Will overuled by judge
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
TheJimi said:
So, basically a will isn't the worth the paper it's printed / written on, if a judge has the power to reverse it?
Nice.
Absolutely wrong. A will IS worth the paper it's written on - but there may be EXCEPTIONAL circumstances where the wishes expressed in a will may be over ruled.Nice.
The great thing about the law is that it is not absolutely inflexible.
A will is the final wishes of a person, as to what shall happen to their posessions / money. Their stuff, their decision.
A judge can then deem whatever circumstances as being exceptional and thus, overrule the expressed wishes of the deceased individual.
That makes a mockery of the notion of a will, imo.
Jasandjules said:
What a person wishes to do with their money is a matter for them. I do not feel the state should interfere (save for exceptional circumstances such as coercion).
I'm with you. What a person decides to do with their money should be respected both in life and death.It was clear in this case that the mother restricted the money from her daughter in life, and continued to do so after death. There is no conflict there I can see.
The judge does not have the moral right to change a wish which had been implicitly and explicitly given. I suspect the judge has an obilgation to decide on fairness for both the daughter and the deceased here, but was rather swayed toward the one still breathing because that would be likely to cause less future aggravation.
Poor show.
TEKNOPUG said:
Breadvan72 said:
"When the facts change, I change my mind" said John Maynard Keynes. Do you follow JMK, Teknopug?
I haven't changed my mind - what are you talking about?? I merely relayed the news reports. Whether they were accurate, whether it was the mother's partner or not, doesn't change my view that the law is an ass.Maynards also said "There's juice loose aboot this hoose". Or are you more of a Bassetts Man, Breadvan72?
TheJimi said:
Nope, I'm still struggling.
A will is the final wishes of a person, as to what shall happen to their posessions / money. Their stuff, their decision.
A judge can then deem whatever circumstances as being exceptional and thus, overrule the expressed wishes of the deceased individual.
That makes a mockery of the notion of a will, imo.
Its slightly more worrying than that. A will is the final wishes of a person, as to what shall happen to their posessions / money. Their stuff, their decision.
A judge can then deem whatever circumstances as being exceptional and thus, overrule the expressed wishes of the deceased individual.
That makes a mockery of the notion of a will, imo.
Originally the law is said it is unreasonable not to support your children till their eighteenth birthday
Now it seems to be saying we think it is unreasonable not to support your children after you die.
I wonder if the daughter could not have argued that in this day and age it is begining to be thought of as unreasonable for a parent not to support their child through their entire lives.
Which is an interesting debate to be had.
As far as I am aware, offspring are unable to choose parentage - although adults can choose not to have offspring (other than in certain illegal and reprehensible acts).
One could infer that in the case presented, adult has made a complete feck up of raising offspring and continues to demonstrate bitterness and imcompetence beyond the grave.
To whom the responsibility of raising offspring to meet the standards expected by parent fall, are clear.
This one appears to be a 'fail'.
Judge done well.
As far as I am aware, offspring are unable to choose parentage - although adults can choose not to have offspring (other than in certain illegal and reprehensible acts).
One could infer that in the case presented, adult has made a complete feck up of raising offspring and continues to demonstrate bitterness and imcompetence beyond the grave.
To whom the responsibility of raising offspring to meet the standards expected by parent fall, are clear.
This one appears to be a 'fail'.
Judge done well.
Eric Mc said:
xjay1337 said:
I'd hate to have the wishes of my will ignored. If I cut someone out, that's for ME to decide. Not for Judge Judith Shister.
How can we respect the courts when they clearly don't respect us...
By and large they DO respect us. It's when someone behaves in a bad, unfair, mean and spiteful way that a court may step in and decide differently to what the deceased intended.How can we respect the courts when they clearly don't respect us...
Wills are often contested. As BV72 says, most times, they remain unchanged. But now and then the circumstances are so severe that the deceased's wishes might be over ruled.
