Am I an old feminist?

If you want to protect the niece, do not (financially or emotionally) obligate her to buy a residence where her on again, off again boyfriend lives. imo.

Any feminist, old or young, is usually pro the freedom to choose their own lives by earning it.

There is absolutely no reason to discount rent on a house with 3 apartments.

Anyone living there should be paying market rate rents. It is an investment, not a house for people who may have a failure to thrive, or other self-supporting issues. You said: "nephews still have problems qualifying for a mortgage." Sounds like a bad investment for your niece. Sounds like the trio cannot afford to buy the house.

I might consider releasing some of the trust money for niece by paying 1/2 the rent (or matching the rent) on a suitable place for herself. Her efforts to work and pay her rent will help her become more stable. Living closer to her work will help her. Giving her another $1,000 gift card is enabling, and has already failed. Your question is about the niece? If niece moves anyone into her rental, they can pay the other half instead of her trust funds. That way, she would have to be selective and allow only a person in who is able to pay their half of the rent.

Apologies for the very strict opinion. If people are provided everything almost free, it will disable many from earning their own living, and being unmotivated to step up their efforts towards a better life.

You are frugal by choice. Teach that to those you are helping. I think you are doing that for your adopted foster people. I really admire you for all you are doing.

Any financial decisions should be clean, not complicated or predicated on buying a home/property based on if the trio or boyfriend/girlfriend relationships work out.

The homeowner, (related to the nephews?) should raise the rents in the house with the 3 apartments.

You’re a young feminist :)

Niece has broken up with the boyfriend and moved into an apartment she shares with a girl friend from work. I now have her mother's washer/dryer and freezer in my spare bedroom until she has space for them.

I'm trying to find a house "bargin" for her but she's not interested in a lipstick fix-it up home and she cannot afford the perfect house she wants to move into. Maybe it's not fair but I find myself comparing her behavior to my nephew: he brought a house an elderly woman had lived in that had not had any updates (including paint) in decades. He painted every surface (including ceilings), refinished the oak floors, put new linoleum in the kitchen and bath and installed a fiberglass tub surround - all less than $10,000 - and moved into a beautiful structurally sound house! A couple of years later he put a new roof on and added a heat pump.

I have to say, my girls have asked for nothing once they worked. The oldest need a downpayment for her house and we loaned it to her, she paid us back. She has been making very good money the last few years, but cannot seem to save until she and DH divorced.

My youngest she saved, living home at the time, when she made $9 an hr.

You are right. Your a trustee for a reason. If you let her have the money, it will be squandered.

I won't give in: its too important she uses the money for something permanent in HER life. I gave her a debt card with $1000 for unbudgeted, unplanned expenditures, much like I gave my nephew an extra $500 in his bank account when he was in college (and I was paying all his budgeted expenses). It took her less than 2 weeks to spend the money on restaurants and alcohol. She thinks she should have her mother's money and I'm terrible for withholding it. I told her in three months we would try the debit card again and she should hope she doesn't have a real unplanned expense before then. If she blows the money the next time it will be 6 months to cool off, then a year. On the other hand, if she spends the money on medicine or a blown tire or gas to leave the loser it will be replenished...

I do not understand what I call "independence". I wanted to earn my own money and control my own life from my teens; so did my nephews (who I gave an education and promise that would be all I gave them). Even the grands and my foster sons LOVE making (and spending) their own money. The grands and my foster son have thousands of dollars saved from jobs they have worked for $8-12 an hour. My youngest grand-nephew (age 8) is ecstatic he made $40 last weekend "working" tieing up boats at a marina and helping boats get into the fueling station. He's saving up for a scooter. They have had everything they need - but not everything they wanted. My SIL wanted her daughter to have everything she could give her without any responsibility. We started butting heads long ago when she overran the roaming charges on her cell phone 3 months straight. I turned the phone off and her mother went out and bought her another one. So I've been cast as the "mean" aunt for more than 20 years. It may be too late to change anything but I going to try.

This is so complicated. There are many ways for this to go wrong.

