Is she right to be cross

LegacyUser

Looking for a few outsider's opinions here, my sister married 20 odd years, 3 kids 1 with special needs. They have quite a large mortgage. Last year her husband's company closed down, it took him 8ths to find another job so things were tight although their mortgage was covered by a policy. BUT for the last 15yrs they've had a life policy which would pay off the house if anyone of them died, he suffers with angina. Today she found out by accident that 6mths ago he cancelled this policy and never mentioned it to her. It didn't cost much about 14europw. She is devastated. 1 That he never told her, she could have easily raised that amount. 2. That he did this without any consultation. She is extremely cross, worried sick, frantically trying to get new insurance (which will now cost a lot more) but says the worse is the feeling that he has let them all down, he's completely knocked her feeling that he would have their best interests at heart. He just says he felt he couldn't afford it at the time and thinks she's over reacting. What do you think ? Would you be cross ? She's sick with worry over it.

baby and crumble

Personally yeah, I think she's more than right to be annoyed. It's a big decision to make in such a situation without a discussion at the very least. You can't make those kinds of decisions that will have a massive knock-on effect on the family without talking it through. While I know it's awful
Being unemployed and needing to save where possible there are always other routes to
Take before getting rid of health/ life insurance, especially if there's an existing issue.

The_fever

Edit

uck51js9zml2yt

She has every right to be worried.
What her husband did was short sighted and irresponsible.
However they now need to find a way out of the situation.

Pawwed Rig

No point in causing a fuss about it. It is done now. I assume he did it with good intentions. Get a new policy and chalk this down to a lapse in communication.

MouseTail

How are financial decisions normally made? As a couple, or does she in general abdicate herself from general financial management? She cannot be cross I think if it's the latter, he would have been very worried after the business closure, and trying to make savings and cut corners wherever he could. If they normally make financial decisions as a team she has a right to be annoyed. As others have said, best to move on from this, and learn some lessons.

Rachiee

That was a pretty put decision on his part, there's no way they'll get reasonably priced life assurance now that they're older and he has a heart condition it's going to be really really expensive. Also if they have no life assurance they're probably breaching the term of their mortgage I would be so upset of I was her. He at least should have discussed it with her. But like that there is very little that can be done at this point she needs to find a way to forgive him and move forward, that could take time but she'll get there it's not the end of the world.

LegacyUser

Thanks everyone. Yeah, definitely a bad decision, it's not one she would ever have agreed to, afterall it's not like cancelling gym membership it's not something you turn on and off and if she hadn't found out the potential consequences are frightening. In all other aspects he's a decent guy but she's adamant that this is like a betrayal, removing your family's security without a word to you wasn't the best idea. As you say, need to move on and concentrate on getting it sorted.

meeeeh

I don't think asking question if she is right to be cross will solve anything. What is done is done. And people sometimes make stupid decisions under stress. It is worrying situation and they should see a reliable broker and find out what their options are.

HelgaWard

You are required to have a life insurance policy as part of your mortgage terms. I recently had to cancel one because we sold the house and it involved both myself and my hubby sending signed documentation to the life insurance company, the life insurance company then contacted the bank . The life insurance company did not actually cancel the policy until the bank confirmed that they not longer had an interest in the property. So I am curious as to how your brother in law actually managed to cancel the policy 1) without his wife's signature and 2) without the bank/mortgage provider being involved. Seems strange.

LegacyUser

HelgaWard wrote: »

So I am curious as to how your brother in law actually managed to cancel the policy 1) without his wife's signature and 2) without the bank/mortgage provider being involved. Seems strange.

+ 1 That was my first thought as well if it's firstly a policy for both of them and it's related to their mortgage. It is one of those things were yes shes right to be cross but it's not going to do them much good at this stage, she needs to check the legality of the situation asap.

Pawwed Rig

You don't need the banks permission to cancel a policy in most cases.

LegacyUser

I have no idea about the legalities of it all and to be frank right now I'm afraid to ask her as she is so stressed about it. They have started the ball rolling on getting new policies into place but that is going to take time with medical reports etc etc. I am in Ireland, she lives in England so again no clue as to what the legal details are. It is just so unlike him as he's a really decent person but as someone said stress can make you do stupid things. Hopefully between now and being covered again nothing will happen but living with fingers crossed isn't very reassuring in these circumstances. I don't think it really matters who makes the most financial decisions or not, some decisions have to be made jointly and this is definitely one of them. She would be the main carer of the children and he the payee of most bills but she said (& I agree) if a serious decision had to be made regarding the health treatment of one of their children she wouldn't make it without consulting him, regardless of who does the most child care. Anyway, thanks for responding, appreciate it.

Eric Cartman

So He has a condition , and theres a policy that will pay out if he dies that he cancelled, So she's pissed off because the death windfall is no longer there. I hear mention of it taking time for him to find a job , but what was she doing.

OP it just sounds to me like the husband was the one suffering and trying to scrape cash to put food on the table, and now somebody who potentially doesn't work is annoyed because firstly the money dried up once and that her future heart attack money is now out the window.

Perhaps I don't have the full details but It sounds like that lad was the sole breadwinner and had an awful lot of stress on his shoulders. If he's the sole breadwinner then she has no right to be annoyed.

fits

Eric Cartman wrote: »

OP it just sounds to me like the husband was the one suffering and trying to scrape cash to put food on the table, and now somebody who potentially doesn't work is annoyed because firstly the money dried up once and that her future heart attack money is now out the window.

She is working at rearing the family, and minding a special needs child, which puts her at a financial disadvantage already and makes it more difficult to provide for the family should anything happen to him. she has every right to be annoyed.

iguana

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So He has a condition , and theres a policy that will pay out if he dies that he cancelled, So she's pissed off because the death windfall is no longer there. I hear mention of it taking time for him to find a job , but what was she doing.

OP it just sounds to me like the husband was the one suffering and trying to scrape cash to put food on the table, and now somebody who potentially doesn't work is annoyed because firstly the money dried up once and that her future heart attack money is now out the window.

Perhaps I don't have the full details but It sounds like that lad was the sole breadwinner and had an awful lot of stress on his shoulders. If he's the sole breadwinner then she has no right to be annoyed.

Um no, he cancelled a policy they are quite likely to be contractually obliged to have and because of his condition it will now cost them an awful lot more to get a new policy. In addition if one of them does die it will severely impact the ability of either of them to work and could mean that their 3 children lose their home as well as the parent who just died. Because in England it very much is a case of miss 3 payments and the bank moves to repossess and will be granted possession in short order.

Eric Cartman

guy is the only breadwinner. Is clearly quite stressed and struggling to get money to feed his 3 kids, himself and wife for months, obviously not a light decision to cancel but it freed up 56 euro a month which would at least keep milk and bread in the house.

Im sure he had a plan to re-enstate it once he got a job. Now back working despite the condition , wife now goes mad at him because his back was against the wall and he did what he needed to do. She's not thinking about him, or his condition, purely about the money. She's getting mad because he didn't spend the money he didn't have on a policy that realistically will just benefit her in the future , as opposed to his thinking of saving the money which benefitted them all in the present / past.

LegacyUser

Eric Cartman - She is not pissed off at the loss of a death windfall, this insurance was to guarantee the family home, a roof over the children's heads, it wasn't to go on shopping trips to Singapore and sunbathe in the Bahamas ! Jeez. If she dies it would also have protected her husband, how could he work the hours he needs to pay the mortgage and mind 3 children one of which will never be independent in any shape or form. She gave up an extremely successful career that she loved in order to care for the children and it also allowed her husband to set up his own business, which he wanted to do. If you want to be so cold about it perhaps men should pay their wives, mothers, housekeepers ,PAs, childminder, cleaner, shopper, cook, driver,carer etc an hourly rate though I doubt somehow they could afford it.

Kablamo!

My father cancelled his insurance policy a year before he died and didn't tell anyone.
When he passed away, we were hit with funeral expenses which we had to borrow money to pay for, and I was lucky enough to inherit a new car and the resulting loan.
It's not about a financial windfall, dying isn't cheap.
I would be livid.

LegacyUser

I meant to add as I said in the OP had she known he was going to cancel or even thinking about it we would have paid it, no problem, Yes things were very tight and it was an anxious time for both of them but they weren't starving it wasn't a choice (at that stage) of bread and milk or insurance, he should have given her the chance to say no we don't need to cancel there are other alternatives, which there was. Had there not been that's another matter but she wasn't given a say in the matter, that's what has really upset her. And now of course they will (both) have to pay more, but will gladly do it, it's the worry until then, that's considering they will get it, maybe they won't, they don't know yet.

Pawwed Rig

concerned sis wrote: »

If you want to be so cold about it perhaps men should pay their wives, mothers, housekeepers ,PAs, childminder, cleaner, shopper, cook, driver,carer etc an hourly rate though I doubt somehow they could afford it.

You ask for opinions then go into a sexist rant against men when you find one you don't agree with??

Kablamo! wrote: »

I was lucky enough to inherit a new car and the resulting loan.

You know you did not have to accept the debt right? You can disclaim the inheritance and it is the banks problem.

LegacyUser

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You ask for opinions then go into a sexist rant against men when you find one you don't agree with??


You know you did not have to accept the debt right? You can disclaim the inheritance and it is the banks problem.

A sexist rant ? How else could you respond to the suggestion that a woman was sitting up doing nothing but living off her husband's wages waiting for him to drop dead so she could get her hands on his life insurance and is pissed off she's not getting the windfall ? I'm not in the slightest bit sexist, I appreciate all opinions (even ones I might not agree with) I didn't throw the "sexist" ball into the court, just returning it, don't want it, thank you.