I can imagine some local authorities, government departments etc are now thinking how they can get their hands on someone elses money. Afterall isnt it mean NOT to support the council
after your death??
williamp said:
I know they are your words, but I still feel sowhat.nobody has ever said a Will needs to be any of those. Providing the person was in sound mind when the will was made, then what they say, shouldgo.
I can imagine some local authorities, government departments etc are now thinking how they can get their hands on someone elses money. Afterall isnt it mean NOT to support the council
after your death??
Actually to give the legal system their due, I recently made a will. The solicitor was at great pain to explain to me that a will needed to be reasonable. If I wanted to specify anything unreasonable, they would want a video, and a good deal of explanation to be able to use in court. In the cirumstance that they thought this would be difficult to defend they were suggesting a trust with the beneficiaries as trustees, in some monumental legal attempt to protect my wishes from state scrutiny.I can imagine some local authorities, government departments etc are now thinking how they can get their hands on someone elses money. Afterall isnt it mean NOT to support the council
after your death??
So I suspect the legal system has known for some time that the tide of judges opinion is shifting a little.
We're discussing 'inheritance' here - i.e. those amounts due to offspring from parents upon their demise - not freebies which a grasping council/gov may wish to steal.
c.f. IHT, which is already a somewhat excessive tax (a tax on taxed income which has already been taxed
)
As mentioned previously, under Scottish law, inheritance will be observed - regardless of WILL (to a certain extent), which reflects the 'right' an offspring has to certain parental assets upon the demise of said parents.
And, as far as I am concerned, offspring do have this 'right' - pretty much regardless of anything.
English law may differ somewhat in substance, but perhaps not in spirit.
c.f. IHT, which is already a somewhat excessive tax (a tax on taxed income which has already been taxed
)As mentioned previously, under Scottish law, inheritance will be observed - regardless of WILL (to a certain extent), which reflects the 'right' an offspring has to certain parental assets upon the demise of said parents.
And, as far as I am concerned, offspring do have this 'right' - pretty much regardless of anything.
English law may differ somewhat in substance, but perhaps not in spirit.
williamp said:
I know they are your words, but I still feel sowhat.nobody has ever said a Will needs to be any of those. Providing the person was in sound mind when the will was made, then what they say, shouldgo.
I can imagine some local authorities, government departments etc are now thinking how they can get their hands on someone elses money. Afterall isnt it mean NOT to support the council
after your death??
Don't you think it mean that someone who is dead should have control over it?I can imagine some local authorities, government departments etc are now thinking how they can get their hands on someone elses money. Afterall isnt it mean NOT to support the council
after your death??
I struggle to see the problem. She's dead. Even the religious admit she has no need of the money and those not burdened with a mystical belief probably think she has no cognisance of what's happening to the money. She is not, in any way, shape or form upset by what is happening. She is dead.
If she had wanted her money to go to these charities then she had ample opportunity to send it there before she died. But she didn't.
The whole issue of this particular case revolves around just what you are saying. Her father, the judge felt, (commas matter) would have wanted her to have a proportion of the money.
Now either the dead have no business dictating to the living or else the father's suspected desires are to be honoured. ou can have it both ways of course but it makes a very poor argument.
There was a case near where I used to live where a woman died and in her will demanded that her dogs be destroyed. A couple were just out of puppyhood. A vet was called to do the evil deed and he took them away and reported the person who wanted the dogs topped - the executor not the deceased - to the police.
A fudge was organised and the youngest dogs were allowed to live, although with no support from the estate.
A little while later a woman died and wanted her horse topped. I can't remember the process here but it went through the courts and it was deemed to be an inappropriate clause. So if you want your horse dead, kill it before you die.
Both of these wills strike me as outrageous.
There was another where a classic car was to be destroyed. This was not illegal and involved no cruelty, but there was a high degree of selfishness in it.
