Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

Yes, generally speaking it's for future generations of your kids. A good dynamic in marriage can stay even when spouses create trusts over inherited money with kids as beneficiaries. The income from the trust can be used for your spouse, as long as you're married and terminates with divorce. It's a very common practice in high networth families.

Not sure why a spouse who divorced from me should be entitled for any income from generational trust

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

In my case, I decided that commingling it was the best way to use it for my family. So it's not "for no reason." The difference would have been that I'd have had money that my wife had no access to, which I didn't think was a good dynamic. At any rate, my grandparents were living when they passed this on to us, and they didn't object when I commingled it. But generally speaking, the point of generational wealth like this is to help future generations, not honor the wishes of whoever left it behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

This simply isn't true. My husband's ex had young kids and she found plenty of time to cheat with his best friend. She eventually left him for the best friend but best friend refused/refuses to financially support her. Really bizarre situation.

Statistically women come out from grey divorce far worse; earn less and less likely to marry a higher earning partner later in life. Men cheat more. Your husbands ex wife is more of an exception

Men cheat with women. Men are generally more forgiving as they know they will lose all the money and kids if they divorce. Men and women equally cheat as they are cheating tougher. She didn't far very well but it was her choice. She is still living with the AP 25 years later and on social security disability. Makes no sense why she didn't marry him. After the divorce, my husband got his education and did well. She would have been far better off staying married to him. Kids would have been much better off too. Worked out great for me.

This only confirms that men do better after divorce economically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

This simply isn't true. My husband's ex had young kids and she found plenty of time to cheat with his best friend. She eventually left him for the best friend but best friend refused/refuses to financially support her. Really bizarre situation.

Statistically women come out from grey divorce far worse; earn less and less likely to marry a higher earning partner later in life. Men cheat more. Your husbands ex wife is more of an exception

Men cheat with women. Men are generally more forgiving as they know they will lose all the money and kids if they divorce. Men and women equally cheat as they are cheating tougher. She didn't far very well but it was her choice. She is still living with the AP 25 years later and on social security disability. Makes no sense why she didn't marry him. After the divorce, my husband got his education and did well. She would have been far better off staying married to him. Kids would have been much better off too. Worked out great for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

This is really dumb. No one is saying don't use it to improve your lives - just don't commingle it for no reason. In your case, you could have opened up an individual taxable account, rather than depositing it in a joint account. It's effect would have been exactly the same on your family; no difference at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

Ha, yeah, I was a real catch as a married new dad making $85,000 a year, she was very vulnerable to cheating. Actually, in retrospect, she was not yet staying home when we got this money, that was after second kid. In fact, at the time, she was making slightly more than I was.

Regardless, it never would have occurred to me not to commingle this inheritance, because we share all our finances and, to me, a random $500,000 landing on us shouldn't have been treated any differently from a paycheck or a smaller gift. (My grandparents' estate lawyer did double check that the money should be put in the joint account I gave him; that also had assets in it that I'd owned on my own before my wife and I had met, which I had already commingled for the same reason.) If one day I'm fortunate enough to leave money to my own grandchildren, I would hope they also wouldn't spend any time worrying about what I'd want them to do with it and would, instead, use it in the way that works best for the lives they're building.

Anonymous wrote:So, what happens if assets are kept separate and the spouse who inherited dies first? Doesn't the money still get passed along to the surviving spouse unless a trust is created that says otherwise? What is usually done in this situation? I thought most people left everything to their surviving spouse. Is it common to skip the surviving spouse (who may theoretically remarry and spend all the money before it gets to the kids) and instead pass it straight onto their children?

There are a lot of variations here. I have a spouse that co-mingled his inheritance, however, if he dies half of our estate goes into a trust for our children (and visa-versa). This way, at least 1/2 of the estate goes into a trust for the kids upon the death of one spouse. In both of our families, mismanagement of assets as people age has been a much larger issue than divorce.

Anonymous wrote:Because their decision may very well be: to pay down the mortgage, fund the children's education ... anything. And something that might benefit both spouse. But the decision is -entirely- made by the one who inherited the money.

