I'm surprised this isn't on more people's radar. I've seen it play out nearly every time a wife dies first. Wife dies first, her husband remarries a woman 5-10 years younger, then the husband dies and wife lives another 20+ years. 2 bad scenarios here- new wife spends all the money on her old age (some of which was the first wife's money that she wanted to go to kids), or new wife designates her own kids as heirs and completely cuts off the old kids. I think a lot of you are too young to see it, but there's husband hunters out there in retirement communities. A lot of women made no money and didn't save for retirements and they're looking for a man to provide.

I love my dh and would want my money to go to him in old age, but definitely not to a new wife. My dh is a great guy, so I know he'd remarry. I also want my kids to get the money when we die and not when some younger stepmom dies 20 years after their dad. My will has my insurance and 50% retirement going to my kids. Also, the money I inherited will go to my kids.

I have never seen a man die first and his money go to the new husband's kids. I'm sure it happens, but it can't happen often. My grandpa's step grandchildren inherited millions that came from my ancestors and their grandma wasn't even married long to my grandpa.

Anonymous wrote:We each have a revocable living trust and our assets are divided amongst the two trusts. In the event either of us passes, the other becomes the executor of the other's trust. In the event both of us pass, the trusts will be inherited by the children in even shares. If the children are past their majority, they will inherit their shares. If they are not, all assets are put in the trusts and my spouse's brother becomes the executor. If he is not available, then my brother becomes the executor. Even if one of us remarries, they cannot will any of the assets in the trusts to a new spouse. They would have to withdraw assets from the trusts in order to be able to pass the assets on to a future spouse. The trusts are in the names of the children. Each spouse has executor rights to the access the full amount, but does no have the right to bequeath the trust assets as those are already written in to benefit the children.

You should talk to your lawyer about setting up a revocable living trust that can be inherited by your children, but that your spouse has full access to use the assets in the trust.

We have the same, but if I die or divorce then nothing stops DH's second wife from spending down the money while he's alive. Plus she'd get whatever he earns or buys that isn't in the trust.

This is actually a big concern for me. Men tend to take care of the woman they're with as the priority. That's usually fine when it's the first wife and the children they have together because women tend to look out for their own kids. Adding in second spouses gets very messy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Set up a trust. Designate kids as beneficiaries. Talk to your lawyer.

I would be super pissed of DH did this and died and left me with 1/2 what we had before.

Why?!

I don't think anybody philosophically has a problem with what OP is trying to achieve, but I can see a lot of pissed-off spouses based on the way one of the spouses achieves this.

I think everyone is trying to achieve some structure such that the surviving spouse is able to fully utilize 100% of the estate...I mean, it is quite possible they never marry again, so now you just restricted a ton of $$$s that in theory you collectively accumulated...but provides some $$$s protection for the kids if you remarry.

Maybe I am crazy...but if I were to remarry, it is likely someone with similar age and finances. I just don't see a "gold digger" situation as being the norm.

DP:
It's not necessarily a gold-digger situation--but IME a lot of older guys remarry someone slightly younger if their wife dies first and they often leave the money to the new wife who then leaves it to her kids. The older guy is just statistically likelier to die before the new wife both by gender and age and he's just mentally more oriented to caring for her than his adult children at that point. But his late first wife probably would have preferred her portion of the money go to her kids. Most of the women I know whose spouses died, either don't remarry or still leave the money from their first marriage to their kids rather than their new spouse. Maybe this will shift as people who grew up under different gender dynamics age, but as a woman who has earned half the money in my marriage, I want to make sure my spouse is well-taken care of AND that my kids get their share too if I were to die first.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put all of your share of the assets into a trust. You leave directions on how you want your trust allocated. You may choose to make provisions for your husband AND your children. As opposed to giving it all to him and you don't know what he or his next wife will do.

How specific does this need to get? In our case, outside of retirement accounts and primary residence, we have about $4.5, most of which is in DH's name or the name, say $4M. How would I identify my share? A generic 'half of all accounts' type language or do I have to liquidate or transfer specific assets (that are currently in DH's name) into the newly created Trust? How will this be accomplished without pissing off DH assuming he's not in agreement? I can see this being worth it if you have 10s of millions (in which case the other spouse may actually think it's a good idea and the costs may be worth it) or the money was inherited by one of the parties.

Not sure you understand. Your trust can have whatever language you want. But you actually have to retitle the account or asset into the trust either during your lifetime or by beneficiary designation. Otherwise the trust is just a pretty piece of ineffective paper. It’s not about specifying specific accounts as much as shares of your overall trust. And it’s up to you to make sure your trust eventually holds all of the assets you think it should.

