Complicated Grief and my late friend’s husband

[Anonymous]

What happened to OP?

It's possible her friend's DH wasn't serious about giving his money to step kids. Especially since he said it jokingly, or said it because his current girlfriend was right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

She was a smart woman, turned a little bit of money into wealth. I don’t think it’s okay that two kids who aren’t biologically related to her now adult child, are going to receive half of that wealth. She didn’t go the route of a trust specifically because he had no intentions of starting a second family. She was my friend, I know details because when you prepare for end of life people like to talk through things. We talked through how our children will continue on without us and the money gave her a huge relief for her son.
Marrying someone with kids is one thing, but fully taking on two young kids plus a baby is different, and I don’t think it’s right that he’s taking an “all is equal” approach because she would have protected her son if this was something she thought would happen.

So it's her money that will now be spread out to another's. Different story then in My opinion.

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

+10000
Not his money. Hers. I don't understand why the PPs are piling on the OP. He has no business giving her money to kids that are not his.

he

I mean... it's his money now, legally. She's gone. It ceased to be "her" money when she passed.

OP's friend was very naive in thinking her 40-something husband ("nearing 50") was done with family life. Especially if they are here in the DC area, where most people have kids at an older age and it's socially acceptable to do so. I get that OP is disappointed, but she needs to butt out.

Only because she did seek out and make Legal protections.

Morally, her money = son's money.

Are you a second wife by chance pp?

DP who is a first wife. While I have my preferences for what DH would do with our money if I significantly predecease him, I have chosen not to put those in writing because I trust my husbands judgment. If things were to turn out differently than we envision right now and he believed that warranted handling the money differently, I trust him to make that judgment because I know he is a kind and loving person who will do his best to do right by everyone, including those people who may come into his life later.

I trust my husband's judgment, too...but my assets are split between him and my kids. If I die before him, he will have plenty of money for himself AND to take care of the kids.

My kids will have their OWN MONEY, that is unrelated to the money left for their care. I've seen WAY too many situations like the OP describes. If this guy kicks it today, every penny will go to his new wife. You know, the one he promised his wife he wouldn't have (when perhaps he couldn't imagine marrying anyone else). There are many women who would take care of the stepson, especially since some of it was his mother's money. However, there are a whole lot of people who would take that money and never look back.

OP's friend's ex is stupid and shortsighted. If something happened to my DH, I would never, EVER marry without a pre-nup. This is Second+ Marriage Finance 101. You can never guarantee your second spouse will give your kid another thought if you die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

She was a smart woman, turned a little bit of money into wealth. I don’t think it’s okay that two kids who aren’t biologically related to her now adult child, are going to receive half of that wealth. She didn’t go the route of a trust specifically because he had no intentions of starting a second family. She was my friend, I know details because when you prepare for end of life people like to talk through things. We talked through how our children will continue on without us and the money gave her a huge relief for her son.
Marrying someone with kids is one thing, but fully taking on two young kids plus a baby is different, and I don’t think it’s right that he’s taking an “all is equal” approach because she would have protected her son if this was something she thought would happen.

So it's her money that will now be spread out to another's. Different story then in My opinion.

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

+10000
Not his money. Hers. I don't understand why the PPs are piling on the OP. He has no business giving her money to kids that are not his.

he

I mean... it's his money now, legally. She's gone. It ceased to be "her" money when she passed.

OP's friend was very naive in thinking her 40-something husband ("nearing 50") was done with family life. Especially if they are here in the DC area, where most people have kids at an older age and it's socially acceptable to do so. I get that OP is disappointed, but she needs to butt out.

Only because she did seek out and make Legal protections.

Morally, her money = son's money.

Are you a second wife by chance pp?

No, I am not - I have been with my husband practically since college and we're about 40. First marriage for both.

My husband, though, is the product of a first marriage and has several half siblings from his father's subsequent marriage. He is not incredibly concerned with how inheritance money will be split and happy about the existence of his half siblings. He is much older than his oldest half siblings and he really did NOT like being an only child.

It is heartbreaking for OP and her son that the friend died so young. But OP's friend should have been realistic and put money aside into a trust for her son if she felt so strongly about all the money going only to him. Her husband is still a young man - she's been gone a couple of years and he's only now "nearing 50". It's not shocking that he met someone who wanted to have a baby, and while I'm sure she was coming from a place of love, ultimately it was not fair for his late wife to try to dictate those things from beyond the grave.

Son is grown and it sounds like college is being paid for. There could be a neat sum set aside for him for a house downpayment in the future - OP wouldn't know, it sounds like she isn't close to the husband and has no idea how he is using this money or what he's doing to honor his late wife's wishes. She's heated that he married someone with children and had a baby and will now also spend money on them. Either way, I'm sorry for OP's loss but it's not her place to intervene and I'm not sure the husband has done anything terrible.

I think if it were his own biological kids, and not the second wife's kids who have nothing to do with the dead wife or the widower, it would be seen as more fair.

[Anonymous]

FWIW....I have three kids, two of my own with my husband and he has one with his ex wife. They are all three my kids...period. I love my stepdaughter and she is not treated any differently in our family. She also chose to live with us and not her mom. I will split everything equally and my kids would expect me to do so. Blended families work as long as all the adults look to put the kids first and not scoring points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

She was a smart woman, turned a little bit of money into wealth. I don’t think it’s okay that two kids who aren’t biologically related to her now adult child, are going to receive half of that wealth. She didn’t go the route of a trust specifically because he had no intentions of starting a second family. She was my friend, I know details because when you prepare for end of life people like to talk through things. We talked through how our children will continue on without us and the money gave her a huge relief for her son.
Marrying someone with kids is one thing, but fully taking on two young kids plus a baby is different, and I don’t think it’s right that he’s taking an “all is equal” approach because she would have protected her son if this was something she thought would happen.

So it's her money that will now be spread out to another's. Different story then in My opinion.

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

+10000
Not his money. Hers. I don't understand why the PPs are piling on the OP. He has no business giving her money to kids that are not his.

All of you people claiming that this is "her" money are creating facts out of whole cloth (and frankly, have rocks in your collective heads). From the initial post: "I know she left this world thinking her son was heir to 100% of their family’s wealth[.]" The family's wealth, not her wealth. The OP then expanded, "She was a smart woman, turned a little bit of money into wealth." There's no indication that this wealth was created before her marriage. I'm pretty confident that Op woudl have mentioned it if that was he case, and based on the ages involved (son is 18 or so, father is around 50), it's likely that this is truly family wealth - money made by one partner during the course of the marriage, as opposed to separate property either inherited or acquired before marriage. As such, it isn't "her" money, it's *their* money.

If you disagree, consider that you are arguing that money earned by the higher-earning partner remains that partner's sole property. So all those law partners out there, making $1m+ each year - their salaries are just theirs, and not their spouse's, when they divorce, right?

I didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

She was a smart woman, turned a little bit of money into wealth. I don’t think it’s okay that two kids who aren’t biologically related to her now adult child, are going to receive half of that wealth. She didn’t go the route of a trust specifically because he had no intentions of starting a second family. She was my friend, I know details because when you prepare for end of life people like to talk through things. We talked through how our children will continue on without us and the money gave her a huge relief for her son.
Marrying someone with kids is one thing, but fully taking on two young kids plus a baby is different, and I don’t think it’s right that he’s taking an “all is equal” approach because she would have protected her son if this was something she thought would happen.

So it's her money that will now be spread out to another's. Different story then in My opinion.

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

+10000
Not his money. Hers. I don't understand why the PPs are piling on the OP. He has no business giving her money to kids that are not his.

he

I mean... it's his money now, legally. She's gone. It ceased to be "her" money when she passed.

OP's friend was very naive in thinking her 40-something husband ("nearing 50") was done with family life. Especially if they are here in the DC area, where most people have kids at an older age and it's socially acceptable to do so. I get that OP is disappointed, but she needs to butt out.

Only because she did seek out and make Legal protections.

Morally, her money = son's money.

Are you a second wife by chance pp?

No, I am not - I have been with my husband practically since college and we're about 40. First marriage for both.

My husband, though, is the product of a first marriage and has several half siblings from his father's subsequent marriage. He is not incredibly concerned with how inheritance money will be split and happy about the existence of his half siblings. He is much older than his oldest half siblings and he really did NOT like being an only child.

