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.

The trouble is, under your dad's plan, you'll take all your DH's equity, put it towards a house solely for yourself, and 'reward' him by making him the family's lodger. You'll have all the assets and power in what was previously an equal relationship. Hell, you could happily bonk the entire local rugby team and if he objects he'll be homeless and penniless!

You'll also send a very clear message that for you 'family' is you, your kids and your dad and it doesn't include him.

While the tenants-in-common with unequal splits as suggested by others here is a better solution, he's still in a poor position if you die, as he will only have a minority stake in the family home. Even if you live to a ripe old age, you could end up with a situation where you die and your elderly widower is chucked out by your middle aged children who'd like to realise their inheritance early and force a sale.

If you go down either of these routes he needs separate solicitors to you, as you are acting contrary to his interests.

I can imagine my parents doing something like this.

As everyone has said, what your dad is proposing won't work in the way he wants it to, because if you divorced, the house would be considered an asset of the marriage regardless of whose name it is in. And as your DH has taken a hit to his career to care for your children and is still primary carer, in the event of divorce he might well get the house and the larger share of your joint assets. So if he wants to give it in a way that doesn't benefit your DH, he will have to do it differently and set up a trust which you and your children are the sole beneficiaries of or something.

You don't need to do the 'house only in your name' thing at all, which it seems is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for your DH. And I don't see why he should object to the money being left to you in a trust - your dad can dispose of his money as he likes, and your DH will have the benefit of it as long as he is with you. If you inherited the money as a result of your dad dying, and kept it separate from other assets, it wouldn't be considered a joint asset anyway, I think.

I think your DP is being precious.

I think your dad is reasonable.

I think the house should be in neither of your names. It should be in your children's.

Stick that up your dh pipe. Then you both work to give your kids a great home for their future.

Notnew, surely it HAS been this way in opposite for donkey's years really? That really isn't in dispute is it

I am going to come at this from another angle. I think your df has some major issues with relationships.

At first I thought what he was offering was v. generous but completely misguided until you mentioned about how his gf of 20 years gets very little provision in his will. There seems to be a theme, he treats people like close family but then does the dirty on them. IYSWIM. Sorry cannot find alternative words to put what I feel across.

I also think he has not considered the real implications if you and dh divorce. As primary carer it would not matter that your name would be solely on the deeds it would be you who would have to move out not your dh and dc. Friend just been thru something similar, her husband bought the house they were renting behind her back and put it solely in his name. He then proceeded to act like a single guy in the knowledge, so he thought, that if she did not like it then she could move out.

Cut a long story short court said as she looked after the children more and the house was their home then she and children could stay and she was awarded 1/2 the house anyway so he cannot sell till she is in agreement.

I think your df has made a lot of money but appears to love it more than family, in trying to control everybody he could end up controlling no one. Does his gf know how little he thinks of her?

I'd be happy with this if roles were reversed and understand totally. Most important in all this is my DS. Anything that protects him pleases me.

In fact, I'm already in this situation. In Italy all our property is in DH's name. One is a flat bought for us by FIL (bot one for each child) and other is our family home. Should anything happen to DH, the will (following napoleonic law) leaves the main proportion to DS, with a smaller % to me but giving me right to live in it. I'm totally ok with it. Am protected in any case as my flat, which I rent out, is 100% in my name and I will leave this in trust for my son.

Eh Annie? Your post does not make sense. Can you clarify why op will have to leave her marital home based on the example you give ?

I think your Dad is dead right, and your husband should recognise that your Dad's responsibility is to protect his daughter and her assets.

There might be a way around this if you genuinely can't resolve this amicably, and that is that the money is used to buy a property in your childrens' names (with future children added to the deeds) as their joint asset with the rent from the property held in trust for them.

That way your father's grandchildren are solidly provided for and their assets cannot be damaged should you and your DH divorce.

minnie can you imagine putting the house in the kids names then when they are older they fall out with mum and dad and leave them homeless , or get in with the wrong people and end up selling it and using the money for drink and drugs , money really is the root of all evil .

Quinteszilla the courts do not like uprooting children from their home. As df was their primary carer so if they stayed in family home then she stayed too.

Op said that her dh looked after the children more because of his working hours so he would be considered the primary carer so if they are not to be uprooted from the family home then he stays and op would move out. And courts, if it went the same way as my friends case, would award the dh 50% of the house.

