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?

Seeing how some uncles and aunties treat their family, I'd rather it be their mom or dad, even in divorce, you'd think a parent would have their children's best interest at heart; that may not be the case for Uncle Knobby, who has lost all his money on the horses.

would YOU leave your wealth to the partner of your son/daughter?? highly unlikely i imagine!

It’s not personal. It just ensures that their three children and the grandchildren benefit from their money. That’s what most people want I think.

Your decision to do all that grunt work is not relevant. You can also reverse it at any time…. It doesn’t have to be a song and dance, you just quiet quit and direct PIL to your husband if they query anything.

I always think this is so hurtful. Either you are family or you are not.

My personal view is I am good enough to cook Christmas dinner every year for 20 odd years I am good enough to be considered family.

I’d take a massive step back from what you do for them. They don’t view you as you do them. All queries to DH.

Thank you for all your posts, some sad ones there.

I suspect FIL has ordered a custom shroud with pockets so it's all hypothetical.

The control element is bothering me. Why not say our kids are in their 50s, long term marriages, let's divide in three and leave it at that.
Or give us a chunk now, we're all in slightly too small houses with nearly uni student and driving lessons ahead.

Instead there's a Trust which I don't have the full details of but the siblings can distribute according to need with age restrictions. Aside from the grief, logistics of selling run down character property and normal life, chuck in everyone arguing over who's need is greatest and they will be tearing each other apart. Be as long as the potentially divorcable in-laws don't get a seat at the table.
This has massive implications because one sibling is out for every penny, the other is a spend today forget tomorrow, DH says he isn't motivated by money but that's optimism because we've never had a lot.

Surely at some point you just have to say, not my problem if BIL spends it on a kitchen which his wife picks out. And if our nephew wants to spend it on limited edition Lego in his 20s should my DH be responsible? And what about debts, SIL is likely to die with huge credit card debt and remortgage, should her husband cover this but not being able to draw on her estate?

The whole thing could go multiple ways and feels very complicated given the sums involved.

My husband and his two siblings inherited one third each from their surviving parent - I've no idea how much, because it was nothing to do with me**

I find it absolutely wild that some people feel this way. My husbands financial position is hugely relevant to me because we've built a life together...if he had a windfall (inheritance or otherwise) and refused to tell me the amount that would be relationship ending. As it would be if I had a windfall and he was disinterested enough in our joint financial position that he didn't even want to know.

Yes, I can see why you'd be miffed. Obviously they are free to do what they please with their own money but it implies lack of trust, gives you a sense of exclusion from the family and it doesn't respect your partnership with your husband.

Drop the rope OP. If DH forgets his families birthdays and Mother's day that is up to him. Don't do all the running around for his family that don't value you. Fwiw my MiL has in her will if DH dies before her I inherit his share. DH jokes she loves me more than him.

I’m leaving any money I’ve got to my adult children. Not their spouses.

Surely that’s normal?

If, hypothetically, they were underage 100% I would leave it to their remaining parent; in no circumstances would I think an uncle or aunt would be better placed, or have their finicial intrests at heart, yes I know parents screw people over also.

Now if they were adults, why would they need to even be mentioned, divorced partner, if i'd left a specific amount in a will to an adult.

Just re-read what you wrote, if they were married, surely it just becomes part of their estate - ?

My DF is the only 'old' left in our family. Apart from a few small bequests the will divides everything between me and my brother. We are joint executors as well. There is no mention of my DH or nearly 30 years, or DS his only DGC. I don't think it's that odd not to mention spouses.

I do find it a bit odd that they have set up a complicated trust unless they are above or very near the IHT threshold, it tends to make things much more difficult to manage.

No, the whole point of a trust would be that the trustees (which sounds like DH and his siblings) have to agree any money withdrawn from it and it has to be for a specific purpose for the benefit of the people named as the beneficiaries. It is possible that the DH could buy a house for his wife and son to live in as well as himself, but the house would belong to the trust, not to him, and it couldn't be passed on to his wife if he died.
So suddenly a possibly large chunk of what would otherwise be "family money" is only in the power of DH and his family, cannot legally be spent on the OP at all, and any equal financial power and decision-making procedures that they had previously established as equal adults in their relationship get pissed on. It also potentially even undermines the OP in her parenting if in later years she says eg: "no, I'm not going to lend you money for a motorbike as I think they are dangerous" and her son then gets his aunt and uncle to buy him one out of the trust.

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.

That's shit.

Do they think that you would somehow try to benefit yourself at the expense of your kids?

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.

I agree with this. My DM got talked into leaving her estate in trust to DGCs.

There were a couple of things which made her amenable to the idea:

As she got older she had less of a perfect grip on the value of money. Her estate sounded like lots of money to her. In reality it wasn't worth a huge amount, especially divided up.

Snobbery also played a part. She liked the sound of saying that there was going to be a trust fund for DGCs.

The sad reality now is that she is in a care home, burning her way through her money. The trust fund will be worth sweet FA.

On the plus side, being disinherited is rather freeing. I'm not worried about how much will be left in the end.

Mine & DH's wills are far simpler. To each other and then to the DCs.

I think the real question is, why is their son - your DH - so crap?

Time for him to step up and take over!

I understand, OP. You have always treated them as family for them to turn around and say that you aren't familt

The control element is bothering me.

I wondered if it was that that was upsetting you. The trust is a step more than my Il have done but they are very much you are not family but then act surpsied I don't do wife work bit.

They made a huge point of saying I'm not in their will - why would I be - but they've split everything between DH and his kids - and kids not named as he may have more with someone else again laboured. I'm not supid I know this - makes sense to me but why push the point. I'm just as likely to inherit from my parent as he is from his TBH - there could be something or nothing depends how things pan out.

I assume trusts are just getting more common due to complex family situations, tax reasons, upselling and possible house wealth in some parts of the UK.

Why not say our kids are in their 50s, long term marriages, let's divide in three and leave it at that.

Because they want to know their own children are secure. There’s norhjng hurtful about that. Maybe they do want to ensure that their in laws can’t divorce their children and take the free money with them, but again, I can’t see what’s awful about that. They have probably seen other situations where a divorce has caused someone to lose money they inherited and they don’t want that for their own estate. As long as you are married to their son, you benefit.

Or give us a chunk now, we're all in slightly too small houses with nearly uni student and driving lessons ahead.

This is where you come across as greedy and it sounds like truer colours are showing. They are still alive. It is not time for anyone to inherit their money.

You say the control element bothers you, but why does it bother you? Is it because you want to be able to exert some control over money left to your DH? It’s ok people want to be in control of their own money, and it is still their money.

Your husband is their blood relative. Obviously you’ll be benefiting from any inheritance left to him :/

It's a way to mitigate IHT or against the divorce or early death of any of the beneficiaries. Once the trust is vested the trustees (presumably the three DCs) can agree to wind it up and pay out the assets immediately although in that case it would make sense to share with the DGCs or the IHT problem is recreated. The trustees can also agree to add more trustees such as their spouses, and the DGCs as they come of age. The spouses don't need to be beneficiaries, because the DGCs (ie the reason for needing payouts from the trust) are already beneficiaries.

It does require the trustees to work together harmoniously! That's where I'd anticipate problems.

There's case law allowing a family trust to be broken in order to pay a court-ordered divorce settlement, even to the detriment of the recipient's own children, so there's hope for OP if that's what she has in mind.

Will your DH not share his inheritance with you, or spend it on family holidays, upgrading household stuff, things that benefit you as a family?
My mums will stated it goes to her children, or grandchildren if parent deceased. I spent some if the money my mum left on a holiday, new TV, carpets etc, the rest into premium bonds. My DH has never complained or thought he had been snubbed

Your comment about them giving all three siblings a chunk now comes across as grabby.

I think the odd thing (if I’m reading right) is that the children don’t automatically equally inherit their father’s share if he predeceases his parents. I wouldn’t expect to be included in my in laws’ will other than to hold money in trust for my children if under 18 in the above circumstances.