In-laws want their deposit back

[ArnosLeach]

I married 5 years ago and I have a three and a half year old and a nearly nine year old from a short lived relationship.

Full background as I am anticipating the questions I would want answering.

The nine year old sees their father once a month for a weekend. I assume that my ‘ex’ owns his house. He had a vasectomy before our child was born. We do not communicate on any level other than if arrangements need to change. He pays a set amount every month but every month will buy shoes/clothes etc.

We moved into the house my husband had bought fifteen years before. It has doubled in value. Following a miscarriage last year we are trying to conceive again and we are looking to move house. We mentioned this to the in-laws a fortnight ago. I did not know that they had provided DH with deposit.
They have now asked for twice the deposit back comprising the original sum and the proportion of what that deposit has added to the value.

They feel that my elder child will benefit from their largesse. We are both completely gutted by this. A bolt out of the blue.

The more I think about this and the more comments I read I think I do have a bit of sympathy for the in-laws; but don’t condone how they’ve handled it. Previous poster is correct that the husband has paid 15yrs of the mortgage himself, and when the new house is purchased the wife automatically becomes liable to half (as DH could have opposed a 50-50 split of current house if they were to divorce when living in that house). My friend had it written into her mortgage that her partner paid the deposit (as did I, did a tenants in common mortgage) - though now she’s paid 90k (3 times the deposit) on an extension and is debating having that made clear legally when mortgage is renewed. I personally wouldn’t feel right having a joint mortgage and suddenly liable to receive 50% equity on a house I’d paid very little towards given most of the equity was achieved before you got together. I’d recommend my husband had a much bigger share and take a tenants in common mortgage. That’s 100% what most posters would advise if I posted right now and said I owned my house before I got married and had x amount equity.

That would help appease the in-laws as then the deposit and equity is more weighted towards their son. I can imagine this is what they are worried about and taking the step child out of the situation I’d probably feel the same if it was my child. The way they’ve handled it is totally wrong, but i imagine they think that your child will receive a double inheritance one day, so therefore benefiting more than their biological grandchildren. I wouldn’t be demanding the money back, that’s wrong and it was clearly a gift. But if they suggested you wrote wills that sorted this out then I don’t think it’s totally crazy to do this. Hopefully that would resolve the issue. They might have no problem with the step child but just feel their hard earned cash should be for their biological family only. I can see their point though wouldn’t act act like they did

My in laws have no idea that I earn 2/3 of what DH earns.

and if they did and were inappropriate enough to mention it, I’d point out it’s because of 2 mat leaves and working hours around those babies.

it doesn’t say why OP earns less. It doesn’t really matter though. She could earn the same or more and her in laws would still behave this way as they don’t like her or her daughter.

I would pay them the 80k back and never speak to them or of them again. I brought 'baggage' as the eldest child has so cruelly been described on here to my marriage. My Husband's parents have never treated her as anything less than a longed for grandchild and valuable part of their family.

@PS92 I get what you're saying, but really it’s none of their business what happens to monies given to their DS or his siblings.

For instance, had DH been unable to conceive naturally and they’d gone down the IVF route, perhaps used donor sperm - would ILs be justified in getting antsy about where ‘their’ inheritance goes and excluded non-biological but legally his children from their will? I hope not but I wouldn’t be surprised.

If DH’s siblings get divorced at any point, lose half their assets - or more if court awards potential ex wives a larger share to purchase a home for their children, or even if they are offered their homes in a settlement - would they have any standing in court proceedings to have their gift deducted? Nope.

I think this has been triggered by OP/DH saying that they are looking to move and reveals an unacknowledged prejudice towards single mothers/divorcees that may be routed in their catholic heritage.

I think because her name is likely not on the current deeds, ILs assumed that she had no claim on his home in divorce or upon his death. However, as his wife, even if he dies intestate, she’d get 300k or so and the rest would go into a trust for his children (but not the child from his first marriage, though); in a divorce she would likely get a decent settlement, but clearly that is not an issue for the OP.

