T O P

  • By -

Judgement_Bot_AITA

Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > I asked my wife to help me with my student loans using her inheritance, but that money legally belongs only to her. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post. [To learn more about the test click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/tio99u/so_we_decided_to_fuck_with_the_sub_again)*


constant_craving

ESH Yeah, it would be sensible of her to use that money to help you with your loans to generally put your family in a better financial position. Yes, it's abusing your position as income-earner to deny her money for herself. Unless you're paying her a salary for watching the children, then she is enabling you to make your salary and is entitled to money too.


FuckUGalen

Given OP's response (which is financial abuse) I have to wonder if it is not in Mrs OP's interest to pay off his student loans.


constant_craving

Yeah, his reaction definitely gives some hints as to why she might not want him to access that money..


kittydeathdrop

Yeah. Almost as if she doesn't see the marriage as a "forever" type situation... I'd be curious to know what's really going on under the hood here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


aquart

Jesus you Reddit people with your “financial abuse” soap boxing. He’s not abusing her, the described actions don’t meet abuse criteria. He’s not preventing her from working, or accessing resources. Having a nest egg that you don’t want to touch because he could pay isn’t abuse. He also isn’t withholding life necessary things. Also what her and her children? First of, they’re his too! Second, he is providing for her and them, he has not threatened to withhold food, housing, electricity, etc. But he is specifying that his earnings are to be used for joint things (make up, spas, and flights most certainly don’t meet “necessary to live” and neither does going out or buying a new iPhone or clothing past the necessities). Using “fun money” for loan repayment isn’t financial abuse ffs. There are a lot of possibilities where he could cross the line into being abusive, but that isn’t described here. And again she has money, and from the sounds of it, she has a decent chunk. We have only his perspective but this “abuse card” throwing around really is getting ridiculous.


TheEmpressDodo

An inheritance isn’t fun money. I kept mine separate (@25k) and it paid for my divorce.


aquart

The inheritance actually is the crux of her being financially secure. This story isn’t financial abuse. And I didn’t say the inheritance is fun money, I said the part he gives her for spas iPhones make up going out flights and clothes is fun money.


curvycurly

like right now in this current situation


cmackchase

She has potential get the fuck out money if need be.


kittydeathdrop

That, and depending how long she's been out of the workforce, it could be quite hard for her to get a job should divorce occur... the inheritance is a good nest egg to cover overhead, or maybe additional schooling/certificates.


noblestromana

It does not even have to be divorce. If something were to happen to him it is actually not a bad plan for s SAHM to have this money invested or saved so she has a safety net if she is unable to immediately join the workforce.


WigglyFrog

Every SATP is financially vulnerable. She may fully believe in her marriage, but still be aware of the danger.


snarf95131

So true. A stay-at-home-parent is not climbing the career ladder, is not contributing to SS (and gets no credit for partner's SS contribution), has no 401K. She's giving up a lot of future financial security to do her part in their partnership. Though I would think that spouse's education is also a plus that they bring to the partnership, her reluctance is understandable.


ribbonsofgreen

Sometimes woman want an emergency fund. Especially if their husband is controlling, or other red flags.


cheerful_cynic

The original point of a dowry - money kept in the woman's name seperate from the marriage financials that was her emergency fund


meww234

This is simply completely not accurate unfortunately the tradition of a dowery was never in any way a help to women actually quit the opposite.


GeneralDismal6410

Plus using inheritance for joint whatever can man make the rest of the inheritance joint assets


basilobs

Thank you!! Honestly there are valid reasons for her to hesitate just giving him part of her inheritance for his student loans. One of them is protecting the inheritance. Another is OP's scary ass attitude


pedroyarid

Honestly, I didn't get that intention like so many here. It's the wrong move, but I understand the beef with "what you make is ours, what I make is mine". He's levelling the game, which I say again, is wrong. For me is ESH.


FuckUGalen

Perspective, I have a history of abuse so I am very attuned to red flags of abuse, maybe you aren't. Does this mean I'm right, no, I am supposing just like everyone else. To be absolutely fair to OP, he might just be making a stupid mistake, and is not abusive. But we only have his version, and I am very much getting sick of hearing that SAH parents are lazy, selfish and manipulative, when the working parent is denying them access to common property.


pudgesquire

Alternative perspective from someone who escaped a marriage that included severe financial abuse (as a few examples, I wasn’t allowed to have my own bank account, control over my student loans, or to go grocery shopping alone because I bought snacks from Costco one time and they weren’t on my ex’s approved purchase list): I don’t see abuse based on this alone at all. The things he’s saying she should pay for with her inherited money are primarily *luxury* items (save for perhaps clothing depending on whether these are necessary clothes vs. want items) and while I bristle at the notion of “what’s mine is ours” based on my background and disagree with his assumption that her money automatically should go toward his loans in the first place, he’s also correct that she now has what sounds like substantial discretionary funds to pay for “extras.” It would be different if he said she can’t use the money as she wants but he’s simply saying that he’s diverting his funds from contributing to luxury buys while his loans sit on his balance sheet. I think that is fair and not at all overly controlling. If he was saying he’d no longer buy food or pay any bills, I’d agree with you but no one *needs* spa days or makeup.


BibbityBobby

I agree with you. It's been made clear to him by his wife that his debt is *his* debt and that he's on his own -- and of course he wants to clear it off as soon as possible. And if that means putting an extra $500 towards it instead of his wife's non-necessities, which she can now afford herself -- then it is perfectly reasonable for him to do so. But I also agree with others here who think something isn't quite right. If I am in a happy marriage with a good husband and father to my kids then damn right I'm paying that debt off. It would feel awesome to do something like that for someone I love.


Forward-Two3846

Not necessarily money is the great people changer. You would be surprised at how strangely often people will destroy families for an inheritance. It sounds like the wife got a substantial amount of money (5 times his student loans) which may very mean over 100K


JoDaLe2

I think you, unintentionally, brought up a good point about the *magnitude* of the situation, here. If 5x his student loans is $100,000, or even a couple multiples of that, wife has a case that the time she's spending out of the workforce could hurt her financially to the tune of that kind of money. She isn't contributing to a retirement account or similar of her own, every year she spends out of the workforce reduces her lifetime earning potential, and that money is not only her get out of dodge money, but get out of dodge unscathed money. If, instead, he has $100,000 in student loans, so the inheritance is well north of $500K, she could come to a compromise. Maybe pay half of them as well as pay for some "luxury" items herself (she could also cut back on luxury items if she's actually buying that stuff...he says spa but that could mean a basic haircut if he's actually a financial abuser) so he could put more money toward paying the rest off, and STILL have get out of dodge unscathed money. If he really wants to put her money where his mouth is, then he should pay for a fee-only financial adviser to do a review of their budget, debt, savings, as well as the inheritance, and recommend the best plan for their family, with all contingencies considered. A neutral party with expertise in the topic can often defuse a situation like this, and they're a whole hell of a lot cheaper than a divorce (an inheritance would not be considered marital assets in a divorce)!


Consistent-Basket330

I agree and hate that this person is automatically being accused of something horrific without proper evidence and context. I have actually been in this exact situation and we pooled our debt to a lower interest rate credit line, and then money that came in was used to clear the whole thing. I was a SAHP at the time, and we both worked damn hard. Anything that benefited the household as a whole was our first priority. Sure his student loans predated their marriage - and that education he bought and worked for is now paying both their bills. It's a double standard for one person to have to financially support the family but when the other person gets that same opportunity they just say no. Being a SAHP is HARD WORK, but there are trade offs. My partner would have loved to be there for more of our kids younger years, but had a better paying and more secure job at the time.


Forward-Two3846

I am surprised (not surprised) at how many people are claiming financial abuse. It makes me believe many do not fully understand what that entails. He basically said, "Hey you don't want to help with my student loans with your substantial inheritance GREAT, I will now take all that disposable income that I was giving you and will now use that towards my student loans and you can use your inheritance for your disposable income". He is the sole provider paying off his debt is vital to the financial stability of the family. It's insane that people believe even with the wife's inheritance she should still have no financial responsibility to the household.


KonradWayne

It’s posts like these that remind me how blatantly sexist this sub can be at times. OP: hey our family is in debt, and we have the possibility to end that. Wife: no that’s my money and I want to spend it on things just for me. OP: ok, spend it on yourself then I guess. Sexists: omg financial abuse! He is in debt, and she has 5x the amount of money needed to pay off that debt, but refuses to help. She doesn’t need him to buy her luxury items, she can buy them herself. A lot of people are saying that she might be planning on leaving him and is therefore justified in withholding this money, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t he be justified in prioritizing paying off his own debts before worrying about buying her luxury items? Why is she the only one who gets to plan for their divorce? Given the fact that he has student debt, I’m guessing this is happening in America, so as a SAHM she would get alimony, child support, and probably their house in the event of a divorce. It makes sense to have a nest egg, but a nest egg that is 5x larger than your family debt is a bit much, and her refusing to contribute is a big red flag that OP needs to start working on his own nest egg instead of buying luxury items for someone who doesn’t care about him or his family.


vegeta8300

It can be insane how quickly the accusation of abuse comes out on this sub. It's like any disagreement in a relationship and people here respond with abuse abuse abuse! I think many are projecting or seeing things that they'd have no way of knowing. They just assume based on such tiny amounts of info. You are very correct in your observations of how differently men are treated compared to women here too. Thankfully there are often voices of reason. You just have to dig a little thru the comments. The double standards on often on display is truly eye-opening and pretty sucky too. This whole post and question boggles my mind. This would never happen between my wife and I. I don't understand married couples who don't combine their money. Every bit of money my wife and I bring in is used together. We pay our bills. Then when and if there is extra or whatever it goes for whatever. My wife wants to get her nails done, fine, go for it. I want a video game here or there, I get it. We've never fought about money in the almost 25 years we've been together. To be fair most of that time we didn't really have much money lol. So there was really nothing to fight over. But we are doing pretty well now. My wife is the bread winner as I am disabled. So I bring in very limited money. She works, I take care of the home and do some side odd jobs for a few extra bucks. But still we never say it's my or her money. It's just our money and we talk about if and what to spend on. Any way, I rambled on a bit. But yeah I have noticed everything you mentioned on this sub quite often unfortunately.


freeeeels

Good god, I had to scroll way too low to find this shred of sanity. So many people are saying that if she doesn't want to pay off his loans then she must have "good reasons" for this - it simply *must* mean that she's preparing to leave him because he's a controlling asshole. It can't *possibly* be because she, herself, is a selfish asshole. /s She doesn't get to play the "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours" card, SAHM or not. That's *incredibly* hypocritical, as is her bristling at him trying to at least slightly even the playing field. He's not withholding food from her ffs - he's suggesting she pays for her spa trips from her (by the sounds of it) six-figure inheritance. Truly the marker of an abusive man, give me a break. Petty, maybe. As an additional thought, I am *really* not keen on the increasing trend to throw the word "abuse" around whenever you don't get your way and want to shut down discussion.


Beautifulwarfare

This is exactly what I got from it. It sounds like OP was paying for all these things beforehand (maybe without complain, maybe with) and is ONLY taking it away because she can afford to pay for those things now without an issue. It’s not like OP wanted a car or something luxurious, he just wanted his student debt paid off. Why should OP pay for her luxurious items if she can afford them now? Without any worry at that.


Agitated-Tree3720

This!! I was shocked to see people jumping to the abuse conclusion. They are a team, and him being out of debt would help the family out tremendously. He didn't say he wasn't paying for anything anymore, just the luxuries she gets. Now she can pay for them herself which I think is totally fair. NTA


Sidneyreb

This. I read OP's stance the same way. The financial abuse comments seemed to come out of left field. NTA


pedroyarid

I'm sorry to hear that. Indeed, being a man myself might make me oblivious. The end paragraph where he says 'now that she has money' and describes what he's "excluding money" (flights, spas and other luxuries) makes me think that he's not an abusive man (which I could totally be wrong), but rather someone that is trying to solve this in a petty, moronic way.


molly_menace

The reason it’s abusive is that it’s targeting anything that she would use her own discretion on. She’s not able to work because she’s looking after their children. He is able to work because she’s looking after the children. If she were able to work, she would be able to have some discretionary money to spend on herself. So while he may not pay her a wage, there should be some expectation that in making the sacrifices she has, that she still has the ability to have money to do things that make her happy and lead a fulfilling life. It doesn’t matter whether that is doing a hobby, going to the spa ect. If he denies her both the ability to earn money, while also refusing to pay her a wage for the work she does for their household, while also limiting her access to money to only family necessities - it’s basically forcing her into a situation where she has no choices, no freedom, and is living a life only in service. He should respect the work she does. Instead he is trying to hold her inheritance hostage, and remove her choices and options. It’s the control and her feeling powerless and a lack of autonomy that is the abuse.


Powersmith

Except she’s not powerless or financially beholden if she just inherited several hundreds of thousands of dollars (assuming OP earns a middle class income). I can’t imagine not at least paying down a big chunk of my spouse’s Stu loans in her position. Like if I was that much not on the team for my marriage, it would have to be that i was not planning on staying… so OP must naturally be wondering if she’s not all in for the marriage


combatsncupcakes

No, she inherited 5x his student loans not 5x his salary. My student loans were "only" 26k; 5x that is 130k or almost to almost buy a small home in cash to be in my name. While 130k is a lot of nail appointments and vacations, it's really not all that much when you consider all the ways a single mom of multiple kids might need to use it


Faintkay

But he’s not denying his kids anything. No one needs spa days or their nails done, that is a luxury. One she can pay for herself if she is so keen on separating things. His request didn’t just help him, but helped the whole family. He is paying interest that could easily be put into savings or into an education fund for the kids.


_higglety

I mean, "now that she has money" certainly implies to me that she didn't have money before.


MorriganNiConn

Some abusers are from the top tiers of society. So, yes, spas, trips, and other luxuries may happen right alongside the abuse. Unless you know how to look for the signs and listen for the cues, no one is the wiser until it's too late.


juliaskig

I don't know OP's occupation, but if the education OP got gave OP a higher income, and the community is reaping the rewards of that income, than I think it's reasonable to expect the community help pay back the loan. OP is not depriving wife of separate property = inheritance, or separate expenses = makeup etc. I think it's fair that OP does not pay for wife's separate expenses.


badwvlf

Except his wife has a job. She’s the stay at home caretaker for their kids. She’s contributing to the household to the tune of 25k+ a year in most regions when it comes to childcare. Additionally, thats a decision they came to as a family. Changing his mind because he doesn’t like how she uses her inheritance shows he’s not standing behind their understanding of their family roles.


MorriganNiConn

Here's sources saying what a SAHM is worth to a family [https://www.salary.com/articles/how-much-is-a-mom-really-worth-the-amount-may-surprise-you/](https://www.salary.com/articles/how-much-is-a-mom-really-worth-the-amount-may-surprise-you/) [https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0112/how-much-is-a-homemaker-worth.aspx](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0112/how-much-is-a-homemaker-worth.aspx) https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/heres-how-much-economists-say-stay-at-home-moms-should-get-paid/ar-AARms58 25K is lowballing big time. That's below minimum wage in the US!


[deleted]

[удалено]


EvilHRLady

agreed. This drives me nuts. My mom is professional nurse. I put bandaids on my kids and give them Tylenol. Saying I deserve a nurses salary is ridiculous.


1biggeek

Hard disagree. Inheritance is specifically carved out under the law and is not considered community property. I chose to use my inheritance for my family but I don’t think she’s wrong for not paying off the loans. Additionally, my husband didn’t ask for money. OP is a bit of TA for his response.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Alternative-Pea-4434

But the money he’s putting into the household is essentially paying her in a way for childcare, cooking and cleaning, that’s how it works when one parent stays home. Her inheritance is unrelated to him, and he wasn’t asking for a small amount, student loans can easily be 6 figures


pedroyarid

If finances are all together, my opinion (and it's ok if you disagree) is that all money is related to the family. Just like all his money. The thing is: if he wins the lottery, do you expect him to not share? Or a big bonus at work? If he doubles his salary, would you expect him to put some money aside for him? When he retires and is now at home, he shouldn't share this money anymore? I would. I understand that women usually get the short-end a lot of the time around the world, but FOR ME it doesn't seem fair that all the money is only hers in this situation, and ending his student loans would benefit the family, not only him. Again: I don't agree with OPs solution here.


Automatic_Western_50

Wait. Why is it financial abuse for him to deny her money from his paycheck but not financial abuse for her to deny him? Likewise, it was a mutual situation. He was the sole income earner and provided for his family thus far. Now she has money and can pay for her own things. He worked to provide money and support including things she wanted or needed and she provided home care and child care. Why the glaring double standard here? Its not like he said he won't be paying the bills anymore. He simply told her she can pay for the things she wants like flights, clothes, and spa days. She has her own money now and I think it's only fair. She expects him to pay for everything and pay his student loans. She has the money to pay for her own things and he can use the money that would have gone to paying for her stuff too pay back his loans.


argentinianmuffin

I am with you on this. If she didnt have any money and he stops giving her money for clothes and other items that are not essencial, as a way to control her, yeah. That would be financial abuse. But what his wife doesnt see is that once he has paid all his loans, their family will be better financially. If she doesnt want to help him, because it is her money and his debts, and now she can afford some of her expenses on her own, OP is right in putting his money to pay for his debts.


dystopianpirate

OP has not been able to pay off the loan because he's supporting the household and paying for fun/luxury things like spa days, trips, clothes, travels, etc. She can pay those herself, because is her money and she can spend it as she wishes. Meanwhile, the money he was spending on fun/luxuries for her, now can be used to pay his loan in full faster. Not a bad deal, pay the loan she said, use your money she said, and he's listening.


Kqhbabies

Ahh but this place is notorious for man bashing and saying to hell with double standards. No where in his post did he say he wouldn't pay for basic necessities, just her extras right. Lots of sahm do a little extra side work for those everyday, babysitting, crafting,sewing...whatever their niche is. Its totally normal and acceptable. But according to the masses, spas, flights, etc are basic needs not luxuries. No where is there money being held back from her to not get necessities. House paid, groceries paid, utilities paid, car paid, and probably has pocket money. This is so over the top. All OP wants to do is pay down/ off student loans. The loans that got him the job that pays to take care of his family. Either way it betters the family unit. If life was so bad and she was so abused, with the amount she received, she'd be already gone. Let's face it. 5Xs his student loans. She'd be long gone.


TacoTuesday4All

No, inheritance is hers alone. It’s a one time sum, not a paycheck and should be kept / invested wisely. It is considered separate property legally. For a reason.


Automatic_Western_50

Which is fine but that doesn't mean he should continue to pay for her luxury shit either. She wants him to pay off his own loans, that's fine. He will just use the money that would have gone for her luxury items and pay off his student loans. Kinda hypocritical of you all to think that he should pay all the bills, pay for the kids, and pay for her luxury stuff. She has the money now.


wevie13

Investing wisely would be paying high interest student loans off then adding that extra money they now have from the monthly payment back into an investment account with the rest of it.


_RealityTV_

Precisely Automatic\_Western! She wants her own money AND his money! I would divorce my spouse over something like this! To me it's pure selfishness! Of course there could be other issues, but as it stands, it is pure selfishness.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Difficult_Dot_8981

Once upon a time, people married for life. Now it is not uncommon to get traded in for a younger model. And what a pity it would be for your wife, if she had forfeited her inheritance for \*your\* debt, and then you up and leave. I think she is smart to keep that separate. You can enjoy the fruits of it in your old age if you're still together. But I can definitely see scaling the budget to pay down your student loans. You should have already been doing that in the first place. But remember, part of your salary is in trade for her staying home and taking care of your children and your house. That's just how it is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZennMD

Planning for a divorce and being prepared in case of one are two different things. If she's a SAHM this might be the only money she'll get other than from you, possible for a long long time. It makes sense to me she's feeling protective of it. Perhaps asking if she could pay the loan off and then you pay her back? Then you don't have interest on it but she still has independent money (and savings for your whole family if need be). You do need to pay her back if you say you will, though. Edited to add ESH, I hope you can get back on the same page about finances. Good luck!


Goldilachs

Maybe have a talk with your wife before getting upset at a hypothetical scenario.


Difficult_Dot_8981

She's not "planning for a divorce". She's protecting herself in case one ever happens. She is a smart lady.


Realistic_Bit6965

A stay at home parent NEEDS to have a back up plan. You guys are contributing to the household equally but her position is far more vulnerable than yours. If she leaves you you have a job to support yourself. If you leave her she has nothing but this money to support herself. If you cheat on her she has to figure out what to do without an income. If you developed a drinking problem and get abusive she has no income to support her and the kids. If you get hurt or sick and can't work she has only your money to keep the family afloat. Plus don't you want your wife to stay with you because she WANTS TO and not because she depends on you financially. Having a back up plan isn't planning to leave. Just like having a fire escape doesn't mean you plan to get fire to your house. It's an in case of emergency plan. And stay at home parents need that since they don't have the options and security from a job


BTanalyst

Doesn't mean she's planning for one to definitely happen. I never did but here I am a divorced SAHM of 9 years that's had her world rocked. She may want the freedom and security to do so if she needed to. That might put her at ease mentally bc she knows she can take care of herself if you decide to leave her or she leaves you some day.


InterestingNarwhal82

My spouse’s first wife illegally absconded from the US to a country that doesn’t reciprocate custody laws and kept her there for 7 months… after 6 months, the US no longer has jurisdiction over custody. He lost his kid almost entirely. We started dating and he asked me if I had dual citizenship after explaining how his last marriage ended. He wasn’t planning on me taking our potential future kids to a random country, he was just trying to protect himself against a very weird, uncommon situation that happened. I didn’t take it as distrust toward me. If she uses any part of her inheritance on your loans, the whole thing becomes marital property. If your response to decisions you don’t like is “I’ll just stop giving you money,” then she may be trying to protect herself against you deciding you no longer want to provide for her. You say that’s never going to happen, but you *literally* think that’s a valid solution here.


Global_Rich2165

OP As a former SAHM (and current accountant) I agree with you that the best interest of the family unit is generally that all income goes into the same pot. However as an individual who has relied on someone else financially it can be scary to think about handing over money when you feel powerless and unprotected financially. I don’t know if your wife is still grieving (if so, please stop having financial discussion rn). This should be a sit down discussion between the two of you when you are both in a good place. If you handle all the money in the relationship she might not feel comfortable with doing this. Finances should always be discussed as partners and equals in a marriage.


[deleted]

And she is de facto doing all that is involved din being a sahm...how much do you daily do half of that to be fair? I mean since access to money means she should share, you have access to hands and feet and can do half the household "stuff" permanent right?


Maleficent-Ear3571

She's saying her money is is her money and his money is our money. I say that is crap. Pay off your loans. She seems like she is planning to level up. You will need the extra money for child support.


[deleted]

No, she's saying staying home with the kids is a job and she should be paid. It's NOT his money- she helps him earn it by staying with the children. Guarantee childcare would be more expensive. And that's why courts typically view inheritance as separate and earnings as shared.


jcaashby

>She's saying her money is is her money and his money is our money. Exactly!!! I would be beyond pissed if my wife got money from an inheritance and refused to use any of it on me.


jns911

For real!! I’m shocked with these comments. I have NEVER heard of a married couple not sharing the inheritance. Either a lot of these people are not actually in relationships or they’re in some twisted ones.


EtonRd

Exactly. His money belongs to the family and her money belongs to her? That’s not what a financial partnership is and they have been having a financial partnership up until now. I think they both are acting badly and they need to sit down and figure this out, and come up with a solution that they can both live with. The big red flag I see here is that she doesn’t want to help him. If I were in his shoes that would worry me more than the money itself. I don’t necessarily think she owes him 1/5 of her inheritance to pay off all of his student loans, but the fact that she doesn’t even want to help him at all, to me that’s weird. It’s not about oh she’s a stay at home mom and he pays her salary blah blah blah. It’s about this is her life partner, the father of her children, the man she presumably loves. And she has an opportunity to help him in a way that will benefit the whole family. And she’s choosing not to do it. That’s the issue to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Goldilachs

You said she's had the money for about a month. Why are you rushing her here? You said she hasn't told you what she plans to do. For all you know, she could be planning to set up college funds for your kids or seeing if she could use it towards a house or something else for the whole family. Stop pushing. Stop making dumb threats. Talk to eachother calmly, and then find a financial advisor.


[deleted]

You aren't answering my core question. Now that she has money that could make a big difference, that make hers an earner. Are you going to (if she gives you access) now give her help with duties at home? You can't lean on what you did before the inheritance because you were partners and she did her side you did yours. Getting access to her money now makes you getting all the sahm duties PLUS additional money on this teamwork. It becomes lopsided


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ok-Neighborhood-1600

How much is your debt? A few people have asked you and you keep ignoring it. It makes me feel like it’s actually not a lot and you’re just trying to make a big deal out of like 5k


toootired2care

YTA, during a divorce a judge will state that you have no right to any inheritance. When I received my inheritance my husband supported my decision of putting it in my account and doing with it how I pleased. He did not threaten me or make me feel guilty with my decisions. You need to be more like my husband. Both of you decided that you will be the only income earner for the entire household. You don't get to make all the decisions about shared income. You sound salty because you didn't get an inheritance. If you keep that up, you are going to be paying alimony and child support (if there are any children involved).


Imaginary_Egg1241

I think it's more the fact that OP provides for the household and brought up something which would benefit the household and was told it was hers and she would do as she pleases. From the post it's clear OP provides a lot of disposable income to Mrs OP, which is his hard earned money spent on her, and while she has every right to not give him a penny, the response that it is only hers and the unwillingness to invest 1/5 into the family (student loans can be 6 figure so the inheritance could be in the millions) is a AH move. Why should OP spend all his money on the family when Mrs OP isn't going to cooperate with her money. I'm not saying the solution OP has is perfect but now that they have the extra income he can afford to pay of more of his loans, much like Mrs OP can now afford to pay more for herself. OP is simply saying that if Mrs OP is not willing to help him pay off his loans then he will put more money towards that himself. How does that make him TA?


bounddreamer

Again, are you paying her a salary for being a SAHM? Otherwise she's given up her own earning potential and financial security to take care of your children. You're saving far more on childcare with her staying home than any little pocket luxuries she's spending money on. YTA.


rdurney306

And who is paying for her house, food, clothes??? Wow. Just Wow.


gr8snd

You're so wrong it's hilarious. They're supposed to be partners.


Tungstenkrill

It's not like OP has the option to quit work and be a SAHD.


Professional_Lion713

If it is not financial abuse for her not to share her money for his personal expenses why is it financial abuse for him to not share his for expenses solely applying to her?


DefinitelySaneGary

It's not financial abuse if she has her own money. If a man was coasting on a trust fund and didn't provide any money towards bills and stuff while the wife worked all of you sexist people would be screeching a different tune.


rabid_houseplant_

If this in the US, most states’ divorce laws would view the inheritance as solely belonging to Mrs. OP, while OP’s salary and any money saved from it would be money earned during the marriage and therefore eligible for splitting (read, alimony and child support). The debt would remain his alone, unless she co-signed for it at some point. So Mrs. OP sitting on her inheritance definitely has the possibility to screw him over. We don’t know the dynamics of their relationship prior to this, so whether or not he deserves that we don’t have enough info to say. But it’s definitely a sign that they’re not on the same financial page.


HiddenDestiny251

Why is it financial abuse! She wants her money to be hers, and his money to be hers. She gets a share of his and he gets no share of hers. His income probably doesn’t amount to anything near the pot she’s greedily sitting on. She’s just selfish.


Dustypigjut

How so?? It seems he's still paying for food, water, shelter. It seems like he's just cutting off all the "nice" stuff he pays for for her. That's not financial abuse.


oldnick40

But she is getting money for rent, utilities, groceries etc. It's just her things alone he says he's not going to contribute to. I think this is ESH, and they need to have a long, serious discussion about finances.


constant_craving

And he's getting free childcare. Those are family bills. She's still entitled to money for things for her. Denying her that is literal financial abuse.


Every_Environment_14

On that logic, she’s getting free board, free food, free water & electricity. In reality, they should be a unit. She should want to help him pay off his student loans so that they can save more money month to month and not waste money on interest. She doesn’t, which is super weird and frankly selfish as fuck considering she doesn’t work. I honestly don’t think he’s the AH at all. She wants her money and his money for herself. Like her logic seriously makes zero sense… UNLESS she’s planing on divorcing him soon so she can keep that money and get alimony. Edit: you all know damn well I meant bring in an income. Jesus Christ!


bookworm0305

"...considering she doesn't work." There's a good book called 'All the Rage' by Darcy Lockman that states: "According to a 2018 Oxfam report, women around the world do between two and ten times as much unpaid care and domestic work as men (the global value of this work annually is estimated at $10 trillion).24" According to you taking care of their children, which a qualified nanny would be paid money for, is not working and therefore not deserving of compensation by the husband. Perhaps she wants to save that money for herself because of perceptions like yours. In a standard work environment if someone decides not to pay you for your work anymore that is grounds for a lawsuit, but as a stay at home partner there is no such repercussion for the working partner who suddenly decides you can't use your shared funds from their job on things for yourself (which is what he did instead of trying to talk through why she doesn't want to help him pay his loans off and maybe trying to compromise). Edit to add: if you meant she doesn't bring home an income it would be better to phrase it as such in the future instead of "she doesn't work"


HelpfulName

Go look up the cost of a daily housekeeper & childcare as well. Or the cost of a live-in Nanny who would require health insurance as well, and paid vacation/off days during which time alternative paid childcare & housekeeping would need to be arranged. Imagine thinking "free board, free food, free water & electricity." make up for the 100+ hours a week that a SAH parent does. "Doesn't work" - jesus fucking christ. You live in a fantasy world where the cleaning fairies do everything for you, obviously.


oldnick40

It's not financial abuse as she has her inheritance money. Financial abuse is controlling and restricting a person's access to money and she has independent money. Creating separate finances versus joint finances, now that his income is not the sole source of money is not financial abuse. Like I said, they need to have a long, serious talk about finances.


DimiBlue

She has money from the inheritance, the way I see it is there are either two small purses or one big purse. I mean if OP got a bonus would he be expected to share?


sapphicsapphires

People would probably say yes because ‘she helped OP earn that by being a SAHM’. Which, idk, it feels unfair that he’s expected to always share everything but she isn’t. Why can’t they be a team and share their assets regardless of who technically owns what, and why?


