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.

Someone asked how I feel about her being a SAHM… (sorry, can’t find who it was!)

I think that’s entirely a decision for the two of them. If they decide that one of them should stay at home because it makes sense for their family, then I have no issue with that at all.
What I don’t think is my responsibility is to fund that decision through family wealth. If they can afford for one of them to be a SAHP based on their own incomes and the life they’ve built together, then that’s wonderful. If they can’t, then that’s simply part of the financial trade-offs every couple has to make.

We can assume they both accepted it can't we, given that DIL is living in (and organising renovations of) the rent-free house? Given that she "questioned why my son doesn’t own shares in the company" and she "said that if he had more access to the family money they could have had more domestic help"?

Which part of that says to you that DIL wants to live a life free of OP and her money?

Surely you agree that, if OP is accurately stating the facts about the above, DIL wants less autonomy and more reliance on the free money?

Fwiw on a personal level I pretty much agree with you, I don't think I would want to be in DIL's position, not least because nepo babies turn me off. But she is not us. She wants the free money, and more still.

Quote from Superscientist above

"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."

That says it all OP.

I've now read all your posts and actually, I'm less unhappy with what you're doing. The question is whether this has been clearly spelled out to her as a standard practice within your family, already done for 2 of your children, and now the third and in time, the fourth.

Also, as your Ds is not even 30, and works in marketing, £50k doesn't seem like such a low salary after all.

I think that someone needs to have a conversation about this. As your DD is friends with her, she seems like the obvious person to do it - talk about her own experience and how her and her husband have handled it and been able to build wealth of their own. if yor DIL wants to be a SAHM down the line, then that's something her and your Ds will need to figure out. Arguably, assuming his salary continues to increase, and with zero housing costs, they could live off that , albeit not at a high level. But they're still young so the priority really should be on finding ways to build their own wealth - saving for a deposit on a small property they could rent out, for example.

DS is completely happy with the arrangement. All of my children have grown up understanding that sensible financial planning isn’t something to be embarrassed about, it’s just common sense. They all have wills, all of the married ones have prenups, and none of them see that as a reflection on their marriages.
He’s also seen family friends go through extremely expensive divorces where assets that had been in the family for years ended up being split. He has no desire for that to happen to him.

"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."

This bit stands out to me. The son is being paid a low salary and presumably putting up with it because he hopes to inherit the business one day. But you are planning to pass on the business in such a way that your DIL will not benefit financially. So if she becomes a SAHM, even though this will facilitate your DS's work, she will not be able to benefit financially from any increase in the family assets that her unpaid labour facilitates. She will therefore be in a more vulnerable position in the event of divorce if she does have kids with this guy and takes on primary childcare responsibilities than if this arrangement was not in place.

I would be unhappy in her position, both for this reason and for the cold and calculating nature of how she is being dealt with.

This!

You've set up your son's life so his life partner will never be able to build anything with him

It's alright to say she could monthly on her own... but that would be her, not them!

I imagine it all sounded wonderful, very generous, very kind of you until she realised that you have effective removed her from the partnership of her marriage and taken on much of the financial partnership with your son, her husband

You have effectively told her she is your brood mare

Ok? OP and her husband don’t have to give it to their children either. They choose to.

@hydriotaphia £50,000 for a marketing role in London at 28 is not a low salary.
Do you think it would be better to pay him more than a market rate? Would that help him learn about hard work (the sort that made his parents rich)? Would it be fair on the other employees who work harder, have higher qualifications, to get paid less than the boss's son? Not to mention that those employees probably don't go home to a big free flat in central London their mum bought them.

I can see that your DIL may struggle with the level of enmeshment here.

But think the approach to the company shares at least is very sensible. If these were in the son’s name, they likely become a marital asset. If the son were to get divorced, either he would have to buy out part of their value or his ex wife ends up holding a stake in the company. The value which would need to be transferred to the ex wife on divorce would be very unpredictable and could be large (as shares change in value over time and are difficult to value and the percentage the ex wife would take on divorce depends on the situation and possibly a court decision at the time). In extremis, a divorce involving shares in a family business in these circumstances can put the whole business and therefore its employees at risk.

And I also think it’s absolutely right not to artificially inflate a family member’s salary in a family business - it’s unprofessional and risks affecting the morale of other employees if they find out.

OP, was there an alternative option? If your son and DIL had not wanted to live in a family property, what would you have done then?

I don't know about marketing in particular, but £50k is to me an oddly low salary for someone coming from a background of privilege who has presumably had access to good schooling, university and other opportunities. I bet he wouldn't be so relaxed about working for £50k a year if he wasn't standing to inherit.

In London he could be on a lot more than that in marketing at his age. He may feel tied to the company so he’s not willing to leave to make more… this then impacts the wife.

They don’t choose to… they haven’t given them it. They’ve let them live in property OP owns, paid him a salary for work he does. No shares, no extra money bar a small inheritance after dads death, no assets.

In my experience, marketing is actually fairly full of privately educated but reasonably "relaxed" (lazy) employees who went to excellent schools and mediocre universities.

In my line of work (law) there's probably at least as many public school 'graduates' in the marketing dept as in the law trainee scheme, but the work ethic, brain power, and earning potential of the latter group is much higher.

Surely you don't believe that having rich parents and going to a posh school should guarantee you a high salary when you're an adult?

[ETA - of course there are also lots of very good, competent, marketing professionals!!]

I'm sure if he was worth more to the company he'd be paid more. The fact he's not indicates he wouldn't get more elsewhere. Not every child of a successful business couple is good at business.

The OP's DIL should take huge advantage of her good luck and ask the OP's advice in how to maximise her savings, rather than moan about not being given enough.

I would be extremely grateful to be able to live rent free. If they are unhappy with the situation or are feeling controlled they can move somewhere else and pay rent. DiL is right that the property is not hers but they could spend the next couple of years to save like mad to get a deposit together for their own place. Not many young people have an opportunity to move out of home and not spend 75% of their income on rent.

I think there are two sides of this, on one had what feels prudent from OP’s position on the other hand DIL must have been made to feel unwelcome and she was like a threat. I can imagine in most relationships Op would become a point of contention, I would be deeply hurt if I felt my mother in law was treating me like a gold digger (Dh didn’t have any gold to dig so it would have been pretty hilarious)

I would suggest that if you are wealthy enough to buy a property outright in london that perhaps handing it over with the potential to lose half of it is a better option if it means a happier marriage than trying to maintain control over money so tightly that you damage your relationship with your son. Theres a point where sensible planning stops and you introduce paranoia and suspicion into dealings with a couple.

Why did you not just include the property inside the prenup so that your son could retain possession of it in the event of a divorce if no children are involved? If children were involved it would be the decent thing to make sure your grandchildren are comfortable regardless of how you feel about their mum.

I completely understand not handing over shares to your son just because. It’s reasonable for that to happen when he makes a significant contribution to the company but I suspect you intend for this to happen when you are dead.

Yes, so that proves my point. If her children, that also didn’t build
it, don’t have a claim to it, why would they want a DIL to?

They could have chosen not to provide a job or property, so it was generous of them to do so. They may give their children more access in future, or they may not. That’s up to them. Their business, their…uh, business.

It’s funny, if she’d have just given it to her son he’d likely be called every type of spoilt entitled brat, yet because she hasn’t she’s mean. What she’s done is entirely normal in wealthy circles, as alien as it may be to those that have no experience of this. Her children are onboard with this, and her DIL and SIL knew what the deal was well before they married. The SIL is at least taking advantage of the opportunities he has been given and is building assets jointly with his wife. The DIL however, just wants things given to her.

If the set up she explicitly agreed to doesn’t actually suit the DIL she is free to walk away with what she walked in with.

I wonder how much choice the DIL in the pre-nup.

Is £50K really a good wage for marketing? In London? I’m a little younger than OP’s son, I have a few close friends working in marketing and comms in London. We are all from a deprived state school background with no leg-up, and they’ve all been on six figures for a few years now. My friends are clever and hardworking but I wouldn’t say particularly unusually so - with decent schooling and connections I’d expect it to be a lot easier… I don’t claim to be some sort of salary expert, but I’m surprised by the idea that it’s a good salary for London. Enough to live on yes of course, but I can’t imagine it would take much for OP’s son to get a higher salary elsewhere.

However, though I find OP’s perception that her children’s spouses are not family to be extremely odd and cold, I don’t actually think it’s a bad thing to pay your child a low salary if they’re due to one day inherit the business - though in this situation I can see why DIL would probably wish her husband worked elsewhere and earnt more.

OP - I can see your point about organizing things so that the family money, and intergenerational wealth developed by you and your DH, stays in the family. Rational, fair and admirable, in my opinion.

But - in setting things up in this manner, you have created an imbalanced relationship in your son's marriage. I mean that in terms of need and desire.

Your son's need and desire (your dh's drive) to be professionally and financially ambitious are calibrated, because no matter what happens, no matter what he does, he is secure.

His life partner has the desire, and perhaps need, to set up the family with her as a stay at home parent (as you were). In order for that to happen, your son would have to want to work harder, and earn more for those years.

It will also means that dil will not earn, not make pension payments, not accrue wealth, and as such, she will not be an equal partner your son.

This is the opposite of what you created with your dh.

In a good faith effort to protect, you have set your son's relationship up to be unequal.

I think you can, and should, protect the wealth.

But I also think you can, and should, be fair.

@Bringemout "if you are wealthy enough to buy a property outright in london that perhaps handing it over with the potential to lose half of it is a better option if it means a happier marriage"

OP has 4 kids, should she do this for all 4? Or treat this son better because his wife, unlike her other children in law, moaned about not getting enough free stuff?

I wouldn't gamble 4x half houses in central London myself. Certainly not on someone who's proven to be as mercenary as DIL. I don't think OP got as far as she did in business by making bad financial decisions like that.

Or consideration?

Certainly not on someone who's proven to be as mercenary as DIL.

Was the op mercenary when she was a stay at home parent?