To wonder if my DIL is a gold digger?

[practicalorparanoid]

My son (28) got married recently. His father, who sadly passed away, and I had built a successful business, so there is significant family wealth involved.

As a wedding gift, I bought my son and DIL a lovely 3 bedroom flat in central London (they gave me a shortlist of 3, then we picked out altogether) so they’d never have to worry about housing, but I kept it in my name. My son also works in the family business, but he doesn’t own any shares in it. He earns a perfectly decent salary (around £50k), although the business could obviously afford to pay him much more if we wanted. The company ownership and the wider family assets are all structured so they stay within the bloodline and can’t be lost in the event of a divorce. Hopefully one day they’ll pass to his children.

I’ve genuinely tried to be a good MIL. I have only ever been complimentary to DIL, I don’t give unsolicited advice, and despite technically owning the flat they live in, I’d never dream of letting myself in or turning up unannounced. As far as I’m concerned, it’s their home.

My son was completely on board with all of this. He was happy to sign a prenup because he felt that if someone genuinely loved him, sensible financial protections shouldn’t be an issue.

The problem is that my DIL seems increasingly unhappy with the arrangements. She’s commented that the flat “isn’t really theirs”, questioned why my son doesn’t own shares in the company, and has said that if he had more access to the family money they could have had more domestic help (they already have a cleaner coming once a week), live a more relaxed lifestyle and she’d be able to stop working and become a SAHM once they have children.

That, to me, is where alarm bells start ringing. They’re living rent-free in a beautiful home that I bought for them, my son has a stable career, and they’re comfortable. Yet the focus seems to be on why they don’t have access to more.

I’m not accusing her of anything outright, but it’s hard not to wonder whether she’s more interested in the wealth than in my son when the main complaints are about not having access to assets that were never intended to be marital property in the first place.

What you are doing is quite controlling OP. If you have gifted DS a generous deposit then he and his wife could have bought their own place and agreed the details such as tenants in common v joint tenants, percentage owned etc between them. But you have hung on to the purse strings. I would dislike this in DIL's position and wish you would give us some money instead.

Well done OP, I think this sounds like a great arrangement and the son and dil should be grateful. Plus, OP has also given him a deposit, he got £80k, which with if they saved too could get them a mortgaged starter home in the home counties if they wanted a house not a flat.

I think both of them need to focus on their good fortune and focus on their careers for the next few years if he got promoted a few times and was on, say £80k she could be a SAHM in a mortgage free property.

And that £80k isn't allowed anywhere near the DIL either

What's his job title to be on such a low wage for London?

Not, going by the OPs mentioning of the bloodline.

This whole situation is a long way from what I understood family, including in-laws, to mean.

And that flat is definitely not a gift, wedding or otherwise. It's a business investment for the OP, who clearly does not regard her daughter in law as part of her family.

Wow! So you were a gold digging SAHM too? Or is just DiL who is a gold digger for wanting to be a SAHM for some reason?

Why doesn’t she look for a job with more career prospects and maximise her earning potential?

In what sense would he be "better off extricating himself from the business and your flat, and starting an independent life with her."?

He doesn't sound very career driven or well qualified. Let's assume he's being paid a market rate for his work and would be able to immediately earn the same elsewhere.

The "extrication" you suggest would mean they'd be earning the same but paying central London rent on a 3 bed flat - let's say £5k a month, instead of living rent free. Also either funding their own property improvements/decorations and little stability about tenancy. So they'd be at least £60,000 pa worse off, and probably not living somewhere they like as much.

How do you think that would be better?

All seems entirely switched on and reasonable to me. You've given her a leg up in life (no rent to pay) and she's complaining...

I agree, I read this thread with interest and it seems very sensible to me. It’s given the Dil an Ds a leg up and opportunity that very few have at a start on marriage. The only thing that concerns me is being a SAHM just a personal opinion. I think working still as a parent is important to keep your own identity and not to mention that money that could be used to build a pension pot too. I couldn’t be reliant on someone for money.

You’ve gifted them rent free accomadation. Most people would be grateful for that. As you say, they can use the ‘rent’ money to save up for a deposit.

How rude. As she explains in the posts, she worked for the business, less when the children were small, and FT when they weren't. She sounds very financially and legally savvy.

DIL on the other hand is married to a man with a job, and she also has a job. But she gets to live rent free through nothing other than the good luck of marrying a man with rich parents.

Not comparable.

It’s not a gift. You own the flat.

Why not ‘gift’ them a flat deposit on somewhere they will be able to afford to buy themselves? Or butt out altogether if you can’t give gifts without strings?

If I was your DIL, I would’ve said that’s a lovely offer, but no thank you.

And the question I’m asking isn’t ’Is your DIL a gold digger’. It’s ’Is your son a bit spoilt, lazy and immature?’

I wouldn’t want to be starting married life living in rich mummy’s flat. His acceptance of this ridiculous fake gift is a bit pathetic.

They'd have autonomy, albeit with less money. I would rather have the former.

I'm still wondering how the son feels about this.

I’ve read your updates Op. I’m slightly more understanding of your point of view. I do think you are very enmeshed eg I don’t understand why you saw the prenup and know your daughter in laws salary. If your son wanted a pre nup that was between him and her and their solicitors.
Reading between the lines your daughter has married well so they were able to buy a nice house with her £80,000 inheritance and then rent your flat out as income. Presumably Son in law higher earner.
Your son is happy ticking along and living in his mum’s flat. If DIL wants to do what your daughter/her friend has done they’ll need to move to a cheap area of country where they can buy a more modest priced property. Presumably all this would have been discussed before they married.

They are living rent free, he’s inherited £80k, they can buy their own place if they want to, invest, retrain, whatever the want to be - nothing stopping them - they are limited by only their own ambition and imagination.

They are in a very enviable position compared with the majority of 28yo newlyweds.

as well as being a stay at home mum she was helping support her husband build a business TOO.

Really dont care if its rude. OP thinks shes a gold digger just because she wants to be a SAHM, despite the fact that SHE WORKS TOO. Whats good for the goose....

What she sounds is controlling and has clearly stated she doesn't see her DiL as family, but I bet she'll start whining about that IF DiL has child and then favours her own mother.

What does "autonomy" mean here?

They can live for free in the place they picked, they can rent it out as her other child does and live elsewhere and keep the income. They could have said "no thanks" to the inheritance and the free house and been £80,000 plus £60,000 per annum worse off.

Where's the lack of autonomy?

DIL's issue isn't that she's been forced to accept free accommodation worth more than she earns a year and she wishes she could go it alone - her issue seems to be that she wants MORE free stuff. Isn't that how you read this?

Relationships with such biased power dynamics are hard to keep. In trying to protect your families interest in the case of divorce you are setting them up in relationships that are more likely to end up in divorce.

My partners family are wealthier than mine and they did buy a house that we rented off them. It was a fixer-upper and we did a lot of the work ourselves with them paying but it was always their house and felt like their house. We were incredibly grateful as it provided a roof over our heads and the lower than market rent meant we could save for our own house. We which we did as soon as we were able we had choice over decor in the original house but we knew that they would also have to like it. We were a lot bolder with our choices once we owned the property and my in-laws said they were concerned before they had seen it but they did like the finished room.

If my friend was in this situation I'd be telling her to run for the hills or to persuade her husband it's time to be a person in his own right, stop living in mummy's house on the promise of something to come. I would categorically telling them not to have children in this relationship and definitely not becoming a SAHM. A marriage is a union, it is bringing the other person into the fold of your family and the message you are sending to your DIL is she fine as a visitor but don't get too comfortable.

I have been with my partner now for 20 years, civil partnered for 3 years and any financial gifts from my PILs have been addressed to both of us. We didn't get a prenup but we do have a deed of trust for our very unequal deposits. As we have owned these houses and benefited from the increase in house prices and being able to move up the ladder. Aside from the initial deposit subsequent deposits have been equal and our relative share of our current house is not so biased.

Every company I have worked for, as well as my father and sister, have had shares as part of the package. In my last company they gave share options as part of the welcome package. Due to the skill set of the company most employees were 25-40. I guess she is just looking to the future, she is trying to see what their life might be like over the next 3-5-10 years to see whether that life is one where children could come into it.

The phrase "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing" springs to mind. You are valuing the retaining of family finances ahead of your relationships with your son and daughter in laws as well as the relationships between you children and their spouses. You not hearing that your other children and spouse's finding the set up controlling is not the same as them not finding it controlling

Yes, she definitely shouldn't complain if giving up work.
I can see her side in that I wouldn't want my house to just be my husband's. But then, I can see MIL's point that if they divorce (sadly not uncommon) she shouldn't walk away with all that money.
I think in this situation, it would be better for OP to let them buy/rent their own place and give them money per month (if that's legal-and I'd get legal advice). That way you're helping them, but she is only helped for the time she's with him, if she is that sort of woman.
It's sad that more women seem to be like this now (I know some of the TikToks about women saying they want everything provided for them while they just get botox and nails done all day are joking, but they're not all), as most of my friends always wanted to work. I hope my daughter doesn't grow up to be one of these, and that my son doesn't find one.

She mentioned bloodline to differentiate between those born (and perhaps adopted) into the family, and those that married into it. The DIL has had no part in building the wealth, so why should she, in the event of divorce, have any entitlement to it? Like I said, if the DIL wants assets then she’s been given a fantastic opportunity to obtain her own.

And that’s fine. Families operate in many different way, financially and otherwise. You’re not in their family, so you don’t need to either understand or like it, any more than anyone else needs to understand or like how you operate yours.

It’s a gift of hundreds and thousands of pounds of rent they would otherwise have had to pay. It’s the freedom to build their own assets without that major financial burden. It’s all the opportunity that living in central London provides. I’m not sure how that’s ’not a gift’.

The kids had no part in building it either

They would be free to live a life free of a woman who clearly sees her son's wife, her DIL as not being part of the family, or, as she puts it 'the bloodline.'
Given that the son is barely mentioned, I'm assuming he is happy to accept that.

They’re not 100% legally enforceable. Generally if they are fair and recent, signed by witnesses and both parties had independent legal advice the court will uphold the contract. However the marriage contract is considered to overrule the prenup when it comes down to the legality.

Additionally, within 5 years they are generally considered out of date. After every child, change in income, property purchase etc they become stale. So unless you re-sign a new updated one every 5 years and after every major life change they are often ignored by courts and seen as out of date.

If it’s considered completely unfair at any point then it’s usually thrown out too. Especially if children are involved.