Just want a 2nd opinion on something..money related.

Person_one

Money_maker wrote: »

Or perhaps are too short sighted to see that accidents and tragedy do happen regardless of age. When taking out a big financial commitment it should be compulsory for there to be some kind of provision for in the event of death. Having a mortgage and no plan B in the event of death is as I said, shocking.

If I die, my home can be easily sold to pay off the mortgage. Nobody else lives here and nobody else depends on my salary.

Yes, life insurance is a good idea for the OP and others in her situation, but it certainly shouldn't be compulsory!

neverdespairgirl

I agree, it certainly shouldn't be compulsary.

Anyone with dependents, and who doesn't have a few hundred thousand tucked away, should very seriously consider proper life insurance, though, and do some sums to work out how much is required, and allow for inflation, too.

I'll be absolutely delighted if the life insurance OH and I have taken out proves to be a complete waste of money!

InsideInsurance

RAS wrote: »

Well I hope that someone explains the law to the wife, assuming this is England or Wales?

The wife can make a claim under the Inheritance act (1988 I think) if the husband has failed to make adequate provision for her.

No idea, he certainly had a solicitor draw it up rather than it being a DIY job so hopefully it is at least reasonably strong. Out of curiosity, does that provision extend to beyond when she hooks up with someone else or not?

His justification for doing it that she has terrible choice in men and he doesnt want his hard work to be handed over to some random other guy/ "loser" after his death who'd blow all the money and leave the kids with nothing. Thankfully he is aware of his self putdown in the opening statement.

Personally I question why someone would marry and have kids with (through IVF so not an accident) someone who they have such a low opinion of

Wilma33

Money_maker wrote: »

Or perhaps are too short sighted to see that accidents and tragedy do happen regardless of age. When taking out a big financial commitment it should be compulsory for there to be some kind of provision for in the event of death. Having a mortgage and no plan B in the event of death is as I said, shocking.

Huh? Plenty of single people with no dependants buy houses you know :P Why do they need life insurance? If I die then the house can just be sold to repay the mortgage.

paulineb_2

Why not take out a policy that gives life insurance if you die and gives you a lump sum if you dont?

Competely personal choice though.

claire16c

If my partner did this I'd be fuming. Especially going back a second time after talking about it (as the first time it could have just been them not thinking) and still not putting me as 100%!

It would clearly signal to me they didn't trust me if they wanted the money to go straight to our kids. I mean why would they need a lump of cash if you couldn't afford a house to shelter you all in etc? It really doesn't make sense especially considering you don't even have life insurance.

What reason did he give you for putting the children as half?

That would make me think he doesn't see the relationship as lasting so wants to make sure you don't get it all incase say you split up and he died the next day. Although I'm still not quite sure who he thinks would be paying to bring his kids up.

paulineb_2

I dont think its any of the above. Seriously lets remember that the OP only gets this cash if her partner dies.

And this is where threads get out of hand, because in a few pages time, someone will be saying pack your bags and leave him because he didnt nominate you as sole beneficiary of his death in service benefit

FBaby

Fbaby - His reason is that simple...he didn't think about it before but now he has I get some and the kids get some so everyone is happy. (How he puts it lol)

Sorry, can I ask how old are you? This response would indicate to me that he just has no concept of what all this means because he can't really imagine life without him part of it. To be honest, I was very much the same until very recently in my 40s. He probably just saw it as money left over and that it would be nice for his kids to enjoy it, not considering for one second that this money is not a little nice pot of money as compensation for a loss, but money to tidying the family over because of the loss of his earning.

I wouldn't take it at heart or draw any false conclusion from it. I would just discuss it calmly with him and explain what that money would be intended for. He might have a light bulb moment there and then.

Addiscomber

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

So maybe this is his way of making sure that his kids actually get some money to help them on their way when they are 18? So that (and I'm not saying you would do this because obviously out would put the needs of your kids first), you don't spend it before they are that age,

and so maybe in his head, this is his way of making sure his children actually DO get some of the money?

If he really wants his children to have some money when they are older he needs to organise it, which means not spending all of his money in the first week after pay day.

Georgiegirl256

Addiscomber wrote: »

If he really wants his children to have some money when they are older he needs to organise it, which means not spending all of his money in the first week after pay day.

Yes I totally agree that it seems he needs to change his ways regarding money.