Many families have a dream where all the siblings and their extended families are able to live close to each other on one large piece of property.

What would you do if in order to accomplish that dream, the spouses had to agree that they didn’t retain any rights in the event of a divorce?

That is what the woman in this story is considering, and she doesn’t think it is fair.

Check it out.

WIBTA if I refused to invest in a property with my SO’s family?

Recently my SO and his family have been discussing purchasing 50 acres of land and building a kind of communal home on it.

The idea is that there would be one house with common areas, such as kitchen, dining and living room areas and then four wings ranging from 1,200 sq to 3600 sq ft where each branch of family would live.

It would be nice to have a place like this.

My SO and I wouldn’t be living there full time unlike the other family members because we don’t plan to live in the same state.

This would be more like a place to be when we come to visit or when we retire and want to be close to family.

The issue comes in when we discussed what would happen if the spouses of my SO family members get divorced. (meaning myself, my SO’s sister, mother and uncles spouse).

I can see why they would want that, but is it fair.

My SO’s family came to the conclusion that none of the spouses should have any stake in the property or land.

We should get cash value for whatever we put in but have no stake in physical items such as boats, furniture, etc that we may have paid for.

Instead we would simply get cash value for that property.

I personally don’t want to invest in anything that I may eventually be barred from.

Although divorce isn’t something I even consider will be an issue, life does happen and I feel that it’s only fair for me to protect my prospects just as they want to protect theirs.

There’s also the issue with children: if a spouse gets divorced and then remarried and later has children with the new spouse, what right does the first spouse who actually made the investment, children have over the children of the current spouse?

It would be complicated.

I just don’t feel like it’s worth the headache and potential issues to do this.

My SO thinks I’m kind of a jerk and thinks that even if we were to ever divorce I should just accept it as a loss, not even asking for money back.

Because he would do the same for me if my family was planning something similar.

He also thinks because his earning potential is higher he will be putting in more money than me so I wouldn’t be taking as much of a loss.

They would have to keep completely separate accounts.

I basically told him that if he wants to pay for it completely himself then I would be fine with not having a stake in the property, but otherwise I don’t think it’s a good idea.

Especially since without being able to sell the property it would likely be more difficult for them to pay the divorced spouse cash on hand for the amount the spouse put into the property.

AITA?

That is a complicated legal issue that is just asking for trouble.

Let’s see what the people in the comments have to say.

This is a good compromise.

Does she really want to vacation here?

This is a very bad deal.

Giving up equity in hypothetical investments is easy.

This person says she wouldn’t put her money into this home.

This seems like a terrible idea.

And what an awkward conversation.

If you thought that was an interesting story, check this one out about a man who created a points system for his inheritance, and a family friend ends up getting almost all of it.