To not want to contribute to a house not in my name?

[Kate8889]

Before we got married or engaged, DH and were living in his small condo for 6 months.

His parents offered to buy us a house so we could have more room, a street away from them that had just gone on sale.

I didn't see anything terribly wrong with this, but now I wish we'd gotten a mortgage and done everything ourselves.

We have two children together (genetically his but not mine due to needing IVF and egg donor, probably not relevant) and if my husband passes the house goes to me, but I have been contributing here and there for repairs, like a new roof and a new door to the sunroom. I also pay my share of utilities/food/real estate taxes etc.

I just feel like I'm investing in something that I realistically have no rights to (at least at this point), although my husband points out we don't have a mortgage and so I'm able to save more because of that.

Every time I ask when I can get my name put on the deed for my own feeling of safety, he says something non-committal.

We have been married since 2021. Am I being ungrateful and unreasonable?

The OP said that she would be receiving 50% of any profit made on the house. So she does need to contribute towards repairs and upkeep.

But you're not paying rent... not sure what rents are like in the US but in the UK you could easily be paying 1000 per month as your share in rent for a family home. The interest on a mortgage could also run in excess of 1000 per month.

I'm guessing the roof is good now for another 15 - 20 years so cost would work out over 20 years at 600 per year.
You seem to be thinking 'small picture' about your situation.

I'm finding it hard to believe that your husband owns the house and can will it to you but at the very same time the trust owns it so he can't put your name on it. I think it is likely that one of these positions is not true and you might need legal advice to find out which.

If your husband won't make you a joint owner I would put pressure on him for you to both buy a house in the usual way with a mortgage. You in-laws seem to have robbed you of the opportunity to build a family home and security for yourself. Lots of posters are saying "you live for free" but for most people a life goal is the security of owning their own home rather than living for free off someone else with no security.

I live in the US, and worked in the legal field for 45 years. Bottomline, spend a few hundred dollars and get a consultation from an attorney on where you truly stand as to rights of the home. He can say it goes to you should he pass, but the Trust may say something else.

Get paperwork together. Copies of your wills, the trust if you have access to it, the deed from the City as to who the house is registered to, etc. Also compile a list of questions for the attorney. By coming prepared with copies of everything it saves you money as the attorney can obtain some of it, but will charge youfor time, etc. A few hundred spent now can give you a piece of mind now, and let you know where you stand.

I understand your frustration. What is he paying for in regards to the house? Does he split utilities, pay part of the real estate tax, part of the roof, upkeep, etc. Just because the house is supposedly his via a trust doesn't necessarily mean he should put the burden on you to fund repairs and upkeep. Keep track of your contributions and receipts. That's a given in just owning a house. They can be relevant when filing taxes, and/or selling a home. Depending on how the trust is written it may never be "owned" by your husband or you. Trusts can be difficult to change depending on how tgeir written. Meaning the home may not be outright "yours" if something happens to him, but will be kept in trust for the children with you as Trustee. Again, if you can access a copy of the trust, it will be helpful when meeting with an attorney. Trusts are advantageous for a variety of reasons. They protect assets, can be beneficial in regards to taxes, inheritance, etc. The fact that he's not forthcoming and has not shared the conditions of the trust would be a red flag for me. Even if you chose to have separate finances there should be a commmunal pot for daily life. I understand there's reasons some chose to be separate, but it needs to be openly discussed.

Also discuss with the attorney anything you should consider if you did buy a rental. You shouldn't be regularly taking time off work to deal with a property unless you buy something that isn't sound, and now may boy be a good time with two small children, but keep it as an option for the future.

You said it was paid for by a loan from his parent's trust. So is this loan amortized at all or what? Presumably he is making some sort of repayments to the loan from the trust? If so, then in theory he is building equity in the house, no?

