You are here

Guessing the Will Blog Got Taken Down?

TwoOfUs's picture

It seems that perhaps the person who wrote the will blog took it down? Got run off the forum on a rail?

Just wanted to say, for the record, that I think wills are super-complicated and personal for blended families, but that I understand the excitement of being put first for once. When my DH said he thought we should have simple wills, leaving everything to the surviving spouse, I felt so comforted and taken care of. I'm imagining this is how the poster of that blog was feeling as well.

In his mind:

*He came into the relationship with 75K+ debt in the form of CS to BM. He has also had the added financial burden of providing for 3 kids, while, as a childless woman, I brought none of that into the relationship.

*I have been the higher earner throughout our marriage, thus far. Even if I wasn't, he would have had to bring home $1200 more than me every month just to offset CS when we were paying for all 3. Probably more like $1600-$2000 depending on the month to offset CS and all extras that we've done for skids over the years. I've paid for many of those things.

*He thinks it would be silly for me to have to buy back 1/3 - 1/2 of OUR house or OUR cars from his kids if he were to die tragically while the kids were still minors. He also didn't want to give OUR assets to BM...because that's who would actually get the money while the kids were minors.

*Minor kids were provided for by both SS and his life insurance policy. MOST divorce decrees automatically require the dad to keep a life insurance policy for the ex until the kids are no longer minors. He saw no reason to ALSO leave them marital assets that we built up together. These are legally two different things...inheritance is not the same as 'providing for minor children' after you're gone. Which...yes. You should try to do.

I guess what I'm saying here is...yes, all of these kinds of things ought to be considered when planning wills. I've never calculated what my investments would be right now if I'd saved everything I've spent on skids over the past decade-plus...because I don't want to bang my head against a brick wall. But I guarantee, it would not be insignificant. Why should I have my saving and investing power limited during my best years to save and invest by kids who aren't mine and, then, also have to divide marital assets with them when my DH, who is 10 years older, dies before me? How is that fair to me in any way?

Similarly, grandparents and other sources of support should ALSO be considered when planning your will. It's not wrong to think through who will need more support and plan accordingly...it doesn't mean you're cutting someone out. It's just smart. In the will poster's case...she has a SD who is supported by her mother and by her grandparents in significant ways...and who is 13. A mere 5 years away from no longer being a minor. Her kids with her DH, on the other hand, are a toddler and in utero. Of course they're going to need more...more support for more time. Her DH is right to recognize that and not leave his wife vulnerable, or their children not adequately provided for, in the case of a tragedy.

IMO...she has every right to feel happy that her DH is being fair to her and their kids together in their wills. They can always revisit the wills when they are older and all kids are of majority...and decide what's fair then. But, for now, while he has two babies...this set-up is definitely both fair and smart.

**Say all this to say. I think we should be able to feel excited that we're protected and cared for in our partner's will, just like a first wife would be...without having other stepmoms jump down our throats about it. Don't you think? I know wills are a hotly disputed topic on this forum. That's my two sense.

Comments

TwoOfUs's picture

PS.

I don't remember the specific details the OP of the will blog gave, but from a legal standpoint she and her DH are being very smart. It was something like SD gets 10% if the OP dies at the same time or within 60 days of her DH.

This is great planning and protects their two young children in case of a tragedy where they lose both parents. In that situation, SD would still have her mom and grandparents to look out for her and be much closer to the age of majority while the two children they have together would be young orphans.

So, it sounds like they have their wills set up so each spouse inherits everything if the other dies...and where SD gets 10% and the other two get the rest if both die within a short time of each other. Including SD for a small portion ensures that BM and SD's family can't contest the will or say she was accidentally left out...or try to wrestle the support away from the younger children who will need it for longer.

Unfortunately, when you have younger children together in a blended family...I think you do have to think this way, plan for the worst, protect them from the Ex, and ensure they won't be destitute if a tragedy strikes. This doesn't mean you aren't providing for all of your minor children...it's just recognizing the reality that you and your spouse are much more likely to be in a fatal car accident together than you and your ex...and that your younger kids will need your support for longer...and planning accordingly.

TwoOfUs's picture

But that's my point...they aren't ridiculous justifications...just like our reasons for having simple wills that leave everything to the surviving spouse are also not ridiculous.

They are actually smart provisions that make sure that his younger kids, who will be minors for longer, aren't left destitute if they lose both parents. It's simply planning for the worst. As I mentioned...when all children reach the age of majority, they can reevaluate.

twoviewpoints's picture

"It seems that perhaps the person who wrote the will blog took it down? Got run off the forum on a rail?"

She may have removed it herself. She didn't get run off as she is still a member and still has postings on her blog remaining.

Actually deleting a entire blog and/or replies in one particular posted entry in one's blog is not uncommon. She may not have liked responses to the subject she posted. Deleting it is her choice.

Some members are not ready for the differences in opinion they will receive.

I read the original post and most of the comments up until about noon today. The last I looked at it, while there was not a lot of agreement in what/how the wills were to be drawn up, nothing inappropriate had been said to the OP (StrawberryBlueberry a member for the past 12 weeks)

TwoOfUs's picture

No, I'm not "wrong" at all. I worked for my dad's law firm from the time I was 15 through grad school and saw many, many will consultations. One of the questions attorney's always ask first as you're planning your estate is...what other sources of support do your dependents have? What can you reasonably expect from SS, life insurance, etc. should a tragedy occur? Etc. It's basic financial planning.

