I think the stipulation is reasonable and makes sense. But if you don't need the money, turn it down- problem solved.

Your husband needs to tell them "No thanks" and be done with it.

They're sending quite a crappy message!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how many people are upset about this. It makes perfect sense and shouldn't be considered insulting. I'd be insulted if my DIL got her panties in a wad over this. It's his family's money - they want it to stay in the family. And it implies you think there's a chance you'll split. I mean, if you're SO sure you'll stay together forever, take the money, sign their agreement and live happily ever after.

And In the case of divorce, what's the big deal? They give you $50k for a down payment on a $500,000 house. in 5 years, you guys split, the house is worth $800,000 - you sell the house you get $350, he gets $450. Seriously, why get so bent out of shape over this?

She is in the family now. It doesn't imply that OP thinks there's a chance of a split. It implies that the parents are drawing a line of separation and that the OP will never feel complete ownership of her house with this ridiculous clause. If the parents don't want to give to both of them, then they should keep the money themselves.

Excellent point.

Anonymous wrote:Also, to clarify, they don't just hope it would work out this way should we get divorced but they actually want me to sign an agreement on this.

BTW, they cannot ask for this, and legally call it a "gift" (for their tax purposes). Can't have their cake and eat it too.

I'd be polite but say no, esp. because you don't need it, and it seems bad karma...

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how many people are upset about this. It makes perfect sense and shouldn't be considered insulting. I'd be insulted if my DIL got her panties in a wad over this. It's his family's money - they want it to stay in the family. And it implies you think there's a chance you'll split. I mean, if you're SO sure you'll stay together forever, take the money, sign their agreement and live happily ever after.

And In the case of divorce, what's the big deal? They give you $50k for a down payment on a $500,000 house. in 5 years, you guys split, the house is worth $800,000 - you sell the house you get $350, he gets $450. Seriously, why get so bent out of shape over this?

She is in the family now. It doesn't imply that OP thinks there's a chance of a split. It implies that the parents are drawing a line of separation and that the OP will never feel complete ownership of her house with this ridiculous clause. If the parents don't want to give to both of them, then they should keep the money themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how many people are upset about this. It makes perfect sense and shouldn't be considered insulting. I'd be insulted if my DIL got her panties in a wad over this. It's his family's money - they want it to stay in the family. And it implies you think there's a chance you'll split. I mean, if you're SO sure you'll stay together forever, take the money, sign their agreement and live happily ever after.

And In the case of divorce, what's the big deal? They give you $50k for a down payment on a $500,000 house. in 5 years, you guys split, the house is worth $800,000 - you sell the house you get $350, he gets $450. Seriously, why get so bent out of shape over this?

Yeah, because we are all so sure that her house will appreciate 60% in 5 years?

You missed the boat. Glib.

How much money are we talking?
50k
500k

It would make a difference.

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how many people are upset about this. It makes perfect sense and shouldn't be considered insulting. I'd be insulted if my DIL got her panties in a wad over this. It's his family's money - they want it to stay in the family. And it implies you think there's a chance you'll split. I mean, if you're SO sure you'll stay together forever, take the money, sign their agreement and live happily ever after.

And In the case of divorce, what's the big deal? They give you $50k for a down payment on a $500,000 house. in 5 years, you guys split, the house is worth $800,000 - you sell the house you get $350, he gets $450. Seriously, why get so bent out of shape over this?

Yeah, because we are all so sure that her house will appreciate 60% in 5 years?

Among other issues, that kind of "strings attached" gift could complicate mortgage approval and possible have tax implications for the in laws because it is more like a loan. Also would screw you if your home lost value! Then you might owe them more than the equity you actually had.

What an awful thing for the ILs to suggest! Actually signing something like that in the event of your divorce??? Unbelievably offensive.

I would have no problem telling them that THIS is the reason why we are not close. Actually DH and yourself should tell them together, during a conference call.

There. And refuse the money.

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how many people are upset about this. It makes perfect sense and shouldn't be considered insulting. I'd be insulted if my DIL got her panties in a wad over this. It's his family's money - they want it to stay in the family. And it implies you think there's a chance you'll split. I mean, if you're SO sure you'll stay together forever, take the money, sign their agreement and live happily ever after.

And In the case of divorce, what's the big deal? They give you $50k for a down payment on a $500,000 house. in 5 years, you guys split, the house is worth $800,000 - you sell the house you get $350, he gets $450. Seriously, why get so bent out of shape over this?

They gave the BIL the money outright, without strings. They should do the same for their other son, OP's husband. OP IS a member of their family now yet they are treating her like an outsider. You probably don't get it because you also see your DIL as an outsider.

i think its about the inlaw's respect for pp and her marriage. i could understand that pp doesnt want to sign because she wants inlaws to expect that the marriage will not break up. inlaws are the ones with doubts that the marriage will last, not pp. you say "its his family's money - they want it to stay in the family." the point is, she is part of the family now.

I can't believe how many people are upset about this. It makes perfect sense and shouldn't be considered insulting. I'd be insulted if my DIL got her panties in a wad over this. It's his family's money - they want it to stay in the family. And it implies you think there's a chance you'll split. I mean, if you're SO sure you'll stay together forever, take the money, sign their agreement and live happily ever after.

And In the case of divorce, what's the big deal? They give you $50k for a down payment on a $500,000 house. in 5 years, you guys split, the house is worth $800,000 - you sell the house you get $350, he gets $450. Seriously, why get so bent out of shape over this?

Ugh OP, this is a crummy dynamic you're having to deal with. If you can afford it I would suggest taking the highest road and just saying no thank you.

I liked the little suggested script a pp made for that conversation and for follow-up ways your husband can deal with it, and I definitely think the burden of dealing with this falls to him.

It took my husband and I a while to figure out how to manage all of our in-law dynamics but one of our baseline rules is "I deal with mine and you deal with yours". It has minimized them attempting to play one off the other (which they tried), allowed the spouse w/ all the experience in that family to manage it the way they see fit, and also communicated that we are a team.

Good luck. I'm glad you can be in the position to graciously refuse the crudely managed offer. I hope time improves their interpersonal skills.

Anonymous wrote:Completely insulting. Do you have kids? That would factor in as well - keeping a roof over their heads, and funding education etc. If they want to give DH money, they should give DH money and then let him do what he wants with it, which will likely be putting it towards a house.

+1. Very short-sighted of the ILs. OP is going to be the mother of their grandchildren.