Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who the hell cares? It’s $15,000 for something your husband really loves and cares about. Why are you being such a stickler unless you’re considering divorce?

This

Because their kids are heading to college and they have no extra cash? The OP literally says this. My kids college matters more than my husband’s random summer shack.

Oh hell no.

If the trust is gone, then the cabin is just a money pit.

Right now any money your husband spends on his nostalgia is stealing from your children’s future AND yours.

Unless your retirement account is fully funded, your children’s college fund is maxed out, your house and cars are fully paid off, you are not in a position to give your in-laws thousands of dollars of marital money. And make no mistake, that is exactly what this is. A gift of thousands of dollars to your in-laws at the expense of your children.

I would divorce over this.

Anonymous wrote:Who the hell cares? It’s $15,000 for something your husband really loves and cares about. Why are you being such a stickler unless you’re considering divorce?

This

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW. I would never sign a prenup that my in laws asked me to sign. I would never ask my kids spouses to sign one (and we have significant assets)

My inlaws said the same thing. It all sounds so generous and fair, and "welcome to the family." Then when my husband was at the age to take over his trust, guess what. It was in a trust in his name only, where almost every penny of it has stayed for the last 20 years. H e made clear recently I will never see a dime of it. He's saving if for our kids. Even though we decided early on that my salary, since it's not tied up in the market, would be used to pay all our expenses, so he could let his assets sit and gain without taking on taxes. Then 20 years later he changed his mind, after no working for 13 of those 20 years. Get a post-nup OP. If I had to do it over again, I would have. Now I have a choice to continue being his indentured servant or be broke.

So you married a selfish, unemployed deadbeat that you thought was loaded and would share. Jokes on you but has nothing to do with OP.

What a kind and helpful post.

As helpful as the post I quoted.

Anonymous wrote:FWIW. I would never sign a prenup that my in laws asked me to sign. I would never ask my kids spouses to sign one (and we have significant assets)

100 percent this same

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW. I would never sign a prenup that my in laws asked me to sign. I would never ask my kids spouses to sign one (and we have significant assets)

My inlaws said the same thing. It all sounds so generous and fair, and "welcome to the family." Then when my husband was at the age to take over his trust, guess what. It was in a trust in his name only, where almost every penny of it has stayed for the last 20 years. H e made clear recently I will never see a dime of it. He's saving if for our kids. Even though we decided early on that my salary, since it's not tied up in the market, would be used to pay all our expenses, so he could let his assets sit and gain without taking on taxes. Then 20 years later he changed his mind, after no working for 13 of those 20 years. Get a post-nup OP. If I had to do it over again, I would have. Now I have a choice to continue being his indentured servant or be broke.

So you married a selfish, unemployed deadbeat that you thought was loaded and would share. Jokes on you but has nothing to do with OP.

What a kind and helpful post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW. I would never sign a prenup that my in laws asked me to sign. I would never ask my kids spouses to sign one (and we have significant assets)

My inlaws said the same thing. It all sounds so generous and fair, and "welcome to the family." Then when my husband was at the age to take over his trust, guess what. It was in a trust in his name only, where almost every penny of it has stayed for the last 20 years. H e made clear recently I will never see a dime of it. He's saving if for our kids. Even though we decided early on that my salary, since it's not tied up in the market, would be used to pay all our expenses, so he could let his assets sit and gain without taking on taxes. Then 20 years later he changed his mind, after no working for 13 of those 20 years. Get a post-nup OP. If I had to do it over again, I would have. Now I have a choice to continue being his indentured servant or be broke.

So you married a selfish, unemployed deadbeat that you thought was loaded and would share. Jokes on you but has nothing to do with OP.

Anonymous wrote:You might want to move to the money or relationship forum.

If you point out it voids the prenup and they were to say “oh well, I guess that’s what it will take” then you’re still stuck with paying marital funds that it sounds like you can’t really afford. Could you start with that conversation with your husband?

Our family sold our multigenerational home 4 years ago and it was painful but financially necessary.

I came from a family that had an emotionally precious summer-only large home. There were no pre-nups about it. Eventually my father and his brother sold it. It's been gone for 24 years.

My sister and I went there every summer for our entire childhood. The sale is a psychic wound for my father and sister. That impacts my mother. I am regretful but our family couldn't have afforded it in our generation. It's been sold twice and the price is about 40% of my net worth for a house with spring water, 30 minutes from a grocery store and hospital, that's not winterized. And I get max 4 weeks of vacation in summer.

OP, you might want to read a book called "The Big House" by George Howe Colt. It describes how special this kind of place can be.

I don't think you should be offended by the pre-nup. Because they were just trying to prevent a forced sale or an unpleasant time sharing agreement up-front. That makes emotional sense to me because these places are psychically irreplaceable.

But I agree you should inform your DH that the pre-nup is voided if your marital money goes into the property.

The economics of this place are likely such that it will have to be sold. And then the profits need to flow back to your DH. At that point, there's really no emotional logic in keeping that money his alone. They need to cut you in if you have to contribute.