Many wealthy people choose to give everything to charity (yes, even while their kids are minors) knowing that life insurance will care for them...or they have a graduated will that provides more for much younger children for longer...because they are just that. Much younger and in need of more support should both parents die. Almost all spouses leave everything to the surviving spouse should one die...it's only in blended situations that this practice is ever questioned at all.

In this case, it's perfectly reasonable and fair to note that the SD has a mother who ALSO supports her, that she's closer to the age of majority, and that the younger kids will need more support should both parents die.

To put it another way...if we assume that OP's 2 kids will split 100% of her 50% of their marital assets, and her DH's 3 kids will each split 100% of his 50% of their marital assets...then that breakdown is about 42% of the total assets for the mutual children and 16% for the SD. If they had a third kid together, SD's percentage would go down to 12.5%. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all, given that BM isn't putting OP's kids in HER will.

TwoOfUs's picture

"By your standard, step kids are right to automatically label stepmothers as golddiggers."

PS - forgot to comment on this little nugget. I find this incredibly ridiculous. In a society where over 70% of households have both spouses working full-time, and where over 90% of households have both spouses bringing in some income...and where 40% of households have the woman as the higher earner...you think 'gold digger' is an appropriate term to use?

How absurd. How about...the husband in a blended family scenario typically brings in massive debt in terms of CS and other financial obligations and the Stepmom actually raises the quality of life for everyone. And even though the marital assets he and BM built up together were ALREADY divided in half once when they divorced...and the kids are benefiting from that and will inherit from their BM, and even though the NCP often pays exorbitant CS over the years, in essence giving the BM and his kids part of their potential 'inheritance' early...and even though the SM is often expected to then provide for any mutual children she has with her DH on her own, or do the lion's share, or maybe even forego having children of her own altogether because they can't afford it...

And, then, CS stops...the couple is able to build up a little nest egg together, maybe pay off their home, make some smart investments. If...at that point...the SM is 'allowed' by the will to keep all of THEIR assets that they built up in THEIR marriage despite all odds...well, then. She must be a 'gold digger' right?

Unreal.

mommadukes2015's picture

Holy sancta-step mommies batman. Two of Us I appreciate what you're saying.

TwoOfUs's picture

I'm with you on this.

DH was the one who insisted on simple wills for the time being, given our current situation and what we've both contributed financially.

When his parents pass away, we'll see what happens and reassess accordingly. At that point, I will also insist that it's made explicit in the will so I don't have to think about it or worry about it. We also don't know what will happen as we age. One of us could get a horrible illness that wipes out all our savings and then no one gets anything. If so, oh well for the skids.

I guess my point in all of this is...taken at prima facia value, the way they drew up the wills makes a lot of legal sense, given the age of the kids and other sources of support available to the SD versus the mutual children.

Cooooookies's picture

I suppose it would matter if you have properties and investments before you married. DH and I don't as we started over with one suitcase to each of us. So when either one of us dies, it all goes to the spouse. Then when the last of both of us dies, it will be split among all of our 4 children.

Whether it's first marriage or second, etc, I really don't see how any of it should change or why one child should be left out. Providing you don't have adult steps that cause trouble...I realise there are extreme cases.

However, cutting out a 5 year old skid because the grandparents are rich?! Not cutting it for me. That's just vindictive.

lieutenant_dad's picture

This, in general, are my thoughts on the matter.

However, I realize things get more complicated with "ours vs theirs" kids, and even with minor children if our spouses pass when they are young. Add in "later in life" marriages with assets, and it becomes a huge mess of who gets what and why.

DH and I have it agreed that, so long as one of us is still alive, that we are in charge of the others estate and are taken care of first. If DH passes while the boys are still minors, then they will have a trust set up that will take care of their needs until they turn 18. BM will get a certain amount each month just like she would CS. If there is money leftover, it will go towards their college or be given to them in one lump sum at 21. If they are adults when DH passes, they can wait to see if there is any portion of the estate left when I die to get anything.

Basically, I think spouses need to be taken care of first when adults steps are involved, and when you're dealing with minor steps, a parent needs to plan to fulfil their financial obligation to both them and their spouse. No one is guaranteed anything in adulthood, so I have zero issue with spending all of DH's money (or him spending mine) once the boys are grown. He and I worked for it, not them, and we will be the ones to benefit. Really, once I'm gone, I don't care what happens to it all.

TwoOfUs's picture

She's not 5. She's 13. And it makes sense to consider who would need support for longer and to look at other potential sources of support. That's not odd at all, in fact.

For instance, I have friends who have five children. Their oldest was the absolute favorite of a great aunt who never married and had no children of her own...before my friends had the other 4. The aunt left all of her estate to this oldest daughter...in a trust that she gets at 21.

This couple talked to me and my mom bc of our experiences with wills. They are leaving some sentimental things to the oldest and a minor amount...but she's set. They're leaving more to the other 4. Is this wrong? It's a very similar situation except for the blended family part.

pixielady's picture

This is how DH and I are doing it: we leave everything to each other. Whoever dies last will split our assets in half, then each half gets split among our children. So SS gets 25% and DS gets 75%. If we have another child DHs “half” gets split three ways while mine gets split in two.