Will overuled by judge
Discussion
wolves_wanderer said:
Surely in PH land this would be celebrated. The daughter is on benefits and has now got a lump of inheritance, so saving all the company directors from paying out even more bennies. 
The article I read stated that she would purchase her Housing Association house with the money & would NOT lose her benefits.Breadvan72 said:
The case could in theory go to the Supreme Court, but is I think unlikely to do so, as the decision appears to turn on the facts of the case and raises no new or special principle of law.
As for the idea that the decision is unjust to a dead person, that seems to me an odd concept. A dead person can't be harmed. It is possible to trash a dead person's reputation in the eyes of the living, but the dead person doesn't notice, and the dead person certainly doesn't notice what happens to money.
Necrophiles rejoice. You heard it here first! As for the idea that the decision is unjust to a dead person, that seems to me an odd concept. A dead person can't be harmed. It is possible to trash a dead person's reputation in the eyes of the living, but the dead person doesn't notice, and the dead person certainly doesn't notice what happens to money.
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?
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.
from reading the judges decision it seems the deceased had a decent sized payout from the workplace death of her husband which she used to pay off her mortgage just before the appellant was born, isn't this relevant as it's hard to theorize how he would of preferred this wealth to be passed on to his then-unborn daughter?
Eclassy said:
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).
100%Warren Buffet's children need not fear as I remember him saying in a documentary that he'll leave them nothing.
And he is going to take care of his children, he's just not going to leave them over $70 billion, as he's going to give it to charity.
What a brilliant man he is.
Eric Mc said:
Breadvan72 said:
No one who uses the term strawman is ever clever, but it's a popular term amongst some PH'ers who may think that they're clever.
I too can't fathom this fascination with Worzil Gummedge.It's the PH way.
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.
LordHaveMurci said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Surely in PH land this would be celebrated. The daughter is on benefits and has now got a lump of inheritance, so saving all the company directors from paying out even more bennies.
The article I read stated that she would purchase her Housing Association house with the money & would NOT lose her benefits.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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff