Remarried -- how best to structure my will/trust for my adult children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do NOT add that woman to the title of the house you want to leave to your children. What you want to leave her is called a life estate which is the right to reside at a house un disturbed for the duration of her lifetime. No matter what she is smiling and telling you to your face now, assume all that will change and she will not even acknowledge your children after your death. Plan accordingly

Both of these things happened to my Dad. The life estate, which was a good idea, and my stepmother’s lawyer quickly declined so we could sell it. And her lawyer declined it because she had stopped speaking to us merely months after he died for reasons that she never explained.

What did the lawyer decline? To follow the living trust rules ? Or declined creating the living trust

It sounds like the stepmother via her lawyer just declined to accept the life estate -- they chose not to live in the house.

PP here and that’s exactly the case. Dad and stepmother lived about two thirds of the time in a house that was hers and the other third in a summer house that was his. Each of their estate plans said that they would have a life estate for a year for the house that wasn’t theirs to give the surviving spouse time to make other plans. We asked if she needed the year for the summer house (during which she would pay for any expenses) and got back a no response from her attorney.

House should almost always go to the spouse. It's personal and kids and spouse don't want an ongoing relationship post your death. Leave other stuff to your kids. This was the firm direction I got from my attorney.

What if this is the house where the kids grew up, mortgage was paid off prior to marriage to the last spouse, and the totality of the house equity was built by people the last spouse has nothing to do with ?
Men are at the height of their assets value marry late in life women who will never become true family. And if they have own children they’ll fight with the teeth to ensure that his biological kids get zero when he’s gone. The end of life care usually lasts couple years, can be arranged for by kids and may be less costly than the loss of whole estate to a different bloodline. Which is why people create trusts that step over spouses.

Using this same logics, OPs wife should have her own place and retirement by the age 50. Her assets should also keep growing while she’s married to OP, without a need to get his premarital assets

She can be cared for by giving her right to live in their house until she dies eg life estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kids should be your healthcare power of attorney, and you should set up a trust that benefits them only. Your house can go to your spouse. You owe your kids this.

This, but kids inherit the house. Leave spouse 10% of total estate or nothing.

Then don't get married. You need to care for your spouse during death. Kids are being greedy.

Spousal elective share laws require 33-50% of the estate or the spouse can challenge the entire estate, so this is terrible advice and an attorney would never advise it.

Not if spouse waives it in prenup . Elective share covers marital assets not premarital or trusts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kids should be your healthcare power of attorney, and you should set up a trust that benefits them only. Your house can go to your spouse. You owe your kids this.

This, but kids inherit the house. Leave spouse 10% of total estate or nothing.

Then don't get married. You need to care for your spouse during death. Kids are being greedy.

I'm generally team anti-step mother/father. But, I see a point here -- a lot of these spouses are caring for a sick/dying spouse for a long time and it can be very hard. They deserve something, especially if they are not in strong financial shape on their own.

But yeah. Just don't get married is the right answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pp, and yes OP your kids should at least be co-healthcare directives. My dad’s wife wanted to pull his life support immediately (when he was placed over night) before my sibling and I arrived. I told the doctor that I had his notarized POLST that said moderate life support was acceptable and we’d gotten flights to be there and that I’d sue the hospital if they listened to his wife.

You don’t think it will be contentious, but it typically is.

It's not fair to keep someone on life support for your needs. My sibling did that to my dad and put him through surgeries that it was clear he would not make it through and if he did, he'd be in a nursing home the rest of his life, which he didn't want. You need to do what's best for the person, not you. I'd want someone to pull the plug and I have told my kid that.

That PP said they told the doctor to wait until they got there. Not to "put him through multiple surgeries." Apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kids should be your healthcare power of attorney, and you should set up a trust that benefits them only. Your house can go to your spouse. You owe your kids this.

This, but kids inherit the house. Leave spouse 10% of total estate or nothing.

Then don't get married. You need to care for your spouse during death. Kids are being greedy.

Spousal elective share laws require 33-50% of the estate or the spouse can challenge the entire estate, so this is terrible advice and an attorney would never advise it.

This is not going to be the case in every state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pp, and yes OP your kids should at least be co-healthcare directives. My dad’s wife wanted to pull his life support immediately (when he was placed over night) before my sibling and I arrived. I told the doctor that I had his notarized POLST that said moderate life support was acceptable and we’d gotten flights to be there and that I’d sue the hospital if they listened to his wife.

You don’t think it will be contentious, but it typically is.

It's not fair to keep someone on life support for your needs. My sibling did that to my dad and put him through surgeries that it was clear he would not make it through and if he did, he'd be in a nursing home the rest of his life, which he didn't want. You need to do what's best for the person, not you. I'd want someone to pull the plug and I have told my kid that.

Please learn to read and not throw your family’s dysfunction on to others. Your situation is not remotely similar to mine, where she wanted to pull the plug before we arrived 10 hours later (and then made hospital staff jump hoops at 1am after they planned to do it at 9am because she’s that awful). My dad died peacefully knowing we were there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kids should be your healthcare power of attorney, and you should set up a trust that benefits them only. Your house can go to your spouse. You owe your kids this.

This, but kids inherit the house. Leave spouse 10% of total estate or nothing.

Then don't get married. You need to care for your spouse during death. Kids are being greedy.

I'm generally team anti-step mother/father. But, I see a point here -- a lot of these spouses are caring for a sick/dying spouse for a long time and it can be very hard. They deserve something, especially if they are not in strong financial shape on their own.

But yeah. Just don't get married is the right answer.

PP here with the Dad and the stepmother who suddenly stopped speaking to us and never told us why. They had a prenup that kept all of their money separate until he got sick. Having spent years with my mom and the horribly debilitating disease that killed her, he recognized the bolded above and adjusted his plan so she got seven figures. Then once he got sick she hardly ever visited him, took no responsibility for his care, and didn’t let him come back to (her) house where they had spent decades together, and he died only months later. This was a couple years after he nursed her through treatment for two separate simultaneous cancers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pp, and yes OP your kids should at least be co-healthcare directives. My dad’s wife wanted to pull his life support immediately (when he was placed over night) before my sibling and I arrived. I told the doctor that I had his notarized POLST that said moderate life support was acceptable and we’d gotten flights to be there and that I’d sue the hospital if they listened to his wife.

You don’t think it will be contentious, but it typically is.

It's not fair to keep someone on life support for your needs. My sibling did that to my dad and put him through surgeries that it was clear he would not make it through and if he did, he'd be in a nursing home the rest of his life, which he didn't want. You need to do what's best for the person, not you. I'd want someone to pull the plug and I have told my kid that.

Please learn to read and not throw your family’s dysfunction on to others. Your situation is not remotely similar to mine, where she wanted to pull the plug before we arrived 10 hours later (and then made hospital staff jump hoops at 1am after they planned to do it at 9am because she’s that awful). My dad died peacefully knowing we were there.

You clearly have dysfunction and there is more to the story. Maybe you didn't treat either of them well. If my husband goes first, I will not tell his kids as they weren't kind to him in life and would only do a money grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My FIL never remarried because of things like this. Put it all in a trust and be very clear who gets what. I know adults who lost entire inheritances (and at least one was old money) to step parents and step siblings. My own FIL made sure no spouse could never touch the inherence and it goes straight to grandkids. A second person (non-spouse) has to sign off on anything trust related. I am comfortable financially and I am glad my children are taken care of. I would advise you to do something similar.

This happened to me. Everything left to my stepfather and stepbrother. And yes, it was “old money”. Money that have been passed down several generations, so it’s not like my mother earned it or something. It should have remained in our family. I spoke with an attorney who had done a previous trust for my mother, a trust that left everything to me, and he suggested that my mother was not in her right mind when the new trust — the one benefiting my step brother— was drawn up. In fact, she had discussed with that attorney that she didn’t want anything at all going to her husband or any member of his family, because he had not treated her very well (which was true). Ultimately, though, it was not something we were going to be able to prove in court. One of the things that annoys me the most is that my stepfather had plenty of his own money, and left a couple million of his own to his son. They had plenty of money. They didn’t need my mother’s. But this happened anyway.

Same. My dad changed his will and the related trusts when he was clearly in the early stages of dementia but did not yet have that diagnosis. Left almost everything to his wife despite a very different plan previously.

[Anonymous]

Yah - my dad has had the same girlfriend for 20 years. This is why he wont remarry.

I’d just keep everything as separate as possible.

My mom remarried and her spouse contested everything. She died after two years of marriage (to my dad which was 29 years) to new guy and he wanted everything. Her will said kids got it all. He fought it and got cash. We also gave him a few very expensive very expensive items (think car) but he still wanted more. Refused to move out do the house. It was a mess.

