Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I was sitting on a sizeable inheritance/trust, and opted to work only part-time, I would be using money from the inheritance to " top-up" instead of expecting my spouse to pick up my financial slack.
Same could be said for SAHM's as well though. That their husbands facilitated their retirement. At least he has a pension and is working (though part time)
All that being said, why does inheritance money for your children (who are in their 20's) even come into play? Hopefully you don't plan on dying until you're in your 80's which means at least 30 years from now. That's a hell of a long time from now and circumstances can and will change.
It's always better to be prepared for the future. How many times have people remarried, died early, and their own children received nothing because the will was not re-written? Why should some other child receive inheritance that does not belong to them?
The OP's daughter could be left with nothing and the husband's son everything if something happened to her unexpectedly(of course hopefully not in the near future). Where is the justice in that?
It's always better to be prepared for the future. How many times have people remarried, died early, and their own children received nothing because the will was not re-written? Why should some other child receive inheritance that does not belong to them?
The OP's daughter could be left with nothing and the husband's son everything if something happened to her unexpectedly(of course hopefully not in the near future). Where is the justice in that?
This is the reason for establishing trusts. A trust belongs to the person(s) named in the trust and no one else. The owner of the trust names who is to inherit it, and it then belongs to them and no one else. This is what the husband's parents did. They wanted it to go to their own grandson and not "some other child" who "does not belong to them".
This is the reason for establishing trusts. A trust belongs to the person(s) named in the trust and no one else. The owner of the trust names who is to inherit it, and it then belongs to them and no one else. This is what the husband's parents did. They wanted it to go to their own grandson and not "some other child" who "does not belong to them".
Disagree. They didn't leave it to their grandson, which they could have done but didn't. They left it for their son, who could spend every penny and leave none for their grandson. The money is for their son's retirement, which is slated for three years from now. If they wanted to ensure that the OP and her daughter never benefited from any of it (a family vacation, for example), they had 10 years to change the will.
Disagree. They didn't leave it to their grandson, which they could have done but didn't. They left it for their son, who could spend every penny and leave none for their grandson. The money is for their son's retirement, which is slated for three years from now. If they wanted to ensure that the OP and her daughter never benefited from any of it (a family vacation, for example), they had 10 years to change the will.
True. They could have set up the trust so that any amount left over would automatically pass to their grandson, but they didn't. That's interesting.
You can also say the son presumably has a mother of his own and maybe also another set of grandparents who are going to leave something for him that would not be shared with his stepsister.
If that's the case their net worth should go more to the OP's daughter since he has voluntarily left his full time job.
We have no idea how much of their "net worth" was brought to the marriage by each spouse and how much his working part time has negatively influenced it. One or the other may have had considerably more than the other, and if so my guess would be that it was the husband.
We have no idea how much of their "net worth" was brought to the marriage by each spouse and how much his working part time has negatively influenced it. One or the other may have had considerably more than the other, and if so my guess would be that it was the husband.
I'm not so sure. Seeing as how she was the budget master in the relationship, and got him to pay down credit card debt so he could retire, all bets are off. He could have brought more debt into the relationship than she had. She was the one who talked him into jointly investing in rental properties. I think they both owned their own homes when they got married, and she could've had the bigger savings or retirement account. He might've not worried about putting away much for retirement, expecting his folks to take care of that for him.
I think the OP is a sharp cookie with money, and he's not. My guess is that she brought more to the relationship. Women tend to be a lot more concerned with financial security issues, and she's obviously sharp at money management.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,148,041 times
Reputation: 3814
It can be psychological. You handle everything, and he's says he's fine with it - but what choice did he have if you were truely covering 2/3rds of the household income?
Psychologicly, what was he supposed to do - say, "give me everything and Ill handle it dear?"
Enters an inheritance. He has his manhood intact again. He has control of something that is indisputably his, which he did not have before that happened. Did his parents leave a will? Does it stipulate that if anything happens/had happened to him, the money should continue to the grandson, or revert/divert somewhere else?
If you are frustrated to the point that you dont care if the marriage dissolves over it, stop contributing to the household at all. Stop with the lifestyle you enjoy because of your income. If it comes up say, "Ive thought about it, and I need everything I have for my daughter. You are right that you need everything that you have for your son, and I felt irresponsible to my daughter not sharing that same view toward her. We can live off your income for a while, while I make the difference up myself. Its okay. I dont mind."
Then do it. Let the lifestyle go. Whatever it is 'extra' and 'nice' that you feel you have, let it go. Its just stuff in the end. No fancy vacation this year - you can just buy a blow up pool and barbeque at home. Set up some batmitton matches with each other, or crochet or horseshoes in your own yard.
There is a control issue here, and who's it is I cant say. Could be a little of both of you. None of this means that you have to keep covering 2/3rds of the family expenses, while feeling you may be short changing your daughter in the end.
Disagree. They didn't leave it to their grandson, which they could have done but didn't. They left it for their son, who could spend every penny and leave none for their grandson. The money is for their son's retirement, which is slated for three years from now. If they wanted to ensure that the OP and her daughter never benefited from any of it (a family vacation, for example), they had 10 years to change the will.
You're correct, they left it to the husband. But in the 3rd paragraph of the OP's first post she states clearly that they intended it to go to their own "blood" and he " wants to honor their wishes".
Last edited by Harpaint; 04-10-2015 at 08:10 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
