Is my dad or my dh? And am I for even asking?

[inabitofadilemma]

I'm in a bit of a dilemma.

Me and DH have been together for 14 years, two kids and one on the the way. We jointly own our house. Originally, we both put in savings of about 30,000 pounds as a down payment. We did well from selling and buying at the right time and renovating a run down house and took advantage of low interest rates and paid down the mortgage. My Dad gave us 40,000 pounds a few years ago to help with mortgage and renovations. Currently our house is worth about 400,000 and we have equity of 200,000.

My Dad is now wrapping up and selling his business so he can retire properly. He's done very very well out of the super high prime London prices because his business had some real estate there. As a result, he's offered to help us pay off the mortgage and upgrade our house because it'll be tight with the third child. Altogether he's offered to give us 350,000 pounds. This is, of course, a huge amount of money and will allow us to buy a bigger house mortgage free. I'm fully aware that this is very generous and we're incredibly lucky to be in this position.

However, he's stipulated a condition. Only my name on the house. He's willing to sign an agreement that DH can have 'his' share plus whatever it's appreciated in the event that we divorce (and if I die that it's in the name of the children as a trust) BUT the house MUST be in my name.

My Dad says that this is to protect me. He does actually really like DH, it's not like they've ever had any issues. They get on really well. But he says that things can change. His biggest fear is that we divorce (or I die), DH gets remarried and half of the money he gave to me ends up with another woman and her children.

DH is incredibly insulted by this especially because he always got on with my Dad. He says he will feel uncomfortable living in a home that's not his and he's very upset. We've never thought on these terms, always had a joint account and apart from the money my Dad gave us a few years ago, it's always been kind of even. DH works less than me and earns less but he's with the kids more so neither of us think of our money other than as joint money. We had a joint account before we even got married.

DH is kind of angry with me for not fighting his corner more. But I feel bad fighting with my Dad when he's about to help us out so much, I feel ungrateful doing so like some kind of spoilt brat. I totally get where DH is coming from but I also understand my Dad's reasoning. It's just how he is (he's lived with his partner for 20 years and in his will, he's very very clear about what she's entitled to and what she's not - and it's not much - in fact, I had to tell him to change it to leave her more!). My Dad is also helping my brother out in a similar way with a similar condition but they don't seem bothered by it.

So who is being unreasonable here? My Dad who is insisting that only my name is on the house? Or DH who feels hurt and insulted and thinks i should be fighting his corner more?

We could, of course, turn down my Dad's offer. We're also happy as we are, can make mortgage repayments and pay our bills just fine and carry on in our house, we'd just be a bit cramped. So it's not like we NEED this to just survive. But then i think that might be unfair to the DC because this is really THEIR money at the end of the day. And it's very hard to turn down the tempatation of a bigger house and being mortgage free.

He lost his Dad when he was young and he's always got on so well with my Dad. So he saw your dad as being his, in a way, and this has shown that isn't fully reciprocated? That's hard, yes.

I can understand how your DH feels especially given his circs. You're stuck in the middle aren't you and that's hard for you. Your DH probably can't imagine the truly awful things that do happen in these particular cases and your df doesn't seem able to appreciate how he's hurting your DH. Perhaps at an appointment the solicitor will be able to quote lots of examples of the awful things that really do happen ( we've had 3 examples in our family/ friends group which is why we were so careful about what we did - and also meant that dd and dsil fully understood what we wanted to be done). So are you saying that df will be happy with tenants in common with a deed setting out percentage shares? I thought you said it had to be in just your name?

My dad is saying now it has to be in my name but I'm sure he'll be open to other ideas as long as he knows the money's protected.

I love my Dad but, to be honest, he's not the most emotionally sensitive person. He really doesn't seem to get why DH is upset. i think DH's response is an emotional one more than anything, it's really not about the money, per se, for him.

I can understand why your dad is doing what he's doing but tbh it is all a crock of shite-if he passes away and solicitors want to fight for money for your DH (or your father's partner) then they can and will. We lost a huge amount of inheritance to my MIL partner (and his money grabbing family) when she had left it all to my DH and our DCs. I imagine the same would apply in the event of a divorce. Partners-whether they are married or common law-have a lot of rights!

Can see both sides.
Live as you do currently, but buy an investment property.

Freckletoes the concept of 'common-law' husband and wife is utter bollocks and is not recognised in either English or Scots law.

It is nothing more than an outdated euphemism for living together and grants you few or any rights over the person's estate.

If it was the other way round maybe you would feel the same, it seems he feels rejected by your dad.maybe he thought your dad thinks a lot of him but this maybe shows he doesn't . Maybe he feels that your dad doesn't trust him after all these years. Maybe he feels your dad loved him and would want to help him as well as you and the kids.

Your a family now so the money should be accepted for all the family not singling people out.

I know you don't want to walk away from that amount, I'm sure your dad will come round to your way as I'm sure he wants to help his kids.

The other way of doing it is to have the house drawn up in percentages or amounts. last time I sold a house, the documents showed a 60/40 split in the wifes favour. I assume he put a larger proportion in.

So if you have equity of 200K and are given 350K - then it would be fair to split that in thirds. You get 2/3 and DH gets 1/3>

His biggest fear is that we divorce (or I die), DH gets remarried and half of the money he gave to me ends up with another woman and her children. I understand his logic, I have seen this happen. However it is likely your father will be long dead by then and won't have a clue!

If you did divorce, who would end up with the kids? If your dh is the primary caregiver, he could end up with almost no money, and the kids, while you stay in the big house your dad bought you.

The more financially vulnerable partner should be protected, particularly as they tend to be the main care givers.

You should probably speak to a lawyer to get advice anyway - you could end up paying a huge chunk of tax if you just get given money towards a house. find out if there are ways to protect the money/house in trust so that it stays with you/kids, but also protects your dh so that if you split up, he can continue to give your dcs the stability of the family home and him still looking after them.

He also has a fair point about how he/you might feel if it is 'your' house. Up til now you've always just thought of everything as belonging to the family. Once one of you suddenly owns something that the other doesn't, it can change the dynamic.

You need to let your dh know that you won't just let him be sidelined by your dad, that you still see him as an equal partner. If your dad won't budge about his condition, I think you might have to consider walking away. After all, how much would it take if a stranger said, "I'll give you xxx amount to leave your husband"? This is probably how your dh feels to a certain extent. Would you even take the money under those circumstances?

I agree with writing up a post-nuptial agreement. It would be the best all round.

Try putting it to ur dp as if you died and not divorced, its less about his fault then.

For what is worth my gran did this with my mum for the same reasons. They were married over 25 years at the time. More about my mum dying that dad divorcing her.

Although they happily agreed the solicitor said that once the deal was done, my mum and dad cud change it how they liked.

The 'tenants in common' route it's probably a good idea. It also means there are no complications regarding who leaves what to whom if one of you dies - you can will your percentage to the kids (which will protect the money your dad had given you) and your DH can do whatever he wishes with his percentage.

My parents have done this in order to leave half their property to me and the other half directly to DD. They already owned their house outright so it was a case of 'severing the joint tenancy' which was quite straightforward so I imagine doing it from they outset with a new house would be even easier.

My ex and his wife also bought their first property as tenants in common - they weren't married at the time, and she was earning considerably more than he was.

I can see why your husband is a bit , but it's really just being cautious and could save a lot of heartache for everyone in the future. If, for instance, you died before your DH and he remarried and acquired stepchildren or even had more biological children, there is no guarantee he couldn't be put in an awkward position or totally screwed over by wife #2 wrt finances and it protects him from being put in that situation as much as anything.

Don't mean to imply all step-parents are vile BTW but I have seen it happen on several occasions and whole families fall apart as a result.

Apologies for repeating myself but the point that you and dh have jointly built up some equity which should be - I would say must be - reflected in any future arrangement simply cannot be ignored and if your df can't see that, then, yes, you have to walk away. Also, do take into account the issue of possible inheritance tax being due on the £350000 if your df dies within the next 7(?) years

How can it be protected if you are married? Surely the law is that in the event you divorce, everything you have would be split?

