To take DD’s trust fund..

[BlueFlamingo55]

AIBU to take part of DD’s trust fund to pay for our new house?

DD has quite a modest trust fund (~£30k) that I had promised to give her this year since she is now 19. The money is my inheritance from DF but instead I decided to put it away for DD when she was younger to help with her university costs, first car, house deposit etc.

Life didn’t turn out quite how I had expected it to and I have just come away from a messy divorce and am now having to purchase a new house in my 50s.. I’ve found a home that both DD and I love but my deposit (my share of the equity money from the marital home) wouldn’t be enough. I therefore decided that I’d take half of DD’s trust money to top things up. I do not want to do this and it was never the plan but it’s the only way I’ll be able to afford this house. We’ve explored cheaper options further outside of town but DD refuses to live in any of them (and I quietly agree with her, I much prefer the area this house is in)

I made the mistake of telling DD my plans re: the trust fund and she has gone absolutely ballistic, for want of a better term. Saying that I’m stealing her money and how will she possibly be able to afford her travel plans etc etc. Apparently I’m trying to ruin her life. I’ve reminded her that I help her out financially 24/7 and she is not hard done by but there is absolutely no talking sense into her. She has refused to speak to me all week.

Am I really the worst mother in the world for taking £15k in order to pay for good, permanent accommodation for us both?

Her latest relationship has failed, that is not the dd's fault.

As said upthread the op doesn't need a new mortgage in her 50s, i'd be very surprised is she got one tbh at that age. She needs to rent and allow her dd to do as she pleases with money thst has been promised to her.

She said it was a savings account in her name and was promised to her. You are focussing on what she originally said that she put it in a trust. Legally she can't touch it if it's in a trust for her daughter. My daughter had a trust with NatWest that she withdrew last year. I couldn't touch it because it was in her name from when she was 5. The op has said it's in a savings account in the ops name it's a completely different situation to the one you are trying to put on here. She promised it to her which is a different situation.

A lot of young people wouldn't treat their mothers/fathers like that. I wouldn't treat my mother like that and she was bad.

How can you confidently give (incorrect) legal advice when you're not even a lawyer?

There is no trust, the money is in OP's account, there is no agreement.

Hence, the money is OP's.

You have failed to understand this point despite it being explained several times (+1):

The money can be in a savings account in OP’s name and be held in trust.

If it's money promised to her daughter (i.e. future gift), that's not a trust arrangement. If it's her daughter's money (i.e. past gift) being held by OP for her daughter, it probably is. OP's said both. We also have no idea what the daughter's version is.

I don't have any dog in this fight, except to try to correct a mis-impression that's been repeated many times on this thread by people who are no doubt trying to be helpful but are providing false certainty.

If you are coming new to this subject, as you seem to be, to the point that you think a savings account cannot hold funds in trust, or that funds in trust must be held in the name of the beneficial owner, or that you think one has to 'put [funds] in a trust' in order to hold funds in trust (and thus be subject to trust obligations) then to be honest I'm not sure what you think you can add to the legal aspect of this. I'm not offering any view on the relationship angle of this, other than I think they need to talk this out.

I am reading what the op has posted you are being cantankerous and making it up to suit your argument. She confirmed it twice that it's a savings account in her name.

What I've said is that it's unclear and that if OP is planning to take the money she should take legal advice.

I am a trustee for this type of arrangement. Many times over. It's true I'm not a lawyer, but I also don't claim to be, and have said seek legal advice. I have commissioned many legal opinions over the years on aspects of trusts that are much more complex than the frankly absolutely basic point that funds can be in a savings account and also be in trust.

Is there an agreement? Neither of us know what is or isn't documented. We do know the daughter thinks there's an agreement of some sort.

You have failed to understand this point despite it being explained several times (+2):

The money can be in a savings account in OP’s name and be held in trust.

Promised to her daughter in a savings account she said it. Ask the op is it a trust fund or a savings account in the ops name. I would never hire you if you couldn't ask those specific questions. That means anyone can take my money. The op can take the money if she wants it's her money in an account in her name.

False dichotomy. I really have tried. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day.

"Daughter when you are ready I would like an adult conversation with you regarding the money issue" ....."Ok that is not an adult conversation so I will wait until you are ready" ....

