We want different things from his inheritance AIBU

[NotSureAboutThiss]

DH and I have been together 20yrs+ with DC. Joint finances. He has received an inheritance that he wants to use to take early retirement. I don’t want to retire yet so will continue to work through choice. I would rather save the money for kids uni fees / help with house deposit and he continues to work. He thinks I ABU. What do you think? There isn’t really enough to do both so no compromise that I can see. His argument is that we have (small) savings already for the kids.

Exactly. It's his inheritance, not the children's.

DH lost his 59 year old friend this year, 7 weeks after his shock diagnosis and 5 months before his planned retirement.

Life is short and can slap you hard in the face when you least expect it. If your DH wants to retire now and has the funds to do so, why would you want to stop him doing that?

Do your kids know what they want to study at Uni, and are those subjects intrinsic to a career they want to follow (e.g. Medicine)? And, will they get in to good Unis? Too many kids doing pointless degrees at crap Unis and coming out loaded with debt, and then getting unrelated low paid jobs (not a career). I’d want them to invest in their own futures, at least partially - and either pay tuition or accommodation themselves. I say this as someone wealthy enough to afford to pay both.
If you just want to fund your kids with the equivalent of an educational blank cheque, then I’m firmly with your husband. And if your kids are only wanting to go to Uni because it’s now seen as the done thing, and they want an ‘experience’ - then I really think you’ve got to take a look at your priorities.

Incorrect. Inheritance can be classed, such as in divorce, as a non marital asset.

Its actually nothing to do with you. It is his money and he can spend it however he likes.

People keep saying life is short and agree but OP said this would cover 'his half' of household expenses.

And while she doesn't mind continuing to work, I don't think it's reasonable to make a family arrangement that requires this.

It's not only the husband that could suffer a sudden change of health.

If he spends down all the capital, what happens if OP can't make her half ? I'd want this to offer family security even if her DH benefits the most directly from the money.

That doesn't mean carrying on as they are now and im sure her husband can find a good balance without risking the family finances.

If he retires whilst you're still working full time it would be reasonable for him to take on a bigger share of housework/ cooking / other managing stuff at home. Is he prepared to do that?

I think others might have said this already but if he's retired and you're working you aren't going to be able to start in on joint retirement travel plans because your annual leave won't allow it.

Does he really want a change of job / an extended break / a part time role? They all sound more suitable that straight forward retirement.

I’m with you, but OP did explain her reasoning.

The problem though is that in some families there is no 'his' money, or hers. All money is treated as belonging to the family unit. Once you breach this assumption it gets tricky - if one person then gets an unplanned bonus at work or wins money is that then theirs or still family money?

However, I can see that the person bequeathing money in a will might intend it to go to an individual not a family. That's why I'd feel torn in this situation. Ultimately it's difficult to judge what's right without fully understanding the OP & partner's unspoken assumptions about what having joint finances actually means in practice. It's going to mean slightly different things for each couple and sometimes for different partners. Makes me think I ought to check what my DH's view on this is!

I wouldn’t have any objections if that’s what my husband wanted to do, like I said it’s his money, his choice

It has nothing to do with “deserving” the money. An inheritance is not “earned”. An inheritance IS a gift from someone to a designated recipient or recipients, who are the “beneficiaries” meaning they are the ones who benefit. Who may legally and morally do whatever they like with the money, lamp, pet monkey, souvenir mug collection, or Charles and Diana commemorative plates. If they choose to go to Bali or to give the money to a sheep rescue or to invest it exclusively in their children’s education, they can ask their spouse, partner, coworker, or postie for their input, but they are NOT hoarding and they have the final decision on what will be done with THEIR inheritance.

To pass it all on to the kids would be selfless, to use it all to fund early retirement would be selfish.

It might be ‘their money’ but calling it a gift doesn’t change the fact that they don’t deserve an inheritance any more than the next person. If you didn’t make a will your assets would go to your children etc anyway. People who want to hoard it all and not share it with their spouse, like to use the term gift to try to deflect from the fact it’s simply an unearned windfall and they got lucky. I’m sure many do just do what they want with their lucky windfall, but keeping it all to yourself is so morally disgusting I don’t even know where to start. Some people will always happily hoard money and it’s usually those who haven’t had to work much for it.

Compromise he reduces his hours or moves to a different role and review on five years

If I say my sister died At 49 my brother died at 50 his wife at 65…. Life is short
let him relax and in turn help you domestically . Hes hardly going to lay in bed all day.
meal on the table, house cleaned , laundry done , shopping done, no rat race and chilled husband.

Legalities of asset types in a marriage aside, it does strike me as strange to an extent that the hoarding of earned money (where one partner is a higher earner) in a marriage is somehow more commonly viewed as selfish than the hoarding of unearned inheritance.

Well unless he works until he’s 70 there’s going to be some solo retirement going on but I don’t really think that’s is your issue. A 55 year old is perfect capable of knowing if they think they will enjoy not working. Just because you want until you are 65 doesn’t mean your DH has to.

If you inherit you can save it for your DC.

With that logic, the kids using it to buy a house would be selfish. They should be selfless and invest it to pass on to their children.

The kids are in the exact same boat DH is in, being given money they haven’t earned. The difference is that DH was the intended recipient of the inheritance and everyone else with their hand out or expectations are just incredibly entitled.

This is just nonsense.

Yes, life is unfair and some will receive nothing under a Will.

But you absolutely can gift under a Will. Testamentary gifts are usually legacies or devises. The fact that some people don't have enough to leave doesn't change the fact that others do. You can make very specific provision - and that actually sounds most likely what has happened here.

The fact you may have your own ideas about what people should do with their inheritance doesn't make it any less legally theirs.

A gift is an unearned windfall. You seem to be talking about people who die intestate - and even then, it's still theirs.

It is his money. It is not joint finances but it should be a joint agreement. I think he’d be foolish to retire so young when you still have children to get through university.
If he lived until his 80’s, it won’t last forever.

It won’t last at all if it goes in house deposits.

Actually well-chosen houses are one of the best places to keep it. It should be re-realisable.

I don't disagree with the OP that the desire to help dc with house deposits is a worthy one.

But it's the complete lack of comprehension that she needs to hope and ask, not command, that is setting people against her. The inheritance is strictly speaking nothing to do with her.

She’s not talking about keeping it. She wants him to give it away.

Yes but the dc could realise it again. It isn't "spent" if you look at it as generational wealth.

But at this point it isn't that: it's his.