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?)

I think if the DH sat down with his wife and said to her, “Look I really think it’s inportant to put aside some money for the DC future. We have uni to fund. It’s harder than ever for young people to get in the property ladder these days, and if we can help them, I think we should. It’s what my mum would have wanted as her legacy...” or something along those lines, then who could really argue with that?

But if he says, I’m leaving all the decisions up to my dad and it’s none if your business”, then I can see how that wouid irk.

Not failed.

Her title and subsequent posts make it clear what money she is wanting to spend

But the OP isn't arguing that she should use what remaining of his inheritance, you are arguing that. her argument is that she should be able to use the children's money to continue to be a stay-at-home parent and I don't think anyone agrees that she should. That's the only question that she asked everything else is just conjecture and irrelevant to her question. We have no idea what the OP knows about the family's finances or how she and her husband are at handling money, other than the fact that they both agreed to purchase a home that they can't really afford on his salary.

But the OP isn't arguing that she should use what remaining of his inheritance, you are arguing that.

She quite plainly said both in the OP. This is tedious.

@virginmojito exactly.

But some people assume absolutely must be the second option.
OP hasn't said. So why some posters assume he has loads left, or is rich or a high earner.

Pp is showing questionable morals by obsessing over the kid money. So why anyone would assume shevis the victims is beyond me.

And the OP seems under the impression that a portion of the remaining inheritance belongs to her DH.

Even if this is the case, this is not the money she is talking about spending. The Op only intends to take the children's money, as per the title and the other posts where she says she will try to pay them back.

I'm bemused by the lack of financial transparency in this marriage

Indeed.

Both the OP and her DH seem fairly financially incompetent. No wonder the OP's FiL is administering the money.

But I think the OP has left the building ...

And even in relation to the husband's share, it is probably not a great use of the capital to just take the view that "we have money, so we don't need to budget". OP's attitude does seem rather like that. The husband may want to ensure that they have enough to retire on, or to find other things for the kids, or if one of them got ill. Or just be worried that the capital will run out early. If the OP starts from the position that this is automatically unreasonable and they SHOULD spend all the DH money (and potentially also the kids' money) and any other route would be misery for her and the kids (which is what she seems to be saying here) then why would the DH want to discuss it - any conversation is just going to be her pressuring him to spend lots of money to make her happy, not a full discussion between two adults looking for a good compromise.

herculepoirot2 so you are saying she knows its substainal. So she doesn know what's going on.

He isnt hiding it, if she knows its alot?

But it cant be alot, because she woildnt even be considering taking the kids money, if it was.

The thread would have a different title and different responses.

She quite plainly said both in the OP. This is tedious

She did, but if you apply a little, just a little bit of critical thinking and read all her posts you Weil, understand this is her children's inheritance.

Or if you struggle with critical thinking , then take our word for it.

Even if this is the case, this is not the money she is talking about spending. The Op only intends to take the children's money, as per the title and the other posts where she says she will try to pay them back.

FFS! No, she doesn’t! She referred to her DH’s money as well.

It’s impossible to have an effective discourse with people who will not bloody read what is in front of them, or who forget between flicking between page 1 and their current comment. I’m out.

Honestly, there should be some sort of reading test before people are allowed to post here.

😡

She did, but if you apply a little, just a little bit of critical thinking and read all her posts you Weil, understand this is her children's inheritance.

Balls. That’s as ‘bluntly’ as I can put it before leaving this mess.

@herculepoirot2 so OP knows dh has a substantial amount. When has financial transparency. You cant have ut both ways. She either knows or she doesnt.

Lets go with your theory. Ignore the title.

Why is she even considering wanting access to the kids money?

Oh my.

Hercule, why would she say she would need to pay the kids back if she doesn't intend to spend their money?

You're going to have to explain your thought process to us all.

As said, a little bit of critical thinking goes a long way.

I think there’s probably some ambiguity going on as to what is the DC’s money and what is not - or there’s just an “amount” which ostensibly you would think it would make sense to put aside for the DC, although this was never stipulated. So when she talks about spending the DC’s money, she means leaving them £900k, rather than the £1 million they might otherwise have been left because this £100k they could potentially release would ease all their stress in the short/ medium term and pay off the extra mortgage, or something like that? Or £30k rather than £40k - whatever the case may be? We have no idea of the amounts in question here.

So although the money is DH’s inheritance, their original mindset has been to save it all for the DC, bar the house purchase. Hence it being informally referred to as the “children’s Inheritance.” Now she wants to leave them slightly less perhaps, because she feels that the short term benefits of less stress while the family are young, offsets the longer-term benefits?

Again, I don’t know, but I wouid suspect it’s something like this, as opposed to a stipulated amount left to the children.

@herculepoirot2

I’m out.

You'll be back very soon - you've already posted over 100 times in this thread trying to defend the indefensible.

If it was a formally stipulated amount left to the children in a will, she wouldn’t be able to access it anyway. So no issue.

Virgin no, she specifically states it was left to the children and husband, and that they have had their mortgage paid off from it and a holiday. And that she would need to pay the kids back if she takes the money.

So the money she wishes to spend now was left to the kids. She's not given a percentage or numbers but has been clear she intends to spend what is the children's

If it was a formally stipulated amount left to the children in a will, she wouldn’t be able to access it anyway. So no issue

Agree. I suspect that's partially why th father in law is managing it, he good with money and it makes it all above board, and stops the op stealing it.

It’s impossible to have an effective discourse with people who will not bloody read what is in front of them

Indeed. It's also impossible to reason with someone who refuses to even read the title of the thread they're posting on.

FFS! No, she doesn’t! She referred to her DH’s money as well.

Oh, that's better then 😂

It's

Not

Her

Money

Lots has already been spent on housing and running costs which are now too much.

Even if you take the standpoint that the DH is shared money for the family, the fact remains that one adult party is refusing to even try changing the arrangement to see if it's better for all involved.

Sharing money means sharing responsibility. Nothing in life is guaranteed and sometimes you have to acknowledge your situation has change and you need to adapt.

I'm lost. Surely with the kids in primary you could be doing 9.30-2.30 daily, so 25 hours a week?

Even stacking shelves in a supermarket or getting a pt admin job you'd be bringing in more money.

Hi OP. Are you able to clarify a few details so that we are not all arguing about things that have been inferred and speculated?

1. Terms of MIL will
2. What was left to husband and what was left to children
3. How much of DH money is still there
4. The actual role FIL plays. ie trustee, deputy, manager etc.

If these things are being kept from you, please say, it makes a big difference.

I think we can safely say the consensus is that you should leave the childrens entitlement to the children. Any dipping into that is illegal, immoral and pretty dastardly. The other debates on here are based on speculation.

It was a pension with named beneficiaries. Often workplace pensions make you specify the split when you name multiple beneficiaries (my last two did this), but if silent on this and the executor doesn't know what the wishes of the person was, they would likely presume that it should be split equally. But I would say there is an obvious child amount in mind, depending on what MIL specified in her nomination.