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?

MIL sounds difficult and should have a little more faith in you. What does your DH say?

Our inlaws helped us financially when we bought our first home though we were able to buy on our own without their help. We had been together two years, we had no DC and were not married. Yet they did not impose any conditions.

I have already told my DD that we will help her out when she wants to buy a house, but any help will always be structured so the money follows her and her DC, not her DP.
We have told her this early so that when she means the DP she wants to do this with she knows it is not personal.

This is what I've done with our DC. DH and I have worked really hard for our money and I don't think there is anything wrong at all with wanting it to benefit our own children and future grandchildren.

I don't blame her, I think its a really sensible idea. Friends of ours gave their dd and her partner £50k towards their new home, but asked the partner to sign to say that in the event of a split dd got the £50k back and then everything else was split equally.
I'd do the same. We have worked hard to have a bit of spare cash to help ds if needed, but if the worse came to the worse and he and his partner split up we wouldn't be able to afford to do it again.

I would never impose conditions as a MIL in the OP's circumstances unless I had serious doubts about the relationship or the behaviour around money of the partner (i.e. gambling) and was supporting a DC financially to leave the relationship.

I wish I could see why you are upset by her suggestion, I just can't, and I always try to be empathetic. I think it's probably because I have thought about it at length (I am a practical person and always consider the worst case scenario).

I love my DH very much, but he is a little lazy when it comes to financial matters and would never draw up a will. If I died tomorrow, then I would want my husband to move on and be happy. However, if he remarried, died and my children left with nothing, I would think this an unacceptable outcome.

Hence, why if I was in your MIL situation, I would be thinking along this line. What happens if my DS dies and DIL remarries? Will my DGC get nothing because of an oversight? I've actually thought about this for my own children (eldest is 6 so I have a while yet), I would love to give them the deposit to help them set up, but no matter how much I like their partner, the idea of them ending up with the lions share of my money would not sit well. If I put myself in your shoes, I would be grateful for my in laws help.

I would never impose conditions as a MIL in the OP's circumstances unless I had serious doubts about the relationship or the behaviour around money of the partner (i.e. gambling) and was supporting a DC financially to leave the relationship

hang on hang on
have I got this straight?
Are you saying that if your DC had a partner who you felt was detrimental to them and you wanted to help them to leave, you'ld do so buy helping them to buy a house together?

*I have already told my DD that we will help her out when she wants to buy a house, but any help will always be structured so the money follows her and her DC, not her DP.

We have told her this early so that when she means the DP she wants to do this with she knows it is not personal.*

I've done this for my DC too - it's just sensible when so many marriages end in divorce. I don't think OP's MIL intended it as a comment on the relationship, but we all know people who have lost everything after divorcing, sometimes more than once. A trust seems like a really good option.

No. Try again.

But what the MIL is suggesting is to enable the OP and her DH to buy a home together…. not really the actions of someone who thinks their DC should make a break for freedom now is it?

I don't think it should be seen as unfair that the partner who puts in more for the initial deposit ( even if gifted from PIL) ring-fences it so that it can be taken out of any profits before the rest is split 50/50 if there is a divorce. My married daughter saved up all the deposit and the solicitor drew up a contract accordingly. Her husband knew they wouldn't be able to buy a house without her savings so didn't mind. My other daughter also provided the deposit ( this time borrowed from her dad) but didn't have it ring-fenced in a contract (against my advice) but luckily got it back when she split with her boyfriend, but it was messy. She now has that money if she wants to buy again plus a bit of profit from the house sale and her ex has an equal bit of profit which he wouldn't have had if they had just rented.

Money and property can often cause problems in families. I think MIL is being sensible, but then I'm a lawyer. I have see many cases in my professional capacity where relationships break up and the parents' gift/inheritance goes to the ex and subsequently the new family, so the GCs miss out.

OP, what would you do if you were going to help your DC with a substantial contribution to a deposit on a house? Wouldn't you want to protect the money for your DC/GCs in case of death or divorce?

I'm not really understanding the ins and outs of how she intends to protect this money, but basically, if she wants to have it legally binding that should you ever split up and sell the house, any equity is divvied up equally after the whole amount of the deposit is returned to DH, yes?

I don't see a problem with that to be honest. How would you feel if you read a post that said

'I have a 50k inheritance and I've decided to buy a house with my new boyfriend. He can pay his share of the mortgage but has no savings to contribute to the deposit. AIBU to ask that if we split, the whole of my intitial investment is returned to me and he gets a half share of the equity only?'

I can't imagine many people having an issue with that, and this scenario is no different.

She is giving her son the gift of money. She is giving you the gift of the opportunity to get on the housing ladder without having to save for years first.. That money only ever becomes real, hard spendable cash if you split, so you are not losing out on something if you split, you never really had it in the first place. If you stay together for life then it will eventually go to your children.

