Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

About my children's inheritance?

999 replies

BonyPony · 12/08/2019 10:20

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?)

OP posts:
herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:40

If, however, they have plenty of other money saved, then the OP is right to question why she has to get a job.

Other money? What if the inheritance remaining to her DH is more substantial?

And why is it reasonable for him to insist on saving money in such a way that she cannot access it? They are married.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:41

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.

I’m not. I am saying this might be the case. And if it is, it puts a very different complexion on his behaviour.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 07:41

I have said the DH won’t help more at home because the OP actually said it.

She also said she wants the kids money to finance staying at home. Given she thinks that's ok. It more likely that she will come up with any reason to not work.

She wants to steal her kids money to stay at home.

That's the behaviour of someone who will do and say anything to avoid working.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:42

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.

I said the DH might be being cagey, not the OP.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 07:42

What if the inheritance remaining to her DH is more substantial?

If it is. Why would she even contemplate taking the kids money?

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:43

She wants to steal her kids money to stay at home.

Except that she clearly said she would pay it back. I am not in agreement with her spending it, by the way. But she isn’t planning on stealing anything.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:45

If it is. Why would she even contemplate taking the kids money?

How many times? IF the OP doesn’t know how the money is sub-divided, that explains why she is referring to it in its entirety.

Your assumption - that all the money belongs to the children - is contradicted by her very first posts, which clearly state it belongs to her DH AND her children.

steff13 · 13/08/2019 07:46

You are assuming. You literally said this:
We don’t know - and I suspect she doesn’t either - how the money has been willed.
You assume the husband has not told the OP how the money was willed.

Except that she clearly said she would pay it back.

She also clearly said it's more than she could earn in 10 years (another indication that she knows full well what the amount was). So how was she going to pay it back? Sell a kidney?

IceRebel · 13/08/2019 07:46

Except that she clearly said she would pay it back.

But she has no way of paying it back. Confused

Other than a vague when I walk into a full time, well paid job. Yet she admits it's more than she would earn in 10 years.

Surely taking something you know you cannot replace is stealing?

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:47

Steff

If I was assuming I wouldn’t use the word suspect. Suspect is an acknowledgment that my deduction could be wrong, isn’t it? I am not assuming anything.

And I am not saying the OP’s plan is a sensible one, only that stealing is not her actual intention and it is unfair to suggest otherwise.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:48

Surely taking something you know you cannot replace is stealing?

Her belief that she can pay it back is probably foolish. That doesn’t make her a thief.

steff13 · 13/08/2019 07:50

Her belief that she can pay it back is probably foolish. That doesn’t make her a thief.

If she takes it and doesn't pay it back, she's a thief, regardless of intention.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 07:53

How many times? IF the OP doesn’t know how the money is sub-divided, that explains why she is referring to it in its entirety.

She refers to the kids money and paying it back.

The money was left to them all. It will have allocated amounts. The money will not have been left in a chuck to be divided as per DHS wishes.

You are working on the assumption that the a set amount of money doesnt belong to the kids. It will.

No will ever says 'a million pound to 4 people, divide it up as you wish' that's ridiculous.

OP admits the money is the kids. It's the kids part she wants to access.

And somehow you cant believe that it's not the husbands fault

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:53

If she takes it and doesn't pay it back, she's a thief, regardless of intention.

But she hasn’t, so can we dispense with the nastiness?

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:54

*The money was left to them all. It will have allocated amounts. The money will not have been left in a chuck to be divided as per DHS wishes.

You are working on the assumption that the a set amount of money doesnt belong to the kids. It will.*

Oh, honestly. I am saying the exact opposite of that.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 07:55

Except that she clearly said she would pay it back. I am not in agreement with her spending it, by the way. But she isn’t planning on stealing anything.

Taking money, knowing you have no way of paying it back is stealing.

Theft is the intention of permentanly depriving someone of something that is theres.

They are skint and she has no way or plan on how she would pay it back.

She is planning on permentaly depriving them of it.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 07:58

Oh, honestly. I am saying the exact opposite of that.

You arent. You keep saying it was left to all 4 of them.

All 4 of them would have got allocated amounts.

The OP wants to spend the children's allocated amount on her staying at home.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 07:58

Theft is the intention of permentanly depriving someone of something that is theres.

I don’t understand how you can say this, then say she intends it, when she states in black and white that it is her intention to pay it back. That intention might not be well thought out, but she has no intention of permanently depriving them of a single penny.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 07:59

But she hasn’t, so can we dispense with the nastiness?

But she wants to.

The only reason she hasnt is because ful has control and he has 'turned the tap off'.

herculepoirot2 · 13/08/2019 08:00

You arent. You keep saying it was left to all 4 of them.

I have clearly said that her DH may not have divulged how much was left to him. That demonstrates my understanding - which I have repeated throughout the thread - that some of the money was left to him, and some to the children. I have used words like subdivided and allocates. I don’t know how you have managed to read the exact opposite of my meaning into my posts, but that’s a comprehension issue, I suppose.

Oldbutstillgotit · 13/08/2019 08:01

Crikey , this thread has completely descended into a SAHP v WOTH argument!
To be honest, unless the OP comes back and clarifies the situation eg the amounts involved , how she could repay the money , these discussions are a bit pointless.
To answer your original question OP, you would be totally wrong to use your children’s inheritance to allow you to stay at home rather than get a job. I am horrified that you would even consider if .

123chocolate · 13/08/2019 08:02

So you're asking if it's unreasonable to spend your children's inheritance because you can't be arsed to work? Get a job op.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 08:02

I don’t understand how you can say this, then say she intends it, when she states in black and white that it is her intention to pay it back. That intention might not be well thought out, but she has no intention of permanently depriving them of a single penny.

If you borrow money knowing full well you cabt pay it back, its planning on permanently depriving the perosn that loaned it.

OP has no way of paying it back so no actual intention of doing so.

Again, this woman thinks her kids lonely should be used so she doesnt have to work.

If it was tour kids money, would you lend it to someone who you know they cant pay it back and have a history of poor financial management , based on 'well they said they could. I knew they couldnt. But they said they would so i believed them'

The children can not consent to hee spending their money either. So she is taking it without their consent.

Wishihad · 13/08/2019 08:05

I have clearly said that her DH may not have divulged how much was left to him. That demonstrates my understanding - which I have repeated throughout the thread - that some of the money was left to him, and some to the children. I have used words like subdivided and allocates. I don’t know how you have managed to read the exact opposite of my meaning into my posts, but that’s a comprehension issue, I suppose.

Because you keep talling about one pot.

OP wants access to her kids pots so she doesnt have to work. Thats what we know.

Her husband, possibly hiding lots of loney and op being too dim to understand the amounts involved has come from you making stuff up.

Nowhere does OP suggest that at all. You are believing that's a possibility. And writing it in to the story.

It beggars belief that a woman would rather take her kids money than work, and you have managed to out so many unsubstantiated ifs and buts in there, so you can turn it into 'well it's his fault. He is the bastard hat wants to send her to the mill'

TelAvivLastNight · 13/08/2019 08:05

Putting aside the rights to the money - think about your self respect and the respect that your DH and children have towards you.

Do you really want to look back on your life and say - I had the opportunity to work, to support my family and to preserve my children's financial future but I was too afraid to step outside of my comfort zone. I was too afraid to push myself. Instead I took their money, took the easy way out and stayed inside the narrow life I had constructed.

I know what I would do. Take the leap of faith, preserve your self respect and get a job. I guarantee you won't regret it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread