We all want to help our kids. When they stumble, our instinct is to catch them, dust them off, and maybe buy them a townhouse in California if we have that kind of cash lying around. But there is a fine line between enabling and parenting, and one mom on Reddit just found out that sometimes, your adult child isn’t a “victim of circumstance”—they are just a grifter with your last name.
The OP (Original Poster) decided to play savior in 2020. Her daughter, Alexis, was going through a divorce and having a “tough time,” so the OP bought the townhouse Alexis was already renting. It sounds like a dream scenario, right? Mom steps in, secures the housing, and gives her daughter a break on the market rent. But as anyone who watches Judge Judy knows, mixing family and real estate is a recipe for disaster, and boy, did this one deliver.
For years, the OP operated this townhouse at a loss. Alexis always had an excuse. First, it was the roommate she “hated” but couldn’t evict due to 2020 laws. Then came the boyfriend who refused to rent out the spare room and apparently contributed nothing but “odd jobs” like Instacart. The OP just took the financial hit, thinking she was helping her struggling daughter get back on her feet, never realizing she was being taken for a ride.
But the real tea spilled when a new girl, Amanda, moved in to sub-lease. This was a room in a prime California spot, and Alexis told her mother she was charging Amanda to help cover costs. However, Alexis claimed Amanda defaulted on the rent. Being a dutiful landlord protecting her investment (and her daughter), the OP moved to evict Amanda as soon as legally possible.
Imagine the OP’s face when Amanda showed up with receipts—literally. Amanda had a lawyer and proof that she had been paying Alexis every single month, on time or early. Alexis wasn’t “struggling” because her roommate wasn’t paying; Alexis was pocketing the cash, lying to her mother, and letting her mom blame an innocent tenant. Now, the OP is facing a pending lawsuit from the wrongfully accused sub-letter, all because her daughter decided to play slumlord with Mommy’s money.
The OP finally woke up. She realized Alexis was the problem, not the roommates, not the ex-husband, not the economy. She told Alexis she is done owning the money pit and is selling the house before the bubble bursts. And in a display of entitlement that truly defies physics, Alexis thinks she should get the profit from the sale. The audacity is staggering. She never paid rent, scammed her mom, got her mom sued, and now wants a commission check?
To make matters even messier, Alexis checked herself into rehab in an attempt to make the eviction harder. It is a calculated move to garner sympathy and legal protection, proving she knows exactly how to manipulate the system. The rest of the family, including the ex-husband who presumably isn’t footing the bill, thinks the OP is the “worst mom” for kicking her daughter out.
Let’s be real: this isn’t about being a bad mom. This is about refusing to be a doormat. Alexis didn’t just fall on hard times; she actively deceived the person helping her. She took advantage of her mother’s generosity to the point of causing legal liability. She bit the hand that fed her, chewed it up, and then asked for a dessert menu.
So is the OP the a-hole? Absolutely not. She isn’t evicting a struggling daughter; she is evicting a con artist who happens to share her DNA. The family members who are so concerned about Alexis are welcome to buy the townhouse and let her live there rent-free if they are so worried about her well-being.
What would you do if your child scammed you out of thousands in rent and got you sued? Would you hand over the profits, or would you change the locks? Let us know in the comments if you think this mom is finally doing the right thing!