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?

I'm not being pedantic, I know that it's legally a gift, but that doesn't make it like a present, it's not akin to a crimbo gift!

My DH and I have both been at the receiving end of complex marital sagas for reasons of death and divorce going back decades. Neither of us will inherit beyond the residue (shared with siblings) of our mothers' estates. I don't think my DH's grandfather would have expected his only child to receive nothing from his estate, but that was the way it turned out. I don't expect anything from my father; he remarried when I was 21 and had another family. His second wife will inherit it all, and leave it to my half-sibs. My GPs foresaw the situation and chopped their estates into tiny shares so all their grandchildren had a little. My father, who had expected his half outright apparently, was very cross that some came to my DSis and I. (It wasn't a large sum) but he thought he should have had the power over it. It would have gone to my step-mother and her children, and we would have been completely left out.

Long winded way of getting to the point, but it is the right of the person whose money it is to decide where it goes. I do completely understand the OP's point, but many, many people have found that the money they saved over many years is split up, and not always equitably, in divorces.

It's their money. He's their son. You might think you'll be together forever, but you dont know. It's right that you and your dh split your assets equally between each other - but there's no reason why your PIL should give their money to you.

She is looking out for her gc's future inheritance. She has no obligation to his wife

As I've already pointed out, she's not. If her son remarried and died without making a will, the money would go to the wife not the gc.

Who are these people who feel no obligation to their ILs? I feel obligation to all my relations, and I hope I look after them well.

It wasn't a dismal martyr jibe. You brought in the suggestion that having a baby should be some kind of consideration in how the MIL offers her money, and then brought in emotional arguments about how you almost died. That is martyr thinking. It's great that your family have benefitted from your decision to have a child, and it's sad that others don't get to experience that. They still don't owe you anything. They still get to set the terms of anything they offer you and you still get to choose to accept or decline. The OP can't decline help that is being given to her DH but she can ask him to decline it. He can then choose to accept the help or decline it and the OP may have a different issue on her hands.

We can't make other people change. We can only accept or decline what is offered to us.

Our younger son, who works in Law, and his girlfriend are soon to buy their first house. She has quite a large sum that she inherited from her grandma that is going to the deposit. He has saved a bit but nothing like as much. They love each other very much but it is his suggestion to get a Deed of Trust drawn up so if they did split up then he would have no call on that money.

YABU. Mil isnt saying anything that a reputable solicitor wouldnt also recommend. Is mil a solicitor?

I know that it's legally a gift, but that doesn't make it like a present, it's not akin to a crimbo gift!

Seriously?

As I've already pointed out, she's not. If her son remarried and died without making a will, the money would go to the wife not the gc.

AIUI the MIL cannot put the money in DHs name and still demand it's not included in a divorce "pot", the law doesn't allow that. So the money will have to remain in MILs name. If the DH divorces and remarries and doesn't make a will, her money will still be hers, not his.

Op I can see why you would be upset and even feel a bit vulnerable. But, the vows you made when you married and the life choices you and your DH have (you been breadwinner, becoming a SAHP) made have nothing to do with this. You didn't marry your in laws, you married your DH. The choices that his parents (and yours) make about their money has nothing to do with you. Its not nice to think about but it sounds like his parents are trying to be pragmatic and taking into account worst case scenarios. It sounds like they are trying to protect their son. But I really can see why you would be upset.

Ultimately it's your DH responsibility to tell his parents whether or not he feels their offer and what they said is out of order. It's up to him to tell them that you and him have joint finances and any money they give him automatically becomes half yours. His parents can then make a choice based on that.

DH and I have discussed these type of situations regarding our DD. It may sound selfish but we would definitely want to protect our DDs financial security regardless of marriage. Who she marries and how the choose to live is her decision but anything we provide finically we would definitely want to protect if we can. Reading that makes us sound awful. We are not awful people. We just want to protect our DD and no one knows what the future holds.

As I've already pointed out, she's not. If her son remarried and died without making a will, the money would go to the wife not the gc.

The MIL has suggested considering options to protect "Family money"
Her initial suggestions might not be what a solicitor would advise for reasons you've mentioned, if it got as far as getting something written up under legal advise, but that doesn't mean that she isn't motivated by wanting to protect her GCs

IN fact re reading the OP, it says the MIL has only made the suggestion that the DH ringfences the money and that he can have it as a no strings gift if he chooses.

