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?

Probably best all round if the parents buy the flat in their name - if that's possible in this country. The couple work out their finances in the enviable position of having no mortgage or rent to pay.

Im assuming he is fully capable in every way to make his own decisions. If that's the case then it's non of your business.

I don't think she is being a gold digger, she is just looking to be secure and there is nothing wrong with that.

If your parents buy him a flat, then they get married and she doesn't work while raising a family etc where will that leave her if they don't buy a property together or if your brother doesn't provide for her and any children they have?

Women, especially stay at home muns are always advised to marry before they have children for extra security in case of relationship break downs because that's how it works here in UK. Why is it wrong for your brothers fiancee to protect herself especially if your brother is happy to do things as she has suggested?

Sorry, I disagree. It's her in laws money she feels entitled to. If they've not got the capacity to save because they live in a poor country, then that's unfortunate, but they are still better off than if they didn't have paid for accommodation at all. She is overall a winner. If he turns out to be a spendthrift, or controlling, or abusive, they /she need to address that like any other couple would.

I agree that it would be interesting to see how this would have gone if the sexes had been reversed. BUT at the same time the point is that we still live in a very unequal world and while no partner comes out of a divorce better off financially than before (well rarely!), sadly it’s still often the woman who has often earned less, perhaps given up work for a period to look after children, and most often ends up continuing to have to manage much of the day to day childcare after divorce. So, I get the point, but there is a difference too.

That's different to wanting 50% of something that you've not sacrificed for or earned in any way.

Nobody would argue about being entitled to martial assests or a fair percentage of DH pension pot if her career has taken a hit for the good of the family.

Asking the parents to postpone purchasing a flat until after you're married is nothing short of grabby. Also not a great attitude towards the start of a marriage. She should be quietly appreciating she will have no rent or mortgage, instead she's openly trying to manipulate people for self serving purposes.

Everybody is talking how he should "trust" her to be decent, honest, hard-working, loyal and not to fleece him in divorce. Well, equally, she should "trust" him to be decent, loyal and not to leave her high and dry. Goes both way. It shouldn't take a stake in flat to prove that.
Everybody trusts each other and believe that they chose well when they enter into marriage. Where do divorces come from then?

The ones making a mistake are your parents. He is getting married. He now comes as an entity. If they gave an issue with it, they shouldn't buy him a property. Can't he buy one himself and his wife?

I wouldn't buy a property for my children when they just about to get married for the exact reason that she could divorce after a few years and expect 50% or more. Unless I was so massively rich that the value of a house hardly made a dent to my fortune.

I am very glad you were fine @Catza and it seems that you were wise to manage yourself the way that you did.

But why was your partner able to throw you out at a moments notice. Ut is not good enough in a modern society. We earn approximately 20% less over a life time - that is 40 plus years of 20% less - a ton of money. We lose if we have kids, we lose if we decide to do a normal thing and raise them ourselves, we lose if we put them in the care of someone else while we work and so on.

While it is much, much better for women today, it is still not quite right. Our version of equality does not factor difference enough. And in a case like yours, thank goodness you were able to work and able to save as you did. If there were any mitigating circumstances though, you would have been rightly screwed.

We need to look at the system rather than the individual women. IMO! 😁

I mean, true - but it is a usual trajectory rather than an unusual one!

If they are going into it with their eyes wide open and aware of the consequences of their decisions and are still happy to go ahead with it then it doesn't matter if its a man or woman.

Marriage is 50/50. Or 100/100 depending how you look at it. Why would she want to devote herself to family life and being a wife if she knows at any point he could drop her for a younger model and she could be left homeless? She wouldn't- not if she had any sense. No way would I live in a home that my husband owned all of, knowing that if we ever divorced I'd have nothing.

If OP’s parents are buying the flat outright then I don’t see how the future wife is going to be left “high and dry” in a divorce.

She’s not going to have to contribute to rent or a mortgage so will, presumably, be much better off than she is now. She can invest in a rental property or put the money she’ll save into stocks. She’s in no worse (and arguably in a MUCH better) position than she’d be without the flat being bought, even if it stays her future husband’s property.

The only potential downside that I can see is if the expensive gifted flat comes with substantial ongoing property taxes or service charges that they’d otherwise not need to fork out for. Even then, they’re likely to be a lot less than rent or a mortgage on a cheaper property would be.

If it is bought before they get married and then they subsequently get divorced. I assume he wouldn't get married again

She’s super sensible. Women are much more likely to lose out financially when getting married as they often give up or reduce careers and therefore pensions etc. Men rarely end up in this position. If they were in the UK or many other countries the asset would be joint regardless of when it was purchased. It’s only because of the country’s laws that you’re accusing her of being in it for the money.

Certainly wouldn't be to a gold digger as he'd only be able to buy a shit flat on the outskirts.

I often wonder on these threads how the answer would change if the roles were reversed. We often hear MNetters advise women to do what they can to secure they hang in to their assets in the event of a divorce. This is no different. The son imo is being naive. He needs to make sure his assets, which are bought with his family’s money, will not be lost.

Because in some cultures men are expected to provide and women are expected to do all domestic labour and child care. If that's the kind of culture hes marrying into, then he has to suck it up, he doesn't get to pick only the bits that benefit him.

Why are we accepting the notion that she feels "entitled"? She asked and her partner seemed to find it a reasonable request, and agreed.

The op does not, and framed it as entitled.

I really do not see how she is overall winner. It seems rather that she is a loser in this. She is marrying into a family that distrusts her, suspects her of ulterior motivation, and as such, are already undermining the relationship.

If the family had the success of the married couple truly in mind, they would create a situation that benefits both for the duration of the marriage and both in the event of failure. It does not have to 50/50 but it has to be something.

Perhaps her parents will be paying his parents a dowry?

No don't think so.

I don’t think it’s gold digger like, it’s just smart behaviour from a woman who knows it could leave her vulnerable if he holds all the cards about their home.

The wealth gap between women and men in old age runs between 20 and 42% in favor of men.

There are reasons for this - this situation here for example.

She’s not trying to scam him, she’s trying to ensure she has future security for herself and any potential children.

Don’t do this

I dunno though - she sounds like Lizzie Bennet to me. Requesting equality.

If the parents decide not to buy a flat and she calls of the wedding, your position on her will be confirmed. If the parents decide not to buy a flat and she marries him anyway, commute and all, my take on her wins! 😜

I am with you here!

We are in exactly the same position with our children. We will be in a position to help them out considerably with property, but I didn’t work hard for extra years to have them lose half of it in a divorce.

i really want to help them though, so it is a bit of a conundrum.

if I were your parents I would think your not proceed with the purchase ever. Just let the couple live their own lives. As pp said, if the fiancée backs out you’ll know exactly where she stood. In any regard, she’ll have cut off her nose to spite her face as they’ll have to fund their own property now.