Kelly,
I like the fact that you are the man in the relationship. It makes my response even easier.

First of all this should have all been worked out BEFORE the wedding. I am sure that you can see why at this point.

There are many women who think that their husbands should "take care" of them because they are "THE SPOUSE" In this day and age both people work and need to share in the expenses. You cant live anywhere for free. I dont care how much homemaking a women does. You have to pay to live somewhere and the bills that go with that. It sounds like to me that you are paying way more than you should be. Why are you paying for HER kids? Let her and their father pay for them.

From the way it sounds is that she is using you at this point. She has you to pay for her kids, take her on trips, pay for other expenses and now she wants rent?

At some point in your life you are not going to have a place to live. That would be my concern at this point. I would tell her to take a hike and move out and move on. I have a feeling she knows that the relationship might not last and she is trying to suck every penny out of you she can.

Ask yourself this-What are you getting out of this relationship? You get to give your money to someone who does not appreciate you and you get to raise someone elses kids! WOW what a deal.

Run!

Kelly,

I apologize for assuming you were the wife. My response would be the same. Look out for yourself if you are not in a true 'partnership'. In my opinion, in a marriage both parties take care of and look out for each other. You can't have a one sided marriage... unless BOTH parties are happy with it being one sided.

I guess at my age, I am never going to understand what someone else referred to as a modern woman. I knew you were the male gender because I kept looking for some kind of gender reference, only to be disappointed at first and then angry that you were obviously trying to hide it. Reading the first several responses kept me wondering out loud, while I sit here alone, why everyone was assuming you are the woman. No one, absolutely no one, writes that way. There would be some mention of "him" or "her." Thus, it was apparent you wanted non-gender-biased responses. I'm sorry I cannot oblige. Like I said, perhaps I will never be a modern woman, at least not in this respect.

To me, "the man pays for the bed." Those were the words spoken to me when I was 17 years old by an elderly couple, who were close family friends. I realize that is the way it used to be, but I am not going to fault your wife for feeling you should pay more. Not in the form of rent because I don't understand a spouse asking their partner to pay rent of all things. I can't help thinking she feels the same way I do or that she feels you are not paying for enough for some reason. You can itemize all you want. It won't answer the questions I have, which is mainly why your wife is asking rent of you. Besides, I don't understand what you mean by that 10% thing anyway. You pay for as long as the bills walk through the door every month. How could it possibly matter what it all amounts to? Aren't you still living there with her? What does When all is said and done, the amount of money I have given to Jessie, after accounting for common expenses, is equal to ~10% of the house value" mean? It means you are telling me you're counting (just like all your other itemizing) and keeping track, and you probably do it all the time, which is so annoying that I would more likely tell your butt to leave than ask you for a nickel. If I'm wrong, which I doubt since that is exactly what you found reason to do here, then I apologize. But, that wouldn't change my answer. You need to be a man and step up instead of trying to show your wife and us that you have more value than you actually do and how determined and tight you are to only do just so much for her. And stop counting every time you lift a finger and every penny that you part with. You are getting on her nerves.

This must have really bugged me because I can't sleep, and this is just about all I could think about. The very idea that you posted this the way you did is evidence you know what you are supposed to be doing but refuse to do it. No double standard for you, right? You insist you will force her into your version of feminism and equality. So, you came here to itemize and nitpick your way into favor and garner support by deception. I think what bothers me most is what some women put up with. No way should she ever have married you, but no doubt you fooled her into that just like your effort to dupe everyone here. She's on to you now and finally making you pay your way. I just hope she stands her ground. I also hope she stumbles onto this thread because I keep ruining your plan to show it to her.

I'd pose this question to the readers: Anyone of you over 40 expecting your inheritance? (maybe I'm too optimistic!)
ima,

My parents were divorced, and our mom, well, she doesn't have any money to inherit. She lives the "life of Reilly" regardless because we all fiercely compete for the privilege of taking care of her.

Our dad has money, but frankly, so do we. Neither I, or any of my FULL siblings are in any need of his money. However, our youngest half-brother, has been through hell, is pretty screwed up and our dad's taking care of him now, so we fully expect he'll leave everything to him.

Our dad has a lovely girlfriend and it would be great if they got married, but neither one want to burden or obligate the other in the event they became incapacitated. For that sole reason, they also keep separate residences and don't comingle anything.

But before her, when our dad had just turned 60, he was engaged to another woman, and they didn't get married for this very reason, Basically, she had a house and other asset, but while she felt her assets should be kept private, his house should become "community property" and wanted him to designate her as beneficiary of everything else as well. Her reasoning for this was not only that she was female, but also a number of years younger. So she was facing the probability that he would pass long before she would and didn't he feel he should help provide for her in the years to come, when she would be all alone?

Well, he told us flat-out that there was no way he was going to allow the efforts of his entire life's work end up being inherited by HER children, instead of his own. He didn't work that hard, for that many years, to give it all away to someone else's kids.

They tried to work this out for 5 years. He suggested a number of compromises to ensure she was properly provided for after he passed, but she wouldn't budge. He finally gave up and moved on. She wasn't expecting that and then tried to get him back for quite a while, but he was all done.

I can see her side, but I'm with my dad on this. I don't have any problem with our half-brother receiving all our dad's inheritance, but her kids? Why would he ever agree to something like that? Aside from not being family, they were full-grown and were rude, nasty and treated him horribly! For that, they should get rewarded by receiving everything he owned?

If people do not like word EXPECT, then here goes. I do not WANT to inherit anything. yes i am after 40.

I sincerely want my parents to have good life when they are elderly, so i want them to spend every penny on themselves or whatvever. believe me, i am being sincere. It could be cultural, but for me discussion about what's going to happen with their money or house when my parents die, is a bad taste.

i also think that often because parents weren't taking care of their children when children needed it (such as help wiht college for example) then maybe it is expected to at least get something when they die. Maybe if one resents their parents for not ever being there, then hey at least give me something when you die. maybe...sounds bad but who knows.

I don't know... but we help each other (sometimes maybe with money, or sometimes wiht other things) when anyone needs help and we do it while we are still alive.

Some people here don't think that parents should help children to obtain education but they think it is OK to expect parents to put money or houses aside so kids can get it when they die. I just find it well beyond my comprehension.

answer to your question about expecting inheritance. I am 42. My dad is 71 and mom is 63. I do not expect anything. My brother is 41, I know he expects nothing either.

We are not wealthy. We are all professionals and have a decent life but we are not rich. maybe, imamommy, those who are wealthy expect more. We don't.

there is a big difference between helping and providing for, in my opinion.

as about who is ADULT. In my opinion if children are still in college (or vocational training)which normally is anywhere between 18-23 (maybe 24) they are still dependent, not fully adults. after that it is OK to help, but they are ADULTS and should not be fully provided for. if they want to continue education beyond their initial one, they usually take loans and manage it part time etc.

maybe it would be nice to still feel like a child in 30s and 40s and expect people ro provide for you( you in
general not YOU) but I would be rather embarassed.

We do not consider DD fully independent because although she pays her cost of living and maintains her own residence, her dad pays her tuition and it is a lot of money. DD will graduate college in 2010. she will be 22. She eventually plans to get graduate degree but she plans on doing it on her own. Of course we will always help her when she needs it. But she does not expect that. and knowing her, she cannot wait to get her degree so she can be fully independent (not like we won't ever help of course).

i know for a fact that DD has no plans for dad's house. I could actually ask her as a joke, if something happens to her dad what should happen with his house. DD lives on her own, and does not need to have anyone's house. She visits but does not live there permanently. It is not her house.

Like with your dad and SM, they lived there. You live on your own. It was not your house. If adult children actually phsyically live wiht parents, then maybe it would be different. i don't know.

Fd,

Maybe the problem is with the word expect. I do anticipate that my mom will leave her estate to her children. I would rather she spend on herself, and me and siblings to give her money.

I also expect that I will get up Monday morning and go to work.

Maybe I should have also asked what would you do if your parents left everything they have to someone else.. not family. (ie. the neighbor that had coffee with them everyday or the kid that stopped by to visit and keep them company or anyone else that they WANTED to leave it to that isn't family)

As to parents not wanting to let someone else's kids be the beneficiaries, that is the purpose of wills and planning. I guess I should have been a little more specific in asking the question. Expecting or anticipating something like an inheritance might lead to hard feelings if you later find out they left it all to the SPCA or someone else. How many people know exactly what their parents are going to do with their things/money? I know I don't know what my dad has planned, nor do I care. If he gives it away to a friend or one of my siblings (or me), that isn't even a thought.

I was just curious who kkny was talking about when she said 'most children'. My kids, when they were younger, knew I had written a will just before I had a major surgery. They discussed who was going to get what (personal belongings) and almost started an argument. I read them the riot act but they were just kids. They were acting childish. The saddest court papers I have to serve, are on family suing family in probate court. Nothing as sad as 50-60 year old siblings fighting like teenagers over their parent's things. And wills being contested??? If they wrote a will, they made their wishes known... right?

I meant most adult children, not small children. I am sorry you had to face major surgery when your children were small. I think most middle aged children expect that last surviivng parents will leav to them. Ima, part of my conern is that without a will default in most sttates is dad's estate goes to current wife -- even if she is has been married to him for 2 weeks.

I also wonder if it is more a question of "expecting" an inheritance from spouse but "not expecting" one from parents?

The blanket admonition that "one shouldn't expect anything" gets applied, but without distinction.

So I would ask those of you who strongly maintain that you have absolutely no expectations of your parents leaving you an inheritance: do you, similarly, have absolutely no expectations of your spouse leaving you any kind of inheritance?

I make a point of asking that because I see many people adamantly denying ---even morally outraged at the idea of--- "expecting" any inheritance from their parents... and I also see many people morally outraged at the idea that their spouse might NOT leave them an inheritance, or not 100% of the inheritance and instead might dare divide his/her own hard-won assets between spouse and children (or spouse and anybody else) as s/he sees fit. Sometimes these are the selfsame people trying to argue both points simultaneously, which are basically inconsistent. At least as regards the concept of having "no expectations".

Either you argue for having "no expectations" or not. Personally, I happen to agree with the philosophy that NO ONE should EXPECT an inheritance... or expect much of anything in this world. Not so much from a moralistic viewpoint (although a little bit) but from a more self-protective stance and the desire to stay flexible, free from emotional hurt and to avoid bitter deflation. But this stuff about one's kids should have no expectations but one's spouse can/should expect everything is more than I can stomach. It's basically a statement that some people have the right to expect and others don't. Which is fine if one cops up to believing that and doesn't hide it under a moralistic and hypocritical umbrella admonition that "NO ONE" should expect while secretly believing that they themselves are allowed to. Many people believe, based on various worldviews, etc. that spouses are simply "more important" than children. I don't happen to agree, or think it's that simple, but many people have this philosophy. They should just have the guts to say that out loud instead of hiding it behind an unevenly-applied false platitude about "expectations".

