Is it wrong for me to want to be my wife’s sole beneficiary?

[Bad Samaritan]

My wife just filled out an enrollment form to participate in her company’s 401K plan. I noticed that she listed me and her 19 year old son as 50/50 beneficiaries. She’s done this on every type of beneficiary form she’s filled out since we’ve been married. When I question her about it, her response is that if something happens –she doesn’t trust that I will let her son see any of it (the boy and I have a tenuous relationship at best). The fact is, I would let him see some benefit, but I want to be “the decider” of what/how much in that situation. My argument is… we’ve been married for 8 years. Most of our assets have been accumulated jointly. As the primary income earner (by a 2/1 ratio) and the ‘saver’ in the relationship, frankly, I feel I’ve contributed more to her individual financial health than she has. I feel fully entitled to her death benefit if that day ever comes. For the record, she is my sole beneficiary for everything, including assets I accumulated before marriage.

So, am I wrong in my view? This is not a matter of my relationship with her son affecting my position. I’m perfectly willing to give him 100% interest in the IRA and other insurance instruments that were in place and funded solely by her before we were married. I just want first and final say in how our joint assets are distributed.

IANAL, but my understanding is that unless I specifically sign my entitlement away (I haven’t), a spouse is always in first position as a beneficiary, regardless of who she puts down. So this is probably more a matter of contention between us than anything else.

FTR, I’m not plotting to off my wife.

[Mr. Excellent]

So, am I wrong in my view?

Yah, probably. Expecting a mother to hand over a decision with a major impact on her son's future to someone who doesn't even *like* the kid is unrealistic. So, yes, it's wrong for you to want to be your wife's sole beneficiary.

[Alice The Goon]

It may not be wrong for you to want her to make you her sole beneficiary, but it would definitely be wrong for you to pressure her to. A person's decisions on these matters should be their own, and since this is what she wants, you should accept it.

[TimeWinder]

From the sound of your post, your wife has good reason to believe that you won't honor her wishes. You've stated that you wouldn't honor them. Hence she's doing the right thing by putting them in writing.

Yes, you're wrong (in my opinion); as the primary earner, you actually have much less need for that money than her son does. And you're not contributing to her 401K, so this isn't "jointly accumulated money" anyway. If it were me, I'd not only leave it be, I'd sign the spot on the firm giving up the entitlement.

[Obeseus]

Every 401K in which I've participated has always required the spouse to be the sole beneficiary unless the spouse signs off in writing that it can be someone else or shared with another. Perhaps your wife's 401K is different, or maybe she forged your signature on a document allowing her son to be a beneficiary.

[treis]

Originally Posted by AnatomicallyCorrect

When I question her about it, her response is that if something happens –she doesn’t trust that I will let her son see any of it (the boy and I have a tenuous relationship at best). The fact is, I would let him see some benefit, but I want to be “the decider” of what/how much in that situation.

I think she's got a legitimate concern here. You are willing to give him "some" money, but she has no guarantee that it's going to be anything significant.

Originally Posted by AnatomicallyCorrect

My argument is… we’ve been married for 8 years. Most of our assets have been accumulated jointly. As the primary income earner (by a 2/1 ratio) and the ‘saver’ in the relationship, frankly, I feel I’ve contributed more to her individual financial health than she has. I feel fully entitled to her death benefit if that day ever comes. For the record, she is my sole beneficiary for everything, including assets I accumulated before marriage.

So, am I wrong in my view? This is not a matter of my relationship with her son affecting my position. I’m perfectly willing to give him 100% interest in the IRA and other insurance instruments that were in place and funded solely by her before we were married. I just want first and final say in how our joint assets are distributed.

IANAL, but my understanding is that unless I specifically sign my entitlement away (I haven’t), a spouse is always in first position as a beneficiary, regardless of who she puts down. So this is probably more a matter of contention between us than anything else.

FTR, I’m not plotting to off my wife.

Wrong? Perhaps not, but you are coming off very selfish. The "I bring in more money, therefore I decide how it's spent" argument is never a good one in marriage. Personally, I'd say that you are in the wrong here. 19 is just barely out of the nest, and it's still an age where you should reasonably be able to crash at your parents if things don't work out. If your wife dies, he loses out on that (depending on what his father is doing). It's reasonable that she would want to give him something that he could fall back on.

