Will overuled by judge
Discussion
Vipers said:
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.
Indeed, the whole of civil law is essentially based on that assumption - that every decision made by a person is open to contention if someone feels aggrieved by it. Of course, just because someone is aggrieved and takes their case to court does not mean they are going to win.
It seems as though the Judge believed the daughter's account that the mother was a nasty old hag and had acted unreasonably. Perhaps the law was deliberately interpreted in such a way as to give the desired outcome? The trouble with this is the mother wasn't around to give her side of the story. I wonder if the result would have been the same if she had been able to testify that the daughter visited several times a year to beat her with a stick and spit in her cornflakes.
As for the idea that it doesn't matter as the mother is dead and is therefore unharmed by these events, what about all the living people who would like to be able to feel that their wishes will be upheld after they die?
As for the idea that it doesn't matter as the mother is dead and is therefore unharmed by these events, what about all the living people who would like to be able to feel that their wishes will be upheld after they die?
Breadvan72 said:
flemke said:
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.
I therefore think that this could open the floodgates if generally accepted that this was a morally correct or acceptable interpretation of this particular law. It will have a cascading effect.
Eric Mc said:
As BV72 has already said, the relevant law has been in place for 40 years and a number of wills over that period have been affected by such rulings without any "floodgate" effect.
Why is this case different?
Because, and I will reiterate again. judges are influenced by public opinion, and what other judges do. They interpret old laws with public opinion in mind. Why is this case different?
If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
flemke said:
One is entitled to decide what happens to one's remains. I don't know that that entitles one to decide what ought to happen to everyone else's remains.
No doubt there are many millions of skeletons now lying under blocks of flats, football stadia, housing developments, and shopping malls.
During my life, however, I can recall no instance in which a cemetery or other burial site has been willingly and indifferently bulldozed over simply because the dead won't notice what's happened whilst utilitarianism dictates that we must focus entirely on the present and future.
When remains of the dead are knowingly disturbed or moved, the process is handled with care and reverence - even though most people believe that the dead won't notice what's happened.
Perhaps it was my upbringing that leads me to think that those who are alive have the right to manage their environment.No doubt there are many millions of skeletons now lying under blocks of flats, football stadia, housing developments, and shopping malls.
During my life, however, I can recall no instance in which a cemetery or other burial site has been willingly and indifferently bulldozed over simply because the dead won't notice what's happened whilst utilitarianism dictates that we must focus entirely on the present and future.
When remains of the dead are knowingly disturbed or moved, the process is handled with care and reverence - even though most people believe that the dead won't notice what's happened.
My father lost five brothers and an indeterminate, but possibly into double figures, brothers in law in the two wars. Many, most in fact, were lost at sea although one was killed in the bombing of Portsmouth but no body was identifiable.
So few graves. My gran was firmly of the opinion that once you were dead, then all concerns should be for the living. She never visited the graves of her children/in laws to my knowledge.
Perhaps this has stuck with me.
I can understand, and have enjoyed, the comfort one might receive from visiting graves of loved ones. However, once the next of kin have themselves died, there is little justification for taking up that block of land in perpetuity.
Acts of reverence for remains of unknown antecedents is more to do with the comfort of those alive than the dead and is, to a great extent, a modern phenomenon. Again using my family as an example, my gran has at least eight still births or infant deaths, and a high rate of infant mortality was hardly uncommon in her days, in either of her two countries. She had a different view of death to that of the present day. She would have regarded such concerns as self-indulgent.
I'm not suggesting bulldozing graveyards, but you have to accept that 'Do not stand at my grave and weep, I am not here' is all too true. After a time, even bones decay. Ashes to ashes. I find it difficult to revere someone dead for a couple of centuries.
As I say, perhaps my gran, an extraordinary woman, is where I get my ideas from.
If Time Team has taught us anything, other than Tony Robinson can get a bit wearing, is that there are bits of bodies everywhere. TT excavated near to a place where I used to play and fly model aeroplanes, and they discovered remains. Should the area have been roped off in their memory? Of course not.
I don't want to fight. This is just my point of view. But you say one is entitled to dictate what happens to your remains. In law, of course, you can't. I knew someone who wanted their body given to medical research but the nok, rather selfishly, said that he had 'suffered enough'. So some dichotomy there. Not to mention a disconnect with reality. However, it did not hurt the chap himself and there is some sympathy for the nok's point of view of not wanting to hurt the person any more.
I feel we give too much to the dead. I have been to The Abbey to see Newton's grave. If his remains had not been there then I would still have felt the same awe. And, let's face it, he couldn't give a damn.
Derek
julian64 said:
Because, and I will reiterate again. judges are influenced by public opinion, and what other judges do. They interpret old laws with public opinion in mind.
