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?

This one keeps coming up-if parents buy a son/daughter a house, then either the spouse can effectively steal it, so they'd have to see the person who had hurt their child run off with their money, OR
the spouse of the son/daughter never feels equal, in that their house is never half theirs, and if they are the innocent party in a divorce (as in they were a great husband/wife but the spouse cheated/abandoned the family) they are homeless, depending on the country's laws.
So I see both sides, OP (no one in my family has ever been rich enough to do this, so there's some advantages to relative poverty!). And people are being unfair saying it's not your business, ok legally it's maybe between your parents and the couple, but if you're a decent person worried about seeing your family hurt, why wouldn't you care?
Could you say the parents just set up an account for the brother, say if the house cost £50K, obviously depends where, they could put that in an account, and then the couple could buy together, so he puts his half in, she puts hers, so if they split, she doesn't get any? Or could it be written in a contract that if she is the one to break the marriage, the house reverts to him, but if he cheats, she gets half? You'd obviously need to seek legal advice as this might or might not be something a lawyer could help with.

This is the woman who is about to be your sister (in law) and part of your family. Potentially the mother of your nieces and nephews. Bit different from a scammer targeting your granny. What a weird comparison. I feel sorry for her.

If I were the parents I'd insist it was bought in advance of marriage. I would not potentially be giving her 50% of a flat.

I’d just stay out of it.

Is she in a position to contribute money to buying a home? If she is, and if parents insist on making this big gift, then I would just gift the cash to match what she can contribute so that the property is truly a joint asset.

Right - but you will notice that prenups in wealthy families account for the person coming in with less. In the event of a breakdown, they do not walkaway with nothing. Pretty sensible stuff.

In this case, the op views the parent's gift to the brother as family money, and it is clear from everything said here, that if anything happens the marriage or the brother, the fiancé is out on her ear. The fiancé seems to recognise that.

A fair minded prenup would be a much better approach for this family to take.

I think the answers would be very different if the genders were reversed. If the woman was the main earner and her male partner asked her to hold off on her inheritance so he could have half.

Anything other than this that makes you think that she’s a scammer?
How long have they been together?

I don't think she's being a gold digger. I think she's being realistic and sensible. If your parents weren't buying the house she and your DB would be putting their money into a house that she would have equal ownership in. With your parents buying them one they are going to be putting their money into a better lifestyle - which will be a much nicer life, but does not provide the sort of security she would have if they were buying a property together. And could leave completely fucked over he decides to divorce her in 20 years time.

It does mean that in a few years half your parents' money could end up going to a woman who would no longer be related to them (though if they have kids it will probably support their grandchildren regardless). But it doesn't make her a gold digger.

There may be some other structure your parents could suggest that she'd be happy with (e.g. buying before they marry but with a schedule whereby she gains 2.5% of the property every year they are married up to 50%, perhaps with a clause that accelerates that if they have children).

But this is a massive privilege in the first place. It's not like he's buying his own flat and not sharing it while she supports him in his career.

I also think that people don't always look at both sides. Firstly, not all women have a burgeoning career. Some have minimum wage jobs and have little to lose. Also, you're not just sacrificing your career for nothing. Often the end result is a bloke working full time in a stressful career job whilst the women never returns to full time work after the kids are grown and enjoys a very naice quality of life while working 2-3 days a week in an easy job.

Well, if he wants to put her on the deeds he can do that after their marriage so I don't see the problem here (from his side).

@worriedsstr How would this impact you in either scenario (bought before/after wedding). You say it’s family money so do you mean some of the money for the flat could/should have been yours? If it was bought before the wedding and they went on to have children, but divorced a few year’s later what should happen to the wife/kids that you think is fair for everyone?

Does it have to be such a High End type apartment?

It's your parents' decision, but if it were me, I would agree to buy after the marriage but a smaller, less luxurious place.

The spouses of my siblings (and me) have done “well” out of the respective marriages as my dad was able to gift us substantial deposits to purchase property.

We’re talking about standard nice houses rather than mansions. I suppose we could have protected our share on purchase but I don’t think morally this is the right attitude.

These marriages are now longstanding but I don’t think you should go into a marriage thinking it’s going to go wrong or how to protect the assets on a divorce (I mean perhaps in some circumstances but generally not).

If I split up with DH tomorrow, we’d hopefully sell and have 2 houses where our joint children could stay. If he was renting a shitty flat unable to support himself because I’d kept my share safe, would this be good for a co parenting relationship?

I would say the property should be purchased before the marriage to give options. That doesn't mean your brother couldn't share some of the money, or they could do a pre-nup to give her a little more security from the value of the property.

However, what I would potentially look at to help with the financial security would be to use some of the money that the two of them would have used for housing, and either get a buy to let in her name, or both names after marriage so she has a claim to a property (even if it is less expensive), or they could set up an investment in her name.

I don't think it would be fair for her to potentially be left homeless in the event of a divorce on the basis of their marital home not being eligible for anything, so giving her some financial security is reasonable. That doesn't have to involve your parents gift though

Of course snyone would be concerned if their elderly relative was targeted by a scammer. How long have you known her? When and why did you suspect her of being a scammer? Have you told your brother you suspect her of not being genuine?

She sounds grabby and is deliberately angling to get a slice of your brother’s wealth (which she hasn’t contributed to). What’s her own family’s financial situation like? Surely if she needed financial help she can lean on them? Not take money from your parents.

If they have kids I’m sure your brother would provide for them and by default her.

Thst would certainly be a more sensible option.

Personally I wouldn’t want to live in a home only my husband owned.

I agree that seems grabby. This is a gift from your parents to their son. What he wishes to do with it, how he wishes to conduct his finances are up to him. He could still sell it one day and share the proceeds with her at that point. His choice and if trusts her he can do so.

However, there is no reason why they won’t go on to buy a home together, as they would have done without the gift of the flat. He could rent it out and use the income towards a shared mortgage on a future property from which she would, therefore, also benefit. As suggested already, he may consider selling in the future, if they have children for example and need more space than a flat - at which point he could use the proceeds from the sale (legally ring-fencing them at the point of purchase unless he chooses to share) and she would then be able to add her own funds, contribute to the mortgage and accrue her own share of the marital asset.

There is no reason she can’t have financial security - she just needs to save what she is not spending on rent/mortgage so she has a nest egg and consider buying a future property with the brother (or even buying a share. It’s what I did, it’s what my sisters and female friends did. We didn’t look to a man to provide for us - we entered our relationships on a fairly equal footing and brought something to the table ourselves. She has no right to expect to be ‘given’ financial security as a benefit of Op/Brother’s parents being wealthy.

So yes, I think asking the parents to wait until she is married so that it is a gift to both of them is CFery of the first order. 🚩🚩🚩🚩

I mean I probably looked like a gold digger when we got married then because I wanted to ensure if we did get divorced I would be treated fairly and wouldn’t be on my arse. I’m glad my in laws didn’t get all up in our bussiness though.

At the end of the day if they have kids it’s her who will take a career hit and possibly a massive health hit. My first two pregnancies and childbirths were fine and I assumed I’d bounce back again the third and final time for a hat trick… didn’t happen. I ended up having to take a lot more time off and lose a lot of potential earnings. You just don’t know what the future holds especially if your a woman and there’s possibly kids in your future.

What's to stop him selling it after the wedding, and using the money to buy a home that will be a marital asset?

If this woman was really a "gold-digger" that would have been the plan all along, with the parents and OP being none the wiser until it was all over.

OP in your shoes I'd appreciate that my new sister-in-law was being so open about her (very fair) concerns about financial vulnerability in the event of a divorce or even worse, a bereavement.

I think she is entirely sensible!

Suppose he gets the flat now, they then get married and have kids and he cheats on her (and dont say its impossible because we all know people who have done this who we never would have suspected).

She then wants to divorce him- so, what, you think it's ok that she gets NOTHING whatsoever and has to leave her home? Fuck that.

If they are marrying, then half of the house should be hers and anything else is just putting her in a terrible financial situation should they split

While they are living in this magnificent apartment bought after they are married, they each can save money each month and if they were to divorce, they will then each have their share of funds from the apartment, as well as their savings to buy a more modest property each. Any woman that moves into a home that they have no ownership of leaves themselves in a vulnerable position if the marriage fails.

I don’t think it’s gold-digging to want an equal share of your marital home. It’s quite normal in fact.

Not really. Most people do not come to a marriage with a property in their name with no mortgage. It’s usually something a couple contribute towards together. In that circumstance , yes, you’re want an equal share. Other than that… why should she?
Shes really lucky that she doesn’t need to pay for a mortgage. She and her husband can ageee to put the mortgage payments that they would have made in a savings account for her If financial security is a concern.