AIBU to be hurt and offended by husband suggestion of changing will?

[honeylulu]

I wondered whether to put this in legal matters but it's really about how I feel and if I'm being unreasonable to think like this.

Background - married to husband for 25 years (together 30). We have two children together, one a young adult at uni and I've just started secondary. This is my first marriage, he had a short marriage/divorce before we met. Neither of us have any children other than the two from our marriage. When our first baby was born we made mirror wills leaving everything to each other or if predeceased by spouse then to the children of our marriage (worded like that as we knew we would likely have another). Those wills have been in place for over 20 years. If it's relevant I drafted the wills as they were quite simple (I'm a solicitor, not a probate one but know my way around the basics).

Our house is the biggest asset, owned as joint tenants and no mortgage. There is also an age gap - he is 65 and I am 51. I'm also the higher earner and a lot of the lifestyle extras we enjoy (holidays, home improvements) are possible due to my income. We've both had modest inheritances over the years and put them towards paying off mortgage so completely merged into family assets.

Recently my husband's younger brother died suddenly. Still early days but he has left H half his estate. Won't be a vast amount but maybe 150k or so. H dealing with probate solicitors and remarked last week that we ought to get our wills updated (I don't disagree with that as some of the details are now out of date). The shock bit was that he said he is thinking of changing things so that I am only left a life interest in his assets so that they remain untouched for our kids to inherit when I die. Obviously that only applies to cash assets and chattels though he seemed to think it also applied to "his share" of the house (I reminded him that as joint tenants we dont have shares).

I am sensitive to the fact that he is shocked and grieving so we haven't talked about it properly. I did express some surprise and ask for the reason and he said it would be to keep his money safe for the kids in case I got remarried or conned by someone or it all went on care home fees. I have said fairly lightheartedly that I was quite offended as I also have our kids' best interests at heart and there is no way I would remarry etc for those very reasons. Being a lawyer, I'm extremely practical and risk averse.

I did ask why this change now, as it would have made more sense to insist on such a provision when we made the first wills in my early 30s, when it would have been a more realistic possibility that if I was widowed young that i could have remarried/had more children with someone else. He didn't explain further but I think the change is the inheritance he will now receive. I also suspect (which is why I have not pressed it further) that it has been prompted by his grief and sense/fear of his own mortality.

Why is it bothering me so much? It's not the money itself, it's the feeling that he doesn't trust me to do the best for our children. And our marriage vows - all that I have I share with you. It also feels a bit of a slap in the face that all the time I've had more income/savings I've been happy to share the benefits with the whole family but now he's getting a chunk of money he wants to keep it safe from me.

I'm not even sure it would be the best thing because if (assuming i do survive him) if I wanted to give the kids a house deposit or wedding gift I can only do that from my own funds. I couldn't give them anything "from dad" because his money would be locked up until I died.

So, am I right to feel hurt?
Or is he just being practical and sensible (and I should cut him some slack while he's shocked and grieving) considering I won't be left "poor" anyway? To be fair he's also suggested I should do the same in my will which would leave him worse off if I die first.

Sorry it is long. I didn't want to leave out/drip feed anything. There is probably more detail if needed but those are the main points I think.

I disagree. In uk law it is more advantageous to trust your spouse, leave them everything and then let them downsize and pass on assets when the time is right.

People seem to forget that severing a joint tenancy and leaving ‘your half’ to the kids means that it can put your kids in a bad position in the case of Divorce / bankruptcy/ benefits claims etc. not to mention removing their ability to utilise first time buyer status.
Not to mention the Capital gains tax payable when the house is sold on the death of the surviving parent.
Being part owner of a property can be a massive headache.

Everyone talking about ‘his’ assets is ignoring the fact OP is the higher earner who will have contributed more than half - they haven’t done separate finances in life so it seems unjust for him to seize 50% in death!!!

if he is concerned then he can pass the 150k to the kids now

when DH and I did our wills I wanted a clause that would cover remarriage and protect our kids but I also realised that I have to trust him as their father if the worst were to happen. Now the kids are teens they will get some money directly to give them a little financial security as they enter adulthood - but as I’m not planning on dying g anytime soon it’s not guaranteed!!!

You mean a deed of variation, not a codicil which is a change to a will of a living person.

OP, I’m not a solicitor but a legal
assistant of 23 years in wills and trusts.

What he is suggesting is not “the norm”, especially for those who don’t have other children to consider. Usually, this a life interest is done with the property only, not the cash assets. That’s something I’ve rarely come across, but we do life interest trust wills in respect of the property almost every day.

Could you maybe ask him to compromise and suggest a life interest in the property rather than the cash assets? Or do you think it’s this specific cash inheritance he’s concerned about?

I’d be hurt too, for what it’s worth, and I was when my DH suggested he was going to leave everything to his brother, bypassing me and his child (!) completely. I told him in no uncertain terms I would contest the will.

I think this is quite sensible.

I also suspect (which is why I have not pressed it further) that it has been prompted by his grief and sense/fear of his own mortality.

Op, im sorry but I think you're cutting him too much slack here. Why would grief make him question his own mortality to the point hes decided to make you worse off in the event of his death?? He doesn't have the right to assume anything as you fear because if he distrusts you this much then he should divorce you not cut you out of the will. Its a hard no from me and you need to tell him he does not get to cut you out in this way. I understand hes older than you and this idea of you marrying again but the reality is this could apply to every marriage if one partner dies regardless to someone's age. We dont all start amending our wills just in case someone re marries.

We have this for each person’s half of the estate as too many friends have lost everything personal to second spouses, let alone valuable items!!

I think now is the wrong time to think about addressing your wills, he needs time to grieve and things to settle back to ‘normal’ so you can all think clearly for any legal documents

Hes facing his own mortality cock handled and worried hell die first and youll meet someone.

Thats fine but he cant eat his cake and have it

I would flag the pension which for tax purposes SHOULD be left to you. He's actually doing the kids out of money giving it to them directly not his spouse.

Everything else I'd say "That's fine."

Then I'd be diverting large amounts of my income into savings exclusively in my name.
He cant expect to be subbed then cut you out.
when the time comes for all holidays / renovations and big purchases i would say okay lets draw down on the joint savings as my salary excess is tied up in long term investments.

How does a life interest even work with cash assets though? Say the DH dies and the OP outlives him by 20 years. She has a lifetime interest in that money. Why not just spend it all and save her own money and leave that to whoever she wants?

What a knob head. He was happy to accept a better standard of life that your higher earnings gave you, and as soon as he has inherited money, he begrudges you security after he has gone.

Let him grieve but don’t let him get away with this, tell him that the basis of your marriage was sharing everything you had and if he now wants to change that basis, it should take into account all those years you subsidised him.

I'm always bewildered about people who want to protect their money from care home fees. Isn't that what money is for - for you to live on? Why would you want condemn your loved ones (or yourself) to council funded care when you've worked all your life and saved to ensure a better standard of living when you need it most?

Anyway, plan it together. But if he wants his inheritance to go to the kids it makes more sense to do a variation of the will and pass it on straight away.

You seem like you have your head screwed on tight, but it is a very real and dangerous possibility that in the event of his death, if you remarried and quickly died without changing your will, your new man would receive everything.

My mum died and her new husband got the lot, even down to her tea sets, my grandads chess set etc. nothing valuable and meaningless to the new husband but he kept it all regardless. Literally everything

She can only spend the income (benefit) from it. So she has "use" of it, but does not own "it" itself.
She's a beneficial owner.

Life Interest in Cash Assets means that OP would be obliged to keep the cash tied up in investment accounts where the annual interest is directed into her income but she's not allowed to withdraw or spend the capital, as she isn't the owner of it.

