Woman disinherited by mother's will given 164k by court

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.

Totally agree with you, Tobes. It's quite difficult to see how anyone could think otherwise, actually.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

If she left the money to the goverment instead...then the daughter would'nt have seen a penny

people will do anything for money

the will should have been upheld

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

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!

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.

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

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.

It says much more about the parent than the child

no it doesn't, you simply don't give money to people you don't like, not everyone has wonderful kids.

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

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

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.

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.

I pity your kids scandanavian

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Presumably most deceased people made a will while of sound mind, and their wishes should be respected.

Disgraceful decision.

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.

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.

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.

Other countries have framed a legal system round that.  All you do is draw the line somewhere.

I'd hazard a guess that there are more legal challenges in wills per capita in the US than either France or Germany

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

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.

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.

If he disagreed he could have left her some money when he died.

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.

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.

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?

no point in wills now

Well there is as the deceased wishes in the main will be carried out but amended to give rights to the offspring.

A bonkers judgement which will surely be overturned.

Let's hope so.

kenny
i'm wd leave you my indian cat collection bookbut i cant spell
mytchell/canny/kenny

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.

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.

Everybody is entitled to human rights and justice

That last paragraph is an unfair,personal attack, and nothing to do with this argument

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

exactly like I called it.  It said much more about the mother than the daughter.  The judge played a blinder

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.

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?

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.

................... but lawful.

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.

Who cares?
You'll be dead

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?

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.

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.

Clydebank

The relevant law (Act Of Parliament) dates from 1975.

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.

Show me the money.