Son in Law

Yorkshireman99

10JP wrote: »

Toxic helicopter parenting, well there's a phrase I've never heard before, so a plain old concern about something I'm sure many people are worried about actually has a name!!

SG is correct if the trust specfies an age but this can easily be cirumvented as any STEP member will tell you. A trust can be set up at reverts at a particular date in the future without mention of the age of the recipeint.

Marvel1

10JP wrote: »

Thank you
I guess when your gone it doesn't matter as you have no control over it anyway, maybe I just need to spend spend spend and enjoy it myself whilst I still can!

Personally this is what I would be doing, enjoy life.

getmore4less

Will be fairly easy to set up a trust to do what you want with both daughter and granddaughter...

They can still change it but adds extra protection over just the daughter.

Malthusian

jackyann wrote: »

I personally think that leaving the money as a pension is quite sensible.

It doesn't work. In the event they divorced he would be entitled to half the pension as a starting point, and if they are still married when the daughter turns 55 he can squander the money as easily as if the money had been left directly to the daughter.

It would also be tax inefficient.

Yorkshireman99 wrote:

SG is correct if the trust specfies an age but this can easily be cirumvented as any STEP member will tell you. A trust can be set up at reverts at a particular date in the future without mention of the age of the recipeint.

I don't see how specifying a date instead of an age circumvents Saunders v Vautier. If the beneficiary(ies) named by the trust are all adults they still have the right to ask for the money.

Lord Langdale said regarding that case "I think that principle has been repeatedly acted upon; and where a legacy is directed to accumulate for a certain period, or where the payment is postponed, the legatee, if he has an absolute indefeasible interest in the legacy, is not bound to wait until the expiration of that period, but may require payment the moment he is competent to give a valid discharge." This would seem to apply equally to a trust which says "to be held until the year 2040" as to one which says "until the beneficiary reaches the age of 25".

Yorkshireman99

Malthusian wrote: »

It doesn't work. In the event they divorced he would be entitled to half the pension as a starting point, and if they are still married when the daughter turns 55 he can squander the money as easily as if the money had been left directly to the daughter.

It would also be tax inefficient.



I don't see how specifying a date instead of an age circumvents Saunders v Vautier. If the beneficiary(ies) named by the trust are all adults they still have the right to ask for the money.

Lord Langdale said regarding that case "I think that principle has been repeatedly acted upon; and where a legacy is directed to accumulate for a certain period, or where the payment is postponed, the legatee, if he has an absolute indefeasible interest in the legacy, is not bound to wait until the expiration of that period, but may require payment the moment he is competent to give a valid discharge." This would seem to apply equally to a trust which says "to be held until the year 2040" as to one which says "until the beneficiary reaches the age of 25".

Noted. I can only say that when I asked STEP member she told me there were ways around it. Since she is a fully qualified professional trust specialist her advice, as far as I am concerned, takes precedence. She did not explain in detail how it could done.

TBagpuss

I think the way around it is normally to have a discretionary, rather than simple, trust. If the daughter and granddaughter (and any hypothetical future grandchild) are discretionary beneficiaries but neither is absolutely entitled.

However, best for you to get proper advice from an experienced solicitor.

It may be that it's worth talking to your daughter, too. Does she feel her husband is wasteful with money, or is it more that he (and she?) have different priorities than you?

If she has concerns about his spending habits then a discretionary trust may be a good way forward.

jackyann

I think, Malthusian, that the idea is that it gives more years in which the daughter may end the relationship. It may not work, in which case, nothing is lost, but it may - and these kind of relationships often end. And although no expert, I don't think that an ex is always entitled to half of a pension, depends on circumstances, and this will be left specifically to daughter.

So: if the money is left NOW, it will almost certainly be squandered; if looked after for 20 years, it will yield a pension, which has somewhat less chance of being squandered. And if indeed it is half a pension for daughter alone, it my be more useful than a whole one shared with a waster.

I also have an idea that it is possible to leave the money to buy a pension, rather than setting up a trust to be accessed at a certain age. Legal difference, that a financial advisor would understand, and may be worth looking at.

And of course, on a board like this, we have no idea as to which is the toxic relationship, just have to take things at face value.

Yorkshireman99

jackyann wrote: »

I think, Malthusian, that the idea is that it gives more years in which the daughter may end the relationship. It may not work, in which case, nothing is lost, but it may - and these kind of relationships often end. And although no expert, I don't think that an ex is always entitled to half of a pension, depends on circumstances, and this will be left specifically to daughter.

So: if the money is left NOW, it will almost certainly be squandered; if looked after for 20 years, it will yield a pension, which has somewhat less chance of being squandered. And if indeed it is half a pension for daughter alone, it my be more useful than a whole one shared with a waster.

I also have an idea that it is possible to leave the money to buy a pension, rather than setting up a trust to be accessed at a certain age. Legal difference, that a financial advisor would understand, and may be worth looking at.

And of course, on a board like this, we have no idea as to which is the toxic relationship, just have to take things at face value.

The average IFA will not have the knowledge to advise you correctly. You need to see a solicitor who is a trust specialist i.e. a STEP member. Don’t waste your money elsewhere.

jackyann

Thanks, Yorkshireman, very specialist I would think. I read of someone who left money to be put into a pension for his grandchildren (on the grounds that they would have difficulty saving into a pension pot) and it came to mind.
In my own family, I have seen a grandparents' inheritance spent very differently by grandchildren. Most put it into a house deposit, or ISA for that purpose. One spent it 'travelling' and one did very much as OP fears. One pursued a dream that everyone knew would simply be a money pit and lead to nothing - but at least has only seen the dream evaporate, and hasn't ended up in debt!

Yorkshireman99

jackyann wrote: »

Thanks, Yorkshireman, very specialist I would think. I read of someone who left money to be put into a pension for his grandchildren (on the grounds that they would have difficulty saving into a pension pot) and it came to mind.
In my own family, I have seen a grandparents' inheritance spent very differently by grandchildren. Most put it into a house deposit, or ISA for that purpose. One spent it 'travelling' and one did very much as OP fears. One pursued a dream that everyone knew would simply be a money pit and lead to nothing - but at least has only seen the dream evaporate, and hasn't ended up in debt!

There should not be a problem finding a SEP member but te charges will not be cheap though IMHO worth every penny. Saved me a packet.