Tenants in Common Scenario

I’m hoping to get some constructive input and outside perspectives on a situation my family is currently navigating.

We are a family of three (my wife, our child, and myself) living in a townhouse near Brisbane, which we’ve owned for about 15 years. Our child is approaching his teenage years and is increasingly wanting more space, particularly a backyard, and to live closer to his friends. At the moment, we are about 25 minutes from his high school. Socially, he’s a bit behind his peers, which makes it harder for him to build strong friendships, so proximity to his social circle feels increasingly important.
About a year ago, my stepfather passed away. Since then, my mum has been living alone. She’s still working and likely will continue for the next 2–3 years, but she does experience periods of loneliness.

My wife and I have been considering selling our townhouse and purchasing a house with a backyard. However, given current market conditions, many suitable suburbs even 30–40 km south of Brisbane are becoming increasingly unaffordable. As a result, we’ve started discussing the possibility of buying a property together with my mum.
Financially, our household income is around $250k, and my mum earns approximately $300k. Including her assets (cash, super, and property), her net worth is around $2.3 million. We’ve been looking at larger homes (5 bed / 3 bath) that can function as dual living properties.

The current idea is a 60/40 ownership split (60% us, 40% my mum), structured as tenants in common. We expect to net around $670,000 from the sale of our townhouse, and we’re looking at properties in the $1.4m–$1.9m range. I’ve already spoken with a solicitor and mortgage broker, so we understand the basic legal framework.
One key issue we’re trying to work through is what happens down the track. Under a tenants-in-common structure, my mum’s 40% share would form part of her estate and likely be split between my sister and me.

This is where I’m seeking honest feedback.
Given that my mum would be living with us, and we would be taking on the day-to-day responsibility of supporting her as she ages (particularly if health issues arise), I feel that it may be reasonable for the property to pass fully to my wife and me upon her death. The rest of her estate would then be split 50/50 between my sister and me.
My sister lives in regional NSW, and moving there wouldn’t be a realistic or healthy option for my mum it would be socially isolating for her. So living with us seems like the most practical and supportive arrangement.

My question is, does this approach seem fair and equitable, given the circumstances, or am I viewing this too narrowly and being selfish?
I’m genuinely interested in balanced perspectives, especially from people who may have been in similar situations

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • Mother needs independent legal and financial advice.

    What does she want to do for herself? (Without feeling compelled to finance your lifestyle or beg you for attention).

    My question is, does this approach seem fair and equitable, given the circumstances,

    Hell no.

    am I viewing this too narrowly and being selfish?

    Absolutely!

    and we would be taking on the day-to-day responsibility of supporting her as she ages (particularly if health issues arise),

    She's your mother. Either care for her or don't, but you don't get to charge her for it and martyr yourself for doing it if you choose to.

    —-/-

    Forty years is a long time to make this kind of commitment for. As the years pass and the dynamics of the family unit change, will everybody still be good to live with each other?

    Every time one of you wants to move house, is the other one able to buy out whomever is leaving or do they have to move etc too?

    What if relationships sour and you need to separate?

    What if wife's parents/family situation changes?

    Absolutely no way in hell this should be happening. Your kid will move out of home in the next ten years and you're a grown ass adult with a decent income, you don't need to be living with your mother.

    If your mother is lonely, get yourself busy and go and visit her. Get her involved in her community. Not your job to be your mother's friend. Let her have a life of her own.

    Damn kids spending their inheritance before their parents are even dead. Presumptuous, audacious and really, really messed up.

    • Thanks for taking the time to respond I appreciate the honesty, even if it’s a bit direct.
      Just to clarify a few points, as I may not have explained things clearly enough in my original post:

      My mum is very much part of these discussions and is not being pressured into anything. Independent legal and financial advice is absolutely part of the process if we proceed.
      This isn’t about “financing our lifestyle” it’s about exploring a living arrangement that could potentially benefit all parties: giving our child a better environment, addressing my mum’s loneliness, and making use of a dual‑living setup that allows independence.
      I completely understand the point about caring for a parent not being transactional. That said, I do think it’s realistic (and responsible) to consider how estate planning aligns with long-term care responsibilities, particularly when significant financial commitments like a shared property are involved.

      You’ve also raised some valid practical risks, such as:

      What happens if circumstances change (relationship breakdowns, needing to sell, etc.)
      Long-term compatibility of living together
      Exit strategies for all parties

      These are exactly the kinds of things we’re trying to think through before making any decisions.
      To be clear, I’m not set on a particular outcome — I’m genuinely trying to sense-check whether the proposed arrangement is fair, or whether I’m approaching it too narrowly.
      I do take your point that perspective is important here, especially around entitlement and assumptions, so that’s something I’ll continue to reflect on.

      • i think what you're proposing is fair

        if you end up going down the path and decide to talk to your sister to see if she is on board - if she isnt and doesnt like the potential-property you plan to go tenants in common together that would pass to you - then you could say she is more than welcome to buy a larger house together with your mum in the same fashion to move in with her in the same setup.

    • She's your mother. Either care for her or don't, but you don't get to charge her for it and martyr yourself for doing it if you choose to.

      Precisely.

  • You will be in danger of losing your house when mum passes and your sister wants to sell her 20%, so plan to buy her 20% (and it will be more like 25% or more - families get weird when it comes to money)

    • unless something is agreed and written into a contract before, this can become messy very quickly. things change, people change and circumstance change. It’s best not to go with this arrangement, instead perhaps buy a big place on your own and ask your mom to help in ways she can. This way house wont be the reason why OP and his sister wont be taking to each other in future.

      • This way house wont be the reason why OP and his sister wont be taking to each other in future.

        A bigger concern is the potential for a relationship breakdown between the mother and the son/son's family & mother and children.

        It's all well and good going in and nobody thinks it will happen to their family, but this stuff breaks down hundreds of times a week, and that's just the stuff that progresses to the courts. I can only imagine how many never get that far but the relationships get destroyed.

        Family & money = dogfights.

        Far worse than in commerce because these things are rarely done at arms length and then when one party invariably wants to change the terms down the track, the inevitable conflict arises if all parties can't or won't agree. Because it's family, everybody expects a bit of leeway.

        IMO, in this scenario, the mother will be putting herself into a dangerous situation if she agrees to this.

        At the very least, it looks like her access to any aged pension could be jeopardised.

        They don't even seem to be understanding the complexities of the situation they are trying to create.

        • I know a couple with children, who bought a house, with the wife's mother helping out financially. The agreement was that the mother could get a granny flat built on the property. It all turned sour, as the close proximity strained relationships because no boundaries had been put into place. It created problems with the grandkids going to nans at a whim, and vice versa - nan going to daughters at a whim. In the end, the nan received a letter from her daughter, basically implying the nan move out because it wasnt working out. They came to a compromise in the end, and built a fence between the main house and granny flat, with both having separate driveways

    • families get weird when it comes to money

      They get weird anyway when a parent dies. Money just supercharges their nasty behavior.

      • They get weird anyway when a parent dies. Money just supercharges their nasty behavior.

        One of my brothers has lived interstate from our parents and the rest of the siblings for at least thirty years. (As long as I can remember, I was a kid when they moved - my siblings are a lot older than me).

        My parents are quite wealthy and they are surely enjoying the later years of their lives. My brother is independently quite wealthy himself and is currently preparing for his own retirement.

        His WIFE keeps phoning ** HER INLAWS** (my parents), telling them how to structure their will, and threatened them that they would contest it if they didn't.

        Told mum not to be extravagant in their funeral arrangements, be budget conscious as they would just over rule any unnecessary spending. Telling mum what jewellery/personal possessions were to be left to her and her children and grand children etc. wanting funds set aside for their education and housing etc…

        This is her daughter in law, not even her own kid. But he does know that she does this, so he's not innocent.

      • When my MIL moved to nursing home last year, each kid got a boot full of toilet paper. 6 kids. She still had that much left over from Covid.

        Her kids literally inherited a boot full of toilet paper each.

        • Well now we know the culprit! Thanks for sharing.

          • @jeffa: I know right? When we went to clear out their house, it was unbelievable!

            They lived in this really tiny one bedroom, one half room almost big enough to be a study, one bathroom "unit" type thing, perhaps five rooms in total incl bathroom. Like laundry was a cupboard on the side of the kitchen lol.

            Really neat and clean little place, no indication of any hoarding etc, as you can imagine, quite minimalistic. Both were of sound mind, no cognition issues.

            Then we opened this cupboard…. midway through 2025, so two or three years post covid, right?

            They still had enough toilet paper to supply an entire country for five years!

            No tinfoil, no other doomsday prepping, just this insane amount of (really good quality) toilet paper.

