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.

There's no reason whatsoever for her to end up with no assets though, because she has the money she'd otherwise have spent housing herself available to save and/or invest. Maybe she is already, OP wouldn't necessarily have been told about investment accounts.

This thread reminds me of why I absolutely would not have married someone who came from family money like this. The level of enmeshment, entitlement, greed and strange family dynamics are bizarre.

The family holds all the strings and the “interloper” must put up and shut up.

I think the DIL has made a mistake and should leave the marriage if she is at all focused upon equality and wanting to be prioritised in her own marriage. Her MIL calls all the shots and that’s that.

And I say all this as someone who also has a pre-nup! But ours was fair, time-limited, and took into account that while what we brought into the marriage could be taken into account as individual assets, what we build together from the point of marriage is absolutely equal and should be treated as such.

So you’d be happy to spend your entire life having completely separate finances from your husband and children? The DIL is being treated like a brood mare here. Her children will have more rights than she does!

She nows their joint income. The DIL might not be paying a mortgage. But her council tax may equate to one if the flat is as described. She will definitely be contributing to the running of this house. She isn’t ambitious. He isn’t either.

”what we build together from the point of marriage is absolutely equal and should be treated as such”

Same as their prenup, then.

Op gave them a gift of a huge helping hand to enable them to do just that. She gave them a place to live in, rent and mortgage free. It’s up to them what they do with that opportunity. Her son doesn’t have to continue working for her if he’s to get a better paid job elsewhere, and they could do what her daughter and SIL did by buying their own house and renting out OP’s property.

The only entitlement and greed here is being demonstrated by the DIL, who doesn’t seem to think they should put the work in themselves, but that OP should just give them more money.

Again though, no reason she has to end up with no assets. Her half of the council tax wont be equivalent to full housing costs, and is also getting a cheaper commute given the proximity to her work. The opportunity is there.

Yeah I agree. He needs to be more independent.

If you can’t see how significant power dynamics are when it comes to finances then I can’t help you. They are living the life the OP chose for them. Every single “gift” comes with strings attached. And the house wasn’t a gift anyway, everything is in the OP’s name.

The OP has inserted herself into the marriages of all of her children. That is unhealthy.

@InterIgnis DIL is right to question the "end game" of her position and what happens when the couple have children, the MIL still owns the roof over their heads, still owns her Husband's stipend and she is relying solely on her own savings to actually secure herself&children financially.

And no, I couldn't save in any meaningful way or accrue any assets whilst living in a similar setup. What I did have quickly disappeared when I had to go homeless from his multi-million house, pay for my temporary accommodation/refuge, set up a small rental flat in an expensive part of the country near my job, for COVID to hit and my job to be gone.
I wasn't married to him but if I was, fighting his family lawyers in divorce at the same time would have been the end of my sanity.

My friend signed one. Hers gave her more entitlement the longer they were married. If he cheated, became abusive she got half. Included what the inheritance he may have gained from after they were married. It was up to him to behave and treat her well. It doesn’t sound like the DIL has anything like this & that’s unfair

She didn’t say she bought the flat to give them, but to live free from housing costs. The gift was the opportunity to build their own assets without that burden.

And bloodlines - not sure what the controversy is here. In the vast majority of cases those with anything to bequeath tend to leave it to their children, not their children’s spouses.

Exactly. The OP is completely focused on the now. A good pre-nup focuses on the future. I hope the DIL had a decent lawyer look at the pre-nup before she signed it, and it included clauses relating to children, illness, pension provision, savings, adultery, abuse etc.

The fact that the OP is already calling her DIL a gold digger says a lot. She wants to keep the wealth in the bloodline: as I said, the DIL is a brood mare whose children will have more rights in the family than she does.

OP would've been very unwise not to ensure DIL had good legal advice on the prenup, as not doing so makes it more likely it would be set aside.

She is married to him, and whatever prenup she signed will also protected her financial interests. She has the same stake as any wife in whatever they’ve jointly accumulated and OP has said they both earn perfectly decent salaries. It’s not the case that she’s a low earner without any ability to accrue assets.

She’s been with OP son for years, so that he isn’t particularly ambitious is no surprise to her. She’s not particularly ambitious. She’s not looking for financial independence here, or to build anything for herself, but for more funding from OP.

People change and evolve as they mature and grow into different life stages. DIL is now perhaps looking at her financial stability and security in the event she stays at home and has children. And in doing so, she is becoming aware of the disparity between her and her husband in this sphere.

OP has such low emotional intelligence and is so zeroed into the all encompassing tunnel vision of securing the bloodline that she can't see:

• How unsettling it might be for the DIL to understand that she is an 'outsider', and that she has little financial security when compared to her husband.
• That her son has the luxury of retaining his 'happy go lucky' non ambitious nature, because he has his family wealth.

The machinations and inequality must be difficult to bear. The way the flat is framed as a 'gift' so 'they' would never have to worry about housing is a total misrepresentation in terms of what it means to the DIL. It is a gift that means the son will never have to worry about housing. It is a cheap place to live for the DIL. If anything it must make the DIL feel like a lodger in her husband's home. But she is a 'gold digger' because she realises this.

Of course she did. Do you really think OP and her solicitors would have left themselves open to a successful legal challenge?

The reason she’s unlikely to walk away with substantial assets from the marriage is because as it stands, and despite ample opportunity, they don’t as a couple have any. That’s not OP’s fault or problem.

Although I don't know why he would,
...And therein lies the issue.

Son has little reason to find independence, DIL does not have the same security as son, and OP talks about DIL like she's an idiot for querying it.

She's not a gold-digger, she's correctly identifying her second-class status in this family. I would also be panicking in a scenario where my partner was unmotivated by design.

Unfortunately pointing this out will not help OP have empathy for DIL, because alienating DIL is a feature, not a bug.

And your phrasing says it all: “the OP and her solicitors”. This is not the OP’s marriage.

Yes it is but the question was is she a gold digger? Then a list of all the privileges given and people have rightly pointed out the reasons as to why they think she’s not & how the privilege isn’t actually that great a deal for the DIL & expressed why it’s unfair & why she maybe pushing for more now. She will build a life and provided a lifestyle down to her husband good fortune. It’s fair to think if the marriage fails that she has some safety net. If she could buy a house in her own right, if the marriage fails I bet she hasn’t got the same deal. So what ever she generates will be split. He has no ambition or incentive to build anything for himself

The OPs question was that, I'm specifically replying to the bit about her leaving with no assets. However one wants to characterise this situation, one thing it does do is provide DIL (and DS) the opportunity to use the money they're saving to acquire assets in their own name/s. Though I agree he probably won't...

Well yes, I generally do aim for clarity. No, it’s not OP’s marriage, but they are dealing with OP’s assets.

As I said, the prenup will protect her financial interests. If they put the effort in to provide assets and security for themselves then she will be able to walk away with a share if/when she wishes to. If they don’t, then there will be nothing to claim a share of. That would be on her just as much as on him.

I think that you are extremely generous and your children are very grateful, I’m sure!

If I was son and DIL I’d be saving to buy a property of their own and rent it out.

It’s very weird that she is querying access to her in laws money.

I was married and now separated, ex doesn’t pay me a penny and I had the children 95% of the time and pay all the bills. We sold the family home and split it 50/50 and have our own houses. Anyhow, his parents are late 80’s now and it wouldn’t occur to me expect anything from them when they pass away, ask how much he gets etc. It’s a totally different situation I know but maybe a little reminder to your son and daughter in law that they are extremely lucky to have no (I assume) financial worries.

My take, unless I’ve missed something!

And that’s the crux of it: the assets remain the OP’s, but she wants to insert herself into her children’s marriages and lives anyhow. Why? Power and control.

The OP owns the house, pays her son a standard wage and he has no shares in the business: so why did she want there to be a pre-nup in the first place? Because she wants to control her children’s relationships. She wants to ensure that her children’s partners remain second class citizens in their own marriages.

I read it that she just doesn’t want assets that she and her late husband worked hard for to be passed outside the family in the event of a divorce.

The adult children are free to buy houses of their own, if the arrangement doesn’t suit them?

But how would they be passed - she hasn’t given her children any assets to date. Everything remains in her name. And any assets that are given in the future, they will be given to a married couple, not a single man. She cannot treat her children as single entities once they are married.

She is trying to control her children’s marriages.