He may claim you are getting "free rent" but given that you are married, then your payments towards any marital expenses are also, by nature, contributing towards whatever equity he is building up in the home via his repayments to the family trust. He may be repaying the trust out of "his" funds but if you pay the same amount towards groceries in lieu of that, then you are also contributing to the repayment, Money is fungible so a dollar paid by you towards groceries could just as easily be accounted as having paid towards the repayment. But, in his mental framework, you are not building any equity yourself, even though you contribute to the family and the house. If, should you divorce, you only get 50% of the increase in sale price, then your payments towards the house are not being recognized in the home's equity at all. For example, if you input 10000 into the new roof, and then divorced, then HE is the one who would get the financial benefit if your contribution. Your contributions towards maintenance and remodeling should be recognized in your equity in the home. There should also be some sort of amortization schedule to reflect that half of "his" payments towards his family's loan are ALSO payments by you, and your increases in this equity should be listed somewhere, and you should receive that back if you ever divorce.

It's nice that you're in his will, but wills can be changed. From where I sit, it looks like he fleeced you.

Thanks for your reply, OP.

You do not have to feel grateful in the slightest. They promised one thing and delivered another which is greatly to your detriment. Personally, I'd be bloody furious and demanding that the family move to a house where both your names are on the deeds as equals.

Buying another house and renting it out is not the same. For starters, if you were buying as a couple, both your incomes would be going towards it and you would have shared goals. You also aren't in a position to do this owing to your work. Also, you may not feel you have shared control over your living space, as it is solely in his name.

This living situation doesn't work for you, so you need to work together to create a living situation which suits you both. Not just him and his controlling, greedy parents, who are driving wedges between you. I'd be looking to go no contact - they have no respect for you as his wife and partner. All this has been done to ensure you can't get at their money. Don't forget that.

I really don't know the details other than the gains from the trust are going to pay off the loan? But the end result is the house is paid off and I and my husband are putting in for repairs/updates/taxes/upkeep

I find it really interesting how different the views are on this situation.

And if she was on the deed then she could rest assured that the cost of the roof to herself would be 600 over 20 yrs. But she's not on the deed, so as it stands, she has dumped 12K of her savings into someone else's house.

"I really don't know the details other than the gains from the trust are going to pay off the loan? But the end result is the house is paid off and I and my husband are putting in for repairs/updates/taxes/upkeep"

Who owns the trust? Who owns the loan? Who is paying whom?

The thing is, the 12k on the roof will have added 12k to the value of the house.
If DH has done the same then the 50:50 split of the increased value is fair.
Each 12k is an investment.

The important thing is these costs are split 50:50 as the value increase will also be split 50:50.

OP needs to invest the money she is saving by not having to pay a mortgage or rent.

I also think you've got a good deal OP. The best thing you can do is ensure you are saving - invest in your pension or a similar long term plan. Take the value of what you would have been paying toward a mortgage, because that's what you are saving. Get clarification from your husband that you will be able to keep these savings as it's a fair exchange for the security you have given up by not being a home owner.

If he has misled you about putting your name on the deeds then he has probably misled you about the position should he die

I thought we'd established that she would be entitled to half in the event of death or divorce? Bases covered, I thought?

OP, could you and dh have got a big enough mortgage to buy the house without his parents' help?

If you were going to buy a house jointly with your dh (without his parents' help), would you have chosen that specific house, which is a street away from his parents?

If the answer to both questions above is No, then you were misled into the current arrangement because his parents wanted their son's family in that particular house/location whilst gifting the property to their son and cutting you out. You could have said no and put paid to their plans and hence they needed a way to get you to accept it.

Unless you do as @YesItsMe44 and consult an attorney with a copy of the trust, there is no guarantee that the property will belong to your dh as opposed to the trust or that it will be his to bequeath to you in a will. Even if it becomes his once paid off, he can change the will at any time without telling you. That is why it is so easy for him to say it will be yours on his death. Even if he lied, he would be dead and there would be no consequences for him!

The minute a family trust is involved, it is most likely set up to preserve money within the family from divorcing spouses, taxes and feckless children. I cannot believe his parents would be happy for the entire house to be yours on his death when you did not contribute to the purchase.

The fairest thing for your inlaws to have done is to lay it out to you and dh straight at the outset and get it properly documented. House in both names but to ringfence the initial deposit paid by the inlaws so that it always belongs to dh/trust. You will then legally be entitled to split the upside with your dh, with both contributing to paying off the mortgage, rather than the trust. That way, you have a way of building up equity in the house jointly.

This might not work in the US. I think you need legal advice.

Some of the views on this thread are horrid. People calling her a cocklodger or a parasite, do you think she’s just living it up in the house doing nothing? She has 2 under 5, believe me, she’s paying her way. Even a live-in nanny gets free lodgings! Families should be a partnership and the PIL here have created a set up that will drive you apart. Tell him he has 2 options - get your names on the dead or move to a property you both own together. If he won’t do either, you know you aren’t with a partner who respects you and the contribution you play to your family life.

OP, the most practical solution is to use the money you save on rental and mortgage to regularly invest in a low cost index fund, perhaps in your 401K.

Personally, I am with your mum about not wanting the hassle and cost of managing a rental property. Equities give good upside and with a long horizon you can ride ups and downs without monitoring it much.

the live in nanny wouldn’t if it was her own kids. What’s wrong with you. Giving birth doesn’t give you an entitlement to be paid for all your days,

That's because you are asking a bunch of strangers on the Internet about a complex piece of law.

99% of the posters on here are not qualified to give you an informed opinion, and the few that DO understand the relevant piece of law don't have enough information to advise you.

Actually, for hundreds of years that’s exactly how marriages did work. Women gave their husband’s heirs by having children, cared for those children, managed the home, did the housework, supported the husband’s work and livelihoods, and all the other unpaid labour required to keep a family going, in exchange for protection, financial security and a roof over their heads.

Yet now, a load of women who would no doubt call themselves feminists are claiming that the hell of pregnancy, the labour of feeding and caring for children (potentially putting back their careers in the process), and all the other work that this woman is no doubt doing alongside the actual job she has isn’t worth a penny in a civilised modern marriage? Have we slid so far into the depths of individualist hell? Women literally cannot catch a break.

Yes she needs to protect herself financially because these so-called family members are not on her side. But if you think she’s a parasite because she isn’t paying into a home she was never given an opportunity to have a stake in - while otherwise performing all the unpaid labour of a household with two young children - you are just creating yet more sticks to beat women with.

Wow, fancy being married! Wow!

We all used to send kids up the chimneys too. The world moves on. For the better, and we don’t have kids to give our husbands heirs. We have kids as we want to. And we don’t do it for the money.

Really and truly though you both should be paying equal amounts to the upkeep of the property and improvements should be paid by him as he is the owner. You need to pay half of all utilities and food etc and the investing a large part of the remainder to ensure that if anything other than death happens, you are able to survive. I understand the trust position with regard to ownership of the house because that’s the point of a trust really but it definitely leaves you in a vulnerable position and paying more than you should imo. He needs to maintain the house he owns too it’s not just down to you.

These are interesting opinions but until you understand the terms of the trust and of how the property has been paid for, then I think it's not helpful to you. If I were in this situation, I think my feeling would be: "maybe it's fair to me, maybe it's not, but since I haven't seen the full paperwork, I don't know either way. I am a human being, not a child nor your chattel, so I don't appreciate being kept in the dark about the specific ownership of the marital home (my home), and about what is the legal status of MY savings that are being sunk into the upkeep of this home. So either I get full information or our marriage has a big problem."

This approach does not put OP in a fair position. On divorce her DH will be entitled to half of those savings. Unless they as a family are putting all money saved on rent/mortgage payment into savings, OP's financial situation will not be as good as if she refused the free lodging and insisted they bought somewhere together.