If you did divorce, would your husband not simply be entitled to claim some anyway?

I am not a lawyer, I am actually asking.

and also, surely you could, after the money had been given, simply change the deed and add your husband anyway?

Or write a will leaving everything to him?

so does your dad actually have the control that he thinks he does if you initially agree to have the house in your name only? Would he ensure it stayed that way by demanding to see the deeds annually?

if you dad gives you the money then the money is yours, he has no control over what you do with it. If he wants to retain that control then I would find that unacceptable and decline the offer.

If you want your DC to benefit from this then ask your dad to invest it in their name. But in fact I would be wary of this because it sounds to me like your dad would want to control what they did with it too. My mum has put £15,000 aside for each of her DGC which will become theirs at 18, to do with what they want - my mum is thinking uni fees or down payment on a house kind of thing, but she has said it's for whoever they want to use it. I don't get the impression your dad would be prepared to do that. Apologies if I've got that wrong.

So (sorry if i've got this wrong) in the event you die, your house goes in trust for the children and your DH gets none of it? When the DC reach maturity they have to evict their father and sell it to split the money? Your DH then is homeless and penniless? Erm if DH suggested that i'd be quite miffed too.

*however, not whoever

It's interesting to see that so many people are understanding of the DFs position here, I agree with a PP that responses might have been different if a man was writing the OP and it was the wife that was the lower earner doing most of the childcare.

I get where both the DF and the DH are coming from, but I think your DH would be crazy not to go along with some kind of arrangement when it would mean that both he and his wife and children were financially protected.

Maybe if he wants more protection then he could put the money that he is saving on the mortgage into his own savings/pension/investment. There will be a way to work this out so that everyone involved is treated fairly, you might just have to spend a lot on financial and legal advice to find it.

I don't think your dad is being unreasonable either. Even the best of relationships can fall apart in the future. What if you were to split up down the line, your DH meets and marries someone with kids so his step kids. He gets half the value of the property with you then sorry to have to mention this but he dies and everything gets left to her and her step kids - i.e. your dad's hard earned cash not only goes out the family, it goes to complete strangers!

I wouldn't mind it if my DH did something similar. Why should I stand to gain in those circumstances. You love each other but you have to be realistic in life.

He could safeguard your kids together in a will but again circumstances change. He's with this other woman who is financially vulnerable herself or has an illness so he feels he has to support her. He sees your kids doing well for themselves in the future while his step kids who he has brought up as his own have had some troubles through no fault of their own so he rewrites the will, because he now views this money as his money not his natural born children's legacy, and leaves it to the second wife to be handed down to all when she goes. Only she ends up in a care home and the house and assets have to be sold to pay for her fees.

Whichever way you look at it your dad's legacy could completely disappear from not just your hands but also your kids. Too many variables of what could happen to it. Both names on the mortgage with different percentages is best.

I think this is sensible - I am doing the same for my DD next year hopefully, I am buying her a flat, her and her partner cannot get on property ladder ever without this help.

tbh my main concern is my daughter, and as much as I like her partner, not sure why the partner should get my money if it all goes tits up

Tabliope - I can see the Dad's point too. but there is no way i would leave myself completely unprotected financially should it all go to shit. If i went along with it i would insist a substantial portion of money (joint money) be put away for just me in a savings/pension scheme (however, i doubt it would be equal to 50% of the property) - which would mean the mortgage free concept would be lost. Plus a clause that i got 50% of the equity from the £200k which will be put into the house - plus the percentage of the house that £100k had bought if the house increased in value. OR if my £100k was not needed for the house, i would want that out of the property to invest in my name now.

I think it's very divisive. And i would turn it down.

Hmmm if I were your dp, I'd want you to have the money but I would be hurt about the rejection. couching it in terms of you dying instead is a good idea. I'd still want you to take the money though as it does benefit him by you all having more disposable income, senseless to turn it down. It is hurtful, I completely understand why your dp is hurt, but surely he can see that turning down the money is not a good idea.