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

[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.

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

Pretty much is. Here's a state-by-state comparison: https://www.blog.theuswillregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Elective-Share-Rights-by-State.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Obviously, the answer is don't get married. But in the OP's case, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

When people get remarried, they enter into a mutual caretaking relationship. Remarriage involves economic codependency. Most estate planning attorneys will tell you to give your spouse the house because it's also their house. Give your kids some of your personal property, life insurance proceeds, money from a brokerage account, the balance in retirement accounts that weren't contributed to during the second marriage, etc., but leave your spouse the house they live in, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Pretty much is. Here's a state-by-state comparison: https://www.blog.theuswillregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Elective-Share-Rights-by-State.pdf

It says probate estate and some non private might be targeted. It may be quite challenging suing a premarital trust which is why family trusts existed in this country for the generational wealth transfer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Pretty much is. Here's a state-by-state comparison: https://www.blog.theuswillregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Elective-Share-Rights-by-State.pdf

It says probate estate and some non private might be targeted. It may be quite challenging suing a premarital trust which is why family trusts existed in this country for the generational wealth transfer

Trusts make a lot of sense, but if you create one solely to disinherit your spouse, it will be challenged. As a matter of public policy, we shouldn't allow people to shift the responsibility of caring for their widows from the marriage to the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Pretty much is. Here's a state-by-state comparison: https://www.blog.theuswillregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Elective-Share-Rights-by-State.pdf

It says probate estate and some non private might be targeted. It may be quite challenging suing a premarital trust which is why family trusts existed in this country for the generational wealth transfer

Trusts make a lot of sense, but if you create one solely to disinherit your spouse, it will be challenged. As a matter of public policy, we shouldn't allow people to shift the responsibility of caring for their widows from the marriage to the state.

The responsibility to care for people can come from the trust; arrangements can be made to provide for end of life nursing care etc that wouldn't be obligation of the state. Wealthy people can afford care for themselves and their widows without disinheriting their kids. In the end of the day, anyone who marries that late in life should have their own pension and assets (like OP's wife). and shouldn't require extra arrangements from their spouse not to become dependent on government assistance

[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.

Behold your cautionary tale, OP. ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Behold your cautionary tale, OP. ^^

My kids are nice to me but I’m a woman. Usually with kids are not nice in life to a parent, it means the parent in question did something extremely toxic to the kids or their other parent during marriage and/or divorce

[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 💯. OP has already screwed over his kids. My dad’s wife didn’t wait till his body was cold to take everything for herself and her kid, ignoring his wishes and a shoddily-drawn trust didn’t help. Now she’s locked it up.

Np, and this 100%. I am living proof that stepparents don’t and wont give a damn once the spouse passes. My dad foolishly remarried in his 70s, and passed away two years after his marriage. The morning after his death, his wife wanted to discuss the house and will. He literally hadn’t even been transported to the funeral home yet from the hospital.

If you fail to protect your children, you are a lousy parent.

[Anonymous]

So she pays half his mortgage, then her much bigger pension he gets to enjoy in retirement, then she takes care of him as caregiver then kids get house.

I am confused. You are already married. Who would agree to this. Does she have kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So she pays half his mortgage, then her much bigger pension he gets to enjoy in retirement, then she takes care of him as caregiver then kids get house.

I am confused. You are already married. Who would agree to this. Does she have kids?

yea, which is why he must give her the house. But this is not the majority of late marriages, when a man is in his 60-70s usually most assets have already accumulated and paid off and wife won't be making a sizable contribution towards marital assets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So she pays half his mortgage, then her much bigger pension he gets to enjoy in retirement, then she takes care of him as caregiver then kids get house.

I am confused. You are already married. Who would agree to this. Does she have kids?

Ya, why is he asking her to pay for his house right now? He wants to protect his home for his kids, but he also expects her to pay half of his mortgage? Pick one.

[Anonymous]

If you are not too old, you could look into a life insurance policy that would allow your new spouse to 'buy' the children out of the house. This would help pay off your 'share' of the house.

[Anonymous]

Why are you doing this to your kids? Over 50 and trying the marriage thing again oh boy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Behold your cautionary tale, OP. ^^

My kids are nice to me but I’m a woman. Usually with kids are not nice in life to a parent, it means the parent in question did something extremely toxic to the kids or their other parent during marriage and/or divorce

Or, they were brainwashed by the custodial parent to hate the other parent.

You aren't entitled to an inheritance. We just excluded my husband's kids as he hasn't talked to them in years and the mom brainwashed them against him (she cheated and took them without his consent and then would not allow contact - yes, he went to court many times and she made promises and never follwed through). He occasionally hears from one but it's superficial texts.

My dad gave all his money away to his female friends... we didn't expect anything.

My mom is giving all her money to my sibling as has always favored them (and when I found out, I cut contact as I don't care about the money but they kept it secret and my sibling was horrible to me at my dad's funeral - there may have been money but they both controlled everything and did a money grab on what little there was and my mom never so much buys me or my kids even a dollar tree gift - she has tons of money).

People need to stop focusing on the actual money and look at the relationships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Obviously, the answer is don't get married. But in the OP's case, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

When people get remarried, they enter into a mutual caretaking relationship. Remarriage involves economic codependency. Most estate planning attorneys will tell you to give your spouse the house because it's also their house. Give your kids some of your personal property, life insurance proceeds, money from a brokerage account, the balance in retirement accounts that weren't contributed to during the second marriage, etc., but leave your spouse the house they live in, too.

OP here. I didn’t realize the thread was still active.

My new wife doesn’t have children of her own, nor will she as she will be 50 next month. And I am fairly sure she will name me and my children as her own beneficiaries.

She will also have her own pension should I die first. I think the house, paid off, is fine to her and my kids get my 401k, life insurance (which I still have, for now) and other liquid assets. My lawyer cautioned the value of the house could exceed a 50% share of the other things, although that isn’t currently the case and I can revisit the will in the future as valuations shift. I would obviously also update the will when there are grandchildren.