Family Finance AGAIN!

[WithManyTot]

We are married, but DP has always earned 2-3 times that I do, giving DP much more say in family finances. DP works 3 days a week and I work fultime.

A few years ago, DP spent about 100K of joint money for a pony paddock which is registered in the sole name of DP. I always assume we would even this out over time. I've also remembered that before that DP took about 100K from the joint account and bought a share of their professional pratice building, presumably in DPs sole name.

Two years ago DPs parents died leaving DP as the sole beneficiary of about 1/2 million in property. I've spent every weekend for the last 6 months working on these houses to "maximise value" DP did very little actual work as i was "too emotional" to be in the house until it was finished. It now turns out DPs parents left the houses in trust, with only DP as beneficiary. So all the income goes to the trust, and DP and only DP can take loans against from the trust. Also our jpint account is being used to pay council tax, water etc,

Over the years I paid everything I could to pay off the mortgage, while it appears DP has accumulated a 1M pension fund, with no surviving spouse provision.

The final straw is that DP just took 25K from joint saving to buy a car, promising to repay it from the trust, which I now understand can't happen ( see above)

I always trusted DP, but DP appears to have put close on 2 milion out of my reach and it is impossible to return it, so AIBU to think I've been taken for a mug?

They could easily be two women though.

They can't be two women (or two men) when the OP says they've been married for 30 years

Even in the Netherlands, the first place to legalise it, it hasn't been legal for 30 years

Being married for 30 years means one has to be male and one female.

And in the vast majority of MF marriages where one is stashing money away out of reach of their spouse that person is the male

Ooooft, OP. That must’ve come as a real blow, I’m sorry.

Given the title of the website, it doesn't seem that fascinating.what percentage of users do you think are not female

Why would that seem odd on this site? Most posters on MN are female.

And more often the people in long marriages who stash large amounts of money away and/or have the larger pension tend to be male (and they can't be a same sex couple who've been married for 30 years so has to be one or the other).

So it's an obvious conclusion to draw from a thread like this, rather than a weird sexism as you seem to be implying

Why have you made so much effort not to indicate "DP's" sex?

Why can’t you be part of a team with your partner despite his mother putting her assets in trust for her children and grandchildren?

You can still benefit for as long as you are married and you would be protected in divorce even if you didn’t have the right to half of everything his family ever owned.

The problem isn’t a trust that was fairly set up to protect a person’s grandchildren, it’s that your husband is spending family money frivolously.

@WinWhenTheyreSinging There nothing fascinating about assuming OP is female in a straight relationship when that applies to the majority of posters here, on a female centric forum, in my opinion. If you want to ponder over peoples bias, maybe take note of how often you and others assume an animal you see, is male and refer to it as he/him.

Because apparently we're all deeply sexist and bias, but they still want our advice for some reason, so that's nice.

The rich partner in this case is definitely a woman. I'm assuming the pony paddock is actually a surfaced arena for it to cost 100k

The pension statement will probably just be giving an example. But you should be aware that many people/men opt for an annuity just for themselves when they retire because of course it gives a larger income if eg a woman is not included as women live longer.They can opt e.g. for 50% to go to a surviving spouse or even the same annuity but it will reduce the income. Similarly if they opt for an increasing annuity to counter inflation the starting annuity amount will be reduced. Re the trust you would need to read the exact terms. Trustees (who are they?) may have considerable discretion as to relatives who could benefit.

This is where you went wrong from the start:

"We are married, but DP has always earned 2-3 times that I do, giving DP much more say in family finances."

Why should DP as the higher earner have more say? The decisions should be equal regardless of where the money comes from.

I don't know what it means for the trust and the way your 'D'P has handled things but it will help if you adjust your outlook at start to take a more balanced view. You're not seeing yourself as equal. Change that and start demanding a fairer approach to finances.

Why would the higher get more of a say in finances? That's not a partnership. Honestly, misleading and out and out lying about the finances (taking the money for the car) would have broken my trust, even setting aside that it sounds like some financial abuse is going on.

I'd be getting good legal advice on my rights and situation.

I would do the exact same thing as a man, to get valid advice not influenced by posters experiences of bad men

Or maybe the site is called MUMsnet, and most of the posters here are female - are we not allowed to assume?

Divorce him and take your fair share

The two things are perhaps not mutually exclusive? Both could perhaps be a factor? And men do use the site - I'm male and I've learned a shitload about my own entitled behaviour since happening upon the site a couple of years ago off the back of a Google search about pensions - there are words of wisdom to be found here that wouldn't be found on a male-oriented site and of course the occasional highly entertaining batshittery. 🫣

Sorry to be that person who stalks previous posts but OP has claimed in a post from last year that both partners are female:
‘Thanks for you replies, looks like you'd all claim on insurance.
The car is still worth in the region of 10-15K, so seems unlikely it will be written off for some minor damage. Also, everyone in the story is female, no wet husbands or big cheese snr partners I'm afraid,’

Your openkng paragraph in itself is damning. Until very the past couple of years my husband's salary was 4 - 5 times my salary. Despite this decisions have always been 50:50. Who decreed he had majority vote due to earnings? Regardless as a op said you need to take some advice regardless of what you choose to do.

So what pension do you have?
If it isn't equal talk about moving some of the joint savings into a pension.
I relaised my pension doesnt have spousal benefits so must get that chnaged

The two investments dp made (paddock and shares) wouldnt borther me as they are investments which would benefit both of you.

I dont see the issue of the trust fund tbh. Thats totally up to dp parents and you can't blame dp for that.

DP should not be paying expenses for those houses out of your joint money, so that needs to stop. Also, maintenance expenses should be funded by the trust, not by your joint account.

So you think we're all biased and unable to be fair to men, and yet you still want our advice?

There is a lot about this to unpick. What mortgage you were paying off? Were you on the mortgage? Who was on the deeds of the house before it went into a trust? The reason I ask is if you are on the mortgage then the mortgage company would have had the final say and you would have had to be part of the process. And if was always in trust it was never your responsibility so did your DH lie to you to get you to ‘pay towards the mortgage’?