"Great now you are ready I'd like to explain precisely why I need to ....

• impossible to get a home for US without ....

-I know you expected more. Circumstances have changed and I HAVE to priorities the home purchase for long term security...

• Let's look at potential solutions so you can still do what travelling you want to
• I know I said you could have ....but circumstances have changed ...

Basically your daughter is quite old enough to understand all this and together you need to find solutions do her travelling desires are not compromised. But you should prioritise the house in my view.

But the OP can get a mortgage and can still buy a house just not the one she wants without the £15k from the daughter. Many people can get mortgages in their 50s and 60s these days.

Your comment about mortgages reveals ignorance. NatWest allows mortgage applications to age 70 and several institutions only require that the term of the mortgage end by age 80.

Well done @evelynevelyn for putting a similar point across that I tried to earlier in the thread, but from a more learned and in a more eloquent manner.

Just because the account is OPs name, it does not automatically mean that a trust is not in place.

I think OP said she earned 55k so better to pay off a mortgage now with the deposit from house sale and gain a secure home rather than paying rent when retired. Somewhat surprised she had no other savings than the ring fenced money but maybe the divorce was expensive.

Christ, there are some obnoxious fools on this thread. But they are on other threads being vile, too.
People just bored and missing the point deliberately. Lawyers with far too much time on their pedantic hands. Derailing the thread.

DSis just happily got a mortgage at 53. Why the fuck would she rent in her 70[s?
None of (my wealthy) friends have paid off their mortgage by 50. How ridiculous to say that as fact.

OP, offer DD 5K for her trip (hugely generous) she can ask her father if she wants more, and start to rebuild your OWN life.

Something tells me DD will be very much concentrating on hers.

So sorry about your divorce, it is a horrible feeling and situation and you are brave. Do not give DD a third of your 90K settlement to go travelling.

Yeah, imagine living in a house you're not happy with for the rest of your days just because your teenage daughter stropped about not getting an extra £15k on top of the £15k you're still giving her and the larger sum she's still getting from her granny. She'll be fine.

She's still in a way better situation than most her age, even if I understand why she might be a bit miffed. If she gives you too much shit then remind her you don't have to give her anything at all or house her for free given that she's an adult (I retract that if she's actually paying rent although I doubt she's paying market prices if she is).

@evelynevelyn you have given such clear explanations, and dealt so patiently such baffling rudeness and argumentativeness from those clearly unequipped to understand what you are saying. I don't think they are being deliberately obtuse- unfortunately.

Your views are not balanced and has nothing to do with what the op has posted. Its not about you being right or wrong it's about what the op has posted she has explained what has happened. How you interpret it is up to you. I will only follow what the op has posted nothing else. That's all I can go on that she put it in a savings account in the ops name from when her daughter was 2 and she promised it to her. Posters already said she couldn't take it because it was a trust and that's when she said it's in a savings account in her name and it was promised to her daughter. It's obvious she posted it wrong originally.

@BlackStrayCat I’m not a lawyer but wonder if I was the target of that. The people saying be cautious aren’t (I’m guessing) doing it to be killjoys but becuase there are actual legal obligations to being a trustee (if that’s what OP indeed is).

If she’s not a trustee then the situation is obviously different. But if she is then she can’t just spend the beneficiary’s money. Just like you wouldn’t (I hope) advise an executor to spend money from a will on themselves. It’s not theirs to spend. It’s illegal to misuse it.

And we don’t have the info to say definitively what the status is. OP’s given two conflicting accounts. She needs legal advice if she can’t sort this out with her daughter.

Read the ops posts. Other posters has already covered it and that's when the op changed it to savings account in her own name and it was promised to her daughter. Posters were saying she couldn't take it and that's when she explained what sort of account it was.

Yes. With all due respect, no shit, everyone here gets that. The point some posters were making about the name on the account is that... oh never mind.

So relieved you are not a lawyer.

But, no, sorry, nothing is about you.

Exactly it holds no water.

You are right. It’s about trust law. If you know about that then let’s discuss it. Saying to the OP that she needs to be cautious is not some sort of affront or pedantry. It doesn’t serve OP’s interests to misunderstand the legal obligations she (possibly) holds.