Meh, that’s me. I figure that out of ten times, I’ll piss off one person that I wave through, one person will consider it a politeness, seven people won’t give a crap, and one person will decide not to sit there staring at me for ten minutes playing reverse chicken. I’ll take those odds.
I don’t mind that at all. He is simply acknowledging your right to go first, and avoiding confusion. Communication is always a problem when driving.
What drives me nuts is people who have the right of way doing that. Damn it, GO! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO GO FIRST!
I agree with this. In the OP’s situation, it’s entirely possible that the SO was completely in the wrong. But…imagine a situation where there is an only child who is completely thoughtless to his dad for no discernible reason: never visits, calls, or writes; doesn’t send photos of the grandkids; offers no comfort, much less actual help, when dad is diagnosed with a painful chronic disease. Say this hypothetical dad finds the love of his life, and she devotedly cares for him through thick and thin. He tells her that he wants her to inherit all his worldly goods if he dies first.
Now, ideally the dad will have left a will, so there won’t be any question about what to do with his estate. But does anyone think that, in the situation above, the child is automatically entitled to dad’s assets “just because”? I don’t. The devoted SO is the one who should get them.
this is exactly right -
there’s probably also a word for people that expect to inherit “just because”…
I know that for me, I don’t expect anything of my father’s estate beyond what he specifically wants me to have - and we are on very good terms
This is so prevalent where I live that when I reach an intersection and don’t have right-of-way, I’ll refuse to make eye contact with other drivers, ostentatiously looking anywhere except at their windshield. Yeah, it’s super-annoying. If I do take the right-of-way that they’re offering to me, you can guarantee that I’ll take it at the exact moment they give up on offering it to me and decide to go themselves.
Without a will, the child is legally entitled to the assets. If the dad wants his devoted SO to get it, he should at least write it down on a piece of paper, because there’s a real good chance she’s going to get nothing without it.
I don’t think ‘presumptuous’ is too nice a word to describe the behavior, it has that nice mix of being wrong and vain at the same time.
Two unanswered questions: How old was the son, and was there a will? If there was no will, in most states, the SO is entitled to nothing and the son to a significant portion of the estate, if not all of it. (Surviving siblings, parents, etc., might have been legally entitled to some fraction.) And if the son is a minor child, he doesn’t really have much control over involvement in the father’s life…
I get it, though: recently, my husband’s former stepmother magnanimously told me that she’d make sure that my husband received a part of the family farm. Mind you, my father-in-law inherited the farm after the divorce was final, so it was never part of the marital assets, and my husband and daughters are my father-in-law’s only descendants… but Cindy, Lady Bountiful, will bestow upon them things she doesn’t have any ownership of. Even though my husband doesn’t give a rodent’s behind whether he ever owns the first square inch of that farm, the statement rankled quite a lot.
Ditto an inheritance on my side of the family. Umpteen years ago (probably mid-1970s, before she became unable to care for herself,) my great-grandmother passed a family heirloom to my mother: a bible which had been a wedding gift from her father to Granny’s great-great-grandmother. Since the original presentation, that bible has passed from grandmother to granddaughter, and each owner has been named Nancy. Somehow, my grandmother gained possession*, and has since told my mom that she could have it when she’s more settled and mature. Sometimes, that statement has been accompanied by shaking the book itself around, in the manner of shaking a finger under someone’s nose. Mind you, my mother is 64 years old, owns her home outright, has no consumer debt, and collects a retirement pension, but I guess she’s still not mature and settled enough? I haven’t the slightest idea what the criteria are!**
*As near as we can speculate, Grandmother must have “rescued” the bible from my mother’s irresponsible possession when she came to our house after my father’s death - during either the wake or the funeral. We suppose that because that’s the only time she had ever been to our house.
**Fortunately, there won’t be any more drama once Mom gains possession. My daughter is the next Nancy in line, and she and her grandmother agree that the family bible should go to a genealogical collection. They’ve already done their research and chosen an appropriate organization, so that it will be preserved.
Well the issue isn’t really the inheritance, there wasn’t much to inherit.
His father had been with his SO @3 years, right before he died he told me he was getting ready to break up with her and go back with a previous gf. My son was 10 years old at the time. There was no will. Legally everything was his.
There were some personal things of his fathers my son would have liked to have, the SO took it all except for a few photos she generously gave my son.
My sons grandparents handled the estate. They were way more trusting than I am and let her continue to live in the property. They got to clean up the mess and pay all the back rent and utilities.
See the previously mentioned “presumptuous.” 
A piece of dialogue from Homer Simpson comes to mind:
My step son had a similar issue with his dad’s SO. She ‘gave’ him a select set of stuff that she thought was appropriate and sold the rest. He (my step son) was quite upset over way the money was divided. But, she had been with the dad for at least a decade and she deserved sainthood for that, so nobody complained much.
When a TSA agent hands me back my bag with the contents tossed and gives me a smug ‘here you go’, I fight the instinct to say ‘thank you.’ It’s my stuff, carefully packed and I’m not going to thank someone for making it a mess.
Well, theoretically at least, he is going through your stuff (and everyone else’s) to keep you from being hijacked, or worse. His job is not to make your things a mess, it’s to protect you. And do you really want him taking the time to carefully pack and handle each and every single pair of your undies?
I didn’t think so.
Well, there’s the original meaning of the word “arrogance”, which comes from “to arrogate”, to appropriate or lay claim to something without right. Yes, they’re giving it to you, but they’re acting as if it’s theirs to give.
Arrogant presumption? Awfully Victorian, but it works for me.
That’s very generous of you.