A quintessential part of marriage — or any kind of romantic relationship — comes down to meeting the in-laws. It can be amazing, and you start cherishing and embracing them as part of your own little nook and family. Those are the best kinds of in-laws. And hey, if the relationship is a bust, sometimes they may be the ones you end up missing the most.
Which seems to be the case for a woman who vented on r/JUSTNOMIL about her incredible ex-father-in-law. Unfortunately, she also had to deal with a mother-in-law whose understanding of morals was a little greyer. And it all came down to a gift.
Just three years after the woman's divorce from their son, the MIL decided to ask for a gift back. Despite the fact that she, too, hadn't given a diamond necklace back to the woman. Figures. So, with that said, here's what happened, and what the readers had to say.
Some people truly cannot let go of the past, especially when it involves some kind of resentment
Which was the case for a woman's mother-in-law, who decided to ask for a gift back that they'd given her years before the divorce
Toxic people will have selective memory, and usually they try to run away from accountability
It is fairly difficult to assess whether someone has a personality disorder, but the mother-in-law in the story does appear to exhibit some attitudes that are eerily similar to what psychologists describe as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). This is evident in her toxic attitude, since she ignores the severe harm she's caused (like conveniently forgetting the $10,000 or the necklace), all while demanding social etiquette and property from her victims — the ex-daughter-in-law.
Moreover, this "selective amnesia" is a concept that has also been thoroughly researched by Dr. Robin Stern, who theorized that narcissistic people will often use compartmentalization and intentional memory bias to evade consequences. By essentially making a mundane request (getting back a "family heirloom"), it puts the other person in a position where bringing up the past makes them look like they're holding a grudge.
Unfortunately, the family appears to have fallen into a dynamic that experts describe as "scapegoating." This is a systems theory developed by Murray Bowen, in which dysfunctions, like her son's substances or her own gambling problems, require the family members to create an outside target (the scapegoat) to preserve the family dynamic. What used to be the son is now the ex-wife.
The ex-daughter in law shouldn't have ignored the problems in the first place
While her reply may be satisfactory, the narrator did make a few mistakes from the get-go. For starters, regarding the $10,000 owed, the woman should have hired an attorney. Experts strongly advise filing a "lis pendens" — or a formal notice of pending legal action in real estate in these situations — or even securing a judgment lien attached to the property title. This would prevent the title company from distributing the proceeds to the seller until the woman received her court-ordered money.
While she didn't want to bother with the necklace, attorneys actually do recommend that any personal property stolen, pawned, or withheld by an ex-spouse can be calculated into the overall division of marital assets. Essentially, they could have estimated the value of the necklace and added it to the ex-husband's liability column.
What she can do from now on, however, is establish a strict "no contact" rule through a divorce attorney or even a court-monitored communication application. This would help ensure that the ex-husband's family keeps a clear boundary and that she has a paper trail of all conversations and eventual transactions. This way, there's no more risking awkward moments, and it ensures her monetary safety.
We would love to know what you think of this situation, Pandas. What kind of advice would you give the woman regarding this family, or what would you have done in this situation? Would you have left the necklace behind or actually fought for it? Let us know your thoughts below!
This is what the readers had to say
