Will overuled by judge
Discussion
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
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
Keep up at the back! The Judges in the Court of Appeal (and the High Court before that) simply applied a Statute dating from 1975. Parliament in 1975 thought it a good idea that in certain limited circumstances close family members could seek reasonable provision from the estate of a close relative. What right does a Judge have to do this, you ask. The answer is that a Judge has a power given to the Court by the elected legislature. The Act has been around for forty years, and society hasn't disintegrated because of it.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 28th July 08:10
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.
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.
Spite also looms large above, it seems. One poster would like the Executors to consume the estate in costs rather than pay out to the daughter. Sheesh!
Judges make judgments when possessed of all the relevant facts, OP. Do you have all the relevant facts?
Thread drifting a bit, I think that inheritance, and the expectation of inheritance, are rather distorting forces in society. At least they produce good Victorian novels.
Judges make judgments when possessed of all the relevant facts, OP. Do you have all the relevant facts?
Thread drifting a bit, I think that inheritance, and the expectation of inheritance, are rather distorting forces in society. At least they produce good Victorian novels.
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.
To my mind this is wrong. The woman has had no contact with her mother for many years due to a falling out. We have only her version, but between her being 17 and now her and her husband have knocked out five kids and have not done enough to buy their own home.
As a parent I would be bitterly disappointed if that were my daughter.
So the mother dies and leaves everything to anyone other than her daughter, as the split has been so severe. She explained it coherently in her will and yet the free loading woman still has the neck to challenge it not once but twice until this outcome.
Why should the law be allowed to dictate? Why should anyone have to make reasonable provision for any adult in their will?
The mother must have been so hurt over the years to reach such a decision and her instructions have been trampled on. It was her money to do with as she wished, her money she had made or accrued, her daughter had no right to expect anything. To me this is a sorry state when clear concise wishes, no matter how vindictive they may seem, can be overturned.
As a parent I would be bitterly disappointed if that were my daughter.
So the mother dies and leaves everything to anyone other than her daughter, as the split has been so severe. She explained it coherently in her will and yet the free loading woman still has the neck to challenge it not once but twice until this outcome.
Why should the law be allowed to dictate? Why should anyone have to make reasonable provision for any adult in their will?
The mother must have been so hurt over the years to reach such a decision and her instructions have been trampled on. It was her money to do with as she wished, her money she had made or accrued, her daughter had no right to expect anything. To me this is a sorry state when clear concise wishes, no matter how vindictive they may seem, can be overturned.
spaximus said:
To my mind this is wrong. The woman has had no contact with her mother for many years due to a falling out. We have only her version, but between her being 17 and now her and her husband have knocked out five kids and have not done enough to buy their own home.
As a parent I would be bitterly disappointed if that were my daughter.
So the mother dies and leaves everything to anyone other than her daughter, as the split has been so severe. She explained it coherently in her will and yet the free loading woman still has the neck to challenge it not once but twice until this outcome.
Why should the law be allowed to dictate? Why should anyone have to make reasonable provision for any adult in their will?
The mother must have been so hurt over the years to reach such a decision and her instructions have been trampled on. It was her money to do with as she wished, her money she had made or accrued, her daughter had no right to expect anything. To me this is a sorry state when clear concise wishes, no matter how vindictive they may seem, can be overturned.
I agree.As a parent I would be bitterly disappointed if that were my daughter.
So the mother dies and leaves everything to anyone other than her daughter, as the split has been so severe. She explained it coherently in her will and yet the free loading woman still has the neck to challenge it not once but twice until this outcome.
Why should the law be allowed to dictate? Why should anyone have to make reasonable provision for any adult in their will?
The mother must have been so hurt over the years to reach such a decision and her instructions have been trampled on. It was her money to do with as she wished, her money she had made or accrued, her daughter had no right to expect anything. To me this is a sorry state when clear concise wishes, no matter how vindictive they may seem, can be overturned.
It's your choice what your will does with your estate, the law shouldn't be able to override that if you were in sound mind when you made the will.
I'll be ensuring part of my family get nothing when I'm gone, I'd be very pissed off to think I couldn't do so.
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.
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.
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. 
My POV is that the mother seems a particularly unpleasant woman and although there is no law against that the judge seems to have recognised the spite in her decision to leave money to charities she had little or nothing to do with. I imagine that if there was clearer evidence that she helped these charities out whilst she was alive the judgment may well have been different.
My POV is that the mother seems a particularly unpleasant woman and although there is no law against that the judge seems to have recognised the spite in her decision to leave money to charities she had little or nothing to do with. I imagine that if there was clearer evidence that she helped these charities out whilst she was alive the judgment may well have been different.
Reminds me of a story in our family, in the mid 70's my Dad's Aunt died. She had a fair bit of cash and owned her own nice house.
Through out her life she made it no secret that she was a bitter old cow, and one who had a big hate for cats.
So it was surely only right that she left everything (house, car, money, the whole lot) to the bloody cats protection charity!
Through out her life she made it no secret that she was a bitter old cow, and one who had a big hate for cats.
So it was surely only right that she left everything (house, car, money, the whole lot) to the bloody cats protection charity!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff