Best use for 1.6 million inheritance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

I'm on the PP who said they wouldn't commingle.

Here's my thoughts. I think it's fine if you decide to commingle, but I think the person inheriting (male or female) should be the one to make the decision. And I think they should understand the ramifications of commingling the money.

What bothers me about the OP's initial statement is the fact the husband wants the money spent a certain way. That doesn't sit right and maybe it's just semantics, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Ok I definitely want to put some in retirement and the rest in 529. That’s what my dad would want anyway. He was a saver. That’s why each of his five kids are even getting this solid amount. I need to be more like him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late 40s with such low retirement? I would invest it for retirement, OP.

This assumes that you can carry college costs solely on your income, as you've suggested.

I wouldn't pay down the house, unless you cannot cover college tuition and private school with your income. Of course this all depends on your mortgage rate, compared to rate of return you might get by buying at a low in the stock market. Expectations are that the stock market will hit hit bottom 3 to 6 months into the war in Ukraine, but we're not there yet, and there's a stagflation/recession looming for next year, so, the usual rule of thumb applies: don't try to time the market exactly, start buying solid company stocks if they've tumbled significantly from their 52 week high.

Seriously, only DCUrban would consider that low!

I mean, 2.8m with an average 7% annual rate of return would be 5.6m by their late 50s with no further contributions!

Time to move into a basement apartment in the far out exurbs and eat only Aldi rice and beans!

[Anonymous]

I’m a divorced woman who almost learned a really hard lesson. Shortly after my dad passed away and we used my $40k inheritance to upgrade the kitchen my husband and I separated. There was a very good chance at the time that we’d have to sell the house. I may as well have flushed that inheritance down the toilet. Had I inherited my parents full estate I didn’t know better at the time than to not commingle the assets. And would have lost half to him.

After we split up my XH remarried and almost immediately started a new family. He went from one heir to three and a new wife. All of the things he assured my son he’d inherit will never come to fruition. His entire estate will roll to his current (or the next) wife. All of my assets have been placed in a trust to protect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a divorced woman who almost learned a really hard lesson. Shortly after my dad passed away and we used my $40k inheritance to upgrade the kitchen my husband and I separated. There was a very good chance at the time that we’d have to sell the house. I may as well have flushed that inheritance down the toilet. Had I inherited my parents full estate I didn’t know better at the time than to not commingle the assets. And would have lost half to him.

After we split up my XH remarried and almost immediately started a new family. He went from one heir to three and a new wife. All of the things he assured my son he’d inherit will never come to fruition. His entire estate will roll to his current (or the next) wife. All of my assets have been placed in a trust to protect them.

What "your assets" went to his trust? 40K? this is too small of an amount to worry about. If you mean 50% of joint marital assets he got in divorce then it's his right to give them whoever he wants.

But you are right: if you were an OP and commingled $1.7mm that would be catastrophical

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok I definitely want to put some in retirement and the rest in 529. That’s what my dad would want anyway. He was a saver. That’s why each of his five kids are even getting this solid amount. I need to be more like him

Dont put anything in 401k all retirement accounts are joint.Consult with a lawyer first before you move your inheritance around

[Anonymous]

Having sole power re: a decision does not mean one is "keeping it from their spouse".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

I have a good marriage and my husband puts me first. He'd take the money and put it in my name only mainly because he worries if something happens to him that I have easy access to money. I'm surprised by the comments. There is no reason to co-mingle it. We might spend some on the house, etc. but my husband is also the person to max out my retirement every year. You know you have a good marriage when your spouse puts you first and would keep this money in your name only.

[Anonymous]

Because their decision may very well be: to pay down the mortgage, fund the children's education ... anything. And something that might benefit both spouse. But the decision is -entirely- made by the one who inherited the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

Maybe the deceased won't care, but given adultery is the main reason for divorces, the person who commingled assets with a cheater would certainly care. I would literally die if half of my parents' estate go to next wife/former AP I was cheated on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

I'm on the PP who said they wouldn't commingle.

Here's my thoughts. I think it's fine if you decide to commingle, but I think the person inheriting (male or female) should be the one to make the decision. And I think they should understand the ramifications of commingling the money.

What bothers me about the OP's initial statement is the fact the husband wants the money spent a certain way. That doesn't sit right and maybe it's just semantics, but it is what it is.

Nice try. Your parents raised you to keep the money they give you to yourself. Neither your nor they really think your husband is worthy of you. But trust me, he is buidling resentment and is a better person than you all are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

You're right. 30 years of love, trust, and raising a family together is no reason to continue being equal partners. Time to tilt the balance and show spouse who has the power--and all because mommy and daddy saved money for you and hates your spouse as much as you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

You're right. 30 years of love, trust, and raising a family together is no reason to continue being equal partners. Time to tilt the balance and show spouse who has the power--and all because mommy and daddy saved money for you and hates your spouse as much as you do.

Sometimes in a long marriage people just grow apart, and have different retirement plans, careers etc. your spouse may not be that much into you and it’s nobody’s fault he doesn’t want to commingle

Women in general are more vulnerable and loose most in divorces, due to us child bearing . Being a woman, I would not commingle an inheritance with my spouse. I would set up a trust for my own children and continue living same lifestyle as before. Of course I would finance joint family trips etc for fun, not to make my spouse feel I am withholding pleasures from my fortune to myself. We would continue living the same with exception of a few “joint family treats”.