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.

Iseeyou - the deed would protect the relative shares even though married. As for protecting the money for DC but leaving roof over head of dh, this, again, is very easy to do legally. A solicitor won't bat an eyelid and will probably have a template already on computer. Off on a tangent - an 18 year old getting £15000 plus to do what they want with? Aaarrrrggggghhhhh

The DH doesn't need to be completely unprotected financially though if he goes along with some version of this proposal. Even with the proposal the way it stands the DH would have his own investment into the property protected.

I can see how it could easily become divisive, but it really doesn't have to be if all members of this family have the same goal, which is presumably to protect the assets for the children in the long run.

My family has a fairly complicated financial set up due to the way my DF put protection in place for me before he died when I was a child. It's never been a problem, and there's no real reason why it should become a problem in the future.

Thank you Bourdic. I had always thought that everything either party owns is joint property when they marry and has to be split 50/50. I didn't understand that it can be more complicated than that!

The DH already has £200k in the house - half the equity (£100k) and half what it's gone up by (£100k). He benefits from no mortgage payments and has already benefited from the £40k given to them by OP's dad. So that money that would be spent on mortgage payments could go towards pension or savings or however they split their money. He also gets to live in a bigger house than he'd ever be able to afford.

However, I don't think it fair only the OP's name goes on the house - the DH has a stake in it so the percentages must be adjusted - i.e. they buy a £600k house, he has a £200k stake she has a £400k stake (due to her dad's money) so two thirds to one third. And of course they benefit to those proportions should house value appreciate.

Maybe there is another way that you can both be on the deeds and still protect your deposit?

When I bought my house my father -divorced from my mother - helped me with the deposit. As I was childless at the time he attached a condition to the money that I write a will leaving the money to my sister. He knew that if something happened to me my mother would be my next of kin and inherit my estate, something he didn't want. I completely understood at wrote a will.

Could he not just put that share into the kids names instead. So the kids own the 350000 share and you and dh own your bit the same as you do now?

There are lots of ways to protect money. I have investments etc protected. A solicitor who says it can't be done is saying they are unqualified in that instance. There is always a way.

I'm with OP's dad and while I understand her DH being upset, I wouldn't be willing to pass an opportunity like this because my husband was being emotional. Equally if it was my husband given the opportunity, I'd also be fine with it.

He won't be left stranded if they do split up as the OP would either have to buy him out for his share or if she couldn't afford it they sell up and get their respective shares.

Could you use the money to buy a separate house in your name that you rent out and then you could use the rental income to enhance your life jointly?

It might be a bit easier as it is unfair for your house to be only in your name as your husband has contributed financially to the house and also does most childcare.

Your dh is being really defensive. This only really matters if you guys split. So the house if effectively 50 50 until you split. Then it will be 70 30. Your dad is being v sensible. My dh would be absolutely fine with this. Your dh is being too sensitive.

I'm afraid what your Dad is suggesting would not safeguard your assets in the event of a divorce/your death. If you divorce, then all the assets of you both would be considered together and divided up either by consent or in the event of a dispute, by the court. The starting point would be 50/50 after a long marriage, although all the circumstances including pension provision, incomes of the parties and housing needs, especially of the primary carer for the children, would taken into consideration. So, unless your husband agreed, you owning the house outright would not have any effect on the distribution of the assets (this is only in the event of a divorce).

If you died and hadn't made a will then under the intestacy rules your husband would take the lion's share of your assets anyway (can't remember the exact figures - have been retired for a couple of years).

If you died and had made a will leaving your house to the children, then it is possible your husband could challenge the will as not giving him adequate provision (if it was his home for example and he didn't have alternative funds/accommodation).

Basically, your Dad would not achieve his goal by insisting the house is in your sole name. Can this not be explained to him by a third party (solicitor)? It seems such a shame to risk a family rift over this, especially as both men seem to get on well and you sound a happy stable family.

I'm with your DF here. My DH was a perfect family man with an excellent relationship with my parents. It still didn't stop him from having an affair.

I can understand how your DH feels but, like other posters have said, he needs to put himself in the position of your DF.

Of course your DH needs to be protected just as much as you so legal stuff needs to be discussed. Or I second the idea of a investment property.

Personally I'd take the money and put the house in joint names anyway. I can't see why your Dad should ever know.

family money is 50/50 - that's how it is with a family. Does the DH of a SAHM refuse to pay into the house in case they split or he dies and the DW married again and some other man benefits from his money? Everyone would say that's financially abusive, would they not?

The dad in this scenario is being controlling. He will not be giving the money to his daughter if he is controlling what is done with it. What if the OP and her DH in some future point decide to sell up and become hippies and live off the proceeds of their house? Dad can come straight back in and tell them they can't. He will have control over their lives. Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers.

