Inheritance - has something shifted?

Tbh does it really matter, if you and your husband stay together then you will also benefit from the inheritance. Would you be aa involved in their life, if you did divorce.

Am I wrong in thinking that if your husband inherits then you'll be benefitting from the extra money too,or do married couples not share when inheritance is concerned?

It is totally normal for people to leave their estate to their blood relatives

Won't your husband inherit? It's the same pot.

But I think the bigger point is that by not being specifically names, you feel like they are not grateful for all that you have done for them over the years when you are not, in fact a blood relative, meaning that really, you have gone above and beyond.

I would scale back all that you do for them as clearly blood matters more than actual good deeds or thoughtfulness to them. They are your husband's parents, so probably best to let him step up.

At least they are leaving your household something. I know loads from this generation who intend to spend every last dime because they don't see any reason to pass anything down to their children.

This will bells on. I have never seen wills mentioning wives/husbands of the beneficiaries.

Some people go through partners/divorce constantly with step children and all sorts. The will writer would have to change their wills every time a partner changed.

If you are in a stable marriage then by default you should be able to share in it. Unless of course your DH says what's yours in mine and what mine's my own!

As others have said, I think this is a result of the Daily Mail (and others) getting ever more excited about potential inheritance tax changes in the November budget and suggesting extraordinarily complicated trusts to work round legislation which hasn't happened yet. Most of the trusts won't work and even fewer are worth doing, but it does seem to be having a moment.

I personally would never expect to inherit anything directly from my in laws.

I would expect my OH to directly inherit, and then would probably chose to spend it on us & our family.

Might expect the kids to inherit directly an amount from their grandparents.

It’s your choice to run about after them.
Many relationships break down, I understand totally them not wanting their money to go to some random man and his DCs if you and their son split up.
The fact you bought their birthday and Christmas cards is irrelevant.
Start letting their son do it.

Surely the norm is that children inherit and those children share it with who they wish? Some leave caveats that it has to be passed on to DGC etc, so homes or valuables stay in the family. That’s fine. I’d never expect to be explicitly included in in-laws inheritance.

This isn't generational. This is as it always has been. People, generally, leave their money to their biological family. You are the daughter in law not the daughter. They are actually actively protecting their assets from you and a potential future divorce by putting the money in trust. If you feel some way about it then take a step back. Pass the baton directly where it should be... with their son. Don't take on the work. If they ask you to do something direct them back to their son. Don't do it and resent them for it.

So, you did things for them that you feel your husband should have done and they now intend to pay him for them, not you?
You want to take it up with your H, as the subcontracting of the gift buying and hosting you feel earns inheritance was from him to you, so its he who needs to pay you when they pay him.

Very normal for only direct descendants to be beneficiaries of trusts, I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen in-laws being included.

Is your problem more that your husband won’t share any eventual inheritance with you?

Leaving aside all the personal feelings and sense that you are not trusted.

My view is that the financial advice industry has gone into overdrive recently ahead of whatever Rachel Reeves has in store. People with sufficient wealth to leave to people, are obtaining legal advice and are I think being given advice to create extremely complex financial structures [which then have to be run at vast expense by said advisors] in order to avoid legislation which doesn't exist yet and "risks" unspecified to a generation who are far better off financially than most of us will ever be.

Often when the wealth and assets itself doesn't warrant it. Substantial yes, life changing insofar as it gives grandkids a leg onto the housing ladder. But requiring specialist expertise and administration ad infinitum, no.

In your shoes, I'd mildly enquire whether the trust will have POA and be administering their finances and sorting the admin when they require care? Ultimately your children will benefit so unless you are financially strapped, I'd chalk it up and watch how it evolves. You may change your mind in due course when it's your own children.

I would refuse point blank to allow your family home to be put into the trust and have the right legal agreement to allow your 50% to be distributed as you see fit. Bollocks to that.