            I don't think we could have been more shocked if we found a hidden entryway leading to some super creepy secret chamber (with eerie cob web covered, flickering lightbulbs swinging from the ceiling) filled with torture devices, decaying, pus oozing corpses, freezers full of frozen body parts and specimen jars full of dissected frogs brains floating in formaldehyde or a kinked up sex dungeon I suppose.

        • Centerlink will count it as an asset for five years. Her pension could be in jeopardy!

  • You're trying to pull a fast one on your sister; why would she possibly sign off?

    • How is it a "fast one"? Unless I'm reading it wrong, OP hasn't indicated that they're trying to trick anyone.

      • He plans to inherit 100% of his mum's share of the property in return for "the day-to-day responsibility of supporting her as she ages"

        • Has OP indicated that they're trying to trick anyone or go through with the plan without asking anyone? They're just asking if it's reasonable or not. Personally if I were the sister and I was financially stable, I wouldn't have a problem.

          • @bluemyself: I concede we don’t know enough about their family dynamic to add much value; for every person who would be fine with it there will likely be one who isn’t

            • @sumyungguy: Yeah of course. But I interpreted OP's question as to whether it's reasonable enough to be presented to the parties involved, or is the idea too selfish.

              • @bluemyself: I don't want to assume the worst of OP. Let's make this about some other family: joint purchase at say $2M means Offspring A has dealt themself an $800k advance on their inheritance which doesn't need to be repaid or adjusted. Offpring B is cheerfully writing off $400k. Offspring A's household becomes adept at sucking the life out of resident parent's net worth so when she eventually shuffles off Offspring B gets 50% of SFA; it all disappears under the guise of "the day-to-day responsibility of supporting her as she ages", overseas holidays & cruises, undisclosed additional loans, personal hardship, top end tech devices, school fees and first car for the grandkid, aged care RAD, etc, etc. Not making this stuff up, have seen it happen in several families.

                • @sumyungguy: I can see how it might come across that way, but that’s definitely not the intent.
                  Nothing is being done “behind anyone’s back” — this would only ever happen with full transparency and agreement from all parties involved, including my sister. I’m not assuming she would just sign off on anything.
                  What I’m trying to work through (and why I posted here) is whether the principle of the arrangement is reasonable in the first place — particularly balancing:

                  financial contribution,
                  long-term living arrangements, and
                  the practical reality of supporting a parent day-to-day versus living interstate.

                  I completely understand your point though — from my sister’s perspective it could reasonably feel like an early shift in inheritance, and that’s something I’d need to approach very carefully and fairly.
                  That’s exactly why I’m asking the question now, before any decisions are made.

                  • @YBAF Pilot: I think you will just need to avoid the situation with your mum living with your family. It isn't going to work for all sorts of reasons. Good luck.

                  • @YBAF Pilot:

                    What I’m trying to work through (and why I posted here) is whether the principle of the arrangement is reasonable in the first place

                    It's not up to ozbargain to decide if its fair and reasonable, its your sister. You do need sign off from you sister, she needs to be happy with you taking the share of the house.

  • I think you're being selfish. I agree that your mothers share of the house should pass to you, but that should be as part of the 50/50 split with your sister, which means most of the rest of her estate, such as cash and other valuables, would be going to your sister. You seem to be trying to get the lions share of the inheritance and I don't think it's fair, even taking into consideration your extra involvement with her life. You are getting a significant benefit by being able to purchase a house out of your budget.

    • That’s a fair perspective, and I appreciate you laying it out clearly.
      I can definitely see how, when you frame it that way, it could look like I’m trying to end up with a larger share overall especially given the advantage of being able to access a higher-value property sooner.
      That’s not really the intent, though. The thinking behind it was more around:

      potentially taking on the long-term responsibility of living with and supporting my mum as she ages, and
      structuring things in a way that reflects that ongoing commitment.

      That said, I completely accept your point that this kind of arrangement can easily drift into being inequitable if it’s not very carefully structured particularly if it effectively shifts more of the total estate in one direction.
      The idea you’ve suggested (that any adjustment for the property is balanced out of the rest of the estate) is actually a useful way of looking at it, and probably a more objectively fair baseline.
      At the end of the day, nothing would happen without full agreement from my sister, and part of me asking this question is exactly to challenge my own thinking before it ever gets to that stage.

      • That’s not really the intent, though. The thinking behind it was more around:

        potentially taking on the long-term responsibility of living with and supporting my mum as she ages, and
        structuring things in a way that reflects that ongoing commitment.

        I wouldn't look at the situation like that.