Be very very clear in your will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pp, and yes OP your kids should at least be co-healthcare directives. My dad’s wife wanted to pull his life support immediately (when he was placed over night) before my sibling and I arrived. I told the doctor that I had his notarized POLST that said moderate life support was acceptable and we’d gotten flights to be there and that I’d sue the hospital if they listened to his wife.

You don’t think it will be contentious, but it typically is.

It's not fair to keep someone on life support for your needs. My sibling did that to my dad and put him through surgeries that it was clear he would not make it through and if he did, he'd be in a nursing home the rest of his life, which he didn't want. You need to do what's best for the person, not you. I'd want someone to pull the plug and I have told my kid that.

Please learn to read and not throw your family’s dysfunction on to others. Your situation is not remotely similar to mine, where she wanted to pull the plug before we arrived 10 hours later (and then made hospital staff jump hoops at 1am after they planned to do it at 9am because she’s that awful). My dad died peacefully knowing we were there.

You clearly have dysfunction and there is more to the story. Maybe you didn't treat either of them well. If my husband goes first, I will not tell his kids as they weren't kind to him in life and would only do a money grab.

Jesus you are evil ! Here we have a gold digger step mother.

It’s not up to you when to notify the kids. Should be done by his will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do NOT add that woman to the title of the house you want to leave to your children. What you want to leave her is called a life estate which is the right to reside at a house un disturbed for the duration of her lifetime. No matter what she is smiling and telling you to your face now, assume all that will change and she will not even acknowledge your children after your death. Plan accordingly

This is the answer.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do NOT add that woman to the title of the house you want to leave to your children. What you want to leave her is called a life estate which is the right to reside at a house un disturbed for the duration of her lifetime. No matter what she is smiling and telling you to your face now, assume all that will change and she will not even acknowledge your children after your death. Plan accordingly

Both of these things happened to my Dad. The life estate, which was a good idea, and my stepmother’s lawyer quickly declined so we could sell it. And her lawyer declined it because she had stopped speaking to us merely months after he died for reasons that she never explained.

What did the lawyer decline? To follow the living trust rules ? Or declined creating the living trust

It sounds like the stepmother via her lawyer just declined to accept the life estate -- they chose not to live in the house.

PP here and that’s exactly the case. Dad and stepmother lived about two thirds of the time in a house that was hers and the other third in a summer house that was his. Each of their estate plans said that they would have a life estate for a year for the house that wasn’t theirs to give the surviving spouse time to make other plans. We asked if she needed the year for the summer house (during which she would pay for any expenses) and got back a no response from her attorney.

House should almost always go to the spouse. It's personal and kids and spouse don't want an ongoing relationship post your death. Leave other stuff to your kids. This was the firm direction I got from my attorney.

What if this is the house where the kids grew up, mortgage was paid off prior to marriage to the last spouse, and the totality of the house equity was built by people the last spouse has nothing to do with ?
Men are at the height of their assets value marry late in life women who will never become true family. And if they have own children they’ll fight with the teeth to ensure that his biological kids get zero when he’s gone. The end of life care usually lasts couple years, can be arranged for by kids and may be less costly than the loss of whole estate to a different bloodline. Which is why people create trusts that step over spouses.

Using this same logics, OPs wife should have her own place and retirement by the age 50. Her assets should also keep growing while she’s married to OP, without a need to get his premarital assets

She can be cared for by giving her right to live in their house until she dies eg life estate.

Life estates suck for everyone involved.

Unless waived, you have to give your spouse 33-35% of your estate, or they can challenge it and claim an elective share. Most people don't have 33-50% of their estate tied up in a house, so they should have plenty to give to their kids. If they don't, they take out a life insurance policy. Give your spouse the house, and your kids the other money. It's fine to specifically outline personal family heirlooms in the home you want to go to ywith our kids.

The reason my attorney advised against this approach (leaving life estate to a surviving spouse with the remainder interest to children - stepchildren of the surviving spouse) is that it creates significant ongoing conflict between people who, in all likelihood, won't want an ongoing relationship. The life tenant (spouse) has the right to live in the property but lacks the incentive to maintain or improve it since they don't own the remainder interest, while the remaindermen (stepchildren of the surviving spouse) have no current possessory rights but bear the financial burden of watching the property's condition potentially deteriorate. There are disputes over who should pay for repairs, maintenance, property taxes, and insurance, with neither party wanting to invest in a property they don't fully control. Additionally, the surviving spouse cannot sell or refinance the property without the stepchildren's consent, creating potential deadlock if funds are needed for long-term care or relocation. It's just a bad idea, and it almost ensures that strained relationships between a stepparent and stepchildren will continue post your death. There could be years of costly litigation that directly contradict your intentions when you created your will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kids should be your healthcare power of attorney, and you should set up a trust that benefits them only. Your house can go to your spouse. You owe your kids this.

