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remarked last week that we ought to get our wills updated (I don't disagree with that as some of the details are now out of date).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

It’s a decision you make together and it’s part of estate planning, which would include ensuring the surviving spouse has sufficient funds (e.g. life insurance, investments, pensions etc).
It’s not about trusting your husband or not. He has a right to a new life if I die and he has the right to make financial choices with any new spouse/partner he may have.

He will be fine financially should I die and vice versa - we have mirrored Wills, which factor in our ongoing responsibilities with (current) minors, our retirement and our care fees.

But according to the OP he’s not just trying to ring-fence the inheritance from his brother, but trying to do the same with all of the marital assets. It would be a nice plan to make a gift of some of the inheritance to the children now, although they are a tricky age for the responsibility of this.

Going forward, his new funds mean he can start paying his full share of all the nicer things for the family that you have paid for up to now as the higher earner.
Or possibly even more than his share seeing as you have subsidised him paid more in the past.
Because that would be fair.

People don't always have the knowledge in their 30s about things like wills or care home fees, it just doesn't cross their minds.

I would see it as prudence and protection for your children, which I am sure you also want, and it won't cause you any hardship as it only takes effect after you die.

I know you feel you can trust yourself not to get ripped off by any future spouse (this is not always intentional, people don't know that marriage trumps a will) or deliberately conned, but can anyone trust themselves not to get dementia?

This is a really sensible measure if it avoids potential care home fees and personally I think you should be making a similar arrangement on your side in case you pass first.

As others have mentioned there is a good case for passing on excess money or assets to your adult children sooner rather than later.

Not only do you get to enjoy watching them benefit from your gift but it avoids inheritance tax if you live 7 years.

An inheritance is also usually more beneficial at a time in life when someone may otherwise be taking on student debt, struggling to get on the housing ladder or planning a family than when they have had a career and are self sufficient and approaching retirement themselves.

My dad who is 85 has dementia and I have recently taken over his finances. He has hoarded 200k in a savings account which pays a pittance, half of which will now go to the government when he passes as it is far too late for him to do any kind of estate planning.

I can't help feeling bitter about how he has watched me struggle and my children fail in sink schools whilst sitting on that, of which 40% is ultimately now going to go to waste.

I personally would rather take the risk that my children might squander their inheritance it if received too soon, than the government squander it by leaving it too late.

all the time I've had more income/savings HE'S been happy to share but now he's getting a chunk of money he wants to keep it safe from me.

I think this sentiment is really important. And I'd be pointing out. OK sounds like you don't think we should benefit from eachothers money so I'll also be putting things in place to protect my income from you. You're either in it together or you're not. He doesn't want you to benefit from "his" money. But he wants to benefit from yours.

It makes no sense not to make full use of your joint allowance as a couple and he has hurt you by suggesting completely the wrong solution, when his concerns can be easily addressed by other means. You need to identify exactly what his concerns are and present him with the most satisfactory and tax efficient way of achieving this.

First you need to point out that you will have to allow for care costs for the pair of you in old age, it's just silly to ignore that this might be needed. The DCs will have to wait for what's left.

Protecting family assets if one of you is widowed and remarries can be done by a clause in the will, if that sets his mind at rest.

I can understand why he might want his recent inheritance to bypass you and go to your DCs in time, I would have thought you could set up a family trust for that, and it would keep the money out of your joint estate.

Does anyone know if the following statement by messy but fun @14.02 today is correct ? - ‘ Leaving property via a trust does not allow you to claim the additional nil rate band for inheritance tax purposes as assets need pass directly to a descendant.’

The trustees would have to agree the sale. That would only be the children if the children had been made trustees. The trustees cannot refuse to agree a move unreasonably - the only grounds on which they could refuse is if OP was trying to sell the house for substantially less than its true value. And they would not be entitled to take their share of the proceeds. OP would be able to use the entire proceeds to buy another house.

Most people worry about leaving money to their kids and it ruining them, or them wasting it on stupid stuff as they dont have the life experience/long term planning skill in place yet.

If he wants to protect both you/him and the kids if one of you die, you would both be far better off having the money go into a trust on one of your deaths that benefits the surviving spouse and dependents with some designation on what it can and cant be spent on

It’s incorrect.
The residential nil rate passes to the surviving spouse and then to the direct descendents upon the former’s death.

