To feel like my bro’s fiancée is being golddigger-like?

[worriedsstr]

My brother lives abroad and has done for a while. He met his fiancée there, they are getting married, and that is the country they will continue to live in after they get married.

My parents are planning to buy him a flat there. The laws in the country they live in / where the flat will be are such that, broadly speaking, anything you own before marriage isn’t divisible in a divorce, whereas anything bought, earned or gifted after marriage will considered marital property and divided. So, in very simple terms, if my parents buy my brother the flat before he gets married, it would remain his if they were ever to divorce. If they buy it after he gets married, it could potentially become a marital asset and be divided between them.

His fiancée has asked him to wait until they’re married before the flat is bought, because she wants to feel financially secure and wants half of the flat to be hers in the event of a divorce. My brother is completely happy to go along with this, so that’s where the situation currently stands.

I have to admit I’m quite concerned and I find the whole thing bizarre. I completely understand wanting financial security within a marriage, but I struggle with the idea of deliberately waiting until you’re married for a property that is being bought for one spouse by their parents, specifically because that means it could become divisible if they divorce. It’s a gift from HIS (our) parents to their son, it’s not something he has “earned” with her support or they’ve earned as a couple. They haven’t yet been told this but I know my parents will feel exactly the same way.

Maybe I’m looking at it completely the wrong way, but AIBU to think my parents should just buy their son the flat before he gets married, rather than waiting until afterwards when, under the laws of the country they will actually be living in, it could potentially become a marital asset?

So much of this is outright racism a fiancée from another country must mean she’s a gold digger. A potentially nicer house than “others” in the country could afford, thats certainly a questionable way to say it!
Because your potential SIL is concerned about her financial future you are shoving your oar in to question if is she only marrying your DB in order to divorce him later and get half a house? In your eyes she’s obviously a scammer who your DB needs protection from as if he were a vulnerable old person, that’s quite an insult to both your DB and your potential SIL.
Would you be so concerned if she was a white British citizen?

I’d be the same - this one is going to be a problem. She sounds like that sister in the gilded age, who wants to marry her brother herself 🤣

Unless you and your brother have actively contributed to the bank account the money is coming from it isn’t technically “family” money at all is it? It is still your parents money to do what they want with, including buying your brother and his new wife a lovely apartment.

Of course if you believe your parents don’t have the mental capacity to do this, then by all means raise the issue with them and explain that you see them as old and vulnerable and think they are being scammed so you need to step in.

Enjoy the wedding, sounds as though it will be an occasion to remember.

Id be saying the same if I were her.

It leaves her with no security if done the way your parents are suggesting.

I owned my house before I met my husband and when we married he was put on the mortgage and paperwork was updated so that we jointly owned the home.

If you’re going to marry someone you are a team. How could I continue to build a life with this man knowing we weren’t on even footing or that he was contributing to a home that technically wasn’t his.

Why can’t she get a mortgage? What happens if she inherits from her family?

I've not RTFT, but what's their relationship like?

On one hand, I understand why they want to do it. On the other hand, I'm skeptical.

If I were your parents I'd buy them in our names, and they can live for free until kids come along. That's when I'd transfer ownership.

I agree with you OP. The fact she's thought about it and specifically asked for the house to go through after they get married - tells us a lot. I'd be wary like you. If she hadn't mentioned it at all and then for eg. your brother realised and suggested it, that's a very different scenario, and in that case I'd say she wasn't a gold digger. However in this case, bad vibes. He's her Prince Harry.

What are the couple’s plans regarding having children? Who will pause their career to stay home with them while they are little? It seems to be that the fiancée will be financially disadvantaged, assuming that she will be the one to stop working and earning. She is potentially going to be very financially vulnerable.

She can absolutely do this but her husband will have to accept that that's where some of the "family money" is going. He can't morally both solely own the flat and insist that any spare money goes into joint savings.

Translation

Its MY money she's stealing and I don't like her.

You're overly involved. This is not 'family money', its your parents money, its nothing to do with you. I also agree that you sound a bit racist, in many countries a very traditional set up of man = provider, woman = domestic load is still very normal, you may not like it, but again, its none of your business. As long as your brother is happy and is aware of the risks, he can make his own choices.

It's not 'your family money' – it's your parents' money, and it's none of your business. If you're being asked for your take on it, then you should say it's none of your business.

There is quite a lot of difference between an elderly granny who may be vulnerable and an adult male who has capacity and capability to protect himself from harm.
But this is not really a decision for him to make. Your parents need decide whether they are comfortable with what the fiancé is requesting. If they are not, they either buy the property before the wedding or withdraw the offer altogether. It's their money and their decision.

Newsflash OP

Its not your money.

Its your parents. Its got fuck all to do with you.

If they give you money or the business in the future thats their decision. It still was never your money until that point though.

For all the 'shes being a grabby cowbag', reflections in the mirror may show hypocrisy.

If I was the OPs parents I would buy the flat in our name and just rent it out to them at low or no rent- so the couple can built their own wealth. If they did divorce my son still has his lovely big apartment protected.

I'd be interested to know a bit more about your circumstances. Did your parents help you buy your first home? And does your husband or partner have any ownership rights in the property?

I agree with a lot of the previous posters. This isn't really "family money" in the sense you're describing. It's your parents' money, and ultimately it's theirs to do with as they choose.

I wonder if seeing it as family money is partly why you feel so involved in the decision. Personally, I've never been keen on conditional gifts. If you're giving something, it should generally be given freely and in good faith.

As for the suggestions that your parents should keep the flat in their own names so they can continue building wealth, I'm not sure it's quite that straightforward.

If your future SIL decides to have children and takes time out of work, her earning potential may well be affected for a period. She will have no ability to earn and that will cause resentment in that relationship.

There was a thread on here not long ago involving a similar arrangement, and it highlighted how differently these situations can play out in real life.

I also agree with those who have said this feels like a difficult way to begin a relationship with your future SIL.

Starting off with disputes over money and property rarely sets a good tone.

i absolutely see your future SILs concern. She’s at risk of homelessness and is extremely vulnerable if she has no rights or contracts for her accommodation. There have been countless women on here in situations where they are stuck in abusive marriages and can’t leave because they have nowhere else to go and are not on the deeds/tenancy. They are always told what a terrible error they have made.
there are some middle ground options though.
the house stays in your parents name and not transferred to the son.
a contract is drawn up that give her tenants rights.
They buy something cheaper that they rent out giving them another accommodation if needed.

there are ways to give her the security she needs without putting her on the deeds.

Yanbu. I don't get all these comments about SIL being turfed out of the house, they get to live rent free which enables them to save as a family and she'd be entitled to half the assets built during the marriage.

Your parents don't want to give them both a flat, they want to give their son a flat. If he wants to sell it and buy a family property later on, that's up to him.

There is a compromise. Parents buy flat before marriage but have a written agreement drawn up flat will go into both names on birth of first DC.

I would do what my parents did - offer a deposit to help get them on the ladder. DH did not have any money at the time and my parents decided that was the best way to support the marriage and not lose too much money. It meant that dh and I were able to buy a better house and advance up the ladder.
Crucially though, it meant that DH and I had common goals and parity and a need to work together.

In short we got actual help rather than interference.

I completely get why you’re concerned and in spite of what other posters say, I reckon it is your business when it comes to your brother and family money.

That said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, especially if they plan to have children. She needs to look after her interests in case things go pear shaped. Imagine a situation where they have multiple kids, she gives up work to look after them, and he leaves her for a younger model. She is suddenly homeless, jobless & does not benefit at all from her contributions to the family.

I wonder if there is a way of formalising their “shares” via a prenup or something where he has a greater interest in the property but she is somewhat provided for.

If you were future sister in law what would you do?

Have you benefited in the same way @worriedsstr

Well, the girlfriend would be onto a winner, living in a mortgage free property and being able to claim half in the event of divorce. Call me a cynic but I know plenty of women who have done disproportionately well in divorce, taking into consideration the sacrifice and vulnerability of caring and taking time out for child rearing.
Why don't they invest in another property (they can rent it out) & both contribute to that mortgage. That would be saving /investing in property that would be shared in the event of divorce etc.
I can understand where you are coming from OP.

But she is only at risk of homelessness if she gives up work or spends every penny she earns on trinkets. Having been in a situation of being turfed out of partner's home on a moment's notice, I was fine. Distressed but fine. Because while I had no claim on his property, I also worked full time and saved all the money that I would otherwise be spending on rent. So I was actually in a pretty strong financial position overall.
Of course, things may be very different if she had children and, indeed, decided to be a SAHP. But they don't currently and we don't know if they have any plans of having children either.

If they do this, they divide the married couple into two individuals with different financial needs. She will be aware that if anything goes wrong, the life she has with him will not be sustainable.

In this case it sounds like the brother is in a place that is poorer than western European countries. More than likely, he is hired as a foreigner, earning a hell of a lot more than his local wife. She will be very constrained in what she can earn.