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?

Inheritance is not considered marital property in a divorce or separation unless it has been co-mingled with the marital finances. That is why it is meant to be paid into a personal bank account, not a joint one, and should never be used to pay for mortgage or renovations etc unless you are prepared to loose it in a divorce.

Meant lose.

It would go to grandchildren first, then next closest relative. If a relative can't be found it goes to the state. It does seem a rather convoluted will. Wonder how much the solicitor charged to write that novel.

At their age setting up a trust is ridiculous as surely it would be seen as avoidance and there would be a clawback. They also sound very unlikely to have to protect their children's inheritance against a step parent as well. Be interesting to see what the lawyer who set this up charged.

This. It is up to your child who they share it with as it is their birthrite, not marital property.

Yes especially as that would mean splitting it more and a single sibling would end up with half of what the married ones get.

Some don't, but most seem to. It's not considered marital property by law so as long as you keep it in your own personal account it can't be taken in a divorce.

They were, but remember the man was mostly seen as head of the house and had charge of finances and had all the power. Married women couldn't even get a loan or credit card without their husband's permission.

It does seem excessive especially when you consider the age of the parents.

Yes the more you get into what might be, the more complicated it becomes. Lawyer do encourage this till the mind spins. I had it with my mum’s Will that she wanted help with, as well as solicitor, I have it with mine having decided to ditch the last expensive will from solicitor as, years ago, he told me he charged £200 an hour for alterations.
In the end it’s easiest to directly leave inheritance to your children. My son was insulted that I was leaving a trust for his children it was to him as if I didn’t trust him. I trust him. In the event his three children have all inherited a genetic condition (child onset) from his wife who didn’t know( adult onset) which means they now all have degrees of learning difficulties as well as physical ones. So half will go my son he will make the complex decisions. The other half to my daughter who has no children. Her husband or his descendants will not be mentioned. She might well decide to leave money to his niece? It’s all mind numbing complex for a mere human to think they can control.
The genetic dice were thrown, they landed and they will pass on the best they can.
we could just reward our last carers. But in our long lives our fate has been cast with our children they have had to bear with our decisions good or bad. Just hand over the loaded baton.

She shouldn't feel that way. I don't think they made a point of excluding her, and would just assume if their son's marriage was normal she would benefit anyway.

Unless her husband dies, in which case the children’s aunts and uncles make all decisions about the inheritance for her children, because they don’t trust her. Thats what they are communicating.

I'm surprised the solicitor allowed this as they usually insist the money is paid into a personal account to cover themselves.

How was he entitled? Did you comingle your inheritance? It should have been paid into a separate personal account so it couldn't be considered marital property. If your dad's solicitor did not let you know this you could have a case against them.

@NepoInlaw- you are not the first and won’t be the last woman who’s PIL view her “like a daughter to us” when it comes to you providing free labour to help them in their later lives, but are “like a stranger to us” when it comes to money.

Your PIL are telling you that you don’t count as family, but don’t let them pretend you are family when they want/need help.

True for some but my parents were born in 1926 and 1923 they were together nearly 50 years and my dad never saw himself as head of the household they respected each other as equals. Plus if a parent ever needs looking after that usually has an effect on both husband and wife equally not just bloodline. To be honest I fail to see how this is relevant to OPs situation. This is about respecting someone's marriage like the parents inheritance went into the pot for both of them. I am not saying she should be a named beneficiary but once the husband inherits it should be his choice if he wants to ring fence the money or treat his wife with the respect she deserves

Not necessarily. The trust will probably be dissolved on the death of the last parent, and everything distributed. That's what normally happens, unless the beneficiaries want it to continue.

It's this.
DH and I have gone from being skint students, to monied young professionals saving hard, to stretching our income in the sleep deprived years. We've always worked well together. And the PIL know this.
I like DH's siblings but If DH died, they would have vastly different attitudes to money and how young people might need to utilise it. They are quite extreme, extravagant and puritanical, it would be a nightmare.
Likewise if a sibling died, DH would be the worst person to judge whether his nephew should buy a motorbike for college/move out of home/go travelling whilst deep in grief. Surely that's a decision for the surviving parent who knows their kid and whether this a long held dream or a impetuous thought.

