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?

Let's hope their estate is of sufficient magnitude (£3m, £5m +) to make the benefits of a trust against the costs outweigh the simple distribution you suggest. If the trustees are siblings then let's hope all the sibling trustees are wise and get on well enough to avoid this trust magnifying fractures in the future when life events and expectations hit them in the face. If not then I suspect your wisdom will be proven, OP.

I'm in France, married to a Frenchman. Inheritance here is so simple that there is little point even making a will. Most of any estate goes to blood relatives: kids, grandchildren, parents (if young adults die without having kids) or siblings. With "representation", so if an adult child dies before their parents, their kids get their share when their aunts and uncles inherit from granny.
It makes everything a great deal simpler and, of course, leaves nothing to in-laws.
I inherited from my grandparents in the UK because my father predeceased them. I spent a significant chunk on a special family holiday, but the bulk was reinvested in a property which has only my name on the deeds. When I die it goes to my kids. It's actually a much healthier set up than in the UK!
I'm afraid you come across as "grabby", OP, and I wouldn't name you either as a beneficiary or as a trustee!

Are you worried your husband might dump you once he’s inherited? Surely it’ll all go into the marital pot?

I would think it's fairly common that parents and family leave directly to their own son or daughter rather than to the couple. I'm not sure why their needs to be a trust set up to do that, sounds more like the have been up-sold that by the solicitor.

My in laws are the same. I’m looking after my husband who is terminal ill and when they go his share will go to my kids who are young and it won’t help them till they are older. I only work part time so husband could progress his career because he could earn a lot more then me but now we don’t have insurance policy we could end up homeless (we won’t because my family will help me). But that money was always suppose to be ours but it will bypass me and the life I could give our kids with that money will not happen. Like you I do a lot for my in laws and trying to speak to them about it they aren’t interested at all.

I would stop doing so much for them as they have blood relatives who can do that. You can say you don’t feel comfortable climbing a ladder anymore so hire a professional.

It will be exactly this.

This just seems normal?? My parents have left everything to me and my sibling in their will. My husband recently passed away and now his share in his mums will will pass down to our children. I wouldn’t expect it to come to me.

What! Why on earth do you feel entitled to their money?! They are not your parents. So what if they’ve inherited money, that is entirely their business and their money to spend exactly how they please.

You just scream jealousy, entitlement and honestly sound money grabbing. If you’ve been doing things for them purely with the hope of gaining money from then when they die that is just awful.

Surely they leave it to their son and he share it with you, his wife, anyway?!?

This is confusing. Will your husband not put his share of the inheritance in his "family pot" to benefit your family, or do the terms of the trust prevent him from doing so?

If it's the former it is a husband problem, not an in-law problem, as surely it's normal to leave the estate to the children.

My parents will is left to me and my siblings equally. Easier that way. But if one of us predeceases our parents, our spouse gets our share.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You seem to be hugely missing the point!

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?

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

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.

It's fair that they pass it to blood

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.

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?

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