Protect your niece. She has a history of making bad decisions, and if she ties herself into this scheme via you, she isn't likely to be able to get herself out of the resulting mess.

For instance, she's planning to take in her boyfriend (he's then a tenant and eviction problems may result when they break up). And take in boyfriend's brother (same problem). And maybe his girlfriend (same problem). If they don't pay for their food, don't pay her some rent, decide to be jobless and smoke weed all day - then what? If niece had shown any inkling of responsibility and planning in her past actions, maybe. She might know what she's doing. That's unlikely from my vantage point.

This is a situation setting up a downward spiral, loss of friendships, angry relatives, and niece's continuation of aimless meandering through life without any real goals. When it fails, you might feel guilt and have to make it up to niece (bad idea).

Just NO.

The nephews are 41 and 38 (my niece's boyfriend divorced with 2 kids who he occasionally supports). My niece is 35, has never had a place of her own and never paid off a car loan. Quit college because she couldn't qualify for the major she wanted; walked away from 3+ years of college and has been content to work various retail service jobs. I hoped working in the real world would motivate her to finish a degree in something but the support from her parents whenever she encountered a problem has lessen the potential motivation factor. Her mother is dead and her father is 70. The years for this only child to become self-reliant are diminishing.

You are TRUSTEE of a trust.
Please go to a Trust and Estate attorney who will not only tell you that you are RIGHT, but that you have a FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to protect your niece. That is one of the highest responsibilities under our law.

Please see the attorney TODAY. Your Trust pays for this expert advice. Do not do this without legal counsel.

The saying in our family was “NEVER LOAN money to ANYONE unless you’re prepared to lose it”.

Seems like there’s a lot of potential “loaning” in what’s happening here.

That has nothing to do with feminism. It is a basic fiduciary responsibility.

What does your niece get for paying part of the down payment?

Living with someone on and off does not sound like a committed relationship that is going to last or blossom.

Please help her see this as a purely business transaction. And introduce her to wwe.bogleheads.org.

There is a short and sweet posting there called If You Can that is a great blueprint for becoming financially secure.

How old is your niece and the nephews?

What does she gain by "helping with the down payment and responsible for living expenses but NOT having her name on the deed"?

I'm asking this rhetorically since this question needs to be posed to her, to allow her critical thinking skills to form. I think your job is to put options and probable pros/cons in front of her and have her decide. I'd have her talk to a financial advisor, not a CPA. Don't protect her to the point where she won't learn anything.

Maybe she would be better off lending them the money for the downpayment (using a full and sturdy legal contract) at the same going market rate (since they're probably not going to get qualified for a mortgage) but at a better rate than she'd make in any other investment. If the nephews default, a lien could be put on the house?

I think the worst part of the plan is that there's multiple owners involved. I find this likely messy now and into the future.

You're being a responsible (and loving) Aunt and Trustee. Feminism has nothing to do with it, IMO.

Will the uncle still sell for $200K under appraised price if niece's name is also on the deed?

If not, then tell her to remove herself entirely from this entire plan. Even if her name was to be on the deed, I sense that her cousins may not be the best co-owners with her.

If the nephews will rent the large apartment together and rent the other 2 apartments out, then where is your niece going to live?

It has nothing to do with being a feminist it has to do with commom sense. I would not give her the money. I would maybe her to a CPA who will show her why this arrangement is not plausible. Being on the deed makes other problems. She then is responsible for taxes ect. What she should use that money for is investing in her own home eventually. I agree with you, she will get screwed.

I think it’s fabulous that you are looking out for your niece. I would talk to the banker doing the mortgage or get her to speak with them because plenty of times, my banker has cleared up some things because there are laws I didn’t know about or they know how to phrase things to make something make sense to another person, etc.

Lenders can be very helpful because they want to protect everyone, including their risk.

So the nephews want the niece's money to help fund the purchase of the house, but they expect that she'll have no legal protections (ie name on deed or promissory note/contract for the nephews to repay the money she's shelling out)? Oh, hell to the no, I would not be releasing those funds from the trust until she's guaranteed some protection for her money! (but perhaps I misunderstood the scenario)