Advanced search

Life insurance

(55 Posts)
emilyeggs Tue 25-Jun-13 21:00:06

My DH has just informed me that if he was to die he would want his children to get a lump sum, even if this means our ds and I having to sell the family home. He has ds 12 dd6, we have ds 24 wks. He keeps going on about his his ex has to care fit his kids but I try to point out she won't loose get home. I need some perspective. He said if I'm that worried I should put on insurance plane to cover ds and I

Tigresswoods Wed 26-Jun-13 22:43:35

Such a simple situation so messed up. I bet this life cover isn't in trust anyway so it's all pointless discussing this mythical situation.

Get advice.

FacebookAnonymous Wed 26-Jun-13 22:39:44

Is this a life insurance policy that he paid into before he met you or when we was with his Ex ?

allnewtaketwo Wed 26-Jun-13 16:28:07

Hmm you're being very lenient on him Emily. Listen to catsmother.

emilyeggs Wed 26-Jun-13 15:11:39

He has a life insurance policy but it won't cover any mortgage we may be getting and he now realises other safe guards will have to be put in place. We have spoken a bit more (we are both new to all this so didn't really know our options) and I told him about the trust fund option mentioned earlier and he likes the sound of that. He doesn't want anyone to loose out (including ds.) His ex gf isn't the problem, he just wants the kids looked after. To be honest, he is under a lot of stress at the moment and I think it's all getting to him.

LookingForwardToMarch Wed 26-Jun-13 14:34:36

Totally agree with that, he doesn't trust you to do the right thing.

So prove him wrong. Do the right thing by taking your half and walking away now.

But then Im a bit trigger happy...

LookingForwardToMarch Wed 26-Jun-13 14:31:34

Hang on...

So if you die will he also have to sell the house and split the money between the three kids?

I would rather poke my own eyes out with a blunt spoon than buy a house with the kind of man that your DH sounds like.

catsmother Wed 26-Jun-13 14:14:56

And so bloody what if his precious older kids have to wait until you die to get "their money" ?? That's pretty standard procedure.

My dad died over 20 years ago and so I shall have to wait until my mum dies to get "my money". If there's any left, if she doesn't need it for care etc. It would never have occurred to my dad in a million years - and he would have been horrified at the suggestion - that my mum sold the house on his death so us kids could get some cash. That should be just as true if there's a stepparent involved. I don't even like the idea of OP remaining in house for a limited period .... why shouldn't she have the security of her own home for life which is what most people aspire to ? I know there's the argument that if she remarries etc her stepkids may never get their inheritance but people don't get inheritances they expect for all sorts of reasons in the end - care fees, charitable bequests, fallings out with family and so on, and that applies in non-step families too.

The more I think about this it's almost as if OP's DH is saying that he doesn't trust her to do right by his older kids - which is pretty insulting really. Like the only way he can be sure they get something is by making her and his youngest child homeless. It practically feels like he's punishing her by creating stress and worry where none need exist.

catsmother Wed 26-Jun-13 14:06:13

Bloody hell Emily .... despite the sensible advice about wills and insurance I don't think the main issue here is ignorance of practicalities but about his appalling attitude towards you and DS.

It would have been entirely different had he said "I don't know what to do for the best in the event of my death - I/we need to find out all the possibilities so that all my kids are adequately protected". Instead, he's said he wants you out and seems not to care. Social housing indeed - does he ever read the news these days - no-one can rely on being given social housing and why the heck should you depend on that as your "insurance policy" anyway ?

Without meaning to be (too) rude I'm going to suppose for a moment that he's rather thick and hasn't heard about life insurance - though I find that hard to imagine really. So .... he thinks the only way for his older kids to get their inheritance is to have you sell the house. Any normal person would have been distressed at this scenario, as in, "oh dear, I don't know how this is going to work, if my older kids get their inheritance that means you and DS lose your home, I can't see any way round that" ..... at which point, you step in, and say "don't worry, there must be a way round it, let's get some legal advice" or even (!!) "actually, there's this marvellous thing called life insurance ..... "

BUT ..... he's not expressed any concern for you and DS .... in fact it comes across from your posts that he couldn't care less hence the flippant social housing remark.

And have just looked back and seen that he suggested YOU should get insurance if you're "that worried" so not only has he heard of the insurance concept, HE isn't bothered about his youngest child and has dismissed your worries by placing all the responsibility for minimising future risk onto you. Good god.

This sort of thing is something couples do TOGETHER when they have children. It's not about one parent opting out of their responsibility to their child (or one of them). Indeed, if he thinks it's the responsibility of the mother to think about the future should he die, then why isn't he asking his ex to make similar arrangements if she's "that worried" ? Why is he going to the effort of making arrangements (which are crap, divisive, unfair, and extremely hurtful) to make sure his older kids are okay but in effect saying his youngest can take his chances ? He has every bit as much duty of care towards the youngest - and should be seeking solutions which are fair for everyone. It beggars belief that he's happy with a scenario where you lose your home so that the kids who already have a home can get a cash lump sum too. Even in the extremely unlikely event of you getting a council home, does he not imagine how stressful the whole process would be for you and DS - selling a home you feel safe and secure in, scraping about for a council property (which you'd have very little control over) or private rented where prospective tenants on housing benefit are barred from so many properties anyway, so you end up in a dump as that's all you can get. Does he really think a scenario like that is what a grieving widow should have to cope with when it could so easily be avoided ?

