After my father died, my mother had a stroke (in 1997) and needed partial care and moved with me. The only assets she had was a piece of land and a mobil home, valued at that time (by a realtor) at around $40,000. My parents bought the land (without the mobil home, water, electricity, fence, shad) in 1985, for $15,000. My brother lived with my parents and had nowhere to go and my mother felt that he should have half of the property, otherwise he would have to move out and rent. I agreed and asked to be paid $20,000 (I was paid $18,500) of what the property was valued at that time. I am the sole care giver for 19 years so far and it's a nightmare now). My brother said that he paid for ALL of the property (not just half), because my parents paid $15,000 in 1985. I told him that when assets are divided, it's for the present value not the price paid 12 years earlier. He said, because he didn't intend to sell, he paid what my parents spent. In 1997 the value was around $40,000, now it's over $100,000. The property brings him an income now, but I'm left alone with all the work. He thinks that even the value of the real estate
increased, I was owed only what was paid for by my parents. In my culture when parent moves in with one child (until death), usually that child receives everything or almost everything. Although he benefited 7 years of free room and board from my parents (and money to buy cars), now he said I was paid for all of the estate, disregarding the increased value after 12 years since my parents bought the estate and until mother moved with me. When an estate is divided, is the value considered at the current time or at what was paid for, many years ago, regardless of selling it or a sibling buying out the other?