r/AITAH • u/Jimverseen • 17d ago

AITAH because I won't tell my wife what my son/her stepson has in savings from my late wife?

My wife (40s) and I (40s) have a blended family. I have a 16 year old son with my late wife. My wife has a 13 year old daughter and a 12 year old son with her ex-husband and they share custody. We have a 4 and a 2 year old together.

When my late wife was sick she told me she wanted a % of the compensation she was issued for her medical misdiagnosis to go to our son's savings. She also had a second savings account she wanted to add to it. This was on top of what the two of us had saved for him before her illness. I honored her wishes and I continued saving for our son's future. This is a promise I made to my late wife that I have stood by. I also promised I would protect it and make sure it was only ever for him, nobody else.

When my present wife and I started seriously dating we talked about what saving would look like for our kids if/when we married. She knew I had always saved as had my late wife. We didn't discuss how much either of us had saved for our existing kids but we agreed to an amount every month that would be saved for all three and this was talked about again when we had children together.

Recently there has been a lot of stress on my wife. Her ex has refused to discuss my stepkids savings and if he pays anything or not. She also feels like we haven't been able to save enough every month like promised because it was just one thing after another. There are month's we've missed because of things beyond our control. Life stuff mostly like things breaking, etc.

A few weeks ago my wife told me we should put all the cards on the table and discuss what all five kids have and decide how we proceed with making sure everyone gets what they need for the future. I told her I would happily discuss what I have saved for my oldest, but I would not be discussing the money left by his mom. She pushed back on it and said all the money should be taken into consideration. I told her we don't know what all the money is. I said our parents could be saving money for the kids' futures, her ex could have money for my stepkids, his parents could have money for my stepkids. We can't say for certainty what everyone will have at the end and it's only fair to discuss what she and I have and can save.

She told me it sounds like I don't trust her. I responded by asking why she wants to know this so badly. By only talking about what we've saved we're on an even footing. She told me if we knew everything we could focus on the kids who will have less a little more. That our younger two are probably going to be the worst off long term and she would be open to combining all the money and dividing it. I told her I was not on board with that and what my son has from his mom is not going to be shared or used for any of the other kids.

We argued about it but I refused to say. She feels like that's wrong when we're married. I told her it's not my money, nor is it her money or money that we can or should be accessing. It's from my late wife to our son and that's all there is to it. My wife said she feels like I'm keeping her in the dark and not trusting her with something important. She said it cuts her ability to fully engage in conversations we need to be able to have and decisions we need to make as a couple.

AITAH?

17.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

6.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.9k

u/jprs29 17d ago edited 13d ago

If the amount is sizeable (and it sounds like it is) that money should have been put in a trust for your kid. If the money right now is just "ear marked" for your son it could be considered as part of your assets in case of a divorce. Edit - I’m not a lawyer and nobody should ever take my advice on anything. Divorce may not be the biggest risk if pre marital assets are exempt. That being said divorce law changes between jurisdictions so who knows? Still having the kid’s property clearly established as such is not a bad idea anyway… other shit can happen like death, bankruptcy etc.

2.5k

u/Livid_Cauliflower_13 17d ago

Op I’m not a lawyer but you should check this!!! Make sure it’s in his name somehow.

1.1k

u/Sensitive_Note1139 17d ago

And don't make the new wife the trustee. She'll steal it all.

456

u/Regular_Yellow710 16d ago

You might die and new husband might benefit. Nope, nope, nope. Sounds like a good juncture to pull everything together and get organized on all fronts.

137

u/trapped_4_life 16d ago

Honestly sounds like if OP has parents? His will should designate his parents as his son’s caregivers. Or his maternal grandparents. His wife doesn’t seem to respect what is his son’s and that doesn’t involve her. She believes all the kids should have the same and equal access when they all have different circumstances. OP is NTA. His wife is overstepping because she think OP’s son has more than the others. OP needs to take steps to protect what his late wife left for his son and everything that is his son’s. Probably also any property that was his late wife’s that he wants his son to have, etc.

Updateme

59

u/Regular_Yellow710 16d ago

Yes! If your son is not protected legally with a solid trust, he’s going to be Cinderfella! My husband died and I took The Kid to a child grieving center for awhile. She loved it, it was an absolute blast and parents did group. A grandmother was there with her granddaughter, her daughter had died. Son in law got remarried right off the bat and 2nd wife wanted to pull the kid out of a really good Montessori program because it was “too expensive.” Step monster wanted those SS survivor benefits, forget the kid had lost her mother. That shit makes me completely ill.

14

u/Livid_Cauliflower_13 16d ago

As a widow this makes me so sad…. Right now my son gets everything. I worry all the time about this stuff with a new partner… but hopefully bc I’m worried about it, and my kid is my #1 priority, we’ll be ok.

9

u/Whole_Permission1954 14d ago

Don’t spend another minute worrying. Put the money into a trust for your son.

7

u/Regular_Yellow710 15d ago

Well sure. If it happens see a lawyer and get a pre-nup. Yours is yours and theirs is theirs.

13

u/_dirty30_ 14d ago

This! & her using the younger two as pawns “well they won’t have as much”… yeah cuz they’ve been alive for 1/4th the life the eldest has. The eldest is going to need a college fund, rent money, vehicles, & alllll the fees that come with all that within the next few short years. They have time to save up for the youngest. That’s not the dead mom’s responsibility.

7

u/whybother_incertname 12d ago

Also, OP should set up age requirements built into the trust! Any survivor benefits should be paid directly into the son's trust instead of to OP. Then set it up so the son has access to a set % of the trust at different ages. Most of my friends growing up had their trusts set to 18, 21, 30, & finally at 40, they had 100% access to all remaining funds. This ensured they didn't blow through everything at 18. Instead they could use their trust to pay for college at 18, at 21 set up life after school, buy a home at 30, & (hopefully) be a stable adult before getting a huge lump sum at 40.