This. No one is saying that the inheriting spouse should be a miser - they shouldn't. But the money should, at a minimum, go into a solo account for them. Whatever happens with it after that, it's the ultimate decision of the inheriting spouse.

My wife stands to inherit a moderate sum, and it will be deposited in a separate account. I expect we'll discuss what to do with it, just like we discuss all our financial decisions, and it will integrate into our overall financial plan, but it's still all hers. Similarly, I likely will inherit a small vacation condo (worth far less than her likely inheritance), that will remain in my name. That, too, will be integrated with our overall finances.

The people advocating for extremes on both sides (you have to commingle you have a strong marriage v. keep it separate and only use for the inheriting spouse and kids) are making this unnecessarily complicated.

A 1.6 m house

Anonymous wrote:So, what happens if assets are kept separate and the spouse who inherited dies first? Doesn't the money still get passed along to the surviving spouse unless a trust is created that says otherwise? What is usually done in this situation? I thought most people left everything to their surviving spouse. Is it common to skip the surviving spouse (who may theoretically remarry and spend all the money before it gets to the kids) and instead pass it straight onto their children?

Such diversified wills and trusts are very common for high networth individuals

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

This simply isn't true. My husband's ex had young kids and she found plenty of time to cheat with his best friend. She eventually left him for the best friend but best friend refused/refuses to financially support her. Really bizarre situation.

Statistically women come out from grey divorce far worse; earn less and less likely to marry a higher earning partner later in life. Men cheat more. Your husbands ex wife is more of an exception

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who say Op has to co-mingle the money for the sake of a good marriage. No. It's not "enjoy your money alone" as some pp said. Instead, it's, "Op, in this case, how it is spent is your decision. Plenty of spouses can choose to invest/spend for the good of the marriage and family. But the decision making power is all Op's. And should be.

The idea on this board, though, that it's absolutely insane to commingle an inheritance strikes me as misguided. I inherited about 1/3 of what OP is expecting about 10 years ago and didn't think twice about putting it into a joint account with my wife. It's not like I did anything to earn the money. It wasn't even like my parents did anything to earn the money; it came from my grandparents. I saw it as basically a windfall that there was no reason I should consider mine and mine alone. If one day half of it goes off into another family because ours breaks up, the people who actually earned it will never know or care.

How much are you making?

I'm making about twice now as I was when I inherited this money (and at the time, wife was home with our then-younger kids). Now our household income is about $300,000, of which I make about 60 percent and she makes about 40 percent. Not really sure what that has to do with whether I felt that I should be entitled to all the money on my own or that it should become a marital asset.

There was power imbalance at the time you inherited, strongly in your favor (wife SAHM vulnerable to cheating, you leaving her with young kids etc). Wives with younger kids rarely have time to cheat. Thus your decision to support the dependent young family was just.
It’s a totally different scenario from two spouses with grown up kids making about the same money in their 50s, probably somewhat tired from married life, and one of them inherits a lot of money. If they already built a life and financial stability, nobody is dependent in marriage, I see no point to commingle

This simply isn't true. My husband's ex had young kids and she found plenty of time to cheat with his best friend. She eventually left him for the best friend but best friend refused/refuses to financially support her. Really bizarre situation.

Anonymous wrote:So, what happens if assets are kept separate and the spouse who inherited dies first? Doesn't the money still get passed along to the surviving spouse unless a trust is created that says otherwise? What is usually done in this situation? I thought most people left everything to their surviving spouse. Is it common to skip the surviving spouse (who may theoretically remarry and spend all the money before it gets to the kids) and instead pass it straight onto their children?

Our Will has inherited property for both DH and me going into trusts for our kids, not each other. The rest of our property, including individual accounts that we’ve had before marriage, go to the other spouse.

So, what happens if assets are kept separate and the spouse who inherited dies first? Doesn't the money still get passed along to the surviving spouse unless a trust is created that says otherwise? What is usually done in this situation? I thought most people left everything to their surviving spouse. Is it common to skip the surviving spouse (who may theoretically remarry and spend all the money before it gets to the kids) and instead pass it straight onto their children?

How about a small splurge? Come on…you only live once! Enjoy a nice trip somewhere you wouldn’t normally go and make memories with your kids! And then do something sensible with the rest!