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 would not expect to inherit from in laws, I can't imagine anyone would?
In fact all our in-laws and parents are dead. DH and his brother shared the small amount from their parents. I benefited because we don't have his and her money. Our DC benefited because we gave them some.
My sister and I inherited from mum. She left a small amount to grandchildren and we varied the will to increase it. DH benefited from my share.
None of the above were large sums.

I think the thing that has changed is the amount of money passed down. We now (sadly) live in an inheritocracy. How much you might inherit is now perhaps the biggest factor in your life chances, more significant than how hard you work or education level.

It does sound horrible to exclude non-blood relatives when you've been married for decades. Act accordingly.

I'm interested to know why you've done all the present buying and heavy lifting for your husband's family. Presumably, he does all that for your side of the family. That sounds like a really strange way of doing things, surely you'd sort out your family and your husband would sort out his?

Not clear what your relationship is.

In Law? Widowed ex in law?

Keeping most of it in the blood line is fairly common.

However if you've done stuff for them down the years and the estate is big enough a pecuniary legacy of £10k or so would be a gesture.

@NepoInlaw it was ever thus, ime.

Should your in-laws children die before they inherit, their share will automatically go to the children of their sons/daughter (if dec'd)

No matter what you do/or how much you do for them @NepoInlaw, you are not blood.

At least, now you know how they're thinking and can make any adjustments should you wish.

I do totally understand where you're coming from though.

my MIL had nothing to leave (and she was a horrible old cow who i hated) but she once said to me that it was my duty to do all the things for her in the same way as her daughters did.

And i asked her, as a joke, what she'd leave me for that and she went off on one about how it was my job and DH is far too special. So i never went to see her again and certainly didn't lift a finger when she needed something that was in my set of skills. so meh.

I think people are being more cautious. They want their money to go to their son and other blood relatives. Ring fencing it in this way is a smart thing to do imo.

I think there's a lot of nuance being lost on this thread about the symbolism of how inheritance is set out.

I don't think the OP is saying that it isn't her ILs choice or that she was expecting a windfall.

It sounds to me like she thought she was close to her ILs and was an active engaged member of their family, including taking responsibility for their care needs, and that in that context it has surprised and hurt her the lengths they have gone to in order to make sure that in no circumstances does she ever get a penny of their money. I don't think it's the money per se that hurts - its that when she felt she was close to them, they have set up arrangements that make it clear she's an outsider who can't be trusted.

But again, this is completely normal. It would be very unusual to include in-laws in a family trust. There could also be tax implications of them leaving money to op (for example, the main residence nil rate band is only for direct descendants, not spouses).

The problem seems to be OP taking on responsibility for her in-laws when her husband should be doing it, not them leaving the money to him. Right or wrong, the usual convention is to leave your money to your descendants not according to merit.

from your post I assumed that they were seeking to ensure that of their son inherits / receives any benefits from the family trust then he dies, his interest in the trust goes straight to his children / their grandchildren rather than passing to you as his spouse.

I can understand this. If your DH inherited from them, then died, the standard couple will would leave it all to you. And you are free to do what you want with ‘their’ money, including marrying again and leaving it all to your new husband 🤷‍♀️

Again, their money their choice.
Which is why I always say - allow your partners to show up for their family in a way they feel comfortable, and you do for yours what you are comfortable with. If they look like a selfish arse, maybe they are.

but wouldn't it still form part of the marital pot upon divorce?

Maybe they think you and your dh are going to split up and they don’t want their money in the asset pool?

I mean, if he inherits while you are still married and you then divorce, you might be entitled to some anyway? Unless that scenario is covered too...
But yes, I do wonder if the fact you think your husband is crap is feeding this. Why have you been doing the work for him?

My DF died 18 months after I divorced.
However, because my ex still lived in our marital home and hadn't bought me out, he was entitled to claim on my inheritance. That the value of our equity was equal to what my DF had left me. I signed my share of the marital equity over to my ex.

I wouldn't expect to inherit from in-laws and I'm sure DH wouldn't expect anything from my parents. A small sentimental keepsake perhaps, but a chunk of their estate? Definitely not.

Stop doing the heavy lifting immediately. Leave everything up to your DH. Not your problem any more.

I think the issue is that a family trust - while not unusual isn't the norm. If someone had a son and daughter-in-law, they would usually just write a will leaving everything to the son, not a convoluted trust to make sure the DIL never got her mitts on it. Or at least not without either a fortune to leave, or a bad relationship with the DIL.

Using a trust is usually more about tax efficiency, the children and GCs all dying before the GPs is a pretty remote likelihood, just legalise. Sharing between children and that child's share going to their children if they die first is pretty standard. Or these days skipping the children and splitting between GCs to avoid two lots of death duties in rapid succession.

I thought so about the change in title but suspect a misdirect or drip feed and any post-nup will involve the substance of divorce protection iwth other provision. If the OP doesn't nip it in the bud, she'll possibly need to spend significant fees on specialist advice. They might just try and get her to sign but the last time I looked, the courts of England and Wales needs the signatory to have independent legal advice.

Their son will always be their son!

You sound like you did all these things hoping to get something in return when they die.

This is what I was thinking.

My sister and I were named in my parents wills. DH and his brother were named in his parents wills.

I just assumed if the money was passing down the family, then only family members would be named. I am not sure why - unless you thought your own child was a shit partner - you would name spouses?

Trusts are very complicated and our FA advised not worth doing unless there is at least over £1M in the pot (easy these days with high house prices.)

You're making quite an odd point.
My H inherited from his parents (on the 2nd death) and the money went into our joint account. They didn't leave me anything and I'd not for a minute assume they would- our finances are joint.

Just because you've had a crap marriage for some time doesn't mean you're owed a payout

Not necessarily, if the inherited funds or assets are not mixed/kept totally separate from joint marital accounts nor used for joint expenses.

It's possible they may not be included in a settlement of divorce.

I would expect mine to leave it to DH and DSs, but not to tie it up in complex trusts to deliberately keep it away from me!!

And if I had done all the communications and hosting etc it would stop immediately.