This, but kids inherit the house. Leave spouse 10% of total estate or nothing.

Then don't get married. You need to care for your spouse during death. Kids are being greedy.

Spousal elective share laws require 33-50% of the estate or the spouse can challenge the entire estate, so this is terrible advice and an attorney would never advise it.

Not if spouse waives it in prenup . Elective share covers marital assets not premarital or trusts

Depends on your state. In most states, the augmented estate does included premarital property. Trusts set up before remarriage, plus a specific spousal waiver in a prenup, can avoid this issue, but who's going to waive their elective share in a prenup if they aren't independently wealthy themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do NOT add that woman to the title of the house you want to leave to your children. What you want to leave her is called a life estate which is the right to reside at a house un disturbed for the duration of her lifetime. No matter what she is smiling and telling you to your face now, assume all that will change and she will not even acknowledge your children after your death. Plan accordingly

Both of these things happened to my Dad. The life estate, which was a good idea, and my stepmother’s lawyer quickly declined so we could sell it. And her lawyer declined it because she had stopped speaking to us merely months after he died for reasons that she never explained.

What did the lawyer decline? To follow the living trust rules ? Or declined creating the living trust

It sounds like the stepmother via her lawyer just declined to accept the life estate -- they chose not to live in the house.

PP here and that’s exactly the case. Dad and stepmother lived about two thirds of the time in a house that was hers and the other third in a summer house that was his. Each of their estate plans said that they would have a life estate for a year for the house that wasn’t theirs to give the surviving spouse time to make other plans. We asked if she needed the year for the summer house (during which she would pay for any expenses) and got back a no response from her attorney.

House should almost always go to the spouse. It's personal and kids and spouse don't want an ongoing relationship post your death. Leave other stuff to your kids. This was the firm direction I got from my attorney.

What if this is the house where the kids grew up, mortgage was paid off prior to marriage to the last spouse, and the totality of the house equity was built by people the last spouse has nothing to do with ?
Men are at the height of their assets value marry late in life women who will never become true family. And if they have own children they’ll fight with the teeth to ensure that his biological kids get zero when he’s gone. The end of life care usually lasts couple years, can be arranged for by kids and may be less costly than the loss of whole estate to a different bloodline. Which is why people create trusts that step over spouses.

Using this same logics, OPs wife should have her own place and retirement by the age 50. Her assets should also keep growing while she’s married to OP, without a need to get his premarital assets

She can be cared for by giving her right to live in their house until she dies eg life estate.

Life estates suck for everyone involved.

Unless waived, you have to give your spouse 33-35% of your estate, or they can challenge it and claim an elective share. Most people don't have 33-50% of their estate tied up in a house, so they should have plenty to give to their kids. If they don't, they take out a life insurance policy. Give your spouse the house, and your kids the other money. It's fine to specifically outline personal family heirlooms in the home you want to go to ywith our kids.

The reason my attorney advised against this approach (leaving life estate to a surviving spouse with the remainder interest to children - stepchildren of the surviving spouse) is that it creates significant ongoing conflict between people who, in all likelihood, won't want an ongoing relationship. The life tenant (spouse) has the right to live in the property but lacks the incentive to maintain or improve it since they don't own the remainder interest, while the remaindermen (stepchildren of the surviving spouse) have no current possessory rights but bear the financial burden of watching the property's condition potentially deteriorate. There are disputes over who should pay for repairs, maintenance, property taxes, and insurance, with neither party wanting to invest in a property they don't fully control. Additionally, the surviving spouse cannot sell or refinance the property without the stepchildren's consent, creating potential deadlock if funds are needed for long-term care or relocation. It's just a bad idea, and it almost ensures that strained relationships between a stepparent and stepchildren will continue post your death. There could be years of costly litigation that directly contradict your intentions when you created your will.

It totally depends on the value of the house. If it's a multi-mullion dollar estate, I don't see any reason why the spouse should inherit it. People should be VERY careful with remarriage.

I wouldn't bring a spouse into my pre-marital house that I want my kids to inherit. But I wouldn't remarry ether, given the issues with spousal elective share. Nobody besides my kids should get a windfall and I particular wouldn't want my hard earned money going to spouse own kids.

Women operate in the interests of their biological kids. If man remarries to woman with kids - he's guaranteed to screw over his own children in favor of step kids