        I assume that you have a good relationship with your mother, seeing as she's willing to help you out in this way and move in together, so this is something that you should be doing regardless of whether you'll receive a reward after she dies, and I'm sure your sister would also do the same if she lived closer, or in a more suitable location for your mother to move to.

        If you must look at it that way, then consider how you'll technically be receiving an early inheritance, and the price of that early inheritance is that you might have to help out your mum a bit as she ages, otherwise you'd be stuck living in the town house and have your son become socially isolated, or you'd have to look at lower end properties, further away from everything.

        Maybe a slightly higher split of the inheritance might be fair, but I wouldn't go further than 60/40, and personally I would stick with 50/50, as you don't seem to need the money, and it will probably damage your relationship with your sister, and in my opinion relationships are more valuable than money.

        If your mother does end up requiring more care than expected, such as by developing a chronic / terminal condition, then you could revisit the matter then, but if she just has the normal problems of ageing, and nothing that requires frequent care, then I would just leave it and look at it as you get to spend more time with your mother, rather than you have to spend more time with her and thus require more compensation.

        There's also the question of whether your mother would like to leave something to your son, and your sisters children, if she has any. It could end up being split more ways than you'd originally thought.

      • it could look like I’m trying to end up with a larger share overall

        That is not how it looks, that is how it is. You are trying to end up with a larger share overall.

        If the estate is divided 50/50 then there is no issue of fairness with your sister. So the 40% of the house must be accounted for equally along with the other assets.

        Anything else is not a fair split.

        • time = money

          whilst the courts may not seeing age caring as contributing to a will split morally it seems to be the right thing and should equate. Yes we all owe our parents help where we can - if one sibling cannot though and the other can is able to - that time should account for something imo

  • Just put your very health family income towards a mortgage and house for your own family.

    Too much friggin around and future variables in my opinion.

    • Agree. An elderly relative sold her house to part finance her son's new house in the suburbs and moved in to the downstairs flat. Didn't last long at all before she moved to a tiny bed sit in an inner suburb for her final years

  • Firstly, the law does not take into consideration the care that you provide. Do not expect her 40% in the house to pass directly to you for the "care".

    For example, in NSW, I can't remember the case law for this but there was a son who looked after his mother for over 20 years, while the other son went to New York and built a successful and high paid career in banking. The mother had a will and split her estate between the two sons equally. When she died, the son caring took the matter to court asking for a bigger slice of the esate (the estate was only the family home in one million dollar mark iirc) saying he did a great job (which he did), he forgoed a career so he could look after her (which he did) but the court's hand was tied as the law did not account the care but can only consider the "needs" component.

    • Fair enough if the will states that the estate is to be split equally between the two sons.

      But what if the will gives more to the son that has been taking care of the parent? Case in point

      • Unequal shares must be needs based or opportunity to contest.

        May not be as big a factor in some states anymore as now the claimant must pay what's before, any fees associated with contest came from estate.

        In saying that mum can say "giving John $50. Only giving George $30 because I loaned him $20 which he has not yet paid back".

        But generally, if mum gives to anybody in a class, she must give to all persons in that class and all equal unless a specific need can be proven, but kids don't get rewarded extra just for caring for mum, cos just like parent supposed to care for kid, kid is supposed to care for parent.

        Note, that carer may be eligible to a carer payment whilst mum alive. One means tested the other not. Additionally, govt provides aged care in home for old people.

        Thus child has already been adequately paid for any care they provide their parent and govt has already paid to provide them with additional inhome support.

        • There's a blog that further discusses this:
          https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4c3aad14-79ce…

          "As shown in both these cases, while adult children may be able to demonstrate their circumstances warrant an additional provision from their parent’s estate, the Court must look beyond this need to the conduct of the adult child and the competing claims other beneficiaries may have on the estate. It is not enough that an adult child is living in difficult circumstances if their conduct is such to disentitle them to any provision or, if another child is more deserving, to justify the way the estate was divided. The Court is required to look at the totality of the circumstances in evaluating whether adequate provision was made by a deceased parent and the Court is not easily swayed to alter a deceased’s will."

          • @digitale: Is it ok to presume that disentitle is with regards to acts of such a serious nature that it could be construed that familial ties were severed?

            Other child being more deserving referring to a needs based claim?

            Totality of circumstances, so the needs vs anything to water down that familial relationship.

            Whilst it's true that the court tries to distribute in accordance with the wishes of the testator, they do still have to comply with the succession acts.

