Will overuled by judge
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
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.
This is how you have to do disinheritance in France, go SKIing (spending kids inheritance) while still alive. French law forces you to leave the wonga to the kids. If you have x kids, the estate gets divided into x+1 parts, so you can give one part to whom or what ever you wish, but the kids, estranged or not, will get their share.I have always preferred the English approach, testament made while of sound mind, etc. To my mind it shouldn't matter if the deceased was a nasty b
h, if the will was valid why should it be overturned?Breadvan72 said:
Rovinghawk said:
...
The fact that Parliament has passed a law to interfere with a person's wishes is IMHO wrong.
There are zillions of laws that interfere with a person's wishes. I wish to kill all Audi drivers, but some stupid law says that I can't. I wish to be able to help myself to a Rolex every time that I pass the Rolex shop, but again, some PC Nanny State idiots say that I can't. What a country, eh?The fact that Parliament has passed a law to interfere with a person's wishes is IMHO wrong.
I think it's wrong that Parliament has chosen to interfere with an individual's wishes in a matter that should be none of their business. I believe that everyone should have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit (subject to certain restrictions such as funding terrorists).
I support your views on Audi drivers, naturally.
Breadvan72 said:
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??
Breadvan72 said:
You guess wrong, it appears from the transcript. The claimant was represented by lawyers acting pro bono (that means free).
Ta,So not all lawyers are shysters.
I also studied Latin some time ago.
ETA: cannot spell shyster, surprisingly
Edited by Ali G on Tuesday 28th July 20:23
williamp said:
Sorry for the formatting. Im on my tablet.
My point is that the person is dead. Why should they have any say over where the money which is no longer theirs goes?They are out of it. It seems to me to be very selfish, directing you money from the grave. All rather morbid.
When I'm dead if my kids piss it up against a wall I won't mind 'cause I won't know. Is my point that difficult to understand?
Or to put it another way: when you are dead you don't own anything.
A vicar said to me (and others) that a funeral is for those alive. A horse drawn hearse does nothing for the occupant. They have no interest in the matter.
Why should they have control?
Breadvan72 said:
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??
Rovinghawk said:
Please allow me to rephrase:
I think it's wrong that Parliament has chosen to interfere with an individual's wishes in a matter that should be none of their business. I believe that everyone should have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit (subject to certain restrictions such as funding terrorists).
I support your views on Audi drivers, naturally.
Quite so.I think it's wrong that Parliament has chosen to interfere with an individual's wishes in a matter that should be none of their business. I believe that everyone should have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit (subject to certain restrictions such as funding terrorists).
I support your views on Audi drivers, naturally.
Whilst you are an 'individual'
Unfortunately, once an individual engages with a construct involving a 'partner' with resultant consequence of 'offspring', your life is no longer your own.
Stay single, stay childless - live life as you want to - and bequeath your dosh to hedhehog funds.
Where you have distributed your DNA, responsibility and finance will follow - including your estate.
I see no issue with this!
Derek Smith said:
williamp said:
Sorry for the formatting. Im on my tablet.
My point is that the person is dead. Why should they have any say over where the money which is no longer theirs goes?They are out of it. It seems to me to be very selfish, directing you money from the grave. All rather morbid.
When I'm dead if my kids piss it up against a wall I won't mind 'cause I won't know. Is my point that difficult to understand?
Or to put it another way: when you are dead you don't own anything.
A vicar said to me (and others) that a funeral is for those alive. A horse drawn hearse does nothing for the occupant. They have no interest in the matter.
Why should they have control?
So your kid does something terrible, horrific and unforgivable one day. I won't spell it out just let you consider what that could be......
You think a judge should be able to gift them your wealth if you have chosen to give it to the kids that deserve it?
Ali G said:
Breadvan72 said:
You guess wrong, it appears from the transcript. The claimant was represented by lawyers acting pro bono (that means free).
Ta,So not all lawyers are shysters.
I also studied Latin some time ago.
ETA: cannot spell shyster, surprisingly
PS: I can't spell shyster either.
PPS: I studied Latin so long ago that, at the time, it was regarded as a dangerously modern innovation. The usual ranters on Chariotheads used to go on about new fangled PC bollix ruining everything, and blamed it all on the over arching European superstate. Me, I blame that Octavian Caesar, me. Things were much better when we had the Etruscans, etc, etc [continued on tablet CXXXVIII].
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 28th July 21:12
rb5er said:
Derek Smith said:
williamp said:
Sorry for the formatting. Im on my tablet.
My point is that the person is dead. Why should they have any say over where the money which is no longer theirs goes?They are out of it. It seems to me to be very selfish, directing you money from the grave. All rather morbid.
When I'm dead if my kids piss it up against a wall I won't mind 'cause I won't know. Is my point that difficult to understand?
Or to put it another way: when you are dead you don't own anything.
A vicar said to me (and others) that a funeral is for those alive. A horse drawn hearse does nothing for the occupant. They have no interest in the matter.
Why should they have control?
So your kid does something terrible, horrific and unforgivable one day. I won't spell it out just let you consider what that could be......
You think a judge should be able to gift them your wealth if you have chosen to give it to the kids that deserve it?
iphonedyou said:
voyds9 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-he...
A woman who disinherited her child has had her will partly ignored.
A judge has awarded her daughter £164,000 after she left detailed and clear instructions that her estate be left to various charities
The judge said her will was unreasonable and harsh by disinheriting her daughter.
I think this is vastly unjust to the dead woman and hope the executors appeal until there is nothing left.
She deliberately cut her daughter out of her estate and left her money to charities she hardly knew.
This was not to help the charities but to spite the child.
As the will was clear, I believe she should be allowed to disperse her money as she sees fit
Am I reading your OP incorrectly?A woman who disinherited her child has had her will partly ignored.
A judge has awarded her daughter £164,000 after she left detailed and clear instructions that her estate be left to various charities
The judge said her will was unreasonable and harsh by disinheriting her daughter.
I think this is vastly unjust to the dead woman and hope the executors appeal until there is nothing left.
She deliberately cut her daughter out of her estate and left her money to charities she hardly knew.
This was not to help the charities but to spite the child.
As the will was clear, I believe she should be allowed to disperse her money as she sees fit
I read it as a) unjust to the dead woman but b) the dead woman left it to charities she hardly knew in order to c) spite her child then d) the dead woman should be allowed to disperse her money as she sees fit.
Is it just me that thinks this is confused? It usually is, to be fair.
Anyway, as breadvan says the Judge is in possession of all the facts and from my cursory lay-man reading, it seems a reasonable decision.
As Breadvan says, the various rulings disagreed as to how the 1975 Act should be interpreted. The judges are not responsible for the existence of the Act itself.
I agree with the OP about the unfairness of the result.
What is next - a living parent might have assets expropriated in order to provide a "reasonable" income for an impecunious or profligate adult child who is living on benefits? That is the logical next step.
Absurd.
Breadvan72 said:
Have a look at the Act for the definitions.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63
The CA decision linked to above gives guidance on how the 1975 Act is applied. It is not successfully invoked very often. Most challenges to Wills fail.
In the wake of this ruling, surely there will be an increasing number of successful challenges to wills?http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63
The CA decision linked to above gives guidance on how the 1975 Act is applied. It is not successfully invoked very often. Most challenges to Wills fail.
flemke said:
The Court of Appeal overruled previous rulings by other judges who also were in possession of all the facts. I have dealt personally with one of the judges (when he/she was a barrister) and can vouch for the high intelligence and professionalism of that person.
As Breadvan says, the various rulings disagreed as to how the 1975 Act should be interpreted. The judges are not responsible for the existence of the Act itself.
I agree with the OP about the unfairness of the result.
What is next - a living parent might have assets expropriated in order to provide a "reasonable" income for an impecunious or profligate adult child who is living on benefits? That is the logical next step.
Absurd.
If living on benefits, I'd rather a parent have to shoulder the burden than the taxpayer.As Breadvan says, the various rulings disagreed as to how the 1975 Act should be interpreted. The judges are not responsible for the existence of the Act itself.
I agree with the OP about the unfairness of the result.
What is next - a living parent might have assets expropriated in order to provide a "reasonable" income for an impecunious or profligate adult child who is living on benefits? That is the logical next step.
Absurd.
johnfm said:
flemke said:
The Court of Appeal overruled previous rulings by other judges who also were in possession of all the facts. I have dealt personally with one of the judges (when he/she was a barrister) and can vouch for the high intelligence and professionalism of that person.
As Breadvan says, the various rulings disagreed as to how the 1975 Act should be interpreted. The judges are not responsible for the existence of the Act itself.
I agree with the OP about the unfairness of the result.
What is next - a living parent might have assets expropriated in order to provide a "reasonable" income for an impecunious or profligate adult child who is living on benefits? That is the logical next step.
Absurd.
If living on benefits, I'd rather a parent have to shoulder the burden than the taxpayer.As Breadvan says, the various rulings disagreed as to how the 1975 Act should be interpreted. The judges are not responsible for the existence of the Act itself.
I agree with the OP about the unfairness of the result.
What is next - a living parent might have assets expropriated in order to provide a "reasonable" income for an impecunious or profligate adult child who is living on benefits? That is the logical next step.
Absurd.
Derek Smith said:
williamp said:
Sorry for the formatting. Im on my tablet.
My point is that the person is dead. Why should they have any say over where the money which is no longer theirs goes?They are out of it. It seems to me to be very selfish, directing you money from the grave. All rather morbid.
When I'm dead if my kids piss it up against a wall I won't mind 'cause I won't know. Is my point that difficult to understand?
Or to put it another way: when you are dead you don't own anything.
A vicar said to me (and others) that a funeral is for those alive. A horse drawn hearse does nothing for the occupant. They have no interest in the matter.
Why should they have control?
Would you also be in favour of turning cemeteries into car parks?
Ali G said:
flemke said:
What is next - a living parent might have assets expropriated in order to provide a "reasonable" income for an impecunious or profligate adult child who is living on benefits? That is the logical next step.
Non sequitur.This is 'inheritance' - not 'maintenance'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff