Will overuled by judge

[DJFish]

Thanks, I try my best.

I'm sure our learned colleague will be along in a bit to tell me not to quit my day job.......

[jimmybobby]

Oakey said:

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.

Well good on her hopefully the majority of the money will go to her and her further education rather than the mother and her waster of a partner.

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?

Actually yes it is. I realise that maybe you are of the school of hippy do as you likey parenting and life choices but it is a parents responsibility to educate, guide and protect their children.

The mother may not have been able to dictate or stop her daughter's choice in partner but she could guide and protect her daughter and gave her the ultimatum of choose your partner or your family. The daughter chose her partner over family and as such made her choice not to be a part of her mothers life.

Her mother was imo therefore absolutely 100% within rights to cut her off completely and let her live with her choice.

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!

[anonymous-user]

DJFish said:

Thanks, I try my best.

I'm sure our learned colleague will be along in a bit to tell me not to quit my day job.......

Nope! You get suitable plaudits for being found in possession of a clue, a rare thing around here, it sometimes seems.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

So apart from not liking any open ground being tarmacced over, I've got no problems with my grave being walked on. Or even parked on.

I'd offer preferential parking to anything with underbody aero. And nothing under 300bhp/tonne.

[anonymous-user]

So todays lesson is if you want to fvck your kids over, spend it all before you die. Well duh.

[julian64]

Anyone changed their initial position during this?

On the one hand are we happy for a dying person to make a will which will stand inviolable.

Or do we trust the legal system to make changes based on fair practice after listening to the premortem wishes of the dead contested by the current wishes of the relatives still alive.?

To what extent do the dead have rights, or is derek correct and when you're gone so are your rights.

[anonymous-user]

The dead have no rights in the strict sense, as they do not exist as legal persons (consider also the rather different debate about persons as yet unborn), but living relatives of the dead may have some rights, for example in respect of burial or cremation arrangements, or in respect of harm caused to the living by a death (eg breadwinner killed by negligent driver, doctor, whatever - dependants may have a claim). Some legal entitlements survive death. For example, your employer should pay your estate you wages if you drop down dead before payday. Others do not. For example, a libel claim dies with the claimant, and, as everyone on PH knows, you cannot defame the dead (well, you can, but it's not actionable) . I promise not to mention Horace!

Beneficiaries under a will have the right to contest an attempt by someone such as a non-beneficiary relative to alter the will. Contests about wills are not that frequent, but they aren't novel, either, as historical records and literary references dating back several centuries show us.

Personally, I am not a fan of inheritance at all, as it seems to me to distort how people behave, in various unattractive ways, but that's just me.

[julian64]

Thanks BV for your last sentence. I will mentally edit out everything you've said apart from the last sentence as you are simply quoting from your bible which frustrates any attempt at discussion.

.
.
.


So BV not a fan of inviolable inheritance.
can I assume Derek is standing next to you?

[anonymous-user]

You are so blinkered by your irrational prejudices that you don't even bother to read what others write? OK!

I have never met Derek. I agree with him on some things, but not on others.

[RobinOakapple]

flemke said:

Again, your first resort is to sarcasm.

I've noticed that too. He does use it a LOT.

[anonymous-user]

Not a crime in this jurisdiction, last time I checked. If you don't like something on the internet, ignore it. It's just words on a screen.

[Bluebarge]

julian64 said:

Thanks BV for your last sentence. I will mentally edit out everything you've said apart from the last sentence as you are simply quoting from your bible which frustrates any attempt at discussion.

Well that's a bit daft, seeing as he's telling you how the law works. It was an exposition of fact, not opinion.

Besides, is there not an over-riding social good here? - if a woman is on benefits who might not be if her mother had provided for her rather than donate it all to fluffy kittens, should we not celebrate the fact that we will all be getting a massive tax rebate because this woman is now off the "benny"? She might even spend her inheritance on a nice car - PH win/win.

[Derek Smith]

julian64 said:

Thanks BV for your last sentence. I will mentally edit out everything you've said apart from the last sentence as you are simply quoting from your bible which frustrates any attempt at discussion.