            Wills don't override statute and wills are just that, wills - not legally binding per se. Not contracts.

            As per that court case in the orbiter, magistrate explained duties of the patent to the child and vis versa?

            But if that document says different, let me know? Please? otherwise will look tomorrow if that's ok? Late now, too hard to think hard lol.

            Also note, different jurisdictions do vary sometimes.

            EG:

            In Qld, only direct children or dependent at time of death count.

            In NSW it is anybody (so foster kids too) at any time of deceased life who have a claim on estate - from memory this extends to step children of a past relationship (not positive on that bit- but nsw claimants very wide under dependency banner.

    • Sounds like a ticktock video AI story.

      I believe you can claim but evidence would be required for this.

      Such as diary detailing doctors appointments
      Traveling to and from doctors, shopping etc
      Also have going through Centrelink to claim for primary career.

      These points can aid in your situation but it would come down to the judge making the ruling with evidence etc.

  • It is the equivalent of billing your sister $400,000+ for caring for your mum. If you want to go down that path you should just pay out your sister and keep things fair.

    If you do ask your sister to give up her share of the house she may feel pressure to agree and later resentment. Family relationships are too important to mess up for money.

  • How did this go from 'our son lives too far from school' to this?

    It frankly sounds like you are finding reasons to justify it. 25 mins from a school is not much and your son's friends don't live at the school.

    I lived about 30 minutes from my high school, total non issue, saw friends all the time, one actually lived a few streets away, a couple others were in neighbouring suburbs, some live near the school. My wife went to the same school and she was even further away. It was frankly a non issue and if I wanted to see friends that lived further away then my parents made time and took me. My best friend through school lived about 10 mins past the school, 40 min trip basically, we would hang out on weekends all the time.

    What they didn't do was use it as an excuse to somehow gain some financial advantage over their siblings and take advantage of their parents.

    Also a bigger house isn't all that great, a backyard? You want that extra maintenance? As your son gets older you can almost guarantee that when friends come over they'll probably be playing video games or doing something else, perhaps riding bikes or skateboarding and not playing in the backyard.

    • I beg to differ on the 30mins from school being a non-issue.

      Maybe in rural towns it's not a big as everyone is far from everything, but living in the inner suburbs and going to schools consistently 5 suburbs away made informal outside of school activities (I.e. hanging out at a friend's house or at the shopping centre) barely occur. There's also a level of freedom in being able to just walk to a friends house compared to having to ask your parents to drive you/having to pre-plan hanging out.

      Further, if family dynamics go sour or your parents are simply dealing with some stuff that will further reduce your informal outings.

      I did begin using public transport more often (and at a younger age) because of the distance however 30mins by car was like an hour with two buses.

      Further living closer to the community means you're a part of said community and people know you and look out for you and everything is a tad more engaged.

      Not that living away made me who I am but I can look back and pin point it as the reason I was unable to develop closer bonds with people I knew when I was younger (even though we were great friends in school). Looking back I aligned being a coworker as meaning a friend because that's what being far from school meant, I was basically meeting up with a bunch of people to do work between 8am-3pm mon-fri and that was the bulk of my interactions.

  • What happens if you die before your mother?

      • I think it's a very fair question and one that needs to be deeply considered. FFS

        • If I die before my mother it will go to my wife.

          • @YBAF Pilot: Will she and her new husband want to look after your mother?

            All happy to live together, caring for your mum, holding hands, skipping and singing kumbaya?

          • @YBAF Pilot: And if you're divorced before then?

            • @MS Paint: Grandma might find a partner to settle down with and grow old(er) with too. She's not dead yet.

            • @MS Paint: Goes to the kid, OP definitely doesn't want to hear the next question.

      • Rhetorical question. You asked for opinions, sorry if you don't like mine.

        I don't need your answers or care about them.

        I've literally seen hundreds of family disputes over money and this one is ripe for the pickings.

        Forty Years is a long time for this kind of commitment.

        • noted, well thank you for your opinion, but I will move on then.

      • Muppet detector detected the Muppet!

  • Your mom earns 300k a year? You probably should get proper advice with these amounts of money you're talking about. If she died a few months after doing this deal, could you afford to pay your sister 40% of the market value of the house? Sounds complicated. If you know this inheritance is coming anyway, why not rent a house close to school for the rest of high school. And just visit yo mum more often if she's lonely. Invite her for dinner more.

  • Ask your sister directly
    Tell her the situation , sit down with mum and sister
    Exclude yoyr wife for first consult

  • This sounds like a bad idea.

    Firstly it may complicate things financially for mum, but also secondly no matter what way you twist it you are trying to disadvantage your sister by at least $380k (20% of $1.9m) - that will surely grow significantly before your mother passes.

    Mum has plenty of cash so why not ask mum for a 'loan' which will end up being an advance on your inheritance.

  • The person that makes that decision is your Mother, her opinion is the one that matters. You can ask of course. Is your wife on-board with taking in your Mother to the extent of taking care of her?

  • Just to clarify your question, are you asking whether it's fair/reasonable for the property you buy with your mum to be fully transferred to you as opposed to being split with your sister?

    If I've got that right, if I were in position of your mother or sister I would say that's reasonable.

  • Sounds like you're trying to rip off your sister.

  • The will can be written however your mum wants, however your sister could contest it. Probably best to talk to your sister and mum about it first. What makes sense is if your mum's wishes are that it goes to you, she gifts it to you before her death (or right now). I really wouldn't blindside your sister with this.

    The only people whose opinions really matter are you mums and your sisters.

    If you want opinions though, decide whether moving in with your mum is for mutual benefit or not. You get a nicer house and more capital injected, the support of another person at home and the high income in the short term. She gets company and care in her old age. If you don't think this is worth it for you unless you also get that share of the house too then reevaluate the whole thing.

    • What makes sense is if your mum's wishes are that it goes to you, she gifts it to you before her death (or right now).

      Will gifting affect any pensions? May be only $10k per year?

      If gifted too close to death, can be clawed back into estate if contested.

  • and think about how your mother's future residential care will be financed without having to sell the house (minimum $650k entry price to residential aged care, likely a lot more).

    • Mum is on $300k with a net worth of $2.3M; her challenge will be to shimmy under the part pension asset test

      • She is way over. It would need to be creative.

  • How did you get a 60/40 split? I assume deposit and costs are on the same basis? Why not 75/25 based on number of people living there? Seems like the house is mostly for your benefit.

    Your mum is doing an awful lot for you in a period where she may still be in mourning. I’d say park the idea, go visit your mum more or help her find some activities she may like to engage in to help with her loneliness and revisit this idea in a year or two if everyone is still on the same page.

    In the mean time, rent where you want to live and lease out your property.

  • speak to your mum on why joint tenant? couple pay 10% more?

    • Tenants in common needed for uneven split, but no right to survivorship, not even between spouses.

      Joint tenancy must be equal shares, but has right to survivorship.

      • Isn't right to survivorship exactly what OP wants?

        • I thought so (and his title says that) but zzz brought up joint tenant which doesn't have that. So thought they may not have realised that iykwim.

          Oh, OP wants both unequal split & RTS.

  • sounds like hard work
    this thread needs a TLDR

    • TLDR: Greed is good bad.

  • My question is, does this approach seem fair and equitable, given the circumstances, or am I viewing this too narrowly and being selfish?

    its your family's decision, so discuss with them all in 1 place or 1 virtual place than talking to internet here.

    • Yes that is obviously my intention, I was merely doing a sense check before we have that conversation

      • There is an Australian forum called Property Chat.

        This is a great question to ask there.

        Qualified tax agents, financial planners, legals, estate planning, property managers, investors, the whole nine yards, all extremely generous with their time and expertise.

        Most publish their credentials so you can verify if they've got half a clue or if they're a muppet.

        Awesome peeps over there and heaps and heaps of info.

        • Are you suggesting ozbargain is not a credible source and it's peeps are muppets?

          • @MS Paint: No, but we are anonymous. Folks over there are using their professional identities. (No, I was the muppet. I have come across as rude to OP - that was for his benefit :)

            Whilst they don't give professional advice (cos you pay for advice) plenty giving qualified professional opinions.

  • OP, Is your mum's place large enough to house your family there too and will that suit your needs living there?

    If yes, I would think doing that, you guys living rent free for looking after her and you being able to rent out your townhouse under grandfathered negative gearing rules would be better to avoid any future disputes and leave an exit strategy in case having everyone living together doesn't work out.

    Also, your son is 15yo… if he's going to University in 3yrs time, he may want to be living closer to campus.

    The issue with your proposal (for your sister) is that for Brisbane, the combination of migration into this state and the 2032 Olympic games investment, is causing property prices to hike at ridiculous levels. The changes in the federal budget aren't likely to curb price growth in Brisbane as much as in some other capital cities. So that 40% ownership from your mum will likely be worth quite a bit by the time she passes away (assuming she's got another 10yrs+ in her which I hope she does).

