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?

So, you did things for them that you feel your husband should have done and they now intend to pay him for them, not you?
You want to take it up with your H, as the subcontracting of the gift buying and hosting you feel earns inheritance was from him to you, so its he who needs to pay you when they pay him.

This isn't generational. This is as it always has been. People, generally, leave their money to their biological family. You are the daughter in law not the daughter. They are actually actively protecting their assets from you and a potential future divorce by putting the money in trust. If you feel some way about it then take a step back. Pass the baton directly where it should be... with their son. Don't take on the work. If they ask you to do something direct them back to their son. Don't do it and resent them for it.

I think what I'm thinking is has inheritance and will writing suddenly/recently/ generationally got more complex in terms of what ifs.
DH, BIL & SIL are all married, all have children of roughly the same age. All very standard. So I guess 20 years ago, a standard will would be split between three, nothing complicated.nothing else specified.
This will has a lot of clauses referring to 'in the event of' I think we are probably covered up to 2050 with all possible variations on early deaths.

we could suffer total family wipe out at the donkey sanctuary and if I was the last one standing, it would go instead to the nominated cats home in reserve.

Surely the norm is that children inherit and those children share it with who they wish? Some leave caveats that it has to be passed on to DGC etc, so homes or valuables stay in the family. That’s fine. I’d never expect to be explicitly included in in-laws inheritance.

It’s your choice to run about after them.
Many relationships break down, I understand totally them not wanting their money to go to some random man and his DCs if you and their son split up.
The fact you bought their birthday and Christmas cards is irrelevant.
Start letting their son do it.

I personally would never expect to inherit anything directly from my in laws.

I would expect my OH to directly inherit, and then would probably chose to spend it on us & our family.

Might expect the kids to inherit directly an amount from their grandparents.

As others have said, I think this is a result of the Daily Mail (and others) getting ever more excited about potential inheritance tax changes in the November budget and suggesting extraordinarily complicated trusts to work round legislation which hasn't happened yet. Most of the trusts won't work and even fewer are worth doing, but it does seem to be having a moment.

This will bells on. I have never seen wills mentioning wives/husbands of the beneficiaries.

Some people go through partners/divorce constantly with step children and all sorts. The will writer would have to change their wills every time a partner changed.

If you are in a stable marriage then by default you should be able to share in it. Unless of course your DH says what's yours in mine and what mine's my own!

Won't your husband inherit? It's the same pot.

But I think the bigger point is that by not being specifically names, you feel like they are not grateful for all that you have done for them over the years when you are not, in fact a blood relative, meaning that really, you have gone above and beyond.

I would scale back all that you do for them as clearly blood matters more than actual good deeds or thoughtfulness to them. They are your husband's parents, so probably best to let him step up.

At least they are leaving your household something. I know loads from this generation who intend to spend every last dime because they don't see any reason to pass anything down to their children.

It is totally normal for people to leave their estate to their blood relatives

Am I wrong in thinking that if your husband inherits then you'll be benefitting from the extra money too,or do married couples not share when inheritance is concerned?

Tbh does it really matter, if you and your husband stay together then you will also benefit from the inheritance. Would you be aa involved in their life, if you did divorce.

This link wasn't the scheme I saw in person but perhaps an example of the problems that can result - https://www.heir-tight-wills.co.uk/2023/05/03/resolving-the-issue-of-asset-protection-trusts-sold-to-protect-your-home-from-care-fees/

The tax implications can be significant, depending on asset size, types of assets held, family strucutres and other dimensions.

I think what has shifted is people's attitude towards marriage. A married couple were once seen as a unit. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I wonder how they would have felt if there had been such conditions attached to any of their inheritences? If blood is what is important to them they won't need you, so I would be taking a step back. Personally I would take it as an insult not only to me but my marriage.

Their money they can do with it whatever they wish.

This. I would be amazed if I was in their will.

It's not just about divorce. It also protects their money if your husband died.

There have been lots of cases where people end up with family money being left to someone unrelated.

It can happen where someone remarries after their spouse dies, then they die. The New husband/wife leaves everything to their kids.

I have a view on his having thought about it a lot 😂

I think if you go back to to the last generation- the “silent generation” or the “great generation” “normal” people rarely had an inheritance to pass down. It wasn’t expected, it was fairly restricted to farming and aristocratic families.

with the baby boomers, the biggest transfer of wealth in history, suddenly normal people had a valuable asset- their home. Many normal people had even more wealth than this. I think they have become giddy with it, going from pride at being able to leave inheritances for the first time in their families, to as they get older and more used to the idea, using it to control the future. This is often because in any generation there are narcissistic and controlling people, and often because as it gets closer to actually happening, there’s a panic about their “hard work” being wasted.

I wouldn't even contemplate being left anything in my in-laws wills. Is that a done thing now?

Same as I would have thought it very inappropriate and wrong if my sister in law had become a beneficiary of my parents' wills.

Pure speculation but I wonder if higher value estates are more common with house price rises meaning they feel more responsibility to safeguard family wealth? And the knock on effect that inheritance is now a huge factor in whether children/grandchildren can buy a home of their own so its critical to the next generation's prospects.

Family breakdown and blended families are so common now which has complicated passing down generational wealth and perhaps they have seen consequences in their friends families and children?

Better access to advice, with the internet people more aware of trust options that in the past only certain groups with lawyers and accountants would have known about.

My PILs left everything to my DH and my DD, I didn't expect anything although like you most of the family gatherings over the years, 'looking after', and arranging things was left to me to sort out. I was slightly peeved that my DH didn't offer me a small share or at least buy something nice, not that I did (or would have) asked for anything. You are their son's wife so presumably you benefit indirectly or is it all going straight to GCs?

presumably it is also completely normal for the DIL not the blood relatives to do all their presents and running around too?

as pp said, it isn't (or sholdn't be) transactional or conditional. But it is beyond crass to watch your DIL do all the things for you then make a statement like this.

OP, just stop it all. Let their blood relatives pick up the slack.

I do lots for my in laws but I fully expect them to leave any inheritance to my DH. I would only leave mine to my DC- not their partners when they get to that stage. Having said that I would expect my husband to use any inheritance towards the family unit, not go and blow it on himself.

I don't think it is that the op isn't directly left anything, it is rather that there are a huge number of increasingly unlikely provisos in the trust to exclude her so:

1. inheritance to DH, but
2. if DH dies before his parents, everything to the grandchildren until they're 25, but
3. if DH and the grandchildren all die before inheriting, any great-grandchildren but
4. if DH and the grandchildren are all dead and there aren't any grandchildren, inheritance goes to X (other person) and follows the same trail down.

Unless this is multimillions of generational family wealth, it is all a bit pointless.

I sort of understand OP but really it's pretty normal for just the bloodline to inherit, it's just not called out officially like this. Then "the bloodline" shares as they wish with their own spouse/family.

My MIL was annoyed when she was removed from her MIL's (GM) will when GM's other child's partner died...she didn't think it was fair for MIL to inherit when her 2nd child now didn't have a partner to inherit as well, so she changed it to be split just between her 2 children. To me, that's the norm anyway!!