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?

What a weird money-grabbing take OP. They’ve probably picked up on the fact that you’re helping out because you think there’s something in it for you.
It’s common for people to leave their estates to their bloodline and far less common to include children’s spouses.

I don't think this indicates any change. It's entirely usual for parents to leave their money directly to their own DC, in the expectation that DIL benefits from it as family money in any case. It would be odd/unusual to leave anything to DiL imo.

Completely normal in my view. My husband and I (in our 50's) have set up our wills to make sure it goes down the bloodline. The half left to the widowed/widowered partner is held in trust until they in turn pass away,then that half goes to the children too. That way if there's a remarriage of the bereaved partner at some point,the half that belonged to the first deceased partner doesn't get diluted into a second marriage beneficiary. If your PIL leave it all to your DH, you'll benefit via him surely anyway (easier life,pay off more outgoings etc.)

Relatives yes. Some are relatives by blood and some by marriage.

Do recent posters think that this phrase in the OP:
They've just redone their wills and gone down a Complicated trust route, so that only 'blood' relatives benefit.
refers to a straightforward, leave inheritance to your dc set up? They have obviously arranged something that means if the son dies before the parents, the money goes to the gcs, but can't be administered by the mother, their dil. As she isn't a blood relative.

"What happens to the money you inherit"
Presumptuous. Not everyone gets to inherit money.

Our kids have been with their partners for quite a while, but our wills don't mention those partners. I don't think that's unusual or something recent. It assumes that when we're no longer around and the kids inherit their partners will benefit along with their spouses. If the partnership fails and they separate then I'd prefer my kids kept the money rather than partner. I think most people agree, don't they?

The number of people not actually reading the thread and understanding what Op is saying is baffling.

ILs have determined that she is not a suitable person to make the best decisions for her children if her DH dies because she is not “blood”. She is not asking for money for her. If DH is alive he can withdraw from the trust and Ops nuclear family will benefit; all very straight forward. If he passes away, her children’s inheritance is at the mercy of aunt and uncle who are also entitled to draw money from the same trust so are incentivised to act in their own interests at the expense of Op’s children.

Apparently because Op isn’t a blood relative of the ILs it isn’t appropriate to defend the rights of her own children’s inheritance. If she was a trustee on behalf of her children, she’d have to spend the money on her children. She couldn’t just blow it on herself or take it into a new marriage. It’s still her DCs as the blood relatives that would benefit. She could even be a joint trustee with DHs siblings so they retained a degree of control, but she has been entirely cut out of something which is intended to support her children, and just has to hope that BiL and SiL would be fair and reasonable.

After years of dedication to the family dynamic, with no failings out or backstory (like Op is actually a thief) of course Op is confused and hurt by this.

Why are we taking this personally. You are as one as you are married you will get it anyway

My parents are updating their wills now, following the sudden death of my DB. DB's share of their estate will now pass to their grandchildren, my DNeice and DNephew. My SIL will act as trustee until they reach the ages of 25. My DPs would never have made ME (the 'blood relative') the trustee of this inheritance. It would be a slap in the face to my bereaved SIL, and completely unnecessary. SIL is best placed to determine what is best for DNs.

This is perfectly normal. A trust has many advantages. EG. Their home can't be taken to pay for a care home if needed. It ring fences their money for their own family members but if left to your DH ,you surely will benefit. Everyone I know leaves their money to their blood family,if they have any. Highly unusual to leave it to a DIL. We have made a trust in favour of our daughters and grandkids. But obviously as they have good marriages ,the money will go into fa.ily coffers. But it is a protection in case of divorce.
Our solicitor advised it.
Sorry but I think you are being mercenary.

OP’s original post was about only the blood line inheriting. This has since expanded in subsequent posts to also include beef that she isn’t a trustee.

If the whole estate is going into a discretionary trust (which it sounds like), they are likely already appointing their 3 DC as trustees which is enough. The maximum number of trustees you can have is 4 in any event, so if they had appointed OP they would have had to exclude their other SIL and DIL as trustees, which would have been a contentious decision too. Better to treat all DIL/SIL the same.
And let’s not forget, trustees have a duty to make decisions taking into account the best interests of all the potential beneficiaries. If Uncle and Aunt are favouring their own children unreasonably they are in breach of trust and the OPs children can take action against them - or their mother on their behalf.
I’m not saying that going down the trust route is a good idea; they certainly have their place especially for vulnerable beneficiaries but IME they tend to be pushed by dodgy estate planning companies on Facebook to people that don’t really need them . But the merits of a trust aside, appointing your 3 DC as trustees would be a pretty common approach.

Cynically, I would guess that a lawyer charged a lot more for setting up this trust than a straightforward will. Also, at least one of your parents-in-law has an inflated sense of the importance of their estate, a belief that one (or more) of their children will get divorced and that some of their grandchildren will make unfortunate financial decisions. Does the legal firm also have a role in administering the trust?

The will would have to specify that the deceased son’s share went to his widow . Could happen if there was a close relationships or perhaps the widow was hard up, but not the norm.

@Delphiniumandlupins I would tend to agree with your assessment.

Some people become suspicious of others in old age. Setting up a trust gives the illusion they can control things from beyond the grave.

This. I don’t know a single person who has inherited directly from their in-laws. The money always goes to offspring and indirectly benefits their spouses.

@NepoInlaw To return to the original question: I agree that inheritance has become much more complicated. But I think it’s because inheritance tax and the cost of care have become such a drain on an estate. If and when DH inherits, you will no doubt benefit from the money though it won’t become yours to take away in case of divorce or to leave in your will. I don’t believe there is usually an intention to exclude partners from benefiting.

OP isn't expecting to be mentioned in the will. Normally, when making a will to leave your estate to your children, you will have a clause that if they die before you do, their share will go to their children and if they don't have children, it will be split between the remaining siblings.

In OP's case, they have set up trusts so that if OP's DH dies, the money will go into a trust for their children but only their aunts and uncles (her DH's siblings) will be able to make decisions about how and when her children will be able to access any money from the trust.

She is upset because, after a lifetime of her doing all the emotional labour and 'wife-work' for her in-laws, the setting up of a trust to manage her children's inheritance in the event of her DH's death means that they don't trust her and don't consider her part of their family. She wasn't expecting her PILs to leave her money in their will.

To me this is normal - the inheritance is left to the blood family, not in laws. That’s certainly been the case add in my family - my grandma’s money (not that there was much) went to my dad and his siblings. My mum was very close to her MIL. My aunt’s money went to their nieces and nephews (no children of their own). If those people then chose to share it with their spouses etc that was up
to them. My aunts money (more significant value) was in trust.

🤔 I’d not expect my MIL to leave me anything , unless she’s specified a particular piece of jewellery for me .
Anything would be divided between her own children with perhaps a token amount for grandchildren.
I would likely benefit in some way though as husband would use any money for us as a family ( maybe getting himself something he’d otherwise not be able to afford)

I don't really understand your outrage. For aeons people have left money to their children and only their children. (I'm not talking about vast estates being carved up - that's different and always has been.) How the child then handles that money is the only potential problem. It would have been assumed the money would benefit the family in general because marriages were viewed as partnerships in a way that not many seem to be these. Is your real concern that your husband will squirrel the money away and use it for his own benefit only? If so, you don't have much of a partnership and that's what you should be concentrating on. The only people named in my will and in my husband's too, are our children. We assume that they, being decent people in committed and loving relationships, will use the money/property for the benefit of the whole family.

MIL’s unmarried siblings did this in later years to exclude legally adopted nieces and nephews they accepted as family up until a handful of years before death.

They dropped the ‘aunty’ bit from Christmas cards etc. It was so strange at the time because they were very formal, traditional people up to that point.

basically it came about from influence of 2 biological next generation and ensured all family heirlooms were emptied out of properties long before Wills were read.

the estates were worth small millions.

it’s divided some in the family but ultimately the 3 who inherited via family trust aren’t the type to think what was fair. They were well briefed by the older 2 bios as to their entitlement.

One of the mothers recalls a conversation she thought odd at the time with a partner of a bio grand child but it now makes sense. They were being indoctrinated very early on to accept only bios should inherit aunts estates.

doesn’t make them any nicer or better people.

I would imagine they have been advised by a financial advisor, as this is a way to mitigate IHT.
Also all the things you did were on behalf of your lazy husband! It’s a shame you didn’t do those things out of kindness.

It is. Usually it goes to your children. If a child predeceases you, it goes to their children. If the grandchildren are under 18 it is held in a trust account for them.
If they have no children it is split between surviving siblings.

Most people appear to have completely misunderstood this post. The OP is not complaining that she isn’t mentioned in the will but that her ILs have put trusts in place to ensure she can’t get any of the money as e.g. part of a divorce settlement. Quite clear OP’s in-laws don’t see her as family and don’t trust her, even after all those years. I’d be annoyed.