"Gift" from In-Laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just analogous to a pre-nutpual agreement. I would expect people who are on-board with PNA to be on-board with this.

Its just up to you how it sits in your mind.
I can see the IL's position. I can see your position.
There is no right or wrong. Just what is acceptable.

Actually, this is more analogous to a post-nup. I think it's insulting to OP in a way that a pre-nup would not be. Their son married this woman, so now he is family and they need to get on board.

[Anonymous]

how does this work? they can't gift the money to the mortgage company. It has to go through someones bank account. This does not seem enforceable between you and his parents. What if you only put half towards your house and paid off debt with the rest or whatever? Are they privy to your bank statements? Do you have to show proof of the transaction to them? This is crazy. I would cut ties with them sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous]

I'd be annoyed (and maybe have DH talk w/ them) but I'd take it - then again, we need the $.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - its 50k (I don't see the amount as that important). It would be nice to have, but more of a bonus on top of the down payment fund we have built independently. Not taking will not prevent us from buying a house.

To me it makes a difference.
50K you can live without.
250K would make me think harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just analogous to a pre-nutpual agreement. I would expect people who are on-board with PNA to be on-board with this.

Its just up to you how it sits in your mind.
I can see the IL's position. I can see your position.
There is no right or wrong. Just what is acceptable.

Actually, this is more analogous to a post-nup. I think it's insulting to OP in a way that a pre-nup would not be. Their son married this woman, so now he is family and they need to get on board.

Except that it is not analogous, because a post-nup would be discussed and agreed by the spouses. Here, the ILs are inserting themselves. Way different.

Look, a person is entitled to treat an inheritance or other non-marital property as individual property and not marital property. Whether or not you agree with it, a person is entitled to do so under the law. But when ILs get involved and try to make those decisions for the couple, to me that is another story altogether. Totally inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

What husband should do: The next time they complain about your not being close enough to them, he should have the guts and balls to stand up for you. "You say that Wife isn't close enough to you, and I've heard that for a long time. As your son and her husband, I want to be clear that I don't want to hear this any more." And when they do it yet again, he and you (and kids if any) leave as he says, "We need to go now. I did say that I would not be party to hearing you complain about Wife. Have a nice day."

Additions in bold:

"You say that Wife isn't close enough to you, and I've heard that for a long time. Has it ever occurred to you that if that's true, your behavior is the reason? Think back to the episode with the $50,000 'gift' - was your demand designed to foster a close relationship with her, or did it just serve to remind her that you feel she is an interloper in your family? From now on, [a]s your son and her husband, I want to be clear that I don't want to hear this any more." And when they do it yet again, he and you (and kids if any) leave as he says, "We need to go now. I did say that I would not be party to hearing you complain about Wife. Have a nice day."

[Anonymous]

$50k is a lot to most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$50k is a lot to most people.

Not enough to put up with this shit.
It's not life enhancing or life changing.

[Anonymous]

Do you have kids? If you do, ask them to put money away for college instead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have kids? If you do, ask them to put money away for college instead

+1 good idea

[Anonymous]

say "no thanks!" .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have kids? If you do, ask them to put money away for college instead

I was going to make a similar suggestion. Since you've only been married a year and a half I'm guessing kids aren't in the picture yet, but assuming you plan to have kids I think you could still make a similar suggestion. Have DH say something to them along the lines of you're not comfortable with this as you are a married couple and it is you joint life together, but if they want to be 'fair' to him that they can set aside that money for the benefit of the children y'all plan to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the same as a prenup, which I support. A prenup is closely followed by a promise from both of the signatories, witnessed by their closest friends and family, to make the marriage work. Her in laws are not making a promise , they're just insisting on leverage. . . for a gift. And implying they dislike their DIL or doubt their son's marriage.

NP, here. I disagree. They are making a gift to their son. They want to ensure that in the event of a divorce, that money stays in their family and doesn't go to the ex in-law. That's very much akin to prenuptials that allow each side to preserve their assets in the event of a separation/divorce. My family made certain gifts to us (a stock portfolio) that was included as pre-marital moneys for my marriage. Now that we have children, instead of coming back to me, that money will be placed in a trust for my children should we divorce or I die.

And we have a PNA, and it was nothing like what you said. It was basically a contract that said that X was my premarital assets that would remain mine in the event of divorce or death, Y was my spouse's premarital assets that would remain theirs in the event of divorce of death and everything else was joint marital. We both had assets that needed to remain on our sides of the family. Some were financial (my family stock portfolio vs my spouse's retirement pension); some were physical assets like our various family heirlooms that need to return to the respective families. This gift is essentially a portion of the family financial assets that that family wants to remain on their side of the family.

I agree with the PP that said that there is no right or wrong, only what is acceptable. If you agree with PNA's in general you would likely consider this to be an extension of that type of agreement.

How is your prenup nothing like what PP said? The only thing PP said about a prenup is that it is followed by marriage vows.

[Anonymous]

For me, if it was the difference between a home and being priced out, I might consider it. I have been in this situation several times with my in laws. Not very nice. Their expectations were immense. But so is the cost of private school. Then when they died (thank you God!) the inheritance was his to keep under State law, unless it was co-mingled. many sleepless nights over that. Worked out fine for me in the end, however. We have been married 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, if it was the difference between a home and being priced out, I might consider it. I have been in this situation several times with my in laws. Not very nice. Their expectations were immense. But so is the cost of private school. Then when they died [/b](thank you God!) [b]the inheritance was his to keep under State law, unless it was co-mingled. many sleepless nights over that. Worked out fine for me in the end, however. We have been married 30 years.

May your children in-law speak as kindly of you as you have about your in-laws. You seem very happy to take their money....