In laws wrote me out of will - AIBU to be offended?

[Watdidusay]

My DH has been informed by his FIL there's a line in his will that says I'm not to receive anything.

Not a line that excludes me - a line that says money and assets are not to be received by me.

It's not about the money - more just I feel this is a statement.

I have a great relationship with my in laws or at least that's how I thought. Married 22 years. FIL has always been paranoid about being taken advantage of and I believe this is in that vein.

Still I feel after all this time I don't know why they felt the need to do this.

AIBU to be annoyed they went out of their way to exclude me? Not about the money.

The way I understand it, FIL had 3 children (and 2 grandchildren): a daughter who got 4/9; a son who died and whose widow got 3/9; the widow’s child got 1/9; another son who died after he divorced the op. Op got nothing but her child got 1/9.
The op feels it’s unfair that her child only got 1/9, whereas the other grandchild got 1/9 plus potentially their mother’s share.
Hmm, this might seem unfair but there’s no guarantee that the widow will share any money with her child, so it might have been unfair to leave one grandchild more than the other.
perhaps a fairer split might have been 4/9 to daughter and 2/9 to widowed DIL and each of the 2 grandchildren.

You and @PrincessofWills seem to be saying different things?

@PrincessofWills says 'Money inherited by a spouse providing it is never used by the family or to benefit the family does not form part of a divorce settlement'.

Surely a property purchased with inheritance, even if it's just one name on the deeds, has benefitted the family? So it would be considered a joint asset in the event of divorce?

Sorry to derail thread, but I'm just curious!

@Watdidusay

Did they 'write you out of the will' as in you were in it and they removed you or is it that you are not 'mentioned in the will'.

It's pretty standard that the children of the deceased are the sole beneficiaries and their spouses aren't specifically mentioned. Did you think you should be? My parents wills did not include my (now estranged) spouse nor would I have expected it to. In fact, should I have predeceased them my share of my parents' estate would have gone in trust to my children, not to my spouse. That pissed him off, but that's another story.

Is it a case where FiL either specifically excluded you (and not the other spouses)? If he put some sort of statement that he did not wish your spouse to share his inheritance with you I doubt that has any legal standing once your DH has received it.

Do you trust your DH to 'have a discussion' with his dad as to why he felt it necessary to put that statement in his will and ask if it was his own idea or was under the advice of a solicitor?

Your H's response to this will have told you everything you need to know. If he's been running to his parents and colluding with them to exclude you from benefitting, I'd leave him now rather than waiting for him to carry out his plan. If it's their idea, presumably he's appalled.

How does it work? Your H buys himself a new car and you're not allowed in it? He goes on holiday by himself with his inheritance money? At the very least, I wouldn't bother with the PILs ever again.

Apologies - meant DHs father, not his FIL. It's my FIL.

Surely it depends on the detail. If I die before my DPs DH won't inherit and my share will go to the kids. In-laws have the same written in.

I think this is quite normal, and is fair enough. Without this if I died, DH re-married and subsequently died then there's the potential some random woman could gain my parents money and their grandkids not. Are you sure it doesn't mean this and has been clumsily explained?

OP can you clarify. Are you talking about the general gist of the will - I.e. if you DH dies, you get nothing…or are you talking about “a specific line” added to will that states that you DH cannot spend any of his inheritance on anything you would benefit from? The former is pretty standard, the latter seems very peculiar and I’m not sure how it could ever be enforced?

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0089

The OP doesn't know what is in the will. She only knows what FIL told DH and what he told her. Neither of them saw the will. The most likely scenario is that FIL made a standard will like most of us do leaving everything to their child but if that child predeceases them everything to that child's children. That means nothing goes to the spouse - perfectly normal.

I couldn't get uptight about this if I were OP unless she sees the will and there is a clause saying "and OP is never to inherit anything that was once mine" in which case the solicitor would probably have asked why on earth this redundant phrase was being put in a will.

I am very close to my MIL - as are all her dils. We won't be in her will. DH wasn't in my parents' wills nor was BIL but they were really close to them. I think this is a to-do about nothing.

This is not true. She only know what her husband has told her, it is hugely feasible he’s lying so he doesn’t need to share with her,

No, because that is not how a Will works. If I leave something to my son and he dies before me and I do not alter my Will, then I die, it does not go the deceased sons wife, if there are no other names beneficiaries, it would go to the nearest bio family member which would be the grandkids.

But of the Will has been written by a lawyer, the Will can say, without being insulting to his DIL (the OP) that he leaves x amount to his son but should his son predecease him, then his share goes to his kids. No need for what he has written.

Well I would be deeply offended by what her husband told her and I would ask hi to check if his understanding, as passed to her, is correct because if it is, that is not nice and if it isn't and it is as you say, then her mind is at rest and she does not have reason to believe her FIL is unhappy with her.

I think how she is feeling is very normal and she needs this clarifying via her husband. Its not about money, its about her standing in the family and understanding how her FIL may potentially think there is an issues she was not aware of.

This. They are mightily pissed off with you that you didn’t obey them. They are making their displeasure known. Now you know where you stand.

Im due to marry DP next year - we’ve already agreed that my inheritance will not be going in the family pot. It’s mine. And my children’s. DP will not receive any inheritance from his mother. Our pensions and our house will be joint only. There is also the chance that I might not inherit anything if my mother goes into care - you cannot predict an inheritance fully.

Personally I think this is what FIL and DH is referring to - that in the instance you split, you have no claim to the inheritance

Okay thanks, I don't know, just going off what my parents told me what they were thinking when they drew it up. None of us are lawyers. Maybe they wanted it so there was no way of disputing it.

My main point is more there is a difference between such a bequest in a will, which is fairly normal, and a deliberate exclusion

What does your DH say about all this?

I don't think most parents leave to DIL's unless they are widows, its generally to their child or grandkids.

I remember OPs wedding thread too and yes this is likely their 'punishment' for not bowing to their will. This is actually a gift as it now absolves you of any responsibility towards looking after them in the future. Not that there ever was any obligation anyway. It's a stupid thing to put in a will really as if it's genuinely as described on the OP, it means nothing legally.
ETA for typos

I get what you are saying and this is a deliberate exclusion as its not something that would go in the Will and if someone says 0/9th that is a deliberate exclusion too. If you are splitting something 9 ways, you say who the recipients are, not who they are not.

Sometimes its a way to stop people disputing the Will by saying they forgot, but saying 0/9ths showed that person was considered and eliminated.

OMG thanks for the reminder about OP's wedding thread. Her PILs are massively unreasonable and this is no doubt a dick move from them to put OP in her place after she defied them and stuck to her guns about attending her friend's wedding where she was in the wedding party.

Oh is the OP the woman who was being pressured into not attending her friend's wedding as a bridesmaid because sil pulled a wedding out of the hat? Then in that case the FIL said that to DH deliberately to punish OP (god knows what punishment it really is as it is clear from this thread that in laws generally don't leave to the people their children marry so completely toothless punishment). Your dh is a fool for repeating it to you OP - was he trying to punish you too?

It is entirely spiteful. My mum put this in her will about my SIL. She was always perfectly pleasant to her face but actually was very unhappy that DB did not marry someone she thought he would. She told me (I was executor) and I thought at the time it was an awful thing to do and decided in that moment that my DB and SIL would never know of it and should it occur I would ensure that the estate was divided equally between DB and me (as normal) with no such request passed on so DB could do whatever he wanted with the money. The will wording was along the lines that SIL was no receive no money or benefit from it. As it happened she died about a year later and her estate passed to DF.

It was all so unnecessary and spiteful, almost like a FU from beyond the grave. I never had any qualms about completely disregarding her wishes, not when they were so unreasonable.

In all other respects she was a good person, but she grew up with a very narcissistic mother (my gran) who was an utter witch, and made my mum's life a misery (she tried to make all our lives a misery, apart from DB who was her golden boy, but we all saw through her and my DF protected us a lot from her attempts). I can only surmise that sometime occasional behaviour from my DM was a layover to her traumatic and toxic upbringing.

No, it doesn't because I saw a video with a family lawyer saying it CAN be taken into account if that is the only way to make the divorce fair.

Read my 2nd paragraph and then reread my first paragraph. Read the judgment in Standish and then come back to me to let me know you haven't properly understood.

The Standish judgment a couple of years ago does not say inheritance is never taken into account, it says if money is never used for the family, and is held separately, it is not 'family' money and will not be taken into account in a divorce settlement as it is 'personal financial holdings'.

I think this is the video that gave me that impression: Your Ex Might Be Entitled to Half Your Inheritance After Divorce UK | TikTok

She says in another video that it can 'usually' be ring-fenced, though she doesn't say always.