Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

ILs “gifting” home

242 replies

Zingtang · 22/04/2025 22:19

So I’m writing this on behalf of my sister. Shes not a mumnsetter but I told her she would get great advice.

Sister’s ILs are well off. They have offered to buy a home for my sister and her husband. BUT they would want the property in their name in case of divorce. They would charge no rent. Sister has been saving for a house deposit for the best part of a decade. ILs suggest she buys an investment property with her husband if she wants to iwn property.

This is the set up for all the ILs kids who are married. They have had contracts drawn up so they are not turfed out if there was a falling out etc.

Sister is dead set against it. I say why the hell not! She wants a home that feels entirely hers ie she would feel a lodger with this set up.

OP posts:
Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 08:28

Practically it makes sense. They have the money, 50% of marriages end in divorce and they would rather not spend hundreds of thousands of pounds purchasing a home for their son which he could then get less than half the value of down the line.
They are right in that she’s perfectly able to go and buy an investment property if she has the money.
Essentially it’s an opportunity for her and her DH to live rent free which is surely a better position than what they are currently in?

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 08:31

Very unpleasant world view from the in laws that in the event of divorce they want to hang onto their money.

Why is it unpleasant that they would want to keep their money if their son and his wife divorce?

Serriadh · 23/04/2025 08:34

Why don’t they give their son a large deposit and then he and his wife can buy a house in agreed shares - then in the event of divorce they can sell the house and it’s clear who owns what proportion?

The proposed arrangement really skews the (financial) relationship between the husband and wife. She would be mad to put any money into the house beyond basic running costs because she could be turfed out at any point. You can’t go through your whole marriage planning for divorce, it’s really corrosive. Even if her husband pays for everything house-related, it’s still not fair because anything she saves from not paying rent/mortgage is potentially a marital asset and she’d lose some in the divorce (particularly as her husband would have fewer assets on paper because he’ll have ploughed his spare cash into the house but the house is not a marital asset).

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/04/2025 08:34

They are right in that she’s perfectly able to go and buy an investment property if she has the money

This is true, but I notice they'd expect an investment property to be half owned by their son too

That would usually be the norrmal thing to do with a married couple, but here they appear to want so much in "the family's" names and little in the sister's

No thanks

BangersAndGnash · 23/04/2025 08:37

What would happen if they decide to relocate for work and need to sell the house and buy another? As it is not the primary residence of the owners the increase in value would be subject to CGT. They would be liable for another lot of second home SDLT.

And given the likely impact of IHT , 40% of the market value of the house at that point would disappear in tax.

That’s a lot of tax to pay, to avoid housing your grandchildren in the event of divorce.

Lovelysummerdays · 23/04/2025 08:38

I get why it’s a quandary. So your sister could save up which would be a marital asset and split in the event of a divorce but the house would belong to his parents.

I’d probably still go for it but eyes open and I’d be unwilling to pay for upgrades so no new kitchen/ bathrooms. Save money, I think being a buy to let landlord comes with so much hassle. It’s not for me really,

BangersAndGnash · 23/04/2025 08:39

You can’t go through your whole marriage planning for divorce, it’s really corrosive.

This.

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 08:41

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/04/2025 08:34

They are right in that she’s perfectly able to go and buy an investment property if she has the money

This is true, but I notice they'd expect an investment property to be half owned by their son too

That would usually be the norrmal thing to do with a married couple, but here they appear to want so much in "the family's" names and little in the sister's

No thanks

Edited

I don’t think they’re saying it would have to be with the husband, but the reality of the situation is they’ve apparently been “saving” for a decade and still can’t finance a home.

thepariscrimefiles · 23/04/2025 08:41

MeganM3 · 22/04/2025 23:36

I wouldn’t assume it to be controlling. It seems a kind and generous offer to me.
And as for keeping it in their name, I can see why they feel that’s important too - imagine how it would feel to buy your child and their partner a house and for a lot of the money to be taken away from your child in the case of divorce.
But they are offering a free roof over their heads.
Sounds sensible to buy an investment property with all the money saved - which can be an income for her. Sounds like she is very lucky to have this opportunity TBH.
Relationships with in-laws are rarely straightforward anyway. Might as well live in a nice house, if one is on offer.

It's generous to their son, not OP's sister. The whole reason for putting it in their names is so that the spouses of their children don't own any of it.

What happens when home improvements or replacement of expensive items such as a boiler are needed? Why would OP's sister agree to joint money being used to improve an asset that she doesn't own?

It's different owning an investment property than owning your own home. She will either need to become a landlord which would be a pain in itself, or leave it empty, thereby attracting the Empty Homes double council tax.

OP's sister's PILs sound controlling rather than generous.