So BV not a fan of inviolable inheritance.
can I assume Derek is standing next to you?

BV and I have had one or two differences of opinion on PH, but I respect his as it normally has been considered. We come from different 'sides' of the legal system and that can be apparent.

We have a certain degree of conflict about what constitutes a marriage. I doubt we will meet in the middle, but his view is supported by evidence, and so is mine. So it is down to interpretation and emphasis.

In this case, though, I'm with him.

What I find difficult to understand is the logic of, it would appear, your suggestion of ignoring everything that BV has posted just because he has a view on inheritance which, one assumes, conflicts with yours.

My belief on inheritance is that it should be heavily taxed. Much better to get the money to run the government from the dead rather than the living. I have never heard of a decent argument against that. Further, I think that blind obedience to the wishes of the dead is a cop-out. They, or rather their wishes, are just as much subject to the law as when they were alive. I am confused as to why it should be different just because they've shuffled off the mortal coil.

The dead are beyond disappointment, pain and resentment. Bugger 'em I say - not supporting necrophilia by the way. It is the living who need control of their environment and lifestyle.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

Perhaps it was my upbringing that leads me to think that those who are alive have the right to manage their environment.

I would submit that cemeteries and memorials are created and maintained for the benefit of the living.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

julian64 said:

Thanks BV for your last sentence. I will mentally edit out everything you've said apart from the last sentence as you are simply quoting from your bible which frustrates any attempt at discussion.

So BV not a fan of inviolable inheritance.
can I assume Derek is standing next to you?

BV and I have had one or two differences of opinion on PH, but I respect his as it normally has been considered. We come from different 'sides' of the legal system and that can be apparent.

We have a certain degree of conflict about what constitutes a marriage. I doubt we will meet in the middle, but his view is supported by evidence, and so is mine. So it is down to interpretation and emphasis.

In this case, though, I'm with him.

What I find difficult to understand is the logic of, it would appear, your suggestion of ignoring everything that BV has posted just because he has a view on inheritance which, one assumes, conflicts with yours.

My belief on inheritance is that it should be heavily taxed. Much better to get the money to run the government from the dead rather than the living. I have never heard of a decent argument against that. Further, I think that blind obedience to the wishes of the dead is a cop-out. They, or rather their wishes, are just as much subject to the law as when they were alive. I am confused as to why it should be different just because they've shuffled off the mortal coil.

The dead are beyond disappointment, pain and resentment. Bugger 'em I say - not supporting necrophilia by the way. It is the living who need control of their environment and lifestyle.

An interesting view, most often heard from those who won't be heavily taxed until and when they go, but the usual comments prevail: feel free to hand over as much of your estate to HMRC as you wish, if you believe they'll spend it wisely.

But leave those who have functional families and believe that their descendants will make better use of any inheritance to make a free choice too.

I do often wonder what those who claim to think IHT is at the least fair, and possibly ought to be much higher, would in truth do, were it to be voluntary; and why they don't actually hand it over to HMRC before they go, when they could have the satisfaction of seeing it being used as they would wish.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

My belief on inheritance is that it should be heavily taxed. Much better to get the money to run the government from the dead rather than the living. I have never heard of a decent argument against that.

That's probably because no one has bothered to make the argument because it's trivial. In theory I agree with you, in practice it is completely unworkable. IHT is the easiest tax of all to avoid so how much extra revenue do you imagine hiking the rates would bring in? (The law of unintended consequences would also play a blinder here as you force millions of people to sit down with tax lawyers who won't stop at IHT avoidance). Personally I intend to die almost penniless having long since given everything to my kids. Try as you might, you can't stop that. Which raises the second point that in a higher IHT environment the only people who would actually pay it are those who die unexpectedly young; a rather unpopular approach IMO as they are more likely to have genuine dependents.

ps do you have children? Before I did I was indifferent to inheritance tax. Now that I have kids I will do everything I legally can to make sure the tax man doesn't get a single penny of their inheritance... biological imperative trumps social justice.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th July 03:46

[jimmybobby]

Bluebarge said:

julian64 said:

Thanks BV for your last sentence. I will mentally edit out everything you've said apart from the last sentence as you are simply quoting from your bible which frustrates any attempt at discussion.

Well that's a bit daft, seeing as he's telling you how the law works. It was an exposition of fact, not opinion.

Besides, is there not an over-riding social good here? - if a woman is on benefits who might not be if her mother had provided for her rather than donate it all to fluffy kittens, should we not celebrate the fact that we will all be getting a massive tax rebate because this woman is now off the "benny"? She might even spend her inheritance on a nice car - PH win/win.

Going by the case notes I suspect its unlikely. Her mother disinherited her as she chose to marry someone who was never going to go anywhere in life and would never aspire to anything. THAT is I expect why she chose to give her money to charity rather than benefit indirectly a slob who didnt believe in earning what he had.

Its there in black and white that she also intended to spite her daughter but I expect it was a twofold issue for her. This money will make I expect little to no difference to the costof the family to the taxpayer long term. It sounds like they are scroungers and always will be.

[SamHH]

SamHH said:

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.

Do you know the answer to this?

[Garvin]

Bluebarge said:

. . . . . . . . Besides, is there not an over-riding social good here? - if a woman is on benefits who might not be if her mother had provided for her rather than donate it all to fluffy kittens, should we not celebrate the fact that we will all be getting a massive tax rebate because this woman is now off the "benny"? She might even spend her inheritance on a nice car - PH win/win.

I'm surprised it took until page 11 for this to be stated. I, for one, would prefer all the inheritance in this case to go to the offspring to save the taxpayers a shed load of money. However, I also believe that a Will should only be changed in exceptional circumstances as, I believe, does the law. The nub of the issue here is how exceptional is this case.

For those who argue the law is wrong and shouldn't interfere, consider parents expiring with a heavily disabled child who is completely dependent on them. If they left all their considerable assets to the local cats home would you still agree that the law shouldn't intervene?

The outrage expended here reminds me of the thread about the possible discrimination of a person on maternity leave - moral outage v the law. Again, the law is the law but there are ways of ensuring that the wishes expressed in your Will are more likely to be honoured - providing a simple but powerful written explanation of why the Will is as it is can help enormously. At least the Judge will have your side of the story to consider during any challenge.

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

Bluebarge said:

. . . . . . . . Besides, is there not an over-riding social good here? - if a woman is on benefits who might not be if her mother had provided for her rather than donate it all to fluffy kittens, should we not celebrate the fact that we will all be getting a massive tax rebate because this woman is now off the "benny"? She might even spend her inheritance on a nice car - PH win/win.

I'm surprised it took until page 11 for this to be stated. I, for one, would prefer all the inheritance in this case to go to the offspring to save the taxpayers a shed load of money. However, I also believe that a Will should only be changed in exceptional circumstances as, I believe, does the law. The nub of the issue here is how exceptional is this case.

For those who argue the law is wrong and shouldn't interfere, consider parents expiring with a heavily disabled child who is completely dependent on them. If they left all their considerable assets to the local cats home would you still agree that the law shouldn't intervene?

The outrage expended here reminds me of the thread about the possible discrimination of a person on maternity leave - moral outage v the law. Again, the law is the law but there are ways of ensuring that the wishes expressed in your Will are more likely to be honoured - providing a simple but powerful written explanation of why the Will is as it is can help enormously. At least the Judge will have your side of the story to consider during any challenge.

She's still on benefit and apparently has no plan not to be. Why change the habit of a lifetime?

Any parents with a disabled child 'heavily dependent' on them are highly unlikely to disinherit them unless there is an ulterior motive, such as maintaining benefit for the child or leaving the inheritance to someone who will make provision for the child.

I'm not saying that offspring should never be able to challenge wills, many are 'legally' defrauded. But in this case, as with many other disfunctional families, the mother clearly had reasons that were good enough for her to disinherit her daughter, who seems to have done nothing to justify receiving the inheritance.

Just another case of the law interfering with a person's rights, rather than supporting them, for no better reason than "it's the law". No real surprise there, though.