Best use for 1.6 million inheritance

[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.

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.

WTF are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

Yes, generally speaking it's for future generations of your kids. A good dynamic in marriage can stay even when spouses create trusts over inherited money with kids as beneficiaries. The income from the trust can be used for your spouse, as long as you're married and terminates with divorce. It's a very common practice in high networth families.

Not sure why a spouse who divorced from me should be entitled for any income from generational trust

In this case, we're talking about an inheritance of $500,000, and all the income it generates just stays in the taxable account it's in. The risk that my wife might one day wind up with $250,000 that someone else had given to me didn't seem like it was worth being weird about the money. I intend to commingle whatever (larger) amount we inherit from my parents one day, too, though. By that point, my wife will have been part of my family for decades (certainly longer than my kids have!).

And anyway, again, inherited money is money I did absolutely nothing to earn or deserve, so it seems ridiculous to claim I'm entitled to all of it, just on principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. No one is saying that the inheriting spouse should be a miser - they shouldn't. But the money should, at a minimum, go into a solo account for them. Whatever happens with it after that, it's the ultimate decision of the inheriting spouse.

My wife stands to inherit a moderate sum, and it will be deposited in a separate account. I expect we'll discuss what to do with it, just like we discuss all our financial decisions, and it will integrate into our overall financial plan, but it's still all hers. Similarly, I likely will inherit a small vacation condo (worth far less than her likely inheritance), that will remain in my name. That, too, will be integrated with our overall finances.

The people advocating for extremes on both sides (you have to commingle you have a strong marriage v. keep it separate and only use for the inheriting spouse and kids) are making this unnecessarily complicated.

I am pro-commingling in my case but don't think you HAVE to in order to have a strong marriage. But I do think setting up separate accounts in each spouse's name is actually marginally more complicated than just keeping things joint. Also, if there's no divorce, it never gets complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

Yes, generally speaking it's for future generations of your kids. A good dynamic in marriage can stay even when spouses create trusts over inherited money with kids as beneficiaries. The income from the trust can be used for your spouse, as long as you're married and terminates with divorce. It's a very common practice in high networth families.

Not sure why a spouse who divorced from me should be entitled for any income from generational trust

In this case, we're talking about an inheritance of $500,000, and all the income it generates just stays in the taxable account it's in. The risk that my wife might one day wind up with $250,000 that someone else had given to me didn't seem like it was worth being weird about the money. I intend to commingle whatever (larger) amount we inherit from my parents one day, too, though. By that point, my wife will have been part of my family for decades (certainly longer than my kids have!).

And anyway, again, inherited money is money I did absolutely nothing to earn or deserve, so it seems ridiculous to claim I'm entitled to all of it, just on principal.

That you, or your wife, consider keeping inherits assets separate "being weird with money" indicates either a real gap in financial education or, again, some underlying issues that have noting to do with the inheritance. This is a routing practice recommended by financial planners everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

Thanks for your advice. This was 11 years and two kids ago, our marriage is great, and you don’t actually know me, so I think “you decided it would create an imbalance in your relationship if one of you had a ton more money than the other one, therefore, you must have serious problems you’re trying to buy your way out of” is a bit of a stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

Yes, generally speaking it's for future generations of your kids. A good dynamic in marriage can stay even when spouses create trusts over inherited money with kids as beneficiaries. The income from the trust can be used for your spouse, as long as you're married and terminates with divorce. It's a very common practice in high networth families.

Not sure why a spouse who divorced from me should be entitled for any income from generational trust

In this case, we're talking about an inheritance of $500,000, and all the income it generates just stays in the taxable account it's in. The risk that my wife might one day wind up with $250,000 that someone else had given to me didn't seem like it was worth being weird about the money. I intend to commingle whatever (larger) amount we inherit from my parents one day, too, though. By that point, my wife will have been part of my family for decades (certainly longer than my kids have!).

And anyway, again, inherited money is money I did absolutely nothing to earn or deserve, so it seems ridiculous to claim I'm entitled to all of it, just on principal.

That you, or your wife, consider keeping inherits assets separate "being weird with money" indicates either a real gap in financial education or, again, some underlying issues that have noting to do with the inheritance. This is a routing practice recommended by financial planners everywhere.

Certainly she didn’t push for me to commingle anything. I was, and remain, aware of the point of keeping inheritances separate. I just don’t believe it’s necessary, nor do I care about keeping assets within a bloodline or whatever. I don’t see why you would be particularly concerned with this choice, since it clearly affect absolutely no one except me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

Thanks for your advice. This was 11 years and two kids ago, our marriage is great, and you don’t actually know me, so I think “you decided it would create an imbalance in your relationship if one of you had a ton more money than the other one, therefore, you must have serious problems you’re trying to buy your way out of” is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I hope you're right. But the fact that one or both of you would view using the inheritance for the benefit of the family as you jointly decide, but simply keeping it in a separately titled individual account as something that creates an imbalance does seem to suggest that there are underlying issues at play. I can't imagine that anyone secure in their relationship would feel that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

Thanks for your advice. This was 11 years and two kids ago, our marriage is great, and you don’t actually know me, so I think “you decided it would create an imbalance in your relationship if one of you had a ton more money than the other one, therefore, you must have serious problems you’re trying to buy your way out of” is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I hope you're right. But the fact that one or both of you would view using the inheritance for the benefit of the family as you jointly decide, but simply keeping it in a separately titled individual account as something that creates an imbalance does seem to suggest that there are underlying issues at play. I can't imagine that anyone secure in their relationship would feel that way.

