Inheritance - has something shifted?

Irrelevant response.

DH parents did this and I was pissed off as my parents will include DH by name.
But they did it because dsil changes husbands like there is no tomorrow and they didn't want one of these random chancers to benefit.
DH will be able to take all his share out of the trust at any point and give it all to me if he wants.

She’s not asking to be in the will. I bet PIL will be moaning if OP stops hosting them and cleaning their gutters and buying them presents. it’s OP’s time, OP’s choice.

She’s not asking to be in the will. I bet PIL will be moaning if OP stops hosting them and cleaning their gutters and buying them presents. it’s OP’s time, OP’s choice.

Having bought Xmas presents, hosted and done heavy lifting for 30 years when their son is crap I am a little miffed.

I’d stop all that. You’ve been with their son for 30 years and they still don’t trust you so fuck them. Tell DH you won’t be hosting or buying them presents this year.

My MIL gifted me and SIL and her daughter with valuable jewellery despite my protests. I would have been happy for her to leave it all to her daughter but was touched that she treated me like a daughter.

@NepoInlaw Instead there's a Trust which I don't have the full details of but the siblings can distribute according to need with age restrictions. Aside from the grief, logistics of selling run down character property and normal life, chuck in everyone arguing over who's need is greatest and they will be tearing each other apart. Be as long as the potentially divorcable in-laws don't get a seat at the table.
This has massive implications because one sibling is out for every penny, the other is a spend today forget tomorrow, DH says he isn't motivated by money but that's optimism because we've never had a lot.

I must admit, I dont like the way they seem to have done this trust!! they should at least have made 3 equal trusts for each of the siblings to be distributed by them towards house purchases or holidays or whatever and divvying up for their own children. I see your point about bil being left in debt by overspending wife and then not having debt paid by trust because sil has died anyway, and she has spent on the strength of the trust. feel they have been given bad advice. equal sums to each sibling. none of this you already have so you dont need stuff!! that just makes the one not receiving feel unloved/

@ThisTaupeZebra thats fair. I think the difference is that by default, will writing is about planning for all types possibilities that may or may not happen in future, whereas spending time with in laws at Christmas is about supporting your spouse and children to facilitate their family relationships and just having a nice time.

That doesn't make it acceptable for parents to undermine their adult childrens' chosen relationships/marriage.

Plus, that isn't the tone used when women are on here talking about their awful PILs, is it?

In fact, I'm going to link to this thread every time there is an 'my PILS are making a fuss about Xmas plans' thread in the next three months, and remind those women: 'divorce is a common thing and your husband could leave you tomorrow, so its not like you really owe them anything. They aren't real family are they?' etc.

Im normally the first person to say it's their choice.

But this is really offensive. It would force me to reevaluate my relationship with them.

Say a parent dies, leaving their estate to their grown up child who's married and child free. After the grown up child has inherited, say their marriage fails for whatever reason. Marriage being what it is - a financial contract - assets are then split in the divorce and financial settlement. Say he then goes off and marries someone else and has children with them, then eventually dies. The children of his new marriage are directly benefiting from the estate of his ex wife's parents, i.e not their blood line.

This is why will trusts are often created.

You’re right, but divorce is a common thing.

This. The wifework is done in anticipation not of money, but of the expectation that your marriage is respected and you are seen as a partnership, with the implicit financial implications (but not necessarily expectations) that brings.

By accepting the wifework, you giving your children their surname (I imagine?) and then them going out of their way to create a legal framework to overcome the standard legal implications of your marriage to their son (that you will be the sole beneficiary of his will when he dies if he dies before you and vice versa) they have breached the implicit expectations you had when you married your husband. It is a vulnerability of marriages where wealthy in-laws are present that isn't discussed enough and it isn't neutral.

I think the odd thing (if I’m reading right) is that the children don’t automatically equally inherit their father’s share if he predeceases his parents. I wouldn’t expect to be included in my in laws’ will other than to hold money in trust for my children if under 18 in the above circumstances.

Your comment about them giving all three siblings a chunk now comes across as grabby.

Will your DH not share his inheritance with you, or spend it on family holidays, upgrading household stuff, things that benefit you as a family?
My mums will stated it goes to her children, or grandchildren if parent deceased. I spent some if the money my mum left on a holiday, new TV, carpets etc, the rest into premium bonds. My DH has never complained or thought he had been snubbed

It's a way to mitigate IHT or against the divorce or early death of any of the beneficiaries. Once the trust is vested the trustees (presumably the three DCs) can agree to wind it up and pay out the assets immediately although in that case it would make sense to share with the DGCs or the IHT problem is recreated. The trustees can also agree to add more trustees such as their spouses, and the DGCs as they come of age. The spouses don't need to be beneficiaries, because the DGCs (ie the reason for needing payouts from the trust) are already beneficiaries.

It does require the trustees to work together harmoniously! That's where I'd anticipate problems.

There's case law allowing a family trust to be broken in order to pay a court-ordered divorce settlement, even to the detriment of the recipient's own children, so there's hope for OP if that's what she has in mind.

Your husband is their blood relative. Obviously you’ll be benefiting from any inheritance left to him :/

Why not say our kids are in their 50s, long term marriages, let's divide in three and leave it at that.

Because they want to know their own children are secure. There’s norhjng hurtful about that. Maybe they do want to ensure that their in laws can’t divorce their children and take the free money with them, but again, I can’t see what’s awful about that. They have probably seen other situations where a divorce has caused someone to lose money they inherited and they don’t want that for their own estate. As long as you are married to their son, you benefit.

Or give us a chunk now, we're all in slightly too small houses with nearly uni student and driving lessons ahead.

This is where you come across as greedy and it sounds like truer colours are showing. They are still alive. It is not time for anyone to inherit their money.

You say the control element bothers you, but why does it bother you? Is it because you want to be able to exert some control over money left to your DH? It’s ok people want to be in control of their own money, and it is still their money.

The control element is bothering me.

I wondered if it was that that was upsetting you. The trust is a step more than my Il have done but they are very much you are not family but then act surpsied I don't do wife work bit.

They made a huge point of saying I'm not in their will - why would I be - but they've split everything between DH and his kids - and kids not named as he may have more with someone else again laboured. I'm not supid I know this - makes sense to me but why push the point. I'm just as likely to inherit from my parent as he is from his TBH - there could be something or nothing depends how things pan out.

I assume trusts are just getting more common due to complex family situations, tax reasons, upselling and possible house wealth in some parts of the UK.

I understand, OP. You have always treated them as family for them to turn around and say that you aren't familt

I think the real question is, why is their son - your DH - so crap?

Time for him to step up and take over!

I agree with this. My DM got talked into leaving her estate in trust to DGCs.

There were a couple of things which made her amenable to the idea:

As she got older she had less of a perfect grip on the value of money. Her estate sounded like lots of money to her. In reality it wasn't worth a huge amount, especially divided up.

Snobbery also played a part. She liked the sound of saying that there was going to be a trust fund for DGCs.

The sad reality now is that she is in a care home, burning her way through her money. The trust fund will be worth sweet FA.

On the plus side, being disinherited is rather freeing. I'm not worried about how much will be left in the end.

Mine & DH's wills are far simpler. To each other and then to the DCs.

OP, depending on the terms they may just be able to wind the whole trust up and share the assets. Worth them speaking to a solicitor about this when the time comes, which will almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of running the trust.

I think I'm most upset that i'm not trusted enough to act as a trustee on behalf of my children that only blood relatives can be trusted to have their best interests at heart.

That's shit.

Do they think that you would somehow try to benefit yourself at the expense of your kids?

No, the whole point of a trust would be that the trustees (which sounds like DH and his siblings) have to agree any money withdrawn from it and it has to be for a specific purpose for the benefit of the people named as the beneficiaries. It is possible that the DH could buy a house for his wife and son to live in as well as himself, but the house would belong to the trust, not to him, and it couldn't be passed on to his wife if he died.
So suddenly a possibly large chunk of what would otherwise be "family money" is only in the power of DH and his family, cannot legally be spent on the OP at all, and any equal financial power and decision-making procedures that they had previously established as equal adults in their relationship get pissed on. It also potentially even undermines the OP in her parenting if in later years she says eg: "no, I'm not going to lend you money for a motorbike as I think they are dangerous" and her son then gets his aunt and uncle to buy him one out of the trust.