacation.
posted by FencingGal at 5:22 AM on April 25, 2021
It's too bad they didn't involve you guys more in planning the family vacation. Who was the "ringleader" for the vacation? If it was P, well, just because it's not perfect for you, it might be exactly what they want, and going along with that can be a gift in a lot of ways.
When I plan vacations, money is always top of mind. We go as cheap as possible, stay places as cheap as possible, and I still can't relax, because what if everything went wrong. When my in laws plan things, they all come with a giving mindset, because they know all that other stuff falls by the wayside, and seeing each other is way more valuable than a few hundred dollars of a different house.
If you have the chance to influence the vacation, what would you change? Depending on the pets, camping can be a lot easier because you can sometimes bring your pets with you. You could look into a big airbnb to spend time together, maybe not in a high-demand location as much (Like, not by water). But really, from your buildup, I was expecting a extravagant cruise or trip to europe/cabo/cancun. Renting a house and spending time together doesn't seem terrible. Do you have friends that can watch your pets (and you pay them)? We often use Rover for pet sitting, it's usually about $25/night for a dog, and we have someone check on our cat once every two days for $20/each, which is still $250, but it's not like, terrible for financial reasons. And of course as many pets as can just come on the vacation, the better.
posted by bbqturtle at 5:44 AM on April 25, 2021
When I plan vacations, money is always top of mind. We go as cheap as possible, stay places as cheap as possible, and I still can't relax, because what if everything went wrong. When my in laws plan things, they all come with a giving mindset, because they know all that other stuff falls by the wayside, and seeing each other is way more valuable than a few hundred dollars of a different house.
If you have the chance to influence the vacation, what would you change? Depending on the pets, camping can be a lot easier because you can sometimes bring your pets with you. You could look into a big airbnb to spend time together, maybe not in a high-demand location as much (Like, not by water). But really, from your buildup, I was expecting a extravagant cruise or trip to europe/cabo/cancun. Renting a house and spending time together doesn't seem terrible. Do you have friends that can watch your pets (and you pay them)? We often use Rover for pet sitting, it's usually about $25/night for a dog, and we have someone check on our cat once every two days for $20/each, which is still $250, but it's not like, terrible for financial reasons. And of course as many pets as can just come on the vacation, the better.
posted by bbqturtle at 5:44 AM on April 25, 2021
Do not do this. It will turn out badly and the claims will escalate, and eventually you will end up having to draw a line and it will be bad.
(Speaking from personal experience here. I cannot tell you how badly something similar in terms of helping out a relative went. )
posted by lesbiassparrow at 6:09 AM on April 25, 2021
(Speaking from personal experience here. I cannot tell you how badly something similar in terms of helping out a relative went. )
posted by lesbiassparrow at 6:09 AM on April 25, 2021
ILs part: The contract you drew up is done I take it? It’s not what I would have done, because it doesn’t account for opportunity costs/risks to you (what happens if one of you loses your job, etc.) but if it’s done, here’s the path to mental freedom: any further discussion is just “hey, we have an agreement.”
Where you’ll run into problems later is probably going to be when you go to spend money on repairs/improvements and ILs feel it’s unnecessary. So get your thoughts ready at that point.
ILs are operating from a position that I’ve observed in my family where there’s just too much thinking about inherited wealth. This is usually a deep childhood issue I think, or bad fiscal management (or legit poverty) and the best thing I’ve ever found to do is just stop taking about it. Set a every 6 months meeting and then let it go.
Ps part: I would get your mind around the fact that you’ve aligned your financial future with Ps spending because you didn’t give them a set rent but tied it to their means. This can become toxic if you let it, starting with the vacation. It’s you trying to control them because now you have a stake in their money. Again, it’s a bit late for this but it would be wise to let the mental energy go...they’ve shown you who they are financially which is people without a lot of savings, and they spend money in this way. Don’t get into it. Just decide if you want to go or not.
Ss’s and your part: once you pressured Ps to accept your deal, you opened your financial strategy to the group for discussion. Because although the ILs sort of have it backwards, the fact is you really did enter into a position where if, say, your Ps give ILs a big vacation and can’t pay you rent, you eat those costs. Your generosity does in fact have limits (not a bad thing) but you assured P it doesn’t. That’s a pickle. And what’s more, S started it. Rather than letting P decide based on your offer and their experience of apartment hunting, S manipulated them with a financial argument.
The one concern I have in your post on this end is you both assert you can afford a big loss and you ask how not to let this situation ruin you. Can you really afford it? If you’re about to get over your head, you’re in trouble because they sold their house. This is something you need to get on top of...if by afford you meant “it will be so hard we’ll resent it,” it might be time to start sorting this out now. There are real costs, emotion and financial, to setting things up this way. I have a lot of sympathy and have dug similar holes in the past and watched family members live designer lifestyles while I paid their rent and...a gift is a gift is a gift. If you can’t afford it, don’t give it.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:04 AM on April 25, 2021
Where you’ll run into problems later is probably going to be when you go to spend money on repairs/improvements and ILs feel it’s unnecessary. So get your thoughts ready at that point.
