Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 79 comments are related to the topic:
Woman disinherited by mother's will given 164k by court
Woman disinherited by mother's will given 164k by court
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 79
|
By:
Other countries have framed a legal system round that. All you do is draw the line somewhere.
|
|
By:
I'd hazard a guess that there are more legal challenges in wills per capita in the US than either France or Germany
|
|
By:
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.
Not in France Germany Scotland and Ireland eternal |
|
By:
Who cares about such countries Ebul? England gave much of the world the common law and it was clasped to their busom like the rarest jewel for good reason. Parliament made a grievous error as it often does when it involves itself in private matters.
|
|
By:
Some people do get bitter as they get older and that might have influenced things here however we don't know but Clydebank makes a good point.
What would the deceased father think? I think the law is right to give offspring legal rights. |
|
By:
If he disagreed he could have left her some money when he died.
|
|
By:
Well we don't know whether he favoured her or not or whether he expected his wife to leave her a fair share when she died.
I still think that children are entitled to inherit from their parents estate. |
|
By:
That's entirely yours and anybody else's prerogative and it's also mine to say that your money belongs to you to dispose of in life or death how you see fit.
|
|
By:
It's not for the court to substitute its judgement for that of the mother, who was of sound mind when she made the will. Imagine the reverse situation, where a father leaves his son £500k, only for the court to say 'Actually, son, you're a bellend; you're getting nowt. Now where's that Shelter number?'.
In the absence of a will, there's a pecking order, which is designed to sort your family out as a priority. Fair enough. But if there's a will, and the deceased has even gone as far as to give reasons for her decision, why on earth shouldn't it be respected? |
|
By:
no point in wills now
|
|
By:
Well there is as the deceased wishes in the main will be carried out but amended to give rights to the offspring.
|
|
By:
A bonkers judgement which will surely be overturned.
|
|
By:
Let's hope so.
|
|
By:
kenny
i'm wd leave you my indian cat collection bookbut i cant spell mytchell/canny/kenny |
|
By:
Well there is as the deceased wishes in the main will be carried out but amended to give rights to the offspring.
Well, no. This is the point of the debate. Where is the line drawn? Nobody knows now. |
|
By:
The women was of completely sound mind, this wasn't contested.
Yet someone can challenge her dying wish on the basis the mother was bitter? So what if she was, that's her prerogative, if your daughter who you brought up as a single mother, ran away to be married, had 5 kids and never got to see them, and the relationship was completely non-existent for over 30 years, then she is entitled to be, the sense of entitlement however of the daughter has is staggering. It's simply pure greed. They were not remotely close, and she has a supportive husband with grown up children fending for themselves, it's not even like she's destitute, she simply wants to buy her already subsidised property. She be noted the judgement was made by Lady Justice Arden, a former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, not animal rights. Little time for human rights activist simply because they are the sort of people who insist pedophiles are also entitled to human rights, apparently, you can invade another person's body and destroy them mentally for life, but they are entitled to human rights. They are just as bad as them. |
|
By:
Everybody is entitled to human rights and justice
That last paragraph is an unfair,personal attack, and nothing to do with this argument |
|
By:
No one knows what’s really gone on between them over the years or their relationship etc etc but that is immaterial, your money and possessions are exactly that, YOURS.
So unless there are dependent children are involved I don’t see why the courts or anyone else should be able to overturn your explicit instructions in a will. If she was alive the daughter would have had no right to interfere if she wanted to give it away or burn it on bonfire, so I don’t see why she should she get any now when her mother explicitly said otherwise. If courts can now overturn your wishes in a will then people will just further do what they do to avoid inheritance tax, give it away before their death. |
|
By:
Exactly pawras, that's basically what I've said in a nutshell.
ebul, are you saying pedophiles are entitled to human rights? not imo. They lost their human rights when they carried out inhumane acts. And to be honest, people who promote human rights for such people are just as bad as them, by encouraging them to be free and to re-offend which many do, you are also accountable for their actions. How anyone can defend such lowlifes is beyond me. |
|
By:
and as for paedos , I would have all those mussie groomers and mps and saville and who ever else gibbeted, outside mosques for some and along the thames for the rest.
|
|
By:
Is it correct for 3 Charities (the RSPCA, Blue Cross and RSPB) with Multi-Million ££pounds of Cash and Assets to spend £Thousands on Solicitors trying to Deny a Person to Provide a roof over their families head and food for 5 children?, from a Dead Relative`s Assets?,
In a judgment handed down on Monday, Lady Justice Arden said: "This is a case where the court can and should make reasonable financial provision out of the deceased's estate for the appellant's maintenance so that her living expenses are relieved without affecting the state benefits on which she relies." The appeal judges ruled in her favour, stating that her income was "not reasonable" for her future as she was on benefits and had no pension. Mrs Ilott was awarded £143,000 to buy her rented home from a housing association, and an extra £20,000 as "additional income". They added that Mrs Jackson had "no connection" with the animal charities. Mrs Jackson was 'unreasonable, capricious and harsh' and had left her money to charity to spite her - not because she supported the charities' work - in a 'picture of irrationality'. On Another Note; ◾Animal charities won an appeal to inherit property worth £350,000 despite claims it had been a "deathbed gift" to the homeowner's nephew. |
|
By:
Not sure how a judge knows what connection she had to these charities.Nobody other than me knows what charities i think are worth supporting and although I make gifts to some there are plenty I might consider leaving money to that ive never been able to help within my lifetime.
