The original poster’s (OP) mother became disabled following a stroke, requiring the OP to place her in an assisted living facility located 500 miles away from the OP’s current residence. As a co-owner of the mother’s house, the OP took on the responsibility of maintaining the property, including extensive repairs, upkeep, and managing taxes and insurance.
The OP later offered the fully renovated house to their daughter if she chose to attend the OP’s alma mater in that town, promising to cover living expenses and eventually gift the property upon graduation. When the daughter chose a different university, the house was sold, and the proceeds were invested. Recently, the daughter argued that she should still receive the net sale amount, leading the OP to question if their refusal to pay was unfair.
Made Daughter An Offer, She Declined and Now Wants It Back as $$$
As renowned family therapist Dr. Terri Apter explains, “In the adult world, obligations and gifts are often contingent, and when the receiver breaks the contingency, the giver is released from the obligation.”
This situation illustrates a common challenge in evolving parent-child relationships where initial parental provision, framed as a conditional incentive, is later viewed by the adult child as an inherent entitlement, irrespective of the stated terms. The OP’s offer was clearly structured: attending the specific university meant living in and eventually receiving the house. By choosing another school, the daughter effectively declined the specific proposal. The OP acted reasonably by selling the asset, as it was impractical to manage as a distant rental, and channeling the funds into investments. The daughter’s argument that the OP benefited from not paying maintenance and earning investment returns ignores the fact that the entire proposition was negated when she chose a different path.
The OP’s action of selling the house and refusing the cash payout was appropriate given the specific terms of the initial agreement. Moving forward, constructive handling would involve clearly reiterating the boundaries of the initial offer—stating that the gift was linked to location, not merely a cash equivalent to be claimed later—while continuing to support the daughter’s education goals as originally planned (e.g., covering tuition).
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The Original Poster is facing a situation where a conditional promise made years ago is being reinterpreted by their adult daughter as a binding obligation, regardless of the conditions not being met. The OP feels justified in keeping the investment earnings from the sale, as the original agreement was tied specifically to the daughter attending the local university.
The core conflict centers on whether a withdrawn, conditional offer for a specific asset should convert into a cash payment equivalent to the asset’s value when the condition is actively rejected by the recipient. Is the OP justified in refusing to give the daughter the $550K proceeds, or should the spirit of generosity dictate a payout since the daughter is now an adult and the OP saved maintenance costs?
