Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

MIL wanting a Golddigger Contract signed

356 replies

user1494949919 · 20/05/2017 17:57

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?

OP posts:
AliceTown · 20/05/2017 19:35

Yes, Atenco, because it's the SAHMs decision to take that risk. And I say that as a SAHM taking that very risk! It's nobody's responsibility to look after my interests but mine.

TatianaLarina · 20/05/2017 19:36

If he remarried and died intestate the money would go to his second wife not his kids.

She sounds like one those MILs who sees her children but not their spouses or grandchildren as 'her family'.

AliceTown · 20/05/2017 19:37

She sounds like that to you, Tatiana. She doesn't sound like it to me. We don't even have her side of the story.

TinselTwins · 20/05/2017 19:41

She sounds like one those MILs who sees her children but not their spouses or grandchildren as 'her family'.

Just because I've encouraged DH to make a will doesn't mean I want him dead!
& Just because the OPs MIL wants to ringfense her money doesn't mean she doesn't see the OP as family!

Headofthehive55 · 20/05/2017 19:41

Glad We had no money at all when we met. Glad we have never been offered any loan / gift from parents. Much simpler!

TatianaLarina · 20/05/2017 19:42

And others are DILs from hell in the making

And what signs of that do you see either from the OP or any other poster?

Playing passive aggressive games with tones of voice, money and cruises is all kinds of screwed up.

Retaining financial independence in your marriage, eschewing involvement from a third party, is a perfectly rational choice that many adults would make.

TheCraicDealer · 20/05/2017 19:46

MIL sounds sensible imo. You just need to take a wander round the relationships board to see how nasty splits get over money. Better to be upfront and plan a bit now, even if a few uncomfortable convos need to be had, than squabble over it in the event of them splitting up. It's the same set up with DP and I.

You never think the person you've chosen to be with has the potential to be a knob and stab you in the back over money, but it happens time and time again. So imagine what it's like being a parent and looking at your child's partner with a more critical eye and knowing they could walk away with 50% of what you'd saved over years for your child. I'm 28 and am watching a few shitty divorces play out ATM- I'd imagine the MIL also has a few RL experiences which have effected her views.

PossomInAPearTree · 20/05/2017 19:47

To be honest it seems quite sensible.

My mother in her middle age inherited quite a sum of money from her side.

My parents divorced in their 60s and my dad got half of everything. He remarried and promptly died and left his money to his new wife.

My grandparents would be horrified. They expected that money if any left would be passed down to me and my siblings. Not for a woman my age who they never met to be buying a new house with! My mother is alive and quite pissed off.

TatianaLarina · 20/05/2017 19:48

Who said anything about wanting anyone dead?

If she gives money to her son, it's not her money any more. He's an adult, it's for him to choose what he does with it. Some grandparents put money in trust for their gc. MIL seems only concerned with her son.

I'm all for couples protecting their assets, but that should be a private decision between them, not coerced by a family member.

TinselTwins · 20/05/2017 19:48

The SAHM element of this is a moot point/red herring more like bone that some posters won't let out of their teeth

Because mortgage contributions that build equity beyond the deposit supplied by the MIL would still potentially be split equaly between the OP and her OH in the event of divorce. So her contribution to the home/childcare IS accounted for within that!

AliceTown · 20/05/2017 19:49

What signs? Apart from Fizzy's rant and you saying "I'd tell you stay on your cruise for good." ?

Of course rejecting the gift is fine. That's their choice to make. Accepting the gift but rejecting the terms and expecting the MIL to just be fine with that is not on though.

TinselTwins · 20/05/2017 19:51

Who said anything about wanting anyone dead?
Hmm

I was compairing this to wills, because providing legally for worst case scenarios does not mean you think or hope for the worst.

It's not a straight up gift: it's not "here's 40k, do WHATEVER you like with it". It's "okay, well you need a deposit… we wouldn't otherwise be giving you a big lump sum at this time but if it helps we can give you money now out of what we would otherwise have willed"

CouldntMakeThisShitUp · 20/05/2017 19:53

I've given up work to look after our children and never thought about the personal money and earning potential I'm forfeiting

well more fool you. No wonder mil wants some security for her son and gc!

Pallisers · 20/05/2017 19:53

*If my child said this to me in that tone, after I had gently suggested - but not dictated- that my extremely generous gift of money might be structured in ways, he'd be about 10 words when the question of accepting the money would be moot - I'd be going on a cruise instead

I'd tell you stay on your cruise for good. (Wtf goes on cruises anyway).

Apperently some MNers are MILs from hell in the making.*

A MIL from hell because you won't hand a large sum of money over without a thought? you are funny.

Notinmybackyard · 20/05/2017 19:56

I'm going to give my son and daughter in law a big deposit towards a house when I downsize soon. I have told them that the money is a gift to them both, but I do want the money to eventually benefit my grandchildren in the same way. Therefore I will get some kind of legal advice on how to do this. I have nephews who now have nothing because their Dad (my brother in law) remarried, died suddenly without a will and his second wife inherited everything. So in the event of a (unlikely) divorce or remarriage by either my son or daughter in law I just want to make sure that my grandchildren will have their inheritance protected. I don't think that is unreasonable.

Batteriesallgone · 20/05/2017 19:56

If I was the OP I think I'd suggest the money be ringfenced for the children in the event of divorce. I don't think I'd be happy with my DH not sharing all his assets with me, but equally I see the MIL's point. And her DH as a grown adult is in a better place to protect his own future in the event of divorce than the child(ren) who would also be living in the house. There's no real right or wrong in any of this though.

TatianaLarina · 20/05/2017 19:57

Fizzy made some excellent points which seem to have gone way over the head of some posters here.

Her reply, and my reply to the cruise poster were from the POV of offspring not in-laws.

If my mother behaved how the cruise poster described, which to be fair she is far too intelligent to, then she'd have short shrift from me. I don't need her money and I don't tolerate people playing silly buggers.

FizzyGreenWater · 20/05/2017 19:59

No, I know that it's just the loan that would be ringfenced and that OP would be on the deeds, etc.

The point I was making is that anyone who is SAHM makes a sacrifice which is almost impossible to be measured and which by its very nature places a certain trust in the marriage itself and the other partner. OP is sacrificing building a career and future earning potential. I do think that is relevant to this and worth pointing out to MIL.

Her 'contribution to home and childcare' IS accounted for, yes, that isn't really what I'm talking about - more the sacrifice itself. If OP thought along the lines that MIL is, it's quite possible that things would be very different from the off. OP would maybe be working because she might, quite rightly, conclude that she can't take the risk of losing her position in the workplace in case they ever divorce.

So it's more an attitude thing. But this 'I think it's a bit odd to go for unequal shares if you are already married and you have financially disadvantaged yourself to look after your children.' The financial disadvantage to OP goes beyond the kind of thing it's possible to equalise through a bigger share of assets.

TatianaLarina · 20/05/2017 20:02

A MIL from hell because you won't hand a large sum of money over without a thought? you are funny

See above post.

TatianaLarina · 20/05/2017 20:03

I don't need her money and I don't tolerate people playing silly buggers

TinselTwins · 20/05/2017 20:03

I don't think I'd be happy with my DH not sharing all his assets with me

Who says he's not? he may be sharing all the money he personally saved up and all the assets he bought before they got together

This money is different, it's more use of a deposit to facilitate a good purchase/deal - i'ld think of it that way rather than his asset. Its the ILs money - it wouldn't be on offer if the OP and her OH didn't need it to improve their buying potential.

AliceTown · 20/05/2017 20:04

It doesn't though - not for everyone. I was a SAHM before and lost everything. I've remarried and am a SAHM again knowing I could be back in the same position. For me it isn't a question of the strength of my marriage, so much as a strong desire to raise my children myself rather than work and pay for childcare. I don't care about the money. I've had nothing before and I'm happy to go back there if it means I can be a SAHM now. I'd like to think my DH wouldn't leave me in the shit, and I honestly believe he wouldn't, but I believed that about my ExH too and I'm not naive enough to believe it again.

I still think the MIL has every right to express the terms in which she is happy to make the gift, and the OP has every right to ask her DH to decline the gift. All the talk about what it means is just projection, unless the OP has spoken to the MIL and she has confirmed that she doesn't trust the OP or that she isn't valuing the sanctity of the marriage.

TatianaLarina · 20/05/2017 20:06

The point I was making is that anyone who is SAHM makes a sacrifice which is almost impossible to be measured and which by its very nature places a certain trust in the marriage itself and the other partner. OP is sacrificing building a career and future earning potential. I do think that is relevant to this and worth pointing out to MIL

Indeed. Quite apart from the fact that she risked her life to bring son's children and MIL's gc into the world. She was also the breadwinner for some time.

AliceTown · 20/05/2017 20:06

What on earth has intelligence got to do with it? You've just got different opinions on how money should be handled. I don't think it's fair to imply that the cruise poster lacks intelligence. In fact I think it's plain rude.

KERALA1 · 20/05/2017 20:07

From my memory of divorce law it's all on the table whoevers "name" marital assets are in. Everything goes into the pot and either the couple or a judge decide the allocation. So mil wasting her time.

I would be hurt too op at the suggestion firstly that our marriage was on the rocks and secondarily non monetary contributions to the family being ignored.

I draft wills for clients and can't help warming to the ones that make specific provision for their children's spouses, parents of their grandchild they see and appreciate loving and supporting their own children. The cynicism is sad.

Swipe left for the next trending thread