Inheritance - has something shifted?

Is the trust anything to do with avoiding care costs?

If they died intestate, you still wouldn’t get anything. It’s very rare for a non blood relative to be left anything. Perhaps a small bequest such as a piece of jewellery/ornament etc. It would generally advised not to leave a cash bequest as unless the estate is large, after individual bequests are paid out first (as they have to be), there could be nothing left for spouses or their offspring.

It’s also not unusual, especially as you get elderly, for even a will to cover all eventualities which saves having to make changes if say your only child and their children are wiped out. Both our wills cover all eventualities which saves what there is of our estate going to distant relatives who we don’t know exist, let alone have met.

It is coming across that you view your relationship with them as transactional, but that is not how relationships work and its certainly not how they view things.

Surely when your husband inherits it will benefit you anyway? Do you not share finances?

My lovely, late FIL was drawing up his will, everything divided between his two sons, DH and his brother, all fine.
The solicitor then asked if he wanted DH’s share to go directly to our young DC in the event that DH pre-deceased him.
Definitely not, he said. If that happens DH’s share should go to Tarty — because she will need it.

I read your post as being curious about the complexities of wills these days, as opposed to being entitled to a share.

Trusts have become a lot more common these days as people want to protect their assets in the event of them needing residential care. For example if say your FIL passed away, his share of the property would be held in trust for the trustees. If your MIL then developed Alzheimer’s and required residential care, and the council did a means assessment (which includes the family home) to establish whether she needed to pay for this care, only her half can be taken into account.

Trusts also help to avoid probate and can reduce inheritance tax if applicable, so they’re well worth having.

My own in-laws have recently set one up for the above reasons, but theirs stipulates than in the even of my husbands death, I become one of the trustees (providing we’re still married). I think the assumption is that if we’re both still alive and married, when they pass, their son would simply share the inheritance with me as we combine our finances. I do feel it’s quite unfair if your PILs haven’t considered you at all.

I lost my mum last week and my dad died quite a few years ago. Mum inherited from Dad when he died, now she has left everything to be divided equally between me and my siblings. There is no mention of any of our spouses in the will - just us. But we are all married and her expectation will have been that we would share any inheritance with our spouse and our children.
I have no expectation at all of being left anything personally by my in-laws, but would anticipate that my husband and I will both benefit from anything they might leave him - as he will from my Mum’s inheritance, even though he isn’t named in her will.

And hopefully if he dies before her, her wishes get satisfied

That's the advantage of the French system: children inherit the share that would have come to their parent if they had still been alive when the grandparents died. I get the worst of both worlds in theory as I inherit neither from DH (French) or my Mum (UK) if she were to remarry. But I still think the French system is fairer.....

Surely their child who you are married to would inherit and not you.

Have you been taking care of things all these years hoping for a pay off when they die ?

Im sorry to break it to you but this is standard.

In many families, money is left to a son or daughter and if that person is married, their spouse is likely to inherit if the son or daughter dies first. A trust could stop that happening.

Should any of my DC predecease me I want their share of inheritance from me to go to my GC, not to my DIL or SIL who both stand to inherit a significant amount from their parents. I’ve written my will to reflect this wish, is that so wrong?

I don't understand the issue. Your husband's parents are leaving their money to their children, which includes your husband but not you. Totally unremarkable. You're miffed, you say, presumably because you feel excluded. But (a) that's unreasonable and (b) you are not excluded: any inheritance of one spouse is jointly held by both while you are married and form part of the marital pot should you divorce. Had they elected to leave it to a dogs' home you and your husband would receive nothing. And you never know, they might even have made arrangements for people including you to eg receive a specific piece of jewellery.

Surely what ever goes to your husband is half yours anyway.

Maybe they just assume any inheritance left to the son will be yours too anyway. Into the family pot to be shared. Isn't that what marriage is?

I'm a bit baffled by this. So if your in-laws didn't have a pot to piss in you wouldn't bother with visits and helping them out with appointments etc etc ??
The fact that they do have money and are passing on to their own DC and their DGC (your children) you are therefore bound to get some benefit are you not?
I wouldn't in a million years expect a share in my in laws will.

It's fair that they pass it to blood

A case where the firstborn son died of cancer and the second son took over everything, neglecting his two nephews...he talked his parents into write the kids out of the will.

Who do you think u r, miss entitled… i grew up not knowing a soul who inherited any inheritance.. make yr own money and way in life, .. absolutely dreadful

Op, can your DH not draw all of his inheritance out when they die, and then share it with you, but tell his siblings that it's all spent?

You seem to be hugely missing the point!

I think your reaction is understandable. It's not just about the money. It's about am I family or am I not? And if I am not, why are you expecting so much from me? Why are the obligations and the effort all on one side?

I think they have made it clear that they don't think of you as family. So I would just stop doing things for them, refer them to your husband , or they can employ someone to do their dogsbodying. And you can get on with enjoying your life and helping your family.

There seems to be an uptick in the 'if you are not blood, you arent really a relative' way of thinking at the moment - thinking of the lovely woman who posted after her MIL, who was at the end of life, had made her wishes clear but her daughter had kicked off about not getting absolutely all of the jewelry and who got criticized for accepting MILs stated wishes. Or the OP who had been married for almost 20 years but whose DH took their daughter over to the house when his parent died, but told OP she was not family and should not come.

I wonder if it is something that goes with scarcity mentality - ie. if we all feel under pressure, we are less accepting and supportive of others and draw in our boundaries, whereas in times of plenty we can be more generous and accepting.

In your position, OP, I would be miffed too. It might be their wishes, and their right, but it does seem to indicate you are less than.

And to me that's the core of the issue and why I'm puzzled at PPs leaping on calling the OP grabby.

HNRTT but based on a skim, I thought her point is more that the process involves not direct distributing the estate to the deceased's children rather than complaining she won't get her share. If a sustaining trust is created as the OP seems to imply, there won't be a 'his share of the inheritance for him to choose to put in the family pot or keep for himself'. Rather he and the other named beneficiaries may need to request distributions which the trustees collectively then agree or otherwise. Presumably different to a bare trust created for someone under 18 when there is a full distribution to pass in its entirety to the child when older. One of the issues can be if the OP's DP dies, he children will then be relying on the aunts and uncles to treat them fairly or face expensive and risky legal action, as it appears only the blood relatives rather than in laws are trusted to be trustees as well as beneficiaries (different roles). I've seen discord and outright theft in such circumstances.

If the estate is large enough then the above might not be a bad idea for IHT and other purposes - most approaches have costs and benefits, putting aside the OPs feelings. If the estates are not large enough then the main beneficiary of this compared to the traditional 'full share distributed to children' may well be the solicitors or other vendors of the scheme (and crooks can swim in those seas IME). I've personally seen entirely unsuitable structures sold to the ignorant for estates too low to benefit from trusts at all and two where the approach intended to transfer ownership to crooks directly rather than on death to help avoid those pesky care home fees that might arise in the future. It would have certainly removed the chance of the home being sold for care fees as the elderly couple would have lost their home entirely in that case.

Inheriting from anyone is a gift, not a right. 🤷‍♀️

I wouldn’t expect DHs parents to name me in their will. I would expect him to inherit any inheritance, and then use it for our family. Same when my parents pass, they won’t leave anything to DH - it will come to me and then used for my family.