This is really complicated stuff that involves an estate planning attorney and, if one is in the picture, a financial planner or asset manager.

You need to talk with an estate attorney. This varies a lot by the state you live in.

Anonymous wrote:I assume one person can set up a revocable trust without the consent of their spouse? Most of my assets are in our home (joint tenants with right of survivorship) and retirement account (goes to spouse), but I also have separate accounts that I started before I was married, some of which I've added to since marriage, and I think I want them to go directly to my kids, as DH also has significant assets under his own control and doesn't need them, and like OP, I can see DH remarrying if I die. So, go solo to an attorney and set them up? I assume as long as DH gets at least 50% of my estate after I die, he couldn't contest it?

For the accounts that you started before marriage, all you have to do is to name your children as beneficiaries. Exclude the husband. On your death, they get those accounts regardless of what will might say. The house and retirement accounts will go to DH.

Anonymous wrote:Put all of your share of the assets into a trust. You leave directions on how you want your trust allocated. You may choose to make provisions for your husband AND your children. As opposed to giving it all to him and you don't know what he or his next wife will do.

How specific does this need to get? In our case, outside of retirement accounts and primary residence, we have about $4.5, most of which is in DH's name or the name, say $4M. How would I identify my share? A generic 'half of all accounts' type language or do I have to liquidate or transfer specific assets (that are currently in DH's name) into the newly created Trust? How will this be accomplished without pissing off DH assuming he's not in agreement? I can see this being worth it if you have 10s of millions (in which case the other spouse may actually think it's a good idea and the costs may be worth it) or the money was inherited by one of the parties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Set up a trust. Designate kids as beneficiaries. Talk to your lawyer.

I would be super pissed of DH did this and died and left me with 1/2 what we had before.

Why?!

I don't think anybody philosophically has a problem with what OP is trying to achieve, but I can see a lot of pissed-off spouses based on the way one of the spouses achieves this.

I think everyone is trying to achieve some structure such that the surviving spouse is able to fully utilize 100% of the estate...I mean, it is quite possible they never marry again, so now you just restricted a ton of $$$s that in theory you collectively accumulated...but provides some $$$s protection for the kids if you remarry.

Maybe I am crazy...but if I were to remarry, it is likely someone with similar age and finances. I just don't see a "gold digger" situation as being the norm.

My spouse and I came to our marriage with roughly equal assets. The difference between us is that I had parents to take care of, and his family is wealthy. So we both have somewhat complicated trusts set up. What I REALLY didn't want is for us to say, get into a bad car accident, and me pass away a day before he did, effectively leaving all of my assets to his already wealthy family and leaving my parents destitute. But I want my spouse to have enough assets to not have to worry if I just happen to die suddenly. A lot of if/then/else in the trusts on both sides. Obviously he can change his will/trusts in the future, but my parents and kid will always be provided for in mine.

Anonymous wrote:I’d trust my DH to ensure our children were cared for. I think it’s much more important to worry about this after divorce with possible remarriages on the horizon. But death I guess is possible too.

But we don’t have millions, so if I died I’d want DH to have access to all of it to make sure the kids could be provided for. I guess if I was going to get a a big inheritance I’d maybe put that in a trust on my death to go to my kids. But. I trust my DH with this.

Obviously you don't know anyone whose had their inheritance stolen. My MIL had her inheritance stolen by her step siblings who weren't even half siblings--the kids of the woman he remarried. The father died. And the executor of the will died and that step mom lived another decade at least. It was a mess. My MIL has next to nothing. It isn't about trusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d trust my DH to ensure our children were cared for. I think it’s much more important to worry about this after divorce with possible remarriages on the horizon. But death I guess is possible too.

But we don’t have millions, so if I died I’d want DH to have access to all of it to make sure the kids could be provided for. I guess if I was going to get a a big inheritance I’d maybe put that in a trust on my death to go to my kids. But. I trust my DH with this.

This is hard because you really can’t trust the spouse to ensure the kids are taken care of. Case in point my XH remarried, got himself a step-son in the process and started having more kids with the new wife. Our shared kids are almost adults and it’s been made very clear to them that once his financial obligations are over they shouldn’t expect anything more from him in the future.

I know this is a divorce situation but if could have just as easily been as the result of the death of a spouse.

Any inheritance they will receive needs to come from me. I have a trust set up for them, and my new husband has a trust set up for his kids. I would have hoped my XH would have done the same, or at least considered his first kids as equals as opposed to a burden he will soon be free of.

This is my XH as well. Met new girlfriend with kids from 2 previous relationships so essentially has 3 new people to provide for in addition to our kids. Not sure what he was thinking or if he was even thinking. They’re not married… yet. But I don’t know how they would raise the kids in a non marriage cohabiting relationship and not treat them equally, so I figure my kids’ resources and inheritance from their father is now divided across all the kids and I need to save and prepare for them on my own. I wouldn’t marry unless it made financial sense for me due to this.

Anonymous wrote:This is a very common consideration; you could teach just a semester’s worth of material on attempted solutions breaking down or withstanding challenges by the surviving spouse (or that person’s next spouse).

A competent estate lawyer should have an off the shelf solution.

How can you teach a semester's worth of material on attempted solutions...yet my competent estate lawyer has an "off-the-shelf solution"?

Another reason to do this is that a widowed woman can easily get railroaded by a future male partner to comingle assets, transfer brokerage accounts to "his guy" (a high-fee financial advisor), etc.

Especially if the woman allowed her now-deceased husband to handle the family finances and the future male partner is a pushy know-it-all. She may have no intention of leaving him her estate and keep her kids as the beneficiaries, but this new guy can convince her to spend it down in a way that benefits him. Or gets her into some bad/expensive investments.

This is a way more common scenario than people realize. Maybe even more common than the widower leaving the estate to his conniving 2nd wife.

I think once you are dead, if they are your beneficiary, they could change the will how they want.

I suggest you leave it directly to your kids (via the will), not spouse.

This is a very common consideration; you could teach just a semester’s worth of material on attempted solutions breaking down or withstanding challenges by the surviving spouse (or that person’s next spouse).

A competent estate lawyer should have an off the shelf solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Set up a trust. Designate kids as beneficiaries. Talk to your lawyer.

I would be super pissed of DH did this and died and left me with 1/2 what we had before.

Why?!

I don't think anybody philosophically has a problem with what OP is trying to achieve, but I can see a lot of pissed-off spouses based on the way one of the spouses achieves this.

I think everyone is trying to achieve some structure such that the surviving spouse is able to fully utilize 100% of the estate...I mean, it is quite possible they never marry again, so now you just restricted a ton of $$$s that in theory you collectively accumulated...but provides some $$$s protection for the kids if you remarry.

Maybe I am crazy...but if I were to remarry, it is likely someone with similar age and finances. I just don't see a "gold digger" situation as being the norm.

DP:
It's not necessarily a gold-digger situation--but IME a lot of older guys remarry someone slightly younger if their wife dies first and they often leave the money to the new wife who then leaves it to her kids. The older guy is just statistically likelier to die before the new wife both by gender and age and he's just mentally more oriented to caring for her than his adult children at that point. But his late first wife probably would have preferred her portion of the money go to her kids. Most of the women I know whose spouses died, either don't remarry or still leave the money from their first marriage to their kids rather than their new spouse. Maybe this will shift as people who grew up under different gender dynamics age, but as a woman who has earned half the money in my marriage, I want to make sure my spouse is well-taken care of AND that my kids get their share too if I were to die first.

So, what is your solution?

I don't have one yet! I'm working on it! I have term life insurance right now where DH is 50% beneficiary and each of our kids are 25% each (one is over 18, the other soon will be). So that's something at least. I have some brokerage accounts that have been funded by my spending money over the years that have the kids as beneficiaries only (DH and I do a budget where each of us have a portion of money to do with what we wish. DH is more likely to spend his, I'm a born saver/investor). But this still leaves the bulk of our assets set up where the money goes to the other spouse when the first one dies and then the kids as contingent beneficiaries. But once our kids are both of age, I think we'll either work on setting up a trust--or assess our situation and have each of us designate a certain portion of our retirement assets /shared brokerage accounts that would go directly to the kids when one of us passes. Maybe 70% to the spouse and 15% to each kid? We do have plenty of assets for retirement. I think if we both discuss this and decide on an appropriate balance, . We've also started shifting the assets a bit to the kids, such as funding our kid's Roth IRAs, and we'll likely help with down payments/grandchildren's college when the time comes.

It's easy to create legal structures as long as the surviving spouse accepts they won't get access to 100% of the estate. Again, the tough nut to crack is how the surviving spouse gets access to 100% if they remain unmarried...but somehow it then gets restricted upon remarriage.