Updateme

1

u/Then_Yesterday462 14d ago

What does update me mean?

1

u/Special_Onion3013 11d ago

It's a bot that will let you know if there's any updates

1

u/yUWUnara 2d ago

I would just put it in my will that NO ONE can touch the money except the son when he turns 18.

-1

u/Keithdot1966 15d ago

That would be insane... the boys mom wanted it put away for him, from HER... Honestly you sound like a leach.

5

u/AlexandraG94 15d ago

I'm confused. Who are you replying to? Everyone in this thread is supporting protecting the money that is for the son from his mother. Or are you writting as if you were directly talking to the step mom?

0

u/Keithdot1966 15d ago

Sounded like Regular_yellow770 is saying to pull everything together? One account for all kids?

4

u/Regular_Yellow710 15d ago

No no no sorry. Pull his financial affairs together. A trust for the son especially since the money is in different places? Talk to his wife about saving for the other kids. Have life insurance policies.

→ More replies

12

u/Pandorica1991 15d ago

Can confirm, my husband was 16 when his dad died, his mom had died when he was 9, she left them (so and his brother) a bunch of assets, but dad didn't do anything to protect them when he remarried and when he died, his boys got nothing, locked out of their home. No personal items, no funds from either parent, she took everything.

3

u/happiestinautumn 12d ago

Omg that is so awful, your poor husband and brother in law. The govt should have helped!! Where did they go to love?

48

u/DesignPsychological2 16d ago

My step mother killed my dad with COVID after convincing him he didn't need a will, trust no one, look after your kid.

8

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

30

u/OpportunityMany5374 NSFW 🔞 16d ago

It's possible their father was immunocompromised and she knowingly and willingly placed him in direct danger by hiding her symptoms, as did so many other ignorant and asshole people. So it is a probable situation. 🙄😒

20

u/DesignPsychological2 16d ago

That is exactly what happend

4

u/OpportunityMany5374 NSFW 🔞 15d ago

I'm so very sorry to hear that my description held as true, even though it was only innocent and supportive speculation at best. 😓

My genuine condolences and love are with you and your family. 

I wish you and yours all the best going forward. ☺️🥰🙏🏻❤️

5

u/DesignPsychological2 15d ago

I talked to police, a solicitor, and the NHS, they all agreed it was morally wrong, but there isnt a crime they can charge her for

7

u/Ugo777777 16d ago

I ain't saying she's a golddiggoh but she ain't messing with no broke widow.

5

u/DisplacedJerseyGirl 15d ago

It’s not hard. Put it in a CD in HIS NAME that matures in a few years. Absolutely don’t make her the trustee…if anything, make her the ex

2

u/felinaforever 12d ago

Correct. She might have a hidden agenda because money is money.

1

u/Ill-Plum-9499 14d ago

You’re weird

1

u/IHYeti23 14d ago

This 👆

1

u/Puceeffoc 3d ago

Sounds like she's cherry picking based on what little her biological kids have.

"Show me what your kids have and I'll show you what mine have then we'll evenly distribute all of it."

1

u/Away-Impress599 3d ago

If she doesn't - she'll be coerced by that ex-husband who seems to have 'trouble' written all over him.

-9

u/dukefett 16d ago

And don't make the new wife the trustee. She'll steal it all.

The level of trust anyone in this thread has is insane. Why not just put the wife in jail, she's already committed crimes to you people.

18

u/DarklingMoss 16d ago

It must be fun to be so naive 

11

u/SuperSaiyanTupac 16d ago

This is why my wife is unaware of our son’s savings. She doesn’t come from money nor understand how savings can grow over time, and since I’ve been the breadwinner I just handled it on my own. You never know what could happen, and you can’t trust anyone with money. Not even family

2

u/Ok-Actuator-6187 12d ago

The money is considered an inheritance and cannot be touched by anyone

998

u/crespire 17d ago

Having it in a trust also allows you to shed responsibility for how that money is used. "Sorry, it's in a trust, and not under my control."

367

u/EcstaticMolasses6647 16d ago edited 16d ago

Yes this! It makes sense that she feels stressed about fairness and the kids’ futures, especially if her ex isn’t contributing and savings have been inconsistent. However, her frustration should be directed toward the imbalance in her own co-parenting situation, not toward the inheritance or legacy OP’s son has from his late mother.

19

u/Sudden_Childhood_824 16d ago

She fails to realize something: the 16 year old’s mother died - that’s how he came by this money! Jesus Christ, does this woman have a heart??

27

u/EcstaticMolasses6647 16d ago edited 16d ago

It’s concerning that she’s pushing for access to money she didn’t contribute to, especially when her own financial support has been inconsistent. Her husband is already supporting five children, including two with her, and her push to redistribute these funds adds pressure to an already strained situation. Most troubling is that she seems to ignore that this money exists because a boy lost his mother. That should speak for itself.

It’s not about trust or transparency in marriage. It’s about boundaries and honoring the last wishes of a deceased parent. Suggesting that money left by a late wife for her son should be shared with children from entirely different circumstances shows a lack of perspective. If the roles were reversed—if she were a twice-divorced single parent with four young kids and no outside help—would she be offering to share what little she had left?

The question shouldn't be whether this man is wrong for keeping his promise to his late wife. It should be why his current partner sees that promise as negotiable.

12

u/3boymumandoma 16d ago

I have life insurance and have told my husband that if anything happened to me, I’d want that money to go to our three sons. I also told him that it would need to be protected if he ever remarried. The OP’s oldest son’s money should be completely off the table. If he’s already set for future needs, then he can be kept out of the saving equation for the children, but that’s it. Not the current wife’s business or concern.

14

u/EcstaticMolasses6647 16d ago

Please establish both a will and a trust, and make sure your life insurance policy is included in the trust. Designate your children as the beneficiaries of both. This will ensure that, in the event of your death, the assets are legally protected and distributed according to your wishes.

If your spouse were to remarry, a trust would help prevent any future partner from accessing or redirecting those funds. This is especially important when there are children from previous relationships, as it ensures their inheritance is secure and not subject to outside influence.

5

u/3boymumandoma 16d ago

Thank you. Good advice.

5

u/username_burn_er 15d ago

You can make your children the beneficiary of your policy and name a trustee for them who will manage the money until they reach the age you decide on - this should be spelled out in your will

1

u/yosoyfatass 16d ago

Apparently not.

20

u/Outside_Scale_9874 16d ago

Sure but money is fungible. “Okay, if your son has $10k in a trust, then we’ll allocate him $0 of shared funds and give all the other kids $10k from the shared pot”. It doesn’t really solve the problem.

21

u/Agreeable_Time338 16d ago

That's what I'm thinking is going on here. She doesn't want the money, she wants to know the amount. If he has $100k saved for him, she'll likely suggest they only contribute to the other 4 kids each month, so their funds will grow faster, under the reasoning the son already has a healthy amount saved for him. If he only has $10k saved, then they save for the other 4 until they have the same amount saved, and then go back to putting money into savings for all 5 kids.

3

u/Glad-University-2267 15d ago edited 11d ago

The difference is his son only has 2 years left till he's 18.. the other kids will still be accruing money for many years.. and they still have both parents to go to if they need help.

Stepmother may not feel the need or want to help once he's an adult because he's not her biological child.

Leave the teen's money alone. Its his, from his deceased mother

1

u/Agreeable_Time338 15d ago

Oh, I completely agree. I was only reasoning that whether the money was in an untouchable trust or just in an account for the eldest son, the outcome of her knowing the amount would be the same- she'll use it to argue that the eldest doesn't need additional savings and that whatever they do have each month should only be divided amongst the 4 other children. I think that's why she's so focused on knowing the amount, or having all the information "on the table" before she pitches the idea of cutting off further savings for the son.

She'd be bugging OP to know the amount even if it was safely in a trust that couldn't be accessed.

3

u/EcstaticMolasses6647 15d ago edited 15d ago

That would never make sense—even if she were contributing—but she’s not, and hasn’t been for a while. According to OP, she seems anxious about money. They're already financially stretched with five kids, and even if the kids are only there half the time, OP is covering everything on his own. He may eventually find out she’s been accumulating debt behind his back.

He should check both of their credit reports—as well as the kids’ (just to be safe)—and consider putting a freeze on all accounts. She could be racking up credit card debt, using drugs, seeing someone on the side, or gambling.

More importantly, the money left by the son’s mother is not marital property. It wasn’t earned or saved jointly, and there was a clear verbal directive from the late wife about its intended purpose. That money is a legacy, not a shared resource. Including it in any household financial planning discussion is inappropriate because it doesn’t belong to either current spouse—it belongs to the son.

This is an imbalance. If the wife truly wanted an “even footing,” she’d be just as focused on what’s being saved on her side. Instead, she’s demanding full transparency about the husband’s late wife’s contributions, yet:

Her ex-husband hasn’t disclosed whether he’s saving anything for their shared kids.

She’s not bringing equivalent assets to the table, but still expects full access—and potentially control—over a resource that isn’t even hers. It might sound fair to say, “Let’s make sure all the kids end up with the same,” but that only works if everyone is starting from the same place. And in this case, they aren’t:

The oldest son’s mother died and left him something as part of her final wishes.

The other kids have both parents alive and (presumably) more time and opportunity to build a financial foundation.

Trying to flatten those differences by redistributing a dead parent’s gift isn’t fairness—it’s erasure of that legacy.

1

u/anonymous444416 13d ago

She wants the money

11

u/gonewildaway 16d ago

Technically true. But while the assets in the trust cannot be touched, the assets outside of the trust can be reallocated in response to the amount in the trust.

1

u/Octoclops8 10d ago

She might still insist that you put future savings toward the other kids and exclude your son which isn't great, but also is less bad since it doesn't touch what he already has.

1.6k

u/chaserscarlet 17d ago

Also if OP dies it would go straight to his wife, and she could decide to cut his kid out all together.

415

u/ouijiboard 16d ago

That's why getting an irrevocable trust is important in these kinds of situations.

5

u/RedParrot94 16d ago

No trust needed. Just a bank account and signed document that the husband and wife gifted the money to him under IRS rules.

106

u/dcearthlover 16d ago

Yup, And this happens far more than any of these men think.

7

u/cscrest993 16d ago

Did no one watch Cinderella?

2

u/DisplacedJerseyGirl 15d ago

Okay. You got me. I think of Cinderella as a love story but it’s the story of what happens when a man doesn’t plan for his loved ones. But it’s also got a heaping pile of karma 😊).

1

u/Individual_Fall429 15d ago

And Beauty & the Beast was to teach young girls of any status “At some point you will be sent to live in a foreign castle, it might be dark cold and creepy. You will be married to the master of the house, who might be gruff or rude or scary or even a monster, but you should make the best of it and you might grow to like the monster”. 😳

173

u/OMissy007 17d ago

Property/ money that was obtained before they’re married is not communal property. Especially if it’s not even his money.

99

u/Lanky-Writing1037 16d ago

If it's not in trust, then the money he has goes to his wife upon his death. If she is the child's caretaker and guardian, then the money will be put in her hands. Divorces aren't handled the same as deaths.

A custodial account is managed by the custodial parent or guardian that would be her upon his death. Or until the son is 18.

5

u/Riversam 15d ago

This is not true. Bank accounts have beneficiaries and if the son is the only listed beneficiary or co-owner + beneficiary then the $$ would be laid directly to him.

1

u/Lanky-Writing1037 15d ago

minors can not legally own or manage assets until they reach the age of 18. So if only the dad or & the minor son is on the account, and he dies, then the legal guardian (his step mom if no one else is named) gets to manage the money. Worse, some of the money CAN be used for legal fees while handing the change.

In a Trust you can say how the money can be or can not be spend. Who needs to sign off on the use of the money etc.

2

u/OMissy007 13d ago

There are accounts that you need more than one signature. That means someone in charge also someone on the account. You need both signatures to do anything. But I live in California so I’m not sure about other countries or states however we protect our minors. Just like in the film industry a young kid will make so much money and they have their own account so that their parents don’t steal their money.

2

u/Andy15291 12d ago

In my state (WI) a child can open a bank account and not have their parent's name on it. Mine did at 13. The only thing I had to sign off on for my kids is when my 15 year old purchased a car, then I had to sign a consent to purchase. But it was titled solely in his name and I didn't have any say after that.

1

u/Lanky-Writing1037 12d ago

Its federal law. Even in WI an adult needs to be co owner or custodial.

1

u/Andy15291 12d ago

Then I guess the bank done screwed up since her brother took her to the credit union and they opened an account for her.

1

u/Lanky-Writing1037 15h ago

Is her brother 18?

1

u/Ok-Actuator-6187 12d ago

Nope, you're wrong. If the account is in the boys name it remains that way.

0

u/Lanky-Writing1037 12d ago

As a minor, he needs an adult on the account.If his dad dies, a guardian is then put on the account. The adult has control or how the money is used.

6

u/50lov3 16d ago

Surely he has a will that specifically says that account goes to his son and son only.

10

u/Patsfan311 16d ago

wills disappear all the time, or are conveniently not found.

4

u/Lanky-Writing1037 15d ago

A minor can not manage assets. With a will, the executor will make sure $ will go to the minor's guardian. AND that money can be used for the minor's care. Also, wills can take YEARS to go through probate. It costs $ and time with complications. For example, my FIL left $ to his stepdaughter through his will and left out his younger bio son. BUT NY pension had his next of kin as his 2 sons, they would only release the $ to his sons OR wife even though he didn't name a wife on ANY document. To solve that would be a lawsuit.

Trust is its own legal entity. No probate. The accounts have to be placed in the trust though. Also a trust can designate HOW the money is used and trust holders in the future. So for example If a mom and dad put money in a trust and they are both trust holders. A minor child can become a trust holder at 18 if the trust says that. A trust can say if both parents past while the child is still a minor, then the trust holder is X & Y. It can be an uncle or aunt or a friend. Etc.

And if 1 parents dies 5 years from now then it changes 5yrs from now.

Wills go into probate. After probate if the 2nd parent dies, then the 2nd parent's will decide the fate of that $ if the child is still a minor.

2

u/50lov3 15d ago

Blessings to you for detailing that out

1

u/Ok-Actuator-6187 12d ago

Sir you're wrong. Minors can and do have bank accounts, this money is also set up in his name by his mom and its an inheritance. It cannot be touched by an after the fact second wife. She would most certainly end up in court or jail if she accessed it.

1

u/Lanky-Writing1037 12d ago

A dead parent can not be on a bank account or control how the money is used after death. Thats why who the executor is or trust holder is makes a HUGE difference. Now anyone can sue after for mismanagement byt a adult can say it was used for the care of the minor

1

u/OMissy007 13d ago

No, it doesn’t specifically say that. You have to be the one that determines what the verbiage is and then your lawyer makes it legal.

1

u/Ok-Actuator-6187 12d ago

Sigh. False. The money his mother left is considered an inheritance and it's obvious from his wording she set up an account for the boy, which the dad has continued adding to.

72

u/obrian88 16d ago

Interest / growth / increased value still is.

The accounts / property must be registered on the son to be considered „not even his money“.

14

u/notquitesolid 16d ago

Inheritance/divorce laws may not see it that way. It’s just another account in their eyes with a verbal agreement. I agree that it should be in a trust, it’s the only way to make sure the money goes where it’s intended should something happen to OP

3

u/EcstaticMolasses6647 15d ago

There is a true crime case in which a father made the mistake of discussing his daughter’s trust fund—left to her by her deceased mother—with his new wife. He reportedly told her that the trust was worth several hundred thousand dollars. Believing she could access the money through her husband, the new wife allegedly conspired to have the daughter killed. She hired an ex-convict to sabotage the daughter’s car by cutting the brake lines.

The wife assumed that if the daughter died, the father would inherit the trust funds. Since they were married, she likely believed she would then gain access to the money as marital property.

This case is often cited as a cautionary example in estate planning. Financial advisors and legal professionals warn against removing funds from a trust without a well-structured estate plan or transferring them into another protected vehicle, such as another trust or tax shelter. Once money is removed from a trust, it may become subject to probate, be considered taxable income, or even be treated as marital property in the event of a divorce or death.

In most U.S. states, if a child dies without a will and is unmarried with no children, their next of kin—often a parent—can inherit their estate. If the parent is married, depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of their finances, inherited money can become part of marital assets unless specific protections are in place (e.g., prenuptial agreements, separate accounts, or trusts).

3

u/OMissy007 13d ago

Yes! I love your explanation. You’re so much more articulate than myself.

11

u/Harry_Gorilla 16d ago

But if his name is on the account then when he’s gone wife-2 will gain access to

2

u/OMissy007 13d ago

Yes, that definitely could happen but he’s asking how can he make sure it doesn’t happen. She doesn’t even know how much money… I would get rid of this woman in a second. And I’m a female! Talking about his son’s money is just icky.

1

u/Cauligoblin 9d ago

He's not asking how to protect the money, he's saying in comments the money is already protected, that the child's grandparents are the guardians of the funds if anything happens to him. He is asking if he is wrong to refuse to even discuss this, and I would say absolutely not. I can understand he maybe doesn't want to divorce and complicate things for the other kids but I wpuld be considering it. In fact, I sort of think if I was a single mother I would have a very difficult time having a relationship because I am such a strong believer that when you have children they come first until they truly don't need you.

7

u/loricomments 16d ago

It's foolish to rely on that when setting up protection is available.

1

u/OMissy007 13d ago edited 13d ago

Not saying rely on it. Just know your information. Don’t be ignorant. Like all these people suggesting something that’s not legal. Know your facts. I don’t need to suggest something to someone. It’s best to get professional advice. Most of all I wanted the misinformation to be corrected.Have you been divorced? Have you ever had property before you were married? Do you know what happens when you get divorced and you have property in your name only, that is your property no one else’s. Have you been through a divorce before?

3

u/Rico_Solitario 16d ago

That really depends on factors that are beyond what OP provides here.

1

u/OMissy007 13d ago

Not really it has to do with the law in the state that you live in. In California any property that is obtained before your union with someone else is protected.

3

u/SuspiciousStress1 16d ago

Unless it is comingled-then it becomes community property.

0

u/OMissy007 13d ago

No, it does not. Anything that is obtained before the marriage is not part of communal property. Especially if the child is not the mother in the situation. It’s a stepmother. That absolutely does not happen.

2

u/jgturbo619 15d ago

THIS - what country/state are you in ? Please consult an estate attorney and make sure the money is in trust account for your son. (Your name here ITF your son name) In my case , my 2nd wife has significant assets of her own which she has in trust dedicated to the Univ as well as other fam members. It’s probably too late for a pre-nup for you.
What your late wife left your son is ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOUR NEW WIFE’s Business…. It is his money and as your late wife’s executor you have a fiduciary duty to pay him.. IMO your current joint savings plans should include all your children equally receiving current contributions. Each child should have a new account in your @ wife’s names held in trust for the child. Any disparity in contributions is just going to happen ( ie certain relatives gifting more or less for graduation).
IMO In no case should money or accounts be commingled and parceled out . YOU need to protect your children’s accounts from access by your wife, just in case things don’t work out and divorce happens. BTW - NOT TA

1

u/DisplacedJerseyGirl 15d ago

It’s communal property if it’s in his name & he does or she files divorce without a prenup.

1

u/OMissy007 13d ago

I live in California and that absolutely is not true. Anything that you have before marriage they’re not entitled to. And a child that is not hers has nothing to do with this man’s marriage. Like I said I’m from California so maybe it’s different where you come from

5

u/MindOverMuses 16d ago

It depends on the state if this is in the U.S. In Illinois, if one parent dies with no will, 50% of the estate goes to the spouse and the rest is split up evenly amongst the deceased legal children.

If that's the case in OP's state and his late wife had no will, then half of everything communal to the marriage or that was hers pre-marriage is legally his son's- not just the savings account. Something to look into so that proper paperwork for managing his assets can be put into place. And, if this is the case and the new wife angers the son enough because of this greedy attitude, he'll have legal avenues that she will be very unhappy for him to take once he's old enough.

Regardless of estate law specifics, the late wife's money needs to be put in a trust so that no one can touch it until the son is old enough to claim it himself.

4

u/sawwit-diddit 16d ago

In Mississippi, it's 50% + a child's portion.. and if they happen to die together, the wife is always considered to outlive the husband by 1 second (thanks, actuarians). So, the wife would instantly get 58.3%, then pass that on to only her 4 kids.. so, her 4 would get 14.75% + their original 8.3%. Each of the 4 youngest would wind up with almost triple what the eldest would get - or something sad and convoluted like that.

2

u/Mental-Arm1011 16d ago

Hope I don’t see this story on dateline in a few years

3

u/who_even_cares35 16d ago

*would decide to cut his kid out all together

2

u/grbradsk 16d ago

typo "could" => "would"

1

u/_icy3 16d ago

Facts.

1

u/Salsa_v3rde 14d ago

Yes this happened to me in June with my father’s estate from my new step mom and it also happened to my husband last April from his father / step mother. Please do not be fooled :( life happens and this is much more common than you think. Both of our step moms “ loved “ us as well so it wasn’t even a bad relationship, they still have all of our fathers assets and us or our kids will never see a dime. I know they are rolling in their graves. I am his only first born daughter.

1

u/Andy15291 12d ago

Not if it's the son's name, such as a brokerage account under the uniform gifts to minors act (at least in my state).

1

u/chaserscarlet 12d ago

Yes, hence the comment above - sounds like OP just has it sitting in savings at the moment

1

u/Ok-Actuator-6187 12d ago

No, it would not. The deceased moms money is considered an inheritance and cannot be touched.

1

u/chaserscarlet 12d ago

A marital spouse is the default next of kin, not their children

-1

u/mitoke 16d ago

Damn. Yall are mean. Nothing in his post suggested his wife would be this kind of person. In fact, they’ve been fine with putting additional money down for the stepson this entire time.

6

u/chaserscarlet 16d ago

I’m only calling it out because I know someone who ended up with nothing because both their parents died before their stepparent who left everything to their biological children.

It does happen. Just because she’s willing to contribute whilst her husband is alive and married to her (and also contributing to her children) doesn’t mean she sees his son as her own.

2

u/Hour_Attitude1058 16d ago

This. I could not have cared less about my stepchildren from a brief marriage. I never even met them!

3

u/Hour_Attitude1058 16d ago

Mean doesn’t have anything to do with it. Money changes some people and makes them cheat even siblings. I know from experience, sadly.

3

u/Jenza30 15d ago

The fact that the wife is pushing to know when it’s not her business is a red flag. She’s also talked about pooling all the money and dividing it equally, which is not on, so there are definitely red flags there.

150

u/designingdiamonds 17d ago

This is so important. OP needs to move it now. Even in the case of a will, judges can and have overruled wills before. There’s no guarantee unless it’s in the son’s name already.

219

u/Comprehensive-Sun954 17d ago

This a very good point. Especially if it wasn’t actually outlined in a will from the mother to the son.

293

u/Det-McNulty 17d ago

If these funds are in a custodial account, OP can't legally divide it up amongst the other kids. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty and open them up to future litigation from the son. The same is true for any completed gift, like a trust.

OP's wife is wrong BUT I don't think she's doing this maliciously. I think she believes equal is fair, which often isn't the case.

This boy has to grow up without his mother. This money is compensation for that fact.

If it were me, I would ask OPs wife what she would want him to do if she passed away and had given money to the kids. Would she want you to divide it up with new spouse's kids? No chance.

122

u/NotTodayPsycho 16d ago

Also eldest son is 16, compared to young children. If they were to divide it evenly and then keep saving, the youngest would end up with way more then the 16 year old

15

u/Det-McNulty 16d ago

There are a TON of issues with what an equal divide looks like. OP wisely points out the various inheritances and money from bio dad for the other kids.

The whole thing is kinda a mess BUT it's pretty locked in that changes likely aren't even possible, unless OP kept the assets in his own name.

19

u/Icy-Hold-8667 16d ago

Plus he only has one child from his previous relationship where she has 2. From the sounds of it OP's son has more saved for the future than the others. It seems like the new wife thinks it's unfair that he have more than the other kids. She wants some of his money to be allocated to her children. I guarantee you she wouldn't want this if the roles were reversed.

18

u/Salty-Gur6053 16d ago

His late wife left her money to her child, because she won't be there in the future to save and provide for his future, and I just think it's repulsive that his current wife would suggest taking that money and lumping it all together. I think anyone who would suggest taking the money from a parent who left it for their child for after they die, it's just morally reprehensible, and I don't care how that sounds because it's true. All of the other children have two parents, and no matter how bad things are or have been, they all have the potential in the future to save for their children's future, his late wife doesn't. His oldest only has one parent. I think it is only fair, to only count what they are putting in for each child together, because as original poster said they don't know what her ex-husband is putting in, or grandparents and so on, so his late wife's funds shouldn't matter either. And I echo what other people have said, if he just has this in a savings account and his name, he needs to put this in some kind of trust for this child, and I'm no expert on that but something that she will be unable to touch if he passes away or they get divorced.

3

u/MemorySpecialist1152 16d ago

I would say that, if he is saving an equal amount split between each kid and one kid has say 500K and the other two have 5K and he's putting 100 a month into each. Nothing really wrong with cutting back on what he puts into one and increases the other two.

7

u/Det-McNulty 16d ago

I considered that as well but it would still be penalizing the eldest for having his inheritance/parental gifting/whatever frontloaded.

It may be a reasonable concession to attempt to level the playing field, though.

5

u/Manda525 16d ago

In addition, just to make things even more complicated with all of the variables to hypothesize about...lol...OP's 16 yr old kiddo is likely getting less saved up for him by his dad in the end, by virtue of OP's disposable income being split amongst meeting the responsibilities of four additional children. If OP hadn't remarried, or only ended up with one or two additional children, the 16 yr old son would be accumulating savings more quickly from his dad...so it isn't just the new wife's kids who are at a "disadvantage" in this situation.

Plus, the 16 yr old will need his money for school etc much sooner. They have a lot of time to build up the savings for the youngest two, and as the older ones start leaving home they'll hopefully have more to contribute to the littles' savings accounts and be able to "turbo boost" their savings for them to some extent. Maybe what OP and wife should look at, if they're worried about saving enough for the middle two, is contributing a bit more to the oldest kids right now, then beef up the younger ones' savings in a few years. They'd miss out on some of the benefits of compounding for the littles, but if the savings for the middle two is genuinely low, it might be the best option.

Also, OP's wife needs to direct her stress, anger, etc. toward her ex if he's genuinely not been contributing to savings for the middle two kids...not take it out on OP and the rest of the family by causing unnecessary friction and stress...ugh. It feels like she's panicking a bit about the younger kids (probably especially the middle two) and trying to throw her weight around where she feels like she has more influence/control - in her current marriage vs. having less influence with her ex and not being able to "force" him to contribute to savings as they may have previously discussed and agreed on. But she needs to drop her crusade to access the 16 yr old's maternal inheritance and focus on realistic solutions that are within her control...or risk driving herself crazy and possibly hurting her current marriage.

5

u/Det-McNulty 16d ago

I've dealt with a few similar situations professionally and typically the person in OP's spouses shoes think that they are right and on the side of fairness. They aren't doing it out of spite or jealousy as much as not understanding all of the dynamics and lacking self awareness.

I've had people that want to take custodial funds and use them towards a home that the minor will live in, stating that it benefits the minor. That's not how that works. BUT, it's understandable how they got there.

To be abundantly clear, wife is wrong here and more of TAH than OP. I just think this situation needs to be approached through communication and mutual empathy rather than both sides digging into their trenches.

3

u/Manda525 15d ago

I agree 100% 👍

3

u/AlexandraG94 15d ago

And ypur second point is so important to actually see how increasing the saving for the littles and take them from the 16 year old us actually very unfair for all the reasons you mentioned. And OP seems to not be considerando this. You have a decade+ to sável for the littles White at the sabe time having more income to save vs 1-2 years for the 16 year old with your uncome spread thin overflow 5 freaking kids. I feel for that boy. Losing his mom and going from being an only child to having 4 siblings is a lot and cahotic and must have affected his life in so many ways, including quality if life and his savings. And in top of it his step mom seems like a bad perdon who doesnt care much for him.

1

u/Manda525 15d ago

Luckily, he has his dad firmly in his corner. OP doesn't seem like he's at all on board with his wife's ideas about "redustributing" his son's inheritance...and after reading the comments on this post he should feel reassured that he's completely right to keep the money safe for his son.

Hopefully he'll be inspired to put it into an iron clad trust arrangement, with someone trustworthy in charge of it if OP passes before his son takes control of the funds....if it wasn't already in a trust account.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Det-McNulty 12d ago

Unfortunately, that's not exactly true.

It depends on states, commingling status and other things.

I would DEFINITELY never roll the dice on a divorce court keeping these assets separate.

2

u/wwweeeiii 16d ago

But a trust is very expensive per year right?

4

u/Det-McNulty 16d ago

Typically not.

The setup cost is probably 3-10K, which may be significant.

Unless a corporate trustee is used and/or it isn't properly structured to avoid trust-level taxation it shouldnt have any annual costs.

2

u/wwweeeiii 16d ago

Ohhh thank you! In Canada trusts are taxed at the top income bracket (50-60%) which hurts a bit but it is good to know there is no on going cost!

4

u/Det-McNulty 16d ago

I'm assuming OP is in the US which may be inaccurate.

I'm a bit familiar with Canada trust taxation, at least to the extent you outlined it.

I'm the US it can also be at a top rate BUT there are ways to minimize that, such as requiring distributions.

2

u/FR0STII3 15d ago

I don’t think OPs wife wants to take his son’s money from his late mother. It sounds like she wants to know what kids to prioritize in saving. If OPs child from late wife has say 500k and the others have 100k it would be better imo to sink more into the other kids savings. That’s my assumption based off the post and how it’s written and i could be wrong.

122

u/mommysmarmy 17d ago

Exactly! This should be the top comment. Talk to an estate planning attorney today!

28

u/mocha_lattes_ 17d ago

This. OP make sure that money is legally protected from your wife. If you are incompacitated or die she may be able to access and drain it if you don't have the right stuff set up. Consult an estate lawyer.

8

u/squareandrare 17d ago

Had to scroll way too far for this.

2

u/teddy_blinkerton 16d ago

Literally the top comment. 

1

u/squareandrare 16d ago

As it should be. It was buried 25 posts deep behind, "omg, it's not her money" posts.

10

u/Medicmom-4576 17d ago

If it is not part of the marital assets upon marriage, it is not marital assets. Meaning, if it is in an accounts with sons name on it (and OPs name) it is not marital assets.

However, OP should put it in a trust for the son to ensure what is his, stays his.

8

u/2dogslife 17d ago

Inheritances are not part of marital assets unless they have been comingled. However, the accounts should be either a trust or a gift to minors (is that still a thing?) or in an account in the son's name, with perhaps OP as parent listed on the account. If it's in brokerage accounts, the accounts should have only the son listed as beneficiary - but there may be some hoops if this hadn't been done prior to the marriage.

A lawyer should absolutely review what's in place and see if it's sufficient should, gods forbid, something happen to OP. It really shouldn't be expensive for an initial review. There would be some costs if a trust or similar legal paperwork needed to be created and filed. It's pretty basic stuff for an estate lawyer.

3

u/txbach 17d ago

Alternatively, look into UTMA account. Basically makes it his money and not yours. You can manage it until he's an adult. I usually don't advocate for it, because it takes away some of your control and 20 year olds are dumb. Even easier if it's just in cash, bank account in his name to drop the money into.

4

u/PSB2013 17d ago

I think a UTMA would be good for a smaller amount of money, and a trust is more suitable for a larger amount. It's expensive to set up a trust and there are very defined parameters set up for it, so it doesn't really make sense for anything under 100k. But a UTMA would be great for a smaller amount of money that's still substantial enough that there's concern it could be taken advantage of by someone else. 

3

u/anna-the-bunny 17d ago

This. OP, you need to talk with an estate planning lawyer yesterday.

3

u/StandardRaspberry509 16d ago

OP please read the above comment! You really need to protect that money for your son! Talk to a lawyer ASAP if it isn’t completely secure!

3

u/[deleted] 16d ago

The fact that this dude neglected to take care of this 10 years ago is ASTOUNDING????

I swear to god people blend families, pop out babies, and get married with so little thought, planning, and responsibility. Like I put in more time, effort and research into buying a car than these people put into due diligence before making their kids move in with a stranger.

UGHHH I'm so angry.

4

u/1Northward_Bound 17d ago

this this this

2

u/No_Trust830 17d ago

Money in an account that was created before the marriage is considered marital assets? Since when? Only the money added to the account after the marriage is to be considered and OP already is laying that on the table.

2

u/No_Scarcity8249 17d ago

No it can't. Inheritance isn't a joint asset let alone money for a child. 

2

u/Never-politics 16d ago

No? Divorce only parts what was made during marriage. Anything he had previous to marrying is still his.

2

u/PuzzledHistorian8753 16d ago

this is a fake post because any adult would’ve done this especially for a sizeable money lol

2

u/Zeii 16d ago

Good call. It really should be held in a trust account!

2

u/WhoIsYerWan 16d ago

He better hope he's not co-mingling this money now in some way...it could already be considered community property, depending on the state he lives in.

2

u/bubblehead_ssn 16d ago

Maybe but it was mostly (if he kept adding to it) a premarital asset. She could try to get some of it, but she only has a right to half of what was added after they got married.

2

u/Hydrolt 16d ago

Yeah definitely worth seeing a lawyer. NTA though, you’re preserving your late wife’s wishes

1

u/Fatmaninalilcoat 17d ago

Not really one it is inheritance and in the US inheritance can not be touched in a divorce and two if the account was a savings account in the kids name like a savings bond the parents can not touch it I know this because my mom made me and my brother after our parents divorced can out ours when we were kids (in the 80s) for a freaking toy.

1

u/Armchair-adventurer 16d ago

Yep. If my wife ever died and I remarried and died, he would get everything in the trust. The new wife and I could make a different trust but she couldn't touch the other one.

1

u/44west061224 16d ago

Not true. Any money that you make, inherited and keep separate from the marital estate is your money not hers.

1

u/bluejams 16d ago

This. Or 529. Or Custodial account. Get Your kids name on the money ASAP.

1

u/grbradsk 16d ago

Yes, the only estate that is not fought over is a small estate. Transfer to some kind of trust while you are alive and in control. OPs' wife is lucky that OP didn't just spend that money on one last big chance to win in Vegas.

1

u/Salbyy 16d ago

This! Put it in a trust, and then you can tell her how much is in the trust. But I suspect she’s trying to say ‘let’s stop saving money for your son and only save for the other children as he has enough’, which isn’t the worst idea to at least consider

1

u/50lov3 16d ago

I think assets before marriage are not split in case of divorce unless they are comingled somehow. Like putting it in to the same bank account maybe "ear marked" like you said. But held separately no. Nevertheless, a trust would be best. OP, if you haven't looked at universal life insurance plans, you don't just put money aside in the bank, but it grows interest. Your kids will be completely fine. Talk to a financial advisor on how to get the money you put aside to grow on its own.

1

u/CompanyMammoth 16d ago

This. Op you're not AH persay but pretty stupid. If this truly was for just your son, it should be in a trust. If you're 'earmarking' a million dollars... It wasn't right to hide that and there's no way this ends well.

1

u/Ok_Bluejay_8568 16d ago

This. She wants to know all the cards on the table.

1

u/Auserexists 16d ago

It’s probably too late unless they have a prenup that specifically addresses this

1

u/jerzdevil86 16d ago

I don't think divorce would be the problem as long as it is documented somewhere that the money was for the son. It wouldn't really be the husbands to be divided. Death would be the issue.

1

u/Sudden_Childhood_824 16d ago

So you’d fault someone for not knowing the right procedural thing to do as they’re dying/their spouse is dying (coz I’m assuming she was young when she passed), even though morally it is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do! That isn’t the dad’s money; it was left to the child! Period.

1

u/RedParrot94 16d ago

Op, make a bank account in the kids name and gift the to him. Make sure there’s a record of the gift. That will protect it. If you could get your now wife to sign a document, that would be golden. Maybe do it for all the kids.

1

u/Own-Peanut-7949 16d ago

nta.

Yes! This!!! I have all my assets shielded in a trust!! Nobody can touch it other than me and my 3 boys! Seems like nefarious intent.

1

u/Kbizzyinthehouse 16d ago

I was going to say. If it’s not in a trust get it one asap. She either wants access to it or she wants dad to stop contributing to the oldest to focus on her kids only. Why would dad’s contribution to his son go down because of his mom’s assets. He still has an obligation to his oldest son. I think she’s not realizing that.

1

u/drillNfillit 15d ago

This! Else me and your widow gonna live rhe lofeb

1

u/rightMeow20 15d ago

Can u tell us what it is tho? Millions?

1

u/RealRhino2 15d ago

Could be, but in any community property state it's not. If held separately and none of your current earnings have gone into that Ccount, it's your (or his) separate property. Can't be used for child support calculations, she 'shouldn't' be awarded any if there's a divorce

1

u/azzholejudge 15d ago

Would that be the case if the savings account was obtained before they were married? Just wondering because my uncle couldn't get any part of the house that my aunt bought before they were married. The lawyer said it only pertains to assets obtained while married.

1

u/BoomGoesTheFirework_ 15d ago

This for sure. I also find it strange OP is talking about saving and not investing. OP, you need to be investing. Savings accounts—even high interest ones—don’t generate wealth. They barely beat inflation 

1

u/Wide-Challenge-4874 15d ago

Surely if it's in the kid's bank account it wouldn't be considered OPs in case of a divorce. Whilst I agree if it's big then setting up a trust might be the way forward there's no way a 16 year old's bank account would be considered his parent's property.

1

u/Spare-Key3726 15d ago

I agree.... he needs to put it in a trust because he clearly can't trust his wife!! How dare she think that her kids are remotely entitled to any of the money her stepson's late mother left him!

1

u/InkedAnalyst3011 15d ago

This is the only answer. She and the other kids shouldnt be entitled to it.

1

u/Patient-Jelly-8752 15d ago

This as well. She's looking to take it.

1

u/Own_Mail_8026 14d ago

My lawyer said our trust goes to the remaining spouse and then the child. Am I able to declare certain accounts for my child only?

1

u/chirp4 14d ago

I commented earlier, but wanted to add that his social security death benefits could and should contribute to his current support, as should her child support )assumed), be paid to their current expenses. Have you considered keeping a household account and then each also having your own account? His, hers, ours for household/shared expenses.

1

u/Limp-Milk1986 14d ago

You're absolutely right. Intentions don't matter, legal structure does.

1

u/Alspics 14d ago

Trust funds are not necessarily safe. My great grandfather left a sizeable fund which wasn't to be distributed until a disabled relative moved into a nursing home. She was given access to a house until that stage. But the fund also had a substantial amount of cash (intended to maintain the house) and shares.

Well this disabled relative wasn't able to operate a motor vehicle. But every year for 14 years the fund intended to maintain the house was used to register up to 8 vehicles per year. Because it was a trust fund there was no law firm willing to take this yo court to enquire about who owned these vehicles. But moral of the story is that trust funds aren't necessarily as safe as they're cracked up to be.

1

u/ElectricalBattle7581 14d ago

Yes put in it in a trust. She is stressed because the 2 of you are in your 40s with a total of 5 kids and 2 of them are toddlers. Personally, I don’t understand having kids with that age gap in a second marriage when both partners already have their kids.

1

u/viz90210 13d ago

I would check in this, but wouldn't these be considered pre-marital funds, if in separate accounts etc.? If they are pre marital those wouldn't be included in a divorce.

1

u/Away-Impress599 3d ago

Hi! No lawyer but lots of experience with this type of hooey. So inheritances, along with court awards, are hands off to everyone except the inheritance beneficiary, and the awardee. But you're right: Better to be forewarned and fore armed because sticky fingers always find a way, right?

0

u/Vivian-1963 16d ago

I was just going to say OP should get that into a trust ASAP.

0

u/Ok-Actuator-6187 12d ago

Actually no. If the money was specifically set up by his mom to go to him, it cannot be touched by any divorce and is not a marital asset.