Being sued...

[pattieG]

My fathers reason for doing this is because of a long running feud with his brother. He believes that my uncle coerced their mother into changing her will to exclude him in our favour. He's doing this because in his eyes him being precluded from the will means his mother didn't love him when he died. Am I right in my assumption that if I do not respond to the court papers then judgement automatically goes in his favour?

[ColinM50]

Yes, if you get court papers and ignore them, then the court will assume you're quite happy with what your dad's proposing and they're likely to go along with his action. As a minimum, when you do get the papers reply to the court setting out your position. It's not up to the court to decide if his mum did love him or not, they have to uphold your Gran's request.

As a starter go to your local Citizen's Advice Bureau in Cambridge, http://www.cambridgecab.org.uk/ it's al free.

I'm a Town Councillor in a Cambridgeshire town and we provide financial support to our local CAB. They do some good work for folk who can't afford to pay for it. Call them and go and see them.

When you win this case, it's up to you what you do with the money. Nothing to stop you giving it/some to him but be careful of any tax liability. Don't let him bully you. can your uncle help?

I would add that my son rarely phones or visits me though I do see his children, i.e. my grandkids fairly often. We haven't fallen out he just can't be bothered to pop in on his way home from work or pick up the phone. So I've recently changed my will to pass his half of my estate direct to my grandkids. My p.o.v. is if he can't be bothered to keep in touch with me when I'm alive, why should I give him 1/4 mill when I'm dead? No the g/k's can have it.

[walm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Assuming you didn't exert pressure for the will to be changed in your favour, then it was the deceased's intentions that you should inherit instead of your father and you have a moral duty to make sure their wishes are met.

He may be your dad, but you are in the right and he isn't, so fight him all the way.

Actually the moral duty to dead people is a far from a cut-and-dried issue; it's highly nuanced. (For instance, you can argue that at death you cease to be a morally relevant "person" at all and are simply an object.)

From the OP it sounded as if pattie was happy to let everything go to Dad but the siblings weren't. If the siblings had agreed then it would have been absolutely fine to pass along the inheritance to someone else.

[Dave Hedgehog]

and this is why you dont scrimp and save your whole life

ensure there is none of this nonsense when you go, blow all your money on cars

[DanL]

pattieG said:

My fathers reason for doing this is because of a long running feud with his brother. He believes that my uncle coerced their mother into changing her will to exclude him in our favour. He's doing this because in his eyes him being precluded from the will means his mother didn't love him when he died. Am I right in my assumption that if I do not respond to the court papers then judgement automatically goes in his favour?

Ok, deep seated feeling will be tied up in this one. I don't know how much money is involved, or what your relationship with your father is, but you need to consider what you want as the outcome.

There will be people who can tell you whether you might win or lose, and that's good. There will be people who will give you opinions on the morality of each side, and that's fine too. What I'm going to do is point out the obvious: if you contest this with your father, it's very likely that it will ruin your relationship with him given that this seems to be tied in with whether his mother loved him or not!

If your relationship is already awful, or you don't care about it because you want the money, then by all means fight him. If not, be aware that this might cause irreparable damage to your relationship - for him, at the end it won't even be about the money but about proving some point to the world.

[Sheepshanks]

ColinM50 said:

Nothing to stop you giving it/some to him but be careful of any tax liability.

There's no tax liability with a gift.

ColinM50 said:

....I've recently changed my will to pass his half of my estate direct to my grandkids.

I think (from talking similar age friends) this is fairly common as people live longer. My FIL was talking about it the other day - his "kids" have all retired themselves. His sons are pretty wealthy, and we're at least comfortable, and the house/money he has isn't of life-changing value. So he's going to bias his Will to grandchildren.

[Sheepshanks]

pattieG said:

He's doing this because in his eyes him being precluded from the will means his mother didn't love him when he died.

I guess logic goes out of the window but trying to forcing a change now is only going to highlight his Mother's apparent view, and any victory, however unlikely that is, will be pyrrhic (and a loss will be even worse).

What's the scale of the amount - are we talking about 4, 5, 6 figures?

[Sheepshanks]

DanL said:

pattieG said:

My fathers reason for doing this is because of a long running feud with his brother. He believes that my uncle coerced their mother into changing her will to exclude him in our favour. He's doing this because in his eyes him being precluded from the will means his mother didn't love him when he died. Am I right in my assumption that if I do not respond to the court papers then judgement automatically goes in his favour?

Ok, deep seated feeling will be tied up in this one. I don't know how much money is involved, or what your relationship with your father is, but you need to consider what you want as the outcome.

There will be people who can tell you whether you might win or lose, and that's good. There will be people who will give you opinions on the morality of each side, and that's fine too. What I'm going to do is point out the obvious: if you contest this with your father, it's very likely that it will ruin your relationship with him given that this seems to be tied in with whether his mother loved him or not!

If your relationship is already awful, or you don't care about it because you want the money, then by all means fight him. If not, be aware that this might cause irreparable damage to your relationship - for him, at the end it won't even be about the money but about proving some point to the world.

Good post. People do get leaned on - we saw it with my wife's Godfather. He regarded her (and often introduced her) as his daughter. He had no kids of his own. But in his last couple of years his distant (both relationship and distance) family really put pressure on him to "remember" this or that nephew or niece - there were several unannounced visits with him being transported to the Solicitor.

When the Will was read there was a list of bequests to various people we'd hardly heard of but we were absolutely gobsmacked when the solicitor got the end and my wife had been left half the residual estate - we were certain that the "family" would have had it all directed to them.

I will admit that given the amount I'd been involved in looking after him and his house that I was slightly dismayed that I wasn't even mentioned though!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

walm said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Assuming you didn't exert pressure for the will to be changed in your favour, then it was the deceased's intentions that you should inherit instead of your father and you have a moral duty to make sure their wishes are met.

He may be your dad, but you are in the right and he isn't, so fight him all the way.

Actually the moral duty to dead people is a far from a cut-and-dried issue; it's highly nuanced. (For instance, you can argue that at death you cease to be a morally relevant "person" at all and are simply an object.)

From the OP it sounded as if pattie was happy to let everything go to Dad but the siblings weren't. If the siblings had agreed then it would have been absolutely fine to pass along the inheritance to someone else.

Disagree. It's the living that have the moral duty. A moral duty to abide by the deceased's wishes. So even if all siblings were happy to hand money over to dad, I don't think it's right that they do so. The kids my love their dad, but granny might have hated her son, and if granny didn't want him to have her money, he shouldn't get it.

This isn't a legal view, of course the kids can give their money to whoever they want, but if my mum overlooked me in favour of my kids (which is entirely possible ), then that's her decision and I'll abide by it.

[walm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Disagree. It's the living that have the moral duty. A moral duty to abide by the deceased's wishes.

I agree with your opinion, but I am just saying that from an ethics point of view, not everyone shares that opinion.
"Should we abide by the deceased wishes" doesn't command a simple yes/no answer in many cases.

And if you happen to believe that a dead person is just an object (with no moral relevance) then, to people who believe that, you have just said, "It's the living that have the moral duty. A moral duty to a stone/carrot/table." Which is obviously an absurd thing to suggest.
Of course living people have moral duties but they don't have them to objects.

[Jasandjules]

pattieG said:

My fathers reason for doing this is because of a long running feud with his brother. He believes that my uncle coerced their mother into changing her will to exclude him in our favour. He's doing this because in his eyes him being precluded from the will means his mother didn't love him when he died. Am I right in my assumption that if I do not respond to the court papers then judgement automatically goes in his favour?

Did he still have a good relationship with his mother?

Perhaps she did not love him, frankly if he would sue you for her money I can see why, my apologies if that is harsh, but my opinion of those who do such things is very low, and from bitter family (distant!) actions.

Finally, yes if you do not respond nor defend the claim then he can, within fourteen days of the claim being served upon you all, seek judgment in default i.e. he wins because no defence is put forward. Therefore his advice that "you do not need to do anything" is both wrong and potentially seriously misleading and certainly ought to be referred to the court.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

walm said:

Of course living people have moral duties but they don't have them to objects.

I think many people feel they have a moral duty to objects, from keeping a listed building or ancestral home in good order for the next generation, to maintaining and using a classic car, or preserving a work of art for the nation.

