To think I should get all of husband's death in service benefit?

[ILoveSleep123]

NC in case of outing

DH received some pension info through the post today, and it said he needs to nominate someone or several people to receive a 'death in service' benefit if he should die (around £80k)

Hopefully he won't any time soon but obviously you need to think about these things. But I'm shocked to hear him say he's considering adding his brother as a beneficiary for 50%. BIL is in his 20s, spends money like water, no sense of responsibility, and is set to inherit a decent sum from his parents anyway.

Me and DH have a mortgage together, No children yet, but AIBU to think I should inherit everything from my husband should something happen to him? We've been together almost a decade if that means anything.

Why should his death mean she should be mortgage free and wouldn't have to work full time at least since the mortgage is usually our biggest monthly bill

Wtf. Is this a nasty joke?

What a miserable, spiteful view to take. If I died I would like to do everything I possibly could to make things easier for my DH. If I had the means to make sure the entire mortgage was paid off and he never had to work again then of course I would want to do that for him, because I love him very much. He'd be left without his soulmate and without the person who agreed to pay half of our mortgage for the next 15 years.

Do you hate your DH or something? You sound absolutely vile. I would hate to encounter you if I were a widow/widower. You'd probably laugh at my grief and call me a gold digger.

A spouse could appeal to the trustees to override the expressed wishes to leave to someone else, though I've no idea how likely that is to work.

Having advised pension scheme trustees on this issue numerous times in the past, Trustees are normally very reluctant to go against the member's wishes as expressed on his or her nomination form. It's just asking for trouble from the person who gets nothing.

There's a legal case Baird v Baird where a widow sued to try and get a payment that had gone to her late husband's brother. She lost.

Is there much equity in the house? If there is then you are getting most of his estate already if something bad happens.

I’ve nominated 100pct of this to my parents...my thinking was that we have a decent amount of equity in the house ( which we each paid half for, and will go to my dh anyway) and I’m more worried about my parents than my dh from a financial point-of-view. He is probably worried about his brother and thinks you would be ok

If you don’t have children it’s not reasonable to expect him to consider your lifestyle in the event of his death. You’re a grown up, you can provide for yourself. Obviously with children it’s different because they hinder your ability to earn but as you are childless you really should be able to support yourself.

If your dh dies young not only do you lose him but you also lose his potential earnings for the next 20/30/40 years so in the grand scheme of things 40k is not a huge amount of money but no doubt you are more deserving of this than his bloody brother. His behaviour on this matter is outrageous. He needs someone, not you, to talk some sense into him.

@TwistyTop but your DH would then be free to remarry and find a new soulmate. The brother won’t be able to find a new brother. Is it so incomprehensible that someone might have more than one person that they love in their life and would want to help in the event of their death?

@plunkplunkfizz is right. Scheme administrators actually make decisions in this stuff. It's merely your DH's wishes. There'd need to be an amazing reason for them not to pay out 100% to the spouse.

BogglesGoggles

I think your response to my comment has helped me to understand why there is such a difference of opinion on this thread. To me a death in service payment is something designed to cushion the financial blow of the deceased loss of income. So it's irrelevant how many people would feel affected by the death, or what the recipient of the death in service may go on to do - what is relevant is who is directly impacted financially by that loss of income. This would usually only be the people that you live with, or share a mortgage with. A PP mentioned it would go to her parents instead of her DH because her DH would already get the whole house and she feels her parents would be more impacted financially by her death. That makes sense too.

It sounds like maybe other people see more as like a will?

He'd be left without his soulmate

Most people can and do remarry - so much for soulmates

My opinion (and that's what MN is about after all so less of the "vile and spiteful" thanks - don't come on here if you can't take other peoples opinions) is that these payments shouldn't be about making someone better off financially than if they had never been with the person or if they hadn't of died

If the portion she gets is enough to pay off "his" share of the mortgage why should she be entitled to have her share paid off too?

Surely as a mortgage holder he has had to state he has life assurance to cover the mortgage - we had to as part of the process though they didn't ask for proof

The military have different arrangements in the U.K. because you can't get conventional life assurance, dd has nominated me as her beneficiary but told me I needed to promise to throw a massive party for her friends of something happened to her, nothing sad!

In your shoes I'd be furious.

I'd ask him to explain clearly why he thinks his brother's life would change financially on his death. You may find out that he is regularly paying money to him. If not, you're the one going to be financially impacted so would need the funds.

My DH isn't getting 100% of my assets when I die. He'll get our home but I've split pensions and savings between my dad mum and brother and my ds.

Maybe it's because I came from a poorer background and I feel like my family will make better use of the money than he will. Plus I don't think he event cares.

If you don’t have children it’s not reasonable to expect him to consider your lifestyle in the event of his death. You’re a grown up, you can provide for yourself.