However, if they now buy another house and her name goes on the deeds, then in the event of his death, she gets it all and can distribute the assets during her life and upon her death as she sees fit (ie, she could share evenly between all her children). I think this latter is their fear. And is deeply unkind. They are at perfect liberty to set up trusts and apportion their own assets for their grandchildren directly - and exclude the step child who may get an equivalent gift from paternal grandparents/father (or not).

They have absolutely no rights over the money they gifted DH or his siblings, unless at the point of gifting it they requested it be put aside for any children and put this in writing (which would be unlikely and bloody daft as none of them had children at that point). I really hope OP’s DH reads his parents the riot act and reduces contact with his parents until such time as they proffer a sincere and heart felt apology. I also hope his siblings are equally horrified - but there is the chance they feel the same way if they are devout catholics or more aligned in their values than OP’s DH, who has clearly pissed them off by not marrying some vestal virgin. 🤦🏽‍♀️

My DH and I helped my hubands DS and DIL buy their home and we put it in writing and it was witnessed plus it stated if DS died we'd want the money back. It's all above board. What you IL's are doing is day light robbery. If it was a gift and nothing in writing they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Good luck.

They are married and so I don't think he could successfully oppose splitting the current house proceeds in two in future even if they stayed there because they have a child together and plan to have another one. OP will have contributed to the mortgage either financially or by looking after his children so he could work.

If the loaned the money they should have had a legal charge on the property. If they gifted it tough - did the put the gift in writing? Bear in mind tax implications. How would they record gifting them being paid back plus uplift from a property sale. If the property is not in their name, how do they record the windfall on their tax returns? If it was a gift with reservations then your DH should have paid them interest…. If previous posters haven’t suggested thIs, first thing to do is get legal tax advice; and your in laws should too.

and again if others haven’t said, have to state this for tax reasons - if something dreadful happened and in laws died - the gift would be included in the estate for IHT if within 7 years of gifting.

As others have said, they cannot just ask for a documented gift back. And unless there is paperwork to say so, they can’t ask for the uplift on the sale price unless they are joint owners. And if they are they will need to pay CGT on the uplift. Maybe that will make them think twice?

If it was a gift, why would he even think to offer it back ? And why is it dishonest of him not to mention it specifically to the OP - it was a long time ago, and the fact that he didn’t demonstrates that it was given as a gift. And, as previously mentioned, the mortgage lender will have verified it, so there will be a record as to whether it was given as a gift or a loan to be repaid.

Tell your husband to tell them they will get back only what they loaned as no interest was mentioned ina written contract.

Of course he can, marriage isn’t an auto 50-50 like a joint mortgage. Ex partner of mine got 90% of the house. It depends on the situation, you don’t just marry someone and be entitled to 50% of the house immediately. That’s all agreed in the divorce and why it’s important for parents to be married or else it’s a straight 50-50 split

@ArnosLeach - their attitude to your eldest is truly shocking. It’s disgusting. My mum remarried when my sister and I were adults. My step-brother and I both went on to have children. All the grandchildren were treated equally. No-one fussed about who was a step. Your child is part of their family now. Have they not worked that out?

Full background as I am anticipating the questions I would want answering.

The nine year old sees their father once a month for a weekend. I assume that my ‘ex’ owns his house. He had a vasectomy before our child was born. The nine year old sees their father once a month for a weekend. I assume that my ‘ex’ owns his house. He had a vasectomy before our child was born

A bit beside the point but how did you conceive when your ex had had a vasectomy?

What would be the point of paying them back? I would keep the money and still never speak to the devils.

@notthatthis that works too.

Obviously she didn't. The vasectomy was after conception and before the birth.

Reading comprehension is just getting worse.

Except it was a gift, the same gift given to the other siblings who haven't been asked to pay it back

Agree. I’d give them zero back. Nasty manipulative pair. I wouldn’t want them around my kids either.

Agree with this

The problem is, we are assuming that when the OP came to the marriage, she was a penniless single mother who got rich quick and who since the marriage hasn’t contributed a single penny into their joint asset.

