Anonymous wrote:It's been a great deal for the men I know. They were able to buy a large home in a prestigious area due to family money. It boosts their ability to get new business due to family contacts. Their children's education is fully-funded. No stress about paying for anything and more time to spend on family and friends.

The large home is most likely owned by a trust, to which the husband is not the beneficiary. In other words, the husband doesn’t own the house is lives in and could be thrown on the streets any day.

I know a guy like this who married into a family with private jet money. He signed a prenup that made his wife’s trust separate. The family also bought the couple a very expensive home and it’s owned by trust.

He basically gets a free place to stay which enables him to pursue his passion career (which is in the arts). Aside from the home, they don’t live in a particularly extravagant manner and live within their income. It’s basically a lot of travel and going out, but they aren’t instagram flashy or anything. They appear very normal. You would have no idea of his wife’s wealth unless you went to their place and realized wait, you don’t just own the unit, you have the entire townhouse?!

Damn-- this lifestyle seems so sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So really it isn't as good of a deal as it may seem to others. Because you ultimately don't really have access to the family money (absent a deal for milestones). And for a man, is it unlikely to have the milestone type agreements? I imagine the daughter would want to continue the lifestyle she is used to, so the family would help with houses etc. But then is the house still in the family's name, etc? So the husband can "enjoy" the lifestyle - but like he's renting it and not ever having true access to it (although his children would)? Also seems strange that your children would have insane amounts of money but their father is, in effect, a normal salary person.

Houses can be put into trusts. It doesn’t have to be salacious. There are lots of people who do not make tons of money in regular jobs or who do “this and that” on their own who live in big houses and have lifestyles that don’t match their HHI. Wives can out earn their husbands and it doesn’t have to be a scandal. People from different socioeconomic classes can get married and it doesn’t have to be a scandal or purely transactional.

Nope. However, when one side is wealthy, they tend to want to protect that wealth. And that means ensuring it stays in the family. So that means someone "marrying in" does not get full access to the money and will not get much in a divorce. It means if the Wealthy spouse dies, the famiily will continue to support the other spouse and the kids, but the "other spouse" won't get actual access to the funds, they won't be able to use those funds to take care of a future spouse and future kids. The family millions will stay with the family/kids/grandkids.
It's only smart to want to do that, if you are worth $15-20M+, you don't want someone marrying your kid, staying around for 5 years then divorcing to get $$$$ (beyond taking care of the kids).

Anonymous wrote:sort of related question but also hadn't thought of this either. For a normal/middle class family, when a parent dies, does that JUST go to their actual child and not the SIL/DIL? Or, absent the legal mechanisms or trusts, it ultimately goes to both of them?

I have UMC parents and when they pass, the assets will be split between me and my sibling, not our spouses. It is then our choice whether to keep those assets separate or commingle with our marital property. The risk of course is that if there is divorce and/or additional non-biological grandkids, family assets could benefit unintended (and potentially homewrecking) third parties, but my parents are leaving that risk for their kids to handle as they see fit.

I know other friends whose UMC parents were more prescriptive and put all assets in trust so they could not be freely sold to commingle for SIL/DIL's benefit. Some even include provisions that say if the family lives in an inherited family home or home purchased with trust assets, the SIL/DIL has to set aside $X per month in a separate trust or account solely for the benefit of the biological spouse/grand-kids so they are not "freeloading" from the family asset...

Needless to say some of these family money situations have created tensions in marriages that otherwise may not exist.

Anonymous wrote:So really it isn't as good of a deal as it may seem to others. Because you ultimately don't really have access to the family money (absent a deal for milestones). And for a man, is it unlikely to have the milestone type agreements? I imagine the daughter would want to continue the lifestyle she is used to, so the family would help with houses etc. But then is the house still in the family's name, etc? So the husband can "enjoy" the lifestyle - but like he's renting it and not ever having true access to it (although his children would)? Also seems strange that your children would have insane amounts of money but their father is, in effect, a normal salary person.

Houses can be put into trusts. It doesn’t have to be salacious. There are lots of people who do not make tons of money in regular jobs or who do “this and that” on their own who live in big houses and have lifestyles that don’t match their HHI. Wives can out earn their husbands and it doesn’t have to be a scandal. People from different socioeconomic classes can get married and it doesn’t have to be a scandal or purely transactional.

