AIBU to be hurt and offended by husband suggestion of changing will?

DH grandmother left his mother's share of her inheritance in trust with DH and his sister as trustees so that she couldn't touch the capital but only the interest. She couldn't spend any of that without permission from the trustees her own children. In meant she had to come cap in hand for every purchase - it was awful & humiliating for everyone concerned

consider impact on DC of expecting them to yay or nay spending or house sales

He's older than you.

His younger brother has just died.

He's facing mortality at the sharp end at the moment, and wondering whether he will die early as well. I wonder what age his parents died at if one or both has died.

English literature is full of parents who are widowed early and remarry and children of the first marriage are disinherited. He doesn't want that.

I think you need to cut him some slack, and understand what's going on with him.

He wants your joint DC to inherit - what's wrong with that?

I'd say, maybe when he's feeling less raw about the death of his brother (I'd be grieving like I don't know what if one of my younger siblings died at 50 or so) maybe have a chat about it feeling like he doesn't trust you.

But I guess I'd be trying to make my peace with his good intentions.

If you want to ensure that your children inherit whatever happens and that your assets aren't swallowed up in care home fees for one of you, the right thing for you to do as a team is to agree that each of you will leave the other a life interest in their half of the home. Anything else risks your children being left with nothing.

I love this idea. I'm going to suggest we do the same when hubby gets home tonight.

Thanks

there’s no way the surviving spouse would have taken it to court and there were some structural issues. It was very sad

whilst we don’t want to think our kids will be arseholes there is a chance they will be!!

If they were not the trustees of the life interest trust they had no say at all. If they were the trustees they could not block the sale unreasonably. If the trustees are blocking the sale unreasonably, the surviving spouse can apply to the courts for an order forcing the sale.

Regarding maintenance costs, those are usually the responsibility of the surviving spouse. However, if significant structural repairs are needed the trustees may need to contribute to that in order to protect the value of the property.

No, it is sensible inheritance planning. Do please explain how it would make life difficult for OP.

Regarding the fact she paid for the lion's share of the house, they could execute a deed of trust on severing the joint tenancy giving him a smaller proportion of the house if that is the way they want to go. That would then go into a life interest trust if he dies first, leaving OP still owning more than 50% of the house.

But they get a say in the sale?

I know someone who has this set up and the kids kept blocking the sale because it wasn’t getting enough. They also weren’t willing to help with maintenance costs

curious to know if they weren’t in fact legally able to block the sale as it created huge issues at the time

I don't really understand why people get upset by this. What is it that people think they're losing out on?

I want my assets to go to my dc, so does my DH. Let's face it, it's likely one of us will go first and that means without a will saying otherwise all the money goes to them.

After that we would both want it to go to DC. But if the surviving one of us remarries that isn't what would happen automatically - and in practice, often doesn't. Neither of us want that.

Obviously, people need proper tax advice because what is best for your personal circumstances isn't always clear. Apart from that, why doesn't the OP do similar in case she dies first? Unless for some reason she doesn't want her dc to ultimately get the money.

Assuming a standard life interest trust, if OP downsizes she can use all the proceeds of the sale to buy a new property but the life interest trust will also own part of the new property. She does not have to give half the proceeds from selling the house to the children.

But why on earth would the OP agree to that? I certainly wouldn't.

He is talking about ring fencing all the assets

half a house doesn’t get you something half the size either plus transaction costs on top

@Scarlettpixie

It sounds like he doesn't understand the difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. If you are joint tenants and one of you dies the other one gets the house.

The solicitor would pick that up when writing the will and would do the very simple form to change the house ownership so that half could in deed be left in trust as per the will.

Nothing stopping her selling the house - it's not a prison. Just that half the proceeds belong to the kids, so she CAN sell, give half the proceeds to the kids and then use the other half to travel the World or buy lots of stuff. She'll also presumably inherit her husbands other assets, such as savings, investments, pension pot, etc which she'd be free to sell and use as she wishes. All it's doing is ring fencing his half of the value of the house for their joint children.

Indeed

ultimately a couple doesn’t need 2x what a single person needs for retirement - so if he blocks her from 50% she’s screwed

if they can afford for the kids to get cash then great but ring fencing the house is an albatross and I’ve known families fall out over it

and I say this as someone with a wicked step grandmother but the money she took was nothing compared to the worthless memorable items

I think it’s very sensible, he’s got older, his younger DB had died. He now realises it happens, so
understands his own mortality and therefore realises you are a lot younger and very likely to form another relationship if he should pass. He wants to ensure that the potential new spouse doesn’t benefit.

Im sure you would do the right thing but, any new spouse could be manipulative or dubious.

i think he’s being wise.

OP could agree to switch to tenants in common and ask to split it 30:70 in her favour. Currently, and simplistically, he has contributed less but owns the same amount of property as OP. I say simplistically, as marriage and shared assets is more than just who earned more.

Its protection for your children. You do not want all of that money going on care and your children get nothing.

I think this is perfectly sensible and indeed DH and I are about to do something similar. I have some money inherited from my parents and I certainly want to ensure it goes on to my children. If I died tomorrow I wouldn't want DH to be lonely, and would want him to remarry if he found the right person - but I don't want her to inherit my money. Whilst I trust DH, there are never any guarantees that, for instance, he would get around to sorting this out before he died, so I would rather play safe.

My one reservation in your case is that I would want DH either to give or leave the children a chunk of money direct to help them with house deposits etc.

Legally sure but not morally as OP has contributed more.

bit that’s ok because they decided on joint finances. He can’t unilaterally decide that they no longer do joint after having benefitted from OPs higher earnings for years

It sounds like he doesn't understand the difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. If you are joint tenants and one of you dies the other one gets the house.

You can't leave someone a lifetime interest in money. You can either spend it or you can't. Wouldn't it be better to gift your children some of the latest inheritance or to leave them a lump sum each in his will and you get the rest if there is any.

What are the 'chattels'?

I think this may be one occassion when your and your DH's ages are relevent. I know lots of people in the 60s and 70s who feel like they have financial security and can't see sense in hoarding any more, so want to pass it on down.

I suspect his actions are done in that spirit.

Legally, it is 50% if you are joint tenants.
If you are tenants in common, you can then decide the percentage split.
OP is currently in the former situation.

But they are not the children’s assets. And they’re not even half his if you look at who has contributed - it’s a good gig to accrue less than 50% and then decide what to do with half!

a family friend who was very miserly died leaving his wife quite a fortune and she has done a lot of travelling and did up the house etc etc - if it was all ring fenced she would have been financially trapped!

its all very well thinking about the kids inheritance but if too restrictive it could really hurt OP financially in her dotage

You're not wrong to feel as you do, and he's not wrong for considering his own immortality and making sure the children's inheritance is protected when he's not there.

I'd suggest sharing with him exactly as you have with us here. Lay out the restrictions that would put on each of you, and explore any other possibilities.
E.g. Is it possible that the children each inherit x amount/% on either of your deaths, the remaining (including the house) to the surviving spouse, but in the event you/he remarry then the property would be split so they inherit half the value.

It's sensible. None of us knows what will happen after we're gone. I feel I want a similar arrangement in our will, but would also be annoyed if I didnt have control over finances once becoming a widow. No way I'd marry again 😆😆