About my children's inheritance?

[BonyPony]

My MIL sadly passed away a couple of years ago and left a large sum of money to my husband and kids. My FIL is very into financial management and has virtually total control of the account. We have to get his permission to withdraw any of the money.
FIL has been very generous and paid off our previous mortgage so we could move house. Husband hated the previous home, which increased his grief, stress and anxiety. We were happy to move but are now struggling financially with the bills from the new house. I cannot get this money out of my head. It is way more than I could earn in 10 years and it is just sitting there.
Meanwhile, I have been a full time at home parent for many years but husband is now pressurising me to get a job to make ends meet. I don't want to disrupt our home life, especially when all our financial worries would be solved by husband getting FIL to let him have the inheritance he was given!

Should I give up and get a job or stand my ground and insist husband fight for the money? (Also am I evil?)

if her DH is in fact hiding a lot of money (belonging to him) in his dad’s accounts

This is a very big if.

If there was any of DH inheritance left, surely the post would be about using that? The fact she is so fixated on her children's inheritance suggests there is very little, if any of DH money left.

No we dont. But if she believes its alot, why would she even be thinking of stealing her kids money instead?

We don’t know - and I suspect she doesn’t either - how the money has been willed. It may be that she is being told it belongs to her husband children just so she can’t access it. That isn’t reasonable when the family is struggling and her DH is still expecting her to do the bulk of childcare and household work.

It may not be as I have described above. We don’t know.

I am talking about paid work of a menial nature in general. There are lots of people on this thread who, for some reason I can’t really get my head around, including you, think it’s fine for a woman who has given up a lucrative career so that her children have a parent in the home to be told, “Right, that’s your lot - to the mill with you!” Even when her DH has money sitting there doing nothing.

Obviously it might be the case that all the money belongs to the children, but that certainly isn’t obvious to me from what the OP said.

If there was any of DH inheritance left, surely the post would be about using that? The fact she is so fixated on her children's inheritance suggests there is very little, if any of DH money left.

It suggests to me that the OP does not know, and has never known, exactly how he money was willed. And I think that is exactly how the DH likes the situation.

I'm always puzzled at women who claim that there is no time to work with children in school. Time left during the day without kids: 6 hours a day. How long does it take a day to clean, do washing, prepare dinner, do a bit of gardening? 2 hours a day absolute max, so what do such people who consider they do the equivalent of a FT job do during the 4 hours left?

If she went to work FT, of course her OH should do more to help around the house. But like many poster, I get the feeling that OP takes for granted her life of luxury yet still feel it should come with more money for her to spend without working reasonable hours.

She hasn't said, but the thread title and subsequent posts indicate she wants to spend the children's portion of the money. Why assume any of the husband's share is left? And what you call "squirreling away," most people call "saving," and consider it a good thing.

This is a very big if.

And it is an ‘if’ but I don’t feel it’s a big one. I have been very clear that I am objecting to comments calling the money ‘his’, so people aren’t just talking about money belonging to the children. There is some ducking and diving going on here. Every time someone makes a snide comment about ‘his’ money or the OP ‘living off’ her husband and I call that out, the respondent will say, ‘But it’s the children’s money!’

Let’s address what is actually being said. The OP is being told she has to go back to work because it isn’t her inheritance, it’s her husband’s. She is being told to get a job, any job, regardless of how much her DH actually has in inherited money, even though she has said he will do no more around the house.

Why assume any of the husband's share is left? And what you call "squirreling away," most people call "saving," and consider it a good thing.

I am not assuming. I said ‘if’.

And it is squirrelling away when you put it in someone else’s name so your spouse can’t get at it, isn’t it?

We don’t know - and I suspect she doesn’t either - how the money has been willed. It may be that she is being told it belongs to her husband children just so she can’t access it. That isn’t reasonable when the family is struggling and her DH is still expecting her to do the bulk of childcare and household work.

She knows its belongs to the children. That mil intended a large portion of it for the kids.

See the title. See where she talks about it as the kids money. See where she talks about paying it back and being being annoyed at the tap being turned off.

The only person talking down the OP is you. The assumption she doesnt understand how the money works. That her husband must be lying to her and hiding it and she is too dim to see that

You say you dont know, but are so convinced that the women here talking about and admitting to wanting to steal off her children, cant possibly be the one in the wrong. She must be a victim of the evil husband who is hiding money to make her work. Yet she is the one talking about taking her children's money.

I am talking about paid work of a menial nature in general. There are lots of people on this thread who, for some reason I can’t really get my head around, including you, think it’s fine for a woman who has given up a lucrative career so that her children have a parent in the home to be told, “Right, that’s your lot - to the mill with you!” Even when her DH has money sitting there doing nothing.

How do you know she have up a lucrative career? The OP clearly wanted to be at home. She wasnt forced she wanted to stay at home with her children.

No one is sending her to the mill. The family can no longer afford for to be a sahm. Yes, I think if a couple find themselves on financial difficulty, the sahp must go find work. That's life.

Being a sahm, gives no one the right to refuse to ever work again. It's all based on circumstances. Their circumstances do not suit that anymore.

At no point has OP suggests the dh has more than she thinks. She hasnt even mused about that. You keep saying he must have it based on no evidence.

We don’t know - and I suspect she doesn’t either - how the money has been willed.

That's a pretty big assumption on your part. And not a logical conclusion based on the little information the OP provided. She hasn't said anything that indicates that she didn't know the original amount of the inheritance.

The OP is being told she has to go back to work because it isn’t her inheritance, it’s her husband’s

No. She is being told by multiple posters that she should go back to work, rather than stealing her children's inheritance.

She is being told to get a job, any job, regardless of how much her DH actually has in inherited money

We have no proof, that the DH has any of his inheritance left. Considering the state of their finances, she is being told to get a job, because any job is better than stealing from her children.

even though she has said he will do no more around the house.

She has also said she will pay back the money she steals from her children, should we believe everything she has typed?

Let’s address what is actually being said

I think you're reading a completely different thread to most of us.

Wishihad

I am saying it because the OP says, ‘My MIL sadly passed away a couple of years ago and left a large sum of money to my husband and kids.’ And that is all she appears to know - or be willing to say - about the amount of money or its exact distribution. Either she does not know - not a ridiculous thought, given the vague nature of her posts - or she does not want to say. I don’t know which.

So we don’t know what the family can or can’t afford. We just know the MIL left a large sum of money to her husband AND children.

The OP is being told she has to go back to work because it isn’t her inheritance, it’s her husband’s. She is being told to get a job, any job, regardless of how much her DH actually has in inherited money, even though she has said he will do no more around the house.

I, personally, havent said the money is his. I have said if the OP was talking about the money left to her dh there would be a discussion needed to be had and that it would be a totally different topic.

Some couples see inheritance, as joint. Some dont. We dont know which this couple is.

But I havent called it his money.

The fact is that they cant afford their Bill's. If her dh had a load of money her aibu would be that he was sat on money and the reasons he thinks they should save it.

That's not her aibu. her aibu is should she take the money off the kids to stay at home.

So either he doesnt have a load of money
Or she is that ruthless she wants to use the kids money and happy for his money to sit in an account for a rainy day. Rinse their money staying at home, but still having his chunk as back up.

The second situation make her even worse.

And it is squirrelling away when you put it in someone else’s name so your spouse can’t get at it, isn’t it?
Perhaps, if that's what happened. But most of us are going by the OP's posts and not a made up scenario, which indicates that she's wanting to spend the children's money. If she's willing to spend her children's inheritance, which she clearly is, then I think it's fair keep it away from her. She has no right to spend it.

IceRebel

I think I am reading a thread where some people change what they are saying post to post. The OP has been told by multiple posters that she has to go back to work even if the inherited sum does belong to her DH.

Usually when Wills are drafted it states "I appoint xxx to be Executor and Trustee..." meaning that FIL probably has every right (actually a legal responsibility) to invest and use the children's inheritance in the best way to benefit the children. Clearly that is what he is trying to do 🤷‍♀️

@herculepoirot2 it comes down to this.

Here is a woman who is admitting to wanting to steal hee kids money to stay at home. She admits she thinks she should be able to tap it the money in her kids money. Rather than get a job to help family finances.

And somewhere you have decided this person who would steal off her kids, given the chance, must be victim and she shouldnt have to get a job, because you think her husband might, maybe, possibly sitting on loads of cash. All based on nothing.

It beggars belief.

Perhaps, if that's what happened. But most of us are going by the OP's posts and not a made up scenario, which indicates that she's wanting to spend the children's money. If she's willing to spend her children's inheritance, which she clearly is, then I think it's fair keep it away from her. She has no right to spend it.

So you do agree with me that, if the DH is keeping back money that belongs to him and not to the children, and failing to be transparent about which is which, he isn’t being reasonable?

Wishihad

It isn’t based on nothing. Her OP tells us that the money belongs to her DH AND her children.

I agree that she can’t take money belonging to her children. I don’t see any evidence that she knows how the money has been divided, and I don’t understand why she wouldn’t know if her DH wasn’t being cagey about it.

Yes YABU

sadly passed away a couple of years ago and left a large sum of money to my husband and kids. My FIL is very into financial management and has virtually total control of the account. We have to get his permission to withdraw any of the money.

Money left to DH and Kids. Later post explains DH has allowed FIL to manage it (& probably invest to ensure it grows)

FIL has been very generous and paid off our previous mortgage so we could move house. Husband hated the previous home, which increased his grief, stress and anxiety. We were happy to move but are now struggling financially with the bills from the new house.

You chose to pay mortgage with what is presumably DH share. Instead living mortgage free or moving to home you could comfortably afford, you've chosen to live beyond your means. Enter FIL who is "into financial management" which presumably means, knows not to live beyond his means!

I cannot get this money out of my head. It is way more than I could earn in 10 years and it is just sitting there.

Is it? Or is it growing a nice nest egg for your kids and their future, as it had been doing before your MIL died?

Meanwhile, I have been a full time at home parent for many years but husband is now pressurising me to get a job to make ends meet. I don't want to disrupt our home life,
especially when all our financial worries would be solved by husband getting FIL to let him have the inheritance he was given!

DH has already made his choice and I bet he goes out to work every day. If you've been at home many years, I bet the kids are now at school. Your financial worries would not be solved by spending all your kids inheritance. Your financial worries would be solved by learning how to earn and manage money yourself.

Should I give up and get a job or stand my ground and insist husband fight for the money?

DH doesn't want to "fight" his father for money, so that you can potter happily at home. He's made his decision clear - you both bought a house that you both need to work, to keep. So work - or downsize.

(Also am I evil?)
You won't be the first person to get obsessed with "free money" and try to reason that it's rightfully yours. You might be nervous of going back to work, you might be frightened of change, you might even just be lazy, but nothing you've said suggests your evil.

And that is all she appears to know - or be willing to say

If she didn't know the original amount, it's more likely she would have said that. Why wouldn't she? Especially after people started disagreeing with her. Unless she says she doesn't know the amount, there is no reason to think she didn't.

Clearly that is what he is trying to do 🤷‍♀️

Some of us on thos thread seem to be accused of making assumptions more than others who are equally or more guilty of it.

I have said the DH might be keeping back money. I have said the OP might not know how much. I have said the DH won’t help more at home because the OP actually said it. But of course all of these are ridiculous assumptions and made up scenarios. But when people want to defend the actions of the FIL or the DH, it’s ‘clearly’ this and ‘obviously’ that. Hmm.

I don’t see any evidence that she knows how the money has been divided, and I don’t understand why she wouldn’t know if her DH wasn’t being cagey about it.

Are you seriously saying the OP, who is asking should she steal her children's money to remain at home, is being cagey because she doesnt know how much it is.

Despite knowing it's more than she can make in 10 years. Despite 'not being able to get that chunk of money out of my head's

Rather than the really obvious and more likely situation of - she is behind cagey because she knows stealing off her kids so she doesnt have to get a job is wrong so is being cagey so people dont realise exactly how selfish she is being?

So you do agree with me that, if the DH is keeping back money that belongs to him and not to the children, and failing to be transparent about which is which, he isn’t being reasonable?

Not necessarily. It depends on their whole financial picture, doesn't it? If he has, say, $50K, and the OP wants to live off that money for a couple of years so she doesn't have to work, and there isn't anything else saved, he's right to want to save it, it will be foolish to spend it in that situation on living expenses. If, however, they have plenty of other money saved, then the OP is right to question why she has to get a job.

If she didn't know the original amount, it's more likely she would have said that. Why wouldn't she? Especially after people started disagreeing with her. Unless she says she doesn't know the amount, there is no reason to think she didn't.

I said she either does not know exactly what is remaining to her DH or she does not want to say. I don’t know.

Yes, I know what the word either means. But you're posting under the assumption that she doesn't. You've said that's what you suspect, that she doesn't know. But there isn't any logical reason for you to suspect that.