late husband being a liar

[percheron67]

My husband, with whom I have one child {disabled}, died a while ago. I nursed him through a terminal illness accompanied him on hospital visits and visited every day when he was bed bound.

We had talked over our monies before he became ill and I said that. if he left the finances to me during my lifetime, I would make sure that his children fro a previous marriage would have a legacy when I died. \I needed to ensure that I would have money around in case anything that could improve her life {treatment abroad, maybe} would be possible. He knew full well that I am scrupulous with the handling of money.

In due course, we had a meeting at his Solicitors because he insisted that he wanted to leave a large sum of money to his daughter. I had, albeit reluctantly, agreed. When the meeting started it turned out aht he wanted his sons to inherit on his death and not mine. I feel I was bullied into accepting this although I was furious about the way it was done. This move seriously depleted the estate.

After his death it appeared that he had taken out large insurance policies for the other children {not my daughter} and so they inherited a great deal of money each. The solicitor said to me that if he had known about the policies he would not have pushed to have the children inherit directly but leave the money in the trust until I passed on. I am trying not to be bitter because, ultimately, it will affect my health but I have nothing but really bad feeling towards my husband. How he could play such a dirty trick really hurts. There is much more I could have done for my child with the money left elsewhere.

Does it matter whether the additional money for the older children came from the estate or insurance policies? His distribution meant that his youngest child, who arguably needs more assistance, gets less than his older children

It is entirely possible that these policies were set up with his ex wife and she continued to pay them. That of course doesn't mean he shouldn't have set one up for his daughter but maybe explains why he 'forgot' about them.

I think your husband did the right thing. His children should inherit directly from him, not have to wait until you die at which stage you may not leave them anything

So as I understand it, he had 2 sons and a daughter with his first wife, and a daughter with OP. The estate was divided between the four children (not known how it was divided percentage-wise) BUT the three older children had insurance policies in addition? Were these insurance policies something that was stipulated in the divorce settlement to provide for the three children in the event their father remarried and left his estate to a second wife/family?

He was entitled to leave his money wherever and however he chose. But the lying about how much each child would receive in total, regardless of the source, was unforgivable.

I'm glad you have realised the absurdity of your proposition that he should discuss with the mother of a child whom he provides for in a will

Are you for real? He was married to her. She was his wife. Do you and your husband not discuss your estate planning with each other. If you had a disabled child, would that discussion not be even more important?

And for the record, I said upthread that I can understand someone not wanting to rely on a new spouse to pass an inheritance onto children of a first marriage.

But the OP has a disabled daughter who appears to have been treated less favourably than her older siblings. And the OP wasn't some random woman he had a child with. She was his wife who was with him in his final illness.

In my world the married parents of children discuss how they can best care for them after death. Especially if there is a child with additional needs. According to Morsecode this is an absurd position to have. I sometimes wonder do MNers live in a parallel universe.

So, to clarify.

He left you the house and a little money.

Everything else went to his children from a previous marriage and nothing went to the child of his second marriage (yours).

I think OPs very vague about how many children were involved (? Four from previous marriage/four including hers/) and whether the daughter and mentions him wanting to leave money if her daughter or a different daughter. She doesn't say her daughter got nothing, just not an insurance policy and that she's annoued because the other children are wealthy from their mothers side. Sounds like she just wanted more

Typos.....grre

she doesn't say her daughter got nothing, just not an insurance policy

Our insurance policies for our children are upwards of a million - which was pretty much all of what they would have got at one point and still a significant portion. Why does it matter that it is an insurance policy? Don't people on MN use insurance policies to provide for their spouses and children? Am quite amazed at the "just an insurance policy" thing. For most of the people I know insurance policies are how they provide for their children - ALL their children.

But OPs DH didn't just use insurance policies to provide for his children, he also divided up his estate. OP doesn't say how much the policies were for or how he divided the estate. She's annoyed that he didn't leave all his money to her

So he has left large sums of money to his children from his first marriage but not his daughter with you?? Have I understood that correctly?

If I have then I understand your point op. I can understand wanting to secure your children's future and I can understand to an extent leaving them the bulk of the estate over a partner (not to the extent of financial hardship) but to treat one child differently to the others then no I'm with you op I wouldn't be able to remember him fondly not for what he has or hasn't left you but for the way his treated his daughter!

And we still don't know if this is something he did with his ex wife and she kept up. It may even be something that the wife did herself with his name on it before they parted which would explain why he didn't have one for his daughter.