As it stands it's an issue you have to work out as a couple. If she holds firm, I guess it comes down to how important this issue is to you. She holds the upper hand because she is the one that is in charge of that particular asset, and you are the one that wants to change the Status Quo. Frankly, it'd reflect very poorly on you if you made this into that big of an issue. It'd really make you look bad if you even tried to challenge her wishes after she passes.

[Boyo Jim]

Yes, you are wrong. If I were married to you, and I read this thread, I'd consider dumping you altogether.

[susan]

Speaking as an adult child of a non-acrimoniously remarried parent, yes, in my opinion you are wrong. I am delighted that both my mother and my step-father have identified both specific and general handling of their estates in order to safeguard the interests of all of the adult children.

This isn't about who earned what percent of the money, but about the fact that your marriage does not supercede your wife's previous familial commitments. If I were your wife, your post above would only confirm that I should be sure my child was provided for.

We have no children, but my partner and I both designate our respective sisters as partial beneficiaries. I also have a friend who isn't likely to remain in good health as she ages; she is also listed as a partial beneficiary. If my partner chose to list another person as a partial beneficiary, I would be moved by her generous spirit, not angered that I was not the only person she wanted to take care of. Certainly if she had a child I would welcome this. If I didn't like the child or disapproved of his or her behavior, I'd be relieved that my partner clearly and unambiguously attended to the financial aspects of that relationship in this way so that I did not have to make any decisions that appeared either to condon or punish the kid.

Death of a family member is hard enough without acrimony.

[Geek Mecha]

Yeah, you're wrong, IMO. Regardless what percent of your household income is earned by you and the extent to which the rest of your finances are tied, her 401k is still HER money. She's free to do with it as she pleases.

Also:

I just want first and final say in how our joint assets are distributed.

I can't tell you how wrongly this sentence rubs me. It sounds like you've forgotten that the words "our" and "joint" are in that sentence. It's pretty ballsy of you to think you should have "first and final say" when it comes to HER money and HER son.

[Auntbeast]

That is her child. She probably has already had one husband that went away...and yet, the child remains.

I would be pretty pissed off if my spouse felt I should cut my child out of my will. They cut my child out of ME, YOU can be replaced.

Honestly dude, how would feel if one of your parents remarried and the new spouse got everything and you got squat? Would you be hurt? I'm betting you would.

The only possible way I would make that arrangement with you is if your wills were set up so that if either survives, the other one's will has an arrangement for the son. (I die, my husbands will names our daughter, if he dies, my will names our daughter) The rub is, and I feel strongly that this is something you seem likely to do, is if your will gets changed after she leaves this mortal coil. She would have to trust you to do that, and to me, you sound entirely untrustworthy in this matter.

I'd also tell you to take a flying leap. It's pretty arrogant for you to want her to ignore her son when she dies.

And yes, I've been around when this sort of thing happened, except my husbands uncle threw a fit when his grandparents listed my husband as a beneficiary. The fact that the uncle is a successful doctor, owns a multi-million dollar home and collected rent from his father when he was dying of cancer, and the grandson has no father in the picture, has not gone to college and well, was just starting out in life had no bearing on anything. As a matter of fact, he called my husbands mother into his office for a meeting and asked her to ask my husband to give the uncle the money. C*#@biting d*&#weed.

I'm pretty sure that if this attitude comes out in life, the son has a good reason not to have a good relationship with you.

I sincerely hope that my impressions are wrong and you are a better person than you have come across being.

[Bad Samaritan]

Well ok, the early results are trending heavily to me being a selfish jerk over the matter. I accept that. Of course there are deeper underlying (mostly financial) issues I could use to justify my attitude, but it’s useless at this point. I recognize her position, we have not argued about it (only briefly discussed it once), and if there was such a situation where it might become an imminent matter –I would honor her request. It’s more a matter that she doesn’t trust me to be fair about it. I’m not trying to cheat her son out of a rightful inheritance. In fact at this point, aside from our house and my 401K, by far her largest assets/entitlements are held in her IRA and life policy. I clearly stated I was willing to give her son 100% interest in those, without argument. If she died tomorrow, he would benefit much more than I would because of that. Again, I’m not trying/hoping for something to happen along those lines –despite what anyone may think of me, I hope my wife outlives me and gets every penny to do what she pleases. Even if that means giving it all to her son. I just want more of a say in the financial portfolio created during our marriage.

BTW, her son has lived with his father the entire time we’ve been married. His dad is a successful business owner; he wouldn’t be left high and dry in any event.

[scotandrsn]

Originally Posted by Obeseus

Every 401K in which I've participated has always required the spouse to be the sole beneficiary unless the spouse signs off in writing that it can be someone else or shared with another. Perhaps your wife's 401K is different, or maybe she forged your signature on a document allowing her son to be a beneficiary.

According to several 401k help sites, and what I can make out of the US tax code online, this is correct.

Federal law requires that you should have signed a waiver in order to allow her to name someone other than you (her spouse) and only you as a beneficiary.

So under these circumstances, if you signed a waiver and now wish you hadn't, well, that's your own funeral, but if you know you did not sign such a waiver, then there's a bit of a problem with the way she filled out the forms.

[Mr Jim]

FWIW, I don't think you are being selfish. The son is a grown man and can provide for himself, non? You and your wife are life partners and are planning a future for yourselves, not for an additional 3rd adult.

[kittenblue]

Originally Posted by Mr Jim

FWIW, I don't think you are being selfish. The son is a grown man and can provide for himself, non? .

HA! At 19? Either just graduated high school or in the first year of college. My daughter moved out at 19, but it took years before she was anywhere near providing for herself...in fact, now, at 25, she's about stable. Very few 19 year olds are able to find jobs that do more than keep food on the table and a partial roof over their heads.


Now 35 Dopers will come in to tell me how they were living on their own by 16.....with a 401 and a stock portfolio....

[Mr Jim]

Originally Posted by kittenblue

HA! At 19? Either just graduated high school or in the first year of college. My daughter moved out at 19, but it took years before she was anywhere near providing for herself...in fact, now, at 25, she's about stable. Very few 19 year olds are able to find jobs that do more than keep food on the table and a partial roof over their heads.


Now 35 Dopers will come in to tell me how they were living on their own by 16.....with a 401 and a stock portfolio....

Yes, but that is what a 19 year old's life is supposed to be like.

[Cyberhwk]

Originally Posted by Mr Jim

FWIW, I don't think you are being selfish. The son is a grown man and can provide for himself, non? You and your wife are life partners and are planning a future for yourselves, not for an additional 3rd adult.

RWIW I agree...

If it's your income that allows your wife the luxury of significant contrributions to a 401(k) I don't think it's unreasonable for you to expect to have a say in where those contributions lead to.

/then again I'm drunk right now...

[Gala Matrix Fire]

I agree with Mr Jim.
The son is not a dependent.
The husband is a life partner.
But then, I don't get the compulsion to make your loved ones rich when you die. The son would be much better served by knowing he doesn't have a windfall headed his way.

[Turek]

Originally Posted by AudreyK

Yeah, you're wrong, IMO. Regardless what percent of your household income is earned by you and the extent to which the rest of your finances are tied, her 401k is still HER money. She's free to do with it as she pleases.

Also:

I can't tell you how wrongly this sentence rubs me. It sounds like you've forgotten that the words "our" and "joint" are in that sentence. It's pretty ballsy of you to think you should have "first and final say" when it comes to HER money and HER son.

This smacks of "his money is their money, but her money is her money." Which is bullshit.

[Athena]

I was all set to call you a jerk and all the other things that previous posters had said, but when I went back and re read your OP, I changed my mind. You stated that you have no problem with your wife's pre-marriage assets going to her kid. You just feel that you have the right to have some say in how the money and assets you have accumulated in your marriage is distributed in the sad situation that she passes away. I think that's fair, considering the son is grown and you've been married long enough to accumulate a fair bit of joint assets.

I'll go so far as saying it's rather callous of your wife to take half of some of the joint assets you've accumulated together and give it to her son. I'm not saying the son shouldn't be accounted for, but that should be a joint decision. The two of you should sit down and figure out what should go to her son if she dies. She shouldn't make that decision on her own when it comes to joint assets.

And I agree with Turek: if the money is joint, it's joint. As such, both partners in the marriage get a say in how it's spent and who it goes to in the will.

[susan]

You and your wife are life partners and are planning a future for yourselves

His wife has a different intention about the money than he does.

[AuntiePam]

You can't depend on her son inheriting from his father. If the father is married, he might have things set up so that his wife gets everything when he dies.

Same with life insurance -- is it a private policy or is it a policy through her employment? If the policies lapse for whatever reason, the kid gets nothing. If she has to use the funds in her IRA, he gets nothing. Her share of your house? How would that work? You'd buy him out?

It looks like she wants to assure that her son will have something when she dies, and maybe she believes the 50% of her 401-k is the only guaranteed asset she has to offer.

[DrDeth]

Yes, wrong- and this is a sore point I would not bring up again.

Now, if she was leaving it all to him, then I'd say something.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

You can't depend on her son inheriting from his father. If the father is married, he might have things set up so that his wife gets everything when he dies.

Same with life insurance -- is it a private policy or is it a policy through her employment? If the policies lapse for whatever reason, the kid gets nothing. If she has to use the funds in her IRA, he gets nothing. Her share of your house? How would that work? You'd buy him out?

It looks like she wants to assure that her son will have something when she dies, and maybe she believes the 50% of her 401-k is the only guaranteed asset she has to offer.

Yes, but it's still joint income. If she's putting money in a 401(k), that's money that isn't coming into the household to pay for bills. And she wants half of it to go to another adult outside the marriage, and she doesn't want her husband to have a say in the matter.

The issue would be no different if she announced that she wants to leave half her retirement money to a church he doesn't belong to, or to a charity of her choosing. Her desires may be admirable, but it's still joint money and they should both agree to the disposition of it.

I think this is a basic relationship issue. Some couples are more controlling about where the money goes, and some give each other more leeway. How does she feel about you deciding to spend some money on something you want without her approval? Is she okay with that? Can you write a cheque to a charity without getting her approval? Does she ever stop you from buying things you want because she thinks it's not fair? If a family member of yours became ill or had financial difficulty, would she complain if you offered to help financially?

Answers to these kinds of questions will tell you if she's being reasonable or not. It can be fully reasonable to expect you to go along with this if in the past she has been reasonable about allowing you certain financial freedoms. But if she's totally controlling of your money, but demands that her income be 'hers' and you have no say in the matter, then she's being unreasonable. On the other hand, if you are the one who demands control of all financial decisions, and she believes you aren't willing to do what she sees as 'right' with respect to her son, then this is merely an act of rebellion against you. Maybe she sees a 401(k) as being the only way she can ensure that her child is looked after, because you are controlling and unreasonable once the money is in your hands. That's a bigger problem, and it's going to haunt you in other ways.

Who's right depends on what kind of relationship you have, and you haven't really given us enough to judge.

[cerberus]

Would the OP be offended if he had a daughter, wanted to do a 50/50 split with on his stuff, and the wife objected?

There's marriage, and there's blood.

[susan]

And she wants half of it to go to another adult outside the marriage

She wants it to go to a first-degree relative with whom she has an enduring relationship, not her gigolo or an ex-con she met on the Internet.

[picunurse]

Why would anyone risk a long-term relationship by trying to come between a mother and her child? You will always lose. My opinion.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by Shoshana

She wants it to go to a first-degree relative with whom she has an enduring relationship, not her gigolo or an ex-con she met on the Internet.

Does that matter? Would it matter if she wanted to give it to breast cancer research, or any other worthy recipient?

Again, this isn't a black and white issue. Remarriages when there is previous family is always difficult. If the poster of the OP went into the relationship fully knowing that she intended to provide for her grown son, then he's got no gripe coming. But if this is a new development, that's another matter.

Again, I'm not saying she's wrong for wanting to help her son. But she has a responsibility to her husband as well, and he has a right to have a say in the disposition of joint finances.

It seems to me there an overriding issue here that's potentially much more difficult - she doesn't trust her husband to do what she sees as being the right thing. Or conversely, he thinks she is being overly generous to her son. Again, we don't have the information to know what's 'right' here. If her son is a layabout who refuses to hold down a job, has criminal behaviours, a drug/alcohol problem or a track record of being horribly irresponsible with money, then I'd say the OP has every right to demand that his share of their joint property not go to him.

On the other hand, if the son is a good person who is just not capable of earning a good income for whatever reason, and she wants to ensure that he's cared for, then he's being selfish for denying her wishes because he wants the money. But we have not been told anything about what the son is like or what has gone on before.

So once again, I think people in this thread are issuing moral pronouncements without having the facts.

As an aside, what are the legalities around this in the event of divorce? As I understand it, retirement packages are considered assets in divorce cases. If he builds up $100,000 in retirement income, and she builds up $100,000 in retirement income and they divorce, it would normally be a 'wash' and they'd each just keep their retirement packages and go their own way. But what if she's declared half of hers to go to someone else? Now is it the case that she'd only have $50,000 in assets, and he'd have $100,000, so he'd have to cough up another $25,000 for her in a divorce? Or does the beneficiary not matter because she's still alive, so it would still be an even split?

Let me point out another way in which this would be unfair - if they both die, their joint assets would be divvied up among the living family members absent a will. Let's say he had a son from a previous marriage who wasn't a co-beneficiary of his policy. How would that money be split amongst the two sons? Would the one who is a beneficiary get $50,000, plus half of the remainder? That would be unfair to the other one.

It's not a simple issue.

[susan]

Does that matter? Would it matter if she wanted to give it to breast cancer research, or any other worthy recipient?

To me, no, as I said above. It appeared to matter to you, so I was trying to identify what might be a salient issue to some, namely, that this is her child, not some random adult other.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Does that matter? Would it matter if she wanted to give it to breast cancer research, or any other worthy recipient?

Again, this isn't a black and white issue. Remarriages when there is previous family is always difficult. If the poster of the OP went into the relationship fully knowing that she intended to provide for her grown son, then he's got no gripe coming. But if this is a new development, that's another matter.

Again, I'm not saying she's wrong for wanting to help her son. But she has a responsibility to her husband as well, and he has a right to have a say in the disposition of joint finances.

I don't think anyone is saying that he shouldn't have a say in the matter.

[Mr Jim]

Originally Posted by Shoshana

She wants it to go to a first-degree relative with whom she has an enduring relationship, not her gigolo or an ex-con she met on the Internet.

If she doesn't see her marriage as an "enduring relationship" then that should raise some giant fucking red flags.

Anything earned during the confines of the marriage should be liable to joint agreement.

[susan]

If she doesn't see her marriage as an "enduring relationship" then that should raise some giant fucking red flags.

I said nothing about the marriage, but about the relationship with her son. Mind your own giant fucking red flags.

Anything earned during the confines of the marriage should be liable to joint agreement.

"Confines," huh?

[Harriet the Spry]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

As an aside, what are the legalities around this in the event of divorce? As I understand it, retirement packages are considered assets in divorce cases. If he builds up $100,000 in retirement income, and she builds up $100,000 in retirement income and they divorce, it would normally be a 'wash' and they'd each just keep their retirement packages and go their own way. But what if she's declared half of hers to go to someone else? Now is it the case that she'd only have $50,000 in assets, and he'd have $100,000, so he'd have to cough up another $25,000 for her in a divorce? Or does the beneficiary not matter because she's still alive, so it would still be an even split?

IANAL, but am pretty informed about benefits issues. I agree with what you said at the end, it doesn't matter since they are still alive. I suppose it's possible that the terms of a divorce could dictate who needs to be maintained as beneficiary to what. But I think that would be a separate decision from dividing current assets.

To the original question, would the OP be more comfortable if the money went into a trust for the son? That way if he does inherit the money at a young age, there is a barrier to him squandering the money. It doesn't sound like that's the main concern, but I thought I'd mention it.

[Dangerosa]

My suspicion is that this has nothing to do with the 401k and everything to do with you and your wife having different financial styles and both of you wanting "control."

I'm guessing that you feel you earn most of the money and she spends most of the money. Your probably feel that you should at least get some veto power over how she spends joint assets. She probably feels that you treat her like a child when it comes to money and that she should get to spend how she sees fit.

(You are right, in that a 401k is supposed to be set up as retirement income and a survivor benefit - not a legacy. But that isn't what this is about.)

[FordPrefect]

You should be happy you are getting 50%. My parents have set up their will in such a way that if one of them should die and the other remarry the new incoming partner gets nothing in the event of the second parent's death. Us kids get our grubby mitts on everything.

You folks are obviously younger and from a different situation, but I think she is completely in her right to ensure that her child is taken care of.

[aruvqan]

A persons will is private. In no way should anybody pressure ANYBODY parent, spouse, child, best friend or total stranger on how to dispose of any and all assets.

Frankkly, if she wants the 401 to go to her son, he is a survivng dependent and qualifies, it isnt like she is trying to give it to any random crack whore off the street. If she wanted to give it to her mother would you have issues? If the house was in both names, if she chose to give her half of the house to her son, legally she can. If she wants to give every worldly posessionand her 'half' of the family assets to her son, she can.

It is her choice who she wants to give her assets to. Would it wierd you out so fragging much if it was a son by YOU? If not, then you are an ass. I know that supposedly we are genetically programmed to want to protect our own seed, to the point of excluding anything not our 'seed' but this is stupid. It is long past teh time when women were chattel possessions. Stop treating your wife's earnings as your *due*

[Athena]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

It is her choice who she wants to give her assets to.

Nobody, included the OP, said anything about her assets. We're talking about joint assets, acquired during the marriage.

Originally Posted by aruvqan

Stop treating your wife's earnings as your *due*

So the man's money is their money, but her money is hers? Man, I wish I lived in your world.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by Obeseus

Every 401K in which I've participated has always required the spouse to be the sole beneficiary unless the spouse signs off in writing that it can be someone else or shared with another. Perhaps your wife's 401K is different, or maybe she forged your signature on a document allowing her son to be a beneficiary.

That requirement is imposed by the Federal tax code, which was written with the well intentioned goal of preventing husbands from assigning their retirement benefits to their girlfriends instead of to their wives. Now in the era of second and third marriages, and with children from previous marriages that present spouses have no interest in but whose parent may want to leave some money from his or her retirement plan to, that section of the tax code probably needs some tweaking.

[guppy]

That money is meant for your retirement, if she wants to leave something for her son she should take out a insurance policy or work it out in the will. I suggest you seek the help of a financial planner and an attorney if you don't have a will to work these issues out. There are many reasons not to have the money go her son and I think some impartial help might take care of this issue without further strife between you and your wife.

[storyteller0910]

Originally Posted by Athena

So the man's money is their money, but her money is hers? Man, I wish I lived in your world.

You know, I'm pretty sure no one has expressed this opinion in this thread except for the people attempting to argue against it. If the OP has a 401k, or something similar, it is my opinion that he should have every right to distribute it as he sees fit upon his death.

Of course, this is one of those situations where really, no answer is the right answer. The inherent problem is not really who is named on the beneficiary form of what policy. The problem is that the wife in the OP does not trust her husband to do right by her son and abide by her wishes in the event of her death. And her lack of trust is well-justified - the OP has made it clear that if she dies, he wants the power to give her son whatever he pleases, her wishes be damned.


I don't have to specify provisions for the care of my daughter in my will because I trust my wife and know that she knows my wishes and will take them into account in the event of my death. Frankly, if I were in a marriage where I thought my spouse would without reservation disregard my wishes once I croaked - where I believed that what I wanted was irrelevant to my partner, and that the minute I was no longer around to defend my wishes they would be gleefully ignored - I wouldn't bother with legal protections. I'd leave the marriage, and find someone who respected me more than that.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

You know, I'm pretty sure no one has expressed this opinion in this thread except for the people attempting to argue against it. If the OP has a 401k, or something similar, it is my opinion that he should have every right to distribute it as he sees fit upon his death.

The point I and others have tried to make is that the existence of the 401K is in part because the OP is paying for other joint expenses.

My own situation is similar. Mr. Athena makes a fair bit more than I do. The way we've divided our income is that his paycheck pays for all our day-to-day expenses. He pays the mortgage, utilities, grocery bill, etc. My paycheck gets put in a savings account, and we use it to pay for retirement savings (we both have individual retirement accounts), vacations, taxes, and other "big" expenses as they come up.

By your logic, I would be completely in my rights to take as much as I want of MY money and bequeath it to a charity, or make huge contributions to my retirement account and list anyone I wanted as a beneficiary. That seems very unfair to me, as the only reason I have money to do any of that is because he pays the monthly expenses. Our money is just that - OUR money. We both have equal say in where it goes. Sounds to me that the OP simply wants the same thing. He never said he wanted to cut the son out of the will altogether; he just wanted a say in the matter.

[Hello Again]

Actually he said he wanted "first and final say" ie - to be able to overrule her wishes on the subject.

[Athena]

Just caught this in the OP:

I just want first and final say in how our joint assets are distributed.

Er, no. You guys either decide your money is separate or joint. If it's separate, you get no say in how she spends her money (other than coming to an agreement as to dividing up the mortgage and other joint expenses.) If it's joint, you both have equal say. You don't get to completely control the money just because you make more.

Edit: Yup, Hello Again, I just reread the OP and caught that. I'm with you on that one.

[Muffin]

Speak with a family and estates lawyer in your jurisdiction.

Depending on the laws of your jurisdiction, you may have property/succession rights regardless of your wife's will says.

In any event, a good lawyer with expertise in this area might be able to come up with something that keeps everyone happy.

[Shagnasty]

I think there is a test you can give yourself to find out the real reasons for your feelings. What if she gave you the 401K money but then took out a life insurance policy through work benefiting only her son and the amount of the policy is much more than will be in the 401K for many years? If you still feel the same way then you have some issues because those types of policies are very cheap especially if she is fairly young. Such a policy would be ideal for the situation and you might want to suggest it to her.

You may think you would act fairly in the event something does happen but children can almost neevr trust their stepparents in this scenario as countless people find out every year including some in my family.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Bad Samaritan

I just want first and final say in how our joint assets are distributed.

"Joint"? What is this word "joint" of which ye speake? Does "joint" mean "joint with right of survivorship"? Worth looking into.

[grayhairedmomma]

Wow, this is enlightening. I have two children and am looking at getting married, to someone who is not their father, in the near future. I have worked very hard to build things for them and will continue to do so after I'm married. I fully intend to leave the business I am building and half of my life insurance, to my children. I am very specifically building these things for them, I come from a poor family and I want to set my children up so that they can move beyond that level. My future husband's will get all of our other financial investments.

Is that selfish of me?

[scout1222]

grayhairedmomma, you may or may not be selfish, but that's the same kind of thing my mom is planning for me. She recently divorced husband #2, but the whole time, she was adamant that the house she owned (before he showed up) would be left only to me in the event of her death. Right or wrong, it sounds like something a lot of parents might want for their kids.

[Reepicheep]

Originally Posted by grayhairedmomma

Wow, this is enlightening. I have two children and am looking at getting married, to someone who is not their father, in the near future. I have worked very hard to build things for them and will continue to do so after I'm married. I fully intend to leave the business I am building and half of my life insurance, to my children. I am very specifically building these things for them, I come from a poor family and I want to set my children up so that they can move beyond that level. My future husband's will get all of our other financial investments.

Is that selfish of me?

What I, other posters, the man in the moon, or anyone else, thinks about your selfishness or non-selfishness does not matter. Does the man who will be your husband think you are being selfish? His, your children, and your opinion are the only ones that count.

To answer your question, if the man who will be your husband know all this going into your marriage, no you are not being selfish. If, however, he marries you thinking that you both will be working your business for yourselves and your will hits him with giving it all to your kids, yes you have been selfish.

[Kalypso]

Originally Posted by Auntbeast

Honestly dude, how would feel if one of your parents remarried and the new spouse got everything and you got squat? Would you be hurt? I'm betting you would.

For the record, it hurts a good deal. My mother died and my father remarried, and this is the situation. I've always been a good kid, and being brushed aside in this way makes me feel like unwanted leftovers from my father's previous marriage. The worst part is, if I bring it up I only look greedy.

[Muffin]

What are her objectives? Take care of self, spouse and kids?

What are your objectives? Take care of self, spouse and kids?

Should it not be possible to find a way of both parties meeting the same objectives?

That's where a good family and estates lawyer can help you.