Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fathers almost never protect their adult kids financially when a new spouse comes into the picture. They might put trusts in place, but they are easily accessed by the new wife.

A man wants to teach his kids how to fish. If they learn, great! If they don't, oh well, they are adults and will figure it out. Mothers, otoh, want to feed their kids fish throughout the kids' lives. That mindset difference manifests in different ways including the one you describe.

And that's fine if he only feeds his new wife his half of the fish.

What if he was the high earner during the marriage? Say they got married at 25, he worked his ass off, made millions while she worked a good job, took time off for kids, etc and they end up in a situation (at 55) where savings/investments titled in his name are, say $ 5mil and those in her name are $1mil (let's ignore 401K and house for now). In what world will a husband (or a wife for that matter) want to give up control of $2mil just so the other spouse feels happy that their adult kids get an inheritance at the expense of giving up control of money he may well need in his 90s? What are the wife's options, then? Go to court and file for a divorce over a hypothetical 'what if I die first' scenario? I can fully understand how this situation would not be an issue if their savings were, say double what it is now. I can see him transferring $2m to the new trust and he still has more than enough 'just in case' money.

He can use what's in the trust until he's in his 90s or whatever, the aim is to not have it accessible to a 2nd party who wasn't part of the marriage earning . Having a wife to care for children and the house provides a financial value that isn't reflected in the accounts. In what world does a person--husband or wife-- want the extra share of their money to go to a person and the kids of a person they don't know? I've been an equal contributer to our family assets, but I can appreciate the perspective of a SAHP who adds value that is not 'counted' in the assets.

Not disagreeing with you, nor the reasons why SAHPs choose to be so and have what they have. Statistics/anecdotes notwithstanding, it also appears that most women on here have already made up their minds that any second wife is pretty much after DH's money which needs to be 'protected' from her and that the lack of trust in DH's ability/judgment in taking care of his kids. In my personal situation, I'll likely outlive DH given the longevity in both sides of my family (90+), DH's side (not as stellar as mine), and the fact that he's 5 years older than I. Also, if I do bring this up and ask for a 'transfer', his response will be "I'm not an idiot" and that will be the end of the conversation.

It's not that our minds are made up, it's just that we see it happen regularly among 'good guys' we know. It's not even that the new wife is out for their money--it's just the reality, he loves her and wants her to be set up okay financially and thinks of all the money as his now, not that half of it was his late wife's and she wanted it to go to their adult kids/grandchildren. And she might need the money. He might say he wants it for his new wife for her life and then vaguely back to his kids, but that just doesn't happen or she's only 10 years older than them and it's all long gone/intermingled by the time she passes on and her will is focused on her kids. I expect to outlive my DH too---I have people who live over 100 in my family, most live to mid 90s and the few great aunts and uncles or whatever who died in their 80s people say 'they died young,'--and my DH is older than me with less longevity in the family. But I want our bases covered.

Asking for a transfer seems weird, but I would just suggest that you talk to your husband and estate lawyer during estate planning, you ask questions about what happens in the case of one of us dying and the other remarrying--how do we make sure some of the assets go to the kids? At least get on the same page about what you want to happen and then the mechanisms for making that happen. If he starts to picture you falling prey in your grieving widowhood to some scamming guy, he might want some of the assets in the kids' hands too for your and their protection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't gone through all the posts, but I guess is it safe to say that it is quite difficult/impossible for surviving spouse to make use of 100% of the estate, but some mechanism is automatically triggered upon a re-marriage such that now the kids have some control over some portion of the assets.

That seems to be the conclusion.

I think the issue is doing it without there being loopholes. Because if a surviving spouse can make use of 100% of the estate, that means they could withdraw all the funds for whatever reason. If they know there is a remarriage trigger, they could withdraw it all before they tied the knot if they were so inclined/convinced. You could set up guardrails on the trust, but that might limit access/create expenses in ways you don't really want.
I think I would be inclined to distribute the risk--leave some outright to my kids, but let them know that I expect them to use it to provide financial care if my surviving spouse had need beyond their means, leave the bulk outright to my spouse, but let them know my wishes for my portion of the remaining assets in the event of remarriage.

