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remarked last week that we ought to get our wills updated (I don't disagree with that as some of the details are now out of date).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.

Makes sense to me. If I were to come into a decent inheritance, like £200K plus, I would do the same, so if DH remarried, his new wife can't get her mitts on my childrens inheritance. More people should do this truth be told.

He could do that with the brother's inheritance and his half, without cutting his wife out completely.

I haven’t read the full thread but changing your home ownership to tenants in common with the surviving partner having life interest is sensible estate planning.

Leaving all his cash assets in trust for the children is a different matter, as you won’t be able to benefit from it. Aside, from the inheritance from his brother, I presume most of these assets have been jointly accrued by you both working and supporting the family in differing ways.

With the house, you will still be able to live in it.

These days you have to put a huge amount of thought into planning your will to avoid losing nearly half of it in tax and plan for every circumstance - if he doesn't change his will, he dies and leaves it all to you. You remarry a man with 5 children, and you die (as we all will). Your previous husband's estate is now servicing your current husband and 7 children instead of just you and his biological children.
He's just being sensible, and protecting the children's assets from dilution if you marry again. It's nothing personal, and you should consider doing the same really..

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

You may think this would never happen but it really does and it could just as easily happen to you or your husband.
If you die first, your share of the house would be protected for your children should your DH re-marry.
Without this, the whole estate could pass to his new spouse, if he predeceases them. They can then pass the whole lot to whomever they choose and your DC may get nothing.

If you are risk averse, I would strongly suggest you get impartial advice on this from someone professionally qualified in this field.

(ETA: cross-posted with PP who can clearly type faster than me).

You're not wrong to feel as you do, and he's not wrong for considering his own immortality and making sure the children's inheritance is protected when he's not there.

I'd suggest sharing with him exactly as you have with us here. Lay out the restrictions that would put on each of you, and explore any other possibilities.
E.g. Is it possible that the children each inherit x amount/% on either of your deaths, the remaining (including the house) to the surviving spouse, but in the event you/he remarry then the property would be split so they inherit half the value.

It's sensible. None of us knows what will happen after we're gone. I feel I want a similar arrangement in our will, but would also be annoyed if I didnt have control over finances once becoming a widow. No way I'd marry again 😆😆

But they are not the children’s assets. And they’re not even half his if you look at who has contributed - it’s a good gig to accrue less than 50% and then decide what to do with half!

a family friend who was very miserly died leaving his wife quite a fortune and she has done a lot of travelling and did up the house etc etc - if it was all ring fenced she would have been financially trapped!

its all very well thinking about the kids inheritance but if too restrictive it could really hurt OP financially in her dotage

Legally, it is 50% if you are joint tenants.
If you are tenants in common, you can then decide the percentage split.
OP is currently in the former situation.

I think this may be one occassion when your and your DH's ages are relevent. I know lots of people in the 60s and 70s who feel like they have financial security and can't see sense in hoarding any more, so want to pass it on down.

I suspect his actions are done in that spirit.

It sounds like he doesn't understand the difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. If you are joint tenants and one of you dies the other one gets the house.

You can't leave someone a lifetime interest in money. You can either spend it or you can't. Wouldn't it be better to gift your children some of the latest inheritance or to leave them a lump sum each in his will and you get the rest if there is any.

What are the 'chattels'?

Legally sure but not morally as OP has contributed more.

bit that’s ok because they decided on joint finances. He can’t unilaterally decide that they no longer do joint after having benefitted from OPs higher earnings for years

I think this is perfectly sensible and indeed DH and I are about to do something similar. I have some money inherited from my parents and I certainly want to ensure it goes on to my children. If I died tomorrow I wouldn't want DH to be lonely, and would want him to remarry if he found the right person - but I don't want her to inherit my money. Whilst I trust DH, there are never any guarantees that, for instance, he would get around to sorting this out before he died, so I would rather play safe.

My one reservation in your case is that I would want DH either to give or leave the children a chunk of money direct to help them with house deposits etc.

Its protection for your children. You do not want all of that money going on care and your children get nothing.

OP could agree to switch to tenants in common and ask to split it 30:70 in her favour. Currently, and simplistically, he has contributed less but owns the same amount of property as OP. I say simplistically, as marriage and shared assets is more than just who earned more.

I think it’s very sensible, he’s got older, his younger DB had died. He now realises it happens, so
understands his own mortality and therefore realises you are a lot younger and very likely to form another relationship if he should pass. He wants to ensure that the potential new spouse doesn’t benefit.

Im sure you would do the right thing but, any new spouse could be manipulative or dubious.

i think he’s being wise.

Indeed

ultimately a couple doesn’t need 2x what a single person needs for retirement - so if he blocks her from 50% she’s screwed

if they can afford for the kids to get cash then great but ring fencing the house is an albatross and I’ve known families fall out over it

and I say this as someone with a wicked step grandmother but the money she took was nothing compared to the worthless memorable items

Nothing stopping her selling the house - it's not a prison. Just that half the proceeds belong to the kids, so she CAN sell, give half the proceeds to the kids and then use the other half to travel the World or buy lots of stuff. She'll also presumably inherit her husbands other assets, such as savings, investments, pension pot, etc which she'd be free to sell and use as she wishes. All it's doing is ring fencing his half of the value of the house for their joint children.

@Scarlettpixie

It sounds like he doesn't understand the difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. If you are joint tenants and one of you dies the other one gets the house.

The solicitor would pick that up when writing the will and would do the very simple form to change the house ownership so that half could in deed be left in trust as per the will.

He is talking about ring fencing all the assets

half a house doesn’t get you something half the size either plus transaction costs on top

But why on earth would the OP agree to that? I certainly wouldn't.

Assuming a standard life interest trust, if OP downsizes she can use all the proceeds of the sale to buy a new property but the life interest trust will also own part of the new property. She does not have to give half the proceeds from selling the house to the children.

I don't really understand why people get upset by this. What is it that people think they're losing out on?

I want my assets to go to my dc, so does my DH. Let's face it, it's likely one of us will go first and that means without a will saying otherwise all the money goes to them.

After that we would both want it to go to DC. But if the surviving one of us remarries that isn't what would happen automatically - and in practice, often doesn't. Neither of us want that.

Obviously, people need proper tax advice because what is best for your personal circumstances isn't always clear. Apart from that, why doesn't the OP do similar in case she dies first? Unless for some reason she doesn't want her dc to ultimately get the money.

But they get a say in the sale?

I know someone who has this set up and the kids kept blocking the sale because it wasn’t getting enough. They also weren’t willing to help with maintenance costs

curious to know if they weren’t in fact legally able to block the sale as it created huge issues at the time

No, it is sensible inheritance planning. Do please explain how it would make life difficult for OP.

Regarding the fact she paid for the lion's share of the house, they could execute a deed of trust on severing the joint tenancy giving him a smaller proportion of the house if that is the way they want to go. That would then go into a life interest trust if he dies first, leaving OP still owning more than 50% of the house.

If they were not the trustees of the life interest trust they had no say at all. If they were the trustees they could not block the sale unreasonably. If the trustees are blocking the sale unreasonably, the surviving spouse can apply to the courts for an order forcing the sale.

Regarding maintenance costs, those are usually the responsibility of the surviving spouse. However, if significant structural repairs are needed the trustees may need to contribute to that in order to protect the value of the property.