'AITA for telling my husband if I pass away and he gets remarried the kids get more money?'

"AITA if I pass before my husband and then he gets remarried, then I want half of my retirement fund to go to our children and he keeps the other half."

Right now we share accounts and all our finances and everything. If I happen to pass before him, I told him he would get everything. 100%. But, if he decides to get remarried, I wanted half of my retirement fund to go to him then half to our children- whenever that might be; 1 day after my passing or 20 years after my passing.

He got upset that he wouldn’t get the whole thing even if he remarries. I said his new wife should have her own retirement plan for him to share. If she doesn’t, that’s not my problem. He should have picked a second wife that was financially responsible.

I’ve worked hard for decades to build up my retirement, I don’t want his new wife to take advantage of all that I’ve worked for and use it up and leave nothing for my children. AITA for suggesting this? I told him if he passed, I would be ok with getting 50% if I remarried. But he doesn’t feel the same way.

WANTED TO ADD: I’m not trying to punish him for remarrying. I don’t want the new wife to take advantage of our finances and not give my kids what should belong to them. After my husband dies, she could possibly get everything that even belonged to me and she could give it to her own kids and totally ignore my kids.

And he does have his own retirement fund, probably has more than me. By the time we retire, my account will probably have more than him though.

The internet kept it honest in the comment section.

coolerbeans1981 wrote:

NTA. Good for you to be looking after your priorities (your children).

Can you look into a will that puts half your money into trusts for them and have someone other than your husband manage the trusts?

"I said his new wife should have her own retirement plan."

100%. Your death shouldn't be him winning the lotto, whether he remarries or not.

OP responded:

Exactly. I want our kids to get something when I/we pass. If we need all our retirement for our care because of sickness etc, then that’s different. But if there’s anything left over, I want them to have it too.

Pristine_Nectarine19 wrote:

Talk to an estate lawyer and set up a trust.

OP responded:

I plan to do that. 👍 I have a family member that something similar is happening to her. Once step kids get involved, they’re gonna want their share and leave my kids with a small percentage of what they SHOULD get.

Thin_Arrival3525 wrote:

NTA. I’ve actually talked with my husband about how to manage money if I die first because I know a couple of people who have died and their new spouse (ahem, their new wife) has withheld everything from the children, including pictures or even a piece of clothing from their parent after they passed.

It was straight up greedy and evil.

Maybe it makes me a bad person but I don’t want my money funding some new woman’s lifestyle. I certainly wouldn’t spend my husband’s money on a new man. 🤷‍♀️

FishermanHoliday1767 wrote:

Just leave your children 50%. Expecting them to retroactively open the settlement is ridiculous.

Kit_Ryan wrote:

I don’t understand how this is supposed to work. Say you pass at 60. He then gets 100% of your retirement fund. He then uses that money along with his own funds, to, say, live on and buy a home in a sunny place and to pay for health care when some issue comes up at age 75, that sort of thing. Then, at 88, with 3/4 of both retirement savings spent, he meets and marries a nice 86 year old.

Your estate’s been settled for over 25 years at this point and the money’s mostly gone! Are your children supposed to sue him at this point for that 50%? Does this include interest? If he’s spent more than 50% because of, for example, a successful fight against cancer or heart disease that ate up a bunch of money, should your children leave their 88 year old father destitute in order to carry out your wishes?

I don’t think this is plausible unless you put the retirement accounts in a trust with the provision that husband has use of the funds in the trust until either his passing or remarriage at which point the trust goes to your children. Even then, I’m not sure there’s any way to both give him 100% use/access at your passing and be able to reserve 50% to be given to the kids in the event of his marriage.

Logistically, to achieve a similar result, there’s two options I can think of: first, set up the funds in a trust and husband gets access to 50% immediately and 50% after a certain age, like 80, with the second 50% or whatever remains if less than 50% remains, going to the children at the time of his remarriage (and of course any remaining amount to the children in the event of his death). Option 2 is pretty mean.

Set up a trust (I can’t think how you have any post-death control without one anyway). Make your kids the executor(s) and co beneficiaries with husband they get to decide what’s a valid use of the funds.

Option 2 is mostly a joke as it basically ensures your legacy is infighting between your loved ones. Either way, whether or not you’d be the a-hole, you should see a financial/estate planner (as should most people).

LittleFairyofDe*th wrote:

You seem… awfully controlling about this. Like you are fine if your kids don’t get anything unless he remarries? That just seems like punishing him for finding someone else, not like you are doing it for your kids. Why wouldn’t they get half either way? That is just weird.

And in a comment you said you would want him to get some either way because "he has been a good husband"? He isn’t your sugar baby. He is your partner. Your attitude is super creepy and the reason I vote YTA.