TheCurious0range · 23/04/2025 08:42

I would take the offer as she's not in a position to buy currently, then save a mortgage amount every month, invest it well. If it becomes a difficult situation at least it's allowed her to save for her own property

Naunet · 23/04/2025 08:44

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 08:28

Practically it makes sense. They have the money, 50% of marriages end in divorce and they would rather not spend hundreds of thousands of pounds purchasing a home for their son which he could then get less than half the value of down the line.
They are right in that she’s perfectly able to go and buy an investment property if she has the money.
Essentially it’s an opportunity for her and her DH to live rent free which is surely a better position than what they are currently in?

Yes she can save all her money and use it to buy an investment property...that her husband can take half of in a divorce.

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 08:46

Naunet · 23/04/2025 08:44

Yes she can save all her money and use it to buy an investment property...that her husband can take half of in a divorce.

Show quote history

Why would they not be saving together?

Livelaughlurgy · 23/04/2025 08:48

What happens if the in laws divorce?

IsItSnowing · 23/04/2025 08:52

I'm with your sister on this. The ILs are already controlling the situation wih their conditions. It's not up to them what she does with her money, they're already sticking their noses in suggesting what she does with it. Who knows what will come later.
It's true when they say, 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. They'll be a price to pay at some point and her ILs will always have a controlling hand in her marriage and her life.
If they're so keen to buy their son a house, let them buy one for him to rent out for income. And she and her husband can buy their own family home. But something tells me they won't want to do that because of the lack of control it gives them.

Naunet · 23/04/2025 08:54

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 08:46

Why would they not be saving together?

Show quote history

You said SHE could buy a place, not both of them. But OK, do we know if he wants to do that? It won't help OP if they split, she'd still have nowhere to go and would only be entitled to half her own savings from this venture (if they haven't had kids).

Naunet · 23/04/2025 08:55

IsItSnowing · 23/04/2025 08:52

I'm with your sister on this. The ILs are already controlling the situation wih their conditions. It's not up to them what she does with her money, they're already sticking their noses in suggesting what she does with it. Who knows what will come later.
It's true when they say, 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. They'll be a price to pay at some point and her ILs will always have a controlling hand in her marriage and her life.
If they're so keen to buy their son a house, let them buy one for him to rent out for income. And she and her husband can buy their own family home. But something tells me they won't want to do that because of the lack of control it gives them.

Exactly this.

ObliviousCoalmine · 23/04/2025 08:56

This is our set up. Family owned home. One partner has invested individually. Works fine as long as nobody has a track record for being a dickhead.

researchers3 · 23/04/2025 08:56

I think your sister should trust her own instincts on this one. There is much potential for this arrangement to go tits up!

No from me.

ilovesushi · 23/04/2025 08:56

Sounds like a very weird set up. Why would they want to exclude their sons/daughters in law? If she does go ahead, she should invest the money she is not spending on a mortgage for herself so she doesn't find herself high and dry one day.

14680345L · 23/04/2025 08:56

I’d say yes but I would want an investment property in just my name with paperwork drawn up so my spouse had no claim to it if we divorced. I would then rent it out and overpay as much as possible so I owned it outright.

Unexpectedlysinglemum · 23/04/2025 08:58

So in her position I would buy my own little home to live in first so I would benefit from no stamp duty and teh government help if she has a LISA etc, then move out into the big house that's been bought and rent out my little home.
Little home will always be good income and somewhere to live in place of divorce.
I wouldn't spend more money on upkeep than I would on a rental property

SerafinasGoose · 23/04/2025 09:00

Naunet · 23/04/2025 08:55

Exactly this.

Show quote history

To me the price isn't worth the potential cost - not even if my in-laws were the best people in the world.

There are too many conditions attached, too much being done on their sole terms, and too much possibility for the souring of relationships.

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 09:00

Naunet · 23/04/2025 08:54

You said SHE could buy a place, not both of them. But OK, do we know if he wants to do that? It won't help OP if they split, she'd still have nowhere to go and would only be entitled to half her own savings from this venture (if they haven't had kids).

Show quote history

I’m really not sure point you are making. If she’s the only one saving they have issues either way and it has nothing to do with the inlaw’s house.
If they divorce now she gets basically nothing because they have nothing.
Half the savings they accumulate from not having to pay rent is a hell of a lot more than she has right now.

FigTreeInEurope · 23/04/2025 09:01

When someone wants to make you their puppet, there are always strings attached.

AprilShowers25 · 23/04/2025 09:02

I wouldn’t do it. Even if you were to live there short term and save up, DH might not want to move out. He might not bother saving and just spend the extra money on luxuries. In laws could kick you out at any point. They could be really opinionated on any decor you choose, make you anxious about any wear and tear. There are too many reasons to list why it is a bad idea.