• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Another Awkward Family Situation

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? AZ

Would like everyone's take on this situation. Sorry for its length. But would you grab a cup of coffee and give this a read through, and let me know what you think?

=============

My mother has been married 3 times. Most recently her third marriage, 9 years ago at age 60. I am her only son of 35 years, and her only direct family.

Prior to her marriage, she designated me as beneficiary on her $300,000... 401k account.

Upon marrying, her third husband signed her name as beneficiary on everything he had. He did not create a will, or an estate plan, or a trust of any kind. Just signed her name as bene. She was given the opportunity to do the same, but sent a letter back commenting that she did not wish to change beneficiaries, but instead wanted to consult an estate planning attorney and discuss putting together an intelligent plan.

The husband held a very high paying job, and the day they married, he was laid off. He owned a house with $700k in equity. He had $350,000 in severance and his last year's pay. This was the picture she was looking at when she said she wanted to put a plan in place.

Unfortunately, that financial picture quickly changed. The husband never bothered to get another job. Despite repeated requests both from her, and myself, he opted to sit at home for not one year, but two years, three years, and four years - claiming the "job market was bad". Pretending he "couldnt find a job".

His son commented to me "Dad will do anything in his power not to have to work. He hates working. It was a major stress point in his previous marriage."

During this time, instead of working and bringing in income, he chose to spend his savings on their living expenses. Also during this time, for some reason - he assumed my mother had signed all her things over to him as beneficiary. For some reason, the entire 9 year marriage, he never bothered to ask her if she did. Nor did he check. He just assumed she did because he did.

Another factor. My mother had a terminal illness. It was slow moving, but she suffered blue fingers and rupturing fingertips as well as signficiant physical pain from the autoimmune condition she had. Despite this, she was up every morning in the cold, driving to work while he sat at home comfy in bed. This was a major stress point for me, as well as the fact that he was wasting their financial safety net just so he could sit around and relax all day. While my sick mother worked.

This is why she never put an estate plan in place. Their once huge chunk of $ was quickly becoming little or nothing. She never allowed him to spend her 401k however. And rightly so. She was the only one working.

Unfortunately at age 65, she was diagnosed with Pulmonary Hypertension. At the time we thought she had only a few years to live. My cordial nature quickly went out the door. I told the husband he had 3 months to get a job, or he was going to sell the house, and move her to Phoenix where her symptoms seemed to clear up. I made no qualms about the fact that my mother was no longer going to work while he sat at home.

They sold the house. Used $300k to buy a new $600k house in Phoenix. Pocketed the remaining $300k. The picture at that time was - $300k of his and $300k of hers.

Unfortunately again, he still refused to get a job. He decided it was a great time for him to retire. So from year 5 to year 9 of their marriage, they nearly depleted the remaining $300k of his money. Again - this is because his was not taxable and hers was. And because she was the only one who worked.

Three years ago my mother took out $150,000 in life insurance policies and put his name as sole beneficiary on them. On her existing policies she removed me as beneficiary and put him instead. She attempted to take out more, but was unable to, due to her health condition.

By the time 2009 rolled around, they had almost nothing in savings left, except her $300,000 401k ....

On Christmas of this past year, she died.

I was informed by their financial advisor that I was named as sole beneficiary on her $300,000 ...401k.

This is when the husband found out for the first time that his assumption was wrong. She had not left it to him. He said it was like a bucket of ice water being poured over his head. He commented that he wonders if their whole marriage was a "sham". He was livid. His entire savings was going to be taken from him, and half of his (social security) income was going to be stopped. He was concerned how he would support himself and keep from going into bankruptcy. He fears that he cant make the house payments, and will be out on the street (despite having 3 sons and a huge family who would support him).

More importantly, he states that they spent all his money and none of hers. That he has to believe it was an oversight on her part to leave her son that money, or else he has to believe that she used him and deceived him for all those years. One of his sons called her a "Gold digging scumbag" if she truly left her money to me instead of his Dad. They all strongly feel that their dad spent all his money through the marriage, and she spent none of hers, and now it was all being taken from him and given to me.

My feeling is that my mother is the only one who worked. And that it was his personal decision to waste his savings, despite repeated warnings from me and her that he get a job and not deplete the financial safety net. THis is *exactly* what we were afraid would happen. I had no idea my mom left me as beneficiary. She had no intentions of dying anytime soon, and he feels she was planning to put something else in place, but never got around to it. I simply dont know what to believe, or what to do. I have received countless insulting, hateful emails from his son, and other emails of better quality from other family members begging me to give him the money. The financial advisor told me he was blowing through it so fast that there would be no way $300k would be left by the time he died.

He absolutely rejects the possibility that a mother would leave her savings to her son instead of to him. While I was grieving the loss of my mother, he retained an attorney and began working behind the scenes to find ways to get the money put into his name instead.

He stated that they had brainstorming conversations 2 or 3 years ago about leaving 50% of her savings to me and 50% of her savings to his sons. And leaving all $300k to him until he died. However, she never put anything in writing, and never followed through.

So now we are in a huge bind. And im not sure what to do. I have no desire to hurt him, but I hate that he made my mother work - while sick - well into her retirement years as he sat on his *ss at home and contributed nothing. His sons tell me I am out of my mind - that he had a very high paying job and contributed hundreds of thousands to the marriage from *before* he got laid off. I commented that is irrelevant because he depleted it so that he wouldn't have to work. Nobody could force him to work. And he summarily ignored us with a big smile on his face the entire time we pleaded with him to get a job and NOT spend his savings.

At the same time, the guy is in a real financial bind now. My mother was my only family. And i mean ONLY FAMILY. From my birth until now, she was the only person in my life. I have no living father and I am currently alone in this world - literally. Not married, no other close family of any kind. Distant relatives all comment that she did not "forget". That she took out those life insurance policies for him and the IRA was for me.

I just dont know what to do. I feel evil harming a widower. But I dont know what my mom was thinking. Was this her wish? Why didnt he ever talk to her about it? Why did he just assume? Was she planning on changing it but never did? I am still so angry that he made her work. There is no doubt that shortened her life. She died at 69. Ive lost my only family in the entire world, when she should have been around another 15 years.

Thanks for any opinions.
 


cyjeff

Senior Member
You know what her wishes were.

You may do with the money as YOU wish.

Before you come down too heavily on the husband, remember that YOU didn't ask either.
 

ShyCat

Senior Member
Prior to her marriage, she designated me as beneficiary on her $300,000... 401k account.
That she took out those life insurance policies for him and the IRA was for me.
First you called it a 401(k), then an IRA. Which is it? Was her 401(k) account rolled over to an IRA?

Per ERISA, absent a notarized waiver from the spouse, a spouse is always the beneficiary of a 401(k) account regardless of contrary beneficiary designations.
 
Last edited:
First you called it a 401(k), then an IRA.
Sorry, I think its an IRA.

absent a notarized waiver from the spouse, a spouse is always the beneficiary of a 401(k) account regardless of contrary beneficiary designations
If its an IRA would that make a difference? That seems odd though. A third husband who happened on the scene at age 60 has priority over an only son who has been designated beneficiary for years? I should note - this is a community property state, but 80% of her IRA was created before she knew him.

Before you come down too heavily on the husband, remember that YOU didn't ask either
I can't imagine why I would have asked. I would consider that to be none of my business. If I were married to her however, it seems odd that they didn't discuss it even once.

I guess the legality of the issue is not really in question. He and I both know that he doesn't have a case. Im mostly asking from a moral standpoint. It helps to hear people's feedback.
 
Last edited:

milehightrustee

Junior Member
OP,

I am the Trustee of a fairly large Trust. I am NOT an attorney. As Beneficiary the money is yours. Morally speaking, the money is yours in my opinion from what you have said. I truly believe that money was meant to be given to you from your mother. The third husband is a lazy sob and he has made his own grave. It is not YOUR responsibility to take care of him. His children seem to know his type and therefore they want the money so THEY won't have to take care of his lazy ass.

My advice, take YOUR money and since you are single with no ties, relocate and cut all ties with this third husband and his family. Life is too short. You should have a clear conscience on this. You sound like a very good person to me and believe me I have dealt with some real scum in my life. Put these people in your rear view mirror and don't look back. Get new Email address, phone, etc.

I would be proud to have a son like you. You seem very honest and concerned about doing the right thing. Honor your mother by doing something constructive with the money and I am sure you will. I am very sorry for your loss. I have been there and there was a time in my life when I was all alone, just me.
 
Thank you for the response. I re-read my original post and I realize I wrote it with some bias. I actually did not want to do that because I value unbiased feedback. I should have left out some personal opinions and just stated the facts. Let me see if I can add some information to this equation which I think he and his sons might say if they were to chime in here. Let me know if it makes any difference to the equation.

First off, he loved my mother more than any of the previous husbands. He was the first person in her life who actually treated her right. The only one who selflessly cared for her on an emotional level. When she was sick, he did what he could to be there for her. Always giving kisses on the cheek, which she never had from anyone in the past. I believe she was finally truly happy with him, despite his imperfections. I will always be thankful to him for that.

They blew through a lot of money because that was his way of showing that he cared for her. One of his ways, I mean. She never asked for it, nor expected it, but he wanted to give her the best. Again - a decision he made. Unfortunately combining that form of "love" (generosity) with not being willing to work, resulted in significant amounts of money being depleted.

His family took strong issue with my statement that he was lazy. But I have a difficult time reconciling (1) The fact that I saw him deliberately avoid work for 5 years, blatantly and summarily ignoring all of our concerns and pleas that he find a job (2) His son's comments to me that he will avoid work at all costs and (3) statements from others who said he actually worked very hard his whole life. I wasn't there, so I can't comment. All I know is that he could have gotten a job and just kept making excuses.

They state that he was an upper level exec, familiar with making $150k+ per year. This meant that he would only work again if he could find another such job. At his age he was unable to just start out that high. They were hiring young blood for such positions. Nevertheless, I just cant get it out of my head that he would still have all his savings today if he'd even gotten an entry level job making $50k a year somewhere. Its not in my personality to play "God" and execute judgment on someone. I dont like rubbing people's faces in things. So its very uncomfortable for me to say "These are your consequences!" But I can't get it out of my mind.

The last position they are taking is that he viewed their money as joint money. It wasnt his and hers once they married. (even though he regularly refers to it that way now). As such, he never assigned ownership to the funds they had in savings, and never mentally fathomed that it wouldn't be his to keep. This is stemming from his assumption that she had signed everything over to him, like he had done for her. Additionally, had he had spent my moms IRA all those years instead of his own, there would be no IRA to give to me today. But I know my mom. Very well. She wouldn't have let him touch her savings while she was the only one bothering to work. The decision to spend ANY savings at all, was his alone. The decision not to work, was his alone. We tried (and failed) to stop him from spending his savings. In any case - when the whole "pool" of money is viewed as "Ours", depleting all but 300k of it doesn't seem so risky. If the pool of money was viewed as "his or hers" he may have felt more pressure to - get a job. To keep his savings in tact. Which brings us full circle to the viewpoint he has that he is a victim of having been "tricked" or "fooled" or mislead.

Those are their comments to me, and his comments as welll. I dont know if they are relevant to the situation or just side-issues.

I understand his viewpoint, and his family's viewpoint.
 
Last edited:

ShyCat

Senior Member
If its an IRA would that make a difference?
Probably. I don't know if any states impose the same restriction. 401(k)s are controlled by Federal law (ERISA) which protects the spouse.

That seems odd though. A third husband who happened on the scene at age 60 has priority over an only son who has been designated beneficiary for years?
The reasoning is that people have a legal duty to support their spouse, not adult children.
 

Dandy Don

Senior Member
The money is yours and you should not have an ounce of guilt for receiving it. In fact, you are very lucky to get what you got. It's hard to understand how he could have gotten the beneficiary designations changed unless his wife had granted him a power of attorney. Would she have had any reasons for granting him a POA (did she suffer from any disease or was she taking medications that would have affected her mental competency?) or is it possible he got it under undue pressure/duress? Is it possible he could be guilty of abuse of POA? Did he ever provide an official accounting of any monies he spent on her personal/medical care/living expenses?

IF he is a former high level executive he will be able to bounce back and use his skills somewhere.
 
The reasoning is that people have a legal duty to support their spouse, not adult children.
That's interesting. I hadn't ever really thought of it that way. In fact the whole family on my mothers side took the opposite view on that. Stating to me very sternly that her obligation was to ensure her only son was provided for. That the 3rd husband is a "fully grown man" and can take care of himself. Its interesting how the same situation can be viewed with such opposite perceptions. What you're saying basically means that at some point (when the child turns 18?) the law considers the child *more capable* of supporting himself, than the fully capable spouse is. That's interesting reasoning, because both are fully capable adults. Not just the child. I'd be interested in understanding the philosophy behind it. Maybe some assumptions are in place. Such as age of the parent - being retired and not able to work, which is not the case here.

It's hard to understand how he could have gotten the beneficiary designations changed unless his wife had granted him a power of attorney.
Actually 4 years ago my mom went and made the beneficiary changes herself. Manually changed it from me to him. Put him as primary and me as secondary. She even took out a new policy just for him at that time. Notably, she did not at that time change her IRA beneficiary designation to his name. This is a huge factor in why I feel the life insurance policies were to go to him, and the IRA to me. In her mind.

IF he is a former high level executive he will be able to bounce back and use his skills somewhere
He is a former high level exec. I know that to be true. And we've been waiting 9 years for him to bounce back and use his skills. Instead, he decided to retire ... at age ... 57. While my mom continued to work until she was 65. He's older now though. And i dont know if a 67 year old can get a job like that anymore. I still can't get it out of my head that he could have gotten a $50k a year job and he'd still have over $500,000 in personal savings left. Im sorry if pride was an issue but that just seems insane to me.

The money is yours and you should not have an ounce of guilt for receiving it.
You're the 900th person who has said that to me. And I appreciate it. I guess the guilt is moreso in the numbers. I own an extremely successful business. But I have worked my butt off the last 12 years. My income is fairly high. When I look at his financial picture, if I take the IRA from him, its somewhat bleak. But only because he wasn't just living off the interest. He was dipping into it, against the advice of his financial advisor, to the tune of $2,000-$4000 per month. So taking this IRA means a reduction of more than $2,000-$4000 of "income" per month for him.

If he keeps that IRA - at the rate he has been going, it wont exist in 7 years. Let alone be fully in-tact when he dies, to be split between myself and his sons. This was another big factor for me to consider. It doesn't matter who has the IRA, if he was planning to keep it fully in-tact right? So taking the IRA doesnt put him "out on the street" and "force him into bankruptcy" like he claims, does it? Therein lies another major inconsistency.

But this is where guilt, if there is any, would stem from. His current monthly financial picture with the IRA gone. I emailed him offering to help cover mortgage payments. Help him find a successful short sale agent to help him sell the house. Help him avoid financial pressures and stay afloat. I requested his current income and expense details. He refused to send it to me. Instead sent me a 2 page email repeating himself about how they'd "spent all his money" and "none of hers" over the last 9 years. I asked him to focus on the future not the past. I was ignored. His daughter in law called and said not to assign labels or try to control where the money goes. That he probably doesnt want to be supported by me. And that he probably would refuse to do a short sale (the only logical thing for him to do) because he has very high morals about defaulting on loans. He doesnt think its morally right, and doesnt want to affect his credit. So i tried, but hit roadblocks everywhere for what I feel are incredibly stupid reasons. I don't comprehend having pride issues like that, so I don't get why he'd refuse. Feels like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

He just wrote me a note saying "Just send me a check. Or dont".

I just feel bad in general. Its not my job to decide someone's fate. And that's what im struggling with. Im in no position to be making this decision for someone elses life. He has $120,000 in life insurance policies he will be getting, and $80,000 left in his own IRA. I suppose he can continue to dip into those "way too much" and live fine for awhile. I tried to get his financial info and i offered to help. But i just dont write blank checks.

Sorry for rambling. I know this is a law forum. I appreciate you putting up with this thread.
 

curb1

Senior Member
He is also getting about $1600 per month in Social Security.

The more I think about it, they really didn't handle money well. It is hard to feel too sorry for people who are economically irresponsible.
 
Last edited:

ShyCat

Senior Member
That's interesting. I hadn't ever really thought of it that way. In fact the whole family on my mothers side took the opposite view on that. Stating to me very sternly that her obligation was to ensure her only son was provided for. That the 3rd husband is a "fully grown man" and can take care of himself. Its interesting how the same situation can be viewed with such opposite perceptions. What you're saying basically means that at some point (when the child turns 18?) the law considers the child *more capable* of supporting himself, than the fully capable spouse is. That's interesting reasoning, because both are fully capable adults. Not just the child. I'd be interested in understanding the philosophy behind it. Maybe some assumptions are in place. Such as age of the parent - being retired and not able to work, which is not the case here.
It has nothing to do with which adult is "more capable" of supporting himself. The fact is that at a certain age set by each state, people no longer have a legal responsibility for -- or legal authority over -- adult children (unless they are disabled). Should your mother have been liable for your debts as an adult if she was "more capable" of paying than you? Why not, you'll always be her child after all, no matter what age... right?

Marriage is a legal partnership with both rights and responsibilities to each other. When two people join together for mutual support (aka marriage), they have the same legal obligations to their third spouse as they did to their first. Legally, they have a greater duty to their spouse than their adult (non-disabled) children.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top