husband wants to buy house with his parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ps

"Maybe he feels like he should return what they gave to him. IDK yet. "


Yeah, um that is really a reasonable philosophy. Kids owe their parents for doing the job of parenting. Right.

Wow. You hate your parents huh...

OP maybe he just loves his parents and wants them to feel secure. Maybe this is a way for them to pass some wealth without taxes. If they are putting up the down payment and paying the mortgage thru the rent, then until/ if something goes wrong you have to take over. Yes, there will be taxes but you could draw up an agreement to be gifted annually the extra amount. Although you will have the extra mortage on your credit, if it's paid in time and your debt load is low hiw us that a negative? They aren't starting out with NOTHING down, you should be able to sell if you need to.

This is family. You have two kids with this man, unless there are other serious issues, it doesn't sound like you are headed to divorce. You knew he's in dreamland but you let him manage your investments? Maybe this isn't as bad as your emotions have lead you to believe.

a lot of "ifs" in this post. this poster is living in la la land, where family means rainbows, unicorns, and no such thing as financial smarts, b/c "we are family."

Use capitals and maybe we'll take your post seriously.

provide a relevant point or offer an original thought to the discussion and maybe i will take your post seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's more dishonest to be snarky behind their back and assume the worse behavior.

No shaming here . I could less if you love your parents or not. I just find it really interesting the amount of posters that seem to really distrust parental motivation. Granted these are the OPs in laws but she loves their son - right? He mostly likely was shaped by them - right?

Unfortunately, not everyone we love is worthy of our trust.

The parents are being greedy. They want more than they need, and more than they can afford, and they went behind their DIL's back to try to get it. They are also being unrealistic about the financial aspect of this deal. They may be lovely people and not intend to harm their DIL, but they are being greedy and foolish. DIL does not have to indulge them. Love does not mean enabling bad choices.

Who said they can't afford it? Stop making things up.

How said for you that you don't trust those you love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

older and not wiser. she married their SON. not them. she is not tied or bound to them.

You're not married to an only child - huh?

[Anonymous]

OP I reread your post and you have no intention of doing this transaction, so just say "no" and deal with the consequences.

Maybe you would feel more secure with divorce...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's more dishonest to be snarky behind their back and assume the worse behavior.

No shaming here . I could less if you love your parents or not. I just find it really interesting the amount of posters that seem to really distrust parental motivation. Granted these are the OPs in laws but she loves their son - right? He mostly likely was shaped by them - right?

Unfortunately, not everyone we love is worthy of our trust.

The parents are being greedy. They want more than they need, and more than they can afford, and they went behind their DIL's back to try to get it. They are also being unrealistic about the financial aspect of this deal. They may be lovely people and not intend to harm their DIL, but they are being greedy and foolish. DIL does not have to indulge them. Love does not mean enabling bad choices.

Who said they can't afford it? Stop making things up.

How said for you that you don't trust those you love.

If they could afford it, they would go ahead and buy a house on their own without stirring up trouble between OP and her DH.

It is sad for me, but it's the reality I live with. It would be nice to have parents who were honest, trustworthy, and responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

older and not wiser. she married their SON. not them. she is not tied or bound to them.

You're not married to an only child - huh?

? So marrying an only child means you are also married to the parents? I am an only. My DH is married to me and me alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

older and not wiser. she married their SON. not them. she is not tied or bound to them.

You're not married to an only child - huh?

? So marrying an only child means you are also married to the parents? I am an only. My DH is married to me and me alone.

Of course your only legally married to your spouse. Onlys tend to be closer to their parents. Guess you're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know a family who did this and it's worked out well. Same scenario - husband is an only child with a wife and 2 children.

We are living this situation as well, and it's working well for us. But the reason it's working well is because everything was completely transparent -- we knew my in-laws couldn't afford to keep a roof over their heads anymore and needed us to help support them, and DH and I made the decision together that it made more sense for us to buy them a house we could eventually sell (and hopefully recoup what we'd paid) than to throw away money on years of rent. We also chose the house ourselves, something modest that we were comfortable we could afford in addition to our existing mortgage, not just whatever my in-laws wanted (and believe me, they wanted something much bigger/more expensive than we were willing to pay for). There was no pretense that we were buying this house because it was more financially savvy for us to do it than them, it was out of necessity. That kind of honesty and transparency is completely lacking in OP's situation, which is why I'm one of the people who has strongly recommended in this thread that OP not go along with her husband's plan without at least getting more/better information from him about what's really going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

older and not wiser. she married their SON. not them. she is not tied or bound to them.

You're not married to an only child - huh?

? So marrying an only child means you are also married to the parents? I am an only. My DH is married to me and me alone.

Of course your only legally married to your spouse. Onlys tend to be closer to their parents. Guess you're not.

ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a family who did this and it's worked out well. Same scenario - husband is an only child with a wife and 2 children.

We are living this situation as well, and it's working well for us. But the reason it's working well is because everything was completely transparent -- we knew my in-laws couldn't afford to keep a roof over their heads anymore and needed us to help support them, and DH and I made the decision together that it made more sense for us to buy them a house we could eventually sell (and hopefully recoup what we'd paid) than to throw away money on years of rent. We also chose the house ourselves, something modest that we were comfortable we could afford in addition to our existing mortgage, not just whatever my in-laws wanted (and believe me, they wanted something much bigger/more expensive than we were willing to pay for). There was no pretense that we were buying this house because it was more financially savvy for us to do it than them, it was out of necessity. That kind of honesty and transparency is completely lacking in OP's situation, which is why I'm one of the people who has strongly recommended in this thread that OP not go along with her husband's plan without at least getting more/better information from him about what's really going on.

Glad to hear it is working well for you. I'm interested to know more-- how did you get them to accept your terms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a family who did this and it's worked out well. Same scenario - husband is an only child with a wife and 2 children.

We are living this situation as well, and it's working well for us. But the reason it's working well is because everything was completely transparent -- we knew my in-laws couldn't afford to keep a roof over their heads anymore and needed us to help support them, and DH and I made the decision together that it made more sense for us to buy them a house we could eventually sell (and hopefully recoup what we'd paid) than to throw away money on years of rent. We also chose the house ourselves, something modest that we were comfortable we could afford in addition to our existing mortgage, not just whatever my in-laws wanted (and believe me, they wanted something much bigger/more expensive than we were willing to pay for). There was no pretense that we were buying this house because it was more financially savvy for us to do it than them, it was out of necessity. That kind of honesty and transparency is completely lacking in OP's situation, which is why I'm one of the people who has strongly recommended in this thread that OP not go along with her husband's plan without at least getting more/better information from him about what's really going on.

I hadn't read the responses, only chimed in. The family I personally know built a home - huge - so that DH's parents could have their own suite, and I don't think they need any monetary assistance. This situation was more like "hey, you're here a lot, let's do this". They also help with childcare. It's been a positive experience. You were smart that you had boundaries, and didn't let anyone push you over

[Anonymous]

And if one of them needs full time nursing care for several years (can easily happen) will they still be able to afford the "rent?"

What if they decide to move somewhere else in 10 years? Do you keep their 20% or have to buy them out?

[Anonymous]

I can't imagine any situation where this would work out "well". I can see it being tolerable.

I don't like the risk that could hurt the grandchildren all in the name of helping able bodied adults who are expected to manage their retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a family who did this and it's worked out well. Same scenario - husband is an only child with a wife and 2 children.

We are living this situation as well, and it's working well for us. But the reason it's working well is because everything was completely transparent -- we knew my in-laws couldn't afford to keep a roof over their heads anymore and needed us to help support them, and DH and I made the decision together that it made more sense for us to buy them a house we could eventually sell (and hopefully recoup what we'd paid) than to throw away money on years of rent. We also chose the house ourselves, something modest that we were comfortable we could afford in addition to our existing mortgage, not just whatever my in-laws wanted (and believe me, they wanted something much bigger/more expensive than we were willing to pay for). There was no pretense that we were buying this house because it was more financially savvy for us to do it than them, it was out of necessity. That kind of honesty and transparency is completely lacking in OP's situation, which is why I'm one of the people who has strongly recommended in this thread that OP not go along with her husband's plan without at least getting more/better information from him about what's really going on.

Glad to hear it is working well for you. I'm interested to know more-- how did you get them to accept your terms?

We got them to accept by making it non-negotiable if they wanted us to pay for their housing. DH and I sat down and talked it all through just the two of us after they asked us for help, and came to decisions on our own about what we were willing/able to do. My in-laws initially balked at our proposal (they wanted us to just give them cash that they could use as they saw fit), but we were firm that this was what we were comfortable offering, and while they certainly weren't required to accept our help, they couldn't dictate the terms of the help because it needed to work with our financial/personal situation. When we didn't back down, they went along with it because they realized they had no choice. We weren't assholes about it, though. When it came to choosing the house, we found two that we thought were acceptable (reasonable price, sound fundamentals) and let them choose based on their own personal preference. So it's not that they had no say, but they could only choose from between options we'd already selected as acceptable. I won't pretend that it didn't create tension for a while or that it hasn't affected the relationship at all, but we all still get along well enough. More importantly, though, none of it drove a wedge between us, because we prioritized our marriage and our/our children's financial needs instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a family who did this and it's worked out well. Same scenario - husband is an only child with a wife and 2 children.

We are living this situation as well, and it's working well for us. But the reason it's working well is because everything was completely transparent -- we knew my in-laws couldn't afford to keep a roof over their heads anymore and needed us to help support them, and DH and I made the decision together that it made more sense for us to buy them a house we could eventually sell (and hopefully recoup what we'd paid) than to throw away money on years of rent. We also chose the house ourselves, something modest that we were comfortable we could afford in addition to our existing mortgage, not just whatever my in-laws wanted (and believe me, they wanted something much bigger/more expensive than we were willing to pay for). There was no pretense that we were buying this house because it was more financially savvy for us to do it than them, it was out of necessity. That kind of honesty and transparency is completely lacking in OP's situation, which is why I'm one of the people who has strongly recommended in this thread that OP not go along with her husband's plan without at least getting more/better information from him about what's really going on.

Glad to hear it is working well for you. I'm interested to know more-- how did you get them to accept your terms?

We got them to accept by making it non-negotiable if they wanted us to pay for their housing. DH and I sat down and talked it all through just the two of us after they asked us for help, and came to decisions on our own about what we were willing/able to do. My in-laws initially balked at our proposal (they wanted us to just give them cash that they could use as they saw fit), but we were firm that this was what we were comfortable offering, and while they certainly weren't required to accept our help, they couldn't dictate the terms of the help because it needed to work with our financial/personal situation. When we didn't back down, they went along with it because they realized they had no choice. We weren't assholes about it, though. When it came to choosing the house, we found two that we thought were acceptable (reasonable price, sound fundamentals) and let them choose based on their own personal preference. So it's not that they had no say, but they could only choose from between options we'd already selected as acceptable. I won't pretend that it didn't create tension for a while or that it hasn't affected the relationship at all, but we all still get along well enough. More importantly, though, none of it drove a wedge between us, because we prioritized our marriage and our/our children's financial needs instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I should clarify that last part, it created tension for a while with my in-laws, not between DH and I. The tension obviously was harder on DH than on me, but he didn't blame me for that or otherwise let it come between us because he was on board with the reasons why we did it this way.