Stepchild wants to see finances and money spent on his stepsiblings.

"There is every chance he envisaged it being used by his son to supplement the household"

This bit I entirely agree with. It was clearly intended to supplement the household of his son. His son's household now includes the OP.

"...with his grandchildren living in it."

As has been mentioned many times on this thread, given the sophistication of financial planning involved here, it is clear that if the grandfather had wished the income to be spent on the grandchildren in particular, then it is highly likely that this would have been spelt out in the will or other relevant document.

The fact that it wasn't, clearly demonstrates that this was not any part of the grandfather's intentions.

That may be the solution to that, yes. He may have a happy marriage and a good relationship with OP’s children, but that has resulted in a strained relationship with his own children.

Having a good relationship with both may be the ideal, but that doesn’t mean it’s an option available to him. It may be that he has to choose what matters more to him.

And of course the OP spending her own money on her stepchildren in the same way that her DH is doing, will also alleviate the feeling of imbalance.

The eldest has asked that now that they are an adult that they want to look at my husband’s finances

Your choice of language is strange as there is emphasis on "my husband" when naturally it should have been "their father's finances".

It's likely this is about the oldest feeling your children are receiving more than him..this doesn't have to be money but time, love, attention. Money is the way the eldest can address the balance and make your children receive less. I don't know why a dad is so terrified that his child has discussed this, surely if they have a good relationship with trust the discussion can be had and no relationship will be lost. If this ends the bond then there wasn't much of a strong bond.

Upshot - reassure the eldest that his dad will hand over the assets to his children (and not yours) when he passes. Income spent on your children isn't material (unless you are downplaying what is spent on your children)

But what is the solution to that? If OP and her husband are happily married and he has a nice bond with her children, does he need to back away from them and start being cold towards them in order to please his son?

OP's husband 100% needs to sit down with his son and let him have his say and try to work through things, but OP's husband really has done nothing wrong and the his son gently needs telling that. OP has confirmed that she wasn't the OW. Unless there's a huge backstory about her husband that the OP is choosing not to disclose, I've heard nothing to suggest that her husband is anything but a decent, kind bloke. People divorce, it happens. I have 36 cousins (large family) and I don't think any of them still have married parents. It is the way of the world nowadays. The son needs to process it.

I'm clearly from a very different world to this lad and many other people on this thread. At 18 I was doing university and then a full-time job in the evenings to financially support my parents and disabled brother who were in debt and on the verge of being homeless. I was the bloody breadwinner at 18. So maybe I have an innate inability to relate to this lad. But even so, he's been nasty towards OP's kids and I hope they will be protected from being picked on further.

Well quite possibly.

And that points, doesn't it, to an issue around feeling hurt by the family arrangements rather than pure greed?

Where is the respect for what DS’s grandfather wanted,

TBH I suspect the GF would be pretty disappointed to see the money funding the op and her dc.

He didn't leave it to his Dgc's bio mum; why would he want the op using it? There is every chance he envisaged it being used by his son to supplement the household with his grandchildren living in it.

It may well be that the terms of the trust allow the son to use it as he pleases BUT I think if we are talking about the Gf;s wishes, that is more likely to be an argument in favour of the DSS than the op.

Because you made comments about DH thinking this is the end of his relationship with son, as if by his son asking the question DH is ready to wipe his hands of him

Similarly, I bet the son has nothing to say when his dad spends some of the generated income on himself, friends, or other family members who aren't step-children. Wedding gifts, birthday gifts, socialising etc. I presume it's only when some of it is spent on the step-children that he kicks up a stink.

I wonder if the mother has remarried and the boy thinks his stepfather's estate should be reimbursed for everything he buys the boy.

Again with the ‘should’, as if ‘should’ has any bearing on anything. They can all do as they see fit to.

Maybe it would create an escalation, or maybe it would ease the tensions in his relationship with his father, and be a step towards repairing what is clearly strained.

Equally, continuing to ‘parent’ OP’s children despite his actual child’s feelings may be something the son gets over in the way that many think he should, or it could cost the DH the relationship.

There isn’t only one potential outcome of a course of action.

In that case, OP should be under no obligation to ring-fence a part of her share of the marital assets to her step-kids as a form of "reimbursement" for every penny that her husband has chosen to spend on her kids. Because it's nothing to do with her. This lad should instead demand that his dad takes on a second job to make up for the "shortfall".

Who is asking for it both ways? I’ve never been a proponent of the idea that a stepparent of either sex is responsible, financially or otherwise, for a stepchild.

Absolutely this. It’s just grabby. OP and her DH should be making sure their wills are watertight.

Where are the stepkids getting screwed ? They will ultimately inherit when the assets are sold. Where is the respect for what DS’s grandfather wanted, or the fact that how his dad spends his money is naff all to do with him. Can’t believe so many posters excusing shitty behaviour that says ‘hurry up and die, l want my money’ !!

"The eldest has asked that now that they are an adult that they want to look at my husband’s finances. Essentially they want an account of any money that is spent on my children and they wanted my husband’s estate to be reimbursed from my share of the house when he dies."

He's gone well beyond being grabby about the ski trip. Whenever the OP's children receive something, he demands to know who paid for it. It's vile.

It was never at the expense of his "original" children. It is passive income generated from an asset, and asset which the son and his sibling will receive in the future. The asset is not being depleted.