Because really ---and no matter firmly "in the right" spouse (OR KIDS, for that matter) may believe their position on the subject to be--- the "split" platitude about expectations is a dangerously hypocritical position to adopt, which I'll explain by way of personal example. I know my SM sure as heck "expected" that my Dad would leave her absolutely everything he owned, even though for many many years and from the very beginning he adamantly informed us both that he would be dividing things between she and I in his will. And SHE smugly warned ME, up through the day before his will was read: "you're only disappointed by your own expectations", as this had become her new favorite thing to say to me. Like she thought *I* needed to be warned about having inflated/unfounded expectations. She so EXPECTED that she was so "obviously" and firmly "in the right" about her position ---even despite everything she'd ever been told by my Dad on the matter--- that she felt she could hypocritically tell ME to not have any expectations, and therein lies the irony and the danger. When my Dad's will was read the next day and he had divided things between us, just as he'd always said he was going to do, it was not what SHE was expecting. It wasn't what *I* was expecting, either, because I'd long-since steeled myself for the possibility that SM would succeed in making him change his will to accomodate her expectations. I'm not sure if my SM had prepared herself to be disappointed by her own expectations, but I hope she was prepared b/c her expectations were out of line, all along, with the realities of the situation she continually chose to stay in. Which I have to wonder if she stayed in, in part, based on her own expectations.

Serenity, I find it hard to believe your SM was surprised by the content of the will....What kind of relationship exists where the husband or wife dont know whats in each others wills?DH and I have a copy of each others, cant fanthom otherwise...

Hi thermometer,
I agree with you, we pay the bills as long as they come in the door; the disconnect here is that while Im paying my share of those bills which are coming in the door, my wife does not want me to have any share in the house. After this came up ~three months ago, I did spend time to ascertain whether or not that would be fair to me, because I have felt I had been contributing a significant amount of money for our family, including paying for many things for her children just as if they are my own. So, after reviewing the past four years it became clear to me that I have contributed much more than my fair share and that if we had reviewed this stuff before marrying, I would not have contributed the amount that I have.

I have to say that you are on the same page as my wife in that she has made similar statements to yours re; my needing to be the man. To her, if she passes, I am a man and I have a job, I can take care of myself and should not need any portion of her house. So, it is slowly sinking in that to take care of myself means that I should not be contributing so much money to this "family"; because I will not get my fair share and will be left out in the cold with a large financial loss.

That is why Ive posted this question, because I believe I am being a man in every sense of the meaning as far as finances go, and even more so by being a parent to her high school age child who is still living with us (and I can say with a very clear conscience that I am the one who has been the parent by being there for and guiding her child).

Oh, you have a second post right after well, what can I say? Ive been honestly looking for feedback to my situation, for which Ive received a lot ** thanks everyone! **. Ill try to clear the air with you: In this second post you say she is finally on to me and finally making me pay my way? I respectfully point out that you have it backwards; to use your way of thinking, I am finally on to her. Also, my intention was not deception but fairness; I subsequently posted why I wrote it the way I did, and asked that if anybodys response would now be different to please say so because Im looking for the fair way to deal with this, and if my wife (and you) are correct and conventional wisdom states that I as the man should contribute significantly more money than my share and be okay with, I dont know, my wife passing in twenty years and my not having a place to live or even a share of the value of the house I dont know, thats what Im trying to understand and deal with.

BTW, my wife is the one who told me about this forum about a month ago, though I dont believe shes ever posted. I dont think shes seen this yet, but I know she will; either very soon when I show it to her or on her own.

It don't know that Kelly's problem is so much about inheritance, per se; it sounds more like a disagreement of what constitutes mine, yours, and ours . Jessie brought a significant asset (a mostly-paid-for house) into the marriage and thinks it's "hers". Kelly has since been contributing enough to ongoing expenses that he feels he's earned a stake in what he now sees as "their" house. Personally, the strict division of finances that Jessie seems to want doesn't sound like the kind of marriage I would want, but there may be reasons for it we don't know about. Kelly is old enough to have grown children, claims to make reasonable money, but didn't mention having any assets of his own that he brought into the marriage; maybe he has a history of financial irresponsibility that makes Jessie leery of combining finances and assets? Or maybe there are other reasons we don't know about. I do NOT think gender should be an issue, but I do think we don't really know enough about the situation to conclude Jessie is taking advantage of Kelly (although it's certainly a possibility). A couple of you above also mentioned having separate finances and/or separate assets in your marriage, it's just the word "rent" that has everyone up in arms. I wonder if his situation is really that different from yours or if it's just the language being used.

Kelly, here is a drastic, but possible solution: Jessie should sell her house and the two of you should buy a new house - one that will be both of yours. You each need to kick in money for the down payment, as well as the montly mortgage payments. This way it should be very easy to determine the percentages of each parties' interest in the house.

Serenity,

Wow! What a story about the SM. Can I ask what her reaction when she found out?

I also find it very mean to have said those things to you.

kelly,
I think what gerina said makes sense as it's similar to the plans that I have with my future H. I own the house we live in currently. I have 2 teenagers. Future H has offered (I never asked) to contribute 25% of the mortgage payments every month. In exchange for doing this, we've agreed that he will get the equivalent of what he put into the house back as credit when we sell it. Our plan is to sell the house when the kids go off to college and buy a house together. Future H also pays around half of the household expenses, but none of the kids' expenses.

Is your wife receiving child support for her children?

If her children are older (high school age) then it's possible that your wife has started looking at the shocking expense of college and has begun to panic a little bit - I know I did at first. This is the time to start discussing what you're willing to contribute towards their college, if anything. Know that your income must by law be included in any financial aid forms that she files, regardless of your intent to contribute. With your added income shown on the forms (FAFSA and Profile) it's very possible that the children will not be eligible for need-based aid that they might otherwise qualify for with your wife's income alone.

I agree with others who have suggested that this is something to be discussed and formalized with a pre-nup, but it's not too late to come to an agreement. Perhaps if you were to start from the stance of "I love you Jessie, I love your kids, I love our life together, I want us to be equal partners from now forward, let's figure out what that means from a financial perspective..." it might open up an honest conversation about expectations that both of you have for the medium term (while kids are at home) and the longer term (when you're on your own just the 2 of you).

Best of luck.