We are well-off (and pretty frugal). DD married a guy who is on the road to future earnings. She has a good job. Our money will go towards providing them a house, family vacations, no-interest loans for purchases like safe cars, and money for childcare etc. My inheritance will go to our biological grandkids only.

Anonymous wrote:My brother is engaged to a very wealthy family that dates back to the 1800s. His fiancee, like all descendants, are provided a generous trust and property inheritance. She currently lives in a $3M home that is part of the family's land holdings. She went to the best schools and is now a socialite who is on the board of the city ballet and other prestigious organization. Now that he is with her, he also is invited to accompany her and meets many interesting people. Last event was a ball held for a international vip.

*woman from

My brother is engaged to a very wealthy family that dates back to the 1800s. His fiancee, like all descendants, are provided a generous trust and property inheritance. She currently lives in a $3M home that is part of the family's land holdings. She went to the best schools and is now a socialite who is on the board of the city ballet and other prestigious organization. Now that he is with her, he also is invited to accompany her and meets many interesting people. Last event was a ball held for a international vip.

It's been a great deal for the men I know. They were able to buy a large home in a prestigious area due to family money. It boosts their ability to get new business due to family contacts. Their children's education is fully-funded. No stress about paying for anything and more time to spend on family and friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about how this works in practice for uber-wealthy family. When a man marries the daughter in a very, very rich family (like CEO of a Fortune 500 company), how "lucky" financially is this man? Or is it structured so that there is only shared money between what he and the wife make during the money, and that any inheritance will go to the wife/kids? So in other words, while his life will of course be monumentally different and probably help with down payments or buying them a house, the majority of the wealth will be structured so that it belongs to the daughter and not the man marrying into the family?

Correct.

When a woman marries into a wealthy family (or marries a wealthy man) sometimes they can do a deal to be paid X amount/year, and receive X amount for certain milestones in the marriage. The hard part, especially for women (who when married to this type of guy) is that they frequently are SAHM and are not earning their own income and retirement. Frankly, I don't think it's an ideal set up not matter what.

If they are very wealthy, they have nannies and household help. They aren't SAHP. THey are just unemployed.

This is why it's better to marry someone smart, ambitious and hard working but not already loaded. Then the wealth is marital.

Anonymous wrote:sort of related question but also hadn't thought of this either. For a normal/middle class family, when a parent dies, does that JUST go to their actual child and not the SIL/DIL? Or, absent the legal mechanisms or trusts, it ultimately goes to both of them?

Usually only to their own child. Most beneficiaries would then keep the money in an account in their name only.

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about how this works in practice for uber-wealthy family. When a man marries the daughter in a very, very rich family (like CEO of a Fortune 500 company), how "lucky" financially is this man? Or is it structured so that there is only shared money between what he and the wife make during the money, and that any inheritance will go to the wife/kids? So in other words, while his life will of course be monumentally different and probably help with down payments or buying them a house, the majority of the wealth will be structured so that it belongs to the daughter and not the man marrying into the family?

You so funny honey. I almost did. I mean we were just about to get engaged and Parents loved me. That was 35 years ago. No pre-nup or nothing etc. However, if I married her it would only really benefit my grandchildren not. me. With Social Media I can see my old GF is still working as an insurance broker, her husband has a average job, they live in a average house. The three kids went to instate schools and have average jobs. The "kids" are most likely 26 to 33.

Her Dad and Mom did not want to pass month to their Daughters or Sons at all as worried people would marry them for money or in divorce take money. It is to be split up among living grandkids and grandchildren at death and a lot put in trust for future heirs.

If I married her my life would be same as if I married the garbage man's daughter except on holidays and vacations I would pretend to be wealthy. Given age of her grandkids I bet they give it straight to great grandkids not payable to their 35 birthdays!!

sort of related question but also hadn't thought of this either. For a normal/middle class family, when a parent dies, does that JUST go to their actual child and not the SIL/DIL? Or, absent the legal mechanisms or trusts, it ultimately goes to both of them?