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.

Some of you people are deranged. If she wants her own house no one is stopping her from buying one. If she wants her husband to have a higher wage or hold more shares she can ask him to change job. YANBU x500

I just asked DS and his DP, who live in London, how they would feel if I did this for them (after my Euro millions win obviously). They said they would be absolutely fucking delighted and grateful to not have to pay rent. They could use the money saved to travel, to reduce hours at work, to retrain for better careers, or to put towards savings or future property purchase.

I’m with the dil he hardly earns a big salary, and you didn’t buy the fiat for them, it’s in your name. And why hasn’t he shares in the firm?

you seem to be controlling the purse strings, and that’s fine. But you’re not overly generous.

Exactly she is not contributing to this asset in any way, shape or form so why should she be entitled to half of it on divorce? Neither is her husband but the pair of them have the opportunity to use this gift to save up and get their own place. My mil let me live with her to save up for our first house - I didn’t realise that I should’ve been put on the deeds

But does the son want to buy something with his wife? Is he incentivised in any way to save for a deposit?

I can imagine the DIL is realising that if she wants to have anything in her name she'll have to earn and put aside every penny herself while OP's son carries on living a highly subsidised life with no need to worry about his own financial future as he knows it'll always be secure.

But would they feel the same if you talked about keeping your Euromillions win in the family bloodline?

The op doesn’t even trust her own son. No shares, no big salary and flat in her name.

On 50k in London? They will be at it awhile.

yes free rent is great, but she’s hardly giving him big money.

Why would they trust her not to claim what she could in a divorce? Giving her a greater claim wouldn’t be a demonstration of trust, but of financial idiocy.

She’s not their child or equal to their child, so why would she expect to have a claim on her in law’s wealth? As it is, her MIL has been generous in allowing her to directly benefit from that wealth by allowing her to live for free in a prime location that would otherwise have cost her hundreds of thousands of pounds. Thanks to OP, she has a lifestyle that she would otherwise not have been able to afford. That’s not good enough? Seriously?

My parents and in laws both have their assets structured in a way that means their child’s spouse could not claim them in the event of a divorce. That’s just good financial sense.

You might have been better paying him a higher salary and letting them find their own accommodation. I am assuming she works, so she would have felt part of the decision.
Living in central London, means you are surrounded by very wealthy people, 50k will feel insignificant.
Sometimes being over generous can have a negative impact.

Rent on a nice 3 bed flat in central London is prob 60-100k/annum

They're saving that if they live there, or they could live in a one bed at the end of the lizzie line and pocket that as rental income.

That's big money to me

Because it’s human nature to question stuff

I think the son sounds a bit of a wet blanket tbh. Pretty unambitious (the OP even says this) and doesn't appear to want to plan into the future with his new wife. And also he's inherited 80k, he has the deposit for a flat in London already!

Let's imagine he's on a team with another marketing person. They do the same work and the same hours, but he gets paid twice as much because he's working for mummy's business. Is that fair on the other staff? Good for the business? In the interest of any shareholders?

And what does it tell DS about the value of hard work? You'll be paid an artificially inflated salary because you had the good luck of being born to wealthy parents. Why would he bother to improve at his job, work harder, make something of himself?

If he wants to get paid more he should get a better job or get better at his job, not hope for more handouts.

I'm with you OP. You have been eminently sensible with the family assets. DIL should not have a claim on family assets as they are not in her husband's name. If she sticks around then she will benefit hugely in the future! They are a young couple earning north of 80-90k pa with no debt or outgoings.

Cannot understand some people who seem to have zero understanding of finances and business.

Hopefully DIL will realise what a lucky position she is in and they can invest in their own property, rent it out and she can live off the rent if she wants the luxury of being a SAHM. They could afford to buy a number of properties (as long as your DS ringfences his 80K deposit!) outside of London.

That's a complete non sequitur. The OP gifting her son and DIL free accommodation of their choice has got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the son and DIL agree that she can be a SAHM. That's none of the OP's business.

If you're suggesting that the OP is somehow more obliged than her son/DIL are to finance the DIL to be a SAHM then that screams gold-digging.

Dil can earn her own money. If her husband doesn’t want to buy a house with her she has a husband problem, not a mil problem. Personally I wouldn’t marry some unambitious man working for his mum but she presumably loves him. I can’t feel sorry for people feeling hard done to because they’re not living the luxury lifestyle in London, I’m so surprised this is pulling on people’s heartstrings. On 50k + whatever dil earns I assume realistically they be renting a small studio and living on beans. Maybe she can take in ironing or do some shifts in a pub to earn more 😁

How much ambition has the DIL exhibited, other than hoping to get her hands on more of her in-laws' money?

I’ve read all the OP’s posts and can see the thinking behind the arrangements, especially as a close friend whose parents had built a large successful business split up with his wife shortly after the company had been restructured to give them a significant share of the company. The split was totally on him and it caused major problems as his ex became a director through the restructuring and was, understandably, very upset and difficult for quite a long time.
i think my only question would be whether the son here lacks the ambition to save and build wealth with his wife, in the way some of the other children have - you mention that one of the other couples saved and bought a place closer to you and rent out their gift - and if that would become a source of friction within the marriage. Unless he’s quite driven, he may well continue to enjoy the subsidised life while his wife “nags” him to grow out of it, as it would be very difficult for her to carry the burden of saving to buy their own place alone if he doesn’t see the point (even/especially though he would own half that asset), particularly if the plan is to have kids and have her as SAHM.
This is the piece that potentially “traps” her and ironically could be the reason that the marriage does fail.

I think the post has gone off in the wrong direction. you have been generous, but someone else was right when they described it as a gilded cage which in truth you have created intentionally or not. Your question wasn’t about the gift and what you provide but if we think she’s being a gold digger & in truth I don’t think so. She may have buyers remorse for what she signed as a prenup, but even that doesn’t sound the case I do think she may come to realise her error when the reality of life hits her and all the shine of being a newly wed dulls. But for now She just wants babies and be a SAHM. Now here’s the reason I don’t think she’s a gold digger. She knows you & she knows your son. She signed a prenup. Unless she’s really thick she probably knows any payrise he gets will literally cover her ambition to stay at home living a semi comfortable lifestyle. (Not extravagant because in truth you don’t pay extravagant wages and that’s ok). They would struggle to have a baby and pay nursery fees to look after them even if she remained working because as you admitted she doesn’t earn a lot. So maybe realistically giving up work to look after kids is a sensible solution. She’s wrong to look at you and hint at help, but she sees a an answer to her problem and in truth as most of have done here, we don’t think he’s receiving an over generous pay, unless he’s the cleaner of your company or has a basic admin job. You say he can get a job elsewhere if he wants more money (despite admitting you could afford to pay him more) again fair but harsh imo. That attitude has me assuming you class his job as a gift to him. If he’s absolutely useless maybe it is. However, if he is an asset the job is no longer a privilege but a role he’s earned with time. He getting a helping hand with employment shouldn’t be wielded against him. Which is sort of the vibe I’m getting when people suggest you pay him more. If you could hire someone more effective than him again assuming he has a senior role in the business then you’d be hard pushed getting someone to do if £50k

Good on you op. Looks like your dil loved the idea of the current situation until she realised she would still have to work. Which would make good financial sense anyway

I'm in a similar family business set up; none of us DILs have any right to the business, and that's fine with me. The properties we have are in DH name, and pass directly to our DS (we live in a Napoleonic law country). I'm a SAHM now, but previously worked.

The difference is that I had my own property before I met DH. It's sold now, but the funds are invested in my name only, and provide a decent income. I have a healthy fuck-off fund for worst-case scenarios.

I don't know what this couple are doing with the rent that they're saving; this should be the mortgage payments on a separate property, surely?o

I think this is the heart of the problem isn't it. All those people saying "they could save for a flat, they could rent out the one they live in" are right. The problem for the DIL is that this doesn't appear to be happening. As someone else said, the son has no incentive to change his situation because after all, he's part of the "bloodline" and as such is set for life. This puts his wife in a very insecure situation. I imagine her voicing discontent is basically down to her knowing this, either consciously or unconsciously. If she were my daughter her situation would worry me. If they spilt up she has nothing.

I'm from the farming community and this situation reminds me of the traditional set-up in that community. These are family businesses, with the house being provided by the business. It is still usually a son who's actively involved in the business and when he marries, he and his spouse live in a property on the farm. Sometimes his parents will move to a smaller property or they will stay in the big farmhouse and the newly weds will move into a cottage. Irrespective of how much or how little say the DIL has in the decor and maintenance of the house she lives in - it's not hers. It belongs to the business and she's dependent on her in-laws for her housing - a key aspect of life which most adults have their own choice and say over. So, I can very much understand your DIL's perspective, OP, and it's got nothing to do with gold-digging, it's about independence and choice as an adult rather being treated still as a child. I moved away from the farming community, but I saw how my mother and others felt about it.

I would also say - the property you bought them to live in was not a gift. Last year I bought a flat for my DS to live in - I provided the funds, but it is in his name. It is entirely his home, his property to do with as he wishes. That was a gift.

Why? I'm sure any kids would be well looked after