Either he gives the money to his daughter for her to spend as she choose, or he doesn't. And I don't think he'd like the second because then he has no say in her life. I would be very wary of accepting money from this man, sorry OP. He sounds like a man who is used to being in charge and getting his own way. I wouldn't want to be beholden to him.

you do not want to put it in the kids name as when they are old enough they could force you to sell to realise their share

there are many ways of protecting money if an agreement is voluntarily entered into with both sides having independent advice this type of post-nup or wills would be legally binding this is as probably more about OP's death before Dh than divorce

I can see your DF point of view if you died and your DH remarried and had step children if his new wife died first then your Dh could leave money as he saw fit however if he remarried and then died without leaving a will the new wife would inherit and on her death all the money unless a will would go to her children not yours so in theory all of DF money could end up elsewhere and your own children not have a penny

I can also see Dh point of view like he is not trusted, however a good solicot would be able to do this so the house is both yours and DH's and write wills that if yuo die DH can continue to live in house until death but on his death your share goes to your children whatever and he can leave his share how he likes, this is quite common

parents own house outright but at 50% share each rather than 100% each
1st parent leaves his half to DC with stipulation that his wife has life long use of the house ( ie the DC can't make her sell so they get their share now) also it means that if his wife needs long term care only her share of property can pay for care as the other half belongs to Dc so council/state etc have no claim on that half of the value if property needs to be sold to pay for care

i do not think you have to give such large gifts with no strings I do not think it is controlling to want your money to end up with your grandchildren rather than someone else's children

Starball, that would be an awful, dishonest thing to do.

I don't think the dad is being controlling at all, he is just a dad that wants to protect his daughter and her children. That's a good thing.

I agree with your DH on this one. If your dad wants to give you money then it is up to you how you spend it. I would turn it down or ask your dad to put some money in trust for the DC instead.

If you do go and get legal advice, will the solicitor be able to advise both you and your husband?

If you each need to obtain advice from separate solicitors, that will certainly be divisive.

Sometimes dishonesty is the best way to keep the peace.

Dad's are dotty about DDs. My dad is about me, DH's dad spoilt DSIL, DH is madly protective of his DDs.

Sometimes we daughters have to say "daddy we are grown up now, it's our lives".

However, sometimes it's still best not to say it out loud.

Actually my DDad is old fashion, slightly misogynistic and very very married, it would never cross his mind that DH and I might fall out after 25 years.

Your dad is unreasonable, your husband has contributed to the deposit and mortgage payments and renovations which will make up part of the equity of the next house, there is no way he shouldnt have his name on the house, he shouldnt be so vulnerable.

If I was the primary care-giver and worked and earned less than my DH, there isn't a chance in hell I'd agree to this (the spirit of the thing that is, what your father is actually proposing won't make the slightest bit of difference if you split). Further to that though, I'd never, ever accept money with strings attached. It always winds up creating drama, people who can't simply gift money and let it go are just trading money for control of the situation, and when inevitably they lose control of some aspect everything turns to shit.

Of course your father is free to make whatever stipulations he wants about how his money is spent, but if you agree to them you'll be taking away your DH's financial security. Right now, if you die tomorrow he still owns a house and has control of his own living situation. If you go ahead with this plan, you die tomorrow and suddenly your children own more of the house than your DH...that's not going to be a fun situation to be in. IME, at the very, very least it would create a lot of hassle, and it has the potential to be hugely awkward if not completely disastrous down the line. And when it comes to divorce, well if your DH is the main care-giver of your DC's it's important that he either retain the house or have the ability to afford a suitable new property. He's in the more vulnerable situation, and your DF's idea would have him kicked out of his home with a significantly smaller amount of money coming to him. Most people I know have and would do their best to leave a marriage on equal financial terms, no matter how acrimonious the split, so that their DC's don't immediately experience a noticeable imbalance.

IMO, if your DF is set on giving you money the smarter thing to do would be to have him set up a trust for your DC's. That way you and DH remain equals and there's no chance for either of you to lose control of the money. And if your DC's eventually do, well your DF is unlikely to be around to have to witness that, so no dramas.

A friend of mine had a very wealthy grandmother who left £3 million in her will to her DD (friends mother) Then my friends DM died leaving everything to my friends DF. He remarried and when he died he left it all to his new wife who already had two adult children. When she died she left all the money to her children. So my friend ended up with absolutely nothing out of her mothers inheritance.

This is why your dad is not being unreasonable in wanting to protect you. However, the arrangement of just putting the house in your name won't protect you at all. See a solicitor and sort it all out properly...

Not read every reply so I'm sure someone has said it.

Your dad should put the money in trust, the trust lends you the money, you do with it as you wish. If you and your husband split the trust takes its money back. YES it can be challenged, but it's better than nothing and will give a solid negotiation point. It will affect IHT and needs some planning, but I would do this as it also protects your estate from IHT in the future (on the amount in trust not everything). Speak to a Chartered Financial Planner with estate planning qualifications.

There is nothing wrong for the OP to say, 'Dad, that's very generous of you, and I understand where you are coming from, but in our family we split everything 50/50 and I couldn't accept a gift of this magnitude if I am be debarred from splitting it with DH, .' If he is a reasonable man he will understand and either accept your reasoning graciously and retract the offer or, together with the OP and DH, come to some other solution.

But my spidey sense is telling me that the OP's dad is not going to like this.