Minnie, I think what I am getting at is that on most threads on MN, when there are any sort of disputes with parents or in-laws interfering, the big cry is that if you are married, your family is THAT unit. The husband, the wife and the children. In this case, people seem happy for that not to be the case.

He is not a sahd, though he just work less than her.

Some people people are suggesting your DH should accept it "if he's main concern is the children".

I don't see how that follows. If the money is in joint names he retains a pretty good position to make sure the children benefit. If all money is under the control of OP he becomes entirely reliant on her. She could leave him, could leave the kids, shack up with someone else with 10 kids of their own and his children's share would be massively watered down without him being able to help. If he retained half he would know that they would at least get that much .

So, if he's thinking about looking after the children he needs to make sure he has the ability to do that, not just hope that the OP will because it is entirely out of his hands.

I think OP's father forgets that she is not a child. Adults decide how to direct their own financial affairs, they shouldn't need daddy telling them what to do.

I don't think you have to be sahp to be considered primary carer in event of a divorce.

Quinteszilla friend was not a SAHM she worked long p/t hours and had been putting her money into running the house. I do not see any real difference between the 2 cases

Your DF is being unreasonable, not your DH. Totally agree with Bluegrass & dollius upthread. Your DF may be generous, but his generosity seems to come with a lot of controlling, manipulative strings attached.

Changing the status of your family home so it's in your name only will also change the nature of your marriage - you'll no longer be equal partners, & you'll have let a parent interfere between the two of you. No fucking way would I let that happen, whichever side of the equation I was on.

And yes, I also agree with those posters who've pointed out the double standards at play here. There would be much more unanimous outrage if it was the husband's parents trying to ensure their son's family home was in his name only, to the possible detriment of his wife.

protecting assets should be everyone's priority

But in this case it's done at the expense of the husband - removing his assets, putting them into the wife's name, and then creating a situation where he's vulnerably housed.

I'm baffled by the people saying the OP's father is quite right and her DH is being unreasonable. Quite apart from the emotional issues (they've been married 14 years, we're not talking early 20s live-in partners here) the DH already has half of the equity in the existing house. Should he just throw this investment away? What if the OP decides she wants out of the marriage; surely that's just as likely, and would leave her DH in a horrible situation. Protecting one's interest goes both ways.

The suggestion of buying an investment property is not very useful as the whole point is to get a bigger family house.

The only solution is a consultation with a solicitor and, I would argue, a blunt conversation between the OP and her father.

So if I have understood correctly, OPs father wants to put them mortgage free in a bigger house?

So how much of the house would belong to the husband & how/who decides that?

If it's about the kids, why not put money aside for them now for a step on the property ladder for example?

NotyouNaanBread, it's not the OP's dad's responsibility to protect his daughter & her assets, because she's an adult! Of course her dad may WANT to help her financially, but it's not his responsibility & he certainly doesn't have the right to interfere in the financial / property arrangements she has with her own husband.

It's the OP's & her DH's responsibility to protect their own financial future -& their marriage from the potentially destructive influence of someone who clearly likes using his own wealth to try & exercise power over family members.

I'm just trying to imagine if my ILs did this to me- firstly Dh wouldn't contemplate agreeing and secondly it would seriously effect my relationship with them.

I certainly wouldn't want to be spending holidays and Christmas with them, as we do now.

I think your Dad is being unreasonable and can see why you DH feels insulted and hurt. If we ever bought a house for our. married DD or gave her money to enable her to buy one we would never any conditions
on it and would expect her DH to be on the deeds,

Preciousbane if the df gave the money with the stipulation the house was in op's name only and they divorced then op would most likely loose half the house anyway.(see my previous post re my df).
If op died then the house would either pass to dh so df would not get his wish that dh would not inherit all of the house or if it was willed to the children then the Inheritance tax would effectively wipe out the gift and dh and children would have to sell up and move. Effectively meaning the dc would have money in the bank till they could access it at say 18 which might not be worth as much as it is today.

Dh would have to buy a much smaller property for them to grow up in. And df because of the bad blood he has stirred up would probably loose contact with his GC.

I would really like to know if df's girlfriend knows how little he thinks of her after 20 years.

Df if he continues on this path of throwing his money around is going to end up a lonely old man.

I think if your husband's uncomfortable then you should respect his feelings.

Ask your Dad to trust the money straight to your kids when they reach 21; it'll set up the three of them for their futures.

If, as you say, you're pretty sorted then the money's not needed and you won't necessarily benefit from it so let it go straight to the Grandkids.