Sharing an inherited house with your siblings? It can get complicated

Dear Liz: My husband’s parents, who are 88 and 93, respectively, have decided to leave their house, worth $800,000, equally, to their three children, who are all in their sixties. The children get along well and all decisions will be made as a group. None of the adult children can afford to buy out the other two, and the three adults and their families cannot all live in the house at once. Everyone would like to keep the home, which is paid for, in the family. What solutions exist for this situation? Where do we begin, and what questions do we need to ask, thinking into the next generation?

Answer: Owning real estate with other people can be difficult, even when the individuals get along. Perhaps your generation can pull it off, but there’s no guarantee the next one will.

Let’s say the time has come to replace the roof. How will the group decide how much to spend, and will everyone be equally willing to split that considerable cost? How might the dynamics change if one family is living in the home, but the others are expected to pay for repairs and maintenance? What happens if one inheritor later wants to sell, and the others still can’t buy out that share?

Keeping the family home can feel like an important legacy to offer to your children, but not if ownership creates strife that imperils family relationships. An experienced estate planning attorney can meet with you as a group and discuss the scenarios and legal documents you may need going forward.

Dear Liz: When you’re writing about required minimum distributions from retirement accounts, please make sure people know about qualified charitable distributions. Those of us lucky enough not to need the money can donate it directly from an IRA to the nonprofits of our choice. That way, we don’t even have it in our income column, and there are no taxes. I am looking forward to making many qualified charitable distributions to my favorite nonprofits when I turn 73.

Answer: You don’t have to wait. Qualified charitable distributions from IRAs can start as early as age 70½. The distribution limit for 2025 is $108,000 per individual. If you’re considering this option, please familiarize with the IRS rules for such distributions and consider consulting a tax pro.

Dear Liz: I know you work to maximize people’s money. I had a thought about the quality of life with Social Security. I took it at 65, which was then full retirement age. I was fully employed and did not need it to live. However, the extra money allowed us the opportunity to travel to all seven continents, help our kids with debts and down payments, and generally enjoy things with the extra cash. Now the full retirement age is 67, so there are fewer years between full retirement age and when benefits max out at 70. But the difference could still be enough for that motor home or world cruise.

Answer: All financial planning requires a balance between current and future spending. If you spend too much in the early years, you may not have enough to make it through the later ones. Retirement planning is further complicated by the fact that we don’t know how long we’ll live or how our health will hold up. We can delay spending so long that we’re no longer able to do the things we want to do, such as travel.

Still, the fact remains that when one spouse dies, one Social Security check goes away. That can lead to a devastating drop in income for the survivor. Because the survivor receives the larger of the two benefits, and may have to live on that amount for years, it almost always makes sense for the higher earner to delay filing as long as possible.

Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.