we are sorting out our wills. i am a sahm with small children. my dh runs his own business which is doing ok, not worth a huge amount but it has potential.
when i die, all my
meagre assets will go straight to dh.
when dh dies, the accountant is proposing that all or a large proportion of our assets go into a trust, just in case i get targeted by unworthy sorts or i might want to blow it all on lottery tickets. that would mean that i'd have to get permission from the trustees to get stuff out of the trust, presumably justify and convince them that i can have it. effectively i would not have total control over my own assets.
since i don't seem to like that idea, they are also suggesting that a proportion of the estate goes into trust for our children
so that i can't blow all their inheritance too.
aibu to be offended by this? i believe our estate should be treated the same regardless of who dies first. ie. it goes to the other, with no conditions or checks.
perhaps i'm missing some important point here...
I think think you and your dh should have said all this to the lawyer that time forgot at the time. what an absolute twat.
Sounds like you should set up a Family Trust for your house and savings. With yourselves and your children as beneficiaries.
It protects your DH from unfair litigation (you say he runs a business - if he gets sued, but has no assets in his own name then your family home is safe) and protects both of you should the other die. You should both be trustees (and have a third professional trustee - normally a solicitor) who is duty bound to act in the best interests of the family as a whole.
We have this set up (DH is a sahd) and it means that our money is used to support our children. If either of us died and the other went on to have a new family, the new family can't benefit from the Trust (although they could live in the house). It's to stop DH from squandering my hard earned on a brazen blonde gold digger, obv
OP, just think about what you would do if the situation was the other way round. If you had more money/assets than him, and he were the sahp?
Would you think the idea of a trust fund unreasonable?
I'm no expert in inheritance law, but my instinct tells me that it's always best to put the interests and financial protection of minors first.
Imagine if you left all to your husband, and then soon after you die, he gets married, and then he dies soon afterwards. Most, if not all, your money could go straight to the new wife.
I think that's why it's so important to make wills, to stipulate for all sorts of potential scenarios.
OP: how much of the estate is his business (rather than personal) property? I was just wondering if the trust was for all his property, or if it was related to the business.
Are you familiar enough with the firm to step in almost immediately and run it?
I think the fact that the OP enables him to run "his business" means that she has a legitimate financial interest in it whether it's "his" business or not and that that financial interest is one she should be free to control in the event of his death.
so we have had a long animated discussion this morning.
we have agreed to set up a trust for the kids now and contribute as and when we can so that's protected in the event either one of us or both dies. then the kids can't blow it all in one go and it's tax efficient.
no trust for me in dh's will. he does however think that i don't have as good business acumen as he does (true) and does worry that i might make a bad investment decision (also true). i pointed out that his accountant also does not have as good business acumen as him and might also make bad investment choices. i also pointed out that i can always ask the accountant for his advice but a trust would force me to ask for his approval. big difference.
dh now sees how problematic this is.
scenario: i'm in my 70's and i have to go cap in hand to the trustees to convince them to give me my own money because i want to go into some retirement home. whether or not it's a reasonable request, i would still have to ask and get them to agree.
so essentially we're on the same page and i'm relieve that dh can see my arguments. i also joked that if he wanted to put my inheritance in a trust, i could leave his inheritance to the cats' home.
OP: I'm really pleased that you've worked this out.
Fastidia: if he currently owns he business, then in the event of his death, it falls into his estate. Whether the OP has an interest in it would only be relevant if considering division of assets on divorce. There was never a suggestion she/DCs would not receive the full estate, it was a question of under what conditions.
the business is such that dh is the driving force. he's got the big ideas and vision. i could not step into his shoes and the value of the business would drop. he is the business really.
and this is the worry. i would not be able to maintain that asset that is a significant proportion of our estate.
even so, putting the ownership of the business into a trust to force me to get two or three others to temper / manage my decisions is a vote of no confidence in me. dh does now see that i would get advice and take the best approach and, given that he's chosen to marry me and we have children that perhaps i can be trusted to do the best in that event, and ask the right people for advice. no-one has my and my children's interests at heart more than me.
finally, i have more insight into my dh's way of thinking than the accountant. the accountant doesn't get / understand a lot of dh's business.
i also had to remind dh that this was not the accountant's reasoning. the accountant's reasoning was:
- that i would marry a con-artist who steals everything and leaves me and kids destitute
- that i would remarry and have more kids who would leech of dh's estate.
Join the discussion
Please login first.