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...
There is at least one MNetter who is a will writer, and may be able to help you on this. But leaving a proportion of an estate directly to the children can (I think) have tax advantages, and it needs to go into trust until they reach their majority. No reason why you should not be their trustee.
What sort of trust was being proposed if it always all left to you in the first instance? I don't know if there are tax issues (suspect not between spouses), but it might be a vehicle to ensure that you enjoy the benefit of that inheritance during your life time, but any that's left on your death must go to the children of the marriage, not to any subsequent ones you might go on to have.
yes, Stella. that would be an argument - to make sure any other children i had didn't benefit from dh's assets.
this is horrible from so many angles.
When dh's dad was widow(er)ed he was very sad, married again in haste, and blew the families money two years later on a costly divorce.
So yanbu, the clause is insulting applied to only you, it should be applied to both of you. We have named it the Susan Clause, after the ex wife.
I think you need to get rid of the dinosaur and employ a solicitor.
^yes, Stella. that would be an argument - to make sure any other children i had didn't benefit from dh's assets.
This is wrong! The implication is that if you died but dh had more children, it would be all right for new children to benefit because it was all dh's money in th first place. Wrong! The money/assests do not beong to dh just because he is out working and you are home bringing up children. You are a family so the money/assests belong to both of you. If you were not around or you were out working now, then dh's current money would go to pay for a childminder/house-cleaner etc all the other things you now do as a SAHM. Currently you are providing that service so the money which he gets as a result of his job is half yours. Therefore, if the money is as much yours as it is his, then any of your future children have as much right to benefit from said money as any of his future children do!
Should the worst happen and he dies one day and, eventually, you do decide to re-marry and have more children depending on whether or not you can afford to do so, then you have as much right to be able to make such a decision, based on your financial situation, as dh does. You are working just as hard to earn the current family finances as he is- it is not "his" money!
Maybe he's expecting to die first? (OP is Not Allowed to hasten this before the will is drawn up).
I would not tolerate even listening to such guff. Neither would my dh. Jesus Christ.
glad that i'm not going insane...
should we both die we would put part of the estate in trust for the kids, to be dissolved once they're old enough. they would also get a lump sum on our death. so the trust would be if they blew it all, or maybe just a safety check to make sure they don't go off the rails.
but for me - well there would be a trust my entire life! so in fact i've not even accorded the same status / respect as our kids!
i haven't had a chance to talk to dh about this.
ultimately it's his decision as it's his will.
but i won't have such treatment of him in my will should i die. i just don't think it's how a responsible ADULT should be treated.
i've got to think about what to say / do, if anything, if he decides that it IS an appropriate way to treat me if he dies. it will seriously dent my faith in our marriage
YANBU. This is dreadful, it should be the same for both of you, and you should be able to decide what you do with the estate yourself, not be dictated to by the terms of some Trust Fund....
Gosh how horrible
Unless you are of diminished mental capacity I cannot see why this would be a good idea.
Take your business elsewhere. Get mumblechum to do your will. She did mine and was brilliant.
We are both SE and both agreed to put the assets of the deceased in trust if one pre/deceased the other, but for tax reasons rather than relationship/trust reasons. There is absolute parity in out wills (but I chose a better selection of music than him for the wake ).
Hope you work it out. IME men suggest stuff like this for dickhead reasons, and are happy to reconsider when the underlying twattish-ness is pointed put to them. Hope that's so in your case...
I don't understand why it's his will? Isn't everything - your house, money etc in both your names?
His will because only one of them can be the first to die! Either the husband or the OPs will will be the one 'triggered'. Even if what the will is actually bequething is 50% of the couple's assets because everything is in joint names.
I would ask to change accountants. If my husband wanted to do this, it would make me seriously question our marriage - so I'm hoping yours is on side!
i've just got home and dh is asleep so no chance to talk about it tonight.
i've been seething about it all day but want to approach it calmly.
it's dh's accountant who he's had long before i even came on the scene, and we've been together for quite some time.
anyway, accountant has seriously pissed me off. problem is my dh thinks the sun shines out his arse, and tbf he is really good at his job. i don't feel that he has my best interests at heart any more tho, only my dh's and my dh wants him to be a trustee to this charming trust fund.
plus i've just fired the last lawyer who drew up a will for us on pretty much the same grounds.
the thing that annoys me the most (well this evening anyway, tomorrow i'm sure i'll think of something else) is that dh is much more likely to have more children than me. i have terrible pg's and there is no way i want more children. my sanity couldn't handle it. whereas for dh, he could just go and shag someone else and job done! bingo, another child that '
our his estate' will have to support.
just so blatantly unfair.
i can't escape the feeling that because i have no earning power at the moment, i don't have a voice. it's just WRONG WRONG WRONG.
i do have to stick up for dh though - even though i haven't had a chance to talk to him about it i'd be shocked if he still thought it was a good idea after
i've finished with him we've talked it through.
I think it's absolutely fair enough to want to ensure that the part of the money which is your's, will eventually go to your children and not to somebody else.
It is not reasonable to expect that to be a one way street. I would expect both partners in a normal relationship to either want to protect their children's financial interests or to trust each other equally to protect their children's financial interests. (I would prefer the former option tbh but each to his/her own.)
The way it stands, if he dies first you don't get the same financial independence as your children eventually do, whereas if he dies first he can take up with a chorus girl* and have children with her and leave your share of the money to them instead of your children.
It's basically the sauce for the goose argument isn't it?
And yes I totally agree with you. If any partner of mine thought this was a reasonable way to organise things, I would not believe him anymore to be someone who believed in me as an equal being. It would totally change my perception of him tbh.
He probably hasn't realised the full implications and as someone else said, you just need to point them out.
*Always wanted to use that stereotype, sorry.
Actually that's another good point - in this situation, if men are widowed they are much more likely to go on to have other children aren't they?
I would have thought anyway.
Don't know the numbers.
Is this accountant qualified to draw up a will? Mumble's website It seems really odd not to do mirror wills if you're married and neither of you has separate dependants or liabilities. What's also odd is that the accountant thinks he would be better placed to look after your family's interests then you, the children's mother, an adult with full mental capacity. Is he quite legit?
I would ask your dh this one question "Do you think I am unable to manage our finances and act in the children's best interests?" If the answer is yes, the least of your worries is the will. If the answer is no, dump the dinosaur accountant.
first thing is to find out what dh actually thinks about this. he's very poker-faced in meetings and doesn't give much away.
we'd get a lawyer to draw up the will, just that the accountant is giving us advice on what to do tax-wise. i will definitely bear mumblechum in mind.
i think we've got to work this out between us and then decide how to proceed. i can't see dh ditching the accountant given that he really only handles dh's stuff, but we could for the purpose of the wills. i can explain that i don't feel he's got my interests at heart and as such he can't be involved in anything so personal.
anyway, thanks for talking it through with me. it really helps to 'get it out' ahem as it were...
Join the discussion
Please login first.