Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Inheritance - has something shifted?

387 replies

NepoInlaw · 17/09/2025 12:09

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?

OP posts:
Randomlygeneratedname · 19/09/2025 12:51

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 12:49

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.

Show quote history

But I think the op means this will continue into adulthood. When an adult wins a settlement, no one tells them how they can spend the money.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 12:52

GoldMerchant · 17/09/2025 14:13

OP, I'd be very annoyed about that, too. Especially as the wording of the trust would state that the money could only be used to benefit the children, so the other trustees could hold you to account/prevent the money transfer if you were trying to run off to Turkey for a boob job.

Show quote history

That is a legal requirement by law. The solicitor could be sued by the children for negligence if the mother spent the money with no accountability.

PloddingAlong21 · 19/09/2025 12:57

I wonder if this is less their decision, more accepted advice from an IFA? They’re 80 and this sounds exceptionally complex and they have sought advice and answered some questions. Likely haven’t truly considered the implications on what this truly means?

I don’t expect a single penny, and would expect my DH to get it alongside my son.

However I wouldn’t expect them to proactively ring fence me from it in all eventualities or worse, not allow me to control my son’s trust in the future. I would always put my son before my own needs 100% of the time. If they did this I would be very hurt as it suggests they think otherwise. As such - I can see why you’re feeling hurt based simply on this alone.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 13:06

Butchyrestingface · 17/09/2025 14:23

Have you seen the will? Were you present for its reading?

I may just be getting terribly cynical in my middle age but I would want to see it.

Show quote history

She shouldn't even need the will. She could contest anyway and would probably win on fidiciatlry duty alone as she owns no home.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 13:12

bettybadger · 17/09/2025 14:28

When my MIL discussed her will with DH & me, she said she’d stipulated that if any of her DC died before her, the estate would simply be divided between the remaining DC and not go to the GC.
She did this because she thought my SILs DH was a w@nker (he is) and she didn’t want the possibility of him getting hold of her money. (The GC were v young at the time.) It felt a bit odd/unfair that because of this awful BIL, my DC would lose out if my DH died before MIL but I did understand her reasoning. It wasn’t personal against me.

Did she even have a will? A solicitor would have warned her about that as it would be quite easily contested. Known many older people to rant on about their wills but never actually get around to filing one.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 13:22

99bottlesofkombucha · 17/09/2025 14:52

No, that’s not the case. The trust structure means the dhs inheritance is not owned by him- the trust is a legal entity in its own right and nothing that goes into the trust for her dh is inherited by the op, she only benefits during his life from what the trustees agree to distribute to dh out of the trust. There are usually rules about how much is allowed to be distributed, whether capital can be etc. The whole purpose of it is that it be a different entity so if he went bankrupt the trust would be affected, similarly if he divorced the op wouldn’t have a claim on it (except perhaps with highly paid lawyers who only work with private wealth type families)

Show quote history

Most trusts set up for this purpose are designed to dissolve when the settler/s die and the assets sold so he will probably get a lump sum payment to do as he wants with.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 13:30

Zilla1 · 17/09/2025 15:03

That still seems odd. Most Clauses I've seen just have the share of the child who passed go to their children, the will-writer's grandchildren, with a simple 'bare' trust created if underage or a more complicated trust if their surviving parent is considered a 'risk' so they need protecting after the age of 18. No need to skip a side of the family and disinherit those grand children completely. Their uncles/aunts can be the trustees, again if the parent is untrustworthy. Odd to risk disinheriting any groups of grandchildren if their relevant parent predeceases the will writer,

Show quote history

I don't even think a solicitor would accept this as it would easily be overturned in court. Wonder if she actually has a signed will. I knew a woman who was always changing her will to try to manipulate her children as she was quite wealthy. Turned out she died intestate.

Wooky073 · 19/09/2025 13:40

It may be the sensible decision. Tax /IHT / gifting / care fee deprivision of assets - its a financial and legal minefield. There are lots of companies targeting this age group with all types of schemes and plans. But if they have had proper legal advice then hopefully they are looking to pass on wealth to their grandchildren - maybe to avoid double taxation etc. Eg if it went to you it may be taxed and when you die possibly taxed again. It depends as the rules can change. Either way if they gave their wealth to you and you got divorced and married someone else who had kids then effectively their money could be supporting another mans kids who are nothing to do with them. So it sounds like they are protecting against that - as I probably would too. I would only want my assets to go to my blood descendent or stay within blood family.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 13:40

Flossflower · 17/09/2025 15:07

I do think solicitors are more likely to try to persuade people to set up trusts these days. The reason is that they will make money when the person dies as they will have to sort out the trust. Having dealt with a trust from a relative, there is no way in a million years that I would set up one. There are things solicitors do not tell you for example a will trust might have to complete a tax form every year. Solicitors are not accountants and while they may give you good legal advice, you should not take financial advice from them. I think trusts are only useful if you have someone who will always need to be looked after or if you have many millions to leave.
We have left our money to our children, or in the event or their death to our grandchildren. I think this is perfectly normal. I don’t think many people leave money to their DILs or SILs.

Trusts are expensive to set up, and do have specific running costs. They do have their uses but most countries are changing laws which are making them less so. It is getting harder to separate personal assets from trust assets when it comes to means test for one thing.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 14:00

GoBackToTheStart · 17/09/2025 15:51

So the siblings are both beneficiaries and the trustees? Were they named as being beneficiaries of a specific amount in the trust, or if your DH dies, could your DCs could potentially lose access in practical terms to their inheritance because their aunt and uncle prioritise themselves and their family, and they’d need to get into some sort of dispute over the conflict of interest (which also applies if one of the other siblings passes away)? It’s putting an awful lot of faith in the family being fair to one another, whereas a parent that can’t access the money for themselves but can access the money for their children is arguably more “clean”.

Not being named as an IL in a will isn’t unusual at all. Money being put into trust for DGCs isn’t unusual either. Not being trusted to act in the best interests of your own children, after decades of being the one carrying the load of maintaining family life and connections, is shit and insulting. I’d be upset too Op.

Edited

It would be overseen by the solicitor that set it up, no doubt. Also the beneficiaries are entitled to statements of accounts and can hold the trustees to account if they fail in their judiciary duty.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 14:14

RisingAbove · 17/09/2025 16:53

OP, depending on the terms they may just be able to wind the whole trust up and share the assets. Worth them speaking to a solicitor about this when the time comes, which will almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of running the trust.

This is what happens usually. Unless it's a very rich family.

welshmercury · 19/09/2025 14:23

One thing they need to consider is if all the siblings die then what?

my friend’s ex husband died young. One kid. Money to the kid. Except both the executors died and one was ex MIL so the solicitors were going to lump in both estates and split between grandkids. Except the dad’s estate was just for his kid. It was a hot mess.

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 14:27

loobylou815 · 18/09/2025 18:09

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.

Show quote history

Are you a trustee or beneficiary? A trustee oversees the running of the trust, but I don't think they necessarily get any distributions.

Laurmolonlabe · 19/09/2025 15:06

Nothing has shifted inheritance wise- under English law you have always been able to leave your money to whoever you like, and specifically exclude anyone you like.
You really should have taken this into consideration when deciding how much to put into your relationships with your in laws- they are not your family and I am not at all surprised they are not happy about you making all the decisions. You need to look at it from their point of view.
Even if you have done the heavy lifting- it is because you husband didn't want to, not because the PIL wanted you to do it.
I wouldn't be happy for a non blood relative picking out a care home for me- honestly, would you?

GoBackToTheStart · 19/09/2025 18:59

Barbann122 · 19/09/2025 05:48

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.

Show quote history

Which is the standard issue of people not bothering to read the full thread.

Trusts as a concept doesn’t seem to be the issue. It’s a the single trust that’s the problem by the sound of it. Why not separate the money into different trusts for each family, so no potential for arguments when the siblings all have different ideas of what is appropriate spending (so no need for costly and stressful litigation against family members), and it’s still the blood relatives that benefit. It isn’t unreasonable for a parent to be concerned that potentially life changing amounts of money intended her children is to be left at the discretion of family members that may have very different priorities for them.

GoBackToTheStart · 19/09/2025 19:02

SweetnsourNZ · 19/09/2025 14:00

It would be overseen by the solicitor that set it up, no doubt. Also the beneficiaries are entitled to statements of accounts and can hold the trustees to account if they fail in their judiciary duty.

Show quote history

Because “holding trustees to account” when they are family members is always so easy…the potential for falls outs is huge, and will affect all of the families if any of the siblings pass away (or even if one of them is particularly vocal and the others inclined to “keep the peace” which is a scenario we see constantly on here). I can’t imagine any of the other spouses would be thrilled about having no input into decisions that directly affect their children either.

atinydropofcherrysherry · 19/09/2025 19:35

What happens if this goes as to pls, and a grown grandchild asks for their share but never given any money...

atinydropofcherrysherry · 19/09/2025 19:36

Like I'm coming and asking times for 3 different things but aunty always says No. How many times she can say No.

atinydropofcherrysherry · 19/09/2025 19:39

Actually I voted for the first time today: you aren't unreasonable

Lockdownsceptic · 19/09/2025 20:03

There is nothing strange about that. Most people only leave to blood relatives.

mothra · 19/09/2025 23:09

A pp said parents cannot be trustees on behalf of their children, in this kind of inheritance situation. That is incorrect. We have two estate planning firms involved with drafting wills at the moment, for my DPs, and for DH and I. DH will be trustee for our DS, in respect of my parents will, should I predecease DM and DF. And DSIL will be trustee for my niece and nephew. (My DB is deceased.)

In terms of requiring two trustees, we are also establishing a protective trust for DS, in case both DH and I die before he reaches adulthood. This will be operated by a family friend, and a professional trustee. (and overseen by annual audits by another solicitor.)

All sorts of trusts are possible.

lilkitten · 20/09/2025 13:37

I inherited a large amount from a family member, everything was left to blood relatives but I've shared it with DH (as in it paid off the mortgage, went on holidays and house things). I would expect PIL to leave inheritance to DH, but not to me, though DH would share it with me. That would be up to the recipient to decide on. One thing not mentioned in that will though, was if one of the beneficiaries predeceased the relative. One person sadly passed away, and was effectively written out of the will when the intention was their share would go into a trust for their DC, but we all split it so it was made fair.

Sueeet · 20/09/2025 19:28

Well if your husband inherits as a blood relative, won’t you benefit too? There are times when a wife or husband inherits from their partner and then leaves everything to their own blood relatives and not their partners - it does make you think.

Marieb19 · 20/09/2025 21:38

We were almost talked into setting up Trust Wills but luckily we did some research and backed out. There are no IHT benefits, unless you are super rich but they are also massively restrictive, difficult and expensive to administer. Annual tax returns would have been required on each trust.
After you have been married for so long and done so much for your IL I feel your pain and i too would be upset. How do the other siblings feel? Personally, I would take a big step back from them.

Sparks654 · 20/09/2025 22:57

Tricky but you are not alone. I know countless stories of similar things where good people who have been there much more than others are given big cuts of a will. One case I know of there were 4 kids and they all got different amounts. Some massively more than others. The mother was asked to change her will to make it more even when she was compos mentis, but refused. She wrote her will the way she wanted it. It's hard though if you've been tirelessly looking after your in-laws.