I don't know why (or how) so many PPs are jumping to Mars by saying that OP's friend tried to "dictate" that the husband not have another wife or more children. She did not say that. She was clearly concerned with end of life things, like her money and how it would be passed down to her son, and the husband said no worries, of course I'll look after it and give to him when he's ready, no need to write anything down, I'd never betray you, etc. And now he's giving away all that money - HER money - because his judgement is clouded.

The two situations are NIGHT AND DAY different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

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

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

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

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

he

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

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

Only because she did seek out and make Legal protections.

Morally, her money = son's money.

Are you a second wife by chance pp?

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

I agree with this.

OP, MYOB

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

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

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

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

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

he

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

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

Only because she did seek out and make Legal protections.

Morally, her money = son's money.

Are you a second wife by chance pp?

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

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

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

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

I would be fine with my spouse remarrying and having other kids but definitely would only want my money going to my kids. Guess I may have to revisit my will at some point. Can totally understand being frustrated for your friend (about the son but not about remarriage.)

It really doesn't matter what OP thinks, so she can go be as mad as she wants and it won't change a damn thing.

Just like HIS money becomes HER money upon marriage, in this instance, HER money became HIS money upon her death. MYOB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

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

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

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

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

he

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

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

Only because she did seek out and make Legal protections.

Morally, her money = son's money.

Are you a second wife by chance pp?

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

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

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

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

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

he

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

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

Only because she did seek out and make Legal protections.

Morally, her money = son's money.

Are you a second wife by chance pp?

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

His now. His money, his business. Mind your own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you talked to the son? Has he expressed his feelings about his dad remarrying, and getting the woman pregnant?

WTF? you and the others in your weird sisterhood do not understand boundaries. Seriously, what the hell gives anyone the right to meddle in the business of someone else's family? Get a f'ing clue and stay the f*** away from this man, his kid, and that entire family.

lol OP made it sound like she is still close to the father and son. The son is grown so he may have expressed his feelings on the matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all men, but many are back stabbers. His wife didn't care if he re-married I'm sure, but at 50 he had no business having anymore kids. What a slap in the face to his current one. A man having kids with various partners is beyond low class and vile.

Seek therapy. You have a problem.

You know it's true. I feel sorry for his son who is still in HS.

I was going to suggest the same thing to you. And raise the bar while you're at it.

“ A man having kids with various partners is beyond low class and vile.”

A man remarrying and continuing to have a life, including fathering children, is pretty damn normal. Calling that vile is truly bizarre.

In most situations it is. It's a big problem and family court reflects this. People going from partner to partner isn't conductive for the kids growth and development. Especially if they're not raised in the same home together with stable parents. Another factoid, the so called "blended family" hasn't worked. Pretty bad when second marriages end at approximately a 70% divorce rate. The kids being shuffled all over isn't working for the kids themselves. I guess you don't talk to many teachers?

Yes especially men because I seldom see them taking 100% care of their kids. Often they pass that job on to the new gf or spouse.

This man's wife DIED. He didn't willingly go "from partner to partner". Is he supposed to spend the next 40 years alone because blended families are hard?

No one ever said he shouldn't find another partner. Getting a woman pregnant at 50 isn't the brightest idea. OP is understandably disgusted because he betrayed his word to his deceased wife.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

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

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

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

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

he

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

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

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

She trusted her spouse. I feel for their son.

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

similar story..my wife died when I was 55 [ after a 12 year illness] I met a new gal, but did something smart...she has grown children & we have zero desire for any more...we're now perpetual newlyweds

Anonymous wrote:Just because it’s come up,

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

You don’t know what the future holds. Maybe this also means that your friend’s son now has a bit more family in the world. Who knows what kind of relationships he could build in the new family.