There was a case where the mother of a severely disabled middle aged son child killed him when she was told her cancer was about to take her life. As it was she lived for a while and there was the possibility of her being charged. That wasn't a selfish act. She was aware of the likely life of her son once handed over to the state.
There was a lot of heart-felt condemnation from the authorities but no suggestion that the homes would be better run.
This woman's dead. She has no say in my view.
Breadvan72 said:
Keep up at the back! The Judges in the Court of Appeal (and the High Court before that) simply applied a Statute dating from 1975. Parliament in 1975 thought it a good idea that in certain limited circumstances close family members could seek reasonable provision from the estate of a close relative. What right does a Judge have to do this, you ask. The answer is that a Judge has a power given to the Court by the elected legislature. The Act has been around for forty years, and society hasn't disintegrated because of it.
I've read most of Broken Lives. Thanks for the heads up.Would you be interested in my views on it?
Derek
Derek Smith said:
Don't you think it mean that someone who is dead should have control over it?
No. It is...was her money.
I struggle to see the problem. She's dead. Even the religious admit she has no need of the money and those not burdened with a mystical belief probably think she has no cognisance of what's happening to the money. She is not, in any way, shape or form upset by what is happening. She is dead.
If she had wanted her money to go to these charities then she had ample opportunity to send it there before she died. But she didn't.
Maybd tied up in assets?? Maybe there are IHT issues as well??
The whole issue of this particular case revolves around just what you are saying. Her father, the judge felt, (commas matter) would have wanted her to have a proportion of the money.
Now either the dead have no business dictating to the living or else the father's suspected desires are to be honoured. ou can have it both ways of course but it makes a very poor argument.
But this wasnt the fathers money. It was the mothers. If the father wanted to leave something to his daughter, shouldnt he have written a will???
There was a case near where I used to live where a woman died and in her will demanded that her dogs be destroyed. A couple were just out of puppyhood. A vet was called to do the evil deed and he took them away and reported the person who wanted the dogs topped - the executor not the deceased - to the police.
A fudge was organised and the youngest dogs were allowed to live, although with no support from the estate.
A little while later a woman died and wanted her horse topped. I can't remember the process here but it went through the courts and it was deemed to be an inappropriate clause. So if you want your horse dead, kill it before you die.
Both of these wills strike me as outrageous.
I agree, but I cant see the relevence. The daughter was in her mid 50s. Not dependant on the deceased.
There was another where a classic car was to be destroyed. This was not illegal and involved no cruelty, but there was a high degree of selfishness in it.
There was a case where the mother of a severely disabled middle aged son child killed him when she was told her cancer was about to take her life. As it was she lived for a while and there was the possibility of her being charged. That wasn't a selfish act. She was aware of the likely life of her son once handed over to the state.
There was a lot of heart-felt condemnation from the authorities but no suggestion that the homes would be better run.
And their will said???
This woman's dead. She has no say in my view.
Thats why you write a will when you are alive?? As other have said, whats the point otherwse. Might as well die intestate and let some lawyers decide. After fees, of course....
Sorry for the formatting. Im on my tablet. No. It is...was her money.
I struggle to see the problem. She's dead. Even the religious admit she has no need of the money and those not burdened with a mystical belief probably think she has no cognisance of what's happening to the money. She is not, in any way, shape or form upset by what is happening. She is dead.
If she had wanted her money to go to these charities then she had ample opportunity to send it there before she died. But she didn't.
Maybd tied up in assets?? Maybe there are IHT issues as well??
The whole issue of this particular case revolves around just what you are saying. Her father, the judge felt, (commas matter) would have wanted her to have a proportion of the money.
Now either the dead have no business dictating to the living or else the father's suspected desires are to be honoured. ou can have it both ways of course but it makes a very poor argument.
But this wasnt the fathers money. It was the mothers. If the father wanted to leave something to his daughter, shouldnt he have written a will???
