MIL wanting a Golddigger Contract signed

[user1494949919]

So DH and I are in the position where we will need to move house soon. DH's parents have long said that when we want to get on the property ladder they'll kindly gift us a deposit.

We've wanted to buy for a while, and even looked at houses and got mortgage advice many years ago but when we told PIL that we were ready to buy they wanted change our wills etc. We were OK to do so but somehow talks never really progressed and DC came along and we forgot about buying for a while.

Fast forward to now: DH asked MIL if she could give us some of the money she had saved up for him for a deposit. She replied that DH should consider two options: firstly PIL could offer a 0% loan to DH alone to "protect the money" or DH might want to consider a Deed of Trust on the house we get, she then went on to outline a several cases in which marriages had broken down and one partner had been left with nothing. MIL also said that DH didn't have to take either of these options the deposit could just be a gift If he decided but he should have a think about it.

I'm grateful for being given the opportunity to get on the property ladder, as it's so hard to save a deposit these days but AIBU to be upset at MIL mentioning divorce to DH, talking about the possibility of me "leaving him with nothing" and offering to give DH a loan to "protect the money" from me.

On one level I'm thinking she worked long and hard for the money and wants it to just go to her child, but on another it really upsets me as it feels like she's not really supporting the marriage and her request to think about divorce issues is undermining the sanctity of my marriage vows: we said "all that I have I share with you" and promised to be together for life!

I've given up work to look after our children and never thought about the personal money and earning potential I'm forfeiting. Plus I was with DH for years and was our only breadwinner for several periods during our relationship before kids. I've never been in it for money.

Personally I don't think anyone should mention the 'D' word to a happy couple - it seems like bad juju! And parents shouldn't collude to "protect" money from one spouse it changes the dynamic and the power balance of the marriage. Is it just me? Or am I wrong to feel a bit miffed?

Mixing "business" with "family" is always difficult. Your mil seems to be going into this with a business head on and is giving sound financial advice to her son. Divorce is an unexpected reality for many couples.
A family friend signed her home over to her son years ago, when he divorced his ex wife she wanted half the value of the mothers home, it was a very upsetting and difficult situation, the family friend had not considered the future implications in the event of her son becoming divorce.
How does your dh feel about her advice?

I don't know how the law would work on this, but in the case of a divorce, if the children needed to stay in the family home, would it make any difference if there were a dead of trust? Wouldn't it mean that after DC had grown up the house could be sold and then the profits get released?

IF there's going to be a division of wealth according to input, then the OP's childcare & lack of career should be factored in. She can hardly suddenly get to the top of her career age 45 (or whatever) after years of being a SAHM.

Also - if the OP DID keep the house & raise the DC in it, then the (theoretical, now Ex) DH is still benefitting, as his children are being housed on his behalf.

So, MIL may want to ensure that her cash is protected, but it's possibly a much smaller % of the full financial picture than she thinks.

suggests an element of mistrust

No it doesn't.
Saying that anything can happen in the future tense does not = mistrust in the present tense

You can't really"trust" someone to never recover from a stroke with a personality change, or to never die, or to never need long term care that is funded through assets, or to never fall out of love for that matter

YABVU and also incredibly naive. Your MIL is being very sensible and reasonable, to the extent that her third option is an outright gift with no strings, other than that her adult son be a grown up and decide for himself what the consequences might be for him and his children (her grandchildren) in the event of a divorce. If your parents gave you the money, it'd be exactly the same.

It's a bit rich you saying that everything you have is shared when he and his family are providing the deposit. Sure, you're a SAHM. Does your DH not work? Doesn't that make it fair and square? Are you not married and wouldn't the courts protect you in the event of a divorce? What, actually are you complaining about? That the romanticism of your union has been somehow tarnished by realistic consideration of what the future might hold for you two and, more importantly, your children?

You are extremely lucky. Count your blessings. And get a grip.

It wouldn't mean the OP didn't own a share of the house just that the bit the PIL give is ring fenced for their son. I wouldn't do it but don't see it as a problem. Just means if they split and house is sold that money is taken out for their son and the rest is split. I know people who have done this even when the money is theirs and one has a much bigger share of deposit than the other.

I think that she's being pragmatic. Nobody thinks they're going to divorce, but plenty do. It's important to be sensible and measured about this, as opposed to knee-jerk offended; it's not personal, she's protecting her investment for the benefit of her son, not suggesting that you're golddigging. Take your own legal advice too.

YABU I think your MIL is being pragmatic also. Seems very sensible to me.

It is not unusual to think about these things when gifting large sums of money. The time to think about these things is when nothing has gone wrong! (Hopefully never will).

Perhaps MIL has seen problems in the past.

It is hard to know what to do for grown up children.
I thought we were being kind with an offer but this offer was claimed to be a control method. The alternative would have been someone with no house purchasing experience dictating where money was invested.
The second offer (though I do wonder if making another offer was wise) was accepted then when further cash was "suggested" by the In Law a clamp down was made.
Perhaps MIL is scared of being seen as just a money supplier. As a result of my experiences I would now not wish to get financially involved.
If it is a gift either accept graciously or refuse politely. If it is a loan, check the terms and again accept graciously or refuse politely.
When we got married we had no expectations of parents giving anything. I knew that there was a financial difference between my parents and PILs.
It is quite unpleasant to feel that money is one's only grace.

Actually I think she's just being practical. I doubt she's suggesting you're going to divorce. I think you're being a bit over sensitive tbh but then I'm pragmatic when it comes to money and affairs of the heart.

I'm dumbfounded at the replies you've had OP. You need to talk to dh but in my opinion your mil is being short sighted and odd. She's putting you in a very difficult situation with your dh. You are a family. You have given up work to raise your family. It's essentially putting you in a very difficult situation if you do split, leaving you vulnerable and possibly homeless. She should lend you the money as a family or not at all.

I would never do this, if ds and dil ever split up dgc would live with dil as she is a sahp because that's what they decided as a couple and he would struggle with 50/50 with the hours he would work.
But what if dil had an affair, left ds with the children, then wanted half the money? At least this way, MIL has some say to prevent that happening.

She may have put things insensitively but she has a valid point. When dh and I bought a house our solicitor advised us very strongly to put in place arrangements as to how it would be divided up in the case of a split, he said it's much easier to discuss when you're happy and it just seems theoretical. He pointed out that something like half of all couples split up, so you're putting your head in the sand a bit by refusing to contemplate it happening to you. This was discussed on Moneybox Live on R4 on Wednesday this week - lawyers again making the point that it is much easier to sort this out at the start, and if money is coming from a family member it is important that their expectations for the money are taken into account - apparently many people put an agreement into place that the money goes back to the gifting family in the event of a split.

Situations like the following happen IRL:

A&B are a couple, have 1 child, B's family give money for a house that they hope will ultimately go to their grandchild.
B dies. A re-marries ( C ), they divorce, C takes a huge chunk of what should have been the grandchild's inheritance, most of it ends up going to Cs children who are unrelated to Bs family and not the intended recipients.

Stuff like that happens A LOT.

Something outting like that happened in my family because someone thought it was unromantic to not trust a partner, ended up with a lot of "family money" going to step children rather than the persons children (that's about as much detail as I can give without outting).

apparently many people put an agreement into place that the money goes back to the gifting family in the event of a split.
That seems quite sensible to me.

My parents loaned a large sum of money to myself & my then H to buy our house. We all agreed that there would be no repayments until we were financially comfortable. Parents clear that they'd rather we supported dc than repaid them, & if & when we were able to do so, they'd use the repayments to benefit our dc by setting up trusts etc.

Everybody was very naive & trusting.

6 years later, H had an affair & I kicked him out.

Dc & I now live abroad. H pays no maintenance (& no point chasing it as dc out of UK jurisdiction).

He wants half the equity in the former marital home - effectively half the money my parents lent us & intended to benefit their GC - to buy a house for himself & OW.

All this is delaying our financial settlement & making a couple of shit hot divorce lawyers rub their thighs with glee.

It would be fair to say that H had never, ever, previously given any indication that he would have an affair OR fail to put his children's best interests first.

Sorry OP. I'm with your MIL. & will take exactly these precautions if/when I'm able to help out my dc & their future partners.

Tough one this, but I think MIL is being sensible. The deposit is their money they are giving it to you for a deposit. If you split, the deposited is protected. But hopefully this us academic. If you don't like it don't accept the money and carry on renting.

we said "all that I have I share with you"

Ah yes, but that only counts money that each party makes themselves, not gifts from other people, surely?

I'm looking at this from your MIL's perspective because dh and I are planning to lend his ds and his gf money to buy a house.

If they split up, we would want DS to keep the money and house, not his gf.

So we will take legal advice first, put the money in trust to ds and make sure that the money stays in our family.

1 out of 3 marriages ends in divorce.

It doesn't mean your marriage is jinxed or your MIL doesn't trust you; she's just being cautious and sensible.

I think legally she is being very sensible. Say your dh died and you remarried then died intestate. The money she gave would then go to someone she did not know.

If I lend my children money to protect my money from the potential of divorce so that it was ring fenced and not seen as a marital asset. My parents gave us 100k towards the house if anything happened (and no one has a crystal ball) it should go back to them and not be split.

I would remove emotions from what is in essence a practical and rational decision

I suspect that if it were the OP's parents doing this some of the responses would be very different

She's totally out of order and your DH should tell her so.

I'd run a mile from taking any money from a relation who wanted to interfere in my marriage like that.

He's an adult. If she wants to give him money it's up to him how he chooses to spend it. If she puts insulting caveats on it, then she should keep it.

I suspect that if it were the OP's parents doing this some of the responses would be very different

In what way?

She's not insisting - she's just advising possible options 'just in case'. Personally I don't blame her if she's saved this money. Speaking from experience, a male friend of mine bought a first property's with his wife, obviously not intending to get divorced - no one does when they get married and buy a place surely ? Anyway his grandmother gave them the £10k deposit. 6 years and 3 kids later, they split, she got 75% of the £100k equity when the property was sold, and denied all knowledge of the grandmothers generous loan/gift.

I think it's only fair to draw up something that says should anything like this happen, then MILs money would be safe.

Does she listen to Radio 4? There was an episode of the Moneybox programme very recently that was discussing the passing on of money in such ways, how to protect it / what to do when things go wrong / what are the options etc. So conceivably that could have prompted your in-laws to think about the issues.

AliceTown

Because those saying it is a bad idea would be supporting it.

In fact it has (on other threads) been said that it is a good idea to protect the woman in the relationship, whether the woman puts in the higher share or her parents do.