They're MARRIED. I can't imagine being so callous to DH, or him to me. If OP's DH were to die tomorrow, her financial circumstances would be hugely changed. They've made plans together, probably for years. She would miss out on his income, pension. Not just the actual amount of his salary every month towards bills but the reassurance that if she lost her job there would still be money coming in. Depending on the circumstances of his death she may need to take some time out of work and this money would allow her to do so, as well as keep their home.

I'm sure her BIL would be devastated but financially his life would keep ticking on as it did before.

My opinion (and that's what MN is about after all so less of the "vile and spiteful" thanks - don't come on here if you can't take other peoples opinions) is that these payments shouldn't be about making someone better off financially than if they had never been with the person or if they hadn't of died

So why on earth should the BIL get a penny? Presumably he and OP's DH have completely separate finances. And I doubt £80k would leave OP better off than a life of shared finances with someone who earns more than her.

The whole point of these benefits is to mitigate the financial loss on bereavement. Not just at the moment of death but for the future too.

I would be devastated if DH were thinking of giving his to anyone but me and the DC.

I used to have my death in service split between my sister and my husband, I love my sister and would want her to get something if I died BUT changed it after a conversation with a will writing bloke - now we've got kids he said it's better to just do it all to my husband or straight to the kids when they're older.

'Why should he live a life of a luxury off the back of me working my ass off to forge a good career'.

At least you won't be bitter if you are dead.

Why are some people saying if there are no children then the OP is being unreasonable? Why are children more important than a spouse with whom you’ve built a life together? A spouse that would be grieving and likely made homeless. Some of you are way too focused on children!

It's only fairly recently you have been able to pass this on to a non spouse.

This is the kind of thing you need to plan for today and review in 4-5 years and then 4-5 years after and so on.

If you dh died tomorrow then you would have to sell your home and your dbil would benefit and as others have said he would also then inherit from his parents.

I think you also need to look at the tax position, as the spouse you will probably be in a better situation than bil and your bil might have a huge tax bill, does your husband want the benefit to go to HMRC?

You may have children in the future, how doe he want them to be treated?

You need to sit down and talk about different scenarios. There are, I'm sure, ways to make provision for other people. Eg when I made my will my brother had 2 children, my will was drafted so that if he had more children then the money would be split between all his children.

Agree with @BogglesGoggles - it’s a gift he would like to divide between the two people he loves the most, should the worst occur.

So many on here believe giving a child a sibling is such a supposed important thing for a child to have - yet here are 2 brothers with a strong emotional bond & he would like to recognise his brother in the event of an accident ! If his brother wants to piss it up a wall or sniff it all away that should be his prerogative. Everyone grieves differently.

If your husband does not qualify for life insurance & OP can’t afford to keep the house in event of his death then that is what should be discussed - I would be wary to tell him his view is wrong or criticise his decision to give his brother a gift !

Just speak honestly & openly to show him how life as a widow will look financially & then he may be open to the idea of adjusting his beneficiary % split.

It sounds like when he passes he would like to leave his brother something sizeable, so either way you need to discuss this openly & honestly.

Also you may remarry too !

I had similar situation, but mine involved my two adult DCs. I have a death in service pot of £90k but split it three ways between my DH and two DCs. My DH isn’t happy about it, but we had a situation a few years ago when we split up and he moved half way round the world with OW not seeing his DCs for three years. We are now back together and have been for 5 years, but I no longer trust he would have our DCs best interests at heart, and if I die and he meets someone else and marries, our DCs could potentially inherit nothing. Leaving money to a dB though seems a bit odd, but if that’s his decision there’s not a lot you can do about it.

It’s not about recognising his brother. It’s about making his wife homeless. By all means give his brother something. My sister doesn’t have children and I think her will mentions me. But first and foremost the house which is hers and funds go to her partner so that he may continue living there.

** I was thinking similar

YANBU
WTAF? So he’d happily see you kicked out of your house while grieving???!

I wouldn’t downsize though. It’s too nuclear and Super expensive.

I would get details for a separate life insurance whereby I was the sole beneficiary and any payout would cover the mortgage. I would tell him in no uncertain terms it is £x monthly and he needs to transfer me the cash on a standing order.

If he wasn’t up for that then I’d be “evaluating my options”

What a plonker....

It's his choice but I'd be pissed off.

Far more so if we had kids though.

I don't think you ABU. Weirdly I was doing this yesterday for death on duty (police) and I just put DP, we're not married until November and no children, just was the instinctual thing to do.

@TwistyTop I think it’s more the case that there is no reason why the OP should be financially dependent on her husband here. If she were raising his children/sick then that would make sense but as he has no dependents (or shouldn’t in theory) the benefit becomes more like a gift.