Am I being unreasonable?

wifeanddaughter

I am not sure, as the title suggests, whether I am being unreasonable or not and would welcome the perspectives of fellow MSErs.

Recently husband and I sorted out our wills. We severed the joint tenancy so when one of us dies their half goes into trust for the children but the remaining partner can live there with no problems. The rest of the estate went to the remaining partner.

The solicitor advised us to ensure life insurances were nominated into Trusts. Two of them are joint and pay to the remaining partner. I also have life insurance from work and yesterday got the forms for nomination and was planning on nominating our two children as beneficiaries with my husband as trustee. When I told him this last night he got really cross, he thought all the money should go to him and I was wrong to by-pass him for the children.

My thoughts were that he would have enough from the rest of the estate and having some nominated sum for the children which could be used for university fees/deposit on house was a good idea. Mind you this would only pay out if I die whilst working for my current employer so hopefully only a theoretical discussion.

My husband and I did have some issues last year and I completed Women's Aid pattern changing course. I am not sure if I am being overly sensitive and would welcome any comments. Thanks

Newly_retired

If I read you correctly, an insurance is the only way your children will benefit financially immediately on your death so without it they could have a long wait to inherit if your DH lives a long life after your death.
So it seems a perfectly reasonable idea to me.

Mojisola

It all comes down to trust. If you trust your husband to use some of the money to help the children if it's possible at the time they need it, leave it all to him. If you don't, set up the trusts.

If you die, he will have to cope with all sorts of unforeseen eventualities. Setting the money aside for the children may leave him in the position of struggling for money himself while other money is locked away in the children's names. How would you feel if it was the other way round and you could be left in that position?

With reference to the trust that half the house will be in - have you arranged it so that the surviving spouse can downsize without having to pay the children when the current house is sold?

Newly_retired

Surely her husband won't be struggling for money as two insurances are already going to him and this one is an extra, work-related?
I do see what is meant though about lack of trust so that is why he is cross.
But don't forget he could in the future remarry and potentially the whole estate could go to his wife and the by-then-grown-up children get nothing. So I can understand why the OP wants to do something specific for the children whilst she can.

Mojisola

Newly_retired wrote: »

Surely her husband won't be struggling for money as two insurances are already going to him and this one is an extra, work-related?

With the financial markets as they are, can anyone know for certain what's going to happen over the next 10/20 years? What may look like a comfortable situation now could change with long-term health problems, poor investments, etc.

I do see what is meant though about lack of trust so that is why he is cross.

But don't forget he could in the future remarry and potentially the whole estate could go to his wife and the by-then-grown-up children get nothing. So I can understand why the OP wants to do something specific for the children whilst she can.

I can see both sides of the issue. I think I would feel that my OH didn't trust me if he came to me with this decision made. If we had talked all the potential problems through, I would probably agree it was best to put it in trust for the children.

Being presented with a fait accompli would provoke an emotional reaction rather than the rational one that would follow a discussion. Perhaps that's what's happened here?

If wifeanddaughter could step back a bit and go through the thinking that led up to her decision, her OH may come round to her way of thinking. Even if he doesn't, it is her decision to make but she may have to cope with a disgruntled OH.

Marisco

No I don't think you're being unreasonable. I think it's always a good idea to safeguard an inheritance for kids. What would happen if he got married again, your kids could be left out altogether. My mam had her own house when she married my dad, and she did her will in such a way that he could live in it for his lifetime, but it went to me when he died. So even if dad had got married again, he couldn't leave the house to anyone else.

wifeanddaughter

Thank you for all these comments - appreciated. I can see both sides of it and agree that I should have discussed it with husband rather than telling him we needed to get a neighbour to witness our signatures! After Christmas I will make sure we have time alone to sit and discuss this. If it comes down to it I will personally take out another life insurance just for me which I will leave to him, though as stated he would get both the joint insurances and savings which add up to more than this one work insurance. Also sort of thinking about looking for a new job soon, possibly, in which case this insurance would go anyway.

Thanks all for taking the time to reply and have a happy Christmas!

Seanymph

I have left mine to the children

turn3r

My mother and father drew up a similar will when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. When he passed away his half of the house went into trust for myself and my sisters, we are unable to force sale of house but also ensures my mother cannot be forced to sell her house to pay for care. He gave each grandchild a sum in trust till 18, but this can be accessed for medical or educational reasons. All the shares, savings, insurances and cash was left to my mother, he spoke to us all and explained he didnt want her to worry about money.
You have to trust your husband would help your children if anything happened as he has to put the same trust in you.

Seanymph

I have to say I've been thinking about this - my nan had a cousin whose first wife died, they had kids, he remarried but then died three years later and the 'new' wife got everything and disowned the children. They were adults when they got together, and the kids were grown up - but she lived for about 20 years, had no contact, and they never even got momentoes of their father.

I think looking after the kids is never a bad thing.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

I notice you have completed a Women's Aid course.


And he is angry that he doesn't stand to get the life insurance if you die.


Hmmmm.



(said from the point of view of someone who was Insured for half a million through work, who had to pay an electrician to work on every powerpoint and light switch I regularly used after he finally left. As the earth wires had miraculously all become disconnected and were flapping around against the back plates.)