Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
ShillyShallySherbet · 23/04/2025 09:03

Would they instead buy them an investment property in the ILs name but let them manage it and keep any income? I agree with your sister wanting to buy her own house with her husband and not feel like a tenant of her ILs.

Naunet · 23/04/2025 09:03

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 09:00

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.

Show quote history

Well of course it does! He has a house, he may have no motivation to become a landlord, because he knows he's looked after by his family. If that wasn't the case, he may feel differently.

thepariscrimefiles · 23/04/2025 09:03

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

If OP's sister does this and then divorces, her ex-DH would be entitled to 50% of her property, and because the family home is actually owned by the PILs, OP would get nothing from that. I would assume that after the divorce, the OP's PILs would then put the house in their son's name. So he would have 1.5 properties and OP's sister would have 0.5 properties. That doesn't sound like a great deal for OP's sister.

MaltipooMama · 23/04/2025 09:04

Absolutely not a chance would I give anyone else complete control over such an important decision with terms attached. Buying a home is a very personal choice and to have no free will with it wouldn’t feel right at all. I agree with some PPs that this feels very controlling!

FloatingSquirrel · 23/04/2025 09:04

If it's in their name and they've done the same for his siblings then unless they have a huge amount of savings as well they will likely lose the home to inheritance tax when the parents die.

AprilShowers25 · 23/04/2025 09:04

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 09:00

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.

Show quote history

The DH would have no incentive to save. He gets a free house to live in and presumably a big inheritance coming later on, I predict he would not want to move out and would prefer to splash the extra money on luxuries and holidays.

notsureyetcertain · 23/04/2025 09:05

I’d be tempted particularly if it’s working ok for others. They are not very optimistic for their children’s choices in partners! I’d do it save my mortgage payments in a separate account so I have exit strategy if needed

Ellie1015 · 23/04/2025 09:07

I would do it. And whatever I normally pay in rent or save for deposit I would continue to save on my own. Or buy investment property as ILs suggest.

If after moving in the ILs are too annoying/controlling then move out. I would be happy to try it though.

andtheworldrollson · 23/04/2025 09:07

What happens when the in-laws die? With multiple homes in their names they are likely to be well over an inheritance tax threasholds - they would need to save for that as a minimum

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 09:08

AprilShowers25 · 23/04/2025 09:04

The DH would have no incentive to save. He gets a free house to live in and presumably a big inheritance coming later on, I predict he would not want to move out and would prefer to splash the extra money on luxuries and holidays.

Show quote history

Well they clearly don’t have much motivation to save now anyway since they have no money of their own!

Naunet · 23/04/2025 09:10

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 09:08

Well they clearly don’t have much motivation to save now anyway since they have no money of their own!

Show quote history

From the OP:

Sister has been saving for a house deposit for the best part of a decade

It doesn't say if he's been saving too.

Sofiewoo · 23/04/2025 09:12

Naunet · 23/04/2025 09:10

From the OP:

Sister has been saving for a house deposit for the best part of a decade

It doesn't say if he's been saving too.

Show quote history

In which case she would be no worse off living in a rent free house.

LivingLaVidaBabyShower · 23/04/2025 09:13

AprilShowers25 · 23/04/2025 09:04

The DH would have no incentive to save. He gets a free house to live in and presumably a big inheritance coming later on, I predict he would not want to move out and would prefer to splash the extra money on luxuries and holidays.

Show quote history

This is a fair point actually.

when i look at our friends the ones with rich parents who get "help" with house deposits and have parents paying for GC childcare and private schools do IMO piss money up the wall like its going out fashion vs me and my DH (who earn similar or more).
Like happily buying 3 x £250 shirts on a whim 🥴 summer hols are 15k 😵‍💫

one husband doesnt have ANY pension, not even minimum matched contributions. He opted out of all his company ones because "he won't need it".

On reflection I do think there are complexities/dependancies...
the DH, plans for children and especially the in laws, if they are tricky characters it might be challenging.

Middlechild3 · 23/04/2025 09:13

I'm with your sister. It's horribly controlling of the ILS and do they have a key to pop round when they want as it's their house? No crack on sister and aim for your own marital owned place. If they want to gift something/anything it should come with no strings attached else it's not really a gift. This is their vision not your sister's. It may be in their name but it will go to their son no doubt when they pass. It's purely to stop your sister benefitting in the event of a split and all the implications of that.

Alwaystired23 · 23/04/2025 09:14

I would hate this offer and it'd be a firm no. I agree with others, it's very controlling. Why do the inlaws feel they need to do this? If they cared that much they'd put the house in the couples name? They'd happily see the mother of their grandchildren not get anything if they were to divorce? No equity they would have built up start again? Weird.

queenofthesuburbs · 23/04/2025 09:16

Your SIL should use her savings to buy an investment house but in her own name only; not jointly with her husband.
Caveat… I’m not a family lawyer, but surely otherwise if they were to divorce, she would have no right to the “marital” home and only 50% of the investment house

heroinechic · 23/04/2025 09:17

No I wouldn’t be happy with this arrangement. I wouldn’t settle in a house that wasn’t my own. I also find it quite offensive that the in laws won’t put the house in their name in case of divorce.

When the in laws die it will form part of their estate for IHT/probate purposes. If they require care the houses might need to be sold to pay for it. There’s no security for your sister there and the constant feeling that the in laws have this control over her.

FairKoala · 23/04/2025 09:18

I can understand how she feels

However (NRTWT so apologies if someone else has already picked up on this)

You said your dsis has been saving for a house deposit for years and the in-laws reply was to buy an investment property WITH THEIR DS

Something very off going on. Not only do they want her to live in their house which on a divorce will go back to them/their ds but they also want him to have a share in her savings and investments.
I would be drawing up a contract to say any savings, investments or property she has bought during the marriage are ringfenced, if they divorce and her dh will have to sign it.

Spankmeonthebottomwithawomansweekly · 23/04/2025 09:20

So when the IL's eventually die, who is paying the IHT on the property?

It is also massively stupid of your sister not to have her own footing in the property market. What if the marriage does break down, he's OK, she could be fucked and looking at a property purchase, with kids in tow (or financially worse, not kids for the DH to pay towards), that she will be paying until she's 70 (insert other disaster scenario).

What if they marry and divorce after 25 years, is she a gold digger then.

This is all kinds of wrong and I'd not be buying into the idea myself in that format.

My suggestion is that they buy as tenants in common, the DH family owning xx%, and your sister paying for her part with a mortgage. I would question my DH commitment to the marriage however, but at least a joint purchase that she owns a lot of, means she has some protection.

BangersAndGnash · 23/04/2025 09:20

queenofthesuburbs · 23/04/2025 09:16

Your SIL should use her savings to buy an investment house but in her own name only; not jointly with her husband.
Caveat… I’m not a family lawyer, but surely otherwise if they were to divorce, she would have no right to the “marital” home and only 50% of the investment house

The problem is that in divorce it is very hard to ringfence anything. He would not own the roof over his head so could well end up claiming half the investment property.

ThisIsItNowOrNever · 23/04/2025 09:20

If they are really that well off they would gift the house to you and your partner. Say no but thanks no.

m00rfarm · 23/04/2025 09:21

abracadabra1980 · 22/04/2025 22:34

I agree it seems very controlling by the IL's. I'd feel very uncomfortable about it and would want my own chance to climb the property ladder and earn some equity.

So you think the ILs should spend the money, then if there is a divorce, the house belongs to them 50/50? No. I would not agree to that. I would do what they are suggesting - use the money saved to invest in a rental property. Or a home abroad if that is preferable. Why the hell not? Or at least consider tenants in common with a relevant percentage for your sister.

Spankmeonthebottomwithawomansweekly · 23/04/2025 09:22

BangersAndGnash · 23/04/2025 09:20

The problem is that in divorce it is very hard to ringfence anything. He would not own the roof over his head so could well end up claiming half the investment property.

Show quote history

Yes that's another issue too.

This really isn't going to work. I'd want my DH to be loyal to me first, not the money.

I say this as someone with a DH who has been gifted over 7figures by my IL's and no contract in sight.

Clinicalwaste · 23/04/2025 09:26

There is no such thing as a free lunch and this is not freedom. They will be in charge and if I were her I would not touch this arrangement with a barge pole.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/04/2025 09:26

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

This is the sort of thing I meant about there beingg any number of other ways they could handle a "gift", but as you rightly say they wouldn't offer the same control so probably wouldn't appeal

I also agree with the PP who said why should the DH "save like mad" in a situation where everything would be on his and his family's terms ... and never mind what it could do to the sister if everything goes wrong

Nice try though Hmm

What if the marriage does break down, he's OK, she could be fucked and looking at a property purchase, with kids in tow

Edited to add who says the kids would necessarily be "in tow" if it came to a diivorce?
If the DH's family have so much and the sister nothing they could easily make a case to take the kids too