dilemma

"reassure them by promising that if things go to hell in a handbasket"

Yeah, I don't think you want to give these guys a "nyc10023 put". Best keep it to yourself.

i'm assuming the $180k is not the total value of the home, it's equity post-sale. it may be quite fine now, but with one or more kids it may not be.

"reassure them by promising that if things go to hell in a handbasket"

Yeah, I don't think you want to give these guys a "nyc10023 put". Best keep it to yourself."

No, nada, she wants to reassure the A's, they're who she feels the ultimate obligation toward, and it's their worries that will cause them to overspend on behalf of the family. give them the put and the extra money may never be spent. and she has already admitted that she feels ultimately obligated to them anyway, so this is the lesser of two evils.

"And I don't think you want to be involved in anything like an ownership stake with these people." this isn't that simple. and i find it fascinating that you're assuming that "these people" have zero possibility of making it work, or that this is not reasonably acceptable behavior within the family.

if it were simple, the thread wouldn't be entitled "dilemma" (without the n).

On the surface, it looks like Olds B should be the one contributing more since they will be living with the young couple. However, I'm going to guess that the reason Olds A is contributing more is because they feel obligated to "even things out" between the two sides of the family because their son is making about half of what their daughter-in-law is making? nyc10023, being on the Olds A side of the family, somehow probably feel some of that obligation as well. If Family A side doesn't step up, Young A might have trouble lifting his head up high in the relationship right?

Am I close nyc10023?

"i find it fascinating that you're assuming that "these people" have zero possibility of making it work"
but ar - "these people" are approaching extended family members for "loans"? it's already not working!

Possibly the most audacious part of this is that Olds B are only willing to contribute HALF of their house equity, not ALL, in exchange for an expectation that they'll live in the house in perpetuity ... even though they have lots of continued earning years.

I can understand if they'd toss in their entire net worth, and say that they'll then diligently re-save for their (continued rent-free) retirement. Even then, your cousins (or whatever) shouldn't try to drag you into it.

Also, they're young, so there's no reason to believe that the lower-earning of the two will continue to be lower-earning. Why make "even-out" plans based on that assumption (if that's what's going on)?

I think Olds B should compromise on a longer commute = cheaper home = less financial burden on the entire family.

**BTW, I have had maybe 4 arguments over the last 5 years on spelling the word dilemma.

I can say for a fact in my early youth I was taught to spell it dilemna. **

YES! That's how I was taught to spell that word. A copy editor at my first job (late 60's)raked me over the coals for spelling it with an "N". When and how did this change? Also, perhaps, did you learn to spell what we now know as "threshold" with two "H"s in the middle too? Ditto the word "cancelled," which my spellchecker insists only has one "L".

Origin of "dilemna" - seems to be a common N.E. USA spelling of the last century.

http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20317

I'm good at switching between UK+colonial & US spellings, but I get confused with fulfil (I was taught one "l") and cancel (I started off one "l"). But I've always spelled dilemma with 2 m's. Never noticed the N.E. U.S. variant until now. Nice! Most useful thing I've learned from this thread.

Threshold - have never seen it otherwise, certainly not spelled that way in 18th century English novels.

"i find it fascinating that you're assuming that "these people" have zero possibility of making it work, or that this is not reasonably acceptable behavior within the family"

I think they'll make it work fine w/o nyc10023. They'll scrimp, if things get tight then Olds B will kick up a little money, etc. At the end of the day, they have income of $100K and probably take-home of $75K, or $6250. So they can get by kicking out the $2500 - $3000 a month. Probably won't save, etc.

The reason this is not acceptable behavior is because they're dragging nyc10023 into it when she has no interest in enabling what she views as improper spending levels for these people. If it were appropriate behavior, it wouldn't be causing a dilemma for nyc10023.

inonada, your reading of 10023's dilemma is quite different than mine. i don't think she'd be in nearly as great of a dilemma about "improper spending levels for these people" if the old a's weren't so concerned.

i also have no clue what the total monthly income for the old b's. it may not be an improper spending level for the household at all.

10023, this is a terrible situation for you to be in. either your family can't afford this or Olds B is playing games. If you can't have a reasonable conversation with the B's, why don't you put the pressure back on them. No loans, no more than $150k from Olds A and let Team B figure it out.

It would probably be inappropriate for nyc10023 to have a direct conversation with Olds B about this, especially if my theory above about "even'ng things out" is correct.