[KevinCamaroSS]

walm said:

From the OP it sounded as if pattie was happy to let everything go to Dad but the siblings weren't. If the siblings had agreed then it would have been absolutely fine to pass along the inheritance to someone else.

Not sure where you get this idea from?

On the moral side, if she wishes to pass directly to her children this should be upheld. It is even sensible (dependent on value) because it can avoid a second set of death duties.

[walm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

walm said:

Of course living people have moral duties but they don't have them to objects.

I think many people feel they have a moral duty to objects, from keeping a listed building or ancestral home in good order for the next generation, to maintaining and using a classic car, or preserving a work of art for the nation.

The moral duty is to the people I highlighted above, not the objects themselves.

[walm]

KevinCamaroSS said:

walm said:

From the OP it sounded as if pattie was happy to let everything go to Dad but the siblings weren't. If the siblings had agreed then it would have been absolutely fine to pass along the inheritance to someone else.

Not sure where you get this idea from?

I may have read too much into this comment in the OP.

pattieG said:

This follows on from his request previously that we defer our claim in his favour. Two of my siblings were not happy to do this...

[pattieG]

DanL said:

k, deep seated feeling will be tied up in this one. I don't know how much money is involved, or what your relationship with your father is, but you need to consider what you want as the outcome.

There will be people who can tell you whether you might win or lose, and that's good. There will be people who will give you opinions on the morality of each side, and that's fine too. What I'm going to do is point out the obvious: if you contest this with your father, it's very likely that it will ruin your relationship with him given that this seems to be tied in with whether his mother loved him or not!

If your relationship is already awful, or you don't care about it because you want the money, then by all means fight him. If not, be aware that this might cause irreparable damage to your relationship - for him, at the end it won't even be about the money but about proving some point to the world.

You've hit the nail on the head with how I feel about the situation. I don't want to ruin my relationship with my Father but equally I don't want to fall out with my siblings as this is unfortunately becoming a "sides" thing.

Just for all the curious people the exact amount is unknown but possibly around £40K.

[superlightr]

ColinM50 said:

Yes, if you get court papers and ignore them, then the court will assume you're quite happy with what your dad's proposing and they're likely to go along with his action. As a minimum, when you do get the papers reply to the court setting out your position. It's not up to the court to decide if his mum did love him or not, they have to uphold your Gran's request.

As a starter go to your local Citizen's Advice Bureau in Cambridge, http://www.cambridgecab.org.uk/ it's al free.

I'm a Town Councillor in a Cambridgeshire town and we provide financial support to our local CAB. They do some good work for folk who can't afford to pay for it. Call them and go and see them.

When you win this case, it's up to you what you do with the money. Nothing to stop you giving it/some to him but be careful of any tax liability. Don't let him bully you. can your uncle help?

I would add that my son rarely phones or visits me though I do see his children, i.e. my grandkids fairly often. We haven't fallen out he just can't be bothered to pop in on his way home from work or pick up the phone. So I've recently changed my will to pass his half of my estate direct to my grandkids. My p.o.v. is if he can't be bothered to keep in touch with me when I'm alive, why should I give him 1/4 mill when I'm dead? No the g/k's can have it.

Ahhh Colin, I will telephone and call in if you like.......pop in to say hello next time I'm in Cambridgeshire for nothing.

ps spend it all having fun.

[superlightr]

pattieG said:

You've hit the nail on the head with how I feel about the situation. I don't want to ruin my relationship with my Father but equally I don't want to fall out with my siblings as this is unfortunately becoming a "sides" thing.

Just for all the curious people the exact amount is unknown but possibly around £40K.

seriously £40k! Just split it with your Dad. Its not enough going to make fek all difference long term but will help both of you short and long term emotionally if you split it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

superlightr said:

seriously £40k! Just split it with your Dad. Its not enough going to make fek all difference long term but will help both of you short and long term emotionally if you split it.

I get the feeling a 50/50 split will not be enough to satisfy dad. Plus it was granny's money, and she didn't want sonny boy to get it, she wanted the grandchildren to get it.

[LordHaveMurci]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I get the feeling a 50/50 split will not be enough to satisfy dad. Plus it was granny's money, and she didn't want sonny boy to get it, she wanted the grandchildren to get it.

Once she has left it to them it's theirs to do what they want with.