Anyone struggling in their 20s would feel eternally grateful for the opportunity to live in their parent’s inherited property for free while they get back on their feet. One dad did just that for his daughter and son-in-law, but when his landlord responsibilities started to become too overwhelming for him, he decided to sell the home — a decision that his daughter was not too pleased with.

The daughter called her dad a ‘jerk’ for selling the house after he let her and her husband live there rent-free for two years.

The dad took to Reddit’s AITA forum to ask if he was wrong for choosing to sell the house.

For context, he explained that he inherited the home from his mom years ago after she passed. It was outdated but in good condition and located about five hours away from him.

“My daughter and her husband fell on hard times, and I allowed her to move in about two years ago for free,” the dad wrote. “It is near the city they work at. I paid for everything and was letting them use it to get back on their feet.”

The dad let them know they could make some renovations to the house, as long as it wasn’t anything major that required breaking down walls. They agreed and made several upgrades around the house, such as painting, redoing the stairs, and updating the kitchen and bathroom. The dad was unaware of all these changes when he began to consider selling the home.

“I have had multiple people reach out to me to sell,” the dad explained. “I also want to sell it since I am tired of seeing the home; it just reminds me of my mom and that she is gone. So being a landlord isn’t good for my mental health.”

The dad informed his daughter of his decision and gave them six months to find a new place.

His daughter was not too thrilled to discover her dad was planning to sell the house, considering the work she and her husband put into it.

Even though six months is plenty of time to plan their next arrangements, the dad’s decision to sell started an argument with his daughter.

The daughter argued that her dad was “screwing them over” for not including her in the decision to sell or in the compensation of the house, seeing as it is worth more now than it was before they moved in because of their renovations.

“She called me a jerk for this, and I reminded them I gave them two years of free housing,” the dad emphasized.

While the dad was honorable in giving his daughter and son-in-law a place to live as they experienced financial setbacks, based on the lack of understanding from both ends, they each poorly communicated the changes they initiated.

Additionally, the daughter and her husband may not have contributed any rent to the house, but they did update it, and that’s worth something.

Reddit users debated the subject, some siding with the dad and others with the daughter.

Overall, they both contributed in some way to the house, and both the dad and daughter’s points are valid.

Some Reddit users argued that the dad is giving his daughter and her husband more than enough time to find their next place after everything he has already done to help them.

“They could have potentially been putting away thousands per month. Instead, they put it into a house they didn't own and weren't even renting,” someone mentioned in the comments. “I bet they thought they would be given the house ‘after all we did!!’”

“From someone who inherited a parent's home, property maintenance is also worth something, plus they made property improvements,” someone else suggested. “[The dad] could have first offered it to the daughter where she could rent to own. I would never have done this to my kids.”

“Never do work on a house you don't own (or have a written agreement with the landlord about),” someone advised. “It's family... all the more reason to keep everything even more in written format and well-documented, so two years down the road, there isn't an issue like this due to miscommunication/misunderstanding.”

In essence, there was a need for stronger communication between the dad and his daughter.

It is likely she assumed, or hoped, she and her husband would get to keep the house at some point, and her dad never implied that he would eventually sell it. At the same time, however, the daughter shouldn’t have assumed anything and should have run each renovation by the dad before putting in the time, money, and energy.

“There's obviously a disconnect between the two of you in terms of upgrades to the house, but regardless, you're going to benefit from the work they've put in,” one person pointed out. “There should be some form of compensation to them.”

Perhaps the dad and the daughter can come to some sort of compromise where she and her husband can be paid a percentage of the profit for maintaining and updating the place, or they can rent or purchase the home themselves. 

However, if they aren’t in a position to afford this, then the dad has the right to sell it to someone who is. While they might argue they deserve some compensation for the renovations because they failed to communicate before the work was even done, and they were allowed to live there rent-free for two years, the dad can justifiably deny this.

The moral of the story is: to always communicate any changes made to a living agreement, especially when it has to do with family, because no one loves to protest changes more than your own family.