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?

Why would they leave their money to you, rather than their own children?

If you think that you need a "payment" for doing what your DH should be doing, take it up with him, or stop running around after them.

It's along those lines @99bottlesofkombucha I think if DH dies, only my BIL and SIL have control over my children's inheritance, including provision to with hold or redistribute.

We got married in 1997 and it was more normal back then to pick up the wife work. I got the blame for late thank you cards. MIL gave me the list of birthdays. Some stuff I passed over to DH but over decades I've definitely done the heavy lifting.

So that's the background, not quite calling them mum and dad, but taking on more than if I was 20 something today.

I don't know if any of the siblings marriages are shaky, we've all been around and active for decades. We've all cooked meals and hosted.
I never begrudged getting up a ladder and clearing their gutters or visiting FIL when he was bored in hospital. Is the modern family more transactional? With blended families is it going to be blood relatives only rodding drains?

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.

Assuming this doesn't happen, you and your husband are still married, right? By leaving their worldly goods, in part, to your husband, you will benefit from this surely? And if not, there's an issue in your marriage.

For many years, my late mum ran around like a blue-arsed fly for her father-in-law, long after my parents had separated and my living-abroad father didn't even see his own father. She got no pecuniary reward for this (my grandpa didn't have a bean) when he died, and she didn't expect any either. That wasn't why she did it.

Well I guess it depends what size trust it is, they don’t need to be that complex.

They will have been advised accordingly by their solicitor. What happens if you divorce their son? Do you still expect to receive their money?

@NepoInlaw you say in a family wipe situation where you are last man standing it goes to charity. If your kids are last man standing would it go to them?

I wouldn’t expect in-laws to inherit anything, and for only blood relatives to benefit. Sounds completely normal to me.

I think posters are imagining different situations on this thread from the one the OP is describing.
she's not saying she expected to be named in the will. The will has been drawn up in a way to exclude her from benefiting from the money at all (it can't be put in the family "pot" by her dh)

What's really clear from this thread is that many people don't understand what trusts are, or how they work, or the circumstances in which they are worth setting up. Leaving an inheritance in trust for blood relatives is not just writing a will where it skips over OP in the event of DHs death; it's putting the money into a legal instrument that can only gift that money to specific people for specific reasons, as decided by the people who manage it. (I'm not actually clear from reading OP's posts which they have done.)

I think there is more use of instruments like this because of a) rising house prices meaning more people have very valuable estates, and b) more awareness they exist. Pre-internet, people probably only knew about trusts if they were wealthy enough to have financial advisors or solicitors to explain these things to them. Nowadays, everyone is a finance expert on social media, shilling often terrible advice.

I also think OP has every right to be a bit annoyed about this, and it could materially impact her even outside of divorce. If DH inherited directly and she needed private medical treatment or even a new car, he/they could spend the money on it. Depending on the wording of the trust, they might not be able to access money if she is the primary beneficiary.

No idea, what happens to a trust if all the trustees and named beneficiaries are wiped out?

I think I'm most upset that i'm not trusted enough to act as a trustee on behalf of my children that only blood relatives can be trusted to have their best interests at heart.

Will your parents leave your DH anything specific for him rather than all to you?

I'd have said that was unusual.

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.

Nobody is entitled to anything from anyone. Inheritance isn't worth the price you pay. I hope my loved ones spend all their money enjoying their time on this earth.

I’ll be honest I’ve had the if I won the lottery type situation and figured I’d put it all in trust for the biological descendants of myself.

Completely cutting out basically dh, any future partner of his, any partners or step children of my children.

They would have access and rights to say property with funds to pay for repairs but would never own them to protect them. Again with set amounts of money at key points for specific things. So a health fund, a first car fund, uni fund but it would all be for my descendants. No one person would be a beneficiary of a property or cash.

In dream land because I’m not a millionaire or landed gentry 😅

My mum looked into doing this in her and my dad’s will because my sister in law is a bit strange and she has no relationship with my parents after a big argument. Yet she is happy to live in a house that they bought outright for her and my brother. Her family is a bit ‘Jeremy Kyle’ shall we say and if something were to happen to my brother, who isn’t in the best of health, then they don’t want her to have her hands on the inheritance which could be up to half a million - when she’s already had the house. Main reason is they feel she and her family would squander it and not leave much behind for their daughter (my parents granddaughter). So the idea is when my parents die, my brother and I will split the inheritance in half and both our spouses can benefit from that. However if something were to happen to my brother before my parents days, the inheritance would go straight to his daughter instead. It does make sense in this circumstance but perhaps less so if there’s a good relationship and you are to all intents and purposes taking on a daughter role etc.

It’s not about being specifically named in the will though, it’s about the fact that a trust specifically excludes OP.

Leaving an inheritance to your child not your DIL / SIL is perfectly normal but historically a bequest was left to the child and it went into the marital/family pot.

These trusts specifically exclude spouses and whether people want to gloss over it or not they are an indicator of some level of distrust.

I can completely understand why OP is hurt and why you might want to back away from in-laws who behave this way.

If I was to divorce DH, my mother would be still sending him Xmas presents and getting him to DIY fix storm damage.

My family are different. DH is actually named, along with me, on Power of attorney for health and wealth for my parents. It's a risk but I guess even in the event of my death or divorce, we hope he'd do the right thing

This generation of grandparents is very selfish and blind to their own privilege, that’s the answer

I doubt they have any idea that their own son cares so little for them that you have done everything. Or they see you as a unit.

Pretty normal I think.
I would be quite surprised if my SIL popped up in my DM’s will if she has one.

My parents left all their money/property to my brother and I. Both of us gave our sons some of it for house deposits etc and then we both shared what was left with our spouses. I put some of mine in our joint account and some in savings in both our names. Isn't that a normal thing for people to do?

tbh, I would never have remotely expected to be in my inlaws will, and if i’m honest probably wouldn’t have even considered my DD’s to be in it either, I am just assuming everything would go to DH (unless he goes before them and they change to leave to DD’s) I imagine if he does get anything, I would benefit by proxy as we share finances but not as a named beneficiary.

I was recently devastated to learn I was left out of my own grandmothers will, she left her half mil house just to her daughter, but nothing to me as the only child of her other daughter (who died when i was born).

I was exceptionally close to my grandmother so it stirred up some painful emotions as it felt like she didn’t care about “recognising” me in her will but ultimately I do still believe I have no “rights” to anything from anyone so am slowly coming to terms with it, but the added stinger did come from learning my two cousins were recently gifted £100k each from my aunt to buy properties as a result, whereas I’m stuck in renters hell 😭

Oh right. Yes, was concentrating on this: ‘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’. I was asking because if you were talking about a direct inheritance situation and at no point if they were wiped out would it go to your kids, you would have more of a right to be annoyed.

As it was that’s not the case and we are talking about all money being in a trust. Trusts are not (anymore) tax efficient. There is a fee to have them that is a percentage if their whole value that’s taken every 10 years (periodical charge). They are therefore done when control is wanted over where the money goes and absolutely it’s usual that the trustees would then be kept in house. It’s usually used for money for school fees down the generations or suchlike and it might not be all of it. But yes, this is quite usual in this situation.

But surely any inheritance your DH receives will go into your joint account anyway? Pretty sure your PİL just see you and him as a unit so anything he gets goes into your family life anyway. Sounds like they trust the SİL BİL to see your children right with the trust fund should the worst possible scenario occur. You're just taken out of the admin it's not like you're not going to benefit from their money in the future.

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.