There was a case near where I used to live where a woman died and in her will demanded that her dogs be destroyed. A couple were just out of puppyhood. A vet was called to do the evil deed and he took them away and reported the person who wanted the dogs topped - the executor not the deceased - to the police.
A fudge was organised and the youngest dogs were allowed to live, although with no support from the estate.
A little while later a woman died and wanted her horse topped. I can't remember the process here but it went through the courts and it was deemed to be an inappropriate clause. So if you want your horse dead, kill it before you die.
Both of these wills strike me as outrageous.
I agree, but I cant see the relevence. The daughter was in her mid 50s. Not dependant on the deceased.
There was another where a classic car was to be destroyed. This was not illegal and involved no cruelty, but there was a high degree of selfishness in it.
There was a case where the mother of a severely disabled middle aged son child killed him when she was told her cancer was about to take her life. As it was she lived for a while and there was the possibility of her being charged. That wasn't a selfish act. She was aware of the likely life of her son once handed over to the state.
There was a lot of heart-felt condemnation from the authorities but no suggestion that the homes would be better run.
And their will said???
This woman's dead. She has no say in my view.
Thats why you write a will when you are alive?? As other have said, whats the point otherwse. Might as well die intestate and let some lawyers decide. After fees, of course....
Derek Smith said:
There was a case near where I used to live where a woman died and in her will demanded that her dogs be destroyed. A couple were just out of puppyhood. A vet was called to do the evil deed and he took them away and reported the person who wanted the dogs topped - the executor not the deceased - to the police.
A fudge was organised and the youngest dogs were allowed to live, although with no support from the estate.
A little while later a woman died and wanted her horse topped. I can't remember the process here but it went through the courts and it was deemed to be an inappropriate clause. So if you want your horse dead, kill it before you die.
Both of these wills strike me as outrageous.
There was another where a classic car was to be destroyed. This was not illegal and involved no cruelty, but there was a high degree of selfishness in it.
There was a case where the mother of a severely disabled middle aged son child killed him when she was told her cancer was about to take her life. As it was she lived for a while and there was the possibility of her being charged. That wasn't a selfish act. She was aware of the likely life of her son once handed over to the state.
All of these definitely happened and aren't another figment of your over active imagination.A fudge was organised and the youngest dogs were allowed to live, although with no support from the estate.
A little while later a woman died and wanted her horse topped. I can't remember the process here but it went through the courts and it was deemed to be an inappropriate clause. So if you want your horse dead, kill it before you die.
Both of these wills strike me as outrageous.
There was another where a classic car was to be destroyed. This was not illegal and involved no cruelty, but there was a high degree of selfishness in it.
There was a case where the mother of a severely disabled middle aged son child killed him when she was told her cancer was about to take her life. As it was she lived for a while and there was the possibility of her being charged. That wasn't a selfish act. She was aware of the likely life of her son once handed over to the state.
Ali G said:
Just a guess...
'No win no fee' type of arrangement.
Now doshed up - the 'fee' may reduce inheritance a little/a lot/totally
One wonders if mother would have wished to have left money to 'charitable' solicitors in the fist place.
Or not.
You guess wrong, it appears from the transcript. The claimant was represented by lawyers acting pro bono (that means free). 'No win no fee' type of arrangement.
Now doshed up - the 'fee' may reduce inheritance a little/a lot/totally
One wonders if mother would have wished to have left money to 'charitable' solicitors in the fist place.
Or not.
williamp said:
....
I can imagine some local authorities, government departments etc are now thinking how they can get their hands on someone elses money. After all isnt it mean NOT to support the council
after your death??
Imagine all you like, but you imagine wrong. Is the glass always half empty for you lot? How can you gloom and doom, everything is busted merchants get up in the morning, given that you see life so bleakly? I can imagine some local authorities, government departments etc are now thinking how they can get their hands on someone elses money. After all isnt it mean NOT to support the council
after your death??
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff