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

In My Humble Opinion
1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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.

6

[QUOTE=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.
[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

7

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

8

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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

13

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.

14

[QUOTE=Mr Jim]
FWIW, I don’t think you are being selfish. The son is a grown man and can provide for himself, non? .
[/QUOTE]
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…

15

[QUOTE=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…
[/QUOTE]

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

16

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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…

17

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.

18

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

19

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.

20

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