Does your Dad have an expensive house? Are you sure he will actually have to pay inheritance tax?

Agreed.

Leaving a property in trust with your spouse as the lifetime resident is treated for tax purposes as if you had left the property to your spouse. There is therefore no IHT to pay on the property going into trust and the Residential Nil Rate Bandpass to the surviving spouse.

I can't be sure as the rules are so damn complex - deliberately so I bet - but he does have a house which is probably just about the threshold of £325K.

I know there is a £500k residence nil rate band allowance but it is not clear whether if the house is worth less than £500k the rest can be made up in cash or whether only the value of the house if over £350 but less than £500k is allowed.

It doesn't really seem fair if one person can pass on a £500k house but someone else with a £325 house plus savings gets a hefty tax bill, however fairness never really seems to come into these policies.

It is actually a perverse incentive for elderly people to move to a larger house.

You seem to be overcomplicating it.

The £325k nil rate band can be for anything. The £175k RNRB is only for property. So, provided the house is left to you and/or your siblings (if any) and is worth at least £175k, he can leave up to £500k before any IHT becomes payable.

You don't mention his wife (assuming he had one). If they were still married when she died and she left everything to him, he also gets her £325k nil rate band and her £175k RNRB. In that situation, he can leave up to £1M before any IHT becomes payable.

.
duplicated , not sure how.

IHT
-£325k tax free (can include property)
-plus £175k tax free for property (not transferable to cash/other assets, only residential property)

so from parents, you could have IHT-free sum of £1m:
2x £325k
2x £175k

If the total estate is >£2m, you start losing your tax-free allowance.

I have had this conversation with DH after seeing what happened with friend who benefitted vastly when their mother, who remarried after her first husband died.The new DH was much older and died soon after, leaving everything to his new wife, friend's DM.

My friend then inherited everything when her mother died a few years later.
I have not discussed this in detail with my friend other than to express surprise that her stepdad's kids had inherited nothing from him. She could see nothing wrong in this. They were all adults. (As was she.)
I subsequently had a discussion with my husband pointing this out to him and asked him not to remarry if I die first. Fine to meet someone else, live together etc but not marry due to the potentially negative impact on our DC. I have said I would not remary either. (And indeed I see no reason why i would want to but a man could find himself with a younger, even much younger partner with children of her own.)
That's when the risk to our DC's inheritance might arise.

That’s the other thing to remember- once you remarry, the previous Will becomes void.

@tartyflette I think I would be putting something way more firm and concrete in place than 'please don't get married if I die before you.' I would get something in writing/do wills/change your wills. So that if one of you dies, your children won't lose out. I would do something like 'everything goes to my husband as long as he stays unmarried. If he marries, then as soon as he remarries, 50% of everything that was mine, goes to my/our children.'

I would not trust ANYone to not get married again 'because you asked them to.'

.

@BatchCookBabe Fair point, i think we will have to look at our wills again.

Good idea!

All the posters saying “but but I trust my spouse implicitly to do the right thing…….”

Yeah. So did my mum.

When my DF died he left half to his 2 nieces and the other half (which technically was the share of the house that my DM had paid for, including putting in money from sale of a house she had before meeting my DF) to his new partner. They weren’t even married or living together, she had her own house.

So go right ahead and implicitly trust your spouses….. at least you won’t be around to see the devastation it causes your DC.

3 of my friends have seen their Mum's assets (share of house, money inherited from HER parents etc) disappear to a younger second wife and her children and they have inherited not a bean.

Men seem not to be able to manage on their own, or to act responsibly towards their children in the face of lurve with New Woman. Even if they just forget to remake their will after marriage, meaning that the old will is invalid so everything goes to new wife.

All these were loving husbands and fathers of the ' I would never re-marry / de-prioritise our kids yada yada' type.

He is leaving money dorectly
to your shared children. And he is likely to die sooner and it means they could get it without it ending up in care home fees etc.

why is this a bad thing. You could re marry and merge assets with a new DH and the money would be lost. It happens no one can predict the future. So he is securing stuff for your children.

again, why is this a bad thing?

I’m grateful to my dad for securing his will in his kids and not his new wife. It would’ve been a nightmare.

bizarre to be against this. Life happens and people change.
people very often don’t keep promises to the dead