Pre-nup wanted by future in laws

Person_one

lauroar wrote: »

:eek: How do you imagine people cope when their in-laws don't have a spare house to let them live in for free as well as their own mortgaged house for their grown up child to live in for free?!

They cope because they have to, most of the time. Some don't cope very well.

I think its a bit harsh that so many people are suggesting it was wrong/stupid/greedy for the OP and her family to ever move into the house, or to want to keep living there.

Nobody forced her FIL to let them, in another family with a less controlling and unpleasant man it would be a lovely generous thing to offer and it would have been churlish and pointless for the OP to refuse.

Regardless of the legalities, and the financials, this is a man who is more than happy to make the statement that his son's wife, the mother of his grandchildren, is not family, can't be trusted and isn't worthy of any consideration from him.

That sucks, frankly, what a horrible way to think.

lauroar

Person_one wrote: »

They cope because they have to, most of the time. Some don't cope very well.

I think its a bit harsh that so many people are suggesting it was wrong/stupid/greedy for the OP and her family to ever move into the house, or to want to keep living there.

Nobody forced her FIL to let them, in another family with a less controlling and unpleasant man it would be a lovely generous thing to offer and it would have been churlish and pointless for the OP to refuse.

I wasn't suggesting it was wrong/stupid/greedy for them to move in to the house, I just balked at the suggestion that OP is now 'trapped' there with no other options.

It could/may well have been a lovely thing for the FIL to do and it was a great opportunity for the OP and her OH to get into a more financially stable position.

wrt the pre-nup it would leave a very unpleasant taste in my mouth, especially if my OH effectively washed his hands of the whole affair. How is a pre-nup agreement drafted by his father and presented to his fiancee/children's mother nothing to do with him?!

downshifted

Person_one wrote: »

Regardless of the legalities, and the financials, this is a man who is more than happy to make the statement that his son's wife, the mother of his grandchildren, is not family, can't be trusted and isn't worthy of any consideration from him.

That sucks, frankly, what a horrible way to think.

I don't necessarily think that is what he is saying. He may be saying "I am fully prepared to provide my son and his partner and their family with a home for nothing. However for the longer term, I want the assets I have worked and paid for to go only to my son and any of his offspring" I think he is quite entitled to say that. Until the wedding the OP would have had no claim anyway.

The OP has a house of her own. She can afford to allow her elder child to live in it through the generosity of her father in law. She lives in a bigger, better house, through the generosity of her father in law. All she has discovered is that there is a limit to his generosity; it does not continue in perpetuity.

I certainly don't blame her at all for living in the house - but she needs to accept that while she does that there is likely to be a different price to pay.

OP I agree with those who have said that if you do decide to sign a pre-nup you should include your own property in it. I still think though that I personally would be much happier standing on my own two feet. Lots of people have suggested compromises you could make to enable you to do that.

Mojisola

I was thinking about this thread this afternoon and it occurred to me that the FIL's thinking might be along these lines - "My son is such a waste of space and a poor provider, what does she see in him? She must be sticking with him because of my money, hoping to get her hands on it when I'm gone."

Person_one

Mojisola wrote: »

I was thinking about this thread this afternoon and it occurred to me that the FIL's thinking might be along these lines - "My son is such a waste of space and a poor provider, what does she see in him? She must be sticking with him because of my money, hoping to get her hands on it when I'm gone."

If I found myself thinking like that, I'd have strong words with myself.

If he doesn't want anybody getting their hands on his money when he's dead, he should leave it to the cat's home.

If you give a gift to a husband, it belongs just as much to his wife, that's kind of the whole point of marriage, isn't it? If he doesn't want her to have any of his money, he'll have to accept that means not giving it to his son either.

GobbledyGook

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

GoobledyGook - Nowhere near the same situation as you buying for your cousin.

The FIL isn't adding more strings to the house... The OP is getting married so she and her OH are making changes that might impact on the FILs finances.

I don't blame him for wanting clarity about the house as their marriage will introduce more 'rights' for the OP.

If the OP doesn't like someone else having an interest then why accept use of the house in the first place?

I don't think it's that different at all.

When he bought it he should have thought through all the possibilities for his son's future - including the out of work aspect, including what happened if he and the OP split up etc etc. He obviously didn't and now the pre-nup has come up. If he wanted control over all aspects of the house then he should have kept it in his name, but he didn't. The minute he decided to put it in trust or put his son's name anywhere near it he put that third (or whatever) part in his son's hands. Which, if he didn't want his sons decision to impact that he shouldn't have done.

I had to do the same when I bought the house. I had to think about what happened if my cousin died and her husband married someone I hated, or they split up or one/both of them secured a loan on the house and ended up losing it for something I considered daft. Ultimately I decided to hand it over with no strings and I'll just have to deal with a situation I don't like if it ever occurred by accepting that what is done is done.

The FIL put the house into the trust for the OP's OH and children - imo he shouldn't be making demands now because he didn't think it through properly first time around.

Georgiegirl256

Person_one wrote: »

If you give a gift to a husband, it belongs just as much to his wife, that's kind of the whole point of marriage, isn't it? No, that isn't the point if marriage. If he doesn't want her to have any of his money, he'll have to accept that means not giving it to his son either.

The FIL should be able to safeguard HIS investment. Why should someone who could potentially end up being his EX-wife stand to have a claim on it?

Why would someone (I don't just mean the OP, but in general) who says they aren't bothered about any financial gain be so opposed to signing it? Providing the appropriate clause are put in to safeguard her and the children of course, should the husband to the dirty on her or whatever.

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

If I found myself thinking like that, I'd have strong words with myself.

If he doesn't want anybody getting their hands on his money when he's dead, he should leave it to the cat's home.

If you give a gift to a husband, it belongs just as much to his wife, that's kind of the whole point of marriage, isn't it? If he doesn't want her to have any of his money, he'll have to accept that means not giving it to his son either.

But they weren't married when the arrangement was made. They still aren't. As the terms of the situation are changing perhaps he perceives his need to protect his investment in the property (its still not clear it has actually been gifted yet to the husband , only that it might be, or might have been to a trust).

For example, the father might have something leveraged against the capital value of the property ATM for all we know.

FBaby

I think I must have missed something but are you renting your old property? Are you getting a revenue from it? Also, you say that you are not paying rent to your FIL because you don't want to support him committing fraud?

How about you put the money you receive from your property and/or, put in a saving account what you would be paying rent and build a deposit that way. Then when you are a bit better off financially, you can get your own house and forget about this property.

Another thing I am not clear about, what does your OH actually say about the prenuptial? Is it him who told him that his father wanted one, or his father told you directly. Did your OH say that he thinks you should? Or doesn't think you should?

GobbledyGook

lostinrates wrote: »

But they weren't married when the arrangement was made. They still aren't. As the terms of the situation are changing perhaps he perceives his need to protect his investment in the property (its still not clear it has actually been gifted yet to the husband , only that it might be, or might have been to a trust).

For example, the father might have something leveraged against the capital value of the property ATM for all we know.

If it's in his name then it's protected. If he chose to put it into his son's name (be that via trust or whatever) then he should have thought about the impact his son's choices could/would make on that before he changed the names.



Actually OP I've just thought of something - if there is any point where you need to claim means tested benefits if you and your OH are out of work etc you need to know the status of the house. Especially important if you did choose to move and ever needed anything like housing benefit. You know the status of your property, but you don't of the house.