Dad wants to leave house between two children. One wants to buy but can't afford.

[Bronte]

My father has left his will in a similar way to what @Brendan Burgess suggests here. Except he is leaving his house to me on the condition that I pay my sibling one third of it's value within three years of his death. My only query is, how is that 'value' determined? Is it simply a matter of getting one valuation from an auctioneer as soon as possible after he has passed away? Or can the valuation be calculated anytime within those three years? Or perhaps there needs to be a minimum number of valuations obtained from different auctioneers and then take the average?

A perfect example of a mess.

Valuation should be date of death. Good luck with that if a Celtic Tiger Scenario sees a house increase substantially in 3 years from date of death.

Interestingly you seem to be of the opinion that you can wait a full 3 years to pay out to sibling. Which no doubt will make for cosy family chats if said sibling thinks they are in dire need of a pay out in year 1.

 

[Clamball]

Tell the Dad to leave to both siblings equally.
The younger sibling could disclaim her inheritance
The Dad may have sold the house to fund his care in his old age.
He may avail of fair deal and the estate would need to pay 22% of value of house to revenue
One of the siblings May predecease the Dad
One of the grandkids may become a favourite and the Dad could change his will.
He could remarry

Lots of things could happen so it is best he keep it simple, leave it to both of them equally.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

My only query is, how is that 'value' determined?

Specify Value as of date of death value to be determined by XYZ Ltd, a local auctioneer.

 

[T McGibney]

Specify Value as of date of death value to be determined by XYZ Ltd, a local auctioneer.

No, far safer to simply specify "by independent valuation" or something similar. Tying it down to a specific named valuer is a recipe for avoidable trouble.

 

[shweeney]

Tell the Dad to leave to both siblings equally.
The younger sibling could disclaim her inheritance
The Dad may have sold the house to fund his care in his old age.
He may avail of fair deal and the estate would need to pay 22% of value of house to revenue
One of the siblings May predecease the Dad
One of the grandkids may become a favourite and the Dad could change his will.
He could remarry

Lots of things could happen so it is best he keep it simple, leave it to both of them equally.

this is the simplest solution - if one of the siblings wants to buy out the other they can decide that when the time comes. If he can't afford it, then he can take his inheritence and buy a cheaper house near the other sibling. Any other option involves trying to predict the future which is a mugs game.

 

[Bronte]

Answers in red above, thanks for your response.

This sticks out:

Closer to local services GP Chemist Post Office local bus Links and remaining family

So one sibling wants the above, but are prepared to do nothing about it right now, but are prepared to haggle it out with a sibling, something that might possible happen in 15 or 20 years. Meanwhile they let life pass them by, living somewhere unsuitable.

Frankly, that's ridiculous. Worse they are inveigling their sibling into their fanciful desires.