Inheritance--would you be upset by this?

My husband is disabled, and we’ve gone into debt with medical expenses. I’ve always told him that if something were to happen to me, I know my parents would help him out. We both believed it.

In an attempt to reduce the taxes on his estate, my parents and their lawyers and accountants all got together and put together a plan.

When my father died, the assets my parents had were split. Half went to my mother, and the other half went into an irrevocable trust. I’m a beneficiary of the trust. I just got the final paperwork.

I have five siblings. We are all equal beneficiaries. Sort of.

If my oldest brother dies before my mother, his share of the inheritance goes to his heirs–his wife and kids.

The same is true of my other siblings with kids.

But if I die before my mother, because I don’t have any kids, my share of the inheritance is redistributed to my siblings.

Because I don’t have kids, I don’t get to name an heir.

I don’t particularly want the money. I’d prefer never to collect it. But if I die, my husband will need it. (I’m getting life insurance. That was another thread!)

I’m very upset by this, but it’s hard to put into words without sounding overly dramatic. I trusted that they would consider my heirs, my life. Instead, if I die, I just sort of disappear, and because they wanted to avoid taxes, there isn’t anything that can be done about it now.

Okay, even a pile on would be welcome if someone can show me how silly I’m being.

I agree with you…your husband is your family, and there is no reason for him to be cut out if anything should happen to you. Or, more to the point, YOU should not be treated differently in the will because you don’t happen to have children, IMO. Would you feel comfortable talking to your parents about it? Can the trust be revised at this point?

Well, their intent is to pass the trust money to their grandkids. From that perspective, it makes sense.

Given your expectation and financial circumstances, unless it’s going to cause a great problem between you and your birth family, I think the best thing to do is to be honest – that while you hope nothing happens, you’d expected that your trust income would go to your husband to help with his expenses.

It depends on the trust document and the state laws governing trusts, but some irrecovable trusts can, if I’m not mistaken, be amended, e.g., to account for changed circumstances after the trust was created, such as the sudden death of a beneficiary leaving orphaned children. The “irrevocable” part applies in such situations only to the fact it cannot be terminated.

It’s at least worth finding out.

It’s not overly unreasonable – clearly the idea is to give the money to the children and grandchildren only – but I can see why it seems like a slap in the face. I’m guessing the effect was not the intention.

My mother told me that aspect of the trust could not be changed. I questioned her about it but didn’t make a big deal.

I feel, honestly, that it shouldn’t be a big deal, but it is. I’m rather fierce when it comes to my husband!

I understand why you would be upset.

However I can see why your parents would not feel obligated to provide for your husband after your death. They may feel that if something happened to you your husband may remarry and move on with his life. Why should he do this on their dime when they have their own children and grandchildren who could benefit from the assets.

I think that it would be worth bringing up to your mother. Even if it cannot be changed at this point she can let you know what their reasoning was which may help you not be bitter.

jsgoddess I remember you mentioning this in the insurance thread. If it’s not to personal a question, I remember you mentioning he gets disability. Is this the SSI type? I ask because my Mom recently revised her will and the fact that my brother receives SSI forced her to do something similar. He would lose his benefits and healthcare if he received money past a certain level. You may want to talk to an estate planner regarding that. In fact, I believe that applies to your life insurance as well.

I can understand why you’re upset. And I don’t blame you. I just have one question, and it’s more for curiosity’s sake than because it makes a big difference. Do the shares of your siblings pass to their “heirs” or to their children? When my parents made their wills, they left everything to each other, then to their children, with the designation that if any of the children predeceased them that share would go to that children’s children. As far as I know, none of the in-laws had a problem with it. On the other hand, none of the in-laws was in the position your husband is in, either, and none of the children was childless by the time the final will was made.

With your husband being the only family you’d leave behind, I can see why you’d be a little ticked off. It really is kind of like being obliterated. Not to mention leaving him out of the family.

I don’t think you’re being silly. I got screwed out of an inheritance in just this way.

But before I get frothy just thinking about my experience, I’d ask:

– Does the trust paperwork specifically say that beneficiaries without children are excluded? If it implies that all five siblings are to be beneficiaries, then you may have a case here.

– Are there any “loopholes” in the wordings; for example, “we designate to jsgoddess, her heirs or assigns…”? Note that “assigns” is important; not having children, you can assign anybody to be your beneficiary. Including your husband.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. For competent legal advice in your jurisdiction, seek a local, licensed, lawyer who is qualified to advise you in these matters.

I must admit that I am a little prejudiced in matters such as these because it was due to bad legal advice that I got screwed out of an inheritance. I won’t say more about it, except to say that if the legal advice had been better, I wouldn’t be in hock the way I am. But that’s not relevant here. What is relevant is that your lawyer–and not the testator’s–helps you out with this. Good luck!

I don’t think you are being silly. I don’t think your parents are being unreasonable, but I don’t think you are silly to be upset.

Not being married, I don’t think I’d be mad if my parents did what your parents did, with all money passing equally to the children and then the grandchildren.

But, especially in your case, where you have a husband but no children, it would be nice for your parents to include him as your heir. (And even if your husband wasn’t financially needier than some, it would have been nice for your parents to say “Hey, we’re thinking of redistributing your share to your siblings, so it’ll eventually go to your nieces and nephews, really–is that OK” before the trust became irrevocable.)

It passes to their kids if their kids are (I think) 35 or older. If not, it passes into the complete control of the grandkids’ guardians.

And, here’s one of the kickers for me. If the grandkids are married but predecease my mother? Their spouses can inherit outright. So it’s only in my generation that spouses can’t inherit.

No, he doesn’t receive SSI. We’re not eligible. We’re cash poor and in debt, but I make too much money for SSI.

Basically what Eureka said. I think it is very natural for you to feel somewhat slighted by this, but I think what your parents did is also quite reasonable. And while it might be worth mentioning - once, briefly - to your parents, I would then not mention it again. And I DEFINITELY would not bring it up with my siblings.
I believe their chosen distribution is generally consistent with per stirpes distribution, in which assets are allocated to blood relations. Simply put, your hisband is not a blood relation, so he gets nothing.
I’m curious as to how your siblings’ spouses are addressed. Let’s your older brother’s kids die tomorrow. Then he dies. Are you saying that his surviving wife would receive his share as his heir? That would surprise me, and if that is the case, than I would say you have a very legitimate beef. But my suspicion is that if your brother’s kids and your brother predeceased your parents and his wife, she would be SOL.
Here’s another thought. Let’s say you and your hubby get divorced tomorrow, and divide up whatever assets you share. Then your parents die. Do you believe he is entitled to 1/2 of your share?
IMO as a son, in-law, and lawyer, folks can and will do pretty much whatever they want with estates, and the far better thing is to concentrate on your relations with folks while they are still living, rather than have those relationships colored by your thoughts of whether or not you will be getting your “fair share” when they are gone. IME, some of the ugliest family relationship issues I have seen have been related to estate matters.

Quite simply, they want their legacy to go to their blood. You SO is not their blood and he doesn’t get any. It royally sucks but it made sense in more primitive times and they are just continuing that tradition. It is disrespectful to your feelings towards your SO who should be considered your blood by marriage but it sure sticks to the letter of the tradition. I am sorry to hear this is so.

She would have 100% control of the share since his kids are in their teens–until his kids reach 35.

And if one of my nieces or nephews gets married, their spouses can inherit. Mine can’t.

Your first sentence misunderstands my question. If your brother’s kids predecease your brother, there would be nothing for the wife to “control.”

It does seem odd that the grandkids’ spouses would inherit. Usually, their share would go to their kids - if any.

If your parents made a clear distinction between blood and non, I wouldn’t think this at all unusual or worth mentioning. If - as you say - they provided from some in-laws and not others, I would simply ask them the question, “I understand and appreciate equal shares going to each sibling and their heirs - id any. But why did you treat different in-laws differently?” When asked for an example, say, “It doesn’t seem as though one of your grandchildren’s spouses is related to you by blood any more than my husband.”

But bottom line, its their money, and they can do with it what they want.

Yes, I misread what you said. If any of my siblings die without living children, their spouses get nothing–they end up in the same situation I’m in.

I can certainly see why you would be a little disappointed in this arrangement, but I also agree that it is a very common arrangement to make (leaving an estate to blood relatives only, not “law” relatives) and understandable from your parents’ perspective. I know it can gravel to see your sibs getting some privilege (as you see it) that you don’t just because you don’t have kids, but try to remind yourself that it’s not really your money, it’s theirs, and they can do whatever they want with it, including spending it all before they die. IOW, you may not agree with their decision, but I think you have to respect their right to make it. Cold comfort, I’m sure, but pretty much the only non-aggravativing way to look at it at this point.

According to all the lawyers when the plan was first revealed, it’s not theirs any longer. It’s mine. That may not be what they meant, but it was what they said. And if it’s mine, it’s right that I should be able to pass it along to the person I choose.

It’s especially galling after 35 years of having it hammered into my head that marriage is some sacred bond that no law can put asunder, and that the only way to stop being married is to die, oh but they aren’t really family.

I agree with Jodi and furthermore at least in my state, it is the default rule with regards to intestate matters. I am somewhat surprised that the grandkid’s spouse gets to inherit, that isn’t that common.

Was the trust that they signed irrevocable or did it become irrevocable upon dad’s death? In a sense, the money is not really yours yet, it belongs to the trust. I assume that the money is to be paid out upon the death of your mother, correct?

While I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, you are not my client. I am probably not licensed in your state, I may not even know where your state is and most likely will never set foot in your state. If you want real legal advice, go see a lawyer who is licensed in your state.

Taking advice from a stranger over the internet is not a good idea. To the best of your knowledge, I could be a monkey who is happening to hit the keys in the right order while not busy flinging excrement at his handlers.