Inheritance - has something shifted?

Unless her husband dies, in which case the children’s aunts and uncles make all decisions about the inheritance for her children, because they don’t trust her. Thats what they are communicating.

She shouldn't feel that way. I don't think they made a point of excluding her, and would just assume if their son's marriage was normal she would benefit anyway.

Yes the more you get into what might be, the more complicated it becomes. Lawyer do encourage this till the mind spins. I had it with my mum’s Will that she wanted help with, as well as solicitor, I have it with mine having decided to ditch the last expensive will from solicitor as, years ago, he told me he charged £200 an hour for alterations.
In the end it’s easiest to directly leave inheritance to your children. My son was insulted that I was leaving a trust for his children it was to him as if I didn’t trust him. I trust him. In the event his three children have all inherited a genetic condition (child onset) from his wife who didn’t know( adult onset) which means they now all have degrees of learning difficulties as well as physical ones. So half will go my son he will make the complex decisions. The other half to my daughter who has no children. Her husband or his descendants will not be mentioned. She might well decide to leave money to his niece? It’s all mind numbing complex for a mere human to think they can control.
The genetic dice were thrown, they landed and they will pass on the best they can.
we could just reward our last carers. But in our long lives our fate has been cast with our children they have had to bear with our decisions good or bad. Just hand over the loaded baton.

It does seem excessive especially when you consider the age of the parents.

They were, but remember the man was mostly seen as head of the house and had charge of finances and had all the power. Married women couldn't even get a loan or credit card without their husband's permission.

Some don't, but most seem to. It's not considered marital property by law so as long as you keep it in your own personal account it can't be taken in a divorce.

Yes especially as that would mean splitting it more and a single sibling would end up with half of what the married ones get.

This. It is up to your child who they share it with as it is their birthrite, not marital property.

At their age setting up a trust is ridiculous as surely it would be seen as avoidance and there would be a clawback. They also sound very unlikely to have to protect their children's inheritance against a step parent as well. Be interesting to see what the lawyer who set this up charged.

It would go to grandchildren first, then next closest relative. If a relative can't be found it goes to the state. It does seem a rather convoluted will. Wonder how much the solicitor charged to write that novel.

Meant lose.

Inheritance is not considered marital property in a divorce or separation unless it has been co-mingled with the marital finances. That is why it is meant to be paid into a personal bank account, not a joint one, and should never be used to pay for mortgage or renovations etc unless you are prepared to loose it in a divorce.

Most people appear to have completely misunderstood this post. The OP is not complaining that she isn’t mentioned in the will but that her ILs have put trusts in place to ensure she can’t get any of the money as e.g. part of a divorce settlement. Quite clear OP’s in-laws don’t see her as family and don’t trust her, even after all those years. I’d be annoyed.

It is. Usually it goes to your children. If a child predeceases you, it goes to their children. If the grandchildren are under 18 it is held in a trust account for them.
If they have no children it is split between surviving siblings.

I would imagine they have been advised by a financial advisor, as this is a way to mitigate IHT.
Also all the things you did were on behalf of your lazy husband! It’s a shame you didn’t do those things out of kindness.

MIL’s unmarried siblings did this in later years to exclude legally adopted nieces and nephews they accepted as family up until a handful of years before death.

They dropped the ‘aunty’ bit from Christmas cards etc. It was so strange at the time because they were very formal, traditional people up to that point.

basically it came about from influence of 2 biological next generation and ensured all family heirlooms were emptied out of properties long before Wills were read.

the estates were worth small millions.

it’s divided some in the family but ultimately the 3 who inherited via family trust aren’t the type to think what was fair. They were well briefed by the older 2 bios as to their entitlement.

One of the mothers recalls a conversation she thought odd at the time with a partner of a bio grand child but it now makes sense. They were being indoctrinated very early on to accept only bios should inherit aunts estates.

doesn’t make them any nicer or better people.

I don't really understand your outrage. For aeons people have left money to their children and only their children. (I'm not talking about vast estates being carved up - that's different and always has been.) How the child then handles that money is the only potential problem. It would have been assumed the money would benefit the family in general because marriages were viewed as partnerships in a way that not many seem to be these. Is your real concern that your husband will squirrel the money away and use it for his own benefit only? If so, you don't have much of a partnership and that's what you should be concentrating on. The only people named in my will and in my husband's too, are our children. We assume that they, being decent people in committed and loving relationships, will use the money/property for the benefit of the whole family.

🤔 I’d not expect my MIL to leave me anything , unless she’s specified a particular piece of jewellery for me .
Anything would be divided between her own children with perhaps a token amount for grandchildren.
I would likely benefit in some way though as husband would use any money for us as a family ( maybe getting himself something he’d otherwise not be able to afford)

To me this is normal - the inheritance is left to the blood family, not in laws. That’s certainly been the case add in my family - my grandma’s money (not that there was much) went to my dad and his siblings. My mum was very close to her MIL. My aunt’s money went to their nieces and nephews (no children of their own). If those people then chose to share it with their spouses etc that was up
to them. My aunts money (more significant value) was in trust.

OP isn't expecting to be mentioned in the will. Normally, when making a will to leave your estate to your children, you will have a clause that if they die before you do, their share will go to their children and if they don't have children, it will be split between the remaining siblings.

In OP's case, they have set up trusts so that if OP's DH dies, the money will go into a trust for their children but only their aunts and uncles (her DH's siblings) will be able to make decisions about how and when her children will be able to access any money from the trust.

She is upset because, after a lifetime of her doing all the emotional labour and 'wife-work' for her in-laws, the setting up of a trust to manage her children's inheritance in the event of her DH's death means that they don't trust her and don't consider her part of their family. She wasn't expecting her PILs to leave her money in their will.

@NepoInlaw To return to the original question: I agree that inheritance has become much more complicated. But I think it’s because inheritance tax and the cost of care have become such a drain on an estate. If and when DH inherits, you will no doubt benefit from the money though it won’t become yours to take away in case of divorce or to leave in your will. I don’t believe there is usually an intention to exclude partners from benefiting.

This. I don’t know a single person who has inherited directly from their in-laws. The money always goes to offspring and indirectly benefits their spouses.

@Delphiniumandlupins I would tend to agree with your assessment.

Some people become suspicious of others in old age. Setting up a trust gives the illusion they can control things from beyond the grave.

The will would have to specify that the deceased son’s share went to his widow . Could happen if there was a close relationships or perhaps the widow was hard up, but not the norm.

Cynically, I would guess that a lawyer charged a lot more for setting up this trust than a straightforward will. Also, at least one of your parents-in-law has an inflated sense of the importance of their estate, a belief that one (or more) of their children will get divorced and that some of their grandchildren will make unfortunate financial decisions. Does the legal firm also have a role in administering the trust?