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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.....

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Is the trust anything to do with avoiding care costs?

I feel the real issue is the perceived slight. They may not die for a decade at least, and with care homes and the like, there may not be much left. But this feels like being treated as a semi-detached member of the family and they owe you an explanation for that, not the choice of who they leave money to. .

What I hope to God never happens to me is that I weaponise my will like so many of the older generation I know seem to. Every time we visit my parents they've changed their will to reflect their latest emotional fads and which grandchild is in or out of fashion. Anyway, as classic always-on-holiday Boomers, I'm just assuming they've gone for equity release anyway :)

That doesn’t exclude that they would give you something at all.

It’s entirely normal to leave inheritance to your own children and not to your children’s partners. If you have any grandchildren, it is entirely normal to leave bequests to them as well.

The only thing I’d expect to see left specifically to a non-blood relative, which could also be a friend, is a specific object that might have sentimental value or significance to that person.

Your whole undertone smacks of entitlement.

My Mil's will is split between her 4 children , if any of her ( adult ) children die the will is then split equally between the remaining .
I have been her dil for nearly 30 years and do more for her than any of her children put together .
I've never felt ( nor expected ) to be included .

Sorry to say this, but nothing you do for anyone should lead you to expect to inherit anything. When my father passed away he left me his half of my parents home when my mother passed away 10 years later she left her half to my 4 children and left the solicitor as her executor, not what I expected but it taught me a lesson. Frustratingly, 3 years later we are still awaiting the probate!

My in-laws original will was written in a way to prevent DILs and SILs from inheriting. They were worried that their child would die and the widow would inherit instead and then remarry and some random person would end up benefitting. I did see their point.

(They have now rewritten their will so only one of their children inherits...)

It's not a new thing. My deceased elderly FIL said many years ago that he wouldn't leave anything to his DIL as she wasn't 'family' - she'd been married to his son for nearly 50 years at this point and took care of him like a daughter!

Recently an elderly lady I know said she wasn't leaving anything to her son's stepchild as she's 'not blood relation', even though brought up as such. Cue big family fallout.

No, not without the agreement of the other trustees. The money belongs to the trust not to the DH and the trust gets to decide when and how it is spent.

You’re seeing this as a snub but they likely didn’t see it that way. It might have just been what they thought was most natural. It also protects in case of divorce as they probably wouldn’t want money going to someone who’d left their child and gone with some one else.

I really don’t see an issue with this kind of set up unless there’s been some promise. It’s still a payment to family in a fair way. My mum however was like you and thought it was bad that my granddad’s will went to my father and if he was dead it’d go to his children.

You’ll benefit through your husband, once he inherits it’s half yours anyway. My in-laws wills are bloodline but there is a clause to say that should my husband pre-decease his parents that money will pass to me rather than our children who will have to wait and inherit from their parents rather than their grandparents. I wouldn’t take it personally but as the saying goes, blood is thicker than water.

I would be hurt because it's not the money it's not being included or thought of for something small.

My ex's mother fully expected me to service birthdays, Christmas etc. No I helped once and it was a nightmare and he never helped me.

From now on your DH can do it all.

next time you are required to do something just say ‘ooh I think that’s a job for a blood relative’ and just keep repeating it every time you’re asked.
if your DH gets a third share will he view it as yours and his or his?