I think parents would leave money to someone else not family (i mean not children, grandchildren or spouses) when someone else was closer to them than the family. I think it would be fair. If parents were ill and elderly but kids weren't helping to take care of them then why would kids expect somehting? It would make sense if parents leave money to a hospital nurse.

i am not saying they should leave money to whoever takes care of them, but I think if someone is closer than the family then why not? some families are very distant so why not leave money to some closer person. like the best friend.

I would not expect anything from a spouse either. but spouses usually live with each other so they share a house, also they take care of each other on a daily basis while most adult children live far away and rarely see each other.

it makes sense whoever is there a day after day and shares good and bad probably could expect something. at least expect not being kicked out of their house for the sake of adult children who maybe saw their parents once in a blue moon.

dotz, I also found it rather strange that SM was supposed not to know what is in the will. Does not make much sense to me. I think at first serenity said that SM acted like it is fair. Because it was fair. If she was surprised, then about what? That DH was fair? weird.

Kelly, I would not stay in this kind of marriage. You running a risk to be on the street one day and since you contribute to a family so much you won't have any savings to move on. maybe you should move on now. sounds like Jessie is married to her children, not to you.

"Ima, part of my conern is that without a will default in most sttates is dad's estate goes to current wife -- even if she is has been married to him for 2 weeks."

I agree. A will is something everyone that wants to direct what will happen after they die, should have. If someone fails to make a will, it's their irresponsibility that may lead to their adult children not getting anything and their current spouse getting everything. It wouldn't be the new spouses fault, it would be the parent's. If someone wants to provide to their adult children, they should make those provisions while they are alive and of sound mind. A will should be updated whenever there is a major change such as marriage, divorce, birth or death. and when there is a substantial change in assets. and always, when the parent changes what they want done with their things and who they want to get what.

When my husband met me, he had never changed the life insurance beneficiary from his ex. They had a policy that paid each other if the other died. He said it was to take care of his daughter if anything happened to him. Now, I agree he needs to think of his daughter, but his ex is SOOO irresponsible... I mean her mom is raising her other daughter while she is still collecting the child support to live off of. So, I talked him into changing the beneficary to his parents in trust for his daughter with his brother taking over if anything happened to his parents. I would not be involved at all.

Financial planning is important and if someone doesn't want their wife of two weeks to get everything, instead of their middle aged kids, then they need to take care of that by making a will. I agree it would irritate me if that happened but if my dad wants me to have anything, he should make a will. If he doesn't, he's gambling that things will happen the way he wants. Fortunately, I know my dad does have a will. I don't know what it says, but it has his wishes and whatever they are, I won't be disappointed because I don't have any expectations.

and FD, I agree if there are non family members that are closer to them than family, it's up to them. I know a few situations where kids are terrible to their parent (including my stepmom) and the kids expected something just because they are 'family'. They sure didn't act like family.

"So I would ask those of you who strongly maintain that you have absolutely no expectations of your parents leaving you an inheritance: do you, similarly, have absolutely no expectations of your spouse leaving you any kind of inheritance?"

I don't 'expect' my husband to leave me everything. I expect to have what we have worked for together. I am working, I am paying on the assets he brought into the marriage, so yes I think I have an interest in those things, even if I am not titled on them. I also have an interest in his retirement... an interest, not that I should fully benefit with it all. His daughter is a minor and should be provided for. His will should direct what he wants to happen with regard to her, as a minor and as an adult. Parent/Adult child relationship is not the same as a spouse relationship, which is usually a partnership. I rely on my partner for support... I don't rely on my parents for support. If my husband wanted me to quit working and stay home to take care of his daughter or if his daughter was grown and we agreed I would stay home to take care of the house and him, it is still a partnership if it's what we agree on.

Of course, every marriage (and relationship) is different and a whirlwind marriage is not comparable to a long term relationship where the partners aren't even married. That is why it's important for people to make a will, not leave it up to the state and the laws that don't consider the extenuating circumstances of each individual relationship.

Ima,

I agree, I think full disclosure of all assets and liabilites before marriage and time to consider issues and then agreement and then will (and prenup if necessary) is way to go. Of course, if you have two people getting married right out of school, without a lot of money and no kids, it likely isnt necessary to do much of anything. The further you get from this, the more foresight is necesssary.

I might feel I'm entitled to more if I am married (or in the relationship as your SM was) for 20-25 years, but I would never expect everything and his (or my) kids get nothing, unless the kids gave reason to exclude them. It sounds as if your SM has serious character flaws to say such nasty things to you and it's also possible that she was told (by your dad) that she was getting more (or everything) when you were not around and now the joke is on her... if so, high five your dad on that!

Ima, every relationship is different. You may be contributing to financial assets of household and caring for minor children of your DH. I cant remember everyone here, but I dont think Serenity's SM does. You're right -- Serentiys dad could have been two faced, but given that the SM tryied to keep the kids from seeing dad, I dont think so. But we never know about all facts hear. Serentity's SM could have been expecting all on the theory that if dad didnt have a will, current wife gets all.

"I would not expect anything from a spouse either. but spouses usually live with each other so they share a house, also they take care of each other on a daily basis while most adult children live far away and rarely see each other. It makes sense whoever is there a day after day and shares good and bad probably could expect something. at least expect not being kicked out of their house for the sake of adult children who maybe saw their parents once in a blue moon."

FD, I agree that if any expectations are to be had by spouse, the argument that spouse lives in house and provides (hopefully at least some) financial/logistical/emotional support on a daily basis makes for as reasonable an expectation as any that spouse will inherit something, at least a big chunk (if not all) of things directly related to house itself. I wouldn't find that to be an unrealistic or hypocritical expectation, because it follows a certain logic and there are practical reasons for it.

The main area I could see it getting very tricky specifically with family home is if the house was where stepkids grew up during their bio-parents' marriage... or if house is something like Graceland or some other extreme circumstance where it's clearly far more significant than just any old house. Which is why, too, I agree with Gerina and everyone who has advised that if at all possible, Jessie & Kelly should have the goal of starting fresh in a new house that they both share responsibility/ownership of, meanwhile ideally finding alternative ways of providing for Jessie's kids since Jessie obviously finds that important.

It also seems like most of us on this forum can agree that if anyone's going to 'expect' anything, that expecting things to be somehow DIVIDED (even if it isn't totally equal) between step-parent and step-kids is much more understandable than anyone expecting to get absolutely everything, which I find ridiculous for anyone to do. That is really the only thing that I found objectionable about my SM having expectations: her expectations were excessive, completely exclusive and greedy out of all reality per the situation. At least any *version* of the reality of my Dad's plans that I'd ever been privy to.

But I, too, wonder whether my Dad made her certain promises. If he did, though, I truly, truly don't think it was just to be deceptive for no reason. I was there enough to witness how pushy she could be with her demands, relentlessly bringing them up over and over and over again and pouting or otherwise throwing fits to make her points when other tactic backfired. When he got sick, it was probably just too much effort to put up the resistance he had for so many years prior. I think maybe he was scared of her leaving him with cancer, and that he possibly nodded his head or said "don't worry" or something like that to her to get her to momentarily cease her demands. And she ought not to feel 'betrayed' or anything now because it serves her right for pushing him so hard.

As for how surprised she may have been, it's a double-edged sword: hopefully not SURPRISED, but probably DISAPPOINTED. And of course I am not inside her head to really know what she's thinking, I can only guess. The day of will reading, she was stoic, and of course she SHOULDN'T have been surprised, and most likely she'd rather die than show her disappointment in front of me (and/or Executor). But she also wanted me out of that house ASAP, and she's also made no effort to reach out to me or respond to me since he died. So she may not have been surprised but my guess is she was/is disappointed.

Maybe I should have also asked what would you do if your parents left everything they have to someone else.. not family. (ie. the neighbor that had coffee with them everyday or the kid that stopped by to visit and keep them company or anyone else that they WANTED to leave it to that isn't family)

ima,

If my father would marry his current GF and leave absolutely everything to her, all my siblings and I would be just fine. She is a wonderful woman and a beautiful person in every way. She makes him happy and is so good to him that as far as we're concerned, she is entitled to every and anything he wants her to have.

If he had married that other one though? OH MY GOD! She was very pretty, ever so sweet, great company, lots of fun to be around....and we were scared to death of her! Oh so charming--like a snake!

If any possibility had existed that this woman might actually have taken CARE of our dad, especially considering she was 15 his junior, why wouldn't she be entitled to his entire estate? Well, that possibility did not exist.

His GF owned property only about 20 miles from my house, while our dad lives a good 1,200 miles away in Florida. One day, our dad called me from Florida, about 1 hour after he had an operation, for colon cancer, not to tell me how his operation went--but to ask whether his GF had arrived at my house yet! Apparently, the day before his surgery was scheduled, instead of remaining by his side, his GF decided to come visit ME, and check on her property instead. Not only hadn't she been invited, she didn't feel it was necessary to tell me she was coming in advance!

When she arrived later that day, she proceeded telling me about all the problems she had on her trip--never once calling our dad, asking about him, in fact, his name never came up! I waited and waited for her to say something about our dad, or ask about his operation--for 4 HOURS SOLID! I couldn't take it any longer and finally interrupted her to say, "By the way, my dad called and his operation went well," and she actually responded, "Oh," and just kept on going with stories about her trip!

And then, while our dad recouperated all alone, she remained at my house FOR OVER A MONTH! Along with her very sick, elderly puppy dog--who was also incontinent! Oh, and then she picked up her 6 y/o GD to stay with us too! Not only did she never once buy food or help out, she never walked or cleaned up after her dog, and in fact, she never once made a single meal for her GD! Every night when I got home from work that poor little girl was starving, so I had to start getting up in the morning to make her breakfast, and prepare lunches for the both of them in advance!

Couldn't very well say anything to our dad about it, not while he was recouperating from his operation. The only reason she left was because my sister called one day and left a message on my machine that our dad was doing well and "BTW, his GF's been MIA for over a month now." Obviously, I wasn't home, but guess who was, and overheard that message? No, she didn't go running back to see how our dad was doing, but to yell at him about that message my sister had left on my phone!

When they announced their engagement, her own family reacted by cringing. Oh, and 2 previous husbands? Yeah, they both died under somewhat "mysterious" circumstances.

Right there and then, my siblings and I labeled her, "the black widow", formed a pact and swore a BLOOD OATH, that if that wedding ever went through, and our dad died an untimely death, as we were 100% positive he would, we would all dedicate the REST OF OUR LIVES, not only tying his estate up in probate until there was nothing left, but also actively pursuing every possible legal means to TAKE HER DOWN!

We had already hired PIs to start investigating those "mysterious circumstances" surrounding her previous husbands' deaths, when our dad dumped her--thank the LORD!

I can't say we ever wondered what our dad ever saw in her in the first place because we already knew. It was those 3 little magical letters, s e x.

"It also seems like most of us on this forum can agree that if anyone's going to 'expect' anything, that expecting things to be somehow DIVIDED (even if it isn't totally equal) between step-parent and step-kids is much more understandable than anyone expecting to get absolutely everything, which I find ridiculous for anyone to do."

And may I ask how you would suggest ours be divided? I'm 66, DH is 71,we have 6 children all married with their own family and all doing well. I brought more into the marriage than he did, worked all my life until I became disabled a few years ago. So if he dies first you're saying what WE have should be divided between myself & 6 children? And my standard of living should go WAY down in order to do this? Suppose I need help taking care of myself? Even though we've worked and planned well for retirement if what we have is divided 7 ways I think things might be a little tight. I feel the same way should I die first, why should he not have what we've worked for. I feel very confident that none of our children want anything of ours until we are both gone and if they don't get anything then that will be OK too.

