# Wife's Parents Want to Buy Her a House



## RC211V (Apr 10, 2013)

So my wife's parents decided to give us a down payment for a house. Recently, she came to me and said that that they told her they want it so that only she is on the title of ownership by herself, without me, since they consider it a gift to her, and don't want the house to be risked should anything go wrong between us at some point down the line. 

I feel somewhat crushed by this. I get where they are coming from. But to me, this somehow undermines the sense of partnership and union we have as a marriage. I don't know what to do. Should I just go along with it? Am I overreacting? It just doesn't feel right. 

My wife doesn't get where I'm coming from and agrees with her parents' decision. I really don't know how to articulate to them why this feels wrong to me and I just keep saying things like "it just feel wrong", or "marriage is a partnership", which doesn't convince anyone and falls on deaf ears. 

I'd like to get some other input here. Thanks


----------



## Thumper (Mar 23, 2013)

Well depending on the state you live, and how long you've been married. But I think its community property in a divorce anyways. Unless your wifes parents name is on the house only. 

Maybe not, but.............that's my 2 cents.


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

I don't think you're overreacting. It feels wrong for the very reason you stated... it undermines your marriage.

Where were they when she was single? That would be totally different IMO. Now she's married they want to gift her something YOU are expected to share with her? No bueno.

Tell her it is your wish to buy a house for both of you. It is FOR both of you. A house meant for only one of you is for only one of you to live in.


----------



## tryingtobebetter (Aug 6, 2012)

I am a bit confused. Would they pay for the whole cost of the house or just put some of the money up (your 'down payment')? If the former then I can understand that they would see it as their present to her, but if you are expected to pay some mortgage costs then that would not seem fair.

If the former I would accept that is what is going to happen and be grateful it saved me rent.

Because my father was much older than my mother my parents put their house in her sole name. That did not seem to cause them a problem.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

They are giving your a wife a down payment...not the full payment correct? So she would need you as a co signer for the mortgage.
Do they expect you to do that? Talk about over stepping boundaries.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

For just the down payment? Absolutely not if you are on the mortgage and responsible for making payments. You get no equity for your payments (unless your state divorce law gives you some).

If she insists, say OK, but you're not signing the mortgage nor allocating any of your pay towards the mortgage.


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

Oh I'm sure they expect HIM to pay the mortgage, just not be on it.

They can keep their gift to her. It doesn't benefit your marriage at all.


----------



## RC211V (Apr 10, 2013)

We live in California. They are only giving us the down payment. My wife and I will be paying on the monthly mortgage, but I will not be a part-owner. I will be a renter. They said they are willing to have some agreement drawn up where if we split up, then I will be able to claim some of the money I paid into the house. But they don't want me to be on the title of ownership because they want the house to be off-limits should anything go wrong between us. They have good accountants and lawyer resources so they have the ability to find whatever loopholes, etc to make this work in the way they want it to.


----------



## dblkman (Jul 14, 2010)

how long you been married? is there a history of her parents doing this type of behavior? what kind of relationship do you have with them?


----------



## Rosemary's Granddaughter (Aug 25, 2012)

RC211V said:


> We live in California. They are only giving us the down payment. My wife and I will be paying on the monthly mortgage, but I will not be a part-owner. I will be a renter. They said they are willing to have some agreement drawn up where if we split up, then I will be able to claim some of the money I paid into the house. But they don't want me to be on the title of ownership because they want the house to be off-limits should anything go wrong between us. They have good accountants and lawyer resources so they have the ability to find whatever loopholes, etc to make this work in the way they want it to.


Don't do it.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

If you and your wife will be paying the mortgage together, then I would insist on your name being attached to the house. If your wife's parents want to give her a house free and clear, then I say keep your name off the house.

Just as a hypothetical, let's say we're talking about a house worth $100k. Your wife's parents give HER $10k for a down payment. You then pay off the other $90k in principal, which takes 15 years and combined payments (principal and interest) of $220k. After the house is paid off, you and your wife divorce. Are your in-laws saying that your wife should get the house with no consideration of the money you put into it? That seems unreasonable.

Even if your wife works and makes a comparable salary to yours, you would BOTH be paying down the mortgage.

I think a decent compromise would be to draft a post-nup stating that whatever percentage your wife's parents are willing to put down (10% in my example) would be owned by your wife should you ever split up. So, if your $100k house grew to be worth $200k at the time of your divorce, $20k would be your wife's free and clear. Then, you divide up the other $180k along with your other assets.

Good luck.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Chris Taylor said:


> If she insists, say OK, but you're not signing the mortgage nor allocating any of your pay towards the mortgage.


Even that wouldn't work. Money is fungible. The money the husband contributes for food and other bills is money freed up for the wife to contribute to the mortgage.


----------



## RC211V (Apr 10, 2013)

dblkman said:


> how long you been married? is there a history of her parents doing this type of behavior? what kind of relationship do you have with them?


Been together 8 years, married 3. As far as history, we never bought a house together but I would say that this doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Toffer (Jan 31, 2012)

I would be more inclined to have a document drawn up that states that of you do divorce your wife gets 50% of the house plus the down payment
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rosemary's Granddaughter (Aug 25, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> If you and your wife will be paying the mortgage together, then I would insist on your name being attached to the house. If your wife's parents want to give her a house free and clear, then I say keep your name off the house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a great response. There is no reason, in a happy marriage, for one spouse to "rent" from another. It's like her parents are anticipating failure of the marriage...


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

I can't believe how you wife doesn't see how divisive this all is. Don't you matter here?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

RC211V said:


> They have good accountants and lawyer resources so they have the ability to find whatever loopholes, etc to make this work in the way they want it to.


You absolutely need your own lawyers and accountants to advise you. As I said, a good post-nup would be fair. Let your in-laws divorce attorney negotiate this with your divorce attorney.

Good luck.


----------



## Ostera (Nov 1, 2012)

In this day and age I am not sure if this type of thing is common or not. 

HOWEVER, it definitely sends an underlying message that you are not 'truly' considered family. If this does take place it will always an underlying point of contention.

You don't mention age and I assume you two must be in early 20's for parents to be doing this. Would it be possible for you to add to the conversation something along the lines of, "We appreciate your generosity but we would prefer to build our future together. This will help develop a bond of accomplishment together as we into our future." 

If the parents balk at you wanting to do for yourself.. then you may want to consider what else lies ahead with your in-laws.


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

NO! NO! NO!

Here's what you do if you *choose* to accept the generous gift from your wife's family. Have a lawyer draft an agreement between you and your in-laws that says in the event of divorce within 10 years of this agreement (and divorce ONLY) that you hold no claim to the amount of the down payment that was given and the funds will be returned to them (NOT your wife) as a separate line item at closing.

I assume, of course, that we are not talking hundreds-of-thousands of dollars here.


----------



## bbdad (Feb 11, 2013)

Get the in-laws out of your marriage. Buy them a copy of the book "Boundaries" by Dr Henry Cloud. It seems like they don't know where their boundaries are in your marriage.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Toffer said:


> I would be more inclined to have a document drawn up that states that of you do divorce your wife gets 50% of the house plus the down payment
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Isn't california a community property state anyway? It is strange though.


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

Also,

Even though they are your in-laws, treat this transaction as a business deal and tell your W you plan to do so. It was their choice to handle their 'gift with strings attached' this way. I hope your W would understand this position?! You do NOT need any outside influence controlling the financial life of you and your W. 

Let your W know that you will NOT be a renter in your own home regardless of the landlord. You do not want nor need this friction for years to come. Your W needs to be with you on this as she is the one with the most influence over the controlling lenders. 

By the way, is money and financial responsibility an issue for you? Your W? I only ask as I want to be sure that your in-laws are that controlling (were they controlling of your W growing up?) and not trying to protect their money from needless spenders.


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

I couldn't live happily in a home that me and my H didn't equally share a stake in. At the very sign of discontent, I could see the owner telling the non-owner to GTFO. It would be one of those things to lord one over with, and that wouldn't be right.


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser (Apr 7, 2012)

> OP:
> they want it so that only she is on the title of ownership by herself, without me, since they consider it a gift to her, and don't want the house to be risked should anything go wrong between us at some point down the line...
> 
> they are willing to have some agreement drawn up where if we split up, then I will be able to claim *some of the money I paid *into the house. But they don't want me to be on the title of ownership because they want the house to be off-limits should anything go wrong between us. *They have good accountants and lawyer resources so they have the ability to find whatever loopholes, etc to make this work in the way they want it to.*


Tell them, *FINE! GREAT!* While their expensive lawyers and accountants are DRAWING UP that agreement, ADD A LITTLE PROVISO that any children that are born of THIS MARRIAGE will be in the sole, lone, and complete custody of YOU ONLY.

After all, YOU are giving the 'down payment' (sperm) as a gift to her and she will have to continue contributing through delivery and for years afterwards. Also point out that YOU don't want the children "to be risked should anything go wrong between us at some point down the line..." *So far, it sounds MIGHTY FAIR to me!*

Be sure to have additional wording that "if we split up, then she will be able to claim some of the time she paid into the children" with some stipulation for VERY LIMITED VISITATION...and NONE for her parents!

*There, I think that's got it all! 

Damn! I should have been a lawyer...or at least King Solomon!* :rofl: :rofl:

[too bad they don't have a 'dusting your hands off' emoticon...another problem SOLVED!]


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

Their suggestion is unfair. 

If they were buying the house outright for their daughter I might be able to see their point but they aren't. They are only providing a down payment.

Don't let that happen.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

RC211V said:


> We live in California. They are only giving us the down payment. My wife and I will be paying on the monthly mortgage, but I will not be a part-owner. I will be a renter.


I would have your lawyer go all out on the renter clause. If you will be a renter, then you will not be responsible for any maintenance or upkeep on the house. Your wife pays for the plumber to unclog the sink. Your wife pays to get the house painted. Your wife pays the property taxes on the house. Your wife handles the landscaping duties (or pays a landscaper to maintain the property).

And, of course, you will have to keep separate finances to ensure that your money doesn't go toward paying for anything that your wife WOULD pay for if you weren't sharing finances. For example, you can't pay your wife's car insurance. That's on her.

It will certainly get complicated. But, your wife's parents will get what they want. They may get more than they want.  They probably want her to own the house. But, they probably don't want her to own the headaches that accompany a house.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

Ownership of a house and what happens when a divorce takes place is a serious legal matter with far-reaching consequences. I would encourage you to talk to an attorney before taking ANY decisive action. 

As a Realtor (but not in Cali, so the laws are different), I'd say that if you're going to be paying on the mortgage, you need to protect your own investment. An attorney might tell you that you'd be protected anyway if you're in a community property state, since anything acquired after marriage is a "marital asset." However, there can be addendums drawn up to exclude it, I would imagine, and if you're like most people who don't read the gajillions of pages of small print and legal lingo that you're signing, you could get damaged by agreeing. 

Another consideration is that if you agreed to this, how would the house be treated if your wife died? What if you and your wife both died? This could create some problems. 

Taking off the Realtor cap and putting on my "real estate investor" one instead, I can tell you that I have purchased properties without my ex-husband and excluded him from receiving any benefit by setting the property up as an LLC. (He was agreeable to this because I was paying 100% of the property costs.) When we divorced, he had no legitimate claim to it if he'd wanted to, and would be immune if a foreclosure took place (which ultimately did happen on two of them.)

I don't pretend to be an expert in the law, but I can tell you that there are different ways for title to transfer and each of these has particular legal distinctions: 

Joint tenancy
Tenants in common (what I think they're trying to do)
Tenants in common with rights of survivorship
Life estate
Life estate par autre vie
LLC
Certain types of retirement plans (SEP) 

Let me emphasize again... Talk to an attorney!!!


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

I think the idea/agreement that any down payment will be returned to them when the house is sold for any reason (maybe even with an interest bonus) is fair. And then you and your wife can be equal partners in the ownership of the house. 

You might want to point your wife to this thread so she can understand how other people are interpreting this. And she can provide her point of view as well. But to make you a tenant in your own home is unreasonable.

C


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

SlowlyGettingWiser said:


> Tell them, *FINE! GREAT!* While their expensive lawyers and accountants are DRAWING UP that agreement, ADD A LITTLE PROVISO that any children that are born of THIS MARRIAGE will be in the sole, lone, and complete custody of YOU ONLY.
> 
> After all, YOU are giving the 'down payment' (sperm) as a gift to her and she will have to continue contributing through delivery and for years afterwards. Also point out that YOU don't want the children "to be risked should anything go wrong between us at some point down the line..." *So far, it sounds MIGHTY FAIR to me!*
> 
> ...


^That's hilarious!!


----------



## Theseus (Feb 22, 2013)

I have to disagree with the people who say this is about crossing boundaries. This has nothing to do with boundaries, because it's entirely up to the couple. In fact, this is the case of simple gift-giving.

Parents want to give a gift. The gift has conditions attached. (they can do this, it is their gift to give, after all!). Likewise, the couple doesn't need to accept this gift. That is their right. *So it's entirely up to the couple if they feel this crosses their boundaries or not*. If it does, then don't accept the gift. Simple.

BTW, putting another spin on this, this could actually work in the husband's favor. If they can't make payments, and the bank forecloses on the house, then it's the wife's credit which will be trashed, not his.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

I'd be okay with them protecting their investment but to be fair you need to protect yours too. 

Talk to an attorney.

I wouldn't be okay being a renter in a marital home.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

RC211V said:


> So my wife's parents decided to give us a down payment for a house. Recently, she came to me and said that that they told her they want it so that only she is on the title of ownership by herself, without me, since they consider it a gift to her, and don't want the house to be risked should anything go wrong between us at some point down the line.


Generally it doesn't matter whose name is on the house if it was purchased during the marriage it's marital property and will be divided in any divorce arrangement.

Your state may be different but I think the vast majority of states consider the house marital property.



> I feel somewhat crushed by this. I get where they are coming from. But to me, this somehow undermines the sense of partnership and union we have as a marriage. I don't know what to do. Should I just go along with it? Am I overreacting? It just doesn't feel right.


I understand the emotional aspect of this and can sympathize but I have to admit I made certain I purchased our house prior to any wedding license being submitted to the court house for just this reason.

My house isn't marital property for this reason.



> My wife doesn't get where I'm coming from and agrees with her parents' decision. I really don't know how to articulate to them why this feels wrong to me and I just keep saying things like "it just feel wrong", or "marriage is a partnership", which doesn't convince anyone and falls on deaf ears.


Then don''t agree to the house.
Your feelings are perfectly understandable as are theirs even if theirs aren't too well informed.

What would they say if they were told that it doesn't matter whose name is on the house as far as a divorce arrangement goes?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

RC211V said:


> We live in California. They are only giving us the down payment. My wife and I will be paying on the monthly mortgage, but I will not be a part-owner. I will be a renter. They said they are willing to have some agreement drawn up where if we split up, then I will be able to claim some of the money I paid into the house. But they don't want me to be on the title of ownership because they want the house to be off-limits should anything go wrong between us. They have good accountants and lawyer resources so they have the ability to find whatever loopholes, etc to make this work in the way they want it to.


I would not accept their money under those terms. Absolutely not.

The fact that your wife thinks this is perfectly ok says a lot.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

Theseus said:


> I have to disagree with the people who say this is about crossing boundaries. This has nothing to do with boundaries, because it's entirely up to the couple. In fact, this is the case of simple gift-giving.
> 
> Parents want to give a gift. The gift has conditions attached. (they can do this, it is their gift to give, after all!). Likewise, the couple doesn't need to accept this gift. That is their right. *So it's entirely up to the couple if they feel this crosses their boundaries or not*. If it does, then don't accept the gift. Simple.
> 
> ...


----------



## BrockLanders (Jul 23, 2012)

I think your in-laws have a reasonable case to make, as do you. Can't you put together a post-nup that specifies that if the house sells, you don't get any of the down payment back?


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Oh man I missed that it was just a down payment.

If you're going to be paying the mortgage then hell no do not do this!!

This is a scam, your in-laws are trying to screw you.
I'd re-assess any relationship I had with them after they attempted this crap.

No way.

You'll be much better off renting for a year while saving the down payment yourself.


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

Theseus said:


> I have to disagree with the people who say this is about crossing boundaries. This has nothing to do with boundaries, because it's entirely up to the couple. In fact, this is the case of simple gift-giving.
> 
> Parents want to give a gift. The gift has conditions attached. (they can do this, it is their gift to give, after all!). Likewise, the couple doesn't need to accept this gift. That is their right. *So it's entirely up to the couple if they feel this crosses their boundaries or not*. If it does, then don't accept the gift. Simple.
> 
> BTW, putting another spin on this, this could actually work in the husband's favor. If they can't make payments, and the bank forecloses on the house, then it's the wife's credit which will be trashed, not his.


Apparently, his wife doesn't have a problem with it. He's the one asking the question. So I don't think they are in total agreement about this.


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

Openminded said:


> Apparently, his wife doesn't have a problem with it. He's the one asking the question. So I don't think they are in total agreement about this.


Of course she doesn't, they are her parents and want to give HER a house to live in. She, in no way, loses on the deal. She is failing to be equal partners in a marriage if she can't at least understand where her H is coming from. It is no longer just about her (me, me, me) anymore!


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Do the in-laws realize they've put your marriage in jeopardy over this?

If your wife can't see your point and you refuse this deal (As you should) then what's that going to do to the marriage?


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

tacoma said:


> Do the in-laws realize they've put your marriage in jeopardy over this?
> 
> If your wife can't see your point and you refuse this deal (As you should) then what's that going to do to the marriage?


Exactly how does your wife expect you to take this I mean wth!


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

tacoma said:


> Do the in-laws *realize *they've put your marriage in jeopardy over this?
> 
> If your wife can't see your point and you refuse this deal (As you should) then what's that going to do to the marriage?


Or even care.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

They have terrible legal representation if they are saying that legally this would stand up in court. California is a community property state and any assets acquired during the marriage is divided 50/50, regardless of who takes out the mortgage/pays it. Tell them to shove their "offer" up their ass and start saving for a down payment without Mommy and Daddy. If your wife has an issue with that, then you really shouldn't be committing to a 30 year mortgage with her anyways.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

whatslovegottodowithit? said:


> Of course she doesn't, they are her parents and want to give HER a house to live in. She, in no way, loses on the deal. She is failing to be equal partners in a marriage if she can't at least understand where her H is coming from. It is no longer just about her (me, me, me) anymore!


I agree. I think it's her duty to the marriage to take a stand on her husband's behalf. "Mom and Dad, I appreciate the idea, but I think that puts my husband at risk and I don't want to be a party to that."


----------



## KanDo (Jun 15, 2011)

Why are you even considering this? If you in laws wish to give a gift, they can give it. A gift with rstrictions is no gift in my mind. In addition, if you are providing any income to the mortage, you should have an ownership interest. Speak with an accountant and then I would sit my wife down and run through the unrasonableness of this whole idea and how this "gift" makes it clear that her family considers you an outsider. Perhaps your inlaws would like to make a very low interest loan to you and your wife whcich they forgive ata rate of 11,000 per person per year as a recurring gift. Then there are no tax consequences but you both own the house and they can stop the gift at anytime and have the remaining principal still secured by the property. 

Good luck with your wife and your in-laws. Doesn't look good to me.


----------



## RC211V (Apr 10, 2013)

"CA state law excludes from community property any property owned before a couple was married, any property [inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party]."

This is what I think they are planning to do...make this an "early inheritance" to their daughter rather than leaving her with money or assets when they die. In the end though, it makes me a tenant. And they are not going to go along with a seperate clause that says that she gets the down payment if we divorceif we divorce but that we are equal owners and split the rest evenly if it comes to that because that will most likely put her out of the house. 

My biggest concern is not that my inlaws are trying this but that my wife is OK with this and doesn't see how wrong it is. We have been trying to work on our relationship and this is not going to help matters. I fear that this is going to be the catalyst to us unfortunately ending it. We are supposed to get together with her parents this evening to talk about the situation.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

Stand your ground and just say no.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

RC211V said:


> "CA state law excludes from community property any property owned before a couple was married, any property [inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party]."
> 
> This is what I think they are planning to do...make this an "early inheritance" to their daughter rather than leaving her with money or assets when they die. In the end though, it makes me a tenant. And they are not going to go along with a seperate clause that says that she gets the down payment if we divorceif we divorce but that we are equal owners and split the rest evenly if it comes to that because that will most likely put her out of the house.
> 
> My biggest concern is not that my inlaws are trying this but that my wife is OK with this and doesn't see how wrong it is. We have been trying to work on our relationship and this is not going to help matters. I fear that this is going to be the catalyst to us unfortunately ending it. We are supposed to get together with her parents this evening to talk about the situation.


Any money or property owned outright gifted to your wife would be considered hers and hers alone. Inheritance is the one thing that is excluded in community property state divorce situations. This is NOT an inheritance however in that they are giving her money which will allow her to enter in to a legal binding agreement with a third party (bank/mortgage lender). Debts as well as assets are community property. A mortgage is a debt and thus shared jointly. If they however bought her a house outright and gifted it to her, then it would be viewed as an inheritance but that is very different than what they are proposing. Again, they are getting terrible legal advice if this is what they are being told. 

As to you, I wouldn't discuss it any further with them. It is obvious that they hope you aren't savvy enough to figure out what is going on. If they continue, I would let them know tonight that you will be having a consultation with an attorney to see what your legal rights are in all of this.


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

Then sadly, you have bigger issues then home equity. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

RC211V said:


> "CA state law excludes from community property any property owned before a couple was married, any property [inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party]."
> 
> This is what I think they are planning to do...make this an "early inheritance" to their daughter rather than leaving her with money or assets when they die. In the end though, it makes me a tenant. And they are not going to go along with a seperate clause that says that she gets the down payment if we divorceif we divorce but that we are equal owners and split the rest evenly if it comes to that because that will most likely put her out of the house.
> 
> My biggest concern is not that my inlaws are trying this but that my wife is OK with this and doesn't see how wrong it is. We have been trying to work on our relationship and this is not going to help matters. I fear that this is going to be the catalyst to us unfortunately ending it. We are supposed to get together with her parents this evening to talk about the situation.


I suspect that your in-laws and wife are already planning your divorce if your wife is saying she is ok with this. I also suspect that an attorney would say that the down payment is the grand total of their gift, not the value of the house. 

Your first paragraph is full of mistaken assumptions, I think. 

1. You would not be a tenant in the house simply because they gave down payment gift funds, even if her name was the only one on the title. I encouraged you to talk to an attorney because the house itself would likely be community property, and the value of the gift would either be exempted from the value of the house when resold, or it would be absorbed and the law would say, "The gift was money. The house was a purchase she made, but it was not the gift." 

2. If you divorced and didn't have an agreement, and she was able to keep everything, she would STILL probably be out of the house if she cannot purchase it without your "rental" contribution. On the other hand, if you had such an agreement where she got the value of the down payment back PLUS half the proceeds of the sale, it would give her a nest egg that she could use to buy another house. I call bull-hockey on their argument on this. 

I hope during your discussion tonight, you'll inform everyone that you will not make a decision until after you speak to an attorney. I also hope you'll tell your wife that she's putting her own wants and needs ahead of your marriage, which doesn't make you feel good about things.

EDITED TO ADD: By the way, there are strict limitations on gift funds and how they can be used. There is usually a cap on how much of the down payment can be made with gift funds, typically about 1% of the purchase price. Where will the rest of it come from? If they try to use her parents' money for the down payment, either they have to give it to her with no strings attached and it must be left in her account(s) for at least a couple of months to "season" it as being evidence that it's her own money, or they have to commit mortgage fraud to pay more than the lender's cap on gift contributions. The lender will almost certainly require a letter from the parents stating that the money is a gift and doesn't have to be repaid ever.


----------



## Ostera (Nov 1, 2012)

OP, what happens if something were to happen to your wife? Who owns the house then? 

You need to establish with you in-laws that you need some form of stability in this situation..


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

Theseus said:


> I have to disagree with the people who say this is about crossing boundaries. This has nothing to do with boundaries, because it's entirely up to the couple. In fact, this is the case of simple gift-giving.
> 
> Parents want to give a gift. The gift has conditions attached. (they can do this, it is their gift to give, after all!). Likewise, the couple doesn't need to accept this gift. That is their right. *So it's entirely up to the couple if they feel this crosses their boundaries or not*. If it does, then don't accept the gift. Simple.
> 
> BTW, putting another spin on this, this could actually work in the husband's favor. If they can't make payments, and the bank forecloses on the house, then it's the wife's credit which will be trashed, not his.


A gift with 15-30 year strings attached.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

I would cancel the meeting tonight and tell the in-laws (and your W) that more time is needed to discuss this with your W and you will contact them if you have any ?'s.

If, for some reason, you can't cancel the meeting or don't want to upset your wife (are you easily controlled by your wife?), listen to their proposal, thank them for their offer, and tell them you will contact them at a later date (to buy you more time to work on your M along with this 'gift' deal with your W). If your W still is insistent on doing something that may cause harm to you, her H, you need to reevaluate your M and YOUR future.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

If you and your wife aren't on the same page on this, then you should be buying a house together anyway. Or having kids. Or even getting a gerbil together. 

They're not giving you a house. That invalidates the law that you noted, if you ask me. But you really need to talk to a lawyer. A real lawyer, not anonymous people on the Internet. Logically, the amount that they gifted the person would be exempt from community property, but the rest should be subject to regular distribution. So if they give 10%, the two of you as a couple are paying 90%. There's no way that you should walk away with nothing if the marriage should fail at some point. 

Plus there's no way I'd be a tenant in a situation like this. If I wanted to be a tenant and not get any equity when the house was sold, I'd just stay renting. 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I think you should insist that the title include you and your wife. 

If the down payment is $50,000 and the value of the house is $250,000, then your in-laws own 20% of the house. The title can show that 80% of the house is owned by you and your wife and 20% by your in-laws.


----------



## toonaive (Dec 13, 2012)

whatslovegottodowithit? said:


> I would cancel the meeting tonight and tell the in-laws (and your W) that more time is needed to discuss this with your W and you will contact them if you have any ?'s.
> 
> If, for some reason, you can't cancel the meeting or don't want to upset your wife (are you easily controlled by your wife?), listen to their proposal, thank them for their offer, and tell them you will contact them at a later date (to buy you more time to work on your M along with this 'gift' deal with your W). If your W still is insistent on doing something that may cause harm to you, her H, you need to reevaluate your M and YOUR future.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOT
> ...


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> As to you, I wouldn't discuss it any further with them. It is obvious that they hope you aren't savvy enough to figure out what is going on. If they continue, I would let them know tonight that you will be having a consultation with an attorney to see what your legal rights are in all of this.


:iagree: This.

If it was a gift that she co-mingled with marital funds, it would likely become joint property. They are trying to avoid that by making you a renter. Bad idea for you. 

You need a lawyer fast both with respect to this deal and to any financial issues you have with your wife. If she is okay with this, you need to review where you stand on other things to make sure you are protected.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

Don't do it. Not only will your money go to paying the mortgage, but what about any improvements/repairs you make? There should be no assumption that the wife gets the house just because the parents made a down payment. 

I recommend you don't take the money at all. Likely, the in-laws will hold it over your head for the rest of the marriage. "How could you not spend Thanksgiving/Xmas with us? We gave you the downpayment."


----------



## RC211V (Apr 10, 2013)

Thanks for all the input. I agree, this is more about me and my wife than our inlaws. I am only meeting with them tonight because I really can't believe that they are actually going to propose this and that my wife has got it wrong. They probably will be wanting to have some sort of arrangement where the down payment only will be a gift to her, which I guess I'm ok with. Regardless of all that, the real issue is that my wife thinks this is all OK. Which, as others have pointed out, is the real issue I have on my hands. Becasue even if she misinterpreted her parents' intention, and I find out that they really have something different in mind that is more fair, the end result is that she thought that having me not be part owner is just fine whereas I see this as a problem. And I already know her...she won't change her opinion of this. So my marriage is really in a bad spot here regardless of what her parents may or may not say this evening.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

> Inheritance is the one thing that is excluded in community property state divorce situations.


This needs to be repeated.NOTHING my husband inherits from his parents is mine or vice versa . We can choose to share it but legally he cant touch any money or property I get or the other way around.It is not community marital assets.If her parents want to give her a "gift" why they are alive and call it inheritance that you have no right to while you are married or in the case of divorce is a question for an attorney though.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Are you two newlyweds? This is strange she does not see your point of view. This is an unusual request at best.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Tell them you will have an attorney look at it before you sign anything jmo.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

dallasapple said:


> This needs to be repeated.NOTHING my husband inherits from his parents is mine or vice versa . We can choose to share it but legally he cant touch any money or property I get or the other way around.It is not community marital assets.If her parents want to give her a "gift" why they are alive and call it inheritance that you have no right to while you are married to her is a question for an attorney though.


But that's not true (around here, I believe) if the money is mingled with marital assets. It's only safe if its kept separate and distinct. If your husband used his inheritance to pay down your mortgage, for example, he would lose that protection on the money used to pay down the mortgage. Not the entire inheritance. 

C

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

PBear said:


> But that's not true (around here, I believe) if the money is mingled with marital assets. It's only safe if its kept separate and distinct. If your husband used his inheritance to pay down your mortgage, for example, he would lose that protection on the money used to pay down the mortgage. Not the entire inheritance.
> 
> C
> 
> ...


This is consistent with some states in the US. But because it differs between states, it is critical that he talks to a lawyer about this. 

OP - Listen to what the in-laws say, ask lots of questions and write everything down. Heck, ask them if they have anything drawn up yet. Then tell them you need to run it by a lawyer to make sure that you understand it.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

> Don't do it. Not only will your money go to paying the mortgage, but what about any improvements/repairs you make? There should be no assumption that the wife gets the house just because the parents made a down payment.


There could be though an arrangement she gets the down payment they payed 100% of it.(no increase in value ) upon divorce if that's what they want.What you aren't getting is if he didn't pay the "mortgage" he would be paying rent.Usually a mortgage payment gets you a lot more too than what you would pay in rent.So he isn't "paying more" for a mortgage than rent.So if they don't "want" him too why should he get half of their down payment?

I'm coming at it from the parental angle of course.I'm older.If I give my son 50,000 for a down payment for he and his wife to "get in " a house I don't care if she pays part or even all of the mortgage.In the event of divorce I reserve the right to say she isn't getting "half" of the 50,000 I contributed for her to have a house to live in..SURE 1/2 of the increase in value of the home.(if sold)But not 1/2 of my money I gave my son.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

> But that's not true (around here, I believe) if the money is mingled with marital assets.


Not if its "earmarked".


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

RC211V said:


> Thanks for all the input. I agree, this is more about me and my wife than our inlaws. I am only meeting with them tonight because I really can't believe that they are actually going to propose this and that my wife has got it wrong. *They probably will be wanting to have some sort of arrangement where the down payment only will be a gift to her, which I guess I'm ok with. *Regardless of all that, the real issue is that my wife thinks this is all OK. Which, as others have pointed out, is the real issue I have on my hands. Becasue even if she misinterpreted her parents' intention, and I find out that they really have something different in mind that is more fair, the end result is that she thought that having me not be part owner is just fine whereas I see this as a problem. And I already know her...she won't change her opinion of this. So my marriage is really in a bad spot here regardless of what her parents may or may not say this evening.


NO! Do not agree to this. Do not accept any money from the in laws. Even in the best of situations, that can be held over your head forever. Do not put yourself in this situation.

"Thank you, but I will not accept money for a down payment. We will buy our own house when we can afford it."

Stick to your guns on this or you will regret it with people like this.

Pay your own way instead of taking any money from the in-laws even if it takes years to get the down payment together. Sleeping easier is more important.


----------



## tryingtobebetter (Aug 6, 2012)

FWIW I brought some (not very much ) family money to my marriage. We bought a house a few months after getting married. We put it in both our names although I supplied the balance between the purchase price and the mortgage and though it was my salary which was the larger and paid for the mortgage. I did this for two reasons:

1 Love

2 I thought it right that I show my confidence in her and our marriage.

It did help that I knew she was a keeper (as well as beautiful).

We still own our house together (36 years later) though it is a different house


----------



## RC211V (Apr 10, 2013)

IT just doesn't feel right or how a marriage should be. I should add that the down payment will be rather large, at least 100K while the house price will be around 420K. So I'm fine with them wanting to exempt the downpayment from that. But keeping me off the title, even though our mortgage payment will be quite low due to the high downpayment they are going to make, doesn't feel right to me.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

RC211V said:


> IT just doesn't feel right or how a marriage should be. I should add that the down payment will be rather large, at least 100K while the house price will be around 420K. So I'm fine with them wanting to exempt the downpayment from that. But keeping me off the title, even though our mortgage payment will be quite low due to the high downpayment they are going to make, doesn't feel right to me.


By taking this money, you'd be putting yourself on unequal footing with your wife in HER home. Trust me, that's what you'll be hearing: HER house, HER home. 

Why do you want to accept this money? Why can't you wait for a house until you can afford it?


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

RC211V said:


> IT just doesn't feel right or how a marriage should be. I should add that the down payment will be rather large, at least 100K while the house price will be around 420K. So I'm fine with them wanting to exempt the downpayment from that. But keeping me off the title, even though our mortgage payment will be quite low due to the high downpayment they are going to make, doesn't feel right to me.


Could you afford this much house without the downpayment?
If you can't don't do it regardless of the deal

If you can then why is this even an argument?
Buy your own damn house.


----------



## Blue Firefly (Mar 6, 2013)

I only read the 1st part, but this is insane.

1) They are only giving your wife a down payment
2) The house will be 100% in the wife's name
2) The husband will be making payments on the house, but will never have any equity in the house; instead he will be a "renter."

Insane, simply insane.

*A better solution* would be for your in laws to *loan* you the money for the down payment. Make the house collateral on the loan. If you ever get divorced and sell the house, the could demand the down payment money/loan be paid back.

But, imho, this is one of those instances where you might be better off turning down the money altogether. They are trying to control your marriage. If you let this camel get its nose under the tent, there's no telling what they will try to pull in the future.

Sometimes doing without is better than having.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

Personal story. My parents loaned me the down payment for our first home. We were 28 I think. I paid it back and yet my parents continued to act like it was their house, dictating what I could and couldn't do, showing up unannounced, the works.

If I could do it over I would not have taken a dime from them.

So I'm with Tacoma buy your own house.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Hmm. Let us know what happens tonight if you can.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

RC211V said:


> IT just doesn't feel right or how a marriage should be. I should add that the down payment will be rather large, at least 100K while the house price will be around 420K. So I'm fine with them wanting to exempt the downpayment from that. But keeping me off the title, even though our mortgage payment will be quite low due to the high downpayment they are going to make, doesn't feel right to me.


If you need the $100,000 then treat it like a friend is investing in real estate (instead of it being in-laws). Tell them fine, you own 25% of the house. You and your wife own 75% of the house. The title can show you both as owners.

This should protect your in-laws if the marriage fails and allows you and your wife to own the house together.


----------



## Blue Firefly (Mar 6, 2013)

RC211V said:


> I should add that the down payment will be rather large, at least 100K while the house price will be around 420K.


Greedy, greedy, greedy. 

Tell them thanks, but not thanks. Then buy a smaller house.

If you can afford to make the payments on a 320k loan, then you can afford to buy a house by yourself. It might not be a mansion, but it would be yours, and there would be no in-law strings attached.


----------



## donny64 (Apr 21, 2012)

So, they want you to help pay the mortgage by calling it "rent", and then give you some small percentage back should the house sell or marriage fail.

Tell them to pound sand and chit glass. No way would I have a wife or parents holding THAT over my head as leverage. She and they would have you by the short hairs if you ever divorced, and you'd have just helped pay her nest egg while getting nothing in return. 

They are castrating you in front of your wife, and want her to take part.

As has been said, it won't end well. When things turn bad, or depending on the type of woman she is, it will allways be "my house".

If they want to provide the down payment, tell them she / they can get that back at a percentage rate the house value has increased, off the top, if and when the house sells. The remainder is divided equally between you and the wife.

Her parents sound like meddling nut cases.

Might be time to "man up" and say "thanks, but no thanks". Do not emasculate yourself like that with your wife.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Blue Firefly said:


> Greedy, greedy, greedy.
> 
> Tell them thanks, but not thanks. Then buy a smaller house.
> 
> If you can afford to make the payments on a 320k loan, then you can afford to buy a house by yourself. It might not be a mansion, but it would be yours, and there would be no in-law strings attached.


I agree with this 100%, but I can't get behind your advice a few posts back to treat the inlaws money as a loan. It's almost always a bad idea to borrow from family.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I hope to be able to do this for my kids some day.

I would rather give them money when they are young and need it most, than for them to wait until my wife and I pass away.

At the same time, I know that many marriages don't last forever.

I think I would take ownership of the part of the house that I paid for. This would protect me, if the marriage failed. Guessing after a number of years, if all is good, I would give/sell them my share in their house.


----------



## F-102 (Sep 15, 2010)

Hmmm...sounds like Mom and dad are planning for their future. When they get too old to live in their own place, they may be expecting that they will be able to live in the same house with their dear daughter that they so generously helped her buy.

And on a darker note, they are hoping that you are out of the picture by then.


----------



## KanDo (Jun 15, 2011)

RC211V said:


> "CA state law excludes from community property any property owned before a couple was married, any property [inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party]."
> 
> ...QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdelta02 (Sep 20, 2012)

Hey, I have seen this type of situation many times over when I was back in my home town. In the US, this may not be a common request, but it is for me. That however does not make this an okay request. The posters before me are right. If you accept you will be beholden to your inlaws and your wife in all the wrong ways. They may even decide to stay in your house without your okay. There is no good in this.

Suggest to them that they create a trust account and put the money in there with their daughter as the named beneficiary. That way she gets it and can do whatever she wants with it.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

Cdelta02 said:


> Suggest to them that they create a trust account and put the money in there with their daughter as the named beneficiary. That way she gets it and can do whatever she wants with it.


This is what my IL's did. And again in most states inheritance is NOT marital property unless my husband CHOOSES to put it in my name or if he buys an asset while married to me with it.


----------



## MeditMike80 (Dec 29, 2012)

Before my current life as a nursing student, I used to work in the mortgage industry. I have some bad news for your in laws. California is a community property state, which means if you contribute anything to the payment of the mortgage you are entitled to 50% of the property, whether you're on the title or not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kermitty (Dec 27, 2012)

The fact that your wife thinks this is an ok idea is very frightening. Does she not realize the statement she is making by being ok with this?? Is she just seeing it as a faster way to get a house without understanding the financial and emotional impact it is having on you? At this point, both her parents and her are making a statement that they do not respect you or believe you have a future together. My parents help my husband and I out with gifts occasionally but they would never think if doing anything like this not do they attach any strings to their gifts. 
This is not OK on so many levels!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

The only way I'd do this is if some paper was signed maintaining the down payment as her sole property. Then all other equity in the house is split 50/50 according to California family law. And I make sure my name was on the house and the mortgage.

If her parents want to give her a big gift, it might be better for them to just put it in a trust for her. Let the two of you handle your own home.


----------



## brightlight (Feb 18, 2013)

This sounds bad to me.

1. The fact they are pushing this idea indicates they don't trust you (worse, maybe don't like you.)

2. Your wife going along with it so readily is annoying as she should go along with you first and her parents second.

3. There are expecting you to pay the mortgage but not share ownership.

If they cannot see that point three is being unreasonable I think you are dealing with some odd people.


----------



## Viseral (Feb 25, 2011)

Either have her parents put that 100k into a trust fund for her which she can use as she wants to, or get a post-nup outlining a fair division of property for all parties involved.

Alternatively, separate your finances, buy your own house, and let your wife pay for 100% of the other house. Document in a post-nup of course.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

I don't understand how its any different than if they just gave her the 100K cash and called it early distribution of her inheretance and putting it into property and calling it that.Then in the event of a divorce and the house is sold she would get the 100K back but the remaining equity is then split 50/50.


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

Viseral said:


> Either have her parents put that 100k into a trust fund for her which she can use as she wants to, or get a post-nup outlining a fair division of property for all parties involved.
> 
> Alternatively, separate your finances, buy your own house, and let your wife pay for 100% of the other house. Document in a post-nup of course.


Save your own down payment. Then you can call 100 percent of the shots. My H worked his behind off even worked two jobs to get us in a house. We lived in a dump with cheap rent while we saved for it. You'll appreciate it more and maybe your wife will respect you more.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> The only way I'd do this is if some paper was signed maintaining the down payment as her sole property. Then all other equity in the house is split 50/50 according to California family law. And I make sure my name was on the house and the mortgage.
> 
> If her parents want to give her a big gift, it might be better for them to just put it in a trust for her. Let the two of you handle your own home.


Completely agree.

While they might feel they are looking out for, helping and protecting their daughter, where does it leave you if things pan out differently? It concerns me that your wife agrees with this also - not just the equity, as people will have their different views on this, but that you wouldn't co-own your home with her. I'm particular about these kinds of things and would want/expect joint-ownership of our home. Yes, that would include the debt along with it. Just as they are looking out for her, you need to look out for you...the ideal is that you look out for each other, as well as yourselves. 

I'd encourage an alternative way for her parents to invest for her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

RC211V

Um, how'd it go?


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby (Nov 7, 2011)

Your name needs to be on the mortgage. It's absurd to demand your name not to be on it. If something does happen, you are to get your share.

Your in laws are a piece of work and I don't even know them. Your wife isn't much better if she is not standing up for you.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I had the same offer, I said no

Too many strings attached not to mention it would have made me look bad as a man and my MIL in that time was already going off that I wasn't such a good catch based on my finances at that time


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

Don't even take the money as a loan. Mortgages are dirt cheap now. It will be much better to pay $100k back to the bank, which is not going to hold it over your head that they lent it to you in the first place.


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

Has there been one post in 7 pages thus far advising that he take the deal? Seems pretty clear RC211V what you should do here!


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

wilson said:


> Don't even take the money as a loan. Mortgages are dirt cheap now. It will be much better to pay $100k back to the bank, which is not going to hold it over your head that they lent it to you in the first place.


Mortgages interest rates are dirt cheap.But its harder to qualify and they want about 20% down.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

I'mInLoveWithMyHubby said:


> Your name needs to be on the mortgage. It's absurd to demand your name not to be on it. If something does happen, you are to get your share.
> 
> Your in laws are a piece of work and I don't even know them. Your wife isn't much better if she is not standing up for you.


Her name "only" on the mortgage wont matter if they are married.Now if its her name and her parents it would.But if I went out and bought a house right now with only my name on it.I'm married and it would be 50/50 mine and my husbands.Same with debt..I can take out a loan in my name only but if we divorced 1/2 the debt is his.And vice versa. Its joint marital assets and debts after marriage.EXCEPT for inheritance and I believe school loans.

I think what the parents are concerned with if I'm guessing right.If they want to gift her with 100,000 to go towards a house as an early inheritance distribution ...then if they divorced he should not get 1/2 of that 100,000.


----------



## VFW (Oct 24, 2012)

They can buy her whatever they desire, but there is no way that I would pay for or live in such a house. It also lets you know where you stand in their family. If they want a renter, then they need to buy the house and draw up a rental agreement and you could consider it at that time. Accepting this offer makes you a second class citizen in your own home. I see no gift in what they are doing whatsoever.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

I personally don't accept interference in my marriage from other people, at any price. I wouldn't do it. No way.

If they want to give her a gift, then they can give cash and she can put it in an investment account in her name. 

This is the parent's way of telling you that they think your marriage isn't as "real" as theirs, or that they don't approve of the marriage.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Camarillo Brillo said:


> That's not the way I read this thread. It seems the parents want their daughter to get the down payment back, plus all appreciation. They want the OP's payment each month to be considered 'rent'.


The OP admitted he wasn't clear on the deal as he heard it from his wife. The deal might have very well been that the in-laws only want the down payment (their gift) protected. I am hoping this is what they meant as what you are saying would be very inappropriate.

The OP was mad, that his wife agreed with the deal, the way she thought it was (what you explained). Even if she misunderstood her parents.

Like someone said, down payments are difficult to come up with. I think it is a great gift and I understand the parents wanting some protection. Especially since the marriage is a bit rocky right now.

If I was the OP, I would take the gift as a loan and make a plan for paying that loan back. If I was the parents and I could afford it, I would tell the OP to pay off his mortgage first and then worry about paying me back.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

> That's not the way I read this thread. It seems the parents want their daughter to get the down payment back, plus all appreciation. They want the OP's payment each month to be considered 'rent'.


Well I would't agree with that.Thats pushing it..I can see their concern they could "wish" the 100K stay with their daughter that is not "off the wall crazy"..but her being sole owner him being "renter" is a little insulting.But I didn't read it like that ...nor have I promoted that..maybe I missed something.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

Maybe Im "crazy" LOL>>But even as a child of older parents.If they had "abundance" IOW were set to be O.K even with gifting me 100K before their parting so I and my husband could get into a house in our relatively still "younger years in comparison to enjoy it now rather than when were are 20 years older I would take it.And I wouldn't CARE if they said but in case of divorce that 100K gift goes back to you only.Maybe they don't want my possible ex husband their x son in law to get 1/2 of what they meant for me and my security.That is why inheritance are considered the exception to marital joint assets..


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

Also I don't understand..Why in the world it matters if his wife is more invested (by inheritance) in the house they live in rather than if she is walking around 100'K wealthier than him that he couldn't touch if she had it in the bank?I would WELCOME if my husbands parents went ahead and doled out 100K of my husbands inheritance now that I got to "enjoy" married to him on the condition if we divorced he got that back out of the sale of the home.


----------



## whatslovegottodowithit? (Jan 6, 2013)

dallasapple said:


> Maybe Im "crazy" LOL>>But even as a child of older parents.If they had "abundance" IOW were set to be O.K even with gifting me 100K before their parting so I and my husband could get into a house in our relatively still "younger years in comparison to enjoy it now rather than when were are 20 years older I would take it.And I wouldn't CARE if they said but in case of divorce that 100K gift goes back to you only.Maybe they don't want my possible ex husband their x son in law to get 1/2 of what they meant for me and my security.That is why inheritance are considered the exception to marital joint assets..


I see the 'gifters' point to a degree, but there is also SO many other concerns with accepting the gift. If they are holding the loot over OP's head (we gave YOU a house to live in) it opens the door for further controlling behavior, not to mention the opportunity to verbally rub it in as often as they (and the go-along W) see fit. 

The 'gifters' child decided/chose to become one with her H. If the 'gifters' don't like or approve they can go kick rocks!! The 'gifters' daughter is no longer on her own and choose a life partner. It is neither good nor right that the 'gifters' of their daughter attempt to defraud the H. 

There were other ways that would be less offensive to the OP to get this deal done, but his in-laws chose the "my money, my rules" direction. I would love to hear what they actually proposed and told him when they met! I'm also curious how OP's W responded to all of this!


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

If you continue to control the money it's not really a gift. At least not a 'completed' gift.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

Actually, I don't think you can qualify for a mortgage if someone else gives you the down payment. When I refinanced there were all kinds of questions about any odd deposits in my bank account. I'm not sure the bank would allow you to qualify for a mortgage where your in-laws gave you $100k. They want to make sure that you really can afford the house on your own.

That may be a graceful way for you to refuse this "gift". You can say you talked to the mortgage company and they said it wouldn't be allowed.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Here, they don't care where you got the down payment.

They care how much income you bring in, how much debt and payments you currently have and how stable your employment history is?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

They do care about the down payment. In a situation where someone is giving a gift (like the parents), they require a letter from the parents stating that it is a gift and does not have to be repaid.

Otherwise, if it's a loan, then the bank has to consider that as an existing debt when considering how much to lend you for the mortgage. If they'll even lend you the money if you have no savings of your own.


----------



## A Bit Much (Sep 14, 2011)

When I bought my first house, my grandfather gifted us $3500. He had to write a letter stating it was a gift and not a loan, for the reason norajane said above. The bank required it.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

It was 25 years ago for me. My parents gave us $5000. Bank never even asked about it. 

I would think that the repayment of the 'gift' would have to be included in your statement of debts. I guess it is too easy to lie about the 'gift' and not include it.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

I hope your conversation with them all went well. 




RC211V said:


> IT just doesn't feel right or how a marriage should be. I should add that the down payment will be rather large, at least 100K while the house price will be around 420K. So I'm fine with them wanting to exempt the downpayment from that. But keeping me off the title, even though our mortgage payment will be quite low due to the high downpayment they are going to make, doesn't feel right to me.


Because it's such a large down payment, I can empathize slightly with their concerns. I wonder if you could hire an attorney that can draft an agreement that your contributions would equal your percentage of the equity until you and your wife have each contributed $100k, and stand it as joint property after that.


----------



## Jonathan35 (Feb 28, 2013)

There is a very simple solution to this. Just don't accept the money and buy your house on your own. Don't let parents control you with money.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

dallasapple said:


> Also I don't understand..Why in the world it matters if his wife is more invested (by inheritance) in the house they live in rather than if she is walking around 100'K wealthier than him that he couldn't touch if she had it in the bank?I would WELCOME if my husbands parents went ahead and doled out 100K of my husbands inheritance now that I got to "enjoy" married to him on the condition *if we divorced he got that back out of the sale of the home*.


The parents do not want him to get anything out of the house if they divorce.


The problem is that the parents want him to pay for the house payments but sign away any rights at all ever for the equity he builds in the house.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

In my case, I wouldn't really be ok with my wife having separate money from any source. The way I see it we're a team and everything is joint. I make literally 10 times what she makes and all of it goes into the joint account with no restrictions. Over the course of our marriage I'll put millions more into our joint account than her. So then she gets 100k from her parents and suddenly what's hers is hers? And what's mine is ours? Um, no. I don't think so. Either we're a team or we're not. It's a two way street.


----------



## daffodilly (Oct 3, 2011)

Jonathan35 said:


> There is a very simple solution to this. Just don't accept the money and buy your house on your own. Don't let parents control you with money.


:iagree: The simplest advice is the best advice. Don't take the money. Get a house you can afford on your own. If by chance the marriage fails, you split the house on your own. Sorry, but no amount of money is worth getting your inlaws in your marriage and in your business.


----------



## happysnappy (Jan 8, 2013)

Check your state laws. Here, if they give you the down payment, even if both of your names are on the mortgage, if you divorce, the amount of the down payment would be given back to your wife prior to an asset split. It doesn't matter whose name the mortgage is in its considered community marital property. 

I will say I don't like the situation period and if I were in your shoes i'd say no thanks. I do think it undermines the marriage no matter what your state laws are.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

SadSamIAm said:


> Here, they don't care where you got the down payment.
> 
> They care how much income you bring in, how much debt and payments you currently have and how stable your employment history is?


Generally false. Since terrorism entered our reality, many changes have taken place that prevent stuff like this.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Okay so I'm going to speak to the issue of the house, not the relationships (that's a much deeper and issue-laden post).

First, who makes more income? 
Second, do you share all your expenses and have joint accounts?

If they want to get her a gift to secure her inheritance and not have you possibly take any of it, that's on them. But you shouldn't contribute anything to it. Directly OR indirectly. 

Tell your wife you want to completely separate finances (assuming you make more than her). You're willing to contribute your portion, but not for that house. You'll pay half the utilities, half the cable, but nothing to the house. Additionally she's responsible for all her spending, and you'll cover your own.

Make it a TRUE 100% division of finances. And considering the house will be in her name, so the payments build her investment, you won't contribute anything to it. If she uses the old "well you would still have to pay rent". Explain, "No, I could go buy MY OWN house, and build my investment that way. It's not fair that should something happen to us, that I lose out on all of the money I'D put into this house". Assuming the math. Her parents put in 25%, you'd put in 37.5% and she'd put in 37.5%. So if she's willing to guarantee you 37.5% of the value of the house, fine. You'll pay half the mortgage.

Now even further, if you do make more than her. Lets say you contribute 65% of the household income, then in reality. Her parents are contributing 25%, she's contributing 26.25% so in reality you're actually still paying for almost half of the house....)


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

happysnappy said:


> Check your state laws. Here, if they give you the down payment, even if both of your names are on the mortgage, if you divorce, the amount of the down payment would be given back to your wife prior to an asset split. It doesn't matter whose name the mortgage is in its considered community marital property.
> 
> I will say I don't like the situation period and if I were in your shoes i'd say no thanks. I do think it undermines the marriage no matter what your state laws are.


In many states, once community income starts paying towards the mortgage the entire equity in the home becomes a community asset.

California is one of the states where this happens pretty easily. IT does not matter whose name is on the home.


----------