It is heartbreaking for OP and her son that the friend died so young. But OP's friend should have been realistic and put money aside into a trust for her son if she felt so strongly about all the money going only to him. Her husband is still a young man - she's been gone a couple of years and he's only now "nearing 50". It's not shocking that he met someone who wanted to have a baby, and while I'm sure she was coming from a place of love, ultimately it was not fair for his late wife to try to dictate those things from beyond the grave.

Son is grown and it sounds like college is being paid for. There could be a neat sum set aside for him for a house downpayment in the future - OP wouldn't know, it sounds like she isn't close to the husband and has no idea how he is using this money or what he's doing to honor his late wife's wishes. She's heated that he married someone with children and had a baby and will now also spend money on them. Either way, I'm sorry for OP's loss but it's not her place to intervene and I'm not sure the husband has done anything terrible.

I think if it were his own biological kids, and not the second wife's kids who have nothing to do with the dead wife or the widower, it would be seen as more fair.

You do realize that the farther could decide to leave 25% to each of his biological children and the remainign 50% to the local animal shelter, right? Would that also be objectionable?

[Anonymous]

Not sure how much money is at stake but it's very generous he is considering her kids as his own and including them in the estate. If he has lots of money, great. If not, that sucks that all of a sudden 50% is no longer going to his kids.

As far as deathbed promises- life is for the living and you can't have dominion over a living spouse's happiness.

[Anonymous]

This is not any of your business.
Sounds like he has been through hell and now he has found happiness.

[Anonymous]

I speak from experience that people make plans and death throws the plans out the window. It's hard to let it go when you know that it isn't really 'his' money but would have gone straight to his child with her, if he hadn't changed the plan.

If my mother knew how my father would throw her money to other people instead of us kids, she would have put it ALL in writing. She 'knew' they didn't have to because they knew the plan... they had a great marriage, were on the same page, then without the money being locked away on paper, the plan has changed... money was willed to our dad (because who else would oversee our care) but we have had to 'buy' things off my dad that are already in the will to be going to us- homes, furnishings, etc etc. Rather than fight we are just taking things off his hands by paying him so he can't give them away to other people in the future.

Sounds crazy and it makes me sad but she wouldn't have wanted us fighting and we are lucky we can afford to buy him out.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry OP he probably has 10 years max with the new wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW....I have three kids, two of my own with my husband and he has one with his ex wife. They are all three my kids...period. I love my stepdaughter and she is not treated any differently in our family. She also chose to live with us and not her mom. I will split everything equally and my kids would expect me to do so. Blended families work as long as all the adults look to put the kids first and not scoring points.

I hope the subject husband’s 2nd wife is this thread is as loving and wise as you.

[Anonymous]

If there are significant amounts of money, there should always be a pre-nup and a will. People can make promises but it's hard to hold people accountable when you're dead. I'm the much much higher earner. If I die, all my pre-marital assets will go to my children. Any assets accumulated during the course of the marriage, my husband can enjoy but after he dies, all remaining assets go my children.

If my husband wants to remarry after death, I'm glad he has moved on and found happiness. But I don't want my hard-earned money going to another woman and her kids. If he wants to have more children, he can support them on his and his new wife's incomes.

[Anonymous]

Any assets accumulated during the course of the marriage, my husband can enjoy but after he dies, all remaining assets go my children.

Does the law work that way? Or is it once he inherits, it’s his and no one else has a say in it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Any assets accumulated during the course of the marriage, my husband can enjoy but after he dies, all remaining assets go my children.

Does the law work that way? Or is it once he inherits, it’s his and no one else has a say in it?

Assets go into a trust which will become irrevocable if I die. Then the trust will disperse a set amount annually to keep dh comfortable (and in keeping with current lifestyle) until he dies. After that, our kids become the beneficiaries of the trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Any assets accumulated during the course of the marriage, my husband can enjoy but after he dies, all remaining assets go my children.

Does the law work that way? Or is it once he inherits, it’s his and no one else has a say in it?

Absent a separate agreement (a trust), no, that's not how it works.