The big difference though is that in this case the OP is married to the DH (whereas some of these counterexamples have referred to partners/boyfriends) and
(a) marriage is a legally binding contract which includes the principle that all worldly goods are shared in common with one another
(b) the OP has given up her job and set aside her career to be a sahp - which is an entirely reasonable thing to do when it is the best option for a specific set of family circumstances. In the most likely scenario that the marriage remains healthy then there is no issue with that choice. That's why so many women take this choice which leads to massive damage to their earning potential. Doing so is a very meaningful statement of confidence in your relationship. The institution of marriage protects those who make such a sacrifice by enshrining the principle that in the event of a split the default position is that all assets are split equally. It is right and proper that the OP's DH should make an equally meaningful statement of confidence in the relationship by not ring-fencing the cash against divorce in this way.

That said - the points about how it can happen that after death or divorce followed by remarriage the assets of the first marriage being diverted to a second family are true. It wouldn't be unreasonable to agree something that will earmark the capital value of the house to be kept for the children of the OP and the DH (whilst remaining under the control of them during their lifetimes) and not allowed to be given or bequeathed to any subsequent partner or future children - but only if such a document was strictly equal and applied just as much to the DH as the OP.

Good post peuk. Not sure people are understanding how the law works when there is a long marriage with a sahm or career compromised for benefit of family spouse. Utterly different scenario than a young unmarried couple buying a house with parental input.

If I were mil I would want you to have life interest trust wills so if Dh died you can use the assets but on your death they go to kids and couldn't go to your new Dh.

I have already told my DD that we will help her out when she wants to buy a house, but any help will always be structured so the money follows her and her DC, not her DP. We have told her this early so that when she means the DP she wants to do this with she knows it is not personal.

This sounds sensible. I think DH and I would like to have a similar conversation with DD when she's old enough and if we are still in a position to help her financially.

I think you need to look at the positives. Your in laws are offering the opportunity to get on the property ladder. There are many people who do not have a parent(s) in this position.

YABU. Why would you be bothered about this?

Our house deposit came from an inheritance I received. DH and I are agreed (and our house is structured as such) that in the event of divorce or death, my original deposit is set aside, then the estate split, and my deposit added back to my share. It's then protected for me or our children.

DH has no issue with this.

I think other costs are often forgotten. Because it's a capital sum people want to protect it but equally the op might have put in just as much, in smaller bits to enable the purchase / rent / living costs. These are iften forgotten and unseen.

Maybe it's his contribution for her being the breadwinner previously.

I think it fair and wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'm onboard with your MIL with this one.

She isn't saying he has to do these things, simply that she wanted him to consider it.

The fact that marriages end in divorce 50% of the time is nothing personal to you, it's just a fact. At the end of the day she is looking out for her son, yet she is still willing to give you a huge sum of money even if he doesn't do what she suggested he mightn't consider.

I think she's a pretty amazing woman with a very sensible and generous head screwed on her shoulders.

We had a situation like this (I was the poorer partner). Although I appreciated my in laws position and supported it at the time, I'd be lying if I said it hadn't impacted on the dynamics of our marriage.

But still overall I'd say my PIL did the right thing, and if they had the chance to do it all again they should still make the same choices. The fact is I entered into a relationship which was economically unequal from the start, and I have had the opportunity to benefit from this in a way I wouldn't have done if I had been in a more economically equal marriage. I just have to take this as the downside from the lucky situation I find myself in and count my blessings.

I would be offended.

My parents gifted my husband and I the deposit for our house and there was no mention of protecting the money etc. They decided to offer it to us and left it up to us how to manage it.

The solicitor asked how we want it to work should we split etc, but as we both pay equal towards the mortgage and household, and that money was a gift to us both, if the worst happened everything would be split equally.

Now l am concerned.
DM died and left quite a considerable sum of money for me and DSis. I decided to give DD1 and her DS money to buy their plot of land . It was out solicitor who suggested a deed of trust-now l am wondering if this is the right thing to do. Their mortgage is in joint names.
I will need to have a talk with them l think as l don't want to create any bad feelings about this.

Sorry you're concerned now inlectorecumbit. I don't quite understand though - you gave your mum's money to your daughter (DD1) and her son (DS) and they have a mortgage together? Do you mean you gave it to her and her partner?

My parents have money towards our deposit and my husband signed a deed of trust without batting an eye lid. We were just happy to receive a chunk of money that helped keep our mortgage payments down.
We are both on the mortgage, both equal contributors. Only thing is if we split and sold, the first chunk goes back to my parents. Fair enough.
I think you sound a bit hysterical. It's not a pre nup, they are protecting their money.
Take it or leave the offer, don't turn it into something it's not, and carry it around with you for the rest of your marriage.

*gave not have