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.

I would hate this if I was your DIL. It would’ve been better if you had gifted them a deposit as a wedding present that they could have used to buy their own place as a married couple. As it is, they are just living in a flat owned by family. In her shoes, I would be saving up like mad to get a deposit together and get our own place.

Is op telling people irl she gifted a house or just on here? I imagine op keeps her financial affairs private.

Mn is full of women who have chosen to be married or have dc with lazy, selfish men. Women who believed that men becomes princes on marriage, women that believe he will change once the baby is here etc etc. Dil should be ensuring her own financial stability regardless of how much money her mil has. And if her dh isn’t a good man to be a dad then decisions need to be made. Op cannot make up for a shit dad with a share in a flat anyways.

Exactly this. And I’m sure the legal team that the OP can draw upon would work to destroy DIL’s life. Nope from me.

OP already has grandchildren from her other children so I doubt that she is desperate for OP and her youngest son to have a baby. I'm also not sure why you refer to OP's DIL having a baby as 'giving this woman grandchildren' as though it was a selfless act done solely for OP's benefit.

They didn't choose to make their own way though. They want everything she's given them and DIL wants more.

You can't relate to it because that's not how you'd feel.

As to whether DIL was lied to by son that they'd get even more than has already been given. Maybe? Who knows. There's no evidence that happened so you're just guessing. The detailed prenup legal process would suggest that didn't happen. But even if it did, that is an issue between them, not OPs fault.

That’s exactly what I was saying, she gifted them an unconditional free tenancy, not the property itself. That does not negate enormous value of her gift which is around £50K pa.

You’re right, it doesn’t. But why is the OP framing it as she has gifted them a house when she has not?

If I gifted you £100 but went around telling people I’d gifted you £1000 wouldn’t you be annoyed? The OP seems to need a lot of validation and is very transactional in her approach.

Gifting any amount of money to a person does not mean they can’t question or - heaven forfend - criticise you. Is she trying to buy compliance?

Because everything is obviously about her. I had children several years before either of my siblings did, and somehow my parents still managed to care about whether they eventually had children too. Already having grandchildren doesn’t mean she has reached some 'magical family quota' and should now be emotionally indifferent as to what her youngest son does. Also, “giving her grandchildren” is a completely normal phrase, not a claim that anyone should reproduce solely as a charitable donation to their mother-in-law.

I wish I had someone in my life making it all about them and also paying for my wedding, honeymoon, holidays and rent. And keeping my nice but laidback dh in a £50k a year job. Must be such hardship. Poor dil, perhaps she can set up a gofundme

She isn’t framing it like that. She made it quite clear that she didn’t give the flat to them.

OP isn’t asking anything of them. She’s rightfully wary because her DIL’s recent comments seem to suggest she thinks she should get even more from OP than she already has done.

That’s why I said OP should’ve used a different term for it. She said in OP that she “bought them a lovely flat” whereas more accurately it should say she purchased a flat for the couple to live in rent free on unconditional tenancy. She did expand subsequently that she or the business she runs owns the flat but it seems a lot of PP could not get over the semantic hurdle of the free tenancy rather than the actual property rights to it being a gift.

Well done @practicalorparanoid
You have treated your children fairly.
What you have provided is a massive opportunity and head start for them, from all the hard work you and your husband did.
They can make what they want from it.

Sell the flat. They can rent and save up to buy their own place they both own and problem solved. DIL and DS can have their own assets. I would probably pay your son the going rate for his job in London which will ensure he can afford the rent.

So in the case of divorce even with small children, it's set up for her to walk away with nothing? Surely you would want her and the children to be housed close by and for him to pay maintenance? How would she pay for local housing if she stopped working? I guess that it what I read in this, so little protection that can be really overlooked when you are excited about your wedding.

That is up to the son and dil to work out.
MIL has given them a golden opportunity to save and build a future with no housing costs and a secure job.

She has already worked hard to build the business and support her children she does not have to do this to the grave.

No, the OP would rather it went to the Dog’s Trust than the mother of her GCs. It’s there in black and white.

Because the OP has created a culture of dependence and entitlement within her family. And her DIL is now a member of that family, isn’t she?

No it is not.
MIL is still alive she can spend the money which is rightly hers how she likes.
Son and Dil have been given a massive advantage to build their future.
If they waste it having fun and a laugh then their loss.

Or they stop being dependant and use the opportunity of free housing and a secure job to build their own future.

It is there in black and white. The OP said in the case of a divorce, the income from the rental would revert back to her son’s account and he can then do what he likes with it, whether that’s giving it to the Dog’s Trust or something else.

So the OP will be as involved if they get a divorce as she was in their getting married. Gross.

And who is to say she automatically gets to keep the kids

Yeah this is where I'm a bit lost, it sounds like a helping hand but an accidental pregnancy or them actually wanting to start a family and all of a sudden it turns into a nightmare for everyone should they split. She would likely end up moving back with family, he will be hammered for CMS and it won't be good for anyone.
I have a friend like this who who makes similar noises and be a sad loss all round.

These hypothetical gc don’t exist - maybe son and dil never end up having dc and then getting divorced. I’m sure no one is going to end up out on the street, living in rags, nose pressed up against the window as op laughs heartily and tucks into a roast goose. The dil cannot afford to live in central London on her own resources - who can? Maybe when op offered to buy them somewhere to live rent free they could’ve gone for something more modest they could’ve bought off her one day.

Pretty hard to do when the OP has infantilised her children to the extent that she clearly has. I think what has happened is the DIL has realised just how dysfunctional the family dynamics are and is now pushing back to test the boundaries.

If the rental income goes to him the judge will see as his income and ensure it is shared to support his ex and children.