DH and I have been writing our wills and something has come up that I’d really like to hear opinions on.
We have DC and I am the higher earner. This is relevant because it’s the principle of this that I take issue with, rather than the actual effect it will have. We have two good incomes, we’re comfortable- not rolling in money, but we manage well and our only debt is the mortgage on our family home.
DH’s elderly father, my FIL, is quietly well-off, but relatively thrifty and can be quite controlling, belligerent and often uses emotional blackmail to get his way. He also can’t see the irony in much of what he does vs what he says.
DH has an older sister, my SIL, who is single, works hard for not much financial reward and rents a modest flat. Her dream is to buy her own home but on a single, mediocre income that’s way off. She’s also only ten years off retirement herself so it may never happen at all. She has no dependents and is fiercely proud.
So here’s the issue. FIL has told DH that when FIL dies, DH becomes ‘the man of the family’ (wtf does that even mean?!?!) and must take care of his sister financially. Being a 21st Century feminist, she would baulk at this idea, but that is what he has said.
The irony here is that FIL is still with us and hence he is currently “the man of the family” and yet he refuses to put anything in place to help SIL out financially with her dream of buying a property today. He refuses to look into gifting her any money nor anything that would benefit her financial situation whilst he is still alive. And yet he has laid this moral obligation squarely at the feet of DH, once FIL has gone.
DH is an incredibly moral man and has sworn to this, taking it to mean that in his own will, he will leave a not insubstantial sum to his sister before anything goes to me and our children in the event of his death. He knows his sister well enough to recognise that if he offered or gifted her any sum whilst DH is still alive, she would refuse it, as he has DCs to provide for and he is the younger sibling (her pride is at stake if she were to accept).
Now, I’m not concerned about this part of DH’s will from a financial point of view because I earn a good enough salary that if the worst were to happen, I would not be reliant on any inheritance from DH’s estate. Similarly if I went first, I have plans in place that would ensure DH and DCs would live comfortably.
However, I can’t help but resent FIL’s actions. Of course it’s his own money and he can do what he likes with it but he is emotionally blackmailing DH (and will continue to do so beyond the grave) into redirecting DC’s inheritance. Whilst writing our wills, the solicitor asked DH several times to repeat his request and clarified to him what that might mean for our DC if my financial circumstances changed and he died, with this bequest still in place. I don’t know if I read too much into it, but she appeared quite surprised by it.
FIL is not a poor man. If he were really concerned about SIL being “provided for” he could see to that now, whilst he’s still alive. Why put the moral and financial obligation on DH?
AIBU?