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.

Well no because the OP said it would not be as much as the salary he was bringing in so they won't be in a position to save.

If this was an amount to replicate a salary comfortably and still have capital left then it's a no brainer to retire.

But what the OP said is him retiring will lower their household income and so they won't be able to save for the kids uni fees.

He also presumably has death in service benefits that would help to provide for OP if the worst happened to him.

I stick with my original point that no one can make a decision like this without financial advice that considers the household as a whole. That doesn't mean giving the money to anyone else but you can't take decisions that affect other people without enduring you've considered it from all angles.

So, to sump up, he's not handing his money over to your kids, he's not going ot allow you to decide when it's time for him to reitre, and it's not your decision to make. I think you'll find that with his inheritance money and half of everything you jointly own, once he divorces you, he can easily retire to a cheaper country, and live in comfort and ease for decades. Good luck to him :)

For the receiver, it’s luck. No more, no less.

I have a relative who agreed with their spouse that on the death of the first, the surviving spouse would inherit all. On the death of the second, assets would be equally divided between their children. Their children are not with each other. The surviving spouse is now going to cut the non-biological children out the will, and leave all assets only to their own child. Even though they know the deceased spouse would be devastated.

This one biological child will receive it all. It will be legal. It will be bequeathed to them. Is it fair? No. Is it luck for that one adult child? Yes. Is it extremely bad luck for the other children? Yes.

These are never gifts. Inheritance is the most corrupt and unfair system in the world.

I can hear the hurt in this - and it does sound unfair.

But it also sounds like the outplay of a badly drafted Will tbh, coupled with a spouse gone rogue.

If the first deceased wanted to ensure this outcome, there ought to have been will trusts allowing the spouse a lifetime interest/annuities but with directions as to the final beneficiaries.

I agree with this. You're either in it together or you have to wonder why you're together at all...

I too have never understood the division of mine / yours in a long term marriage. We spend most of our spare income on travel, some on the house. Both are joint outgoings. What would be the point of one person having loads and the other very little?

Agree. There is a lot "live to work" sentiment on this thread.

His inheritance which you want to give away to your children.
Controlling behaviour.

We are very much joint finances with n our house, and in the situation you find yourself in, I’d be encouraging both working until the kids are through uni, so you can help them as much as you’d like to, and invest the inheritance for a little while so that you both have the option to retire early (and you can carry on if you choose to). Will him retiring now, and not paying into a pension impact your planned retirement income? That would be a key point for me. I wouldn’t push to keep working just to save more to cover all uni costs though. We’re helping DC out with uni costs just now, but there’s still some loans being taken out.

i am very much a ‘life is short’ person too though, I’m sensible about pension saving, but very much live for now. I live my job and it pays very well, but if DH and I could both retire tomorrow I would jump at the chance.

You have a right to be angry about this but you are directing your anger at a system which is not inherently unfair. There are ways in which the person who dies first can ensure their money goes to whom they wish it to go to. Any good lawyer will show you how if you ask. The problem lies with people not thinking about every eventual possibility before they draft a will, usually because they have left it too late. DH and I have always had a will. We made the first one after the birth of our first child and have kept it updated as circumstances have changed.
The two things that cause most trouble with inheritance are blended families and couples how aren't married, but neither of these would cause problems if people took the time to find out about the law and make provision accordingly. Lawyers are said to make more money from people who do not have a will or have a badly drafted one than they ever do from writing good, watertight wills.

It doesn’t have to be fair, and why would it need to be? In England people can dispense their private assets as they wish to.

The transfer of assets from a private individual to their chosen heir/s is not akin to a lottery with randomly generated winners.

Yup. He is certainly a lot more deserving of the inheritance than anyone else is, because someone chose to leave it to him, and only to him, not his children, not his wife.

OPs husband deserves it more than anybody else, that's for sure.

Sorry for the typos :)

Yup. And OP will decide when her husband is to be allowed to stop working at the job he hates, after decades of already working full time. I hope he takes his inheritance, and half of everything they own, and retires peacefully away from her demands.

I have mixed feelings about this. Retiring at age 55 is very young and if he is planning to use the time on hobbies that could be expensive, also it would feel like you're at different stages in life.
However, I voted you are BU because of the reasons you gave. You've basically said he needs to carry on at a job he doesn't enjoy and have an unsatisfying life so that your kids can benefit from the.money. To him that probably feels like you're putting their future potential needs over him.
Would you feel the same if it was the same amount in redundancy payment rather than inheritance? Would you then expect him to find another job asap so you could keep that money for the kids rather than use it to retire early or take some time off?
The ideal would probably be for him to use some of the money to have a bit of time off and look for a more enjoyable job, maybe part-time. Appreciate that may be easier said than done but once he's had a little time off he may be happier to work again

Erm not really, as I meant the not sharing it with your wife bit as the selfish part. I don’t think anyone has an obligation to share their own inheritance with their kids. But if I had meant that they should give it to the kids you would have a fair point.

Seek financial advice.

He could be putting you in a really precarious situation in 10 years’ time.

He will be putting less into the pot.
Nothing into savings and presumably nothing into his pension fund.

He cannot quit work without the next 30 years being very carefully considered.

Because it’s ugly, greedy, selfish and cruel behaviour. Hope this helps.

It's his money and therefore his choice. No, you don't get a say, it's an inheritance. His inheritance. Not yours.

But I think it's shortsighted to retire so early. Hopefully the economy will improve but there are a lot of graduates back at home either not working at all or doing very poorly paid work currently. You can't assume they'll be off your hands and earning big bucks in a few years' time.

I also think 55 is too young. I've been trying to get DH to delay his retirement and he's older than that! 60 seems reasonable. Or, who cares if part-time isn't normal in his industry. If it's not unheard of, why not do it?

Are you talking about OP? If so I agree with you.

All things in common, all people one- are you sure? In this case why are the OP's children more important than the OP and her husband?

That is very wrong of the surviving spouse.

There are mechanisms in place to help people protect themselves - the easiest (and pretty normal) way would be a will leaving the money to the children, optionally with eg lifetime use of the house for the spouse. Unfortunately, the first spouse chose not to do that. I can understand that it would be frustrating if that happened to you - just as being the victim of any fraud or dishonesty (even when legal) is frustrating.

In addition to thelegal protection of a will, there are even protections for children when someone dies without a will: a certain amount is assumed to be for the spouse, and the rest must be shared with the children.

Some countries do have forced heirship - eg France. But the UK has chosen a way which gives people more autonomy and control over their own money - which is in line with our values.

As for inheritance being simply luck for the recipient, well yes - but no more or less than all the other consequences of your 'luck' in who your parents are!

Your entire childhood experience - and even your genes - are all down to the parents you are born to. Nature and nurture are both largely down to your parents, and together define who you become and the course of your entire life. Inheritance of their remaining estate at death really is the least of all this!

I have very mixed feelings about handing grown kids too much cash. Why will they strive for themselves if you fund their adulthoods? Your DH has worked all his life, has been gifted that money by someone who presumably could have chosen to pass it to your kids, at least in part. It's absolutely his prerogative what to do with it, so long as he doesn't expect you to pay for his retirement.

Yes, imagine someone thinking that money specifically left to them is actually theirs. What a wild notion.

Grasping after someone else’s money is certainly not “ugly, greedy, selfish and cruel behaviour”, after all /s

Your kids are going to benefit from the inheritance in the long run when you & your DH go. They will get everything you & DH have. Why shouldn't you both enjoy the money now by making life a bit easier for you both & not having to work. Your kids will realise that everything isn't handed to them on a plate & they need to work for what they get. At the end of the day if the relative had wanted the money to go to the kids they'd have left it to them not your DH.