Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937
Unbelievable story IMO
Estate was 500k .The mum specifically stated she should be given £0.00 .Gave the whole lot to Animal Charities, and requested that any attempt by daughter to get anything should be resisted.
Firstly she goes to court and is awarded 50k
Then , not happy with that ,she appeals for more , and the next judge says the will says £0.00 so thats what you'll get.
She then goes back on appeal , wins and gets the 50k reward again.
Still not happy , she demands a bigger amount, and is rejected.
She then appeals yet again and now given 164k and is allowed to keep full dole entititlement too.
So thats 5 court cases over this . Would probably have been cheaper to let the charities keep the money and just give the woman a giro for a million pounds.
The judge said the mum was “unreasonable, capricious and harsh” and had “unreasonably excluded” her daughter from her will. Surely people can be as unreasonable as they like with their own money
Unbelievable story IMO
Estate was 500k .The mum specifically stated she should be given £0.00 .Gave the whole lot to Animal Charities, and requested that any attempt by daughter to get anything should be resisted.
Firstly she goes to court and is awarded 50k
Then , not happy with that ,she appeals for more , and the next judge says the will says £0.00 so thats what you'll get.
She then goes back on appeal , wins and gets the 50k reward again.
Still not happy , she demands a bigger amount, and is rejected.
She then appeals yet again and now given 164k and is allowed to keep full dole entititlement too.
So thats 5 court cases over this . Would probably have been cheaper to let the charities keep the money and just give the woman a giro for a million pounds.
The judge said the mum was “unreasonable, capricious and harsh” and had “unreasonably excluded” her daughter from her will. Surely people can be as unreasonable as they like with their own money
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 79
|
By:
I do sympathize when children are disinherited because so gold digger gets involved with an elderly widow/widower , but in this case the mother and daughter just didn't get on so totally different imo and not something that should ever go to court at all unless there was reason to think the will was invalid and not what the lady intended.
|
|
By:
Totally agree with you, Tobes. It's quite difficult to see how anyone could think otherwise, actually.
|
|
By:
heard worse.
a woman looked after her dying mother and the mother had left the house to her sons. the woman who looked after her mother got fk all. the brothers gave fk all to their sister who had to give up work because the brothers had "decent jobs". where as your intentions are important i think sometimes petty and unreasonable arguments can cut a child out.....this is what has happened. tgink reasoning should be listed ont he will and then for a judge to decide if such actions are reasonable. glad the judge has seen sense here. had the child given the mother a hard time at a reasonable age id have agreed with cutting her out. for "running" off at 17 is hardly a reasonable excuse. only issue i have with this case is lawyers will now have another avenue to rinse the public. |
|
By:
In this case, the amount was the sum needed for the daughter to buy her house, so if it gets her off housing benefit, that might make a small dent in the big pile of cash it has cost us all in legal aid.
|
|
By:
it does seem crazy especially as anticipating her daughter challenging the will the woman gave a full explanation as to why she was not leaving her daughter a penny
it's not for the courts to decide what's reasonable |
|
By:
it's not for the courts to decide what's reasonable
Well, clearly, it is. I'm taking the precaution of dying skint, and being skint all the time in case I am hit by a bus. |
|
By:
If the person is of sound mind when the will is signed then the judge should have no say unless a clause in the will is ambiguous.
Too much X factor, strictly come dancing, Ant and Dec has eroded the legal system. |
|
By:
About 20 years ago my gran died and it turned out she had cut my mum out of her will (she was her only child and her husband was dead). Originally her estate was supposed to be 50% to my mum and 25% each to me and my brother but in the weeks before her death her will was changed so that my mum's share went to two charities. My gran could be a spiteful battleaxe but hey it's her money and she can do whatever she wants with it right ?
These big charities had people going round hospital wards and care homes solely to try and get old folks who were on their last legs to change their will. Skillful operators who could play on folks emotions and no doubt in some cases weren't really sound of mind whether on medication or not. It made me cynical of the big charities. My mum took legal advice and it was made clear that she should forget it. The charities had expensive legal teams on retainers. In the end me and my brother gave up half of our share each to my mum so that we all ended up with half |
|
By:
after my wifes dad died she did everything for her mother,taking her shopping cleaning her house doing the garden picking her up to spend every weekend with us.when she died about 8 years later it turned out she'd left her whole estate to my wifes sister who she saw twice a year at the most & was already loaded.its impossible to know what goes on in some peoples minds when they write a will,what was that judges name again?
|
|
By:
Could it not be argued that the mother to some extent has some responsibility to the child irrespective of whether she wanted it or not?
The parent made a conscious decision to have the kid, whatever happened next doesnt change that. The child had no say on being born. Just playing devil's advocate. I find it mildly amusing tbh, I can see the daughter secretly laughing her arse off |
|
By:
There is more to this than meets the eye from what i read, the mother had no close contact or connection with the charities she donated the money too.
|
|
By:
Not sure if she died suddenly or not, but if it was after a long illness, she should have donated the money before she died (if she could have), there are too many stories like this.
Experts say the ruling means you can still disinherit your children but you'll have to explain why and what connects you to those you do leave money to. Why do you have to explain it? the claimant is a fully grown women (54 years old) and not a minor who needs support, don't understand this sense of entitlement she done nothing to earn it, a dying wish is a dying wish, going against that is simply disrespecting the dead. |
|
By:
GoBallistic
if thats the case you should go to the papers....They would be interested in a story like that after that old poppy seller got hounded to death by the vultures. |
|
By:
If she left the money to the goverment instead...then the daughter would'nt have seen a penny
|
|
By:
people will do anything for money
|
|
By:
the will should have been upheld
|
|
By:
dustybin • July 29, 2015 1:57 PM BST
Could it not be argued that the mother to some extent has some responsibility to the child irrespective of whether she wanted it or not? The parent made a conscious decision to have the kid, whatever happened next doesnt change that. The child had no say on being born. you have convinced me dusty...the judgement is correct |
|
By:
These matters aren't simple are they.
My in-laws 'fell out' with their younger daughter for decades leaving everything to my wife in their wills. Later years the family 'made-up' to some small degree but the wills remained in place. I was executor. When the second died, the Dad, we voluntarily shared the net inheritance (after all our expenses had been covered) with my sister-in-law and gave her £55k. The catch is the MOTHER, who died first, would NOT have wanted daughter '1' to have anything but the Dad did want it that way. Familys eh - ood avvem! |
|
By:
I'm glad the woman got what she did. Can't stand people who turn their back on their kids like this bitter parent did, unless they've done something truly terrible. They should always be your first priority. Cutting one child out of your will at the expense of another is a vile act. Every penny I leave will go to my kids equally and no charity will get a penny unless I am substantially richer than I am now.
|
|
By:
Countries like France, Spain and the Republic of Ireland, by contrast, have fixed heirship shares. In Scotland, children and spouses have "legal rights" to a portion of the deceased's estate.
Which is how the law should be |
|
By:
The fact she went to court to demand money she never earned and money not left for her says more about her and probably indicates the type of person her mother saw her as, greedy. You can't say the parent is bitter unless you know her reasons, the daughter could be a nasty piece of work for all anyone really knows, people should be fully entitled to give their money to who they please, she's 54 and had a lifetime to earn her own money not sponge off of her dead mother who clearly didn't like her, for her own reasons.
|
|
By:
It says much more about the parent than the child
|
|
By:
no it doesn't, you simply don't give money to people you don't like, not everyone has wonderful kids.
|
|
By:
My brother hasn't spoken to his daughter for several years out of principle. She hasn't spoken to him out of principle. She was 13 ffs and he's been an absolute pompous controlling @rse. The daughter has been anything but greedy. In fact, I'd say the opposite.
I suspect the details in this case are quite similar |
|
By:
You still don't see scandanavian, if we create life (parents) we assume a moral responsibility for what we have created..
children do not create themselves Whether the parent likes or does not like the child they have created is of no relevance. I think the judgement was fair, a large sum has still gone to the animal charity, and the daughter has accepted 164K so all is well |
|
By:
A bitter mother here who wanted to control who her daughter had a relationship with. Despite clearly being better off financially staying with the mother she elopes with the man she loves. Foolish maybe, but the parent is the adult who should have always been there for her daughter but never was. Turns out she wasn't foolish and is still married to the same man and with a large family of her own, money was clearly never a big issue to her.
|
|
By:
The only reason she wants the inheritance is too buy her already subsidised housing association property. Seems like a something for nothing character.
