Inheritance - has something shifted?

[NepoInlaw]

My 80 something in-laws have over the years inherited quite a few times. From parents, friend bequests, siblings.
As far as I'm aware these were all straight forward, no conditions, nothing complicated, straight in the family pot. Inherited from both sides.
Sometimes these sums were enough for a holiday, sometimes more significant.
They've just redone their wills and gone down a Complicated trust route, so that only 'blood' relatives benefit.

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

I figured I'd be the one picking out their care home for them, so what's caused their loss of confidence or trust. Has there been a generational shift?

Their money, their choice. This is literally the only response ever needed on any discussion of this sort, and one you will never listen to.

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

Understand where youre coming from, but this statement is coming across as though everything youve ever done os purely transactional, we know thats not the case with a long marriage etc but you could stop all the heavy lifting, no more, let DH deal with all things for his side from now on, and if they mention it say ah, I'll let your blood relatives deal with it.

Not a generational shift, but does sound like something has changed, do they think a non blood relatives somewhere is on the verge of divorce, or is horrible, or they just don't like?

Probably they have seen something in someone elses family, or fear something in their own where maybe one of their children gets divorced and the ex ends up with half the money.

It's their money and their choice. Just as how much time you spend on them is your choice.

What happens to the money you inherit, and does your husband agree that should be ringfenced for you as a blood relative to your parents ?

I would never expect my in laws to leave me anything. Surely that’s unusual.

Ambulance chasers seeing a revenue opportunity after car finance, housing repair, damp. spray foam and so on have all had problems. Clams farms and the legal sector are seeking new revenue streams and advertising on daytime tv. Daily Mail publish articles about the Chancellor taking their money and care fees and evil divorcees. One bloke down the pub does it. Sometimes things achieve critical mass.

The sad thing is the two times (probably linked by recommendation so not a reliable sample) non wealthy (£10m plus who can afford and got decent advice) people I know did this and I asked them to describe what they'd done, it was clear they'd not protected their home from care fees but had really screwed things up by using a dodgy firm who inserted themselves and who had previous form for fraud. One chap went to speak to a reputable family solicitor with instructions what to ask, the other refused to listen. The actual instruments were cynical and substandard and didn't even hang together well. I was curious so looked at some more reputable firms and most wouldn't achieve care home fee protection. I didn't look at the divorce protection.

their money their choice.

It is also your choice to have been doing the wifework instead of letting their blood relative son do it.

So: stop doing all the things, any of the things, for them. And/or tell them that you will be the one choosing their care home so they might want to reflect on that...

Time to hand the reins to dh.

Nothing has changed. It's totally up to them who they leave money and how their will is arranged to and it always has been..Some people have always used Trusts some not.
I am a little confused about why you think your in laws should leave money to you though surely it's natural for them to leave it to their children.
I don't know if you have children but if so wouldn't you want to leave your money to your children rather than go their partners?
My in laws didn't have any money to leave but if they had I wouldn't have expect any of it.
I'd expect it to go to their children.

I’m always one to say, their money their choice when it comes to wills.

But I do understand why you feel a bit miffed. I’d see it as, you’re good enough to do the heavy lifting for them, but not good enough to warrant a mention on their will. With this in mind, you’re completely entitled to scale back any help and leave it all up to your dh. Depends how unappreciated you are feeling at the moment.

as others have said, their money their choice and you choose to do the things that you did for them.

Also, it's quite normal for people to leave their money to their relatives.

The In laws see that you think their son is crap and you are surprised?

If I'm not mistaken OP, they're using trusts to ringfence their estate from the partners of their children right? Presumably to protect their money becoming part of a divorce settlement. I think some pp have missed this.
In that case, hand the reins over to the 'blood' relatives and let them handle things going forward. If you feel strongly enough about it, come Christmas, let DH handle the presents and don't bother hosting them.

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.

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.

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 🤣

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?