Fine, you make valid points, certainly about the way she might have felt about the relationship between she and my Dad. I've tried to understand it, I really have. I guess I can only hope that now that she is married maybe sooner or later she will start being a nicer person to me (she did this acting-nice thing for several months BEFORE the wedding date but afterwards started upping the demands and the no-Christmas thing, etc.); now that she's "officially" family maybe she and I both can treat each other more as such. I'm not gonna hold my breath, but I'll keep an open mind.

Meanwhile, I really do feel bad about hijacking this thread with my problems. If the rest of you guys want to continue talking about estate issues in general, I promise I'll stay stay out of the rest of this thread :)

with no-Christmas...maybe when she klnows he is dying she wants him all to herself?

Am I understanding correctly that the only reason your father wouldn't marry her was that she was unwilling to sign a prenup? Why didn't she just sign it, if she wanted to be married so badly?

I find it rather sad that the last years, days or months this man has to watch his daughter arguing with his wife over material possessions. Who cares why he didn't marry her 18 years ago. Nobody knows the real reason. Men are often afraid to make a commitment again so they come up with whatever reason to prevent that from happening.

Serenity,

Do you think a motivating factor for your father to get married at this point may have been to entitle her to social security benefits as his spouse and/or a pension?

Just a thought, but I've seen people marry for such reasons.

A lot of older people who have been married before decide NOT to marry for precisely that reason - they would lose their social security benefits based on the income of the previous spouse, as well as numerous others benefits that they might have as a lower income single person.

I didn't get the impression that serenity was arguing with her father's wife over possessions - but rather that the wife was making unreasonable demands such as major home improvements that "had" to be made before his death - something he shouldn't have to be worrying about when he is sick.

I didn't say or infer that Serenity is arguing with his father's wife over possssions. Who said that?

I said her father may have married her to entitle her to a benefit, perhaps social security or perhaps a pension. It can work both ways on social security.

My aunt married her long-time boyfriend before she died to entitle him to spouse life coverage under her retiree life plan with her former employer. It happens.

Finedreams said that they were arguing over material possessions.

My Dad and Gf getting married isn't, in itself, something I've ever had a problem with... I think it's something she may have THOUGHT I had a problem with and therefore blamed me for. Me being a much easier and more convenient target for her anger than my Dad since she only saw me for a few weeks a year... but she also fought with him plenty about it too... just probably easier on her to imagine that I or my mother was the one pushing my Dad to get a prenup. As far as I know, my mother has stayed completely out of any such discussion and has truly hardly ever brought this woman up in conversation. I and everyone on both sides of my family met her with an open mind and heart when I was 13. I was probably the most excited of everyone that my Dad found love, and for several years I was the one to ask every once in a while "when are you two getting married?" I could never understand or had the adult experience to comprehend any of the possible reasons until about 8 yrs ago when my Dad mentioned the prenup impasse to me in private. To this day I feel there may be additional factors I wasn't made aware of, such as promises he may have made her or something she did (or he did) to break trust... But anyway, I don't have --and never did have-- any of my own objections to them getting married, even all through the years she got cattier and cattier with me. Even now that she's pulling all this blatant grabby money-grubbing junk, I know that just because she's a legal wife doesn't mean she's all-powerful or that I have to fear for my life or something. But she certainly is making every effort to attempt to use her new legal-wife status to make all manner of outrageous demands, which is upsetting. This situation is what it is, and I can't change it. I sent Christmas presents to my dad, her, and her sister and brother-in-law who were there instead of me and wrote the nicest most diplomatic notes I could write to the effect of saying "hey, we're officially family now and it'd be great to share some future holiday or occasion together". I feel better for having been a gracious adult (never heard thank you from them, but my Dad seemed extremely happy I did all that which was nice.)

The main thing with the marriage is I have never been able to help wondering why MY DAD was not willing to take that plunge with her until he just got to a point of heavily-doped up chemo-ridden-exhaustion. Overall, that's what saddens me the most.