Knine

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So He has a condition , and theres a policy that will pay out if he dies that he cancelled, So she's pissed off because the death windfall is no longer there. I hear mention of it taking time for him to find a job , but what was she doing.

OP it just sounds to me like the husband was the one suffering and trying to scrape cash to put food on the table, and now somebody who potentially doesn't work is annoyed because firstly the money dried up once and that her future heart attack money is now out the window.

Perhaps I don't have the full details but It sounds like that lad was the sole breadwinner and had an awful lot of stress on his shoulders. If he's the sole breadwinner then she has no right to be annoyed.

I'd say she works pretty damn hard looking after a child with Special Needs. I should know because I am also a full time Carer. I would be livid if I was her too. She should have been involved in his decision. As well as keeping a roof over their heads. Funerals are extremely expensive.

MouseTail

Agree that his back was likely against the wall, social welfare benefits aren't nearly as generous in the UK as here. I think the wife should offer a bit more understanding here.

meeeeh

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You ask for opinions then go into a sexist rant against men when you find one you .

Oh come on. It's about partnership and making important decisions together. Or do you think the power in marriage should be solely with the one that makes more money.

Anyway that is pointless now. I can understand the anger but it's completely counterproductive. Husband's actions weren't out of spite but because they were in dire financial situation. What is done is done, try to make sure it doesn't happen again and start looking for the solution.

LegacyUser

There's a difference between a mortgage protection policy (which pays out on death of a partner, or sometimes on terminal illness - payable to the mortgage provider) v a life assurance policy (only payable on death, to the dependants)

In Ireland, I don't think you can get a mortgage without taking out a mortgage protection policy, although I'm only 75% sure of that. I don't think you can just cancel it either.

If he cancelled either a mortgage protection or life assurance policy without asking, I would lose the plot if I were his wife. He has now put his family in serious risk of financial ruin, and it will cost a fortune to be accepted by any insurance company (and they may well be refused, given his health history).

It's far from a decision not to pay the esb for a month or two, this has far more long reaching effects, plus insurance companies share info about underwriting and why they don't want to accept someone at normal rates. I'd go mad if I were his wife. Maybe she never took enough responsibility for finances, but bloody hell, he has screwed up big time.

Pawwed Rig

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh come on. It's about partnership and making important decisions together. Or do you think the power in marriage should be solely with the one that makes more money.

Of course not. Where did I say that? A couple decides who earns money and who minds the children based on their own circumstances. The joint earning capacity is how much can be brought in by whoever is in paid employment. To suggest that men need to pay their wives and mothers* an hourly wage ignores the partnership angle.
It also assumes that working fathers are not parents.
It also assumes there are no working mothers. In short it is an ill thought out sexist tirade.

In fact I agree with your whole post and if you read back you echo exactly what I said in my first post on this thread.

*not sure why men have to pay their mothers?? Typo maybe

kunst nugget

Eric Cartman wrote: »

guy is the only breadwinner. Is clearly quite stressed and struggling to get money to feed his 3 kids, himself and wife for months, obviously not a light decision to cancel but it freed up 56 euro a month which would at least keep milk and bread in the house.

Im sure he had a plan to re-enstate it once he got a job. Now back working despite the condition , wife now goes mad at him because his back was against the wall and he did what he needed to do. She's not thinking about him, or his condition, purely about the money. She's getting mad because he didn't spend the money he didn't have on a policy that realistically will just benefit her in the future , as opposed to his thinking of saving the money which benefitted them all in the present / past.

My wife and I have struggled financially at times but I'd never, never make a decision about our health insurance or life assurance policies without consulting her first and she would be the same. I have seen firsthand the fallout of someone hiding the cancellation of a policy without telling their partner and the upset and worry it can cause when that partner finds out the safety blanket they thought they had is gone when they need it most.

My wife's uncle cancelled the family's health insurance with out telling his wife. Two months later their daughter was diagnosed with a serious heart condition which required her getting a stent. She had to wait two years to get the operation publicly because they couldn't afford to go private and it was two years of constant worry and twice daily monitoring to make sure she didn't put too much strain on her heart. The uncle thought he was doing his best hiding the extent of their financial worries from his family but the aunt, quite rightly in my eyes, saw it as a betrayal of trust. If you're having trouble financially, you need to sit down as a couple and decide what is most important for you as a family and work together to create the budget that covers this or make the tough decisions together so that you are both aware of what you are deciding to give up.

Trying to make this out as her being mad because she won't get a windfall and get to go out on a spending spree when he dies is very mean spirited imo. When a family has a child with special needs, stability, both in terms of finance and getting to stay in your own home, is the most important thing and this man's actions put that under serious threat. I can understand the wife's ire.