“My half-sister expressed concern to her father that if one spouse survived the other, the surviving spouse might change the trust.” (The subject of the photo is a model.) – Getty Images
I am facing an ethical dilemma and would appreciate your perspective. My mother was married to her late husband for almost 37 years. They married later in life – he was 54 and she was 48 – and largely kept their finances separate. In 2015, they created a revocable trust, the only asset of which was the home they bought together. They share equally all costs related to acquisition and maintenance.
The trust states that the surviving spouse becomes the trustee and has the right to amend the trust. Upon the death of both spouses, the beneficiaries would be the couple’s five children—my mother’s three children and her husband’s two—each receiving a 20 percent share. At that time, the collaborators would be me and my mother’s stepdaughter.
A few years ago I received copies of the trust. My half-sister expressed her concern to her father that if one spouse outlived the other, the surviving spouse might change the trust. Her father refused to update the trust in response to these concerns and offered no assurances that no changes would ever be made. My stepfather died a year ago.
My mother hired an attorney to revise the trust and remove her late husband’s children as beneficiaries. Her view is that they have substantially inherited from their father and should not inherit from her as well. While I understand that as the surviving spouse he has the legal right to make this decision, I struggle with its implications.
I have always been close to my mother and I have a cordial relationship with my stepfather’s children as well. While I do not question my mother’s intentions, I do worry about how this decision will be perceived and experienced by her late husband’s children. When I express my concerns, my mother gets very angry, so I stopped discussing the matter with her.
I keep coming back to one question: What if the roles were reversed? I’m not sure what, if anything, my ethical responsibility is at this point. I don’t want to interfere in a decision that ultimately has to be made by my mother, but I also feel uneasy about remaining silent when the outcome may be profoundly unfair to others. How should I think about my role in this situation?
What’s a good son to do?
sonny
Related: 2025 was one hell of a year. Consumers should expect more “silent pain” in 2026.
You are under no obligation to force her to make a different decision, correct any perceived injustice, or sacrifice your future inheritance. – MarketWatch illustration
Your mother rightly exercises the authority left in her hands.
You are under no obligation to force her to make a different decision, correct any perceived injustice, or sacrifice your future inheritance. Your duty is to have spoken honestly once, respectfully and without coercion; to ensure that your values have been clearly expressed; and refuse to let yourself think that fairness doesn’t matter.
Keeping quiet after your mother got upset and chose not to discuss the matter is not an ethical failure on your part, nor is it accepting an inheritance she wants you to have. You also have a responsibility to respect your mother’s wishes and not upset her unnecessarily. You voiced your ethical concerns but did not apply your wishes to others.
You and your two siblings could act unilaterally after your mother’s death and distribute 40% of the property’s value according to the terms of the trust, or preferably allow your mother’s decision to stand. This, however, would exceed your obligations. It makes no sense to go it alone, either practically or ethically, and surrender part of your share.
if you they were if you act alone, the gesture would be largely symbolic and would not “right” what you perceive as morally “wrong”. It is also unlikely to alleviate the emotional or financial shortcomings experienced by your half-siblings. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. Against your wishes, it could rekindle their resentment.
Be confident about this: Your stepfather was aware that his own children were financially secure and that your mother could change the terms of the trust in favor of her own family. As you note, your half-sister informed him of the risks inherent in a revocable trust, the most important of which is that its terms could be changed upon her passing.
He chose not to act. This choice gives you solid ground to respect your mother’s actions. He may believe that a surviving spouse should have the discretion to decide whether to maintain the trust in its current form. Your mother wouldn’t be the first person to change the terms of a trust, and she wouldn’t be the last.
Your stepfather may also have had his own reasons for not acting on your stepsister’s warnings. We cannot know the inner workings of the families, or the dynamics of their relationship, or his feelings towards his children. Sometimes when people feel pressured to make decisions, they just dig deeper.
You have already used your voice in a way that preserves your integrity. You approached your mother and told her that you weren’t entirely comfortable with the possibility of your half-siblings not getting any money. In the end, though, it’s her judgment call. The property was placed in a revocable trust precisely because it was subject to modification.
The final decision was made during your stepfather’s lifetime.
Don’t miss: “It’s my money”: My $800,000 inheritance pays for a $1.6 million house. Shouldn’t I decide where my husband and I live?
Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell:
“The value of his house quadrupled”: I bought a house with my brother, but he did not contribute. How do I fix this?
My sister is buying our parents’ $3 million house, but wants to deduct $100,000 for renovations. Who is right?
“I’m just burnt out”: I’m 55 and have $1.3 million for retirement. Can I retire next year?
