Inheritance - has something shifted?

One thing they need to consider is if all the siblings die then what?

my friend’s ex husband died young. One kid. Money to the kid. Except both the executors died and one was ex MIL so the solicitors were going to lump in both estates and split between grandkids. Except the dad’s estate was just for his kid. It was a hot mess.

This is what happens usually. Unless it's a very rich family.

It would be overseen by the solicitor that set it up, no doubt. Also the beneficiaries are entitled to statements of accounts and can hold the trustees to account if they fail in their judiciary duty.

Trusts are expensive to set up, and do have specific running costs. They do have their uses but most countries are changing laws which are making them less so. It is getting harder to separate personal assets from trust assets when it comes to means test for one thing.

It may be the sensible decision. Tax /IHT / gifting / care fee deprivision of assets - its a financial and legal minefield. There are lots of companies targeting this age group with all types of schemes and plans. But if they have had proper legal advice then hopefully they are looking to pass on wealth to their grandchildren - maybe to avoid double taxation etc. Eg if it went to you it may be taxed and when you die possibly taxed again. It depends as the rules can change. Either way if they gave their wealth to you and you got divorced and married someone else who had kids then effectively their money could be supporting another mans kids who are nothing to do with them. So it sounds like they are protecting against that - as I probably would too. I would only want my assets to go to my blood descendent or stay within blood family.

I don't even think a solicitor would accept this as it would easily be overturned in court. Wonder if she actually has a signed will. I knew a woman who was always changing her will to try to manipulate her children as she was quite wealthy. Turned out she died intestate.

Most trusts set up for this purpose are designed to dissolve when the settler/s die and the assets sold so he will probably get a lump sum payment to do as he wants with.

Did she even have a will? A solicitor would have warned her about that as it would be quite easily contested. Known many older people to rant on about their wills but never actually get around to filing one.

She shouldn't even need the will. She could contest anyway and would probably win on fidiciatlry duty alone as she owns no home.

I wonder if this is less their decision, more accepted advice from an IFA? They’re 80 and this sounds exceptionally complex and they have sought advice and answered some questions. Likely haven’t truly considered the implications on what this truly means?

I don’t expect a single penny, and would expect my DH to get it alongside my son.

However I wouldn’t expect them to proactively ring fence me from it in all eventualities or worse, not allow me to control my son’s trust in the future. I would always put my son before my own needs 100% of the time. If they did this I would be very hurt as it suggests they think otherwise. As such - I can see why you’re feeling hurt based simply on this alone.

That is a legal requirement by law. The solicitor could be sued by the children for negligence if the mother spent the money with no accountability.

But I think the op means this will continue into adulthood. When an adult wins a settlement, no one tells them how they can spend the money.

That is standard. A parent cannot be in charge of their child's trust fund. It's the same if they get compensation for an accident. It's usually overseen by at least 2 trustees. Sometimes a lawyer as well. It stops the parent stealing it, or being accused of stealing it. You may apply to the trustees for money if you need it. But it must be for the direct benefit of the children, such as school fees that you can't afford.

Having seen DB get shafted by his grabby ex wife weeks after a significant inheritance came through I don’t blame your PIL at all. We have done the same with our wills.

ETA Our trust dictates equal split between DC when the second of us dies, still on trust not they get their own ‘bit’…I think that is more usual than the arrangement you are discussing… are you sure you’ve got that bit right?

That's normal though. Sometimes a lawyer overseas the children's portion. The mother still has the right to apply for funds to support the children if needed but if she was put in sole charge she could be open to accusations of misuse. That's why its done this way. It's actually for her protection.

I sympathise OP and I understand about being removed from the control of your children's inheritance. I can see why that is upsetting.

I wonder whether the three siblings, when the time comes, could agree to draw down a chunk of the money straight away and put in it ISAs for the kids instead that you can both manage, for example.

Id talk to your DH about this stuff now and let him see how you feel a bit hurt and stressed at the idea of not being able to control your kids’ futures if he should die first. This isn’t being dramatic or grabby, it’s a consequence of this type of trust.

edited to add - if there is a rule in place which prevents your DH from simply taking his share and distributing it to his nuclear family as he sees fit then I think I would as a DIL need to pause my ‘duties’ to reflect on that.

Have your PILs done the same for the children of the other siblings or just your children?

I'd certainly pull right back from all the buying of Christmas presents, hosting and any heavy lifting (including clearing their gutters). They don't think of you as family so they don't get any of the privileges family.

At what age will your children have the right to their inheritance without your DH's siblings making any of the decisions? It all sounds very messy and complicated and designed to cause friction and upset.

This was a bit part of the case for MIL. She was very vain and attention seeking, and having a smart salesman turn up at her small bungalow and tell her how special she was, and what complex arrangements were needed, she would have been sold. When she described what she had done we said, "Are you sure, it doesn't sound quite right?", but she insisted. We asked FIL and he said he had no idea what was being done, but she sulked if he questioned it. We all backed off.

MIL was nowhere near the IHT limits, but the inheritance planning company were more that happy to review, redraft and charge to manage it every year for 15 years.

When MIL died and we got to see it, it was nothing like what she had described. There would of been no protection from her imagined risks and wasn't even implemented to be legal or effective. Effectively she'd payed for nothing.

At first the inheritance management company wouldn't release anything to us (the executors) until we had a full financial consultation with them to asses how much money we had and how we should move our assets into the trust they wanted to create. Simply put, they are vultures preying on the vulnerable to line their own pockets. Luckily their product is so full of holes, with effort we can un-pick it, but this is taking alot of effort ( 3 years and counting)

Unless you are the Duke of Westminster, even for people living in the south with a big house, there is little to no point in any of this, apart to line the pockets of the planning industry. While the Governor estate may be an inter-generational asset, the "27a Average Road, Average Town, Wealth Trust" will be gone and forgotten is 15 years.

Give it to who you want it to go to before you die, and at least see the joy it creates. Give any left to who you want to in your will, they can do anything they want with it. If want to or you think you can control the living from beyond the grave, go and have a long look at a cemetery.

I have sympathy for OP, it sounds the same as us, and is a huge amount of wasted effort to appease the vanity of someone dead

Don't be Sometimes people are advised to mention someone so they can't argue they were accidentally forgotten. In some cases they will even leave them a small amount like £1

Not necessarily. The trust will probably be dissolved on the death of the last parent, and everything distributed. That's what normally happens, unless the beneficiaries want it to continue.

True for some but my parents were born in 1926 and 1923 they were together nearly 50 years and my dad never saw himself as head of the household they respected each other as equals. Plus if a parent ever needs looking after that usually has an effect on both husband and wife equally not just bloodline. To be honest I fail to see how this is relevant to OPs situation. This is about respecting someone's marriage like the parents inheritance went into the pot for both of them. I am not saying she should be a named beneficiary but once the husband inherits it should be his choice if he wants to ring fence the money or treat his wife with the respect she deserves

@NepoInlaw- you are not the first and won’t be the last woman who’s PIL view her “like a daughter to us” when it comes to you providing free labour to help them in their later lives, but are “like a stranger to us” when it comes to money.

Your PIL are telling you that you don’t count as family, but don’t let them pretend you are family when they want/need help.

How was he entitled? Did you comingle your inheritance? It should have been paid into a separate personal account so it couldn't be considered marital property. If your dad's solicitor did not let you know this you could have a case against them.

I'm surprised the solicitor allowed this as they usually insist the money is paid into a personal account to cover themselves.