ILs are operating from a position that I’ve observed in my family where there’s just too much thinking about inherited wealth. This is usually a deep childhood issue I think, or bad fiscal management (or legit poverty) and the best thing I’ve ever found to do is just stop taking about it. Set a every 6 months meeting and then let it go.
Ps part: I would get your mind around the fact that you’ve aligned your financial future with Ps spending because you didn’t give them a set rent but tied it to their means. This can become toxic if you let it, starting with the vacation. It’s you trying to control them because now you have a stake in their money. Again, it’s a bit late for this but it would be wise to let the mental energy go...they’ve shown you who they are financially which is people without a lot of savings, and they spend money in this way. Don’t get into it. Just decide if you want to go or not.
Ss’s and your part: once you pressured Ps to accept your deal, you opened your financial strategy to the group for discussion. Because although the ILs sort of have it backwards, the fact is you really did enter into a position where if, say, your Ps give ILs a big vacation and can’t pay you rent, you eat those costs. Your generosity does in fact have limits (not a bad thing) but you assured P it doesn’t. That’s a pickle. And what’s more, S started it. Rather than letting P decide based on your offer and their experience of apartment hunting, S manipulated them with a financial argument.
The one concern I have in your post on this end is you both assert you can afford a big loss and you ask how not to let this situation ruin you. Can you really afford it? If you’re about to get over your head, you’re in trouble because they sold their house. This is something you need to get on top of...if by afford you meant “it will be so hard we’ll resent it,” it might be time to start sorting this out now. There are real costs, emotion and financial, to setting things up this way. I have a lot of sympathy and have dug similar holes in the past and watched family members live designer lifestyles while I paid their rent and...a gift is a gift is a gift. If you can’t afford it, don’t give it.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:04 AM on April 25, 2021
You can't make it all about business with family. As an in-law yourself, you might think you can, but for your spouse this is personal and it can't be approached with total dispassion.
Also, if you are judgmental about her parents' finances now, you're going to have a real rough time once you're renting to them. You're going to have to figure out how to be okay with this. Level with your spouse about your financial fears. Maybe start putting some of your own money into an account "only for emergencies" if that will help you feel better? There's a lot you're going to need to let go of, emotionally and financially, but your spouse should acknowledge your needs as well. It's just going to take a lot of communication, honesty, and vulnerability.
posted by rikschell at 7:34 AM on April 25, 2021
Also, if you are judgmental about her parents' finances now, you're going to have a real rough time once you're renting to them. You're going to have to figure out how to be okay with this. Level with your spouse about your financial fears. Maybe start putting some of your own money into an account "only for emergencies" if that will help you feel better? There's a lot you're going to need to let go of, emotionally and financially, but your spouse should acknowledge your needs as well. It's just going to take a lot of communication, honesty, and vulnerability.
posted by rikschell at 7:34 AM on April 25, 2021
I wouldn't call a week-long vacation an "unwise financial decision" - even low-income people deserve to take a break and have fun, and vacations can be had at all price points. If the vacation is hard for you financially (which it sounds like it isn't) you can request a cheaper rental, but you don't get to police what P and IL do with their money.
What's unclear about the first issue, is what is the long-term plan here? What happens when/if P are no longer able to care for themselves? Will you and IL be splitting costs for someone to be their caretaker, or will they need to move into an assisted living care center or nursing home? I'm not an expert on this, but your plan doesn't sound fully sorted - perhaps it would be worth sitting down as a group with a financial planner before you take any steps to build a new house.
posted by coffeecat at 11:02 AM on April 25, 2021
What's unclear about the first issue, is what is the long-term plan here? What happens when/if P are no longer able to care for themselves? Will you and IL be splitting costs for someone to be their caretaker, or will they need to move into an assisted living care center or nursing home? I'm not an expert on this, but your plan doesn't sound fully sorted - perhaps it would be worth sitting down as a group with a financial planner before you take any steps to build a new house.
posted by coffeecat at 11:02 AM on April 25, 2021
On (1), in all honesty, I would've offered your second option. If they want, they are absolutely welcome to take on part of the risk in exchange for part of whatever profit might result. Now, because the proposed plan is not an arms-length transaction, there is potential for abuse. If you charged some absurd rent, it could be seen as a way of skimming from your ILs. Or if you were strong-arming Ps into taking this option when they preferred something else, also a concern. But that doesn't seem to be the situation here. If I'm understanding what the ILs are saying, they want you to take on a potentially significant risk of loss with no compensation because Ps' ordinary daily expenses would go into the inheritance--if they didn't have ordinary daily expenses! No way.
On (2), man, unless they're beggaring themselves, let them have their dignity and spend some time with the family while they're still healthy enough to enjoy it.
posted by praemunire at 11:19 AM on April 25, 2021
On (2), man, unless they're beggaring themselves, let them have their dignity and spend some time with the family while they're still healthy enough to enjoy it.
posted by praemunire at 11:19 AM on April 25, 2021
« Older Why would a cardiologist withhold test results? | Would this be a dealbreaker for you? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Thella at 1:17 AM on April 25, 2021