You've only just read the OP properly, marvelous.

You brought in the suggestion that having a baby should be some kind of consideration in how the MIL offers her money, and then brought in emotional arguments about how you almost died. That is martyr thinking

First of all, it's nothing to do with money, it's about respect, consideration and acknowledgement as a family member. Secondly, there was no emotion involved pointing out women can die in childbirth, it's simply a fact.

It's great that your family have benefitted from your decision to have a child, and it's sad that others don't get to experience that. They still don't owe you anything

I think I owe all my family members and ILs for enriching my life. If they set gauche terms on 'help' that insult my spouse I will decline. The DH and the OP shouldn't have been put in this situation, and the OP shouldn't have been put in the position of having to ask her DH to decline. I would never be so inconsiderate or disrespectful to do so.

Offering advice off the cuff is one thing, offering money with caveats is another.

Well this has been fun but we're clearly never going to agree so I'll end my contribution here

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

This would be taken into account with a divorce settlement regardless. Only after this money has been taken into account. It is not unreasonable that a parent should seek tomringfence monies in favour of their children - and I say that as someone who lost a huge amount when divorcing.

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

Not all SAHMs make sacrifices, most didn't work or want to work in the first place and given childcare is more available now than ever there isn't any need to sacrifice anything.

Easily solved.

Just have it written up that if you divorce, the house is sold and the MIL's money goes back to her.

MIL has every right to do this, but it's jolly rude given how long she's known you. YANBU to be offended if you think it's a slur on your character, but I would let that go.

People who are tight and nervy with money aren't going to change the habits of a lifetime just because you're marvellous. Which you sound, incidentally.

Hang on a second - seeing as you're married, what would even be the point in getting a deed of trust drawn up? Were you to ever divorce, your assets would be drawn up according to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, not Trusts of Land and Trusteeship Act.
It would be different if you were unmarried, but seeing as you are, I don't think a deed of trust would have much significance. A divorce court has a very wide ranging discretion, and are free to completely ignore it if they think it would lead to an inequitable result.
Can anyone else weigh in on this?

Hang on a second - seeing as you're married, what would even be the point in getting a deed of trust drawn up?

It doesn't sound as if the MIL/DH has got as far as getting the suggestions professionally checked out

I imagine there are ways of doing it though, such as making the trust in the GCs name and the DH has use/benefit of it while it's in property?

TinselTwins - yes, that's something I've seen before: GPs want to protect wealth for future generations, so buy a house on trust for GC, allowing parents to live there rent-free for life. Eventually, when GPs and Parents are gone, GCs get the house - so wealth isn't frittered away in one generation.
I don't think that's what the MIL has suggested here, though. She's suggesting a deed of trust, which would be very sensible were OP and her partner not married, but seeing as they are, I think it would be pretty toothless. The whole point of marriage is that it's a partnership, the courts are v reluctant to let people just opt out of that (even with pre-nups, for example.)

We have a similar situation and a deed in trust for some money used as a deposit. I've never given it a second thought and certainly not considered it a slight on our marriage. To me it makes sense that they are protecting their child's inheritance that they have worked hard for - why should I have half if we were to split? Maybe I take a pragmatic approach - I don't anticipate us splitting therefore it will never become an issue!

OP I think you're right that it changes the balance of power in the marriage, and it's worth making your DH aware of this.

Like you, We have an inheritance coming on my DH's side to help with housing. It will probably change our behaviour as a couple- I will stay as a sahm for longer (mutual decision). If the inheritance was NOT to be shared then I would consider returning to paid work - my reasoning would be that I would need to act as if the inheritance didn't exist, so I wouldn't be left in the lurch if DH left me.

Make sure your DH is aware of the implications of ring fencing the money- you will have to pretend it isn't there when you make family decisions together. It's not just and issue if you divorce. Even if you stay together, the conditions on the money will affect your choices. You would need to make sure that you wouldn't lose out if he left, and I personally wouldn't want that hanging over our decisions. Hope this makes sense!

We have this set up.

The deposit for the house was 100% mine, so although we have a joint mortgage there's a clause that states the first £20k from the house sale comes to me, then me and DP split the rest of the sale. He didn't even question it

I don't think I would feel as if I owned the house - part if it would be owned by mil and would never be mine in any sense. Anymore than her house.