This Woman Is Selling an Inherited Cottage to the Highest Bidder: Drama

A sentimental inheritance has turned into a three-year nightmare for one Redditor, whose former in-laws simply cannot accept that their grandfather left a beloved family cottage to her.

The constant pressure has driven the original poster (OP) to the brink, convincing her to sell the property just to find peace. The problem? Her decision to sell it to her ex-boyfriend’s biggest enemy introduces a new, highly dramatic element of spite.

Is she justified in using her property rights to inflict a final burn on the family that harassed her? Or is this just escalating the emotional warfare?

Now, read the full story:

This situation is a tangled mess of legal rights versus moral obligations. Legally, the cottage belongs entirely to OP, and she can sell it to anyone she pleases, including someone with a chainsaw and a vendetta.

But the story isn’t about legality; it’s about emotional warfare. OP has been harassed for two years, and her decision to sell the cottage is fueled by the desire for peace, but her choice of buyer is pure spite. She is essentially converting the grandfather’s gift of peace into a final tool of revenge against the ex who harmed her.

The family’s distress is understandable—the cottage holds deep sentimental value. However, their entitlement and refusal to accept the grandfather’s wishes (combined with the ex’s past bad behavior) are the reasons the cottage now feels toxic to OP. She is no longer trying to protect the cottage; she is trying to protect herself.

The Problem with Spite-Based Decision Making

OP is contemplating a sale that will likely lead to regret and escalated conflict. The core conflict is that OP wants to extract herself from the emotional burden of the cottage, but she’s actively choosing a buyer who will tie her even more tightly to the drama.

Psychologists often warn against “revenge spending” or decision-making fueled by spite, as the short-term satisfaction rarely outweighs the long-term emotional and financial costs. A 2022 survey on divorce and post-breakup behavior, published by Psychology Today, indicated that while revenge can feel powerful, it ultimately extends the emotional relationship with the ex-partner and prevents true moving on.

In this case, OP is contemplating an action (selling to the hated friend) that guarantees her ex will make good on his threat to “do whatever it took to stop me.” She is trading two years of passive harassment for what will likely be a new period of intense, active conflict.

The most pragmatic advice, which several Redditors pointed out, is to remove the emotion entirely. The cottage is an asset. Sell it through a realtor to the highest bidder at fair market value, regardless of who that person is, and walk away clean. This achieves her goal of selling the house without letting spite dictate her financial move.

Check out how the community responded:

The thread was highly divided, with many siding with ESH (Everyone Sucks Here) or YTA (You’re the [Jerk]), arguing that the decision was based purely on spite, which is counterproductive.

A large group of commenters pushed the NTA angle, arguing that OP has the right to sell her property to anyone, especially since the family has been harassing her.

Many users offered pragmatic solutions, suggesting OP simply list the property on the open market to avoid the drama entirely.

OP has the legal right to do whatever she wants with the cottage. But by choosing a buyer whose sole purpose is to destroy the property and torment her ex, she is guaranteeing more conflict, not less. The best move is to cut the cord entirely, sell at market rate, and walk away with the money and her peace of mind intact.

Is selling the cottage to a spiteful friend a justified, final act of revenge, or an act of self-sabotage?