How bad was it for my family? My sister booked a vacation in another state at a lake house on a same name lake. Think "Lake Smith". I went on the vacation but it was a crappy lake and I told her it was upsetting rather than a fun coincidence and never to book there again.

Please try to have some understanding for your husband. Just writing this is making me sad. The one thing that's true about these money pits is that they might be the only home that someone's had for their entire life. When my dad sold ours, he got four years of one free week stay written into the deal. So the last year, I went and got to stay in "my house" as redecorated with furnishings formerly owned by my family moved around plus random new owner decor. It was so weird, I stayed only 2 days and then left.

Anonymous wrote:Who the hell cares? It’s $15,000 for something your husband really loves and cares about. Why are you being such a stickler unless you’re considering divorce?

Not everyone can afford to pay 15k per YEAR for something just because they really like it...

Who the hell cares? It’s $15,000 for something your husband really loves and cares about. Why are you being such a stickler unless you’re considering divorce?

Everyone is focusing on the pre-nup - logical - but I don't think it's really the issue right now. The issue is the current costs of taxes and repairs. Is $15k your husband's part of that bill or is the $15k split between all current owners? Because if it's $15k a year per owner, that's a LOT of money going into this sentimental property. At least $45k given that your husband has siblings.

Before you get to the pre-nup aspect I think you need to get to the cost aspect - can you afford this year over year, especially if costs rise (they never seem to go down). If you can, or if you agree that this family cabin is important enough to invest in, then I think you revisit the pre-nup and have it amended to reflect a fair interest based on the use of marital funds. Your husband should be willing to broach that topic with his family. Things have changed. Their trust money ran out. It made a lot of sense that you'd have no claim in the event of divorce when someone else's money was paying for this cabin. That's no longer the case.

Are you just mad at the ILs, or can you not afford the money, or are you thinking divorce is a real possibility?

It’s not clear if this is a relationship issue or a financial one for your family or a planning for divorce issue and the solution will vary accordingly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great advice.

The trust was supposed to have enough funds to be self sustaining, but unexpected expenses ate it away.

It they need joint funds, then I need to be treated as a beneficiary of the trust. This is a fight I don't want and it will be ugly. For now I guess I will just.point out that using joint money voids the prenup and see how they react.

Does it? Does it actually say that? You might want to consult an attorney perhaps as part of broader estate planning. I don't tthink it necessarily voids anything, but rather is an argument you would have to make in case of divorce that by putting joint money in, he commingled and that gives you a financial to his portion of the equity in the cabin but it doesn't necessarily override their trust or give you ownership interest in the property. State laws vary of course.

This. DO not assume that contributing marital assets voids your right to the property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW. I would never sign a prenup that my in laws asked me to sign. I would never ask my kids spouses to sign one (and we have significant assets)

My inlaws said the same thing. It all sounds so generous and fair, and "welcome to the family." Then when my husband was at the age to take over his trust, guess what. It was in a trust in his name only, where almost every penny of it has stayed for the last 20 years. H e made clear recently I will never see a dime of it. He's saving if for our kids. Even though we decided early on that my salary, since it's not tied up in the market, would be used to pay all our expenses, so he could let his assets sit and gain without taking on taxes. Then 20 years later he changed his mind, after no working for 13 of those 20 years. Get a post-nup OP. If I had to do it over again, I would have. Now I have a choice to continue being his indentured servant or be broke.

It is extremely normal and standard for trusts to go to the kids, NOT the spouse. That is one of the whole points of having trusts - to protect from divorce, to protect from the partner with the family money dying and the money goes not to his kids but to the spouse's second spouse and kids. Anyone who marries someone with family money thinking the money is theirs is ignorant of how these things work.

The issue with your situation is that it sounds like your husband was not working and thus not bringing in marital income? That's the issue. And he also was not contributing to family expenses from his trust? Here's the thing with that - some trusts mandate that you have to either consider other resources or that you have to spend down other resources in order to access the trust money. And if there is a corporate trustee, he literally might not be able to get the money.

I am my own trustee of my trust and my trust does NOT have a "consider other resources" provision. I also only earn by working about 20k a year. So, I take income from the trust to help contribute to the household. Not all trusts allow for that, though.

Anonymous wrote:Great advice.

The trust was supposed to have enough funds to be self sustaining, but unexpected expenses ate it away.

It they need joint funds, then I need to be treated as a beneficiary of the trust. This is a fight I don't want and it will be ugly. For now I guess I will just.point out that using joint money voids the prenup and see how they react.

Does it? Does it actually say that? You might want to consult an attorney perhaps as part of broader estate planning. I don't tthink it necessarily voids anything, but rather is an argument you would have to make in case of divorce that by putting joint money in, he commingled and that gives you a financial to his portion of the equity in the cabin but it doesn't necessarily override their trust or give you ownership interest in the property. State laws vary of course.