If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
Are you saying that the judge can't think independently?If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
On what evidence do you base your view that the prevailing opinion of society has changed?
julian64 said:
Because, and I will reiterate again. judges are influenced by public opinion, and what other judges do. They interpret old laws with public opinion in mind.
If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
Some of that may be true, but you've not explained why this judgment will open the flood gates. What is it that makes it such a departure from the previous case law? I'm not disputing that it is, by the way; I honestly don't know.If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
julian64 said:
Because, and I will reiterate again. judges are influenced by public opinion, and what other judges do. They interpret old laws with public opinion in mind.
If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
Pushing vicars and lawyers, eh? I'll have a go at that. No chance of it becoming an olympic sport I suppose.If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
Attitudes do change and it is right that both vicars and lawyers move with changes in public morality. Are you suggesting that there is an immovable and inviolate right?
Oakey said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The daughter eloped with the mother's then partner. They hadn't spoken for 26 years afterwards. The mother disowned her. The law is an ass.
Is that true or did you make it up? Is it in the judgement?It seemed the daughter did try to reconcile;
Bailii said:
22.The appellant and Mrs Jackson were estranged. There were three attempts at reconciliation, all of which failed. On the last occasion, it failed because Mrs Jackson took offence that the fifth child had been given the name of the appellant's paternal grandmother, whom Mrs Jackson did not like.
She sounds like a nasty old witch.The daughter decided to run away from home and ended marrying said waster and did nothing with her life as was her choice.As I understand it the mother on two of the three occasions was the one who tried to initiate reconciliation not the daughter however on one occasion the daughters partner threatened to strangle the mother (charming fellow) yet again proving the mother right in her estimation of her daughters village idiot partner.
The daughter refused in court to side with her mother against her partner who had threatedned the mother. What a wonderful gratitude to the person who brought you into the world cared for and gave you a loving home for the 17 years.
As i read it the woman in this case had every right to cut her child out of her will. No doubt the money that will be awarded from the deceased estate will be used by the daughter, her partner and her kids all of whom appear to be benifits scroungers and general life wasters to continue to live in the sloppy fashion they have chosen.
julian64 said:
Eric Mc said:
As BV72 has already said, the relevant law has been in place for 40 years and a number of wills over that period have been affected by such rulings without any "floodgate" effect.
Why is this case different?
Because, and I will reiterate again. judges are influenced by public opinion, and what other judges do. They interpret old laws with public opinion in mind. Why is this case different?
If the prevailing opinion in society is that it is becoming less socially acceptable to disinherit your offspring, the judges will look for interpretations of law to help in this respect.
Instead of viewing judges as apart from society making impartial decisions see them as part of society, influenced in the same way we all are. In this way you do have to worry about the decision they make as they have a power to respond to society, but also alter it.
Think of it this way. Judges are somewhat akin to priests. They don't believe in God but they do believe in the law. BV is a disciple. You can't challenge a priest regarding his belief in god in the same way you can't challenge BV on the validity of the law. Push a priest with a changing morality of the population and eventually he'll quote a passage from his bible as if it were an explanation. Push any of the legal types on PH and eventually the argument will be that the original law has been adhered to, as if it were an explanation. However, the way laws are interpreted is somewhat akin to the way priests interpret the bible. A wide interpretation of the bible causes a very large amount of mess in the world, and a very wide interpretation of the law has the ability to cause similar mess.
This mess is not often predicted by the priest, or the judge for exactly the same reason. Their belief blinds them.
jimmybobby said:
BV is gonna love this but I disagree. The daughter decided to hook up with a waster. The mother did all she could to prevent her daughter from her fate and no doubt made her aware she would not at any point accept the daughters partner.
The daughter decided to run away from home and ended marrying said waster and did nothing with her life as was her choice.As I understand it the mother on two of the three occasions was the one who tried to initiate reconciliation not the daughter however on one occasion the daughters partner threatened to strangle the mother (charming fellow) yet again proving the mother right in her estimation of her daughters village idiot partner.
The daughter refused in court to side with her mother against her partner who had threatedned the mother. What a wonderful gratitude to the person who brought you into the world cared for and gave you a loving home for the 17 years.
As i read it the woman in this case had every right to cut her child out of her will. No doubt the money that will be awarded from the deceased estate will be used by the daughter, her partner and her kids all of whom appear to be benifits scroungers and general life wasters to continue to live in the sloppy fashion they have chosen.
It says the youngest daughter (of the daughter) is leaving the home to go to Uni but nice generalisations there.The daughter decided to run away from home and ended marrying said waster and did nothing with her life as was her choice.As I understand it the mother on two of the three occasions was the one who tried to initiate reconciliation not the daughter however on one occasion the daughters partner threatened to strangle the mother (charming fellow) yet again proving the mother right in her estimation of her daughters village idiot partner.