Yes ... all of this could be sorted out practically with insurance and trusts. But what about his nasty callous attitude ? Why the concern for some of his kids but not all ? I don't think I could forget this in a hurry.

parttimer79 Wed 26-Jun-13 13:54:02

Oh and his exW has insurance to cover spousal maintenance in event of his death.
Hope we have all this covered, it seemed bloody complicated and we took legal advice!

babyhmummy01 Wed 26-Jun-13 13:52:41

Sorry tried to.hit preview and got post blooming smart phone

Insurance needs to.cover the value of his maintenance obligations up to all kids with his ex are 18

parttimer79 Wed 26-Jun-13 13:51:52

Emily my DP and I have 2 DSCs and one (probably)DD due in August and have life insurance which covers the following in the case of his death:
lump sum for value of child maintenance til youngest DSC leaves fulltime education
sum to cover home and costs of bringing up new baby until same point
sum to allow each child to inherit roughly same amount

now all these amounts are not the same as we rent and DPs ex wife received a lump sum on settlement to allow her to buy a home mortgage free (she currently lives with her parents) but they do ensure rough equity of outcome if the worst happens.

In the event of either of us dying we are the recipients of the others estate - not any of the kids.

babyhmummy01 Wed 26-Jun-13 13:51:23

emily in process of similar with my dp so offering on the advice he was given...yes your sh has to make provisions for his kids with ex in event of his death but it should not cone at the expense of you and your ds. Legally all he has to do it take out a life insurance policy with his kids as beneficiaries and his ex as trustee if he dies before they are 18. Basically it needs to cover whatever
Any house he buys after cessation of a previous marriage cannot be claimed upon by his ex, it will be part of his divorce if he reads the fine print.

emilyeggs Wed 26-Jun-13 11:49:44

Yes I suggested that, I'm going to look into insurance for myself so my ds has something.

mumblechum1 Wed 26-Jun-13 11:45:55

Plus he doesn't want them to have to wait for me to die to get there money.

Well, one option would be to give you a right to reside for a shorter period, say until your youngest child is 24 (finishing Uni age), maybe?

emilyeggs Wed 26-Jun-13 11:41:49

Having his half in a trust is a good idea but I think he would like it split three ways otherwise his two will get a quarter each and our ds will get a half. Plus he doesn't want them to have to wait for me to die to get there money. So cheery all this!

mumblechum1 Wed 26-Jun-13 11:32:57

I agree, your dh should be paying the insurance premiums in order to have control over that aspect, otherwise his ex could cancel the policy and the estate would potentially be vulnerable to a claim under the 1975 Act.

emilyeggs Wed 26-Jun-13 11:25:51

Thank, I did read mumblechum post x

emilyeggs Wed 26-Jun-13 11:23:09

She's not grabbing at all, she asks for nothing. I didn't even think about maintenance payments. She doesn't get money for her, just the kids.

allnewtaketwo Wed 26-Jun-13 11:12:24

Yes this is what I meant "Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, the children could claim if they were not provided for. The insurance policy would have to be worded in such a way that it was clearly intended to be a substitute for the child mtce"

I personally would avoid this risk - if she arranged the policy and paid for it then the father would have no control over the wording. Depending on how grabbing/vindictive she is she could easily put the policy in place and then claim he made no provision for replacement of maintenance (sorry but have had the worst example of a grabbing ex here!).

I'd go for the father arranging and paying the life insurance himself personally

PearlyWhites Wed 26-Jun-13 11:11:35

Op sorry for sounding harsh but I disagree it does matter because it comes across as your dh having very little regard for you and your child you have together. It's great that he is a responsible father to his other two dc but that shouldn't come at the expense of your dc together.

mumblechum1 Wed 26-Jun-13 11:06:03

But wouldn't this mean that she could in effect claim on the childrens' behalf that HE hasn't left them anything to replace maintenance, and that therefore they have to be maintained via his estate.

I think WomensWeekly means that the insurance would cover whatever maintenance the children would otherwise have received under the terms of their consent order.

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, the children could claim if they were not provided for. The insurance policy would have to be worded in such a way that it was clearly intended to be a substitute for the child mtce, and therefore they are provided for in terms of income while they are minor, but otherwise, in my view (25 years as a divorce lawyer and will writer), she would have no claim against the estate, assuming that she doesn't receive spousal maintenance. The consent order should have dismissed all of the wife's claims under the 1975 Act.

So long as your husband makes reasonable provision for the children under a lifetime trust, as I suggested earlier, then the children have no basis for a claim that they should receive anything earlier than the OP's death (if she survives her husband).

Emily check out Mumblechum's posts, she talks sense Thanks thanks

allnewtaketwo Wed 26-Jun-13 10:51:48

Onthebottom "She could pay for the cover on him, but own the policy herself - then in the event of his death, she makes the death claim and the policy proceeds go directly to her"

But wouldn't this mean that she could in effect claim on the childrens' behalf that HE hasn't left them anything to replace maintenance, and that therefore they have to be maintained via his estate.

Cross posted with you Emily - the guilt about his past can be handled v easily with a policy for £30 or £40 a month instead of throwing you and your DC out of our home!

Can the solicitor you are using to buy your house have a chat to him about family provision?

Petal02 Wed 26-Jun-13 10:49:12

It seems his guilt about the past is starting to destroy our future

That is sooooo true of many men in 'second' marriages/families. But very sad though.

allnewtaketwo Wed 26-Jun-13 10:48:36

I can definitely see how and/or why you didn't think of these practicalities at the time.

BUT, doesn't the values he's displaying now change your view of him somewhat? How can you share a life with him now knowing he'd have you turfed out of your home?

Agree with Petal don't buy a house with him, at least until the practicalities are sorted out and make sense for you and your child. Or perhaps buy your own smaller home to give yourself some security.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now