As for she and I arguing over possessions, that's a point of low-ness that I'd rather not sink to. And I've avoided that, even as she walks around the house and literally points at stuff or says (within days of his first diagnosis) "I think I'll just keep all the Christmas stuff" or "what am I going to do without my closet?" (the "closet" that just so happens to be an 18th century Pennsylvania German kaas and one of the most expensive antiques in his estate, valued at approximately $200,000; btw there is plenty of other actual closet space in the house), and all her other forms of trying to take take take. Her main strategy is not to say to him directly: "60% of everything you have isn't enough for me" nor: "your daughter shouldn't get as much as you want to give her", b/c he'd probably kick her out on her a$$, cancer or not. Her strategy has been more to "re-interpret" his 60/40 ratio so that by the time of his actual will-reading, she's already spent or otherwise acquired most of the assets, with the *remainder* (if any) of whatever she hasn't grabbed to be divided 60/40. That's why all the expensive flip-that-house improvements, the new car, new tv etc. JUST HAS to be done while he's still alive, regardless of the disruption, noise, lack of privacy and dust and its effect on a lung cancer patient or what ***HE*** might need some extra funds for while he's alive. IT JUST HAS TO BE DONE. (And she can't even say the plasma tv is "for him" b/c when I was up there over the summer she practically got into a fistfight with me over getting him a stinking $20 RF adaptor so he could watch dvds of his choice.) For me, it's been a choice of either sinking to her level and fighting in the sludge with her about possessions or letting her run roughshod and do her thing but me at least keeping a shred of dignity and self-respect. As I've said about the house, I'd almost just rather let her take things (even really big-ticket material things) than have to ever deal with her crap again. (Which, perhaps, she's counting on... squeaky wheel gets the grease.) At least I still have a conscience and can go to sleep at night knowing that there's not a single thing I've wanted or attempted to take or do that my Dad hasn't made clear he wants me to have or do. At least I have extra room in my brain to think about other things in life besides the next way I'm going to try and finagle some other expensive thing out of him. What I'm practicing isn't so much forgiveness as a refusal to be chained to greed like she is. No, it isn't exactly easy to watch, and it doesn't mean I have to like it or fnd it acceptable.

I learn something every day. I didn't know you could marry into a pension plan. When my husband signed me up for his pension plan it was for me only because I was his wife at the time he signed the papers. Out of curiosity I asked the rep, what happened to the pension if he divorced me and remarried, she said you will still get the pension on his death. Not only did I get the pension, I got his full pension. He gave up X amount of dollars to allow me to draw his pension if I out lived him.

Jonesy, I think you have given out more bizarre legal advice.

"Out of curiosity I asked the rep, what happened to the pension if he divorced me and remarried, she said you will still get the pension on his death."

A divorced spouse can only receive benefits under an ERISA plan if there is a QDRO in place. ERISA covers most private sector plans. Dont know re public sector, but I suspect the same. I have a QDRO. And yes, most plans have a cost for survivor benefits.

Jonesy -- possibly your plan DH was already retired and had already elected annuity. I think you have oversimplified pension rules. They are complex.

Not all plans are subject to ERISA. The DOL website lists exempted plans:

"Federal, state, or local government employee plans, including plans of certain international organizations.
Certain church or church association plans.
Plans maintained solely to comply with state workers compensation, unemployment compensation or disability insurance laws.
Plans maintained outside the United States primarily for non-resident aliens.
Unfunded excess benefit plans -- plans maintained solely to provide benefits or contributions in excess of those allowable for tax-qualified plans.

The Labor Department's Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration is the agency charged with enforcing the rules governing the conduct of plan managers, investment of plan money, reporting and disclosure of plan information, enforcement of the fiduciary provisions of the law, and workers benefit rights."

"Jonesy, I think you have given out more bizarre legal advice."

Simply telling her own experience is NOT giving legal advice. Nothing in her post could be construed as 'legal advice'.

In contrast, your message "A divorced spouse can only receive benefits under an ERISA plan if there is a QDRO in place." is a statement that could be construed as fact and sounds more like legal advice than just your opinion or experience.

There are laws against the unlawful practice of law and making a statement that sounds like you are stating it as a fact of law, is dangerous. What is true in one state may not be true in another. Interpreting law can be very tricky and you said yourself, pension rules are complex. If you add, 'in my opinion' or 'in my experience' to your statement, then it give the reader an indication that maybe that was true for you, instead of leading the reader to believe it is a fact.

June -- I said ERISA covers most private sector plans. What part of that did you not understand??

Ima, when Jonesy said "you could..." then she is giving more than her own personal experience.

But I guess we only get picky with moms here, not SMs.

And Ima, fyi, I never heard of practicing law anonymousely on the intenet, but with your vast legal experience, pls chime in. And fyi, ERISA superceeds state law.

It all looked like alphabet soup to me.

Ladies and gentlemen... this post will self destruct in 34 posts!!! let's put this one to rest.

" * Posted by jonesy (My Page) on
Fri, Feb 8, 08 at 11:28

I learn something every day. I didn't know you could marry into a pension plan. When my husband signed me up for his pension plan it was for me only because I was his wife at the time he signed the papers. Out of curiosity I asked the rep, what happened to the pension if he divorced me and remarried, she said you will still get the pension on his death. Not only did I get the pension, I got his full pension. He gave up X amount of dollars to allow me to draw his pension if I out lived him."