My kids dad recently got a serious girlfriend 28 years after we divorced. He is rather well off and my daughters' opinion is that if they marry and that makes him happy in his remaining years that's fine with them if they don't get the money. My DS has no use for him and has told me he doesn't want anything the man has.

Sorry to hijack your post, Kellyz. Like others have said I think the two of you should start fresh and accumulate your finances/property together. Most people don't want to 'rent' and not have anything to show for it. Sounds too much like a business deal to me.

Gajopa--

I don't think there necessarily have to be any 'shoulds' (i.e. expectations) regarding what any individual chooses to do with their own assets... this is the crux of the point this thread's been debating (but mostly agreeing on) about the importance of NOBODY having too many expectations... Or at least making sure that one's expectations are not out of line with reality, and/or not out-of-line with the wishes/plans of the person whose will/estate is the one in question.

That said, though, because we're all human, we probably all do have our *opinions* on the matter, and I'm no different. So if you're asking me what my personal *opinion* is on your question, or what *I* would personally do... Well, to start with, I probably would have not comingled my finances before discussing wills and other majorly important issues with my spouse and determining that we were both absolutely on the same page about all financial questions that we would be capable of forseeing (the "death and taxes" thing definitely applies here). I hope that is the case with you and your husband. Hopefully your question is merely rhetorical and that by now everyone in your blended family is fully aware of what would happen in the event of anyone's death. So in that case my opinion doesn't matter.

But, again, you did ask for my opinion, so here would be my approach, in your situation:

-determine if my spouse and I agree on how to provide for our (respective and/or collective) children in the event of our deaths. If so, comingle assets. If not, keep 'em separate for ease of more accurately determining which assets are each spouse's own to allocate as each sees fit.

-if neither spouse wants to give anything to kids, make out simple "sweetheart wills" and leave it at that.

-but if one or more spouses wish to provide something for any kids, probably best for each spouse to deal with their own bio-kids' inheritances (and agree on joint contribution to any bio-kids they share in common)

-then consider relative needs of all parties, size of family and other logistics and priorities. Obviously a widow in her 70's who's never worked outside the home but raised all her husband's children for many years ---or grown child in his 20's who has a severe disability--- has greater dependency needs than a person who is young, capable and earning a decent income. Obviously a family with 6 kids is going to mean things have to be spread thinner than in a famly with one kid. And there's nothing saying that "dividing" assets has to mean *in equal parts*. It may be, in your situation, that each of you only decide to leave your own kids a small fraction of what you have. Or, again, nothing at all. But that should be a decision that each parent makes regarding their own children. And just as the kids should not necessarily expect to get anything, it's my opinion that a spouse should not expect to get everything. Again, we're talking about *my own opinion* on what's right, which may or may not be yours or your husband's (or that of any of your kids). But it should by no means be surprising to any spouse (in blended OR intact family) to find that their spouse may wish to leave their own children *something*.

It is your decision and your husband's decision what you want to do with the funds you've each contributed to the marriage. And it's generally not expected that a step-parent will leave assets to stepchildren. This is why many people in second marriages keep finances separate, and/or have prenups, or other means of making "whose assets are whose" more accountable and easy to figure out. But these aren't 'rules', they're just common norms the main value of which is to provide some insight into what many people have found to be fair ways to deal with a very tricky and potentially contentious issue. You and your husband are each free to do whatever you want with your assets.

I think all this can be summed up with "you're entitled to your opinion... but it doesn't mean others will agree with it" and the importance of at least discussing the issue honestly ---and EARLY--- to find out if you're on the same page or not.

So if he dies first you're saying what WE have should be divided between myself & 6 children? And my standard of living should go WAY down in order to do this?

Gajapo,

My husband and I have willed everything we have to each other, and after we both pass, whatever remains will be divided in half to be distributed equally, as

1/2 in accordance to his wishes, currently, divided between his 2 daughters, after not only both of us have passed, but, well, shall we say, after an additional event occurs.

1/2 in accordance with my wishes, currently, also be divided between his 2 daughters (who else do I have to leave my money to?) also after both of us have passed, and also after that same additional event occurs.

Of course though, my husband and I have been together going on 25 years now, and we both entered the marriage with absolutely nothing other than debt, so everything we own, we've earned together.

Disengaging, in general, I think the idea of leaving it to SM as to whether children inherit is fraught with issues -- and the if "additional event occurs" -- should be in the judgement of a disinterested party (for example, an aunt or uncle). You, in your vast professional life, have likely seen many situations where a parent has thought his children would ultimately inherit and they did not. As women tend to live longer, it is more likely that, absent estate planning, her children end up with more.

"And it's generally not expected that a step-parent will leave assets to stepchildren."

I agree this is true in most cases, but in ours whichever of us that goes last will. We consider all the kids OURS. I recently gave my SS an antique that I could have sold but I knew he wanted it badly so that was worth more than money to me. My DH would do as much for my 3 as he would for his and I would do the same for his.

Disengaging, I'm glad to see I'm not the only person that thinks we deserve to use what we've worked for. Of course we want ALL the kids to have what's left and neither of us are concerned that the other won't do what's right. Until that time comes they're just going to have to work for what they have and I'm quite confident they don't expect otherwise. They've all been told how our will is written and none have a problem with it. Hopefully we have enough to take care of us should we have serious health problems. I don't think any of the kids would want to quit work and have to take care of us.

I wonder if adult children expect inheritance and hope for it because they built up resentment towards their parents, who didn't do enough to their children while children were young and in need.

Also if parents weren't involved enough in kids' life (not money wise but devoting their emotions and time to their children), then i can see how adults can grow up wiht resentment. And maybe they subconciously want that money or a house to make themselves feel better. And when they dislike stepparent maybe winning more than them would make them feel better.

But I don't feel that my parents owe me anything.
My parents were involved wiht us as much as one can hope. they owe me nothing. In fact i owe my parents (not money per se).

as about who grew up in the house...Just because someone lived in the house at some point as a young child, it does not mean one needs to have it 50 years later. I wonder in divorced families do adult children expect to inherit both houses: mom's and dad's? just because they are their parents? what do adult children base their hopes for the houses?

FD, at least in my or my DDs case, it has nothing to do with resentment, I love my mom, she has been good mom. I just think it is normal that last to die gives to kids.

So if SM inherits, and she remarries, does it end up with her new husband? His kids?

I don't know neither I care. maybe if I would come from a very rich family, I would care.

and if parents are divorced do kids inherit everything from both parents? including houses? and including what parents made together wiht new spouses? how nice...

Could also sometimes be that kids expect to inherit from parent because parent repeatedly tells them throughout their whole life that they will inherit. If kids are never told this, then sure, any number of things could cause them to have expectations. Perhaps one or more of the things FD described, or because most kids in intact families end up inheriting at least something from their parents, or perhaps the same state intestacy laws which lead many spouses to expect they'll inherit without being told so.

And again, there ARE many, many shades of grey between "spouse gets everything/kids get nothing" and "kids get everything/spouse gets nothing"... or between "spouse gets house forever/kids never get jack" and "kids get house forever/spouse thrown on street like pauper". Reason, balance and a full consideration of needs/assets obviously has to prevail for the desicions to be made fairly.

Well, what can i say I GOT EVERYTHING and i am having a ball spending it. WHOOPIE!

and ya know what, his kids and one of mine made our lives miserable for 30+ years over money. they lived beyond their means and wanted us to pick up the slack which we did and it caused a lot of hard feelings between my husband and myself. Shock of all shocks when my husband died they didn't ask for anything except one daughter asked for a couple of personal things for keepsakes. She even let me pick them.

why would parents repeatedly tell their children that they inherit something? why would this topic even come up? how would it start: hey i am going to leave you XYZ. lol repeatedly their whole life? why? I can see how maybe when they wrote the will they said something...but repeatedly tell them their whole life...what for? I get upset to think of my parents dying, as I watch them getting older, why would they be bringing it up my whole life?

Frankly most elderly nowadays don't have anything left at the end. even the rich ones. My mother is a director of a a retirement facility. Not a cheap one.
Even 5 years ago elderly did all right, now they try to break a lease because they have no money left and they are moving in wiht their children.

Who are all these old people who have all this money left? Of course if one dies at 60-65, they have money at that point. But life expectancy is way more than that. My grandparents on dad's side lived over 90. People have many many years of old age, retirement to survive. That's where their money go to. surviving in old age. Some people live 30 years after they retire. we supported my grandmother, not the other way around.

there of course are rich people who accumulated wealth generations after generations. But i do not know too many, if any actually.

good for you stargazzer. you were married long enough. and good for your stepkids that they didn't demand anything. I have few keepsakes from my grandparents. they mean the world to me. I want nothing else. I would want keepsakes from my parents. I want nothing else. if they would have extra money, they can leave it to animal shelter. my dad is crazy about animals.

Finedreams, I can see how some people might tell their children they will inherit something. Growing up, my family talked about what would happen with a family run business. My grandfather started it 50+ years ago and growing up, my mom would often tell us kids that we will someday own it. When he passed, he left it to his son's (my dad & uncle) My aunt received the residential property. There wasn't much else to distribute... his debts & burial costs took up what cash/liquid assets he had.

My dad bought my uncle's half of the business and is now the sole owner. He has told us that he'd like the business to remain in the family, but has never said we will inherit it. When my stepmom was alive, he took measures to keep her children from laying claim on it when she died. (as if they could. She had no will and they live in a community property state). The assumption was that someday, his children (me & my siblings) would inherit the business since he was very adamant that it should remain a family business. Well, my older sister assumed it would be inherited. Dad has decided that he wants to retire so he is selling us the business... my other (younger) sister and I are buying it. Dad will get retirement money from the sale and we will keep the family business in the family... just as dad wants. Since I am buying it, it may become community property to my DH and me, not sure. We will have to come to terms of how it would be treated if we were to divorce or if either of us dies. Since it is in my name only and I am the one working there (he has his full time job), we will have to discuss with an attorney the legalities of ownership.

However, I never 'assumed' I would inherit it, but I would have been greatly disappointed if my stepmom's children had been successful in claiming any ownership (as they tried to assert it was 'community property' and their mother had an interest in it) but when their attorney conceded in court that it was NOT community property because my dad inherited it from his dad, they went away.

I'm much happier obtaining the business this way. My dad will get to enjoy his retirement, partially funded by us buying his business.

Thank you finedreams, thought for sure i would get slammed for my flip attitude. when my husband and i got married, he put my name on his money and his retirement plan. He said he wanted to keep a piece of property for his kids and i was ok with that, but after a couple of years he put my name on the house we lived in, later he put my name on the piece he was going to give to his kids. i think he realized who would always be there for him and that i put up with a lot a lot of crap from his kids and did it like a lady.

I can see imamommy when there is a family business involved and people would love their family to continue running that business, such questions would be discussed. And yes it would be very dissapointing if your dad's stepkids get that business. They weren't there neither for their mother, in times of illness, nor for your dad. In fact i hope that they got nothing from their mother.

It also seems to me that your father is there for you while he is around as you are for him. I do have objections when parents aren't there for their children much and yet leave them money when they die. where were they when kids needed help? and I have a problem with kids expecting much even if adult kids were never there while spouse was there 24/7, especially in old age or illness. Like in stargazzer family. i am glad she got it.

It is always more honorable to be there for people while everyone is still alive.

"why would parents repeatedly tell their children that they inherit something? why would this topic even come up? how would it start: hey i am going to leave you XYZ. lol repeatedly their whole life? why? I can see how maybe when they wrote the will they said something...but repeatedly tell them their whole life...what for? I get upset to think of my parents dying, as I watch them getting older, why would they be bringing it up my whole life?"

In my case, I suspect it was a need on my Dad's part to periodically "set the record straight" because SM (for many years GF) brought up money issues incessantly. (Generally with the theme being "gimme, gimme".) I never once brought up these issues. My Dad got together with SM when I was 13 and inheritance (again, among many other money issues) was already being brought up then, long before I could even really comprehend the issue or had any reason to imagine my Dad would ever die (kids don't think about stuff like that). Another major talk occured when I was about 18 (surprise, surprise), then another one when I was about 20, then again when I was 24, then again when I was about 29, then several after he got sick when I was 30 up until he died when I was 32. His statements were always pretty much the same, with his wishes being to pretty much split everything he owned 60/40 (SM's favor). The only major change occured when *I* told *HIM* that I didn't think it would go well if he left the house for me and SM to split thusly, that it could cause any number of problems for both she and I. I told him he should just leave her the house outright. He then took it upon himself to arrange things so that his intended 40% to me was maintained by allocating other assets to me, but I had not asked him to do that. Overall, his wishes stayed the same for years, even though SM kept insisting she should have more. And even though she might have *expected* that she could make him change his mind.

One very crucial little encounter, especially in hindsight, really drives home the point to me why he kept feeling this need to "set the record straight". (Sorry in advance to those who've read this story before... and sorry, too, that it's a little long.) It was about 1996, I was about 20, and my SM and I had gone last-minute holiday shopping together. I had only so much cash on me, which I'd used up on presents for my Dad (and her, btw) and others. We were kind of far from home and really hungry, and discussed going to the McDonald's that was on the way home. But this decision became a full-on philosophical crisis for SM, as she agonized out loud: "Hmmmm... well what should we do? I mean, you don't have any money left to get anything." And I said: "I can pay you back when we get to the house, I'm really REALLY hungry..." and after some serious moral rumination she finally agreed that was do-able. In hindsight, I think she was so consumed by her one-track mind obsession that as an ADULT, I, stepchild, should not EXPECT ---literally--- a dollar for ANYTHING that it next precipitated the following exchange, once we were inside the McDonald's eating our Happy Meals:

SM: "You know, when Dad dies, everything's going to me. And then, when I die, if there's anything left, you'll get it at that point."
ME: [bewildered as to where in the heck this subject was suddenly coming from] "Why are we talking about my Dad dying? Is he sick or something?"

So over a decade later, when I finally had the nerve to tell my Dad about this little exchange (b/c he asked why I don't trust SM), and when he reacted with shock and said "I never told her that!", I believed him. Because in all those times he sat she & I down and told us what's what, that little plan of hers didn't enter the convo. I believe she was either 'testing' me out, trying to get some kind of rise out of me to start a family feud, or living a freakin' delusion in her brain. Which to me clearly illustrates why my Dad kept feeling the need to divest her of her persistently unfounded expectations. Which leads back to the orginal question. So to sum it up I think the reason my Dad regularly had these "sit-downs" with us all together about his will and what would happen is precisely because he wanted us both to hear the same thing out of his mouth at the same time in case either of us [she] tried to pull some deceptive little crap on the side. And he didn't want either of us having expectations that would be disappointed... especially her, apparently.

My point with all this is that the situation that some SP's may view as "typical" ---that is adult kids "demanding" an inheritance--- is just simply not always so. Sometimes it's adult spouses who "demand". That's the main difference with my story, and perhaps it's unusual. I'm sure there are plenty of bratty, spolied adult stepkids who not only DEMAND an inheritance but who mean-spiritedly believe their parents' spouses should get nothing. I can honestly tell you that even though my SM has been a royal arse to me for many years, I would never think she deserved to get NOTHING, or less than what my Dad promised her in my presence.

Please, my X has taken this to an extreme. He has said he will give my DD his very expensive house when she is 25. I doubt she will even be able to take care of it. I suspect he just wants to make certin his SO wont get her hands on it.

Serenity, hopefully nobody thinks anything is 'typical'. You had a greedy SM. My dad has greedy SK's that sued him BEFORE their mother actually died, because they expected to get, not only what was left of their mother's (which was really NOTHING) but half of what belonged to my father. Her oldest son didn't even attend her funeral, but he attended a family meeting at his sister's house the day my stepmom died... to discuss what???? It's pretty disgusting when they will make time to hold a pow wow the day their mom dies (and their dad was there too) but not attend any kind of services.

There are just greedy people in the world. Some happen to be step kids, some happen to be step children. Nothing is 'typical'.

"Some happen to be step kids, some happen to be step children"

typo?

yes, step parent and step children... sorry

I think there is range of issues, yes greed can there be. Also lack of planning.

Agreed, all around.

Also I think there is a factor of acceptance of what you can't control, or facing the music that's playin', that's important. The common relationship advice applies: "Don't marry someone thinking you can change 'em."

Whether or not anyone agrees/disagress with the way my Dad chose to do things ---and there's probably many people would judge him harshly for not leaving SM everything, for example her whole family--- and even if you might be a person who thinks he was stubbornly wrong on the subject, the point is he wasn't going to change. Even with all the planning he did do, even with all the open communication about it that followed, if it isn't HEARD or it isn't ACCEPTED that it's his choice, then no matter how convinced she is of her rightness she was still going to be disappointed. It caused so much tension for so many years, and not just between she and I but between she and my Dad also... because she just couldn't accept what she was hearing and just couldn't believe she wouldn't be able to make him do things her way.