    Just doing some maths, I'm going to assume if you do go through with your plan that the house will be $2mil by the time you buy (property prices are moving quickly)… that's $800k worth in your mum's share that can quite easily double by the time she passes. That leaves a current amount of $1.5mil in cash and super which won't be growing as much as property over that time. My Dad's super sure hasn't grown by much during his retirement phase.

    Lets say for simplicity the cash + super component = the property component of her estate when she passes. If you keep all of the property component and the cash + super component is split 50/50 with your sister, you're getting 75% and she's getting 25%… and in all likeliness, the cash plus super component will be tapped into by your mum whilst the property component will be left to appreciate making the real split between you and your sister likely to have a greater difference.

    So you can see why so many people are saying that your plan is to rip off your sister.

    That's not to say that it's not doable.

    In my family, I've told my parents that I have no issue if they were to co-purchase a house with my brother's family and leaving it all to them… he's struggling to get a house, my niece will eventually need to live closer to better schools, and my parents need someone to look after them as they get older. On the other hand, I am doing quite well financially… wife and I built a house 2yrs ago and it's fully offset… my health isn't great though so being able to focus on myself without having the extra burden of looking after my folks is worth forgoing any inheritance. But this was all initiated by myself. I don't know what situation your sister is in so you will need to have discussions with her.

    But ultimately, the decision for how her estate is split belongs to your mum. If you wish to look after her, do so without expectations for what you will get. The moment you have expectations… you're not doing things in the best interest of your greater family.

  • My now retired lawyer partner has an alternate name for tenants-in-common. Grief. Walk away.

  • If I'm looking from the outside, it seems like an unfair arrangement.

    You say your mother's net worth is ~$2.3M, yours is around $700k, and you're looking to buy a $1.9M house where your mother will have 40% 'ownership'.
    But your $700k into $1.9M is not 60%.. so you don't appear to have the upfront funds for this.
    If you'll be getting a mortgage for the remainder, this wouldn't work well since they will want security over the entire house, which puts your mother's 40% ownership at risk with no reward for her.

    It's then a 5 bedroom house, so I assume your mum would be getting two of those bedrooms for her 40% ownership.
    Or are you suggesting that you and your children will take 80% of the house possession (i.e. 4 bedrooms, leaving only 1 bedroom for your mother) in exchange for the proposed 60% ownership (whilst you only have free funds for < 40% of the purchase price).

    And then you want to claim the whole house when your mother dies.

    If I was your sister, I'd say "hell no!!".

  • This is your blood family / Mother, the person who took care of you. Look after her as best you can while she is there, let her figure out how she wants to split it afterwards. Its up to her. She doesnt need more pressure or stress on it.

    • In our culture, there is a saying: ‘Parents raise their children with boundless love, but children repay their parents’ kindness by counting the days and months.’

  • Some families culturally are more comfortable living together and dealing with money than others. Your mum is fairly well off (twice what my parents have), and so are you guys, which complicates it more and a wrong move could hurt the whole family financially in the long run. My grandparents generation had nothing, so when they moved in it was a granny flat situation. My parents are about the same age but have downsized to a townhouse.

    I personally wouldn't do it. If you've outgrown the townhouse that's fair enough. You can easily afford a home in the 1.5m range, and there is plenty to choose from. If it moves you too far from school, maybe stick it out until they graduate. However, there is a cultural assumption that children just up and leave after high school. Not every family is the same, but I personally moved out of home at 30, so wanting more space is entirely valid. Then move her in when necessary later.

  • Ok so your first argument is with a joint annual income of $250K and a deposit of $670k that you can't afford to loan the money to buy a $1.4 million home doesn't sound right. You should be able to afford to loan more than $700K with that sort on income on a home loan. Secondly, it's you that wants to move in with your mother. By your own admission this is primarily to suit you, NOT her. Not surprisingly she has periods of loneliness, she only lost your stepfather a year ago. You have said she MAY have health issues in the future and indicate that at the moment that she is working and taking care of herself, earning $300K. Stiffing your sister of her inheritance because you intend to live with your mum in the future and you MAY (or may not) take care of her is a terrible option for your sister. And who knows, if your mum does become genuinely unwell and need care, your sister may step up and move from regional NSW and help. Also, your wife and you may decide being a carer is not for you, or your mum may not enjoy living with you and your wife. If you decide to move in with your mum because it suits you, then you should not benefit financially at the detriment to your sister.