My parents left their estate to me and my siblings. My ILs to theirs. Our wills leave everything to our children, and in the event of one of them predeceasing us, their share goes to any children they might have. Those are the only wills I have had anything to do with and there's no specific mention of any in laws in any of them. I wouldn't expect there to be, apart from possibly if there are individual gifts of items of sentimental value. My MIL have me some personal things when she was alive and I presume she did the same with her other DIL but neither of us was mentioned in her will.
I imagine my parents assumed that whatever they left me would then become our family money and hence DH and our children would also benefit but they were not named specifically. Ditto no mention of me or the children in my late MILs will but I don't feel thar we are "excluded". The only situation I can think of when I might change my will to specifically name a SIL or DIL might be if whichever of my children they were married to had died or they'd split up and that person had remained close to me and there were no children. Then I might well make a separate gift to them, but not if they were still married to my offspring. Whatever I leave to my children then becomes their money and they can do whatever they want with it. If they are married/have a partner at that time I would presume they'd share it.

I think it's more a case of they want to wrap everything up in a trust so that OP gets access to nothing if they split up. Essentially saying to the OP, "we don't trust you". Perhaps another one their children's relationship is on the cards?
People are probably reading too much into the "son is crap" comment. More likely to be a case of that OP helps with the ILs admin, appointments, organising jobs for them etc. So when the ILs turn around and say that they don't trust the OP (without speaking those words of course), it probably does sting a little. I get it OP. Obviously whilst you remain together with their son, it makes no material difference but it's the sentiment behind the will re-writing. I'm glad there isn't this kind of crap in my family.

I assume the OP isn't upset that she won't be named in the will. On a practical level they may as well leave the money to her DH. It's the principle of ringfencing it with a trust that stings.

I wouldn’t dream of expecting to be in my in laws will and I doubt DH would expect to be in my mums will. The money will be left to the adult children in each case (or their children in the event of death). The inheritance on both sides would be shared between husband and wife as family money anyway. Seems odd that you are expecting a special mention and sum.

As others have said, up to them.

I do think things are changing though at least in part because divorce, re-marriage, blended families etc are all far more common now than they were say 50 years ago so if you’re particularly bothered about what happens to your money after you are dead then blood relatives is a way to ensure it stays strictly within your family rather than it being split with someone who then remarries, has another partner who then benefits etc.

How do you know what they've inherited from others wasn't to one or the other of them rather than both? I'd assume as long as you're happily married to their DS that he'd share the benefits of the inheritance with you anyway. That's how it usually works - you leave it to your DC who share it with their DPs if they have one. I don't think anything specific has changed or that people used to name ILs as well as blood relatives, except for a specific piece of jewellery maybe that DS wouldn't want but DIL might.

'Their son is crap'. I expect they know those are your feelings and would take that to mean the marriage is unlikely to last and yes it's sensible in that case for them to put their son first.

To me this seems completely normal. It would be unusual to leave money to a DIL rather than a son. They presumably assume it will improve both your lives.

FIL asked me to do reading at my MIL's funeral because neither FIL nor DH wanted to. The bequest my DH received specifically stated DH and DC. DH thinks it means DH (+me as his wife) but it stung a bit.

My DGM left everything to her DD and her son's widow, in his memory.

People go weird over money and family. Try not to let it bother you - half of it is probably yours legally whether through marriage or divorce 😉 and pick them a rubbish care home 🤣

Are people not allowed the human reaction of being hurt? Posters on this site do love to stick the boot in.

You see yourself as part of a family, and you play a part in that, have done for years, and are suddenly being told you don't 'count' because of money.

When my in-laws talk about winning the lottery (no inheritance likely otherwise) they talk about giving it to us, not DH. They would give our family unit the money; they're not differentiating between the one they have a blood tie too.

Is there a divorce on the cards somewhere on the beneficiary side of things?

My Mum set up a trust when I was separated but not yet divorced to ensure exh wasn't entitled to her estate.