The daughter refused in court to side with her mother against her partner who had threatedned the mother. What a wonderful gratitude to the person who brought you into the world cared for and gave you a loving home for the 17 years.
As i read it the woman in this case had every right to cut her child out of her will. No doubt the money that will be awarded from the deceased estate will be used by the daughter, her partner and her kids all of whom appear to be benifits scroungers and general life wasters to continue to live in the sloppy fashion they have chosen.
It's none of the mothers business who the daughter chooses as a partner. That's the daughters choice to make, unless you propose the mother is to vet all potential partners for the daughter beforehand? Perhaps just go straight to arranged marriages instead?
It says the youngest child was named after the appellants 'paternal mother', whom the deceased did not like. So that would be her dead husbands mother then? Maybe the husbands mother didn't approve of her son marrying the deceased!
Breadvan72 said:
I really can't be bothered to respond to such gibberish in any detail. You have just stated articles of your own faith, a faith not based on any evidence. I think that there is much wrong with the law, but don't have a default setting of assuming that it's all crazy. The law, when it works, is a pragmatic tool for managing some societal disputes. It is not an ideal system, but works better than suggested alternatives. We do at least agree on the point that the law changes as society changes. Good Judges are much less remote and much more clued in to what PH likes to call the real world than the tabloid caricatures suggest.
I would have fallen off my chair if you hadn't called it gibberish.Breadvan72 said:
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?
Breadvan72 said:
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.
...
...
I did not write nor did I imply that the court would impose that next step.
In the very same post from which you have selectively quoted me, I also wrote:
flemke said:
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.
If we assume that the Court of Appeal ruled correctly, the issue is with the legislation, not with a correct or shall we say contemporary application of it. The "next logical step" would be an evolution in conventional wisdom regarding the social principle of when parental responsibility should end. (I must confess to having been surprised by some of the opinions in that direction on this thread.) The next logical step after that - if it got that far - would be legislative.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the next logical step in one's thinking, not the next logical step in what the Court is likely to rule under present law.
At first glance it seems crazy that the courts can reverse the contents of a will, regardless of whether the instructions were made out of spite.
However this caught my eye:
"19.The appellant was the only child of Mr and Mrs Jackson, who were married on 3 March 1956. Mr Jackson was killed in an accident at work about three months before the appellant was born. His employer made a substantial payment to Mrs Jackson which she used to pay off the mortgage on the home. She was brought up by her mother. "
The decision to award some money to the daughter to purchase her house seems to follow the spirit of the father's legacy which allowed his surviving family to have a roof over their heads.
I'm sure there are many instances where the wishes of the main contributor to an estate have been ignored or changed, once that estate passes to a third party.
However this caught my eye:
"19.The appellant was the only child of Mr and Mrs Jackson, who were married on 3 March 1956. Mr Jackson was killed in an accident at work about three months before the appellant was born. His employer made a substantial payment to Mrs Jackson which she used to pay off the mortgage on the home. She was brought up by her mother. "
The decision to award some money to the daughter to purchase her house seems to follow the spirit of the father's legacy which allowed his surviving family to have a roof over their heads.
I'm sure there are many instances where the wishes of the main contributor to an estate have been ignored or changed, once that estate passes to a third party.
TEKNOPUG said:
Try to make your points concise in future, rather than avail me with pretentious quotes.
"Avail"? Please see below.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
DJFish said:
At first glance it seems crazy that the courts can reverse the contents of a will, regardless of whether the instructions were made out of spite.
However this caught my eye:
"19.The appellant was the only child of Mr and Mrs Jackson, who were married on 3 March 1956. Mr Jackson was killed in an accident at work about three months before the appellant was born. His employer made a substantial payment to Mrs Jackson which she used to pay off the mortgage on the home. She was brought up by her mother. "
The decision to award some money to the daughter to purchase her house seems to follow the spirit of the father's legacy which allowed his surviving family to have a roof over their heads.
I'm sure there are many instances where the wishes of the main contributor to an estate have been ignored or changed, once that estate passes to a third party.
And there it is. A little more insight into the case and it suddenly seems reasonable and quite unusual. No floodgates, no break down of our freedom, no muslims etc. However this caught my eye:
"19.The appellant was the only child of Mr and Mrs Jackson, who were married on 3 March 1956. Mr Jackson was killed in an accident at work about three months before the appellant was born. His employer made a substantial payment to Mrs Jackson which she used to pay off the mortgage on the home. She was brought up by her mother. "
The decision to award some money to the daughter to purchase her house seems to follow the spirit of the father's legacy which allowed his surviving family to have a roof over their heads.
I'm sure there are many instances where the wishes of the main contributor to an estate have been ignored or changed, once that estate passes to a third party.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff