Too long, convoluted, and esoteric.
Bottom line, work it out as mature adults and don't let neurosis, personality disorders, ax grinding, finger pointing etc. get in the way.
If one side doesn't do it, ignore them as much as possible but if they cannot read them the riot act.
9
@Paul: Wow, what profound and helpful advice. NOT.
75
@L-Thank your for your reply. Many times instead of intellectualizing (probably this case, too long to read), rationalizing, cherry picking, ax grinding, finger pointing, co depending, enabling etc. etc. the best way to solve a problem is my advice, ie a form of tough love.
7
LW #1 should file a TRO for mental cruelty - then she get get him out of the house he so covets.
19
LW #1 is a heartbreaking example of why both spouses need to have their separate assets and own sources of income. No matter how strong the bond, neither should be at the financial mercy of the other. Ever.
142
In the first situation, all I could think of throughout reading the problem is what about term life insurance. Assuming the husband is in decent health, it is an affordable planning tool. Keep it in place until the second daughter finishes her schooling and reaches adulthood.
116
The husband and wife in the first letter should plan their estates together under the guidance of a qualified attorney. Maybe they need counseling first. It sounds like it. Regardless, if the husband wanted to decide how to dispose of all assets himself, he perhaps shouldn't have married.
I understand his concern, though, that his eldest daughter might receive nothing if he were to die first and all assets were to go to his wife. The letter writer seems to feel her stepdaughter has already had every cent she is entitled to, and it is unlikely she would leave inherited assets to anyone but her own daughter.
47
I wonder how many times this sort of thing happens. In this instance, it sounds like the husband would be reasonable, listen to his wife, arrange things differently. But he won't. Is his lawyer competent? Is he slipping into dementia? Keep trying.
21
LW1: I'm very troubled by the inequity in this letter. The house "remains his main asset." After all your years together, why is the husband still the sole owner of the house? The man is not a "wonderful father" if he refuses to consider educational expenses for his younger daughter.
Please protect yourself. Get a job in order to fund your own IRA, 401K, savings, long-term health care, and so on. If your husband won't get a life insurance policy to cover your daughter's college expenses, you should pay for it.
107
The husband has ‘covered ALL his stepdaughter’s expenses’.How else should this man be expected to bleed financially. Notice how we assume (because it’s actuarily accurate) that he will die first. Equality means responsibility. Mother and daughter should both be working (if they are not already)not freeloading.
18
@Wayne Johnson PhD
He has no stepdaughters. Read it again.
70
@Wayne Johnson PhD The husband has two (2) daughters, neither of whom is a step-daughter to him.
69
@Wayne Johnson PhD The younger daughter (his child, not a step--child) sounds too young to hold a FT job. And why should she, if her sister didn't?
70
If your husband balks at having a conversation with you about this very critical matter, ask him to join you in couples counseling. If that does not work, consult an attorney to see what your spousal rights are in this situation.
56
LW1: You and your husband should each have a living will if you don't already have one, and a durable power of attorney for health matters. If he balks, that will speak volumes. Regardless, get one yourself.
27
Yikes. If I learned anything from 1L Property Law, it was to never ever set up a life estate, always do a trust. Our law professor hammered home that that should be our one takeaway. How did that husband ever get it in his head that it's a good idea to create a life estate? Did he insist on that with attorneys, or did he just have a super unethical lawyer? Either way, he sounds mildly abusive to be putting his wife in this situation -especially by responding in anger instead of communication and understanding -and I question whether his estate lawyer passed his MPRE.
66
After a lengthy successful career. a woman apparently was fired after just a few weeks in a "poor fit" scenario.
Now, for the rest of her life, she can never again breathe easy, because she has to check the horrible box.
She has a history of being dismissed. She might as well be a rapist or a serial killer.
Nobody will ever hire her again. She should learn wilderness survival techniques, and disappear off the grid.
In reality, if her very brief employment there is ever uncovered, they will only confirm the dates of her employment.
Very laughable to think she will be accused of a crime, unless the details of her dismissal here are dishonest. She has not been reported to any type of professional board.
If she decides to be completely honest, admitting to the dismissal and the court case, her resume should be made into a paper airplane, for easy disposal.
30
@Mrs H: LW2 is applying for a government job, possibly one that requires a security clearance and a background check. Honesty is key. LW2 needs to tell the truth in a clear but succinct way. I would even refer to the court decision, if only to show that the courts ruled in my favor.
44
LW#1. It took my husband, seconds during meetings with attorneys for our family trust, to say, my wife is the sole heir for all of my assets if I die.
29
If she has a life tenancy in the house, the house cannot be sold by either child until the writer either a) dies or b) moves out.
30
The job application has room for explanation, Keep it simple, but truthful.
"I have been let go from two jobs in the last (x number) of years, without cause, as a result of management initiated cutbacks and job staffing preferences and have received full unemployment benefits from both."
If more explanation is required, also keep it simple. "XYZ Corp. engaged in restructuring lay-offs and Religious Charity Organization sought employees who more rigidly adhered to the tenets of the religion."
There is no real reason to explain that you had to fight to be treated fairly. No prospective employer needs more information. If the employer does question it, keep it positive: "With Fundamentalist Religious Charities, adherence to religious tenets was more strongly regarded than job performance, and as such I was not a good fit with the organization during my extremely brief association." Keep it brief, keep it neutral, and move on.
151
If LW1 has a teenage daughter, she's young enough that she should have known better than to place her financial future in the hands of someone else! It's not the 1950's! She needs to have a plan to get financial independence for herself, ASAP. I would bet that her relationship with her husband improves if she does that, in addition to modeling responsible, independent adult behavior for her daughter.
36
@Sharon She has a job. It doesn't pay as well as his and would not cover college plus her own living expenses.
22
Letter #2.
As a retired gov't worker, I also suggest telling the truth. The first dismissal, as the writer describes it, sounds more like a layoff than being fired (dismissed). The criterion would be if the writer was able to collect unemployment insurance after being laid off due to budgetary constraints. There should have been no problem getting UI under those circumstances. The writer doesn't say what reason for the 2nd dismissal the employer gave at the hearing, but hints at some religious bias. Best not to mention that if possible. It should be enough that the judge found in the writer's favor.
20
I wasn’t husband’s third wife (I used to joke that this marriage was “my first and his last.) He was an attorney, and while drawing up his will after we married, he decided to leave everything he owned to me - we’d already been together for 12 years at that point. I made him change it.
He had quite a few life insurance policies - some big, some small. After my request that he include his 4 daughters in his will, he came home the next night and had decided that he’d designate four small policies to his four daughters — each with a different amount. He said the daughter receiving the biggest policy “needed more.” I could have slapped him upside the head, because THAT was the same daughter who sucked more money out of him than the other three, combined.
So, third time’s the charm. He redid the whole thing, designating that those four policies should be added together and split equally four ways. I knew that if he have them nothing, they’d resent and hate me (and him!) for the slight, long after his death. If he gave them different amounts, they’d resent each other.
He died 12 years ago. The plan worked.
207
Cut and run. Give her a list of what she needs to do.
Notify the son his mother needs significant assistance.
My experience is that people who stubbornly refuse to make decisions or act in a way that would clearly improve their own situation ....never will. Especially, if you keep feeding the pathology.
Unfortunately, the old adage about letting someone hit rock bottom doesn't work with a lot of people either. They go to the bottom and stay there, no matter what.
Save yourself, first.
45
LW3 - the letter writer needs to consider the possibility that her older friend is depressed. Getting a physical and talking to a mental health professional may give some more guidance.
39
I am surprised that your analysis does not mention the responsibility of the actual father of this woman’s daughter. The mother of the man’s daughters was presumably involved in developing the man’s fortune and has a prior claim on that fortune for support of her children. The current wife only contributed to assets obtained after the marriage. I think your answer is neither fair nor balanced.
9
@James Timmons the husband *is* the father if both daughters
36
@James Timmons, HE is the father of her daughter. He has an older daughter from a prior relationship.
31
@James Timmons I believe the LW is the biological father of both daughters.
23
Sounds to me as if the husband in the first post is being quite fair. First of all, the second daughter is a teenager, so college entry isn't that far off. Unless he's in poor health it's reasonable that he expects to be around to pay for his second daughter's education, after all, she's his flesh and blood too. He may already have made provisions for that.
Secondly, if the wife has a pension of any sort then at some point she must have had a career. Is she still working? If not, and she's that worried about the future, like others have said, it's time to get back into the workforce.
6
@GeriP Nothing is said about provisions for the second daughter's deduction, i.e. a 529. That is current wife's concern. Health can change on a dime and there are accidents. Employment can change. The plan to pay out of current earnings is risky.
33
Letter one:
The wife needs to bring her husband to a lawyer to discuss all options, and pitfalls of any wills written. Perhaps the lawyer can lay all consequences out before the husband in a way that makes him listen. If that fails to work, may I suggest she seek out a couples therapist.
Dealing with the aftermath of death can sometimes bring out the worse in humans. Small unresolved issues in life turn into momentous things that can involve getting into war over a tea cup. To avoid things like that, have your affairs in order. Consult a lawyer if necessary. It's well worth the expense.
23
When people get that angrily stubborn, there's often guilt lurking around. Her husband may have some guilt about his first daughter and about his having started a whole new family. The writer used the phrase "grown woman" about that daughter. I can't help wondering if that implies the writer feels she shouldn't need his money anymore, whereas their daughter does. She may be unconsciously pitting her him against his first daughter and he may resent it! He's the only one with money and so may feel doubly righteous to do as he wishes. I'd strongly suggest the wife go for counseling alone to check her victim feelings and to see if there's some new solution that could put her husband's mind at ease about
her desire to be absolutely fair to both daughters.
29
My dad used to tell of men who, upon retirement, refused to sign up for survivor's benefits for their spouses. Women who had been married to them for 20+ years, raised the children, and managed a household around the erratic hours that a cop works. May of these men died within 5 years of retirement and left their wives with nothing other than Social Security to live on. I can't figure out what the husband of LW1 doesn't feel the same responsibility for Daughter 2 as he appears to feel for Daughter 1, but LW1 needs to start watching out for herself and stop catering to this selfish man.
76
In certain states, PA among them, the law mandates all assets must go the the wife. A friend's wife's father after re-marrying died without a will. The daughter thought she was going to receive the assets including the house. After much ligation, she received nothing. I have known others who wanted to do that and were advised by their lawyers it was illegal.
15
Many of the insightful readers' comments bring to my mind a thought, never marry without a well-planned property-separation agreement. It can save much tears and money, should the things go wrong down the road.
16
The Will. He has drawn a line in the sand and gets angry when LW tries to discuss and basically says he doesn't care what happens to her or D#2. This is where I would go into independence mode because he has created an emotionally abusive situation. Consult an attorney on my own. Look out for myself and my own daughter.
The dismissals. I would note dismissed without cause. If I'm unable to do that on their form , I would look for a different employer because I know I would be wasting my time. They don't care why I was dismissed so it's a way to weed people out, to actually discriminate. Learn to "interview" the company you are considering.
Elderly friend. Contact the local Council on Aging and Elderly Affairs. Find out what her options are that do not include relying on you, get them in writing, and present them to her. Calmly explain that you have done all you can, have offered what you could, and now she has to make and live with her own decisions. I had to do this with someone who tried to manipulate me by saying he had nowhere to go.
29
LW 1: You absolutely need to have savings or financial assets yourself, and teach your daughter to do so, too.
You and possibly your daughter at this point need checking accounts. If you have to ask for money each week/month, start putting some away in such an account. No woman should have to feel she is a kid needing an allowance, but that's my value judgment.
Make sure the will stipulates where all the furniture, silver, rings, jewelry, automobiles, life insurance, annuities, etc. go. Those things add up to real dollars. You need to know that BEFORE he dies, otherwise you will be one of those sad, adrift souls that has to deal with grieving and at the same time finding out where all the assets are kept, along with passwords. If your parents died, you already know that. You don;'t want to call every bank in town to see if there is an account there.
Get to work; you've got a lot to do.
34
First, I hope this family that make a good living and have only two children have some asset beyond the house. A large house looks good now but can be a liability to a widow living alone, who may well want to change towns or states as a senior. The house should be retained until younger daughter is through school so she can finish her education in what is likely a good school district, then be treated as part of the estate and possibly sold beginning one year after father's death. Many wives dealing with divorce or loss of husband give up too much to keep the house. The wife should ask husband to plan for younger daughter's education in the same responsible, loving way he covered the older daughter's education, then take estate planning for both husband and wife from there. For instance, wife may be available to care for husband in his declining years but wife should have a long term care insurance policy.
The wife, who is probably in her 40s, is now the mother of a teen and has more time. It would be worth her while to enhance her job skills so she can earn more in the 20 years or so left in her professional life. The wife also needs to adjust her attitude toward older daughter, a 23 year old whom she describes as the recipient of a carefree education. What that daughter did not have is a father in her home, something the younger daughter has enjoyed her entire life.
35
LW1: I was in nearly the same position a few years ago, except that my husband had three children from a previous marriage. I had a fantastic career that required a lot of travel and a home that I had bought by myself thanks to that fantastic career when we married. His children were young then and needed a lot of care and money. I made sacrifices to raise them. We had a child together. I quit my job to care for him and sold my home to make up for the income that I was no longer providing the family. We are now getting divorced and I am in dire straits.
The point is that it doesn't matter if a woman owns her own home or has a lucrative career before marriage unless she signs a prenup. The stereotype of a gold-digging wife is absurd. It is much more common for the husband to take over the woman's life and leave her bereft, with the tacit help of the Court.
90
The writer didn’t say how much her house was worth. She didn’t say if she works. If we are talking about her living a slightly lower standard of living, then sometimes that’s just how life is. If she wouldn’t have enough to even have a home that is a different story. But I’m not sure if this is just a standard of living change. I’m conflicted because I’m a feminist and I know that women as caregivers or as professionals are underpaid and undervalued. I also agree that a trust or other creative solution could be formed. But the other part of me thinks WORK and train yourself! My own single mom who worked and worked hard, in service, in a blue collar job, and in a white color jobs to raise me. My did dad help. And she told me,” Make sure you can take care of yourself on your own first before you marry. Get your own income. Buy your own house.” I had their help, yes, and have my BA and MS and have worked since age 13. I’ve filed taxes for 40 years, saved for retirement, and made financial mistakes but got extra work to get through it. Now I’m married with two young teens. I still work. My husband does too. Why put yourself in this vulnerable dependent situation? Reason and try to convince him if a plan but step up your own self care!
34
@Constance She said she works, but her income is much lower than her husband's and she couldn't meet expenses on her income alone,
13
@Constance She said she works, but her income is much lower than his, so she wouldn't be able to both pay tuition for her daughter and maintain the house if he passes before her,
9
LW 1 — the husband should take out a life insurance policy to cover tuition, housing and modest spending money for the second daughter. Treating your children differently, especially with regards to education spending, is a recipe for lifetime resentment between siblings and between the child and her father. The mother also should get a job and start feathering her retirement nest. As living expenses don’t seem to be an issue, start planning for her own retirement and max out 401k and IRA contributions every year. She also needs to make sure the expenses associated with homeownership are supplemented through interest from some kind of trust. The surviving spouse benefits in his social security probably won’t cover the cost of living.
41
Re: Husband's Will
To me, this isn't really an ethical issue, or even if it is, there is a very practical consideration to be taken into account: No matter how well you get along with the daughters, they have the capacity to make the wife's life miserable during what is essentially a life tenancy. I had a close family member who was in this situation, and while the husband thought he was providing for her, the children turned on the wife after his death. Why? Housing prices had soared and they wanted their piece of the pie NOW, not after the - also 2nd - wife died. Follow the advice, and push your husband to find a better resolution - or start making your own preparations for other living options ASAP.
60
Re LW1 - The real question is planning for how this family lives while they're all alive.
It sounds like the divorce decree required the husband to provide for his first daughter's education the divorce decree. So, he did. But for the second daughter, no divorce decree = no equivalent legal obligation.
Does he want to provide for the daughter's equally? It's not clear that he does, so that's question one. If he does want to provide equally, and he just assumes that Plan A for Daughter 2 is that he'll just pay out of pocket, and that no Plan B is needed, he'd better think more carefully. The real planning issue is that there should be money set aside now for D2's education so that this cost doesn't overwhelm the family when it hits. Make that Plan A, get life insurance as Plan B, and the treatment of the house becomes more reasonable.
25
Is a reverse mortgage a possible solution to the inheritance problem, letting the daughters get the value of the house but letting the wife live there as long as she lives? I don't know if this can be worked into the provisions of a will or trust.
8
@Jim A reverse mortgage would, sadly, get our potential widow evicted. Reverse mortgages are in the homeowner's name. She is not a homeowner. He is the sole owner. When he dies, the reverse mortgage company will call for the mortgage to be repaid. When it isn't (because she has no asset the mortgage company will begin foreclosure proceedings. She would be out.
I hear about this frequently- a couple marries later in life- all the assets are in the husband's name and the wife devotes herself to making a home for them all. She doesn't work because the husband doesn't want her to or he says he can afford for her not to work.
It sounds kind and loving, except when he dies she is left in a basically impecunious state. She would have life tenancy but who pays for the property's maintenance? And when she can't afford to fix the roof or the plumbing, the daughter will push her to sell because she can't afford the house. Then she'll move into a tiny apartment and scrimp by for the rest of her life. It sounds as if she is not being well-provided for. Sad.
22
@Jim Bad idea because fees and interest eat up the rest of the equity, so if the wife ever needs or wants to move she will have no funds to do so and will be trapped in a house that may be unsuitable, unsafe or unaffordable.
12
the second letter writer has a legal obligation to answer honestly about both dismissals. The federal government has a statement about legal requirements for honesty on applications.
15
I would think if the wife with the house issue is in a community property state, she could argue that the house is half hers if any of her income helped pay for the upkeep, pay the mortgage, etc. She might want to gently suggest to her husband that they discuss with an estate attorney whether he can actually pass on the house to his daughters.
27
@Papaya He won't discuss money - remember, from the letter? We don't know where she's from - a fact which would have been helpful both to Professor Appiah and to the rest of us.
2
Agreed. If the couple live in a community property state half the house could well belong to the wife. Wife should consult an attorney to discover her rights to the house as well as other spousal assets.
8
@Papaya 1) he won't discuss anything without flying off the handle and 2) we don't where she's from. The Ethicist should have asked her before publishing her letter.
1
We have been around a similar road as the one LW 3 is on. While the columist thinks an objective opinion from a clear sighted friend will be a great gift, it is beating your head against a wall when the friend in trouble refuses to do anything realistic about their situation. Eventually, one has to say "no". When the person ends up facing homelessness, they _may_ come to their senses. Sometimes , they don't.
38
She should give him an ultimatum-- put her on the deed, as she should be, or she will divorce him and take half the house. Then he can leave his half of the house to his two daughters.
90
@Eileen
You assume that she lives in California, a community property state and also that she is entitled to half of the house he brought to the marriage. She is working, but has not saved any money despite the fact that he is the primary breadwinner.
Even if she divorces him and takes half of the house, she is still doesn't have enough income to support herself.
The woman does not comprehend what a life estate is in the house. Her daughter and step daughter have no claim to the house until after she dies. She cannot sell the house
9
@Eileen Your solution would tie the three of them together in one big mess. That's part of the current problem. Have you ever been involved in a "family" real estate sale where family members have issues with one another?
12
@Eileen
And that attitude is exactly why I'm recommending to my son to never marry anyone. The writer claims it was his house to begin with -she should be grateful he's been willing to let her live in it.
5
Letter # 2 -- Don't omit the job, tell the truth. I don't know what kind of government job or what agency at what levle of government is involved, I can tell you from personal experience that candor about being "dismissed" is often far more important than why you were dismissed. "Lacking candor" about being fired from the second job (and yes, that's the word) will be grounds to reject your application. And since the fact that you were fired is a matter of record with a public agency, namely the one that is used to confirm past employment, omitting that job from your work history (Perhaps to avoid giving your former supervisor the opportunity to diss you to a government investigator), given that you prevailed in the unemployment hearings, will definitely indicate a lack of candor.
19
re: LW2-It's odd that an employer would be on the hook for a UC claim after less than a month of service. It usually takes a year. Were I an employer I'd contest on that basis, not alleged misconduct.
Regardless, the circumstances of the second dismissal don't appear different from the 1st. Laid off after a period of service; then collecting UC. The narrative about the hearings is unnecessary since the result is indistinguishable from an uncontested claim.
9
@Grignon I collected unemployment in Illinois after working for only four months at a job from which I was fired because of incompatibility. This was about 30 years ago. Has the law changed?
5
RE: The Will
(1). The wife should get some CPA Tax Advice regarding setting up a College Savings Account with the 2nd daughter as Beneficiary. Combine good ethics with practical financial common sense. See IRS 529 College Account on IRS.GOV/n
(2). The wife must resume her professional career, or get back into advanced learning herself.
(3).Technology is a booming field! With this wife retrained and working in a well compensated field then SHE can contribute to the 2nd daughter's IRS 529 College Savings Account! Win-Win for a working spouse and 2nd daughter....and this married couple's federal tax returns.
(4). 2nd Daughter can see Mom and Dad planning constructively for her future. No need for arguments, no need for family dysfunction and angst.
(5). The couple solves 2nd daughter's need with constructive planning. The couple must work TOGETHER for mutual family "happy" future. Get a competent CPA for tax planning and estate planning.
The wife has power to create harmony and prosperity for everyone involved! Hopefully, Wife and Husband are Married Filing Joint" means a lot to the Couple! Getting tech training in a BIG first step...YES. Wife has opportunity to transform her future as an individual, Husband's wellbeing and ALL Daughters! All of Wife and Husband's progeny would benefit blessing materially and spiritually (dare I write).
Set a good example by "doing right deeds".... Follow the proverbial Golden Rule and walk its steps.
8
@MBW So the wife should do it all and make everyone's life work. Looks like she's still being controlled.
109
@justme More like she'd be taking control of the situation. No savings or assets? She's already set herself up to be controlled. Bet her husband would change his tune if she went out and got a job or retrained.
8
@justme
Or she is assuming control of her own future.
4
LW 3: A friend in need is a friend in deed, but a needy friend is not. I face a similar dilemma with an old, but not close, friend. I feel that no matter how generous I am, she resents my having things easier, even though I'm not that financially secure either. Even setting boundaries and limiting time together doesn't eliminate the sting of resentment nor her inability to empathize with any of my difficulties. Is there any answer to managing a friendship with someone whose life has turned out harder than yours?
22
@mdieri I have a needy, disabled friend who is being partially financially supported by another friend. The other friend is trying to gradually get out of paying part of her rent, some small credit card charges she incurs monthly, and some groceries.
Said "friend" got upset (we meet every couple of weeks for coffee) when I asked how her food stamp paperwork was going. She had mentioned 6 months ago and on a few subsequent occasions that she was having a difficult time (depressions, possibly bipolar) going to the social services office and completing the paperwork.
This friend likes to complain about how the person lending her money lends money to others who take advantage of him ("worse than me" she says). She got defensive when I pointed out she's talked to me about applying for aid at (I gestured) that table, and THAT table, and the table over there too.
I never suggest meeting any more and I think at some point soon I'm going to have to end this dying friendship.
25
Re: #1. I want to share the results of a similar will stipulation.
My friend's father left his house to her and her brother but stipulated that it was to be used by his wife (their step-mom) while she lived. According to the lawyers, this means they can't do anything with it until she dies. She moved out of the house last summer. It sat empty throughout the long Minnesota winter. The widow did not pay the heating bill, she hasn't paid the water bill, she hasn't maintained the yard, and she hasn't paid the property tax bill either. Thus the children's inheritance is being devalued every day as the house deteriorates AND because of the unpaid bills it is possible the city will take it away from them (water and gas have been shut off, so the house can be condemned at anytime). Multiple lawyers have stated there is nothing the children can do except wait until she dies.
Thus, I think these arrangements are really a horrible idea, unless the will also sets forth scenarios of when the final heirs can access their assets.
71
@Barton Agreed, that this arrangement makes for an impossible situation, unless there is a path to an agreement that supersedes the will - or rather, honors it but provides a real world solution.
One that would allow the wife - the life tenant - to agree to a sale, which perhaps she might do if she is provided with a share of the proceeds. of course, My thought is that past taxes, etc, should actually come out of her share, since, legally,they were hers to pay.
The monetary value of a life estate can be figured can be figured from Social Security "Life Estate and Remainder Tables."
I believe it is possible in most states to do this - but it requires cooperation of all parties. It sounds as if that isn't the case. what a waste.
16
Letter #1 -- Given that the husband is the main breadwinner, he should have life insurance policies in place that protect his family's standard of living, which should include his younger daughter's education. If he isn't in sufficiently good health to get life insurance in the amount that he should have -- well, that just makes this conversation all the more important.
52
@JM It's insane if he doesn't have life insurance. Even if he leaves the house to his wife, or for her lifetime use, how will she pay the taxes and upkeep without his income? If she becomes elderly or disabled and needs assisted living, she will need some cash. This man is being irresponsible and the wife is in a very risky situation.
12
Maybe employers should also complete questionnaires for the benefit of applicants. Here are some examples:
1. Has your company ever terminated someone? Why/where?
2. Has your company ever denied someone unemployment insurance coverage only to have that decision overruled?
3. Has your company ever been accused of an EEOC violation?
4. Has your company ever had a sexual harassment complaint?
Please add your own questions to this list.
228
@Dream Weaver
thank you! wish this got enough comments to make the top of the list.
24
I think the answers would be “yes” for most (all?) large corporations if they were asked these questions.
18
@Reg L Yes I agree that is true with large organizations. Maybe the question could be limited by asking if these things happened in the last year or within the department.
Good catch. Thanks!
21
Check with your state’s divorce laws. In community property states like Wyoming it doesn’t matter to the divorce court if the house is in his name. It is community property after ten years of marriage and this splittable to both parties.
32
Daughter 2 will only get 1/2 of the house from her father, maybe many years after his death. Nothing to inherit from her mother, i.e. wife 2.
Daughter 1 received tuition. One important part of information is missing: Did mother 1 get a lot of money from divorse, and will she be able to pass that also to daughter 1 as inherintance?
15
@Joa Falken More likely older daughter's mother (who is presumably closer to father's age) has been working as hard as she can since divorce, while second wife was able to have a slower paced life to raise her child.
3
I am floored by all of the comments that ignore a fundamental of this Will issue. The writer is being emotionally abused by her husband. Period. He is writing a will out of anger, probably at the idea of his passing and her possibly surviving him, that is forcing her after his passing to completely change and deeply diminish her life. And will do the same for their younger daughter.
I know because I survived my husband's death, the love of my life, in a very similar situation. Luckily, although not rich I have my own income and did not need to sell the house. He expressed rage at his passing by directing it at me and completely dismissing and diminishing our life and love in the process. It was that emotional reality rather than any financial loss that has been almost cripplingly difficult to deal with.
191
@Kitty Would need more specifics before being able to comment.
3
@Kitty I'm sorry that happened to you, but to be honest, what does a spouse owe the other spouse? The thought that a spouse is entitled to the fruit of someone's life's work is a little offensive and diminishes the nature of the relationship. Spouses should be together for love. Once the idea of entitlement enters the picture, the relationship is sullied and becomes transactional.
5
@Sharon The notion of romantic love, and especially that its expression is the primary purpose of marriage, is very new in human history. (And frankly, on the whole it hasn't worked out any better than arranged marriages.) Marriage is a contract and a financial and social arrangement intended to create a family unit to provide stability against the vicissitudes and unpredictability of life. 'For richer, for poorer ... with all my worldly goods, I thee endow'. It's the 'so long as we both shall live' part that's causing the trouble here.
Is it possible the husband's second marriage is one of convenience and necessity -- that he needed a housekeeper and nanny for his first daughter, and so married one rather than hire one?
Something like that was the story of my granddad and step-grandmother when his wife died giving birth to my aunt, leaving him with a toddler - my mum - and an infant who was raised my great-grandparents. Subsequently a half-brother joined the family. There was a great stew of emotions mixed up in that tangle; I wonder whether something similar goes on here. All that is beyond the scope of an ethicist's inquiry -- which is the problem with this column. Circumstances alter cases.
19
Gotta love those people who "won't work for a friend," but will happily freeload.
108
The woman should add up the $ she is spending on her friend and then translate it into how many hours she has to work to earn that money. I think she will see that is working for the "friend" who "won't work for a friend."
40
Speaking to the person not wanting to include an unscrupulous employer who fought--and lost trying to get that person kicked off of unemployment, I too experienced that dilemma including it being headed by zealous religious people at the top.
In the three months I was there, all the department leadership from every department was hired and fired to the degree fear ruled everything and I was expected to use fear as well for the smallest of things. I knew my number would come up soon and it did. There was nothing Christian about the way they moved people across the country to a rural area with few job opportunities and dumped them and preventing them from getting unemployment. It's taken me almost a decade to recover.
Basically companies like this don't believe in unemployment while sullying the reputations of anyone in their path with no conscience. It is they who should be punished for hurting innocent people trying to do a good job and earn an honest living.
There needs to be a better remedy than to keep such an employers wrongful damage being forever disadvantaged by such unethical employers. The ethical answer here puts the employer's entire responsibility unfairly on an employee's shoulders. What is ethical about that?
Might I suggest that any company with an open ended question like that is signaling that they too are not a good employer. Look more deeply into the company before accepting a job that might brand you as that other one did.
20
RE.: The Will
A reasonable answer as far as the query allows, I guess, but underlying the query and answer is an assumption that I reject.
Rather dramatically, the wife foresees a forced choice. As she puts it, providing for her daughter's education would leave her homeless. The necessity to pay for her daughter's education is not questioned--an absurd fact of life in this country. A person of college age is not a helpless child; a college education is not an existential necessity; there are plenty of ways to gain an education without investing $300,000 of your aging parents' equity.
The best thing my parents ever did for me was to charge me for room and board starting on my 16th birthday, give me responsibility for my health care bills on my 18th, and leave me absolutely nothing in their wills. Paying these bills, and for my private and state college education, taught me more than I ever learned in the classroom.
Some of my coddled cohorts who were basically paid by their parents to attend college went on to become hopelessly adrift in the real world, and remain to this day disconnected from reality. One poor fellow, a college classmate of mine now nearing retirement age, is $750,000 in debt from paying for his four offspring's educations--and only one of his four kids has a clue how to approach life. The others, clutching sheepskins from prestigious universities, still need Dad to pay their cell phone bills.
32
@William Romp Then Dad is a fool. He did not teach them how to live.
16
@William Romp Ok, but remember that college costs have skyrocked over the past 30 years. As have health care costs. Telling an 18 year old to pay their own way is not realistic today.
That said, a college or tech school education can be had for well under $100,000 at public schools.
33
@William Romp I would never charge a teenaged child of mine room and board. Maybe when said child turns 40.
12
Regarding the Will Question.
I think you have missed an opportunity to point out that there are many deep and personal conflicts where both parties are behaving ethically. Hopefully both can see and respect that. Your guidance seems reasonable but is not related to any ethical issue.
10
Life insurance solves the whole problem
No fighting
Term is cheap
29
@Chuck Rizzo She probably doesn't have the money for it (I bet he controls ALL the finances), and would he even agree to a physical? He gets mad when she even broaches the money topic.
23
@Chuck Rizzo
Life insurance ist expensive if the husband is 70+ and already faces some health issues, which might be the origin of the concerns.
16
@Chuck Rizzo of course; simple; thx
3
My grandmother's husband wanted her to stay in the house until she died, but once he was gone his family got her out of the house fairly quickly.
16
@Suzy How did they do that? The LW needs to know. That said, I inherited a small, old fishing cottage off the Maine coast, and when I married I put my husband on the deed.
8
@Suzy
You are also part of "his family".
3
@Suzy Wanting something and not putting it in writing make a different scenario.
9
LW needs to come up with a Plan B to pay for her daughter's college education if her husband dies before the daughter attends and graduates. The will should not pivot on the education expense. Perhaps ask her husband to take out a life insurance policy naming the daughter as the sole beneficiary, with enough value to cover her education costs. When she finishes college, if the husband is still alive, cancel the policy. LW is obsessing over the worse case scenario which can be avoided.
21
LW1 is mind boggling. An adult with a child has no assets or savings and is upset about planning for the future. Get a job with a pension and check that you're on your spouse's life insurance policy. And start contributing to the household in a meaningful way including planning for all eventualities. Lastly: a house? Get an apartment or move into assisted living/55 and over like everyone else. Be a partner who appreciates and contributes. There are children involved.
21
@Brian
Yes, because getting a good paying job (with a pension) is easy for anyone, even those in middle age or older who worked inside the home for many years. I'm sure the wife is smacking her forehead thinking, "Why didn't I think of that!"
198
@Brian She has no money of her own to do any of those things.
39
@Brian
She doesn't have separate assets or savings. All that means is that his is his and hers is shared.
33
LW 1: H good income, owns house. W mentions no income, states no assets. No mention of any savings. Solution: Wife gets a job and saves the money to provide for herself and her daughter. There are ways to re-enter the work force. Look into it. My mother always told me to take care of myself and my loved ones and not to leave it up to a man! And the husband should be saving part of his salary too!
37
@Mom from Queens
She says she has a job that pays less than her husband's job [he's the primary breadwinner] and will get a small pension inadequate to support her in the style to which she is accustomed if her husband dies.
7
LW 3.
I had a friend with whom I shared her house. She was going through a divorce and the house was her's but she couldn't afford the house payment all on her own. After her divorce became final she realized that the house was her settlement and there would not be any child support (her adolescent daughters were not his biological children), nor would there be any alimony. So we continued the arrangement splitting all the costs, except food, down the middle. Then she began dating. Dating is an expense. She was soon 'borrowing' money from me to meet the greater portions of her expenses. After the third month of doing this I told her it had to stop. The ending of our decade long friendship was not pleasant.
I never wanted to repeat that experience again. The resolution I found was simple and it has worked well for me, and I hope it works well for others too.
I will loan a person a small amount of money, if asked, with the expected pay back in one month. If I haven't received the payback in one month, I won't loan them money, or anything else, again. I also tell them why I won't make a loan. Do I feel bad doing this? No. Because I donate to a few selected charities now. I will even volunteer time to some charities. But I am not a charitable organization in and of myself. People who are having difficulties should go to charities.
38
@Susannah Allanic
"we continued the arrangement splitting all the costs, except food, down the middle."
If would have been reasonable to pay 1/2 of a market term rent to her, not just her "costs", if costs were less than market rents. You should have offered that instead of giving a loan.
13
@Joa Falken I may be making a "wild assumption" here, but it's very possible that even if Susannah paid her divorced, single mom of 2 teens pal half of market-rate rent monthly on top of their other shared, non-food costs, that may still not be enough for the divorcee's expected standard of living & self-image as a dating again gal.
It's not cheap to pay for fashionable clothes, makeup, cosmetic procedures/surgeries, salon/spa makeovers, gym & dating website memberships, babysitting (if/when Susannah or other relations, like the girls' biological father, are not available to look after them, because other adults have work & social lives of their own too, duh!), fair share of fancy romantic vacation costs, etc.
The divorcee might still realistically hit up Susannah for a loan if/when the dating lifestyle costs exceed the reasonable 1/2 market rent.
I'm not saying the lady should live like a celibate nun.
Perhaps ideally the divorcee should direct her single-again energy towards being qualified to get a higher-paying job or running her own profitable business - instead of leaning heavily on friends like
Susannah or another future husband to help her make ends meet.
I hate to say this, but some people will never plan, work, or save towards self-sufficiency unless you either set boundaries w/ them, or just cut them off.
When it comes to how our friends' poor choices can steal from our own welfare & worthwhile charities, we shld all ethically act as "both eyes open" adults;)*
14
LW1 seems to think a trust would solve the problem. Trusts are only meaningful if they own assets, in this case additional assets that can pay for daughter 2’s education. But if the home is the sole asset, what is LW’s alternative plan? Put the house in a trust....for whom? Until when? Husband has already essentially done that. Life estate for wife, remainder to daughters. He has essentially stated that his priority is that his wife have a home to live in rather than have the home sold to pay for other things like college tuition.
21
Re LW 1. Willing a house to children with a life estate for the widow is common practice. The concern that if husband leaves house entirely to wife, she may remarry and upon death, leave the house to husband #2, thereby depriving the children of any interest in the house.
52
I feel for LW. and agree with those who suggest that she (a) independently consult an attorney; and (b) try to get her husband on board with a life insurance policy.
Ihe biggest take-away is to remember that marriage is a property contract. It's kind of stunning that people who would never think of buying a house without a lawyer will enter into what is almost certainly the most comprehensive (and complicated) legal contract of their lives with nothing more than a smiley "I do."
This understanding is especially important for people marrying a little later in life, and most especially those with any assets or children--or those who have none but are marrying someone who does (as seems to be the case here).
Forget the wedding dress (or buy it at J C Penney's) and use the money to consult an attorney and talk to your future spouse *before* you get hitched. (Perhaps if L.W. had done so, she might have made different decisions while in the marriage. At least she would have known how her husband planned to treat his property in his will.)
FYI: I just finished teaching a class with graduating college seniors, many of whom will be donning cap and gown this weekend. Among my parting words:
1. Roth IRA (and a take-along chart about the power of compound interest and saving early)
2. Marriage is a legal contract. It is, at heart, a document about property rights. Understand that.
81
Yes, I wish I had understood that before l got married. A very hard way to learn.
23
@vkt
The perceived imbalance ocured when he gave richly to his first daughter (for college / university tuition) without any equivalent consideration for the second daughter.
Maybe he thinks the second daughter is not smart enough anyway to warrant much higher education, but too restained to say so?
9
@Joa Falken -- It's not that there isn't equivalent consideration for the second daughter. It's that he apparently has no plan other than paying for second daughter out of his income -- which will be gone if he's dead.
23
Who are these parents who think they should (and do) pay for their children's' education? Why didn't I have them? Sorry, got to go. Go make my student loan payment, due to be paid off 4 months after my 50th birthday.
34
@Amanda Black: Cute comment made me laugh. My parents made me pay for college and post college education as well and it was a small fortune. Shocking how many people I know that will take them 25 years to pay off a student loan.
18
@Amanda Black, as expensive as college was in your day, costs have skyrocketed. Todays grads trying to pay without parental help may still be in debt when they die.
7
If you’re married to a man who has no regard for your financial safety should he die, your marriage has problems.
If you have no means of supporting yourself, lack substantial savings or have not purchased a chunky life insurance policy on your husband, you will be in serious trouble if he dies. Even if you elected to remain in the home, how will you pay property taxes or replace the roof without income of your own?
Whatever your husband earns, if your family is unable to save money, he doesn’t earn enough. Figure out how much he will earn between now and whenever you can collect on his social security or pension and buy a life insurance policy to cover your living expenses until then.
I’m a next wife and appreciate how incredibly hard it is to discuss money when there are children from a prior marriage. Losing a spouse is traumatic enough without being impoverished simultaneously. Who knows why your husband isn’t acting to protect you, but you can’t make him discuss, let alone resolve, whatever conflicts he’s holding on to. This can feel overwhelming and scary and you need some straight-talking legal and financial advice now. Protect yourself.
81
@hey nineteen, Eeek. Money, money, money, money and there never seems to be enough .......
7
For writer number 1, show the husband how much she would be entitled to if she divorce him. Then divorce him if he won't change his mind. I don't think life insurance is the solution in this case. The husband is set in his way of thinking ( and that may be why the first wife divorced him). The wife needs to develop a different strategy, and she also need to get a job.
32
@Elizabeth
Probably little to obtain from divorse when he already had the house upon second marriage (with how much debt?) and did not achieve any extra property since,
3
LW #1 -- First the easy part -- get life insurance! Next, the hard part -- a sit down with the husband and asking the big question: what do you envision? What do you want? Understanding what the husband thinks the future would look like (preserving assets generally or preserving this house specifically) would be really helpful in offering alternate plans.
11
@Katrin She should get a life insurance policy assuming she can afford it. He does not have to approve her getting insurance on him. It seems the husband has all the cards. She must remember [God Bless The Child Who Has His Own]
7
@Barbara He would have to submit to a medical exam or she would have to pay premiums assuming he was high risk.
2
LW 1: Have your husband buy life insurance and put the house in both your names.
LW 2: Telling a potential employer the convoluted circumstances your the job termination will be difficult, but you'll probably never even get a chance to explain. Seeing this on the application is going to send your resume to the wastebin. Sad but true.
LW 3: You can't solve everybody's problems and you can't feel guilty about it. It's sad that at her age she's still learning from the school of hard knocks, but ultimately your friend has to take responsibility for her own life.
13
@Roberta The problem with putting the house in both their names is the worry that the stepdaughter could be disinherited, with the entire house going to the younger daughter. He is reasonably protecting his first daughters inheritance.
Apparently the source of money for the daughters' education is his income (not assets). If that is the case, then a term policy would be appropriate.
18
@wnhoke: Sorry, but this husband is not doing ANYTHING "reasonably" - he's playing non-negotiable hardball with his wife's and 2nd daughter's futures.
As someone else commented, his actions constitute emotional abuse of the wife, at the very least.
23
@L Remember, "non-negotiable hardball" is his wife's version. What he is doing is reasonable. And, it is his house.
2
#1 Get a job, talk to a good financial advisor, divorce the husband and split the assets now
#2 The first situation was not a dismissal, you were laid off. Don't mention the second. No one will consider you if you say you went to court. Doesn't matter if you won or lost.
#3 You've been a good friend but it's not up to you to make sure your friend makes good decisions. Let the friend figure it out.
18
@Kaitlin Barnes
#1 She has a job that pays less than her husband's job, [he is the primary, not the only breadwinner.] She should buy life insurance on her husband if his only asset is his house, assuming his health does not result in sky high premiums and he's insurable. [If the only asset is the house, and he owned it before they married, she's not going to get much in the split.]
He owns a house and makes a good income. Assuming he's in his 50's and she's been married to him for 15 years, it's a little late for her to start worrying about the fact that they have no provision for her or their child in the event that he dies.
#2 A layoff is a dismissal, easily explained as a layoff for budget reasons, understandable that someone with only a year would be the first to go.
The second dismissal, after only a month, should be listed as a bad fit. No need to go into massive negative comments about a former employer.
20
Re: LW1...
"Ask your husband to come with you to discuss these issues with a competent lawyer, and try to reach some consensus on how to plan for this situation. You might even propose couples counseling if he continues to resist."
That is terrible advice but yet is so American, to lawyer-up first and only if that won't work to actually sit down and talk about it. I would propose that first and foremost, the wife needs to figure out how to have a discussion with hubby about this. Engage a counselor if need-be, but save the lawyers until later; making sure your husband understands your concerns is priority #1.
10
@Scott Werden -
I'm confused by your comment. The wife writes "When I try to discuss this with my husband, he gets extremely angry". Are you suggesting that it's her responsibility to figure out what she's doing wrong that leads hubby to become "extremely" angry, and then to fix it so that hubby will discuss her concerns calmly? Are you really putting that all on her?
And if they go to a counselor/therapist without her understanding her legal rights and options how is she in a better position to communicate her needs to hubby, having nothing more than the hundreds of conflicting opinions she'll have received from people commenting here, many of whom, while perhaps well-meaning, are clearly clueless?
39
@Scott Werden
If his only asset is the house, what does she expect to go into the trust fund? She gets to keep the house for life and then the daughters split it?
7
LW#3: Your elderly friend clearly misses making the substantial commission-only income, relative flexibility, and generally upscale image & lifestyle of being a presumably successful real estate broker. Being paid by you to do your basic part-time bookkeeping is something that she likely finds boring, socially isolating, and may in fact not be good at/very reliable with herself (thus her relative poverty in her old age).
Also, perhaps this lady is turned off by the idea of going using subsidized housing and Medicaid because - to her narcissistic mind - that would mean publicly & regularly interacting w/ "losers", unlike how she currently can get her food discreetly w/ food stamps, well-timed pantry visits, and your generous grocery subsidies to her, all while going home to a place she can barely afford.
I know you have the best intentions in not wanting to see your friend go down the literal Grey Gardens route.
However, think about this: why is your friend so estranged from her grown child? Are you the only friend helping w/ her expenses? i
Is she also gaming others in your social circle too, to support her unsustainable choices?
Ethically speaking, no one should have to stress themselves out or risk bankrupting themselves on behalf of a delusional "friend" - especially when there are professional state & non-profit (including faith-based) networks of social workers, counselors, care groups, etc. that she can be referred to graciously by you.
23
@AnarchiesSuck:
wow, a list of wild assumptions!
8
@RLiss I wish they were only "wild assumptions", but unless we've all been living under rocks, we cannot deny the possibility and fact that lifetime narcissists and moochers do exist.
Ethically speaking, each person should thoroughly and discreetly assess whether their charity really helps a person to have dignified self-sufficiency, or if the said aid is turning out to be nothing more than enabling irrationally self-absorbed behavior.
9
@RLiss Unfortunately, this is not as wild or as uncommon as one would like to think.
Try volunteering regularly and in person within your community to understand how many friends, family members, and charities are finding themselves in debt and poverty after years of getting drained by narcissists.
Ethically speaking, we all must balance giving people the benefit of the doubt with seriously exploring why and how these "victims/sob stories" have all these burned bridges (i.e. family members, friends, colleagues, clients, etc. who - for their own emotional & economic well-being - choose not to interact with them anymore) in the 1st place.
Scarce money, time, and other resources that could have wisely been spent on genuine recovery-seeking survivors of abuse, injustice, and traumatic events (ex. natural disasters, wars, crime, devastating injuries or illness, etc.) sadly do get wasted on impractical individuals too often.
LW#3 needs to discreetly investigate for herself whether these "wild assumptions" apply to the situation she finds herself in, so she makes an informed decision on what kind/s of help and/or healthy boundaries she should apply with her friend, moving forward.
7
If the elderly woman is 65+, she qualifies for Medicare. Depending on her income, which seems meager, she ought not have to pay more than $100/month and perhaps even $0.
As for her adult son, he's a lowlife for not even partially helping with the finances of his elderly mother. It's not as if he doesn't know she old. There's little chance he'll suddenly become a decent, responsible son.
Compile a short list of govt. services (with phone numbers and websites) she might qualify for after all those years of paying into Social Security. Then, provide a second list of elder care non-profits, including a food bank. If she can work even part time as an accountant or real estate appraiser (with some added credentialing), then she ought have no reason to abuse the good will of friends or deal with her rotten son.
14
For those who recommend LW #1 seek counseling (marriage; financial; legal) with her husband: she specifically says he shuts her down when she brings up finance topics. She needs to do all this on her own, if she had the funds and desire, and can escape her dominant husband's prying eyes for a few minutes. I bet he tracks her car and cell phone.
18
Amazing how many people can 'read' this first scenario and miss the obvious fact that the second girl is NOT his step-daughter.
19
@SteveRR
He has two daughters, one who is 23 years-old and the other who is 13 years-old. When his oldest daughter was eight or nine, he divorced her mother and since then has been providing financial and emotional support to her. He later remarried and had a second daughter, who he has similarly provided for.
He is the primary breadwinner, owned a house when he married the second time and has a second wife who has employment outside the home but does not have sufficient income, if he were to die, to maintain the lifestyle to which she is accustomed.
His plan is to live another 20 years and to pay for his younger daughter's college, vacations, living expenses until she is self-sufficient.
His will says that if he dies, he leaves everything to his present wife except his house [his biggest asset] which she can live in until she dies and then it would be sold and the proceeds divided between his two daughters. [This prevents his widow from remarrying and leaving the house to her new husband upon her death, disinheriting his daughters.]
From his perspective, this is the same will he would have if he were still married to his first wife and had two daughters. If he dies 20 years from now, after both daughters are off his payroll, his wife would be satisfied with the will.
His second wife wants him to disinherit her stepdaughter, because if he dies today, there isn't enough money for her retirement and for her child to get as much as her stepdaughter.
28
@ebmem
I think the 2nd wife needs to get a job and stop complaining. It is his money and if he chooses to protect his kids, good for him!
2
@ebmem
I'm getting the impression some commenters know this couple in real life.
4
Get a life insurance policy!
This isn't an issue, it's his house and his say. You can get a divorce and it will still be his house. You don't have say... Why in the world are you allowing this to keep you up at night?
12
@Shane H, my girlfriend’s husband took care of an issue like this as soon as they married. He had a cute Victorian home in San Francisco he purchased as a young fireman and 20 years later when they married he had zero intention of putting her name on the deed or to will her the home on his death it was going to his daughter. But he did purchase her another home out of the city and her name was on the deed. Family “stuff” and money can cause so many problems. Glad I live simple and require little.
9
LW3: Research what low-cost counseling options might be available for your friend. I don't think hearing you suggest Section 8 or Medicaid would be helpful; if anything, she will feel embarrassed that a friend is telling her to apply for poverty programs. Hearing it from a professional distance (such as a licensed clinical social worker at the local county office on aging) might be less humiliating and therefore more likely to get through. I think the problem you're not picking up on is that her self-image of being a successful professional has taken a huge hit, and she is viewing giving up her current housing and insurance as admitting failure. She is trying to cling to her previous life. Helping her make sense of her situation and adjust to it may well be beyond something a well-meaning but untrained friend can do. Ask an expert to step in.
35
LW3: I suspect her resentment may be based in guilt. She may feel that she has an obligation to help others in need. She needs to get her priorities straight - donating to a charity vs a friend - and learn how to set healthy boundaries. Newly retired, I am finding plenty of people who did not plan well for their senior years and who are at a loss about using their limited resources wisely. Her story is one that we will all face within our social circles in our senior years.
18
For the writer with the inheritance question, I recommend Jane Bryant Quinn's "Making the Most of Your Money Now." While it's a bit out of date, it remains a great financial Bible, and includes advice she needs (and could share w/ her husband).
If you don't want rancor after your death (or before, if people know the contents of your will), you want to be fair. Especially to your children, who you hope will remain close and support each other in life. It is unfair to a child who hasn't completed an education that would have been paid by the parent like the older children's was. Every situation is different, but for this family--good income, but home the only asset--I'd recommend life insurance, with a trust as the beneficiary. The trust can stipulate that younger child's education would be paid for first, then the rest of the trust divided between the children and wife. (What kind of man leaves nothing to the mother of his child?)
The house should also be split among the three of them (put it in the trust now). If wife wants to move--and she may, in order to start a new life or to afford taxes & upkeep--she can do so with her third. If she stays until death, her part is divided between the kids. She also needs a job, and to be named the beneficiary of any workplace retirement plan he has. (She would have his Social Security if he died, but if that's not enough for him then it isn't for her, either.)
17
It is important, but unclear if there are additional family resources. Without more information, it is impossible to arrive at a real understanding of the equity of the current situation. Without knowing what the wife is going to inherit, one cannot decide whether the younger daughter is in any way likelya to be deprived of educational opportunities.
The wife may well be inheriting other items of substantial value. I assume these assets will pass down to her daughter. Meanwhile, half the value of the home may well be the limit of the older daughter's inheritance.
I am sure the wife sincerely feels that this current situation is in some measure unfair, but we must keep in mind that her limited description of their current circumstances may well be shaped to suit her own narrow view. An in depth analysis of the family assets and their disposition may lead to a very different conclusion. It would seem to me that the only reasonable advice would be to recommend having a discussion with an accredited estate planner.
16
In response to letter writer 1, I am noticing, based on Appiah's response that the course of action is one where you are focussing on the consequences of your actions and your choice should reflect a benefit for you and your family, or rather, a common good/consequentialist approach. Personally I would say that death of a spouse is one of those areas where being selfish, i.e. an egoistic approach, would be best. Therefore, do whatever you can to promote the most benefit for yourself in the event of someones death so that you can have the resources to provide for the next chapter in your life.
Kind regards -
7
The first question about a spouse's will should be required reading for singles and young couples... Getting married especially with a blended family requires preliminary agreements and understandings, and the ability to compromise and work things out with an unbiased third party. Most of all in the 21st century a woman should think long and hard about being entirely dependent on someone else's income and in the dark about the family's finances, or at least without influence in terms of her and her children's financial security and the family's plans for the future...
55
Re the government job application, most such forms have a signature block at the end which states that the applicant has told the truth. That being said, the first job interruption was a lay off, rather than a dismissal. The second was a termination without cause, and should be disclosed as such. If discussed in an interview, the back story could be told.
66
Best advice!
12
Re LW1: "Ask your husband to come with you to discuss these issues with a competent lawyer, and try to reach some consensus on how to plan for this situation. You might even propose couples counseling if he continues to resist".
That is flat out poor advice. First and foremost, this woman needs to consult - on her own - with a good family law attorney (who may also practice with estate and trust attorneys) in order to understand HER rights and options with respect to the facts and circumstances of her situation, within the context of the laws of the state in which she resides.
There are many complex issues here, and until she does this she will be wandering alone in the dark.
100
@Chas.
Good advice.
what I was reading between the lines was that LW1 believes that her husband does not have her interests at heart. He did not seek her opinion and does not want it. That's the problem, and she needs to clarify what she wants before she is ready to deal with him.
And to do that she should have legal assistance.
28
@Chas. thank you! Appiah skated over ALL the red flags in this letter- your advice is much better, she needs protection and an understanding of her rights.
26
LW!- You and husband (or you alone) should visit a financial planner who is an expert in trusts. The house can go into a marital trust along with other assets. Upon the wife's death, the trust can be divided between daughters. The trust can specify when this will be done (after youngest is through college). The trust can be set up such that educational and living expenses will cover wife and daughter as needed. The trust can specify the amount to be spent on education or can be open ended. The wife should explore with the financial planner what other assets she should have (and when) such as pensions, IRA's, 401K, social security, and medicare. At the point, a GOOD planner and trust lawyer, should offer appropriate advice for life insurance on husband. In addition, life insurance can be purchased on the wife with the benefits going to her daughter for education. (I did not work and for many years carried life insurance on me to cover expenses for child care and elder care fro my mother- something that would need to be paid if something happened to me). Each spouse should make an estimated budget of their expected expenses if their spouse dies and make sure that they have sufficient funds to support it or what modifications needed to live on available funds. This is often shocking to people how much money they will need to live the life they are used to. (big part of retirement planning).
ANOTHER point-review your plans every year and update as needed.
19
#3 help the friend transition -- to Medicaid and to a subsidized apartment -- her funds will then go farther. If she won't work with you, then … you're going to keep making payments because she will not change or work with you? Indeed, your continued generosity -- and the expectation of it -- may be the reason she will not make the change.
33
@Penn Towers
Know of a similar situation where a generous relative has subsidized big ticket items ( purchase of a co-op, vacations) for someone who has not sought out a steady job with retirement and health benefits despite having the education to do so. Pretty much takes up consulting work and writes a blog. The generous relative is really an enabler who provides a safety net. Good advice, as you suggest, would be much more beneficial for both of them.
13
The wife’s letter and the columnist’s response make some erroneous assumptions and fail to raise a key issue.
The will grants the wife a life estate, so the house cannot be sold by either daughter until the wife/mother dies, unless she voluntarily gives up the life estate. Even if she does so, however, neither daughter really has anything to sell: Who would buy a half interest in a house? So, once the mother’s life estate is over, the daughters have to agree to a sale and a splitting of the proceeds.
With the above in mind, the house isn’t much of an asset, and the husband’s will creates very difficult to resolve issues. What if the mother doesn’t maintain the house? What if she rents it out? Or remarries? What if the sisters can’t agree what to do with the house?
All of this ignores the real issue here: Who pays for the daughters’ education and support until she is emancipated?
The answer? That’s what life insurance is for! People with dependent children should have adequate life and disability insurance. Without insurance, the husband dies, the income is gone, and everyone is left with a house they can’t afford. The ethical obligation here is that parents should provide for their children as best they can (or for their surviving dependent spouse), and well thought out insurance should be part of the plan.
98
@JB
Excellent advice.
It's reasonable for one parent to want to divide their inheritance equally among their children while at the same time providing for their spouse during the spouse's lifetime. (Gender neutral phrasing, I hope.)
The surviving spouse has a legal right to the deceased spouse's social security and retirement savings (from a "good income"). But nothing except insurance can compensate financially for the death of the sole earner in a single-income family. Getting some kind of job might be necessary. If education is the main worry, savings or insurance are possibilities.
There is no moral logic to the life-outcomes of birth order, especially when educational expenses rise more rapidly than income. From the point of view of the surviving spouse, the issue of life-fairness between older step- and younger full-children is starkly drawn by the premature death of the full parent. Without fully knowing the circumstances of the two daughters, it's impossible to say more.
14
#1 divorce him and you'll get half the house and more. Also, get a job.
43
@Penn Towers That raises an interesting issue. Why is a spouse entitled to half the assets in a divorce, but not after a death?
9
@Penn Towers
She will not get half the house if she divorces him. He bought the house before he married her.
25
Shame on your husband for not fully committing to his wife.
34
LW1 is exactly why women also need to work. When you put yourself in a situation where you are entirely dependent on someone else's finances, even if that person is your spouse, you're in a very bad situation if something should happen to that person. The advice was not at all helpful.
LW1 should be encouraged to get a job and start saving. Does she feel that it's solely her husband's responsibility to make money? She should tell her daughter to also get a job and start saving if she's already a teenager. People take loans to go to college, if the worst happens and her father dies, then she'll have to do what she has to do. If LW1 doesn't want to end up potentially homeless, she needs to get a job.
81
@thisisme I agree with you. And it seems getting hung up on the prospect of different treatment for the stepdaughter and her own child has helped her ignore her own responsibility to provide for herself and her child.
46
@thisisme -- maybe I'm reading something not there, but I believe LW #! works, just not at a job that makes her the main breadwinner, or that provides enough income for her and her daughter to live as they are accustomed to living. Certainly, she doesn't make enough money to maintain the house and provide the same education for her daughter that her stepdaughter received.
12
The last letter from Suzanne illustrates why "friend favours" have to be done as one time charitable impulses with no expectations in return.
Instead the writer has clearly become resentful because she is worried about the friend but thinks the friend could/needs to do more to help herself. In this instance the "friend favours" have ceased to be that and have become a strings attached type thing.
It is the other person's life and responsibility to sort herself out. In this scenario I would rather have a supportive friend who provided no material help than one who leant me money but there was an undercurrent of resentment and hostility to it.
11
We are hearing a very slanted view on the situation. Does the husband have life insurance, and if so, how much? The wife is hearing the husband's anger but not understanding that her elision of his point of view is frustrating to him.
8
LW2 - The NY Times advice was to mention both "dismissals" , because there are perfectly good explanations for both instances, and a reasonable hiring manager wouldn't remove you from consideration for these reasons.
As a hiring manger myself, I can tell you that this is not good advice:
1) They may not remove you from consideration, but if there are ten other applicants without two dismissals, they'll be ahead of you.
2) Of the thousands of job candidates I have spoken to, every single one had a perfectly good explanation for every dismissal. It does not matter if you have a valid, good reason for a dismissal or not. It's just the dismissal that really matters, because there is really no good reason to determine whose fault it was.
3) Mentioning the judgment is an even worse idea. Sad to say it, but the biggest red flag is that there was ever a judgment - be it in your favor or not. The fact that you ended up going to court/a hearing is the biggest red flag. They won't bother to look at the details of your case before moving on to the next resume. I realize you didn't have a choice and that the employer forced you to go to the hearing. Still, not a good idea to mention it.
4) The first case sounds like you were laid off, not dismissed. You can leave that out as well. You may be asked during the interview about what happened and why the job ended, so be prepared to answer that.
5) Yes, it's unethical to lie, but in this case it's better for you.
51
@S Do you think the government agency will delve deeper and find the actual work history at some point?
3
@S This is terrible advice! Although you might be right about how the LW's background might disadvantage him/her, being untruthful in applying for a job with the US government could land you in jail. It is a felony. Just don't do it. Even if the lie isn't discovered in the initial stages, should you be hired and the lie is discovered later, you would be dismissed and subject to criminal charges. And down the road, should you be considered for a promotion, the application is reviewed again, with another chance that the lie would be discovered. The LW has a perfectly good explanation for the dismissal and should document it honestly and completely and let the chips fall where they may. It beats going to jail. Try explaining a 5 year gap in employment on your resume! I guess you could always say you were employed at a government facility making license plates.
13
@S
You have obviously never filled out a government
questionnaire and the scrutiny that goes along with it. In a lot of cases government workers need a security clearance including investigators talking to your neighbors and that isn't even for high level jobs. One candidate went through a foreclosure due to circumstances not under his control and managed it correctly, not just walking away and he never got hired because of it. Another had a recheck of her credit from 8 years past and since then had paid off everything and still was required to submit papers that she did. This is the government, not private industry. On the other hand contractors working for the government and for contracting firms seem to get away with a lot than but eventually even they sometimes get caught in lies.
14
Today's comments, many well-thought out, reveal the problem with this column: the ethical, legal, practical, psychological, and interpersonal issues get conflated by letter writers and the author alike.
12
@marklee I think that's the POINT of this column. And to model how to deal with that complexity by thinking out loud, or in this case, in writing.
13
The question about employment is curious because it stresses the employee shouldn't lie on their application. However, employers regularly lie to employees, the govt. and their customers and it's considered business. This is supposed to be a column about ethics, not a column about how to live in such an unethical world. What would be the writers answer to a question about buying insulin (covered in an another NYT column today) from Mexico vs letting her die?
15
All government employees undergo background checks upon hiring. The LW’s lie would be easily uncovered.
14
"Financial planning" is the key phrase for #1.
4
LW1 - The Will only "pits me against our daughter" because the wife is fighting over one pot (the house) that is supposed to provide an inheritance to 3 people, and it's clearly not enough. Life Insurance would be the best way to bring in more money, since her husband has not saved enough to give all 3 survivors enough money outright to deal with the education, inheritance, and house maintenance concerns raised here. She does not indicate whether her husband's income is enough to support a trust, or separate savings earmarked for the younger daughter's education, or savings earmarked for maintenance of the house she might not be able to support with her pension. He may not have enough funds to do all that she is asking for, which triggers his anger. Her resentment toward his older daughter is evident, and he may not trust her to be fair to this daughter when he is gone. That could be fueling his anger, too. I doubt that talking is going to help this one, but purchasing life insurance - and getting a job herself - might go a lot further to provide more financial security in the future. Also, her daughter might, in the event of her father's death, have to use some loans to complete her education. Sometimes life just happens.
50
If the friend is 65 or older, she may have a secondary insurance policy to supplement her Medicare. And as she is on food stamps, she likely would qualify for Medicaid to act as the secondary insurer to Medicare. None of us have all the facts (not even which state the friend resides in), but this is a no-brainer. Qualified Medicare Beneficiary is a common dually insured status for poor elderly patients, and would save the friend substantial premiums. But this is a practical solution to what seems to be the friend's psychological issues, compounded by our nation's failure to provide adequate safety nets.
14
@marklee
Seems to me her friend has been living her life like this and it did not start when she got older.
Shame on her for expecting her friend to supplement her living style and decisions she has made over the years and now.
6
LW3 expresses "resentment" toward her friend for receiving her help. This is quite puzzling to me - unless the friend was making demands for money or goods, LW3's help was voluntary, a gift to her friend. Gifts aren't supposed to have conditions attached to them. When the LW3 wants to stop offering gifts, she should stop. That she is resentful says way more about her than about the recipient.
25
@Suzanne She didn't say she resents the help she's given her, she said she resents that her friend hasn't done all that she could to help herself.
This is a completely understandable feeling most anyone can relate to: you help a friend to the extent that you can, which is often only part of what needs to be done. Then you discover that despite handing them the baton, they won't take it up to cross the finish line, and instead continue to stagnate with (and bemoan) the same problems. She feels her help has been wasted. This hardly is a sign of a bad person, it's a normal reaction of frustration and, well, resentment!
24
LW1's husband has already satisfied any obligation he may have to his older daughter. In a perfect world, the younger daughter would receive the same support the older daughter received. But the wife should come first. To leave her with nothing except the right to live in a house owned by someone else is demeaning. They should have a joint estate plan. The house should go to her if he dies first. She should be able to freely make decisions about the house and her living situation. If she needs to sell it at some point to move into something more suited to her age and abilities she should be able to do so. On her death, any proceeds left from the house could be divided between the two daughters. It is perfectly reasonable for LW1 to ask her husband not to put her in a position of choosing between staying in her home or providing an education for her daughter.
62
Agreed. I’m a second wife and my husband leaves everything to me in the will (and I to him.) Given the length of the marriage and especially the age of the younger daughter this is appropriate here. I know people are concerned about daughter #1 not getting anything if wife lives long after husband dies. But first thing that needs addressing here is support of the wife for her remaining life. He supports her fully now — she says she’s unemployable and we have to take her word on that as it sounds like the husband has — and the will should provide for her going forward. Out of these resources she will need to provide for the still-dependent daughter and her education. I hope there is life insurance because I get the impression that there’s not quite enough saved to cover these needs. What’s left when she dies should be divided between the daughters. In my case my husband trusts me to do right by his children and I trust him to do right by mine at the end of life. But our primary duty is to each other’s lives and we leave each other everything. People who distrust their spouses yet stay married have a whole other set of problems they need to solve.
12
@Susan Fall: Your last sentence refers to the husband not "providing an education for HER daughter" - but that young woman is also HIS daughter, and he is cheaping out (at the very least) when it comes to providing for both his current wife and his younger daughter.
9
@Jane And presumably the older daughter will inherit from her own mother, the angry man's first wife.
7
The first letter is not about ethics at all and it is a problem that is straightforward to solve. The published response was next to useless and many of the comments about divorce are clearly counterproductive.
1) Ask your spouse whether he has purchased life insurance to protect you and your daughter in the event of his death. I suspect that he has already done so and that money should be used to support yourself and your daughter.
2) If he has not purchased life insurance or if the amount of insurance is not sufficient to cover living expenses and educational costs, then buy 10 (or 15) year term life insurance on your spouse to provide additional support for you and your daughter during the years he would otherwise plan to work. Even if your spouse is 50 and not in perfect health, a $500,000 policy would typically cost about $1,200 per year.
3) Now that your daughter is a teenager, get a job. If you already have a job, then start saving. Use the income from that job to pay for any additional life insurance that you think is necessary and contribute remainder to a retirement account.
4) You must understand that your husband wants both of his children to receive an inheritance and he wants you to have a place to live. He is balancing competing interests and your attempts to 'discuss' his will are simply demands for a bigger share of the pie.
144
@JP in my country, the "rules" of inheritence is that your spouse is your next of kin and has the "right" to inherit your estate.
I am rather baffled that this all seems normal to Americans - to effectively disinherit your wife. What if your wife needs care in her later years? Is that not important? Clearly the children from both marriages are more important to the husband but the wife has every sympathy from me when it is displayed in what seems a callous way.
44
@Cattydcat That is why the wife should see an attorney in her state regarding property between spouses varies from state to state. In New York, it is called "right of election"; a personal right of election is given to the surviving spouse to take a share of the decedent's estate.
20
@PrairieFlax
The original letter is silent about the issues that you raise. I would like to know about the available income and any relationship issues before escalating a simple estate planning problem to divorce proceedings. From a financial perspective, divorce almost always harms the spouse with less income.
9
LW#3 This person should check out what it takes for a person to qualify for Medicaid and for subsidized housing before confronting her friend. Our society's safety net is much less available then many think.
48
@Sharon Agreed, but if she qualifies for food stamps she likely qualifies for Medicaid (depends on the state she lives in). OTH, if she is "elderly" why isn't she on Medicare? Are people under 65 "elderly" now? And "private Insurance" for someone out of work for a decade (COBRA would have expired years ago)? That might be costing a small fortune. How is she paying for that?
9
@marklee There's another issue there: most private insurance companies will automatically throw you off when you turn 65 because they expect you to be on Medicare. (That unexpectedly happened to me - I was going to keep my private insurance for a while, but the insurance company cancelled me without notice.)
9
Some over 65 people keep their employee insurance under retirement benefits not knowing it is just a really expensive Medicare supplement policy. Such people are afraid they will loose coverage if they terminate this insurance. As you say if she's getting food stamps she may qualify for Medicaid. Or she could find a Medicare Advantage program that for just the Medicare B premium that provides extensive first dollar coverage. But, it has been my experience that people don't know their options and sales people are just after a commission. It is sad that the elderly think they have to pay so much for health coverage but wading through the system is so complicated that many people cling to what they know. Maybe her concerned friend could acquire printed information about Medicaid or Medicare Advantage plans and show her friend that she'd not loose anything by letting go of her employer retiree plan.
7
Unfortunately, the first thing LW #3 needs to do is to tell her friend that the gravy train is coming to a full stop in X (30/ 60/ 90/ whatever) days. She is resentful and growing more so by the day; the longer she lets this exploitation continue, the harder it will be to stop.
Once any further no-strings money is off the table, she can re-offer the other assistance to her friend. Perhaps she will find bookkeeping work more appealing than starving or winding up homeless. She certainly wouldn't (and didn't) find it more appealing than free money.
23
If this is a Federal Government job the writer needs to be aware that "false statements" under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government is a felony and a pretty serious one - and concealing a material fact is considered a false statement. The form asks the question, concealing the second job would be a felony. Many states have analogous criminal provisions on their books - so if this is a government job with a state government, the same result could occur.
It's also highly possible. Many government jobs come with a need for security clearance and background check, where people who know you are interviewed - and even if the current one doesn't, a promotion could lead to a background check, in which this application might be reviewed. Get caught and you'll likely be fired and could be convicted, so don't do it.
Also, don't assume that the epidemic of lying by Trump administration people shows that 18 U.S.C. §1001 is not enforced - it's what got General Flynn, part of what got Manafort, etc. In those cases there was an independent prosecutor. The other, egregious examples are protected by Trump's attorney general William Barr, who hasn't been a paragon of veracity himself. But the statute of limitations on 18 U.S.C. §1001 is five years, plenty of time for prosecutions back to 2016 if Trump loses in 2020.
42
My first thought on LW1 was
1) what state does she live in? and
2) did they sign a valid pre-nup? (she doesn't mention any).
The husband cannot disinherit the wife like this. The house is their marital property. They are married. It doesn't matter if he brought the house to the marriage. That's what the marriage vow "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" is all about.
If they completed a pre-nup things might be different.
And yes, she should take out a life insurance policy on him and name herself as the beneficiary and be the owner of the policy and make sure the premiums are paid. She doesn't need his "permission" but he would have to cooperate with any medical exam or questions.
32
@another mom Correct. But here is the problem with advice columns: the ethical, legal, practical, psychological, and interpersonal issues get conflated by letter writers and advice givers alike.
7
@another mom: I believe that if that house was his alone, and is still in just his name, he can leave it to whomever he wishes. By marrying, property that was owned singly does not become joint property unless the owner wishes it to become joint property by adding the other person's name to the ownership papers or deeds. Thus, the house is his property, not marital property...unless she is on the deed. The wife can go to a lawyer to find out her rights, however.
24
You clearly missed a key point. The husband owned the house before the marriage, so it is not marital property.
21
Forget the well-supported children, the husband in the first letter is potentially placing his wife in an unfair and tenuous position. She should be his first priority, since her security also means security for their teenaged daughter. It does not speak well of him that he doesn’t put his wife’s welfare first. It’s so easy to set up a fund for the young daughter’s education, and the older daughter is an adult (one hopes she is independent). The wife deserves to be protected.
I had a relative who was left widowed by the husband she’d married late in life. They both had adult children, and kept many of their expenses separate (he was a bit of a stickler on odd, small expenses). But they had lived in his home for their entire, long marriage, and in his will he passed that home on to his children. So his elderly, widowed wife was stuck living — for years — in a home owned by his children, who were eagerly waiting for her to leave (die). They did nothing to keep up the property, and she was reluctant to pay out of pocket to improve a property they owned. She had to ask those awful step-“kids” for money to repair anything. It was a horrible thing to do to a loving wife.
I’m afraid the woman is the last letter is being taken advantage of by a classic moocher. Friend or not, the elderly woman is a taker. People like that find generous souls like the letter writer, and wring them dry (emotionally or monetarily, or both). My advice is extricate yourself while you can!
59
@Passion for Peaches -- wife could have offered to sell her life estate to her step-children, and bought herself a new house. Everybody wins.
2
I applaud the husband in number one for taking responsibility for the daughter from his first marriage the way he has. So often kids from the first family are ignored or have diminished positions in the will relevant to the second wife, who often inherits all the assets to distribute as she pleases. It sounds like wife #2 resents the fact the child #1 gets *anything* from him. If there’s not a lot of money, there’s not a lot of money. If main breadwinners die, there’s not a lot of money. Wife #2 can try to earn some money instead of complain.
25
@Jeanine Your response reads like you have some hangups about how first marriage children are treated. I didn't read this at all. I read a husband who is only focused on his children and he is willing to let his wife struggle - with no other assets? - if she has healthcare issues etc when she can't liquidate the only asset she has, her house.
It's the reverse in my country, your spouse is your next of kin and they, without a will, would inherit everything before the tax man makes a claim or unless your estate is uncommonly large.
17
In situation #1, term life insurance (with the thought that it would cover the younger daughter's education costs) seems like reasonable possibility. If the father lives and helps the younger daughter with her education during his lifetime, then he can stop making insurance payments.
I can't see how it would help his younger daughter's educational needs to leave the home to his new wife. She will have a home but no income to take out a mortgage on the home to assist the younger daughter.
The suggestion is that the house is this man's only asset.
It's difficult him to try to organize his affairs, if he doesn't qualify for a life insurance policy. He is trying to do the best he can. He wants to ensure his wife has a home to live in and his children are treated equally on his death.
Clearly he is concerned that if he leaves the home to his wife, his daughter by a previous relationship will inherit nothing.
It may be time, while he is still alive, to put funds aside for the younger daughter's education. Perhaps the wife should consider getting a job to assist in that endeavor.
24
@Patricia Kvill He is not treating his younger daughter equally in regard to his older daughter. Read the letter.
7
@Patricia Kvill: No, he's not "trying to do his best"! The ONLY thing "clear" about this is that the husband is a self-centered control freak who is not AT ALL behaving the way a genuinely loving and concerned husband would behave.
5
Re: LW #1, let's also consider that the proceeds of a term life insurance policy can be used in many ways: not only to pay for the younger daughter's education, but also to provide the wife (as a widow) with a lump sum of money that she can use for WHATEVER she may need.
That lump sum might be enough to allow the wife to buy a small place of her own. Or she could use a lump sum to buy out BOTH daughters if possible (and if she really wants the house!) - then the wife WILL have a roof over her head that's hers. And if the wife has full ownership of the house, she can decide if she wants to continue to live there, and/or to take in paying boarders, or to sell it & use the proceeds for a smaller place for herself, etc. The wife also needs enough money to pay for taxes, insurance and upkeep/repairs on ANY home she may own - so factor that into the amount of insurance to buy.
(And that gives you some idea of the choices the HUSBAND does NOT want his wife to have!)
17
I understand that this is an ethics discussion. That said, there is probably a relatively inexpensive way to resolve this: the wife can take out a life insurance policy on her husband (probably will require his permission), for some or all of the education expenses, and have this go into a trust for the daughter's education. I'm not a financial planner, but probably a term policy would be best. A quick check of the internet shows that, for a 55 yo man, term insurance would be about $50 to 70 per month for 100K to 200K in insurance. That's a lot for a small pension, but maybe the wife can buy it and solve the problem.
Once the daughter goes to college, the amount of insurance could be reduced every year (since she would need less). She would also have options such as a loan secured by the property. If there truly will be no money, a Pell grant is another possibility.
I would suggest a financial planner before a lawyer. If the husband will not go, the wife can go herself. Get the options, leave it out on the kitchen table for the husband to review in peace.
13
@Hopepol A Pell grant won't go very far towards college tuition. The average Pell grant in 2018 was up to $6,095. The average cost of tuition and fees for the 2017–2018 school year was $34,740 at private colleges, $9,970 for state residents at public colleges, and $25,620 for out-of-state residents attending public universities. In addition, financial aid takes into account any assets, so if the daughter owns half that house, it counts as her asset (which translates into less financial aid). The daughter is more likely to have to join the 69% of college students who took out student loans to see them through college.
4
@Hopepol -- since the daughter will be the part-owner of the house, I don't think she'd qualify for a Pell grant. Most financial aid looks at assets, not just income.
2
LW1's issue is exactly why people should discuss finances and get a written agreement in place before cohabitating or marrying and certainly before having children; especially when there are children or other heirs from prior relationships.
There is too much missing from this letter to judge either the husband or wife - although her wording regarding the father's support of his first daughter sounds vaguely resentful. He is her father; of course he should support her. Hopefully he was present in her life too.
What isn't clear is if the LW worked outside the home, if she contributed to the household expenses or if she stayed at home and ran the household as a means of supporting the family. Whatever the arrangement, was it something she and her husband agreed upon with the expectation that allowing him to build up and maintain ownership of the primary assets would require him to make some arrangements for her to live if he predeceased her? Given she didn't mention a life insurance policy or other savings, it sounds as if either they haven't got any or for some reason she is discounting them for some reason.
As others have said, it isn't too late for her to visit an estate attorney, with or without her husband, and discuss their options. If the plans continue to include a life estate in a property that will be jointly owned by the two daughters, very clear responsibilities for paying property taxes and maintaining the property should be established with a source of funds.
12
In most states the wife has only a life-estate in the deceased husband's separate property. The complainer here misunderstands her legal claim to separate property her husband brought into the marriage. She has no ownership, just the right to occupy and use it for the rest of her life. Some wills in such cases provide for an adjustment of the bequests to achieve parity between offspring, but in most states that's optional, not mandatory.
7
@Mel She doesn't misunderstand at all. She gets it. Her problem is that her husband has not taken into account how to provide for his wife after death AND give his daughter the education he gave his other daughter.
30
@Mel, but even “life estate” puts a spouse in a terrible position of the property is owned by the children, and those children are impatient to cash out the property. Unless a fund is set up for maintaining the home (preferably accessible by the surviving spouse), the offspring owners can let it fall apart and make life miserable for the spouse living there. I‘ve seen this happen. The spouse can be driven out. And then there are the property taxes and (if applicable) home association or condo fees. All of that needs to be funded and put in writing.
19
Re: LW1, a lot of people here are making wild assumptions about the husband and their relationship. Many are pushing for her to divorce him, though she never said anything about their marriage being unhappy, or him being overly controlling in anything except this one situation.
There is also a lot of "blaming/ shaming" toward the wife.
None of us know what the couple decided at the time of marriage about her role, or his. We don't know what education or skills she has to get a job, or if she wants one.
As for term insurance to cover her daughter's college or the wife's future living situation, we don't know if he could "pass" an insurance physical.....many 50 year old people could not...."pre- existing conditions" is a terrible thing, used as a weapon by insurance companies.
Clearly she does need to seek outside help, expert help. I hope she can afford to get it.
15
@RLiss: Wild assumptions? No! The wife has said plenty about the marriage: namely that her husband WON'T discuss a major matter with her, & when she tries to discuss it, he gets EXTREMELY ANGRY. What she's trying to discuss with him are legal decisions he's made that could very well render her homeless! That is not a normal husband, at the very least. (Note that she says he's a wonderful FATHER, but not that he's a wonderful husband.)
A loving husband would be seeking to provide for BOTH daughters & for his beloved WIFE - but from what's said, there is only 1 beloved daughter, and no particularly beloved wife. He's set this up to spite and disadvantage the wife & both daughters. He's devaluing ALL the females in his immediate family! What a guy, huh?! (Imagine what would be going on if one or both of the children were male...)
And no matter what they may have decided at the time of their marriage, circumstances change over time and decisions have to be reviewed later in the light of new situations or needs. That's what happens in healthy, normal relationships.
This man seems opposed to ANY re-consideration of his arrangements, and that's a major red flag in any marriage - he's a control freak, and he's not about to let the women in his life decide anything.
He needs to be FAIR to his wife about this, and (as described) he's falling very far short of being both fair and reasonable.
I do wonder who he thinks will be caring tenderly for him in his "declining years."
17
@RLiss I can imagine why insurance companies might 'weaponize' preexisting conditions: because many people will not get insurance UNTIL they have a pressing need- and honestly insurance cannot work this way - insurance can only work if many put in over a long period of time and those drawing from it are relatively few, and have been long-time contributors. Insurance is a mutual-aid society, and cannot survive as someone's last-moment lottery.
7
Regarding LW1: This is King Lear, only with two daughters instead of three, and to whom he bequeaths his power in the form of a house. "Oh, rid me of this troublesome wife," says Lear, "she seems unnaturally obsessed with my death, all in the name of a daughter who loves me more than she!" Meanwhile, the daughters plot what further advantages might come to their lives from a profitable sale, once the old man is gone and only mother remains, stubbornly occupying the house and muttering about inheritances. "Am I missing something?" Mother asks. “Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise," replies the Ethicist. (Or should have).
28
@Rip I, too, thought of Lear (and referenced him in an earlier comment), but I also wonder what Balzac would have done with this seed for a plot. (And someone else mentioned Jane Austen.)
Which highlights the problem with assessing letter #1. Though it seems to be a thorough account, when you wade into it there's just too little information to judge, whether legally or ethically, what's going on here. Ethically it's especially knotty because motives matter, and here we have a single unreliable narrator, and 'see through a glass darkly'. So we are all drawing on intuition, personal experience, literary parallels, to flesh out this set of facts in order to interpret what we think we see -- some, a manipulative, selfish parent; others. a greedy, parasitical second wife; some coming down for one daughter, some the other.
I still think, though, that no matter the purity or venality of motives, no matter who might benefit or lose in the long or short run, 'a house divided against itself cannot stand'. Or, to quote the original Dr McCoy, 'if you ask me, and you haven't, I think this is a terrible idea'.
7
May have become confused, but problem seems really to be that the husband is favoring his wife and own daughters over his stepdaughter. Not really so unnatural and probably quite common in blended families, especially over estate issues.
His wife's concern for her daughter is natural and it would be reasonable for him to make provision for his stepdaughter's further education if he can , but I do not think he can be faulted for favoring his own two daughters, especially as there seem to be somewhat limited resources.
Furthermore, the wife's assumption that their shared daughter would have to sell her portion of the house and provide for her half-sister poses its own difficulties: she can hardly be more than 16 and any such decision would be so heavily influenced by her mother as to make it virtually involuntary. When she is older she might be very unhappy at being forced to chose between her mother's living conditions and her half sister's education. And let's be honest - it is her mother who would be forcing her to make that choice. If she had her own wishes , she might think "I am happy to have my mother continue to live in the family home indefinitely and only receive my patrimony at her death, but I do not see why I should have to give up my patrimony for my half-sister, especially as my father did not wish it.'
All in all very complex,but it is too simple just to blame the husband and expect him to provide for his stepdaughter over his own daughters.
2
@Dr.F. Yes, I think you may have confused some things. As I read this, there are only two daughters involved: his daughter from the previous marriage (who is the step-daughter of the writer) and the daughter of the second marriage, whose mother is writing the letter. So the point is that his will at present treats the two daughters equally, although he has already done a lot for the daughter from the first marriage which the second daughter would not be able to afford after his death. And on top of that, although the will says the second wife can live in the house, she can't actually inherit it, sell it, and have something to live on.
27
@Dr.F.
Read it again. He doesn't have any stepdaughter.
20
@DW: Right, the stepdaughter is the wife's.
2
LW1, suggest to your husband that he take you to meet the lawyer who did this estate plan. It sounds likely that there are other ways to achieve his goals of benefiting the daughters and protecting you.
It's interesting for LW1 to look at it in terms of whether her daughter will, over the father's lifetime, have the same cash benefits that the older daughter had. I never had anyone approach an estate plan in that way. I imagine it makes the husband feel like a bank, rather than a person. Maybe that's why he is so irritable.
28
@Mary There are countries that the cash benefits the older daughter are considered an inheritance advancement. “Advancement is a common law doctrine of intestate succession that presumes that gifts given to a person's heir during that person's life are intended as an advance on what that heir would inherit upon the death of the parent.”
6
@Mary
Oh please. All he has done is permit his wife to live in the house they lived in together until she dies and divide the house between his daughters. That would be a fine plan -- if both daughters were adults. However, one daughter has not yet gone to college and will need money for it. A responsible father (and loving husband) would take that into account without falling into a snit.
44
@NSH no, he has failed to provision for his wife. The asset of the house is not hers to liquidate if she got health issues, for example.
8
LW2: here is the real answer. If you were hired, but lied on the form, it would hound you morally for your entire tenure...and could result in yet a third dismissal. Don’t do it.
20
Name Withheld.....
I am trying to understand your husband's thinking and I am guessing he is trying to preserve his first daughter's inheritance while leaving some parity between the sisters. However, he has missed the forest for the trees because he forgot a very important person: you.
As his wife and partner, your wishes should have been completely accounted for...you should have been at the forefront of the planning and not on the receiving end of it, as though you are a child, too.
What should have happened prior to the will is he shoild have come to you and tell you what he was considering and solicit your input in the matter. It is completely reasonable for him to protect his children, especially one from a prior marriage. It is completely unreasonable to de-prioritize his wife so much so that your deepest wishes are treated like optional considerations that have been considered and denied.
My husband works. He makes a great living and I stay at home. He treats me like a full partner. What is his is mine and vice versa. Every last bit of our estate planing has been done together, with outside help. Because he is that way, I can relax and trust and flourish and support our household in a truly collaborative way.
However.
If my husband ever gave me a reason to feel financially insecure, I would go back to work. At some point, it is reasonable to look out for oneself. I would find a marriage counselor, a financial planner and a job, pronto.
167
I’d find a new husband!
13
@Gwe
She does work but is not main bread winner. Common for women who marry men that say, "Stay home and take care of our child(ren) and the home. We can afford it and it makes life better for..."
His unwillingness to discuss and unilateral approach make him a poor partner. She needs to start with an attorney, then see a therapist. Then approach him.
Her concern over his lack of planning for whole family's future is reasonable.
Her expectation that their daughter be supported to an equal level as his 1st daughter is reasonable.
The fact that his 1st daughter had not just education and housing but also vacations (!) and other misc. expansés paid makes me wonder why he felt he could afford that but can't afford to plan for his 2nd daughter's future as thoroughly.
Of course his wife is worried! She has discovered that her husband doesn't care about her future security, or their daughter's future, to lay financial groundwork for what happens if he dies early, and that he won't even discuss the situation with her as a rational adult would do.
Good luck LW1 - I fear you'll need it!
7
In all honesty I don't understand situation 1. If the daughter has to work her way through college and take out loans, so be it; that's what many people do. She could start out at community college. Meanwhile, with only two people living full time in the house, a room could be rented out. The writer failed to save any money in her life but she actually does have an asset, which is the house. She apparently has the right to live in it.
5
@Anne It sounds like the house is in the husband's name only - something I would never recommend in any sort of partnership. So the house is not an asset for her. What kind of crazy marriage do they have? The LW needs a good lawyer and stronger advice than what The Ethicist has given her.
35
@Anne: I think you should re-read the article more carefully. The house is entirely the husband's at this point, and thus not the wife's asset at all.
And currently the husband, wife and younger daughter live there - what do you imagine would happen if the wife started renting out rooms?!
22
@Anne I don't understand how anyone would think it's fair that his 2nd daughter doesn't have the same benefits and security as his 1st. Why should she start life under the heavy debt that his 1st daughter didn't have?
He is still making "a good income" and can make plans now to ensure both their future security and his own. What if he falls ill? How will their bills be paid then? Who will care for him as his wife Does work, tho making much less than him. How will they pay for caregivers??
How will his 2nd daughter achieve the same start in life as his 1st? She won't.
The utter lack of respect and regard for his wife I won't even get into. I'd divorce him in a NY minute.
LW1 - If the will stipulates the wife can live in the house until her death, doesn't that also mean the house cannot be sold during her lifetime? I think this is called a life estate or life tenancy. There really isn't anything the writer can do. It sounds as though her husband would take a scorched earth approach to any divorce and he isn't willing to do more to provide for his family in the event of his death. This situation shows the problem with being a nonworking spouse and not having any power within a marriage.
LW2 - If the government is federal, don't lie on the application because you will be rejected as an applicant or fired as an employee when the lie is discovered. The facts are in your favor, so tell the truth.
LW3 - Not your place to worry about a person who is not family. Sorry if that sounds cold but this woman has a son who will be there for her in an emergency even if they don't have a good relationship. That is how family works. Do you have a son or daughter who will be there for you? If not, maintain your resources for yourself.
24
@Lynn in DC
The daughters are remaindermen, and each would have an undivided one-half interest, subject to the life estate. In other words, if a daughter sells her share, the buyer takes it subject to the life estate, and has generally no right of possession or use until the death of the life tenant (LW1).
The most likely buyer of the one daughter's half might be the other daughter, if she feels some attachment to the house or its value is going to appreciate.
It can be difficult to find a buyer who has to fork over money now in the hope of outliving a life tenant. Probably, the buyer would offer to buy the life estate as well. A lot depends on how old/healthy LW1 is at that point.
4
@Mary Agree. And what a bad plan. No one if focusing on what happens when the two daughters eventually jointly own the house. Anyone who has owned property with a relative will tell you it is awful. I've never known anyone with a good outcome. I think the guy needs a better financial planner/lawyer and should rethink his estate plan.
5
@Kaitlin Barnes After the death of the wife, even if the two daughters don't agree on a sale of the house, either one could require it. It would mean going to court, but there is a legal proceeding available for the purpose of forcing a sale of jointly owned property when there is a disagreement about selling the property.
1
The question is pointing at a real problem. My mother had similar challenges with her second marriage. Although she was allowed to stay in the house, she did not inherit it, nor any former existing assets. They had calculated that she would get the larger percentage of her husbands social security together with her social security to cover for her expenses. While your active and mobile this setup seems a good idea, however, it was not. First they were not married long enough to grant her his social security percentage. Another problem was, that the house was too big and too much work for one person alone, and too remote with no good public transportation infrastructure. Part of the planning should also be, that the remaining partner may have to downsize or find an assisted living place. All not possible if you cannot sell a house.
31
@Jorge L
I don’t believe a wife can collect her own social security benefit while collecting her deceased husband’s benefit. Would be nice, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case as my mother rails against the Social Security Administration about the policy.
10
@QAGal
You get to choose one of the two benefits, and you should choose the larger one. I don't see why your mother rails against SSA; the policy seems fair to me.
6
Suzanne---you might want to see, as cool-headedly and dispassionately as you can--if your elderly friend is a "narcissist". When I was young I enabled the "narcissist" and they could simply sniff me out. I was naive. I spent too much money and time massaging their needs and their neediness. Select yourself. I hope that this does not sound cruel, but if we are being sucked dry by a parasitic person (note that I say "if" because your letter does not provide sufficient information) you will feel a lot better if you can liberate yourself.
29
As others have noted, LW1 doesn't have an ethical problem. She does have a husband who is unwilling to consider that his death might occur any time soon. In 10 years, none of this will be a problem, and that's what his will is written for. Did he use a lawyer for the will? Maybe they should both go see him again.
14
Leaving a house to your children and giving the spouse right to live there until death is quite commonly done if the house is not marital property. In this case it is the husband's property. I am not saying that these people have an ideal relationship. Perhaps he does not trust her to do what is best for both his child and their joint child after he is gone.She might disinherit the older daughter ? It happens. He may be right or wrong about this. She will not lose the roof over her head in her lifetime. This is not abuse. If she is so worried that " her " daughter cannot afford a college education she could get a part time job and devote all of the income to a fund for the daughter. Also expensive college educations are up for strict evaluation these days. State universities do a great job. The wife could also use her part time job income to take out a life insurance policy on the husband with their daughter as beneficiary. It would be better if they did this together of course. They should talk without fighting and accusing. There is some other issue here. Does the father actually " favor " the older daughter or she is a more consistent, dependable person who takes the right advantage of a university education ? Does he have reason to think the younger daughter won't ? Does he think the younger daughter and wife will cut the legs out from under the older daughter ? His plan makes that not doable.
21
@Consuelo As this daughter is only 13 it seems unlikely that anyone could know what kind of college student she would be.
It does seem that he's favoring the 1st daughter (perhaps over guilt re: 1st divorce), and that is astoundingly unfair.
His anger and refusal to have a rational discussion are completely unacceptable. Yes, he should discus it, without yelling or exhibiting so much anger that he can't have a financial discussion with his wife, the mother of his child. The woman who raised his daughter and kept his home.
I hope she finds a good attorney.
1
The couple with a teenage daughter should buy term life insurance on the husband. If he dies prematurely, then the life insurance will pay for the daughter's education at the very least. The wife could do this by herself. Term life insurance is relatively inexpensive. BUT that said, why is he unwilling to share HIS house with his current wife as co-owner? Why wouldn't he provide support for his widow should he die prematurely. This does not bode well for the health of their relationship long term.
64
@APR
I can to the comments to write the exact same thing.
Term life insurance seems perfect for this. Term life insurance to cover the wife’s expenses (until social security or 401k assets kick in?) and the daughter until college, seem like the ideal solution.
18
LW1
Unless there is a prenupt, most states will let a surviving spouse set aside a will in favor of her statutory spousal rights. In 38 UPC ("Uniform Probate Code") states this a called the elective share and is equal to 50% of the joint marital estate (and includes pension and insurance, too).
21
@Brian Close If the daughter is a minor at time of father's death, she might receive some SS survivor's benefits. This will help support her and help Mom, too. She needs to see a lawyer on her own as well. One who is not representing his interests, only hers.
18
Would LW1 be legally better off if she divorced her husband? Not saying that's what she should do, but I wonder. If so, that's a fairly terrible indictment of women's (or any dependent in a relationship's) legal standing.
12
What does one do when faced with this question on a job application? A “ voluntary disclosure of disability “. Given 3 options,
Yes, no, or don’t wish to disclose. As a person with epilepsy who has a large gap in employment history on their resume, this seems like a trap, not a friendly compliance with the ADA.
7
@db2
Ignore the question. The way that it's written is anything but voluntary.
9
@Susan
Thanks! And right you are.
5
LW#1 - OMG. Why is the ethicist so wishy washy on this? This lady needs not a counselor or financial planner but a sharp divorce lawyer. Her husband is not a nice person and does not love her. She should set her sights on getting her share of the marital assets and GET OUT. Right away.
"Allowing" her to live in her own home until she dies? Gee thanks.
Whole thing screams GET A LAWYER.
72
@DW But it is not her own home. It was his before the marriage, and she just lives in it. She will get no share of the home on divorce.
8
@DW Wow. That's a lot of assumptions, don't you think?
4
@idnar At this point, they have been making a life together and she doesn't just live in it. Odds are high that she makes it a home not a house.
After 14+ years together you think she doesn't have a right to their marital/family home? At least 50%?
6
Appiah's response to Ms. Kolasinski encourages her to remain in a co-dependent relationship with the friend that she has already made heroic efforts to help. Encouraging her to continue to 'be good' is only going to increase the resentment she already feels. Ms. Kolsinski has already gone above and beyond the call of friendship by supporting her friend financially and offering her work opportunities. The friend is unwilling to take responsibility for herself. She may be depressed, but ultimately she is the one who is going to have to take action. The two women are enmeshed in an unhealthy relationship. Ms. Kolensinski needs to withdraw gracefully and not allow continued efforts on her friend's behalf to make her more resentful.
33
@Judith The letter writer consulted the ethicist because she is torn between growing resentment and guilt: she is seeking permission to withdraw her support so that she may exorcise that guilt.
1
Re #3 I don't advise anyone to drop their health insurance and "go on Medicaid". Medicaid pays truly minimally and is accepted by very few doctors, largely for that reason. It is close to having no insurance.
20
@Sza-Sza This is assuming that you can afford health insurance. Obamacare doesn't do what it was touted to, even notwithstanding the 'move tax dollars from one pocket to the other' gambit of the exchanges. There are still millions of people who can afford neither health insurance nor health care; and of the insured, millions who can't afford to use it, considering that in addition to ever-rising premiums, they shell out for deductibles, co-pays, services 'out of network' (which they may not find out are not covered until after the expense is incurred), and the remaining 20% of the bills after the insurance pays -- which may take months of wrangling. So your health plan boils down to 'don't get sick'. Medicaid is not great, but it may actually be better than private for-profit insurance, unless you are so affluent as to afford a high-end plan, which LW#3's friend clearly is not.
5
@Sza-Sza Not the Medicaid I've been on. It is the closest thing America might ever have to Single Payer and it has kept me insured my entire life. Yes the return rates are not so great but the program nonetheless has paid for every surgery, biopsy and medication I've ever needed when I would have otherwise died due to an inability to pay. Medicaid saves the lives of poor Americans!
43
@Keely:
AND Trump, Mitch etc want to slash it!
5
LW1: Disagree with advice and most comments here. If husband owns all assets, he alone decidees what happens with them after his demise. There is no entitlement of the daughter or spouse.
Also, husband not providing for daughter‘s education in case of his death doesn’t make the wife homeless, it just means the daughter needs to change her education (or take loans etc.).
Easiest solution would be life insurance if both agree, but other than that, if wife has no assets, never worked, doesn’t want to pick up a job: Face reality that you have no money, invome, or assets and deal with it.
31
@LLShenerds a divorce.
@LL If they jointly agreed that she would be a homemaker, then she has been working without pay for years. The fact that she is not in the formal labor force does not mean she does not make an economic contribution. Think of it as opportunity cost. If she didn’t do so e tasks, they need to pay someone else to do it. Of course there are marriages where a spouse does absolutely nothing. However, if that is a decision made by the couple, then the assets accrued during the marriage should be evenly split by default, or a system for division of assets should be clearly established. Prenups are not only useful in case of divorce.