Seems to be the most reasonable thing to do. Far better to write a 'death wish' letter to spouse where you lay out what you want to include "Get married if you find the right woman, but before you do, make sure that at least 50% of our net worth is moved into a Trust that only our kids can access. If you don't I'll haunt for the rest of your life and use my connections 'up here' to make your life miserable when you get here" or something along those lines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fathers almost never protect their adult kids financially when a new spouse comes into the picture. They might put trusts in place, but they are easily accessed by the new wife.

A man wants to teach his kids how to fish. If they learn, great! If they don't, oh well, they are adults and will figure it out. Mothers, otoh, want to feed their kids fish throughout the kids' lives. That mindset difference manifests in different ways including the one you describe.

And that's fine if he only feeds his new wife his half of the fish.

What if he was the high earner during the marriage? Say they got married at 25, he worked his ass off, made millions while she worked a good job, took time off for kids, etc and they end up in a situation (at 55) where savings/investments titled in his name are, say $ 5mil and those in her name are $1mil (let's ignore 401K and house for now). In what world will a husband (or a wife for that matter) want to give up control of $2mil just so the other spouse feels happy that their adult kids get an inheritance at the expense of giving up control of money he may well need in his 90s? What are the wife's options, then? Go to court and file for a divorce over a hypothetical 'what if I die first' scenario? I can fully understand how this situation would not be an issue if their savings were, say double what it is now. I can see him transferring $2m to the new trust and he still has more than enough 'just in case' money.

He can use what's in the trust until he's in his 90s or whatever, the aim is to not have it accessible to a 2nd party who wasn't part of the marriage earning . Having a wife to care for children and the house provides a financial value that isn't reflected in the accounts. In what world does a person--husband or wife-- want the extra share of their money to go to a person and the kids of a person they don't know? I've been an equal contributer to our family assets, but I can appreciate the perspective of a SAHP who adds value that is not 'counted' in the assets.

Not disagreeing with you, nor the reasons why SAHPs choose to be so and have what they have. Statistics/anecdotes notwithstanding, it also appears that most women on here have already made up their minds that any second wife is pretty much after DH's money which needs to be 'protected' from her and that the lack of trust in DH's ability/judgment in taking care of his kids. In my personal situation, I'll likely outlive DH given the longevity in both sides of my family (90+), DH's side (not as stellar as mine), and the fact that he's 5 years older than I. Also, if I do bring this up and ask for a 'transfer', his response will be "I'm not an idiot" and that will be the end of the conversation.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't gone through all the posts, but I guess is it safe to say that it is quite difficult/impossible for surviving spouse to make use of 100% of the estate, but some mechanism is automatically triggered upon a re-marriage such that now the kids have some control over some portion of the assets.

That seems to be the conclusion.

I think the issue is doing it without there being loopholes. Because if a surviving spouse can make use of 100% of the estate, that means they could withdraw all the funds for whatever reason. If they know there is a remarriage trigger, they could withdraw it all before they tied the knot if they were so inclined/convinced. You could set up guardrails on the trust, but that might limit access/create expenses in ways you don't really want.
I think I would be inclined to distribute the risk--leave some outright to my kids, but let them know that I expect them to use it to provide financial care if my surviving spouse had need beyond their means, leave the bulk outright to my spouse, but let them know my wishes for my portion of the remaining assets in the event of remarriage.

I haven't gone through all the posts, but I guess is it safe to say that it is quite difficult/impossible for surviving spouse to make use of 100% of the estate, but some mechanism is automatically triggered upon a re-marriage such that now the kids have some control over some portion of the assets.

That seems to be the conclusion.

I have inheritance that I keep separate and is in trust for my kids. Otherwise all our joint assets would go to DH. We’ve talked about the issue of remarriage and know each other’s thoughts that the kids should be prioritized over a potential future spouse. Obviously anything could happen, but DH has always been a good dad who has prioritized our kids so I just have to hope he would continue to do so. But also my kids have my family’s money in a trust so they will for sure be getting something at age 25.

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

+1

My children are older, and I just saw an estate lawyer. Given the particulars or our situation, he suggested that DH leave everything to the children except our primary residence (and pension survivorship benefits). I will leave everything except the residence to the children.

Importantly, DH and I agree on a shared objective: estate maximization for our children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I do, hence my questions. If the assets need to be re-titled in the name of the Trust, how will you do that without your spouse's consent, especially if they are not completely on board? In my case, $4M sits in spouse's name, $500K is in my name (we have revocable trusts and some of these assets are titled in that trust's name and the ones that aren't have the trust named as beneficiary). How will I convince DH to transfer over $1.5+ to my name so I can title it to a Trust which he won't have full control over? His pushback would be that he earned most of that money during our married life and while I'm entitled to half of it in case of a divorce, i sure am not entitled to decide how it gets spend if I predecease him, which i think is fair.
Unless you have been earning an equal amount, been saving it in your name equally, and have enough money between the two of you that losing control over one half won't impact the other spouse's lifestyle, this will not be an easy endeavor.

You're exactly right. You would almost certainly need your spouse's consent to start retitling/segregating/splitting joint assets amongst two separate trusts. You certainly wouldn't need his consent to retitle an asset that you own in your own name.

So for most couples, unless there are substantial non-retirement assets in each spouse's separate names, estate planning will be a joint endeavor requiring shared goals and objectives. And if your spouse won't cooperate, don't forget, it's not just your money.

I've seen some very nasty fights in consultations and hurtful things said that I'm sure only got nastier as soon as they left my office.

Signed,
Estate Planning Attorney

This is one reason why I keep working even though DH makes enough to support our family. Between 401k, 529 plans and brokerage, I save most of my income in accounts that I control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fathers almost never protect their adult kids financially when a new spouse comes into the picture. They might put trusts in place, but they are easily accessed by the new wife.

A man wants to teach his kids how to fish. If they learn, great! If they don't, oh well, they are adults and will figure it out. Mothers, otoh, want to feed their kids fish throughout the kids' lives. That mindset difference manifests in different ways including the one you describe.

And that's fine if he only feeds his new wife his half of the fish.

What if he was the high earner during the marriage? Say they got married at 25, he worked his ass off, made millions while she worked a good job, took time off for kids, etc and they end up in a situation (at 55) where savings/investments titled in his name are, say $ 5mil and those in her name are $1mil (let's ignore 401K and house for now). In what world will a husband (or a wife for that matter) want to give up control of $2mil just so the other spouse feels happy that their adult kids get an inheritance at the expense of giving up control of money he may well need in his 90s? What are the wife's options, then? Go to court and file for a divorce over a hypothetical 'what if I die first' scenario? I can fully understand how this situation would not be an issue if their savings were, say double what it is now. I can see him transferring $2m to the new trust and he still has more than enough 'just in case' money.

He can use what's in the trust until he's in his 90s or whatever, the aim is to not have it accessible to a 2nd party who wasn't part of the marriage earning . Having a wife to care for children and the house provides a financial value that isn't reflected in the accounts. In what world does a person--husband or wife-- want the extra share of their money to go to a person and the kids of a person they don't know? I've been an equal contributer to our family assets, but I can appreciate the perspective of a SAHP who adds value that is not 'counted' in the assets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I do, hence my questions. If the assets need to be re-titled in the name of the Trust, how will you do that without your spouse's consent, especially if they are not completely on board? In my case, $4M sits in spouse's name, $500K is in my name (we have revocable trusts and some of these assets are titled in that trust's name and the ones that aren't have the trust named as beneficiary). How will I convince DH to transfer over $1.5+ to my name so I can title it to a Trust which he won't have full control over? His pushback would be that he earned most of that money during our married life and while I'm entitled to half of it in case of a divorce, i sure am not entitled to decide how it gets spend if I predecease him, which i think is fair.
Unless you have been earning an equal amount, been saving it in your name equally, and have enough money between the two of you that losing control over one half won't impact the other spouse's lifestyle, this will not be an easy endeavor.

I think OPs question is more about women who have equal or greater assets/contributions to the marriage. On average, men can sort of trust that their wives will not disinherit their kids in favor of a new spouse, but women cannot so there's an imbalance there. Men might also really hate the idea that their wives will remarry a younger guy and leave all their joint money to him, but it really doesn't happen that often. Women tend to leave their money to their kids. But TBH, like another poster, I do not know a single case where the wife died first and the man left the money to his adult kids rather than the new wife. But I can think of over 10 cases where the guy left the money to his new wife--and often the 2nd marriage lasted just 5 or so years before he died.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I do, hence my questions. If the assets need to be re-titled in the name of the Trust, how will you do that without your spouse's consent, especially if they are not completely on board? In my case, $4M sits in spouse's name, $500K is in my name (we have revocable trusts and some of these assets are titled in that trust's name and the ones that aren't have the trust named as beneficiary). How will I convince DH to transfer over $1.5+ to my name so I can title it to a Trust which he won't have full control over? His pushback would be that he earned most of that money during our married life and while I'm entitled to half of it in case of a divorce, i sure am not entitled to decide how it gets spend if I predecease him, which i think is fair.
Unless you have been earning an equal amount, been saving it in your name equally, and have enough money between the two of you that losing control over one half won't impact the other spouse's lifestyle, this will not be an easy endeavor.

You're exactly right. You would almost certainly need your spouse's consent to start retitling/segregating/splitting joint assets amongst two separate trusts. You certainly wouldn't need his consent to retitle an asset that you own in your own name.

So for most couples, unless there are substantial non-retirement assets in each spouse's separate names, estate planning will be a joint endeavor requiring shared goals and objectives. And if your spouse won't cooperate, don't forget, it's not just your money.

I've seen some very nasty fights in consultations and hurtful things said that I'm sure only got nastier as soon as they left my office.

Signed,
Estate Planning Attorney

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fathers almost never protect their adult kids financially when a new spouse comes into the picture. They might put trusts in place, but they are easily accessed by the new wife.

A man wants to teach his kids how to fish. If they learn, great! If they don't, oh well, they are adults and will figure it out. Mothers, otoh, want to feed their kids fish throughout the kids' lives. That mindset difference manifests in different ways including the one you describe.

And that's fine if he only feeds his new wife his half of the fish.

What if he was the high earner during the marriage? Say they got married at 25, he worked his ass off, made millions while she worked a good job, took time off for kids, etc and they end up in a situation (at 55) where savings/investments titled in his name are, say $ 5mil and those in her name are $1mil (let's ignore 401K and house for now). In what world will a husband (or a wife for that matter) want to give up control of $2mil just so the other spouse feels happy that their adult kids get an inheritance at the expense of giving up control of money he may well need in his 90s? What are the wife's options, then? Go to court and file for a divorce over a hypothetical 'what if I die first' scenario? I can fully understand how this situation would not be an issue if their savings were, say double what it is now. I can see him transferring $2m to the new trust and he still has more than enough 'just in case' money.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I do, hence my questions. If the assets need to be re-titled in the name of the Trust, how will you do that without your spouse's consent, especially if they are not completely on board? In my case, $4M sits in spouse's name, $500K is in my name (we have revocable trusts and some of these assets are titled in that trust's name and the ones that aren't have the trust named as beneficiary). How will I convince DH to transfer over $1.5+ to my name so I can title it to a Trust which he won't have full control over? His pushback would be that he earned most of that money during our married life and while I'm entitled to half of it in case of a divorce, i sure am not entitled to decide how it gets spend if I predecease him, which i think is fair.
Unless you have been earning an equal amount, been saving it in your name equally, and have enough money between the two of you that losing control over one half won't impact the other spouse's lifestyle, this will not be an easy endeavor.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fathers almost never protect their adult kids financially when a new spouse comes into the picture. They might put trusts in place, but they are easily accessed by the new wife.

A man wants to teach his kids how to fish. If they learn, great! If they don't, oh well, they are adults and will figure it out. Mothers, otoh, want to feed their kids fish throughout the kids' lives. That mindset difference manifests in different ways including the one you describe.

And that's fine if he only feeds his new wife his half of the fish.