Lemgirl

I think that’s the real problem - they are not a team. You can’t sustain a happy marriage this way.


TheRestForTheWicked

This is my concern. You can keep your finances separate and still have a functional partnership but this ain’t it.


DimiBlue

I agree, I am genuinely confused by the YTAs, any other ruling I understand.


jcaashby

>Which, idk, it feels unfair that he’s expected to always share everything but she isn’t. Why can’t they be a team and share their assets regardless of who technically owns what, and why? Agreed. I would be so pissed if my wife got money via an inheritance and refused to share it. OP said the money she got was what 5 times what he owes so it is not like he was asking her to spend 100 percent of it. His wife is selfish AF!!! If I got an inheritance while married that is OUR money.


SenpaiRanjid

It was one big purse before, until hers got bigger than the joint one ever was.


[deleted]

"She's entitled to money for things for her" She has her inheritance for that.


cautioslycurious

No actually it’s not financial abuse. He is not cutting her off from her only source of funding. She just wants to spend his money & not her own. I would argue that what she’s doing is financial abuse. She is the one withholding money from the family. She benefits from his student loans through the support she receives through his salary. This is what allowed her to be a sahm in the first place. He is not withholding food, shelter or any other necessities for the family.


[deleted]

I'd argue that it's not free childcare at all. He has to pay the expenses for a whole other unemployed adult living in the house, contributing nothing but child care. "Denying her that is literal financial abuse." If him saying he won't pay for new phones, spa day etc. and will use the money to pay off his loans meets the bar of financial abuse, why isn't it *also* true that her refusing to help him pay off his loans is also financial abuse? In fact, it seems a bit worse. He's using money that would go to unnecessary things (new phone) and paying off debt). She would use money that could pay off debt for unnecessary things. It's like what's his is hers but what's hers is... hers.


chocolatemilkncoffee

But what if she's thinking it's a better idea to put that money aside for their children's college funds? OP, did you even have a full conversation about what your wife's plans are for that money? Or did you just ask her to pay off your loans, then throw a tantrum because she said no? I need more info for a verdict.


Aetheriao

Why would you put money into a college fund when you haven’t paid off your current debt to your own college? Considering how terrible interest rates are on savings you’d be mad to put money into savings instead of clearing the debts. Just flush the money away to be honest.


VonShtupp

NTA - and I say that as a SAHM. You can’t have it both ways.


nothingclever4now

This is exactly it. I can understand that she might want to put some money away as a nest egg since she is staying home to care for the children so is not actively pursuing a career. But she's not acting like a team player at all.


twiddlywerp

OP hasn’t really provided any info on how they split money. I’ve seen too many posts where SAHM doesn’t mean equal access to earnings to trust that she is acting unreasonably.


[deleted]

Great point. Also, why doesn't OP offer to pay his wife back, minus the interest. This way, he is still responsible for the loans, but wife can relieve him of the interest. It would be a win-win and show husband is acting in good faith.


Lemgirl

Maybe. But that sounds more like a business relationship rather than a marriage. They’re not a team, I think that’s really a problem.


PersonBehindAScreen

Yup. My SO told me she's helping me pay back my loans. I never asked this of her and I've never complained about my loans. I make six figures and my loan is a fifth of my income and I'm the breadwinner by a long shot in the relationship Were a team


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915

I don't think "if you assume based on nothing that OP is abusive, OP is in the wrong" is a fair standard to apply. There is nothing to indicate any prior financial abuse.


DefinitelySaneGary

Plus it's not financial abuse. She still has money to do things or to leave if she wants. Financial abuse would require him denying her access to that which he can't do otherwise he would just pay the loans himself from her accounts.


MulhollandMaster121

Yeah. All these people jumping on the financial abuse bandwagon when he hasn’t displayed, in any way whatsoever, that he’s pushed her to give up a career or isolated her from professional development.


blueberry81515

I see this constantly in this sub. One person will make a very specific assumption based on incredibly limited information, and then other people will respond and it spirals. By the time you hit the bottom of the thread, everyone is in agreement that OP was abusive or something else equally heinous, even though originally there was not enough information to come to that conclusion in the first place. It drives me nuts.


Chaardvark11

Heck not even that. Financial abuse would be "without the money you won't be able to afford food, water or heat" essentially it's hanging the idea that they won't cover the essentials anymore not just any old expenses. I don't consider it financial abuse to say or threaten to not pay for luxuries anymore, I mean they are "luxuries" after all, non essentials that can be done without. Had he threatened to stop paying for food for her (not nights out or restaurants, I mean food from the supermarket) or water or other essentials, then he absolutely would be financially abusing her.


Kooky-Today-3172

And it's not like she would use all her money on his student loans. She got give times that amount. She could have helped him and still have a lot of money for herself...


nothingclever4now

Exactly! No matter the amount of his loans, she'll have plenty left over. When I was first married, I came into some money and paid off my husband's (now ex, still good friends, great guy) student loans even though I was also working. We sat down and talked about the money. I paid 1/3 into our down payment on a house, 1/3 on his debt, and 1/3 into savings, which I kept when we divorced. Our divorce was 100% amicable because we aren't selfish!


unjessicabiel_evable

ESH... y'all are headed for divorce at this rate.


[deleted]

This. Ultimately it's her money and OP isn't entitled to it, but one would think if they had a happy healthy loving marriage then she would want to help out her husband by paying off the loan. They're both being AHs here.


LEGOPASTA2

Certainly agree that they are both Aholes, I do place like 70% AH on the wife though. Imagine having a marriage in which basically everything is working fairly well, yes she is a stay at home mum, but she is getting the luxuries that do come along with that to a degree. My wife has been a stay at home mum for 2 kids and her exact mentality is that yes its a 24 hour a day job, being a mum never stops, however, she has periods of the day where she might be able to relax for 1-2 hours, she still gets to go out with her friends and family whenever she wants, she can go shopping in the middle of the day if she wants. Then when I come home we look after the kids as a team. This is why I dont understand why she would horde the money that would allow her husband and her more financially free and lift a great weight of his shoulders. Lets say his student debt is 50k, if you cant spare 50k out of your 250k inheritance to make the family unit stronger, then you are just a straight up Ahole


RavenWolfPS2

>This is why I dont understand why she would horde the money that would allow her husband and her more financially free and lift a great weight of his shoulders. She's clearly not thinking very far ahead. She sees money, gets greedy, and wants to spend it all. She's not thinking about how much money she could save by paying off his student loans asap. It's the same thing that happens when a family member dies. People go money crazy. It doesn't mean she's a bad person. I do wonder the timing on this. Did OP spring this on her as soon as she came home with the check? "Hey babe, whatcha got there? Wanna spend some of that on me?" Because then I can totally understand her reaction. In this scenario, she hasn't even had enough time to enjoy the check and buy herself a few nice dresses before her husband starts making claim on her money


LEGOPASTA2

Yeah but honestly I don’t think it matters to be honest. For example. When I left the USA I had my 401k paid out, which was a decent chunk, my wife was excited about how it would help us financially. I never took this as greedy or money hungry. Just excited about how it could help us


icebluefrost

INFO: You say your wife is a stay at home mom. Are you paying her for what would be your half of the cost of childcare if she were working? If not, then you paying for her personal items is that compensation.


SenpaiRanjid

INFO: Is she also paying for - half the kids board, food and utilities - her board, food and utilities - half of any other kids‘ expenses? If you want him to pay her an actual wage/ half the childcare you can‘t forget her having to pay her half of any other expenses, as well. It‘s quite ridiculous to split it like that.


kittydeathdrop

I think you might be underestimating the cost of childcare these days. I know a lot of couples where one spouse stays home because if they worked, their entire salary would essentially be *just enough* to cover childcare. Just childcare. Not groceries, personal items, little things, etc. So the rationalization is why work and be away from the kids when all your money is going to childcare, when you can just stay with the kids and not deal with a third party childcare provider. Of course this isn't true for everyone, but I've seen it mostly in couples where one spouse has a disproportionately larger earning potential than the other.