Many single mothers actually do have equity, they work and those that marry men like the DH in the OP tend to be the primary carers of their joint subsequent children together in the early years, allowing the DH to enhance his career promotion and maximise his earning potential with minimal physical family caring responsibilities. This is an indirect contribution to the joint equity and in law this is recognised when a couple splits and their assets divided.
Also the OP will possibly one day bring her own inheritances to the family, benefiting the DH’s parents’ biological grandchildren, as they will tend to be passed down.
So I think it’s ridiculous for the grandparents try and somehow disinherit the non biological grandchild, if that’s their intention. Had the DH never met the OP, who knows what he would have done with the house? He might have sold it much earlier, before it increased in value, spent the proceeds and gone abroad.
I wonder if they are just being greedy? It sounds like not all the siblings invested the $80K in property.

@CleansUpButWouldPreferNotTo I'm just not sure I could do it, certainly not without a conversation with my children at least. Inheritance is way too emotional to disinherit someone because of the amount they might get elsewhere.

Also I'm not sure there are original wishes to honour in this scenario, it's just a discussion based on what a PP said as I was wondering how she felt about her half sister not inheriting from their mum

I meant he might not be able to successfully oppose the house being split 50:50 if they divorced. If it was many years down the line and they had two children together do you really think the fact he bought the house before the marriage would mean it wasn't a marital asset? It's not as if he owned it outright without a mortgage.

Reading some books other views and some sympathising with in laws. My DM talked about her Will based on wealth of children and grandchildren (potential wealth maybe), I told her in life we don’t know who will marry someone with family money, who might win lottery or premium bonds, who might have a lucrative career… who might divorce. Just give equally to your family and let them make their choices.

Also a bit concerned that some think a mother is not working for a period maybe didn’t obviously contribute so she has no right to expect her DH to share?

When a parent, male or female, stays home to care for children, they are still equals, unless going back in time. Earning power should not determine things. DH & I took out life insurance when we became parents - to pay someone to look after children, clean, iron, cook, garden, look after finances, etc would have cost DH £25,000 minimum at the time.

I’m talking about if they divorced right now he wouldn’t be giving half his house away, not automatically anyway, and that’s why his parents haven’t said anything until news he’s about to buy another house. His parents know that the new house will be 50% owned and so that’s why they’ve now suddenly kicked off. Until now they probably think because he owned the house for 15yrs and probably paid a good chunk off (giving it was 300k and he had 80k from his parents and perhaps some of his own deposit too) that chances are their son would get most of the house and have to buy out her share. It changes completely if both of the mortgage for the new place and buying it together in their eyes.

I’m not saying they are right in how they’ve handled it but if it was the reverse situation i think the advice would be a bit different. Woman owns her own house, a good 2/3 probably paid off and she marries a man with a child already. Should his son benefit the same as her future children given her mother paid almost 1/3 of the deposit. There’s plenty of ways of ensuring the parents contribution goes to their biological children only if they look into it. They’ve gone about it the wrong way but I can see their point (and I say this as someone how bought a house with someone and I had a child already before this). If his parents had donated a large sum I wouldn’t have been massively offended if they wanted to ensure their bio grandchildren alone benefitted. I mean that will happen anyway when their grandmother dies as my son won’t receive any inheritance like their siblings who plan to benefit hugely (likely to be a very large deposit for a house in future).

I read it that the vasectomy took place after conception and before birth !!

@ArnosLeach

I think they're being really shitty, but one thing I don't understand. If I have your 'timeline' right, you and DH do have a child together, a 3 year old. So why are they asking for the whole deposit (+interest) back when there is ONE biological grandchild involved?

Not that I'd give them a red cent, but shouldn't they only be asking for half the deposit (+ 1/2 interest) since one biological grandchild will 'benefit' from the deposit?

Personally, I'd tell them to go swivel. The money was a gift and that's that. Once a gift is given the giver loses all control of the money and has no say in how it's used. I just don't understand how people can be so ugly.