The PIL might think this will bond the siblings and nephews together but I just see it as forced and potentially leading to resentment.

Imagine being deep in grief and saying to your kid, ring up your Uncle who you see twice a year and ask if the trust will pay your rent. The uncle would be can't you share a room, the aunt book the penthouse.

Don't be Sometimes people are advised to mention someone so they can't argue they were accidentally forgotten. In some cases they will even leave them a small amount like £1

This was a bit part of the case for MIL. She was very vain and attention seeking, and having a smart salesman turn up at her small bungalow and tell her how special she was, and what complex arrangements were needed, she would have been sold. When she described what she had done we said, "Are you sure, it doesn't sound quite right?", but she insisted. We asked FIL and he said he had no idea what was being done, but she sulked if he questioned it. We all backed off.

MIL was nowhere near the IHT limits, but the inheritance planning company were more that happy to review, redraft and charge to manage it every year for 15 years.

When MIL died and we got to see it, it was nothing like what she had described. There would of been no protection from her imagined risks and wasn't even implemented to be legal or effective. Effectively she'd payed for nothing.

At first the inheritance management company wouldn't release anything to us (the executors) until we had a full financial consultation with them to asses how much money we had and how we should move our assets into the trust they wanted to create. Simply put, they are vultures preying on the vulnerable to line their own pockets. Luckily their product is so full of holes, with effort we can un-pick it, but this is taking alot of effort ( 3 years and counting)

Unless you are the Duke of Westminster, even for people living in the south with a big house, there is little to no point in any of this, apart to line the pockets of the planning industry. While the Governor estate may be an inter-generational asset, the "27a Average Road, Average Town, Wealth Trust" will be gone and forgotten is 15 years.

Give it to who you want it to go to before you die, and at least see the joy it creates. Give any left to who you want to in your will, they can do anything they want with it. If want to or you think you can control the living from beyond the grave, go and have a long look at a cemetery.

I have sympathy for OP, it sounds the same as us, and is a huge amount of wasted effort to appease the vanity of someone dead

Have your PILs done the same for the children of the other siblings or just your children?

I'd certainly pull right back from all the buying of Christmas presents, hosting and any heavy lifting (including clearing their gutters). They don't think of you as family so they don't get any of the privileges family.

At what age will your children have the right to their inheritance without your DH's siblings making any of the decisions? It all sounds very messy and complicated and designed to cause friction and upset.

I sympathise OP and I understand about being removed from the control of your children's inheritance. I can see why that is upsetting.

I wonder whether the three siblings, when the time comes, could agree to draw down a chunk of the money straight away and put in it ISAs for the kids instead that you can both manage, for example.

Id talk to your DH about this stuff now and let him see how you feel a bit hurt and stressed at the idea of not being able to control your kids’ futures if he should die first. This isn’t being dramatic or grabby, it’s a consequence of this type of trust.

edited to add - if there is a rule in place which prevents your DH from simply taking his share and distributing it to his nuclear family as he sees fit then I think I would as a DIL need to pause my ‘duties’ to reflect on that.

That's normal though. Sometimes a lawyer overseas the children's portion. The mother still has the right to apply for funds to support the children if needed but if she was put in sole charge she could be open to accusations of misuse. That's why its done this way. It's actually for her protection.

Having seen DB get shafted by his grabby ex wife weeks after a significant inheritance came through I don’t blame your PIL at all. We have done the same with our wills.

ETA Our trust dictates equal split between DC when the second of us dies, still on trust not they get their own ‘bit’…I think that is more usual than the arrangement you are discussing… are you sure you’ve got that bit right?

That is standard. A parent cannot be in charge of their child's trust fund. It's the same if they get compensation for an accident. It's usually overseen by at least 2 trustees. Sometimes a lawyer as well. It stops the parent stealing it, or being accused of stealing it. You may apply to the trustees for money if you need it. But it must be for the direct benefit of the children, such as school fees that you can't afford.