She's annoyed that he didn't leave all his money to her
Where did she say this?

In the original post. She wanted him to leave all the money to her on the understanding she would leave it to his children on her death. She "reluctantly" went to the solicitor with him when he said he wanted to leave a sum directly to his daughter (which could actually be her daughter, it's not clear) and was "furious" when at the solicitors he also said he wanted to leave money directly to his older children as "this move seriously depleted the estate". It wasn't a move, it was a father making sure his children were taken care of. No where does OP actually clarify how the estate was divided, she doesn't actually say her daughter got a smaller percentage, just that his older kids also got an insurance policy.

I see we lost the OP then.

The most hurtful thing is the policies, not the inheritance tbh. That could easily be split between all the children and be considered fair. But why on earth not take out a policy making her as well?

Others have suggested that the insurance could have been taken out a while ago and he could have forgotten about it. My mum didn't realise her husbands life was insured until he died.

I may be wrong, but I think the OP is particularly upset that her DH didn't make the same kind of provision for their disabled daughter because she feels he perhaps didn't value her as much.

I needed to ensure that I would have money around in case anything that could improve her life {treatment abroad, maybe} would be possible. He knew full well that I am scrupulous with the handling of money.

That's the bit that stood out to me. I'm someone who isn't convinced by a lot of treatments abroad. I think a good proportion of them are people who will take your money without any real result. They also tend to be very expensive and I think he may have realised that although you are saying you'd leave some to them why you died, that there would be a good chance you would have done your will to benefit your dd first having spent quite a lot of his money on your dd.

However if he left you nothing, then I think that is wrong, his children should all have had equal parts.

I think the insurance policy tipped the inheritance in favour of the other kids. I assume as said they were benefactors in a life insurance policy he forgot about.

The issue is on one hand she says she would have bequeathed the kids on her death, on the other she says she'd have used rhe money to benefit her daughter where feasible and if possible, which is clearly understandable. She's not going to keep the money for his other kids if she can help her own. So she could have spent all their inheritance on her own daughter realistically.

She's also been very clear she was angry about his other kids inheriting from him at all. That can't have been easy for him.

As she's not come back and explained the estate split, I'm not sure how anyone can help her.

Hello everyone. I have often seen on messages left that people are afraid of saying too much for fear of being "outed". I really had no idea just how difficult it is to give a good idea of events without adding too many personal details! I think I have caused confusion - apologies. I would hate my step children - 3boys and 1 girl - to realise that this post was about their father. I have a good relationship with them and would hate to cause distress. We have always referred to them as my/our daughter as your brothers and sister and never prefixed with step. I thought this might create a barrier which needn't be.

At the divorce, the property and business were split between my husband and ex=wife so no problems there. There is a long backstory to a couple of shared assets though which I don't want to discuss because I think this may well be recognised.

I know roughly when the insurance policies were taken out because a friend of my husbands started working for a large insurance company and we gave him business. The reason I am cross is, that after going to the solicitor to make his will to leave his first daughter a legacy I was presented with the other three legacies which were not discussed before we went. My husband had obviously discussed this with the solicitor. Sorry, I seems to have digressed! Anywy, I thought everything was settled and then, after his death, I found out about the insurance policies. It was the underhand way it was done that hurt. I had always played it straight down the line with him. I do hope this is clearer now to those of you who have tried to be helpful.

This happened a couple of years ago now and I am not going take any action. I have a home and am secure there. Thank you.

That clarifies things a bit. Knowing he had policies for the other children, why didn't you query having a policy for your DD?

Was it perhaps because you thought everything would come to you, so there was no need?

Plus why were you suprised about the policies after his death...when you're now saying you knew roughly when they were taken out? It wasn't hidden from you, if you knew they existed.

In the end up In your death your DD will probably get more from him ... with the house.

It's clear in your opening post your ideal outcome would have been the entire estate left to you. That was unreasonable.

Sandy. I didn't know about the policies until after his death - thebusiness I thought had been given to the friend of husband was a health insurance policy. No mention was made of the life policies for the children and grandchild. I. hope this is clearer now. Had I known, I would have asked for our joint daughter to be treated equally.

As I mentioned, this was some while ago and I think being able to put it into words has cleared my mind and I no longer dwell on it. That, at least, is good news. Incidentally, it was our solicitor who told me he would have advised my husband not to deplete the estate if he had been aware of the policies - my husband deceived him too! Thanks for your comments.

hold on - I'm confused - there is now a grandchild?

If one of the kids from his first marriage is grown, they could have had a child