My Mother-In-Law Is Costing Us Our House

The speaker, Ruth, and her husband built a multigenerational house with her husband's parents. Less than a year and a half later, her mother-in-law moved out and will soon stop contributing to the mortgage payments. This leaves Ruth and her husband in a precarious financial situation, facing the possibility of selling the house with very little equity or losing it entirely. Her mother-in-law is also demanding a portion of the sale proceeds. Ruth is seeking advice on how to move forward without feeling hurt or animosity towards her mother-in-law. The host suggests that Ruth likely had a bad feeling about the arrangement from the start, to which Ruth agrees. This leads to the host pointing out that Ruth is probably angry at herself as well, which Ruth confirms. Ruth explains that the idea for a multigenerational house came about in late 2023 or early 2024 because her father-in-law had suffered a stroke in 2008 and was in poor health. They wanted to ensure her husband could be with his father when the time came. They initially set a budget of $1,500 for their half of the mortgage, but the building costs ballooned, resulting in a $3,600 monthly payment. Her in-laws agreed to cover the difference beyond Ruth and her husband's $1,500 contribution. They moved into the house in September 2024, and Ruth's father-in-law passed away in June 2025. While painful, Ruth states she would not take back the experience of being there. Ruth and her husband invested over $100,000 into the house. Her parents-in-law also invested $100,000. The total cost of the house was $660,000. Ruth is concerned they may not recoup their full $100,000 investment if they sell, and it's unlikely both couples will get their full investments back. Her mother-in-law started dating someone in mid-July and moved in with him in August. Initially, she promised to cover her normal portion of the mortgage. In January, she stated she would only pay 50/50, which Ruth found annoying but acceptable as it was fair. However, last month, her mother-in-law declared she would only pay $1,500 and would soon stop contributing entirely. There is no written agreement, only text messages from the mother-in-law outlining these changes. The host advises Ruth to sell the house immediately. He suggests deducting any amounts her mother-in-law promised to pay but didn't from her half of the sale proceeds to ensure fairness. The host acknowledges Ruth's disappointment in her mother-in-law's actions, but emphasizes that it's not Ruth's fault and there's little she can do to change her mother-in-law's behavior. The host then encourages Ruth to emotionally detach from the situation. He suggests that the money lost and tears shed were a worthwhile cost for the precious six or eight months they had with her father-in-law and the opportunity to be there when he passed. He advises Ruth to put the emotional burden behind her and focus on the next chapter of her life. He also points out that the mother-in-law's behavior, possibly fueled by a new relationship and grief, is a separate issue. The host then uses Ruth's situation as a teaching moment about dealing with difficult emotions. He states that as a culture, people often try to avoid feelings like sadness and resentment when facing challenging situations. He emphasizes that feelings are like "digital billboards" providing information, but their job isn't to tell the truth, but to keep us safe. He encourages listeners to stop trying to avoid feelings and instead "go right through the stinking middle of them." He explains that maturity and emotional regulation involve feeling these emotions and then still doing "the next right thing." He concludes by advising Ruth to be heartbroken, sad, and angry, but still sell the house, handle the transaction properly, and learn to listen to her instincts in future deals.