Will overuled by judge
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
SamHH 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.
Eh? How is that logical? The provision that was applied in this case applies to dead people. How could it be used to take money from a living person?What I said (in paraphrase) was that the next logical step would be justifying expropriating from the living in order to do for their adult offspring what this C of A ruling has done for the Claimant.
I appreciate that the C of A thought that Million and Parker were mistaken in their interpretation of how the Act would apply in this case. I am not in a position to opine on whether the Court was right. I am saying that I think the Act - if it should be applied as the Court has done - is wrong.
flemke said:
SamHH 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.
Eh? How is that logical? The provision that was applied in this case applies to dead people. How could it be used to take money from a living person?mondeoman said:
Then why, playing Devils Advocate, is any will not overturned and a judge appointed to disburse the estate, as the dead have nothing to say and won't notice what happens?
Because all depends on the circumstances of any given case. Is that such a hard concept to understand? The law generally presumes that Wills are to be executed as written, but in some rare cases the Court alters the disposition of the Estate.SamHH said:
flemke said:
It shouldn't be used for such a thing, but I see little difference between the state's expropriating assets of an estate and expropriating assets of the living. It's not like the intended heirs of the estate are dead.
If you're relying on a version of logic where the courts will apply this Act to take money other than from the estates of dead people, then it's pointless arguing. It says in the very first sentence that it's about what happens when "...a person dies..."
) in order to direct financial support from living parents to adult children. What I meant was that, regardless of where the law stands as of this single moment in time, such an extention seemed to me to be obvious and consistent with the justification that the "will" (there's a reason it's called that) of the dead can be defied when the living decide that it should be.Suppose that Mrs Jackson (the deceased) had been told by the world's best oncologists that she had terminal cancer and had only days to live.
Suppose that she was aware of the 1975 Act and that, potentially, her wish to disinherit her daughter could be overturned by a Court.
Suppose that, while she was still alive and of sound mind, she gave away all her assets to the charities (or to any party, except her daughter).
In that case - which in light of this ruling I predict will happen in the real world - would/should a court set aside the gifts that she made when alive?
Suppose that the moon was made of Roquefort, instead of Camembert?
You still do not understand how the law works. No, the Court could not set aside a gift from a living person on the basis of a decision about a Statute about the bequests of a dead person. Sheesh, this stuff really isn't that hard.
You still do not understand how the law works. No, the Court could not set aside a gift from a living person on the basis of a decision about a Statute about the bequests of a dead person. Sheesh, this stuff really isn't that hard.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th July 00:01
Eric Mc said:
And did you see the reason why the mother disinherited the daughter?
She didn't marry a "suitable" husband.
The mother then left a large part of her estate to charities she had never supported in her life.
It does seem that spite was a major factor in how the mother allocated her estate.
Judges make judgments - it's their job.
But how often do we read about appeals and the judgement is overturned. I would like to think it's my dosh, and I will do with it what I choose. Nothing to do with a judge.She didn't marry a "suitable" husband.
The mother then left a large part of her estate to charities she had never supported in her life.
It does seem that spite was a major factor in how the mother allocated her estate.
Judges make judgments - it's their job.
Breadvan72 said:
flemke said:
SamHH 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.
Eh? How is that logical? The provision that was applied in this case applies to dead people. How could it be used to take money from a living person?Perhaps I express myself inarticulately, but it seems that you sometimes draw inferences which I (and I daresay other posters) did not intend.
It is helpful that you will intervene to explain points of the law and how it works. Often however one is, and in this case I was, addressing not how the law works but rather what one thinks the outcome should be in a sane, reasonable world. That may relate to a flawed (in one's opinion) statute, a flawed application of the law, a flawed court ruling, or a flawed analysis by fools such as I.
Flemke, if you are talking about what you think the decision should have been in this case, why do you keep on postulating bizarre and impossible developments in the law that you (I suggest irrationally) think will arise because of this decision? Saying "I think the Court got this one wrong" is one thing. Saying "this decision that apples are apples will inevitably lead to decisions that apples are oranges" is quite another thing.
Breadvan72 said:
Suppose that the moon was made of Roquefort, instead of Camembert?
You still do not understand how the law works. No, the Court could not set aside a gift from a living person on the basis of a decision about a Statute about the bequests of a dead person. Sheesh, this stuff really isn't that hard.
NO SHEET, SHERLOCK. You still do not understand how the law works. No, the Court could not set aside a gift from a living person on the basis of a decision about a Statute about the bequests of a dead person. Sheesh, this stuff really isn't that hard.
I trust that in your day job you pay more attention to what is actually written (as opposed to what you can caricature into a form that creates opportunities for condescension and sarcasm) than you appear to do here.
flemke said:
Breadvan72 said:
Suppose that the moon was made of Roquefort, instead of Camembert?
You still do not understand how the law works. No, the Court could not set aside a gift from a living person on the basis of a decision about a Statute about the bequests of a dead person. Sheesh, this stuff really isn't that hard.
NO SHEET, SHERLOCK. You still do not understand how the law works. No, the Court could not set aside a gift from a living person on the basis of a decision about a Statute about the bequests of a dead person. Sheesh, this stuff really isn't that hard.
I trust that in your day job you pay more attention to what is actually written (as opposed to what you can caricature into a form that creates opportunities for condescension and sarcasm) than you appear to do here.
SpeedMattersNot said:
Breadvan72 said:
Yes, although strictly speaking that's an oval, IIRC.
More like a rectangle with some fillets. Chicken fillets. We just need turbobloke to come in here and winge about it being to do with a green agenda by the left and this topic has it all!
Breadvan72 said:
Flemke, if you are talking about what you think the decision should have been in this case, why do you keep on postulating bizarre and impossible developments in the law that you (I suggest irrationally) think will arise because of this decision? Saying "I think the Court got this one wrong" is one thing. Saying "this decision that apples are apples will inevitably lead to decisions that apples are oranges" is quite another thing.
I have never once written in this thread that I expect the Court to extend the principle upheld in this case to the assets of living parents. The current law does not allow that. I get it.What I tried to say was that:
- it would be consistent with the social principle, under which a dead person's will may be reallocated contrary to the rational and practicable wishes of the deceased in order to fulfill a theoretical obligation to the deceased's adult children, to require in certain circumstances the reallocation of a living parent's assets to his/her adult children.
I thought it was obvious that this kind of change could not be imposed willy-nilly by a creative court, but rather would require a change in the law. I certainly said nothing to the contrary.
I am not aware that our present legislators are any wiser than were their predecessors of 40 years ago, nor do I have confidence, in light of the present trend in wealth accumulation by older generations at the expense of younger generations, that future legislators will be wiser than the current lot.
My children don't inherit under my will, agreed in my divorce that I would fund their school and they inherit their mothers house, serious house and serious education, My will in unlikely to be in the jurisdiction of UK law, but a few assets are there, and my lawyer is UK trained and experienced. She was very concerned that a will leaving nothing to the Kids could be contested, and wrote the will to try an minimize this, but she would not guarantee it could not be contested, so obviously this is not a new problem.
flemke said:
I have never once written in this thread that I expect the Court to extend the principle upheld in this case to the assets of living parents. The current law does not allow that. I get it.
....
Oh, this was written by another poster who shares your name, was it?....
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.
...
...
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th July 06:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff