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?

OP sounds like my sil.

What is hers is hers but what is the parents is hers too!

@Catza I assume any money the sister in law earns and saves after marriage will have to be shared with the brother if they split up

She’s perfectly entitled to be concerned if she believes a family member may be being financially taken advantage of!

She will not be at any additional risk financially or any less stable than if they had to pay for housing!

But of course she will be. If they work now, as a couple, and buy a place, in 10 years they will have appreciation and equity and so on. Equal share.

If they do not buy now, and save only, you do not know what return she can get (if any), she is not building any equity but he is, they are working to a future together but not an equal one.

This family, in trying to do good, is doing harm.

Well that’s very presumptuous! You have absolutely no idea if they plan to have kids or not!

This reads like “well I got turfed out at a moments notice - so she should suffer too” …

@worriedsstr
Talking about a divorce before the marriage has even occurred with your brother sticking sticking his head up his backside whilst pretending its going to be a fairytale forever?
The fiancee has her eyes on the prize to my mind and assume there'll be plenty more where that came from
If she truly loves him she'd be happy for the flat to be bought before the ceremony, not after so she could then add its cost to her divorce booty bag
Tell or suggest to your parents to prove the point you're making to state something like they're fed up with the kerfuffle going on when they made a good offer of the flat so they're now investing the money elsewhere for their own needs
And then see what possibly may happen.......
You're brothers been played for a fool

Either he loves and trusts her or he doesn’t.

I’m of the opinion that if he isn’t prepared to see you are not left high and dry in the event that the marriage fails, he doesn’t love you.

Especially if she is going to have to sacrifice her health and her job, at least for a time, to raise kids. If kids are planned.

I would just leave him to speak to your parents tbh. If they are ok with waiting and understand the risk that’s for them to decide. It’s their money after all.

But she’s not paying for it! Why should she be handed 50% of an appreciating asset when she’s paid zero towards it?!

I totally support the idea of ensuring each partner has financial security should a relationship break down.

But from what I understand from your post, there is a difference here, which is that she is bringing no money into the ‘investment’. Her ‘security’ (and your brother’s) is being funded solely by your parents’ gift. I think that makes a huge difference. He (and arguably you parents) need to separate out and protect their money. What happens if the worst happens and shortly after marriage they split up? She walks of with half the value of a house she put no money into?!

Has she her own savings? Is she planning on working after marriage? If so, then perhaps she can buy a share in the house or they use their own money and your parents and buy a bigger house and there is then a divide drawn up? Or your brother buys an investment property in the UK and they sort out their own thing where they live?

But if the parents didn't buy this flat, they would be paying rent, they wouldn't be able to buy at all for who knows how many years, they'd have little to share in a divorce and the guy would inherit from his parents later on anyway. So yes, he will be better off regardless and she'll be way worse off. Because his parents have the money, he doesn't. And she's not entitled to her in laws money.

If that's how you choose to take it...
I haven't actually formed an opinion on this personally. I am just pointing out that not every woman is necessarily in a vulnerable position simply because she doesn't share pre-marital assets. In fact, I come from a country which has the same law and it was the only reason my mother and I had a roof over our heads when my parent's marriage broke down (mum owned the property before marriage). It goes both way.

I wouldn't marry someone if I could never have a stake in the home that I might live in, and contribute to the upkeep of, for the rest of my life.
Your parents should give him money instead, and let them sort out buying a property with their own financial arrangements. To do otherwise is very interfering. She may want to contribute equally. I would.
Also it's not your "family money". It's your parent's money.

So would his so they need to think how they are going to ensure fairness in earnings and savings while they take advantage of the opportunity of living mortgage-free.

This. But if OP was in the fiancée s position what would she think then?

Men like this deserve it, he's being a simp..

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.

If you read the OPs post you will see that the couple are in a poorer country, and the finance is local. It would be very rare for a woman in that situation to be able to "save" enough from her own salary to buy a comparable place. It is not how finances and money works in places like that.

Not only, but marital savings will presumably belong to both, so doubly difficult.

Also - he will not have the same imperative to save as he already owns a house. So, perhaps he will want to spend their money on three holidays a year, a cleaner, a nanny, bath blah blah. He may, rationally, want to enjoy his wealth. But she may, rationally, need to create wealth to catch up.

You can quickly see how complicated the disparity between the two creates problems rather than solves them.

YANBU. She's being grabby.

She will benefit from the flat as she'll be living rent/mortgage free, therefore, the money she would normally spend on flat deposit/mortgage she's now free to invest or save. She could buy another property before they marry, rent it out, and it will remain hers.

PP excuses of she needs security or could get turfed out at any moment don't hold water. Fact remains she won't have rent/mortgage on her fiances flat so should have plenty of money available should she get turfed out at some point in the future.

No that is unfair. I do think the gf is probably a bit of a gold digger (frankly her asking to buy the flat after marriage tells us she is), but that's irrelevant to your accusation. It isn't ops money it's her parents' money. OP also said her parent can afford to buy each of their children a flat. So no - OP isn't saying it's 'MY' money.

Agreed.

If I were the parents I would buy the flat for the son but keep it in the parents name that way she has no claim to it.

Because that's how marriage works. There's give and take. What about if they have kids and she needs to take time out of her career? What proportion of domestic chores is she likely to take on- especially considering this is another country and the culture may be more traditional than ours? She shouldn't be in a situation where at any time she could be left with nothing.

Well I had a friend who had a similar situation re living abroad and property except her newlywed husband died in a freak accident. The property went back to the parents (pre marital assets) who decided they wanted it to go to their surviving son and she was left homeless, penniless and widowed at the age of 29.

Your brother's fiancee is not being unreasonable. It's not just divorce she'll be looking for protection from.

If your brother was planning to marry a woman who owned her own home and move in with her, rather than them jointly buying somewhere, what would you advise him to do?