  • You're on 250k. Your mum is on 300k.

    You're talking about 20% of a 1.5M house, so 300k. Not exactly life changing money from my perspective with those figures. A permanent family breakdown over money post a parent's death is definitely life changing. And happens more often than you might imagine.

    Don't stress about it, and don't let it cause a rift in the family. It's not worth it.

  • If you really want to do it this way then you absolutely can - but death isn't the only variable.
    I'd suggest a co-ownership agreement. I have seen lots of examples of parents and kids falling out over property issues before either of them pass.
    The other option is that you simply go joint tenants with your mother, and then she leave all/most of her estate on death to your sister.
    That way, you get the house - she gets everything else.

  • go to a financial advisor, sure you can afford it

  • Given that my mum would be living with us, and we would be taking on the day-to-day responsibility of supporting her as she ages (particularly if health issues arise), I feel that it may be reasonable for the property to pass fully to my wife and me upon her death. The rest of her estate would then be split 50/50 between my sister and me.
    My sister lives in regional NSW, and moving there wouldn’t be a realistic or healthy option for my mum it would be socially isolating for her. So living with us seems like the most practical and supportive arrangement.

    My question is, does this approach seem fair and equitable, given the circumstances, or am I viewing this too narrowly and being selfish?
    I’m genuinely interested in balanced perspectives, especially from people who may have been in similar situations

    If the above is what everyone wants, create a joint tenancy ownership structure and have your sister sign a "deed of release" (or similar) that has her recognise what is going on an relinquish any future claims she may have on this property, specifically to the extent it is partly owned by your mother.

    Any other situation is wishful thinking as to what "might" happen upon your mother's passing (amongst other relevant individuals).

  • Why can't you go joint tenants with your mum? That would ultimately be your mum's decision, and upon her passing her ownership would automatically flow to you notwithstanding any will. You'd have to figure out the finances on the side but from the property's perspective (so to speak) that doesn't make a difference.

  • As its tenants in common your mother can explicitly state in her will that you specifically get the 40% share in the new house.

    You should speak to your mother and sister about changing her will. Perhaps your sister could receive some other explicit property in your mother’s will too.

    I don’t think you should get anything extra financially for caring for your mother. She’s your mother.

    There may also be implications if your mother decides to go into a nursing home as there may be implications for her home (your new house) being exempt.

  • A couple of points to consider
    As you say you would be taking on the day to day responsibility of looking after your mother - what would happen if this didn't go ahead - would you take on no responsibility if she stayed in her own home? It would probably be a lot cheaper and more convenient if she did live in the same house.
    You don't take into account the increased share of capital gain you would make by having a larger home worth more money
    There are many pros and cons to consider with this arrangement.

  • Your going into this hopin for a financially windfall!

    Are you trying to destroy your relationship with your sister?

    What sort of morals are you teaching your child?

    Fair and equitable for you to even think that is delusional.

    I seriously hope your mother gets independent advice.

  • What in the onlyfans is going on here, elderly mum on $300k dam

    • I assumed she is getting rental income.

      • From how many properties?

        What type of properties?

        If mum owns 5 - 6 other properties netting $300,000 pa, there is no need for her to be using her PPOR as leverage for a share house with OP.

        Mum could use a different property in its entirety perhaps and avoid all the possibilities of musical chairs as all of their lives develop and evolve over the next 30 - 40 years.

        Nope, mum is generating that income in some other way. I actually presumed as an employee or director of a company of her family business sort of thing - hence why planning to retire in a couple of years.

  • Consider buying a duplex pair instead and open up the backyard into one space. Duplexes are often cheaper than separate houses and separate titles and independent space keeps the legal and personal matters clean.

  • This is a terrible idea all around. Looking after an aging parent can be really really difficult, or it can be extremely easy.

    If it's extremely easy (they die early/relatively healthy), you risk destroying your relationship with sister because of unfairly splitting retirement assets.

    If it's extremely hard (they have significant issues requiring daily care/risk to your own health), you risk being resentful with how much work you are doing and how your sister does nothing.

    You may also find it's simply too hard and start mistreating your mother because you lack the skills and desire to do the work to look after them properly.

    Unless you have a lot of experience/understand what's involved, don't rush into looking after an aging parent - I've seen it destroy a marriage as well.

Login or Join to leave a comment