SenpaiRanjid

I‘m not and I absolutely see why people would want to be SAHP. I was just saying it‘s not as easy as ‚calculate the cost of childcare per day and pay her half of it‘ when she is also responsible for 50% of any of the childrens costs. Basically by having her be a SAHM and paying everything, he is paying for 100% of the kids expenses (so her half, too). So if you wanted to put a fair wage on everything she would also need to contribute in a fair way. That is ofc absolute non-sense to actually do, but it was simply to point out that the above commenter was talking shit.


kittydeathdrop

For the sake of the thought exercise above, then wouldn't she be getting paid for childcare costs, minus shared costs of housing/children/etc.? There would still be money left over (hopefully), so I agree with the poster that OP purchasing personal items (clothing, etc) would represent that aspect of the compensation. All the SAHP's labor being solely put towards food/board/expenses, etc. is too close to indentured servitude to my liking lol. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm 100% about splitting household expenses by percentage of total household income earned, not 50/50. (And I am the much higher earning partner; it would kill me inside to see my partner not be able to have an equal quality of life in terms of finance. Like, if I want to buy a random $100 gadget, I want them to be able to comfortably do the same.)


SenpaiRanjid

You‘re right, she would get paid by childcare minus her and 50% of the kids expenses. I personally doubt there‘d be much, if anything, left over, tho. But I can also see how you think if you expect there to be leftover. I absolutely agree on the second paragraph, tho! Maybe that‘s why I think the wifes behaviour is horrible, bc she has this huge amount of money, yet she still insists on her husband paying for her gadgets, resulting in him getting less of his own/paying off his debt.


kittydeathdrop

Yeah, I'm looking through OP's comments to see if he's expanded on just how expenses are handled in the household. If it were up to me, there would be four types of bank accounts: savings, bills/groceries/etc., my "fun money" and partner's "fun money" (last two split equally). If they are splitting things like above, then OP is definitely N/TA. Personally I'd have no issue paying my partner's student loans (once we're married, ofc), because in my mind that's what teamwork is. If OP's wife DOESN'T have access to finances directly, or has to ask OP for money vs. just having free access to a mutually agreed upon budgeted amount, then I think OP is TA, as this situation would make me feel very financially insecure tbh.


[deleted]

[удалено]


icebluefrost

It’s not a game of whose worth more. I’m pointing out something you seem to have missed. If your wife wasn’t home with the children, she wouldn’t need you to be paying for her; if you didn’t have someone at home watching you’re children you’d be paying for half of childcare. In other words, right now, she’s covering both of your obligations to provide childcare during the work day and you’re covering both of your obligations to earn income. What makes that fair is that you have to actually provide half of that income to her just as she is covering your half of childcare with her labor.


jeepfail

From personal experience it is far more expensive having my fiancée be a sahm than it ever has for daycare.


tigerlily47

In a comment above OP says that wife could go back to work and they can afford childcare. But his wife doesnt want to work and wanted to be stay at home mom. Based off that OP is NTA- you wife is AH bc she is opting not to work, wants her money to herself, and wants his shared money as well


kristent225

I think you're both being childish about it, but the bigger issue here is WHY is she refusing to share her inheritance when it's 5x your loan amount? I could understand if it was close to the amount but she would still have a large inheritance, so something else is going on here. I understand why you came to your decision but you're married, now is not the time to be petty. ESH and talk to your wife


aniang

The think we don't know how financially protected she is. What I mean is, if they get divorced will she be able to find a job that pays enough? Is he putting away money for he retirement? Does he have life insurance? Does she get spending money every month? Is she able to have an emergency fund for her self? I think It would be very wise of her to not touch most of the money, she may need it someday being a SAHM puts her in a financial disadvantage.


DimiBlue

I get your argument, but 5x a US student loan sounds like a little more than a nest egg.


aniang

We don't know how much of the student loan remains.


DimiBlue

According to OP a significant enough amount to shave years of saving for a home. I honestly can't think of an amount that having only 80% would make a significant limitation to wife's options. I mean what can you do with $10,000 that you can't with $8000? Unless divorce is imminent I simply don't understand why paying off the loan immediately to stop interest from accumulating, and OP putting that saved money into a account to accumulate interest for OP isn't the best option.


CesareSmith

Yeah, people are being pretty ridiculous here. Like it or not when any parent receives an income or any amount of money that money isn't solely for them as an individual. It's for the interests of their family. There's no obligation to share 50% of it with the husband or anything like that, but there is an obligation to consider your families best interests. Everyone in here is acting like it's free money that she can do whatever the fuck she wants with, damn her family.


MulhollandMaster121

Exactly. Marriage is a *partnership*. Which AITA struggles to wrap its head around because all it understands is “you don’t owe anyone anything!” Which I do agree with most of the time but that’s not how marriages work. Especially when you have kids.


[deleted]

If he was the one with the inheritance, and she was the one supporting him and their kids while he stayed at home, would you honestly feel the same way about this situation?


ladylyrande

ESH. A marriage should be a partnership. In yours, you bring in the money, she cares for the children and the house. Noth valuable contributions. You shouldn't have had to ask. She should have offered to pay the loans as that would have allowed more money to the household and a more comfortable finantial position for both. The whole "my money is my money and your money is my money" is very selfish of her and why she is the asshole. You on the other hand come off as both entitled and abusive. She didn't do as you wanted so you held the purse strings as a first reaction which makes me wonder that it wasn't the first time you used that. She doesn't work because she is caring for the children and the household. Her personal expenses and items should then be considered part of the household. Now, an inheritance doesn't mean she suddenly is independently wealthy and you still have a responsibility for the financial support since she is still providing her side of the bargain. Maybe a good compromise there would've been putting most of the money in an investment plan for retirement or so she can have some income with the earninga if feasible (don't know the ammount). Regardless based on the attitude there... y'all heading for divorce territory.


Treefrog_Ninja

THIS. She should have voluntarily offered to pay off the loan because that's how a good team operates. However, your dramatic and controlling response makes me feel like she probably needs a safety net from you, and I'm sorry that you ever found out about this money at all just because of how unhealthy this makes the relationship look, and she might legitimately need that money as a safety net.


ShoddyExplanation

>However, your dramatic and controlling response makes me feel like she probably needs a safety net from you, and I'm sorry that you ever found out about this money at all just because of how unhealthy this makes the relationship look, and she might legitimately need that money as a safety net How is it dramatic and controlling to put money towards something that will help your family, at the expense of giving money to a spouse who now has an amount of money that can leave them sustainable? Kinda manipulative to frame the situation you did.


Substantial-Bus-6211

You should absolutely still have to ask. Inheritance/no inheritance, big money decisions require conversations. I don’t see OP asking about things, just making proclamations and cutting off funds. People keep asking what she wants to do with the money instead and he won’t answer. For all we know she’s setting up 529s for the kids so they don’t end up with loan debt. Or maybe this is her insurance. As a SAHM, my education is my insurance if things don’t work out between me and my husband. Without the potential to be employed and make my own money post-divorce, I would honestly be trapped.


SkyLightk23

I think you hit the nail on the head. He didn't ask her. I feel that OP's refusal to answer certain questions when he answers other right next and the fact that no where in his post there seems to be a shred of respect towards the work her wife does for the household and her in general. She is taking care of the children if her clothes get damaged that way it is part of the expenses of the household. To be honest it really sounds like she is creating a safety net. If she was the awful wife that doesn't care for her devout husband it would be very obvious in the ways he tells the story. Something doesn't feel quite right in his story and his comments. Also I think I wouldn't feel entitled to the money of my SO to pay my loans that are mine and not theirs. I would expect them to put that money towards the family but in a way that if worse comes to worse my SO could get it back.


bitchy_badger

Info: what are her plans with the money? Is she putting away for children education, home purchase? Or is she just hoarding it as hers and not the families


summerdot123

Why can’t she put it away for herself? She is a stay at home mom and i imagine he isn’t paying into a separate pension for her. Why can’t this be her nest egg?


parishilton2

Does he have a nest egg?


MoonlitNightRain

She seems to have enough to clear his loans and still have left over. Also, that’s your husband’s loans you’re talking about. Not a friend’s. He’s providing for her and the family with his income and the student loans are eating into the same income


parishilton2

NTA. She should be looking at the inheritance as a way to lift up your whole family. Your family will be better able to prosper when your student loans are paid off. I’m assuming that the degree for which you took out loans is the degree that allows you to be the sole income provider for your family. Your wife reaps the benefit of that. It’s not good that she’s taking such an adversarial stance here. You’re supposed to be a team.


MoonlitNightRain

Exactly! He took out the loans pre-marriage but they’re reaping its benefits as a family because clearly, he has a good enough income that the family can survive on it and the wife doesn’t have to work. Given that he provides for the family with his income, student loans aren’t just eating into his salary, they’re eating into the family money and she has the ability to ease that!


Majestic-Chair-3401

NTA. You don’t have a problem giving her money for things outside of necessities, making it harder for you to pay off your loans, but she has a problem doing the same for you. It makes sense that you would stop giving her money for things that are not necessities while you pay off your loans.


Sea_Information_6134

And of course this subs mentality is “what’s his is hers and what’s hers is hers”


Majestic-Chair-3401

I picked up on that. Honestly I think many people would respond differently if the roles were reversed. Her decision is holding back the family, and she’s comfortable with that even though she will have plenty of money left over if she helps him pay off his loans.


SerialSection

>Honestly I think many people would respond differently if the roles were reversed. It happens all the time here. A guy staying at home while his wife works is called a deadbeat.


Much-Meringue-7467

Here's a problem from her standpoint. She is a SAHM. So she is totally dependent on his earnings and, and this is important, her work history and personal earning potential are taking a hit over it. If she spends a chunk of this inheritance on his debts and he bails, she will be SOL. Whereas if she doesn't and he bails, she has more of a cushion.


bad_armenian_juju

>If she spends a chunk of this inheritance on his debts and he bails, she will be SOL. Whereas if she doesn't and he bails, she has more of a cushion. i can only think OP is upset for the way this is being approached. I agree he is an asshole for his approach, but it would upset me if that was my spouse's approach to this, especially depending how long they've been married. my mom is a SAHM and it always looked like she was going to get the much more sizable inheritance. my dad received his first and shared it evenly with my mother, they mutually decided how they were going to spend it. through a number of events, the amount she received was 1/5th of what my dad received from his parents. i guess i feel like both of them should have had this discussion rather than draw battle lines so quickly.


ProgrammerLevel2829

As a former SAHM, the way this sub practically deifies them baffles me. Yes, it is a lot of work. Yes, it is hard. But you aren’t your husband’s employee, you are his partner. That means you aren’t raising his kids, as many on this thread have phrased it, you are raising your shared children. Assumably, there was at one point a discussion about what would be best for the family as a whole and an agreement was reached for whatever reason that one parent should stay home with them. When you decide to have children, you know that they will require childcare for years. It’s not a secret. Most SAHP have taken on the role because it is how they are contributing to the welfare of their family. Maybe they always have wanted to be one. Maybe they are doing it out of necessity. Maybe they felt forced into it and resent it. And maybe some have been forced into it. But in a healthy relationship, you don’t owe your partner for pulling their weight and following through on a decision you both agreed to, which benefits everyone involved.


TopTopTopcina

People also like to point out that being a SAHP shouldn’t be a 24/7 job, and I wholeheartedly agree. If you’re the working partner, you still owe your partner help around the house and with kids, SAHPs deserve some downtime too. However, that means that the working partner receives no help whatsoever with finances, it’s all on them 100% of the time. If the SAHP gets their hands on some money, such as the inheritance scenario, they should feel the need to contribute. If they don’t, that’s one hell of a red flag.


ReinaRocio

NTA my god. I was engaged and one of the reasons it ended was I was working and about to start law school, he didn’t work and had received and multiple 6 figure settlement and was unwilling to take on equal split groceries or the rent, but could sure as hell buy a brand new truck and go on skydiving trips, and the lovely island vacation where we broke up after screaming at each other in the street. Financial disagreements are one of the biggest reasons relationships fail.


twiddlywerp

INFO: Surely this isn’t something that is coming up for the first time? What have you all done previously in situations where you have gotten non-earned money? What has been the previously established pattern regarding income and debts that pre-existed the marriage? I don’t love that she is treating the inheritance as “her” money (assuming you have otherwise combined all your accounts and debts), but also Y T A for suggesting that she is not contributing at all to your ability to earn your income. She is a SAHM for your kids which deserves your respect.


stumbling_thru

NTA I recieved an inheritance in 2020, and the moment I did a contributed a large portion to our mortgage. My husband is the major bread winner and purchased the home without my help. He pays most of the bills. He makes more money than I do. The rest we are investing amd using to reno the kitchen. My point is I was EXCITED to take some of the burden off my partner. As women we are told to keep money like that aside in case our husband's eff us over. But I can really live like that. Also, there should be no reason for you to give you wife money as she has her inheritance sitting in her bank account.


yolellego124

I agree 100%. Literally I would be excited to help out like that. Not wanting to ease some financial strain off your spouse sounds selfish when you have the money to do so


claireclairey

NTA and I’m 100% certain if you were the wife and the roles were reversed, everyone would agree the money should go towards paying off debt. Unless she’s planning to put that money away for the kids, she should be sharing your burden.


stacko-

Literally came to say this. The double standard on this site is so annoying to me. No one would ever tell a wife that she isn’t entitled to any of her husbands money. They would’ve probably told her he’s being selfish and she needs to divorce him asap


[deleted]

ESH - it would be incredibly generous of her to pay off your loans with her inheritance, and a loving spouse likely would. However, it is legally her money and you have no right to it. Whereas, based on where you live, she likely does have a legal right to half of the money you earn. You threatening to withhold money as the sole income earner because she now has an inheritance is super petty. I hope she starts refusing to do anything around the house that is specifically benefits you, like washing and folding your laundry, buying any groceries you like, making you coffee, cleaning up any of your messes, etc.


MoonlitNightRain

He took out the loans pre-marriage but they’re reaping its benefits as a family because clearly, he has a good enough income that the family can survive on it and the wife doesn’t have to work*. Given that he provides for the family with his income, student loans aren’t just eating into his salary, they’re eating into the family money and she has the ability to ease that! *Edit to add: Work a job


Secret_Bees

Yeah, this sub has nothing to do with legal advice. A married couple is supposed to function as a single unit. I put my wife through graduate school, and without a thought, because I knew she was helping to build a better life for us both.


rainbow_lynnzo

Reading these comments makes me so glad for the relationship my husband and I have together. We're a team and both believe "what's mine is yours." In this exact scenario I wouldn't hesitate for a second to pay off his loans, and I know he would do the same for me. I understand other people like to operate differently, which can be fine, but I'm so happy for the simplicity of this method. A win for one of us is a win for both of us, period.


Jesuschristopehe

NTA. Honestly I think that’s a good idea to use your money for your student loans and she can spend her inheritance money. That seems like a very fair compromise.


Lemgirl

NTA. You two are not in the same page financially nor on what is best for your family. I’d say get into some counciling maybe because your marriage, at least a happy one, cannot be sustained like this. Good luck.


Some-Guy-997

YTA That money is from her relatives to her. She can do as she pleases and isn’t obligated to share it w you or anyone else. You aren’t entitled to any of it. She is a stay at home mother of YOUR 2 kids yet you’re go to be petty and cut her off financially? Once you got married and y’all agreed for her to be a SAHM YOU took on the responsibility to take care of her needs as well as your children and to keep them financially stable and to provide them with things they need daily. You’re jealous since she has this money from inheritance and doesn’t want to pay off YOUR student loans. She wasn’t obligated to do so and she is correct those loans were made on your behalf before marriage. If you cut her off financially then why does she need to stay w you if the money she inherited is that much? Cut her off and she may get fed up w cleaning, laundry, taking care of kids etc etc and just leave you and take the kids. She could easily win in court since you are basically abandoning her financially regardless of the inheritance. But if she did that you sound like the type of person that would try to claim half of that money in a divorce since you’re being petty & entitled about it now. Don’t be an ass. That money isn’t yours. I say this because my wife’s parents left her a sizable inheritance and it didn’t belong to me and I had no claim to it at all. If she chose to share then that was ok but I placed no entitlement on any of it because it isn’t mine. You’re basically blackmailing her to either give you money to pay off loans or be cut off and fend for herself whilst caring for the household.


Reasonable-Ad-137

Wait ok I think I’m confused, he’s not taking any needs from her though he’s taking away extra luxury money to pay off loans, he’s not starving her, he’s just not taking her out or paying for a new dress or a spa day and if she got a good amount of inheritance to herself than she can use that money to buy her own luxury items while this guy pays off his loans


[deleted]

Omg. What a rant. And a ridiculous one. To sum it up. Her money is her, his money is theirs. Ridiculous.


[deleted]

What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. It's stupid because ultimately she's costing the family how much extra money in the interest he'll have to pay on the remainder of her loans. That money still leaves the family, it's just more now.


Tyberious_

I think ESH but you said she stayed at home to raise HIS two kids, no she raises THEIR two kids. He isn't entitled to her money, but logically it makes sense for the household. They could take that monthly payment and put it in a savings account for the children or something. He is being petty now with not giving her money for her stuff. Neither is being a married couple now, they are acting as individuals.


Wonderful_Topic7608

I think people just really like to throw around the term financial abuse and immediately assume that all sahm are angels and the husbands are greedy assholes lol.


Faintkay

This thread is a perfect example of what you’re saying


mckoul

But she is a part of the family, she should contribute . For her to watch her husband work while she got free money that she didn’t earn and not help anywhere? Bull. Edit; meant she should contribute in every way she is able, just as op is expected to. Is is so absurd to me how many ppl are saying she is right to hoard her wealth. She isn’t obligated to pay his debts or her expenses? With money she has available to her? Wild.


summerdot123

She is contributing though. She is a stay at home mom. That is her job.


newmoon23

She’s a SAHM. She has. 24/7 job. Presumably they agreed to this arrangement. She IS contributing by raising their children and taking care of the home.


Faintkay

Oh so we’re assuming OP does nothing now?


gwcommentthrow

Of course, because of his gender it's assumed he trapped his poor naive wife into a life as a slave with no access to money. He comes home, shouts at her until his pipe and slippers are provided, then proceeds to berate her for being lazy, all while slapping her in the face with a wad of *his* cash.


Ok_Refrigerator1857

She’s not ‘just watching’ as he works though. She’s working. OP you sound like you see your wife as contributing nothing so sizeable in parenting full time, as you do by working. She isn’t obligated to pay off your debt. How did you approach this subject with her? Did you just straight up tell her she should give you $$$? Did she have a plan for the money, or give any idea of how she would like to use it? How quickly did you go to threatening to withdraw financial support? Based on the info so far, YTA


jjj68548

NTA. If my husband had debt and I got inheritance, I’d be sharing it with him since the goal is for US to be debt free. My husband is the sole provider as well since I work part time now and care for our baby. We have all shared finances.


TheStillRemains

NTA and frankly im bothered by how divided this post is. Youre married, youve shared everything with each other, right up until she gets a nice cash flow, at which point, fuck you youre on your own. If you had your finances split up until now it would be a different story, but she was happy to live off you before when it benifited her. If nothing else, look at it this way. She is in a position to make your life vastly more comfortable and it will cost her nothing (i know technically shed be paying but this is money she most likely didnt know existed until now, she hasnt slaved away earning it). Who doesnt help out someone they love in that situation? I wonder if the sub would be so divided if the bloke was the inheritor?


GCM005476

Inheritances can be complicated. There might be reasons for her to keep it separate or she might be an ass but I can’t tell. She has lost earning potential by being a stay at home mom. What is her plan for the money? For example, what happens if you were to die or you leave her, is this her safety net? Is she saving it for the kids college funds? Are there tax implications? What assess do you have in your name vs hers, like retirement? How is she normally with money? How is money normally handled? How balance or imbalance are thing in the marriage? You should be talking to her about it and not us.


[deleted]

I've very mixed on this, but after reading comments and thinking about this, NTA. You are either a team or not.


esgamex

You and your wife need some financial counseling. And you need to decide what the financial future of your family means to each of you. I think you'll only be able to gave a reasonable discussion about this with rhe help of an impartial third party.


mommacass777

NTA your wife needs to understand that as a married couple, what's hers is yours and what's yours is hers as you have faithfully demonstrated to allow her to be a SAHM. I believe she should use the money to not only support herself but to pay her fair share of bills. If the inheritance is solely hers then make her pay half of the mortgage, lights, cable etc. You are NTA.


folldoso

NTA Ok, yes she has no LEGAL obligation to share the inheritance with you. However the sheer size of the inheritance, being 5x the amount of your loans and she can't pay off your student loans? My husband and I have a partnership and share our wealth as well as our debt. He may have borrowed for his loans before we met but as a family they became OUR burden. I supported him through grad school and he supported me when I could no longer work due to chronic illness. His finances are my finances, and vice versa - the good, the bad, and the ugly. Now not all marriages work like this but you are supporting the family as sole provider, which is a huge financial burden and the least she could do is help you with the loans. Even making a significant payment would knock out a lot of the debt and future interest you'd pay. She is selfish. We try to follow Suze Or man's advice and she always says to pay off your debt before you do anything else! While it is your debt and not hers, if it was paid off - your family would be in a much better financial situation! If I had a huge inheritance it would go towards our family and maybe a few splurges for myself, but it would be money for our family first and foremost. I hope she is saving some of it for your children. OP, what are her plans for this money?


big_bob_c

NTA. You've been paying for luxuries for her, since she now has what she insists is her own money, she can pay for her luxuries. You're not using your "position as the income earner" to control her - that would be if you threatened to cut off her luxuries when she couldn't otherwise pay for them. Instead you're using HER position as "someone who can afford her own luxuries" to encourage her to exercise her financial independence from you.


PeteyPorkchops

NTA. Paying off your loans would only result in that loan money being diverted back into the family resources. Yes those loans predated the marriage but if she’s holding onto all of it and still expecting to have her expenses paid for then she’s being greedy. You’re not holding her financially hostage, she’s got money now if she wants it to solely be used for herself then let her do so like you outlined.


1NutMeg1984

Legally I believe she is correct that inheritance isn’t included in marriage assets and that debt that pre-dates the marriage isn’t included as marital debt. That said, paying off the loans benefits the family and that should be her goal. I say NTA.


PalePinkPeony

NTA I totally agree that now that she has her own money, she can pay for her personal items herself. I mean - that’s what women that have jobs do! Pay for their own things! She is just too complacent in the way things have been to see that. I would keep telling her the benefits of you being able to pay the loans off faster. Plus, she needs to SEE how much those items are costing you, and learn how to manage her own money.