Got you - so basically she has the benefit of the income but can't touch the capital?

I think the point about care home fees and tax is valid. We saw a few hundred thousand swallowed in care home fees for my husbands mother who had early onset dementia and spent ten years in care homes before she passed.
I would be open to discussing the wills again and speaking to a specialist about what to do and coming up with revised wills that you both agree with.
It is also something to sconsider that if you just have mirror wills and he does pass and you do remarry, that the family of your new spouse could end up with claims to the money your DH hopes will go your children. I have seen this happen also.

I think he is being sensible and you should revisit your wills.

I understand the emotional side to this, almost a feeling of trust in you is tarnished. But he is being sensible and I agree with pp to try and put your solicitor head on and think of what you would advise others.

My in laws are all still with us but it is abundantly clear that unfortunately, all of frail FILs assets are now firmly in the control of his new wife. FILs own children (inc my DH) will not see a penny but her own DC from her previous marriage will do very nicely.

Simply wrong. There is no advantage in doing this in UK law. It is all disadvantage. Leaving a lifetime interest does not prevent the surviving spouse from downsizing, nor does it make any difference to tax liabilities. Leaving them the assets outright has a number of disadvantages:

• they may remarry and die without making a new will, in which case the assets will go to their new spouse rather than the children
• they may need to go into a care home, in which case the assets will be spent on that rather than going to the children
• they may change their mind and cut the children out of the will

There is no disadvantage to the survivor in leaving a lifetime interest (unless, of course, the survivor was planning to disinherit the children).

He's not being entirely unreasonable but these things need thinking through carefully because almost all ways of wording wills can have unintended consequences or fail to account for specific circumstances/ limit options for the beneficiaries. People can end up focusing on IHT too much and making some weird decisions and conversely can end up paying loads of IHT as they don't trust their wishes to be carried out.

As an aside, I have a lawyer friend who works for a big charity, trying to get the restrictions of bequests lifted so that the money can actually be spent, because the bequests were restricted in such as a way to be now irrelevant - think things along the lines of " 1000 pounds a year for the welfare of horses that pull mail coaches".

He likely views that £150k as "family money" from his original side of the family. Because of that, he probably feels his brother would have wanted it to stay with his blood relatives—meaning the nephews—rather than potentially going to his brother's wife.
While you are looking at the inheritance as money that now belongs to your husband, he doesn't see it that way yet. It’s a pretty understandable perspective for him to have. In his mind, the fact that you’ve been the higher earner doesn't really change how he feels about where his brothers money should end up.

I’d leave it for now and see how it goes. I wouldn’t be happy for the other money and assets not to be left directly to you.
It is always very difficult when someone dies.

Retired solicitor here (non-probate). I see that @prh47bridge has already responded with his usual excellent legal advice. He posts regularly on the legal board. Your husband is merely being practical - it is no reflection on how he feels about you. In fact, your post has made me consider updating our wills along those lines.

I agree.
My Dad is elderly and his wife is considerably younger than him. She’s only 10 years older than me. I have no idea what his will says, but if he leaves it all to his wife, there’s a strong chance that his descendants (2 children, 3 grandchildren) will get nothing. His wife could even outlive me. Of course that’s entirely his prerogative, but if he wants us to inherit, his will would need to reflect this.

I know your situation is different OP, because you share your children. But your DH has become aware of his mortality, and if he died tomorrow it’s highly likely you’d meet someone else. That someone might also have kids, who could end up taking some of the inheritance your husband wanted his kids to have.

'Won't be a vast amount but maybe 150k or so'

Wow, I cant even imagine being so financially comfortable that I wouldn't view 150k as a vast amount of money... Must be nice.

In your situation, I would suggest he puts most of his inheritance in trust for your children until they reach a certain age. Then you can both enjoy the balance without any of the hassle of thinking about what happens after you/he dies. I completely understand how you feel OP, and understand his thoughts also.