Where does she say "you could... "? She said, "I didn't know you could.... "

It still sounds like she's sharing her personal experience, not telling anyone what the rules are for anyone else. And you are the one that said she was giving legal advice and if she did so, it could be construed as 'practicing law'. Even though you think you are anonymous on the internet, there are ways to track everything you do on the computer. It may take time & money but a good investigator will find you. There is no anonymity...

Ima -- when was the last time anyone was even pursued for practiging law for comments on a blog?

You just always have to be right -- I think your nuts -- now I am practicing medicine withut a license. Actually I am just glad I dont have to deal with you -- someone who always has to be right.

Heah I am sorry I say antyhig. All you SMs go on thinking you have a guaranteed rigth to DHs pension. HAHAHA

KKNY,

There isn't anything about your statement that I misunderstood.

You indicated you assumed public sector plans were subject to ERISA.

Most public sector plans are NOT subject to ERISA.

I said I suspect. But go ahead. Expect that if your marriage to DH doesnt last (which statistically speaking, most second marriages dont) you will get pension.

"You just always have to be right -- I think your nuts -- now I am practicing medicine withut a license."

wrong again, if you had said "you ARE nuts" that might be practicing medicine. But saying "I think... " is your opinion. and I don't always have to be right, just that you make it so darn easy.

and I haven't heard all the SM's say they have a guaranteed right to anyone's pension. I think the point somebody was making is that her aunt got married for benefits under a retiree plan. She didn't specify if it were public or private or conditions. Where did you get that SM's think they have a right to DH's pension?

My point was meant to tell people to be careful. Pension rights are very difficult, and marriage followed by divorce may not do it.

And Ima, why dont you jump on June for her practicing law "Not all plans are subject to ERISA. " Oh, becuz she is a SM.

Read my reply again. I was not giving out legal advice, I am just telling of my experience. I said "I learn something every day. I didn't know you could marry into a pension plan". I merely stated that my husband's employer's retirement would go to me at his death, even if he divorced me. That is a true statement. The spouse he had when he signed the papers at retirement would draw the pension.

I would never give out legal advice, I only tell about my experience in similar situations or tell someone to check for this or that in their state.

What is ERISA???

Jonesy,

It is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (1974). It is voluminous and complicated, but in short, provides protections and rights for employees and their covered dependents who are covered under employer plans that must comply with ERISA.

ERISA also established that plan administrators are fiduciaries and they can be held personally liable for errors they make in connection with their administration of an employee benefit plan.

COBRA extension rights under a group health plan are familiar to many. COBRA is a part of ERISA. If you work for an ERISA exempt employer, they are not required by ERISA law to provide covered employees and their covered dependents with COBRA extension privileges.

There is much, much more to ERISA, but hopefully that helps explain some of what it does.

So Ima, when are you going to complain about June giving legal advice?

Oh I forgot your general rules.

1. You are always right.

2. SMs are always right.

Thank you June. It tells me what I wanted to know.

KKNY:

My clients actually pay me quite well to do what I do. And I am also quite comfortable that I've not stated anything that would be deemed inappropriate or incorrect, given my credentials.

Oh, but I forgot, BM's like you are superior and smarter than SM's.

Same here -- I go out at 450/hr.

when June gives legal advice, I'll be sure to point it out. So far, all I see is that she's quoted a website that lists plans not subject to ERISA. and explaining what ERISA is does not constitute giving legal advice.

and my general rules:

1. common sense prevails

2. If you pick apart or twist words, I'll call you on it.

When you say something that makes sense, I'd agree with it. But when you twist things to make your point & fit your agenda then I can point out the flaw in your statements. You do it all the time to everyone else. You even make assumptions and sometimes are accusatory. The first time I didn't agree with you, you asked me if I was 'dads GF'? or TOW? If you want to be taken seriously, then why not start acting like a mature adult. asking me when am I going to jump all over June because you think she did it too, well when I read that, it reminded me of a young child whining 'why am I in trouble, she did it too?'. I honestly find it hard to believe you are a grown woman. (and a professional?)

Your agenda to prove that we are a bunch of lazy, gold digging, trophy wives that overstep our bounds with our step children and sunbathe all day, living off our DH's and deserve nothing because we are not the first wife, is getting old. Using two words from a paragraph and taking them out of context so you can make what you think is a valid point is something you and TOS are getting good at. Why is it when I use your own words to point out your flawed theory, then I'm 'picking' on you? You always want to make it about BM vs. SM. If I'm not mistaken, June is a BM. Or does it not count because she's also a SM? Guess what? If you got married and became a SM, you'd still be wrong if your comment lacks common sense or is wrong.

Ima, I dont really care if you think I am practicing law without a license, which I am not. I tried to point out that pensions are tricky. You can think what you want.

I am pretty sure it self destructed in less time then that

Ima,

Thank you for pointing out that I was providing info, not legal advice. I thought that was clear, but apparently not.

KKNY, if you actually rent yourself out for $450 per hour, I sure hope aren't charging your clients for ERISA advice.

And if you bill more than 10 hours per week to your clients, whatever it is that you do, they would probably be very interested to know that you've spend the better part of every workday, for over a year, on this forum and they've been ripped off.

"A divorced spouse can only receive benefits under an ERISA plan if there is a QDRO in place."

"If you work for an ERISA exempt employer, they are not required by ERISA law to provide covered employees and their covered dependents with COBRA extension privileges."

Both of these statements are merely informational. Neither one constitutes legal advice.

This is ridiculous argument. If that is legal advice, what about all the times people have made suggestions about what to do or say in court, or even about whether or not to take one's ex-spouse back to court? - and those were suggestions specific to individual cases as opposed to the general informational statements made by kkny and june.

People get accused of practicing law without a license when they do things like draw up legal documents and advise others on how to fill them out. That is a far different thing from casual postings on a message board.

Only on a message board can one debate employment law and the war between mothers in one sentence. As I'm shaking my head in wonder I'm wondering why this is still going. You all know that peace will not be reached before this expires, so lets call it good, seek counsel when it is needed and raise a glass to the fun that is the step family forum. Cheers!

Gotta get the last word here..June you are a comedic genius!!!! Cant stop laughing over your post and DH got a big bang out of it too...Keep it coming!!! LOLOLOLOL

KKNY...this is my first time on stepfamily forum so forgive me for my ignorance. Did you have a terrible stepmother experience? IF so, at what age did this happen to you? I am a stepmother who did everything but stand on my head to please My husbands children (who are now adults 24 and 27) After many years and many problems including stepchildren stealing from me and destroying family heirlooms etc... I finally realized that they didn't want another mom, they just wanted their dad. (both had a terrible relationship with their biological mother...daugher has since reconciled things) I also realized that their only loyalty is to their bilogical parents. I spoke to my stepdaughter about this saying that if she loved and respected her father, she should try and accept his choice of a wife. (which she does..finally) But that she doesn't have to like me. Just show him that you respect his choices by being civil..thats all I expected...civility. All I know is that its difficult for everyone especially children who have been torn from their moms and dads and until you let go and let people be who they are and understand where they are coming from, nothing will change. Not all stepmoms are goldiggers or devious evil creatures. I think all stepchildren no matter the age will do anything to have the attention of who they love the most..their parents... Most kids just wish that their mom and dad were together no matter how horrible the marriage was. As for inheritence issues. My husband has split everything equally between his children and myself and I have a will that provides for my own biological children as well. They are his children and like me with mine, he loves them, feels guilty, but is connected in a way that no husband or wife can be connected...the bond of a parent and child is unique and I think the strongest bond a person can have. If everyone could just stop for a minute and put themselves in the other persons shoes, it might be easier to understand what the other has gone through. It took me years to understand that this wasn't a competition for affection, and that I was the adult, and could let go and do the only thing that I have asked them to do, BE CIVIL. Given time, we all grow up.

"Do you think CP, mom, could ask that half the life insurance be hers to care for SD? He probably needs a larger life insurance policy or maybe one listing SD as beneficiary"

HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would fight tooth and nail. If, God forbid, my dh were to die he would leave me with a 1 million dollar policy and a seperate 100,000 policy. I am married to him. We have a family together, cars, house, and bills. I would need the money to pay the bills and get myself up on my feet as he is the primary bread winner. If his ex came after me for money I would have her torn up into little peices in court.

I do not think she would do this and i would, however, continue to work with her about child support until SS turned 18. I would pay for his college and I would on my own give him a large portion to have later in life. As long as the CS is paid she should need nothing beyond that and what he would have paid for if he were alive. I do not think that she would be entitled to 500 thousand dollars because she had one child with him ten years ago. I would always make sure he is taken care of, but if she came after me for money she would wish she had not. There is a big difference between giving money and someone demanding money from you.

Adult Children should not be "intitled" to anything. If they are thriving with homes,jobs and families of their own they are set. The spouse however could be left behind with a huge house payment and medical bills depending on the cirumstances. He/She will also now be functioning on ONE income instead of the former two. If the widowed spouse was sharing a household with the deceased he/she should be allowed to keep as much as their old lifestyle as possible. They should not be expected to move out of the house or give up savings or whatever because their spouse dies. Chances are that there wouldn't be alot to split up anyway unless the deceased was wealthy.

I am soul benefactor of what very little Jonathan has. He knows in his heart of hearts that I would continue to do everything in my power for the girls if, God forbid, he ever died. He would never have me tossed in the street to divide the value of our home amongst children though....that's if we ever actually OWN a home:)

"So if Dad marries younger woman, dies 2 year later, you would have SM get house?"

In simple terms....Yes. She should and would. If she was a member of a couple residing in that residence she should not be evicted just because her spouse died. Especially if the kids are grown with homes of their own. Putting someone in the streets when you already have a home IMHO is cruel and the EPITOME of gold digging.

Doodle, you keep ignoring the other sides of this. If SM has her own kids, who do you think is going to inherit when she, and if she is the younger, is likely to be the second to die, dies? And it shouldnt be up to the SM -- as to Mom1SM2 -- there is a difference between kids having to grovel to SM or otherwise watch all, including what dad worked for go to SM kids. That decision should not be left up to SM.

I still do not believe it is right to evict a person from their homes because of the death of a spouse. There is no way you can re-word that to sound good. It is what it is. You are booting a person out of their home just because their spouse died so the assets can be divided amongst children who presumably already have a home. That's terrible.

So if J was to die, Layla and I should have to move out of our home so the assets can be divided between all three kids? We should be evicted? I should be punished and forced to be homeles because my husband dies?

I'm sorry. I don't think so.

If SM is the wife than she gets the inheritance. If exwife had put in money towards any investments or insurance than I would assume that would have been handled during the divorce. It may suprise you to know, KKNY, that even though most of us are SMs our role in life is not singularly defined by this. We are actually wives and "real" mothers who want happy lives.

If a man marries a woman after his children are grown than I suppose it is up to him to decide who would get his inheritance. If my dad died today, God forbid, I would not expect a dime of his money. It would rightfully belong to his wife and she should use it to enjoy her life. I am an adult! You, KKNY,are just so insanely jaded that it is crazy. All SMs are not evil people lurking around waiting for their spouse to die so they can reap all the benefits and say screw you to the skids. Get over it.

"as to Mom1SM2 -- there is a difference between kids having to grovel to SM or otherwise watch all, including what dad worked for go to SM kids. That decision should not be left up to SM."

Did it ever occur to you that said father would think his kids need to get up of their knees and get a job???? Again, it is up to the person who has the inheritance to decide who gets it. The decision is not up to the SM it is up to the wife of the deceased who may also be a SM.

*sigh*
Not this thread again... I hated this thread.

Mom1sm2 -- which is exactly why Dad must address in his will. The problem I have is as follows -

1. SM brigade says we get house (which for many middle class people is largest asset).

2. SM says it is up to survivor (of husband and wife) to decide how kids get treated.

Which is why unless Dad wants eventually everything to go SM (who may even remarry) family and kids, he has to address in his will. Which is exactly what my X did. Thaank God. Actually he has right to give limited use to SO after his death, but had chosen to not even move house out of my name. It may suprise you, but many older successful men DO marry eye candy.

" SM brigade says we get house (which for many middle class people is largest asset)."

KKNY I am just confused to what the issue is. If the house is all the family has why take that from the deceased's survivng family if his kids are grown and already have homes? I don't understand? Who would WANT to put a person whoes spouse just died out in the street?

I don't get at all what you are getting at. If I owned a home with Jonathan and we both had paid on the upkeep, mortgage and insurance together why should I have to give that home up if he dies? Should I sell my car we both pay for as well? What about our joint savings that we have scrimped for together? Should that be up for grabs too?

I'm glad I am married to J and not someone with the opposite mind set or I would be out in the streets in the event of his death.

Ummmm... what about, dad dies, sm stays in house until she dies, then bio kids get the house? Happens all the time. No one is kicked out into the street, but it's not sm's to sell etc.

"Ummmm... what about, dad dies, sm stays in house until she dies, then bio kids get the house? Happens all the time. No one is kicked out into the street, but it's not sm's to sell etc."

EXACTLY! And then it can be dvided amongst ALL the children. That would be the fair way to do it. You can state in your will that everything goes to spouse and in the event of his/her death assets are to be divid up amongst ALL remaining children of BOTH spouses. That would be Even Steven.

In your situation, what I think might be fair is house for life to you (asssuming J dies first), and then upon your death, split between all children (in %s that the two of you agree to). Every situation is different.