I just didn’t see why it should belong only to me, even if we were to divorce. I didn’t have anything to do with earning the money. Seemed absurd to say she could never have any claim on it under any circumstances.

[Anonymous]

I was listening to a finance podcast this morning and then suggested setting it up in a trust and just living off the income- never touching the principal. 1.6 mil paying 3% interest would be almost 50k/yr before tax. They said this helps preserve the inheritance for future generations since most wealth tends to be spent by the 2nd or 3rd generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was listening to a finance podcast this morning and then suggested setting it up in a trust and just living off the income- never touching the principal. 1.6 mil paying 3% interest would be almost 50k/yr before tax. They said this helps preserve the inheritance for future generations since most wealth tends to be spent by the 2nd or 3rd generation.

To clarify, they meant to use it to supplement your income while continuing to work, not living on just the inheritance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s short sighted and against your biological children interests because even if you don’t care, the money could be a future lifeline for them. Imagine you divorce and your exW remarries abs has kids with new husband. Your natural kids’ share would be diluted with half brothers when she dies

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

Thanks for your advice. This was 11 years and two kids ago, our marriage is great, and you don’t actually know me, so I think “you decided it would create an imbalance in your relationship if one of you had a ton more money than the other one, therefore, you must have serious problems you’re trying to buy your way out of” is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I hope you're right. But the fact that one or both of you would view using the inheritance for the benefit of the family as you jointly decide, but simply keeping it in a separately titled individual account as something that creates an imbalance does seem to suggest that there are underlying issues at play. I can't imagine that anyone secure in their relationship would feel that way.

I just didn’t see why it should belong only to me, even if we were to divorce. I didn’t have anything to do with earning the money. Seemed absurd to say she could never have any claim on it under any circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

Thanks for your advice. This was 11 years and two kids ago, our marriage is great, and you don’t actually know me, so I think “you decided it would create an imbalance in your relationship if one of you had a ton more money than the other one, therefore, you must have serious problems you’re trying to buy your way out of” is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I hope you're right. But the fact that one or both of you would view using the inheritance for the benefit of the family as you jointly decide, but simply keeping it in a separately titled individual account as something that creates an imbalance does seem to suggest that there are underlying issues at play. I can't imagine that anyone secure in their relationship would feel that way.

I just didn’t see why it should belong only to me, even if we were to divorce. I didn’t have anything to do with earning the money. Seemed absurd to say she could never have any claim on it under any circumstances.

This view point is not in your natural children best interests. Exposes them to dilution of family assets which could be an important lifeline when you are gone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

Thanks for your advice. This was 11 years and two kids ago, our marriage is great, and you don’t actually know me, so I think “you decided it would create an imbalance in your relationship if one of you had a ton more money than the other one, therefore, you must have serious problems you’re trying to buy your way out of” is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I hope you're right. But the fact that one or both of you would view using the inheritance for the benefit of the family as you jointly decide, but simply keeping it in a separately titled individual account as something that creates an imbalance does seem to suggest that there are underlying issues at play. I can't imagine that anyone secure in their relationship would feel that way.

I just didn’t see why it should belong only to me, even if we were to divorce. I didn’t have anything to do with earning the money. Seemed absurd to say she could never have any claim on it under any circumstances.

This view point is not in your natural children best interests. Exposes them to dilution of family assets which could be an important lifeline when you are gone

My children would never have existed at all without their mother, so I think they'll be OK if -- in some hypothetical situation where we get divorced -- she winds up with half of some money that I inherited well after we were married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

This suggests some underlying issues with your marriage that you may be trying to paper over or remediate by commingling the assets. It may be worth addressing them head on, rather than hoping that taking ill-advised financial decisions will solve them.

Thanks for your advice. This was 11 years and two kids ago, our marriage is great, and you don’t actually know me, so I think “you decided it would create an imbalance in your relationship if one of you had a ton more money than the other one, therefore, you must have serious problems you’re trying to buy your way out of” is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I hope you're right. But the fact that one or both of you would view using the inheritance for the benefit of the family as you jointly decide, but simply keeping it in a separately titled individual account as something that creates an imbalance does seem to suggest that there are underlying issues at play. I can't imagine that anyone secure in their relationship would feel that way.

I just didn’t see why it should belong only to me, even if we were to divorce. I didn’t have anything to do with earning the money. Seemed absurd to say she could never have any claim on it under any circumstances.

This view point is not in your natural children best interests. Exposes them to dilution of family assets which could be an important lifeline when you are gone

My children would never have existed at all without their mother, so I think they'll be OK if -- in some hypothetical situation where we get divorced -- she winds up with half of some money that I inherited well after we were married.

DP. I think the larger point is that if you don't have any issues in your marriage -- financial or otherwise -- it doesn't matter how the accounts that the funds are in are titled. It just doesn't matter either way. My DH and I married later in life, and we have a myriad of accounts, some in my name, some in his, and some are joint. Some of the individual accounts are ones we had before the marriage and just never retitled, some are inherited money on both sides. It's all "our" money and all decisions about how to manage it are made jointly. For us, where the money comes from for any particular expenditure depends on what makes sense at the moment from an investment and tax efficiency standpoint.

There's someone on here who complains about their spouse not sharing their inheritance for daily expenses, and it's pretty clear that, in a case like that, the money is just a symptom of the problems in the marriage.