I guess I'm now mystified, too. Is this some kind of grand estate on acreage in Toorak or on Sydney Harbour or something? If it's just a regular house in the suburbs, I don't understand why Dad would particularly want somebody in his bloodline to own it. If it IS a regular house in the suburbs, I'm thinking that perhaps his intention was that he wanted the benefit of ownership of that house to pass to his blood relatives, rather than to his wife, and this is what he was emphasising. Perhaps he wanted to ensure that his sons were left with something from Dad, rather than his wife getting everything (particularly given that she's not your Mum). I really think the best thing to do is to sell it and split the proceeds down the middle. You and your brother will then have the benefit of the property, which I would think was his intent. Perhaps what he was trying to make clear, in his statements while he was alive, was not that it was important to him that you retained ownership of it, but perhaps he was emphasising that, in carving out that particular asset for your and your brother, he was ensuring that you knew that you weren't excluded from his will. If he really did definitely say that he not only wanted to leave you the house, but that he specifically wanted you to retain ownership of it, well... I can only repeat that I think that was a bit of a silly thing to say. Did he expect you to live in it together? (I imagine not.) Did he expect one of you to live in it and pay half-rent to the other? What possible scenario could he have envisioned which would not lead to conflict between the two of you? I think that pragmatism has to win the day. The best way to preserve your relationship with your brother is to sell the house to strangers and split the proceeds.