19
@LL
In common law states a wife can take against the will.With one child she gets 1/2 but here there are two so she gets 1/3 and two kids split rest. Of course, this only applies to probate estates, the property going under the will, but it is the will the woman is worried about. In community property states the rule may be different but the state does not want to have to support an impoverished widow of a rotten husband, so I assume there are similar rights in those states, or the community property aspect of the law there may just take over after death and the wife may automatically get half.
4
Get an accountant AND an attorney. I suspect the husband in LW1 would listen to an accountant if a better solution added to his current legal one. If that doesn't work, she should move to the life insurance option on her own. This will's logic goes back to English legal traditions and Colonial times which may be the problem, a less than optimal lawyer or doing what his father did. Does she also get the "best bed"!
24
Surely the husband has a life insurance policy that would cover at least $100K of expenses if he died soon? If not, that is the cheapest way to gain peace of mind.
33
Regarding Term Life Insurance: two words: Pre-existing Condition. Anyone over the age of 50 has at least one .This man who has an adult daughter and a teenage daughter from a long term relationship is 50+. The rates published are teasers. An exam and medical records will be required for any meaningful level of coverage. Term Life will not prove to be the answer. Maybe a lawyer will.
13
@justme not necessarily! Lots of people over 50, 60 or even 70 have no pre-existing conditions.
14
@PhillyPerson
Oh, don't count on it.
Something as benign and common as taking a daily baby aspirin or needing a thyroid supplement, seeing a dermatologist for something ... are all 'red flag' pre-existing conditions to and within the insurance industry.
No biggie in the life of the person, but can be very disqualifying and/or costly, in the trying to obtain all sorts of insurance products.
19
@PhillyPerson
no pre-existing conditions? try a food allergy or hay fever .. you would be amazed at what insurance considers a pre-existing condition.
19
LW#1
Maybe a life insurance policy on your husband, naming your daughter as the beneficiary, would do the trick. Depending on the amount of the benefit, a term life policy may not be that expensive.
10
Seems LW1's husband is highly biased in favor of his first born daughter.. this seems like a big problem. LW1 has real reason to be disturbed, doubt a lawyer will help; doubt husband will consent to go to a lawyer. I am sorry to sound mean to this woman- but it is a good lesson to younger women: it is a good reason no woman should be married and have no assets of her own (and ? no job skills?) Given she has only one child, hard to reason she needed always be a stay at home mother...just saying.
32
@Honeybluestar
If the husband lives another 10 years (note that his age wasn't mentioned), both of his daughters will likely have received the same treatment
9
I somehow doubt that LW1's husband will agree to seek an attorney's advice; further, his extreme anger at her attempt to rectify the situation is a defensive move on his part to quell any further discussion. Because she admittedly has no assets or savings, she will have to seek legal advice on her own--and then be prepared for the inevitable explosion when the bill arrives in the mail.
"I, me, mine; I me, mine; I me, mine" indeed
32
@Double Helix If that how he sees it, after being a stay-at-home mom for his child, then a divorce is in order.
11
Why, after so many years of marriage and a child together, has this man not added his current wife to the deed? One word: Control. Why has this woman not prepared for a financial future of her own? That is an amalgam of wishful thinking, laziness, and fear.
187
@Michelle
What makes you think she's lazy? For all we know, she may have an income that he controls. Or maybe they agreed she would be a stay at home parent.
28
@nom de guerre: IF they agreed she would be the stay-at-home parent, then the husband has a responsibility to provide for her and the daughter in a far, far better manner than his will currently says.
53
@Michelle
Or maybe it's to protect his daughter from the prior relationship. If he adds the wife to the deed and then he dies first, there's nothing stopping the wife from disinheriting the stepdaughter.
23
LW#1 If you can't talk to your husband about the situation without him getting "extremely angry," the person you should be talking to is a lawyer.
213
LW1 - "He is a wonderful father to both." But maybe not a wonderful husband to his wife? Why put you in jeopardy? Anger when discussing finances is really not a very good sign, particularly as you may be materially affected by his choices. That's a big can: lots of worms.
Anyhoo. It is usual, in situations like this, for there to be a term life insurance policy that would yield the value of half the house so as to pay for your daughter to go to a college matching your step-daughter's.
Clearly you have a life license to live a the house, so it can't be sold from under you - or if it is the new owner would have to honor that. I know of at least one sale done on that basis. The widow lived considerably longer than the buyer expected - but that is another story.
Take some pin money and talk to an independent estate planner. A couple of hours of their time will be well worth it.
27
@David
"'He is a wonderful father to both.'" But maybe not a wonderful husband to his wife?"
If he can't treat his daughter's mother with decency, he's not being a "wonderful" father, either. Abusing your spouse is also abusive to your children. This may or may not rise to the level of abuse, but the guy is definitely a controlling jerk.
She has a "license" to live in her own house - nice. What she doesn't have is the ability to control her own life by deciding what to DO with her own house, when her husband is gone. Her husband is aiming to be able to control her from the grave, probably the way he currently does in life.
20
Re: LW #1, this leads me to wonder why the husband and his first wife got divorced ... b/c there may be a pattern here that is not evident from the information provided by the letter writer. This man does not sound like he's such a nice guy in reality, and his "extreme" anger when the wife wants to discuss it is a BIG RED FLAG!
Some people enjoy having others dance to their tune, even from beyond the grave (Leona Helmsley, anyone?) - and these people are often ones who are narcissists and/or who have anger issues.
The time for this to have been settled rationally was BEFORE this couple got married & had a child, but that ship has sailed. It sounds like the wife is kept at bay by her husband's anger, which is exactly how the husband wants it.
The wife, IMO, needs a PLAN for herself and her daughter for the future, instead of relying on a man who provably does NOT have the well-being of EITHER the wife or the younger daughter as a priority. The wife needs a plan that does NOT rely on this man in any way, as he has already shown himself to be vindictive, hostile, and unreliable.
74
@L Well said!!
1
On the first letter, that is an awful situation. I have a more radical question: how good can the underlying relationship be if the husband is willing to risk making his wife homeless?
Counseling is definitely called for. A visit to a lawyer or two as well.
66
@Doug Tarnopol
Leaving someone a life estate does not make them homeless. But, it is not the simplest or most flexible way to handle things, and I imagine they can come up with something better.
9
The husband in the first situation here seems like a real prize. They've been together for "many years" and she has zero assets or savings? Sounds like the husband has the wife in the position of a dependent child.
The wife sounds like a doormat. Her husband should be setting up his affairs to take care of his wife first and foremost: she should get the house and the children get it when the wife passes. Getting angry at your wife when she tries to tell you that she'd be homeless if he sticks to his current instructions?
I presume he makes all the money and all accounts are in his name? Who the heck lives like that today?
132
@Whatever It sounds like the wife gets to stay in the house while she's alive. The husband was probably trying to avoid leaving the house to the wife because she may not leave any of her estate to her stepdaughter.
If the couple is in good health, they should get life insurance that's sufficient to raise the teenager to adulthood and pay for her education. If they both died tomorrow and she's under 18, someone would need to take care of her, so a guardian should be named.
24
Wow all these replies sound like the husband is exclusively responsible for the wife’s financial security. Whatever happened to feminism, equality, and self-responsibility? Is this 1961?
8
@Kim WIfe was raising daughter and managing household while husband worked long hours at his good job to pay for mortgage on his house.
5
Re: The woman with the will issue, Am I missing something? Doesn't she own the house just as much as he does? If he dies first doesn't the house become hers alone? Does this vary by state?
6
@Rob D As the husband owned the house prior to the marriage it is considered separate property (his), not acquired community property (theirs). If the wife made substantial contributions to the mortgage this could affect her legal interest but there is no such contribution mentioned here.
This depends on the laws of the particular state they reside in of course, but is generally true.
31
@Rob D From the letter: 'Our house was his property when we met, and it remains his main asset.' It's in his name. Whether he can dispose of it as he likes or whether it goes to her automatically as his widow may depend on state law.
What is a very bad idea is to leave half a house. That's a bit like giving someone a birthday present of a $5 gift certificate toward a Cadillac. You can't sell (unless you buy out the other) and even if you do sell, you get only half the proceeds, a net loss. Basically it yokes the two legatees to each other, and is a sure recipe for resentment.
29
In community property states like California, the writer's husband's earnings during the marriage, and hence the mortgage payments he had made during the marriage, are presumed to belong to the community, that is, to both of them, and not to him alone. The writer unfortunately does not disclose where she lives. Even in non community property states, she may have rights in the house or other assets. She may benefit from consulting a lawyer to find out what her rights are, whether or not she chooses to confront her husband further about her concerns.
21
So, in the case of the person seeking employment: Why are you causing yourself a problem? Unless you aren't telling the whole story you weren't "dismissed" the first time- you were laid off. Dismissed means fired for cause.
But writing about the second one IS necessary though once you note the outcome of the unemployment hearing no one will even care.
18
@Famharris
In the second job, the "court case" had to do with LW2's eligibility for unemployment, an administrative procedure that followed the employment. She would not need to disclose anything about the unemployment-benefits battle.
LW2, I'm not sure I would want to work for an employer who asked me if I had been dismissed from employment. They are doing an end run around the fact that prior employers will often not give info, even if a release is provided. If your work is good, and you have the skills and credentials and can provide credible references, why would they need to know this info? Most likely your employment has always been at-will, and not under a contract, so that means you and the employers are free to terminate the relationship, without any cause and at any time. Maybe you could say something truthful but not terribly informative, along the lines of - "I was briefly employed as an at-will employee in 201x, and the employer let me go after X months, before I took up my current employment. If you need more info, let me know."
2
@Mary " I'm not sure I would want to work for an employer who asked me if I had been dismissed from employment."
You may be right, but it's a standard question on many government job application forms, especially when there is a background check. Your position would rule out working in many government jobs, especially those requiring security clearance.
You also need to consider it in context - lets say someone applying for a job in daycare - if they'd been fired from a previous role involving contact with children, wouldn't you want to know (and given recent revelations, as a Southern Baptist pastor...) Of how about a job controlling large amounts of money - again, wouldn't you want to know.
It's not unusual for problem employees, indeed employees who have committed felonies to be quietly dismissed by employers to save embarrassment - making them the next employer's problem.
I see your point, but...
5
@Mary On your other point. I agree she need not disclose the unemployment-benefits benefit battle, but...
Most unemployment programs have an exception when the employee was fired "for cause" usually including "misconduct." What is useful about the unemployment benefits battle is that there was a decisive ruling that there was no misconduct, indeed two such rulings. If the matter comes up - LW2 can rely on those rulings.
4
I don't understand the squeamishness surrounding estate planning.
In my case, my husband and I have made sure our house will go to a young couple who are close friends and our favorite charities get the money.
It felt good to know that our parasitic relatives wouldn't be driving new Range Rovers because we didn't get around to making our wishes clear.
54
Community property state? Dump him right now.
30
On letter #1: The house was the husband’s sole property before he married and is not community property, even in a community property state.
19
@JF
Contributions since the marriage to the mortgage payments, insurance, maintenance, remodeling etc. are likely community, though.
2
I just did a quick google check for life insurance policies on a 40 year old healthy male. For less then $30 a month she could buy a policy worth $500,000.
For a healthy 50 year old it would be $72 a month.
She doesn't say how old her husband is but I think I would check into these options.
107
Re the first case, I think the woman needs to get a job (if she doesn't have one) and begin building up savings of her own. I would assume she would also be getting his social security and any pension he might have. So she could rent a place, so she would not be homeless. Her daughter could also go to a state school and potentially have less tuition, and pay her way through school.
21
@A.L.: It's rash to presume anyone gets a pension these days!
15
@A.L.
She does not get his Social Security. She gets a percentage, if the percentage is larger than her own benefit. She will not get both benefits.
12
@A.L.the getting of a job, it seems you presume it would be a well paying one, but for a middle aged female with ,it seems no work experience what type of job could she get that could be helpful in the saving of money ... she would be looking at a 10.00 hr if she was lucky.... all depending of course on where she lives...
7
For the second letter, I'm surprised that Mr. Appiah did not suggest the friend contact an agency for seniors. Or suggest that the elderly friend contact an agency. It sounds like there needs to be some intervention. Getting advice from a friend is sometimes easier to ignore than from a stranger. Also, it sounds like the older friend may be depressed and should see a medical professional.
41
@Deborah
Depending on where you live, the subsidized housing may be terrific or it may be squalid. There is no shame in using a benefit, I don't think so, anyway. I know many people in senior housing, and it's great! Plus, you don't have to be broke to be there. They just attribute interest income to your assets (like a house or the sale proceeds), and it affects the calculation of the rental that is due. Usually, if the assets are not huge, the rent is capped at something very reasonable, and where I live, it includes utilities and internet and has a social worker to arrange transportation and events of interest to the residents.
But the actual housing that is available where LW3 lives might be unsuitable for an elderly woman living alone. One thing to consider is whether the housing is limited to those age 55 and older. There is subsidized housing which admits younger people, who can be scary.
Every county is supposed to have an agency for senior citizens, as the prior comment mentioned. they know a lot! It would also be helpful for you to drive your friend to look at places and check things out. It is so overwhelming!
11
Yikes. As someone who's spent the past 9 years grappling with a situation much like that of LW#1, I wish I had some good advice. Rather than spiel out the woes wreaked by my mother's last will and testament, I'll urge the father to resist the urge to manipulate his family from the grave; most especially, not to divide the house against itself. If your survivors don't already love each other, chaining them together will not help; if they do, it may destroy what love they do have. Couples counseling, definitely. But when you set up trusts, etc., be clear and honest about their consequences and intent. When ulterior motives are at work, the solution can even be worse than the problem.
LW#3: Maybe the woman resists moving to a subsidized apartment, going on Medicaid, etc., because one of the few things old age leaves us is our pride, and one of the things it too often rips from us is our dignity. It was hard enough for her to lose her livelihood. She probably also resists the bookkeeping work because she feels it's being offered out of pity (is it?) and feels acutely the loss of status that goes with being old and in diminished circumstances. (Again, I know exactly where she's coming from.) If so, she's not experiencing your friendly gestures as friendship but as condescension. Talk it out with her with this perspective in mind.
30
@ACW if the couple works with a financial planner or adviser, it can be helpful to agree on some Qs to pose to that trusted person, and to have them lay out the considerations to be made and impacts of any decision. This can be more helpful than hearing it from the partner. And then they can go back on their own and talk it through more.
11
@ACW hate to say this relationship sounds like a one way one and you are being used. she is a grown up and should stand on her own two feet. she make choices on where to live and her medical; don't give her money or advice. just be a friend who she can vent to, and i hope she hears and helps you too.
5
If the statement "I was hired by another organization in 2015, before my time was up at the company, in large part thanks to my work history and those references. " is accurate I read it to say that the letter write found a job before being terminated from job 1 in which case there was only 1 dismissal. I'd also wonder if being laid off due to budget cuts counts as a dismissal which to me means fired.
74
For the Wife: obviously, I don't know which State you live in. But even most States that are NOT Community property States, a spouse has the legal right to a certain percentage of an Estate. You, my Dear, don't need an ethicist. You need a Divorce Attorney. Your Husband is ethically challenged, and oblivious to what is Fair and Just. Get what your can, before he squanders and/or hides it ALL. Don't delay, things will only get Worse. Protect your Daughter, and protect yourself. Nothing is more sad than an older person in poverty, when it could have been mitigated.
Best Wishes.
77
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Even if they do not have a prenup, in many states, the lifetime use of the house will satisfy the legal requirements. Of course, he can just give her the 1/2 or 1/3 she is entitled to, and the rest to his older daughter and tell her to take care of their mutual kid.
15
@Phyliss Dalmatian She stated that the house was acquired before the marriage. Only marital assets are divided in a divorce and she hasn't indicated that there ARE any other assets. If there WERE other assets, she wouldn't have a problem with how the daughter's education would be paid for in the event of the death of the father since presumably the daughter would share these assets with her half-sister.
She wants the husband to create a 'trust fund" for the daughter. Actually, just a regular old 529 education savings account is all that's needed, and since it is tax advantaged its not clear why the husband would not do this if he's planning to pay for the daughters education when she becomes college aged anyway, since it will save him money.
What remains completely unanswered is how she expects to support HERSELF in the event of her husband's death since she has no assets, no job, no intention to get a job, and there appear to be no other assets besides the house. So why is there no life insurance if she and the daughter are completely dependent on his income alone?
223
HE has shown who he is, repeatedly. She MUST protect herself, and her Daughter. Without further details, it appears that Divorce is the best option to do just that, especially from a " long term " marriage.
Seriously.
18
I did not takeaway that LW1 doesn't work but likely that she doesn't earn as much as he does and is probably at a point in her life where career advancement and higher earnings is not likely. I imagine she is like many women who stayed at home, worked part time, or otherwise didn't pursue her career as intensely as her spouse during their daughter's childhood since she was primary caregiver. If that is the case, maybe she should consult a lawyer in order to make sure she is not left high and dry.
57
HUSBAND'S WILL.
The wife is in a difficult situation, where the laws of inheritance allow the testator to leave all his property to the proverbial "neighbor's dog", except for her share of an approved pension plan.
It seems to me that there are only two ways: (1) to consult confidentially a lawyer about any potential loopholes in husband's will, which the wife may use to her advantage, and (2) to try and talk some sense into the husband, by the wife, relatives, friends, and respectable social workers.
4
@Tuvw Xyz I suppose it depends on the location, but in my state, you can't unilaterally disinherit a spouse.
5
@Tuvw Xyz
NO, no no no. You are from Illinois, a common law state (my home state before I left for law school). Any wife can take against the will. Property passing outside the will of course could be a big problem, but the wife is concerned about the will. This issue is whether a life estate in the house is worth more than the 1/3 outright share (because there are children) that the wife gets if she takes against the will.
2
For LW2 - about the work history - the good news is that most government HR staff follow ethical and legal guidelines and won't jump to conclusions.
For work in the US Government, you will be asked to fill out details of your work history, and I believe those forms specify that you have to explain any period longer than two weeks (e.g. a gap between jobs) ...could be four weeks...it's been a while for me... the length is specified and you should respond appropriately.
It sounds like the work you would like to make go away is longer than that, which leaves you with no choice but to provide the information. You do have some flexibility in who you list as a contact for that work - consider listing a supervisor or another former worker who might not want to disparage you.
As an example, when asked to provide details of my last employer (I quit in disgust), I give the name of a very senior manager that was trying to turn the place around and failed - he understood exactly why I left and knew the problem belonged to the organization - and not my immediate supervisor.
17
I sense that LW1's husband is putting her and their daughter into a position where they may need to take responsibility for themselves. From the letter, it may be starting to work. LW1 is thinking about this.
In no family is ever perk equally distributed. It's not possible. Some kids get college and some don't. Some get cars and some don't. Decisions are made for various reasons at various times.
Mom needs to understand this.
Finally, has she never heard of life insurance?
28
@David It doesn't appear that she has an independent source of income from which she could pay the life insurance premiums. Therefore, her husband would have to agree to fund the policy and it doesn't seem that he would be willing to do that.
8
@Lorne Term life (which is all she needs) would cost only a few thousand a year. As I mentioned in a previous comment, a brief stint at McDonalds would cover that.
9
@JerseyGirl
Why should she have to take a partial-time job at Micky D's where workers are underpaid, sexually harassed, and suffer lousy working conditions just to get what the husband should be providing — a decent future for his wife and kids?
The issue also isn't what happens when she dies, but what happens when *he* dies!
28
Another thing, this doesn't seem like a good way to provide for a spouse that you have been with for "many years." I guess it's nice that she'd be allowed to stay in the house until her death, but there are many reasons that she wouldn't want to, or couldn't, stay there for so long. E.g. if she needs to eventually move to an assisted living facility, or if the utilities and upkeep of the house become too great for a single women to bear, or simply a desire to move to pursue a job or be closer to family members.
So, his spouse of many years is essentially left with nothing? Sounds like she was a stay-at-home mom, presumably took on many of the domestic duties that allowed him to pursue his career. How is that possibly not acknowledged in his will? And what kind of husband would want to leave his long-time wife without any assets when he passes?
This whole situation is nuts.
403
@Itsy I suspect that there is, as is usual in these agony-aunt inquiries (and this IS an agony-aunt column with some intellectual dressing, Miss Lonelyhearts for eggheads), much left unsaid.
Even if the wife had a work history and independent means, it's very possible that an arrangement such as her spouse proposes could kneecap her financially. Recall the recent news that a large percentage of American households could not come up with $400 if needed to pay an emergency expense. Selling half the house means you have only half the proceeds to put toward shelter, and moving has myriad costs in itself -- not just closing, fees, inspections, etc. but such incidentals as packing and cleaning up, which will also eat into the money. She may not be able to afford either to move or to stay. I know her situation ... I'm in something like it myself (though I did work, and had savings -- note that past tense) and homelessness is a real possibility.
Everyone is being very hard on this woman, making all kinds of assumptions; I seem to be the only one who's walked, if not precisely in her shoes, in something of the same type. It is not as easy to extricate yourself from this as you think. Her husband seems determined to use his will to make posthumous mischief, and is telling her about it in advance so he can enjoy the consequences while he's still here, rather like Lear pitting his daughters against each other.
152
@ACW I hear you. My thought is that many who are commenting are part of a generation(s) that grew up expecting to earn a living. It's evident that women are still shaming and judging women.
48
@Itsy I think they're basically middle class and not incredibly well off, so there aren't a lot of ways to expand the budget to take care of the wife.
8
Re: Suzanne and her friend. It appears your friend may be depressed trying to make ends meet and simply does not have the energy to do much for herself aside from surviving as is.
Perhaps if you make her a list of places to contact or visit,with phone numbers and contact people of agencies and people in the community, who may be able to help her navigate the system. Oftentimes, elderly people simply don't have the wherewithal to proceed if they hit a roadblock in the process. Or to follow-up. This is where you might be able to assist her most.
Many communities employ a town/city social worker who may be able to identify sources of housing, monies, programs and healthcare your friend may be eligible for. And they usually can help coordinate those services and help with all the paperwork.
There are so many non-profits that assist the aging on a free or sliding scale fee basis. You might identify those for her as well and add them to the list.
You are a good friend, indeed. She is very lucky to have you in her life. Old age can be quite lonely.
54
Maybe LW1 should take herself out of the equation and ask her husband why daughter #2 is entitled to only 50% of the house, but daughter #1 is entitled to a free college education + 50% of the house?
Not that I think anyone is entitled to any inheritance, but this seems like a gross inequity among how the two half-sisters are being treated.
115
Perhaps husband is trying to compensate for other non monetary things that he did not provide for daughter #1.
6
"He has covered all my stepdaughter’s expenses from childhood..."
Or to put it another way, he has covered all of his older daughter's expenses from childhood.
Presumably he has also covered all the expenses of his younger daughter since childhood as well.
In fact, he has provided for his older daughter, his younger daughter, and you.
"He is the main breadwinner. I have no assets or savings myself."
Since he apparently earns a good income and paid for his older daughter's college costs out of that, why not deduct that amount from what he earns every month and put in into a savings account for your daughter's education?
25
LW1 is very concerned about their daughter's education but she should also focus on her financial well being. She mentions a pension but has no other income or assets. What does she plan on living on? Social Security widow's benefits may not give her the lifestyle she's expecting. And if she continues to live in the house, the daughters should rightfully expect that she covers its expenses, including real estate taxes. She needs a financial planner.
92
@Diane S
The ex may be able to claim a portion of his SS benefits further lowering what the LW would have otherwise received.
3
@Lynn in DC, Fair to the taxpayer or not, if the ex claims SS on the husband's account it does not decrease the benefit the LW would receive as either spouse of a living husband or surviving spouse.
4
LW1:
Wow. It sounds like a Jane Austen novel. I hope you will consider the advice offered by Kwame and in the comments below.
Take care of yourself, would be my suggestion. Get a lawyer, get insurance on your husband, maybe get a divorce.
110
@Pecan Sense and Sensibility, right? I thought so, too!
9
It seems like LW1’s problem is that she anticipates her husband supporting her for the rest of her life in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. She states that she would be unable to work in the event of her husband’s death, but gives no reason for this. Presumably she would have mentioned it if she were disabled. Perhaps instead of sulking that she won’t get enough support from her deceased husband, she should be looking into ways she could support herself. And begin considering what HER financial contribution to her daughter’s education will be.
This isn’t 1952 lady.
58
She doesn’t say she would not work, but that her work would not be able to cover the expenses of the education of the eldest and her own daughter.
74
LW1 other commenter's have some good suggestions, but I think you and your daughter may need to accept circumstances might change if your husband were to pass away. Lifestyle's may be altered and she may not be able to recieve a 'carefree education.' Life happens. I would not go homeless for my daughters education there has to be a balance....
45
LW#1 is a legal, not an ethical problem and I'm not sure why it appears here. In any event, as many have stated here, the solution is simple. Buy term life insurance on the husband that lasts until the 2nd daughter completes her education.
54
Depending upon age and health issues purchasing life insurance might not be an option. The time to do it was years ago for this couple .
29
@justme
Plus, the husband would have to take it out and he doesn't seem to care enough for his wife or the other daughter.
He's deplorable!
17
@Marsha Pembroke: Nope, the wife can take insurance on him without his knowledge or permission, as far as I am aware.
This is in the same category as corporations that take out "janitor's insurance" on ALL their employees (without the employees' knowledge or permission), so that the corporation cashes in when each employee eventually dies (even if the employee is long since retired).
If I were the wife in letter #1, I'd be talking to a (divorce) lawyer to find out what she & her daughter are legally entitled to. And then I'd get term life insurance on the husband in an amount sufficient for the daughter's education (and, if affordable, also to provide the current wife with a lump sum for herself). And finally, I'd be pawning anything of value to get the $$ to pay for it.
IMO, the husband is not really the "wonderful father" the wife claims he is, if he is willing to leave his current wife & 2nd child in complex & expensive financial straits when he kicks the bucket. A TRULY loving man would not do this to his family.
19
I wrote a previous comment noting that this is a legal/financial problem not an ethical problem, but I would like to add to that.
The situation is a complicated by the fact that the value of a home is not declared when listing assets for purposes of calculating financial aid. So if the father dies and the daughter goes to college and applies for financial aid, the daughter will not list the home as an asset. And, of course, neither will the mother since, in this scenario, she doesn't own the home. There are no other liquid assets in this scenario, so the expected parental financial contribution would be zero. Even if full financial aid was not provided, a large amount would be, and the rest could be made up in loans in which the interest would not have to be paid until after the education was completed. So, at a very minimum, if the house were to be sold at all, it absolutely should not be sold before education is completed.
But, as I said before, all this is moot because they just need to take out term life on the dad. It wouldn't be that much money assuming dad is relatively young and healthy. If he refuses to do it, mom could cover it by a part-time job at McDonalds and take it out herself.
Why is this person writing the ethicist instead of talking to a CPA or attorney?
49
@JerseyGirl, because she's taking on the wounded party role and passing it on to her daughter as well.
5
@JerseyGirl While the FAFSA does not count parent's home equity, the more competitive private schools that are likely to have a lot of grant aid use the CSS Profile, which does consider home equity. Jersey, I am afraid that most schools are not able to meet full financial need of their admitted applicants.
4
Per the husband and his unfair will, that wife needs to protect herself financially, and divorce will do it. She can hired a top divorce attorney and get half of what that man owns, and make a life for herself. I think the ethicist gave incomplete, not good advice. She can tell the husband, either we consult an attorney on how to divide your assets fairly, or I will consult an attorney and divorce you. It isn't fun, but she will be left with not much otherwise.
26
@debraSTL This is why people shouldn't get advice from newspaper columns. She doesn't need to come close to divorcing him. In fact, since the major asset seems to be a house that he owned before the marriage, even in a community property state she could be left with nothing. On the other hand, for a couple hundred bucks a year she could solve the problem with term life insurance on her husband until the daughter graduates from college. A CPA (much less a lawyer) could give her good advice on how to proceed.
225
@debraSTL
Do. you know what a top divorce attorney charges? Also, her husband sounds vindictive, as mine was. He kept running up the bill by dragging me into court over nothing until his attorney quit. I had waited until the children were educated and on their own......he made their lives difficult by being very divisive, but he couldn't punish them by withholding education funds. Look up some writings on "passive aggressive" men.
34
@debraSTL The LW says her DH owned the house when they married and it is in his name. It is likely not marital property. I suspect she will get minimal short term alimony and no property, per the facts she states. If they live in NY, he might be ordered to pay for the younger girl's college, but not required to transfer the home.
14
LW 1 - perhaps I'm missing something, but the writer claims the provisions of her husband's will stipulates that while his daughter will eventually inherit the property, she can continue to live in the home until her death. She then goes on to bemoan that one daughter will "have to sell her half of the house" to fund another daughter's "carefree education", whatever that is. Huh?
If the will allows her to remain in the home until she dies, then how can she be rendered homeless by a daughter selling a share in the home while the writer is still alive? Would that not be directly contrary to the provisions of the will? How could the daughter legally pull that off? She needs to consult an attorney, not write to a newspaper columnist.
151
@George S
You raise good questions. The questioner should be consulting HER OWN attorney. Based on the information here, the attorney who drafted the estate planning documents for her husband would be in a conflict of interest to advise the wife under these circumstances about her and her daughter's rights under that state's laws. Most states have their own laws and constitution on these issues. i.e., in which a parent, who solely owns protected homestead property, dies and is survived by a spouse and at least 1 minor child. Florida's constitution specifically addresses this situation. The various legal approaches can be complicated and any person with such questions should consult an estate planning attorney well versed on the issues.
60
@George S That was also my thought. Something doesn't make sense in how the situation was described.
23
@George S I had to reread it twice, but I think I understand. The father already paid for the step-daughter's education, AND that step-daughter stands to inherit 50% of the house.
The second daughter has not yet gone to college, and does not have funds set aside for that. Her only inheritance is the house. So, if the house is to fund her college education, then they need to sell it. But then the mom is left without a place to live.
So, first daughter gets fully paid college + 50% of house. Second daughter gets the lovely choice of either a college education or forcing her mom from her mom.
270
LW1 might consider term life insurance on the husband, with a payoff to cover the daughter's education.
And I second the reply to LW2, don't lie on a government application.
37
How silly of the first writer not to simply take out a life insurance policy on her husband, or a pair of them with herself and her daughter as beneficiaries. Situations like this one are exactly what they are for.
165
@wrt I agree, at least term insurance to get the daughter through school.
14
What if the letter writer doesn’t have the money to buy term life insurance on her husband? It sounds like her husband controls all the money in the household, and he might not be willing to pay the money for this...
40
LW1 - His will stipulates that you can live in the house until your death if he dies first, but what if your stepdaughter wants to sell her half of the house & your daughter can't afford to buy her out? Or if your daughter wants to sell her half 10 years from now with you, a widow, living there, & her sister can't or won't buy her out? Having permission to live until your death in a property mutually owned by 2 other people who may suddenly need or want income from selling "their half of the house" doesn't sound like a stable situation for you.
If your husband won't go with you to consult a lawyer, see one yourself. If you have no income/assets, becoming homeless in 10, 20 or 30 years because you have no firm legal claim to your residence - if either or both daughters need access money from selling the house.
You can't predict what capricious thing someone else may do in 20 years. And plenty of family bonds have been destroyed by issues surrounding money & inheritance.
You need to make your legal situation clear regarding what happens if you're living in the house both daughters have inherited. The daughters may decide years from now they need the house sold & might make your life miserable.
Don't be dissuaded by your husband's anger. It sounds like he's "providing for you" by devising a situation that (in a practical way) could become beyond your control - or make you dependent on the good will of others when you're an elderly widow.
285
@fast/furious
The way LW1 describes it, it sounds like her husband has granted her a life estate in the house. If LW1 has a life estate in the house, the daughters have no ownership interest in the house whatsoever until LW1 dies.
Of course, this does not solve the problem of what happens to LW1's daughter when husband's income goes away -- life insurance would indeed be a good thing to consider.
85
@Rose
Unless I'm mistaken LW#1 does not say she has been granted a life estate in the house. That also needs to be cleared up.
21
@fast/furious Her husband's will looks too far down the road. Wills should be written based on the current circumstances: What if I died today or tomorrow? Instead, he has written a will that assumes he'll live long enough to see his younger daughter through her schooling. You can't assume that.
The wife is right: he really does need to go back and rewrite his will - knowing that he'll need to revisit it again when circumstances change.
The wife also needs to recognize that the adult daughter has a right to inherit directly from her father.
19