This is another case of mad judges being totally out of control. He even made his judgement in a way that didnt effect her state benefits? what relevance has that got to the rights/wrongs of the case. |
|
By:
Anybody would think Charities were Skint
 7 Years ago; Leading charities have tens of millions of pounds frozen in collapsed Icelandic banks, it emerged yesterday. The Government was locked in talks with charity group leaders amid an estimate that British organisations may have £120 Million tied up with Iceland's trio of troubled lenders. Some individual charities have admitted to having potential losses that may force them to seek additional donations from the public. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charities-see-163120m-frozen-in-iceland-bank-collapse-957874.html http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1930130.ece |
|
By:
How anyone can defend such lowlifes is beyond me.
I don't defend them, I defend justice. If you think the woman's daughter is greedy, I wonder where she got it from, probably her mother. I believe people have a moral responsibility for what they created, their children. |
|
By:
This woman isn't greedy. Her life history says otherwise. If you going to taint people with greed I'd look at the daughters of Rolf Harris and Max Clifford. Had the law been similar to the French and the Germans perhaps they wouldn't have stood so steadfast behind their dads.
|
|
By:
I heard in passing on the news the mother disagreed with the daughters choice in partner and so disowned her.
Probs a bit more to it, but never the less that is mighty fickle of a mother if true. It's perfectly acceptable logic to suggest a parent to be responsible for a child, picking and choosing loyalties after the having of a child is utterly irrelevant. |
|
By:
Just because you want to do something (leave all your money to a dog's home) doesn't mean you can.
If I wanted to leave everything to ISIS and pay no tax whatsoever I reckon I'd get short shrift, so simply wanting something is no defence imo |
|
By:
exactly like I called it. It said much more about the mother than the daughter. The judge played a blinder
|
|
By:
I heard in passing on the news the mother disagreed with the daughters choice in partner and so disowned her.
Probs a bit more to it, but never the less that is mighty fickle of a mother if true. Would be virtually true of every single Muslim family in the UK. Any help to let children free themselves of that coercive religion would be a bonus. |
|
By:
It said much more about the mother than the daughter. The judge played a blinder.
So what if it does? What business does the judge have getting involved and substituting its own judgement for that of the deceased? Yes, it makes the mother look a bit hateful, but it's her right to be hateful, isn't it? |
|
By:
The mother is fully entitled to distribute her wealth how she sees fit, it's as black and white as that, going to court spending x amount of time and money to change the will and go against the wishes of a dead person is nothing short of sickening. And greedy.
|
|
By:
................... but lawful.
|
|
By:
Does this changing a will at the discretion of the judge apply only to direct descendants? This decision opens up a whole can of worms and another money tree for lawyers and solicitors.
I have a will, no descendants or partners involved. NExt of kin however is a sister who i have not seen for 3 years and very rarely on the last 15. She disowned her parents for not toeing her line. The parent inheritance was still split equally between us. She has no part in my will. Her daughter was removed from the will 3 years ago when although young she followed her mother and has not been in contact since. As they are my only living relatives will they now have a right to my assets on my death? This is a seriously shocking state of affairs. As mentioned there have been a number of reversals in decision on this case and it seems it just relates to one persons' view on what to do with the will. A law needs passing through Government to prevent another legal gravy train for unscrupulous lawyers and solicitors. |
|
By:
Who cares?
You'll be dead |
|
By:
This could conceivably be a very expensive judgement. As of now proud people may think I'll hedge my bets and pay for my own care in a home and the charity I've nominated can have what's left. If people think a judge may set aside their express wishes entered into without coercion and with them being of sound mind to give their money to someone they have expressly said and given reasons why they don't want it to go to them then how many people will say fucck it? Spend the lot and then turn up on the doorstep of the local nursing home and let the state pay?
|
|
By:
This was a just decision using the current law but under exceptional circumstances. Hopefully the judgement will lead to a change in the outdated law, that stems from a time when children were coerced and controlled and given lack of free will often through religion. Society will be all the better for it.
|
|
By:
In a sign of the times my mother in laws mother was disowned by her wealthy parents for marrying beneath her. Her parents were wealthy but she lived in poverty all her life. I have to laugh at comments of greedy as what you have here is a strikingly similar case and is the exact opposite of greed. Few people would have had the fortitude and resolve to contest the will like the this woman has done. I say bravo, for finally getting something out of your awful mother.
|
|
By:
Clydebank
The relevant law (Act Of Parliament) dates from 1975. |
|
By:
Why stop at this? It's unreasonable, capricious and harsh that some people inherit tens of millions, some hundreds of millions when others inherit little or nothing. Judges should overturn these unjust wills and spread the gravy around.
|
|
By:
Show me the money.
 |