Unless you know the type of person the daughter was, it's impossible to say whether the mother was bitter or not, but that's even besides the point, she done nothing to earn that money, it's not hers. Should be a lesson to other parents in similar situations to start giving their money away to who they see fit before they die. Not gold digging children. |
|
By:
I pity your kids scandanavian
|
|
By:
I'll inform them of your sentiments.
This is very simple stuff. Too simple to even debate. If you like someone, leave them money. If you don't like someone, don't leave them money. Demanding someone else's fortune is nothing but pure greed, and anyone that disagree's also has a something for nothing mentality. But really, go out and earn your own money. Animals can't earn theirs so it would have better spent on their care. If she never gave money to her during her adult life that was her choice, why when dead should she have to give 33.33% of her entire estate to the person she never gave anything to when alive? where is the sense in that. Mistake she made was not giving it away before she snuffed it. Like I say, this is a good lesson to others. |
|
By:
She hasn't got something for nothing. She fought for years in the courts to get it. I suspect as a mother of five she probably is a fighter. Instead of frittering away the money on personal consumption she's buying her house leaving a legacy to her kids.
"anyone that disagree's also has a something for nothing mentality" LOL at that. How dare anyone disagree with you. |
|
By:
If you want to keep your own money scandanavian do not have children, it is all yours
If you have children you have assumed a moral responsibility for what you have created It is a poor parent who disinherits their own children, in fact it is a failed parent in my opinion |
|
By:
Feel free to disagree with me Clyde, I'm only offering my common sense opinion.
The fact she fought for years to claim someone else's money who never wanted her to have it lessens my opinion of her more so. Not sure how that point was meant to make her look better, only more desperate. As for leaving a legacy for her kids, here's a thought, her kids should leave a legacy for themselves like every other hard working person. Her children must all be adults now anyway. The only legacy she's left is stamp mark on her mothers grave. |
|
By:
If there's a lesson, it is that if you don't like one of your children make sure you leave them just enough money to buy a house.
About 5k and an AtoZ giving directions to Stockton will cover it. |
|
By:
Ebul
I have a degree of sympathy with your view as long as the child isn't themselves an adult but when they do become an adult then they can stand on their own two feet. Would you have had the mother go round and do their washing and cook their meals as well? Of course not. What is mine belongs to me. Full stop. What I do with it is my business. It may make me a bad person or even parent if I choose to leave my money to an animal sanctuary but excluding some form of coercion or me not being of sound mind it is monstrous to think that any court could seek to set aside my freely arrived at decision in this way. Of course anybody who cuts their kids out of a will without a very good reason is a cnunt but being a cnunt is a value judgement and not something which a court should be concerned with. |
|
By:
What you are saying is we humans are just like animals
We mate and give birth by instinct, we care for a child till it can take care of itself by instinct...and then it is on its two feet fine But humans are supposed to be aware...we have created life. Can we just dismiss it so easily? I still feel this woman always had responsibility for her daughter throughout life, and leaving her money in her will is a reflection of that, it should be a reflection of mother love. Otherwise we are no different to animals. There is no love, it is all just instinct. |
|
By:
Presumably most deceased people made a will while of sound mind, and their wishes should be respected.
Disgraceful decision. |
|
By:
Mother lions love their cubs and so do their fathers....you can see it if you watch some film of them when they are chilling out.
|
|
By:
I think you are seeking to frame a legal system around emotive issues ebul. There are myriad ways and reasons why what you argue for may not be feasible. How many perfectly healthy babies are given up each year by mothers who don't want them for whatever reason? You can't frame a legal system based on moral considerations for obvious reasons. What it must have above all is consistency and the most consistent and logical starting point is that your property belongs to you to be disposed of as you see fit.
|
|
By:
I agree with the law in France Germany Scotland and Ireland and not in England and the US.
How would the dead father have felt that his wife cut their daughter out of her inheritance? Fuming most likely. |