I'm sure the son would take great pleasure in OP's husband becoming hostile to OP's children, but thankfully, he doesn't seem to want to do that.

The Ben and Jerry's situation is an example of how far this lad could take it if his dad gives into his demands. If people are right that it's not really about the money and is more about this lad feeling hard-done-by, then he could absolutely stoop to being that petty. Isn't one of OP's children only 11? I very much hope they aren't getting picked on by an 18 year old.

Well, its not Ben and Jerry's we are talking about, is it?
Its about subsidizing her and her children's lifestyle which includes (what I assume are) expensive ski trips at the (perceived) expense of his original children.

Absolutely spot on.

It's all well and good saying that the OP's DH should no longer offer to pay for skiing trips for the step-children, but it sets a very dangerous precedent. The son can then keep making further demands.

The DS will be away at university for the foreseeable and presumably only home in the holidays. If OP's DH fancies an impromptu, casual meal out to a restaurant one night, and pays the bill for the group (which would presumably be for himself, OP, her children and his younger child if in attendance, the DS would be away at uni), would his son feel wounded and betrayed as a result of that? Would he need to see an itemised bill highlighting which drinks and meals were for OP's children and have the sum of that be added to the spreadsheet to be reimbursed in the future?

As I said earlier in the thread, I feel sorry for OP's children. I am not sure how aware they are of their step-brother's attitude towards them but if I were them I would feel quite intimidated during his time at his dad's house. In their situation, knowing that your step-brother thinks that you are a leech fleecing his father, you'd be scared to do or say anything. God forbid you get an Amazon parcel delivered and he sees it, as he'll start interrogating you as to whether his dad paid for it. What if the OP's husband announces he's going to the shop and asks everyone if they want anything? The stepchild would feel terrified to ask for something as small as a bloody tub of Ben and Jerry's out of fear for how their step-brother would interpret it.

And ? His dad is married to OP who has kids - why wouldn’t he take on some parental responsibility ? Dad’s who don’t come in for a kicking on MN. You can’t have it both ways.

He is spoiled. The will was constructed so that the parents benefited from the investments and their kids in turn benefited from the sale of the assets. This grabby little scrote wants it both ways. The assets are safe and will be sold when everyone has passed. All this says is ‘hurry up and die’.

If I had an opinion as to what he ‘should’ do, it would be entirely irrelevant.

That’s up to him 🤷🏻‍♀️

Love and care for others are not a finite resource, and thinking that they are is sad and leads to nothing but sorrow. "Do you love me more than you love(d) her/him?", for instance, indicates to me that someone is probably very unhappy.

A man caring for his wife and his wife's children does not mean he does not love his own children (though he may find them hard work if they demand to oversee his finances). He may perhaps care rather less for his previous wife than he does for his present one; but I'd honestly hope that he would do that and even if he didn't would allow his second wife to think he did, because how horrible to be in a marriage with a man who is hankering after his previous wife! However, if the ex is poisoning his son against him and his new relationship, it's likely he doesn't feel all that fond of her any more and certain that she is interested only in his money at this point. (She can't really care much for her son or have his best interests at heart if she is trying to foul up his relationship with his father; if nothing else, a row between them might mean the son getting a smaller amount of both money and obvious love and care, at the present even if not in future.)

What we know about the eighteen-year-old son is that he openly resented his father spending part of the cost of a school trip on someone other than him (and an eleven-year-old at that) and that his mother so resented it that she rang up to complain that it had happened and the money spent should have been kept to be left to her children when their father dies; but worse, that the son resented the very possibility that his father might have paid for someone of nine to be taken to the theatre for the evening by someone other than his father and not even related to him.

And we know that he has said that he wants any money spent on his father's wife and her children to be "reimbursed" to him out of the wife's estate. WTF? Nobody should be saying that!

That is carrying a chip on his shoulder to ludicrous extremes, and I think he might need professional help to get over the inadequacy which leads him to measure everything in pounds and pence because he has been taught that his father doesn't love him on account of loving other people as well.

It is unfortunate for him that it seems as if the only way he can be happy at this point is if his father never speaks to his current wife or her children again, and that would be a thoroughly unreasonable expectation.

(I wonder whether he feels that if his aunt, his father's frugal sister, or either of his uncles, has no children, he is entitled to be left the lion's share of their incomes and savings. I hope not, but I cannot feel sure at this point. After all, they are benefitting from His Inheritance.)

My comment was in direct response to the PP who said “not wanting DSC getting free skiing trips instead of him”

so essentially the father should only spend his money on things that directly benefit his own children and no one else?

So basically, DSS resents the fact that his father spends money on you and your children. He sees this as you and your children “depleting” his eventual inheritance. Perhaps he is worried that your husbands estate (aside from the provision from his grandfather) will go to you and then ultimately to your children and not to him and his brother. You do hear of many cases like this where children of the first wife “lose out”. Likely nothing anyone can say will change his mind. Possible time and life experience might affect his view but who knows. Ultimately your husband needs to find a way to try to reach him and maybe reassure him about his inheritance (although frankly no one is entitled to anything and your DH can spend his money on whatever and whoever he likes in life and thereafter!) But for the sake of preserving the relationship your DH will likely not want to phrase it like that. But you need to stay right out of the conversation, this is on your DH to resolve.