The daughter certainly does seem a real scumbag.
UK Judge overrules legal will
- Thread starter Mr Badger
- Start date
The daughter certainly does seem a real scumbag.
So you don't think a parent has legal responsibility to children under the age of 18.
And you don't think a parent has a moral responsibility toward their children full stop.
And you don't think the judge would hold more information than you.
This 100%. What a mockery of her dying wish.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Why would you suggest the mother should provide for the child she had who when grown to adulthood, separated ties with her, was estrangled for many years, and was specifically informed she would be receiving nothing in the will.
It seems like this wasn't a decision taken lightly, and was indeed upheld by the courts, and finally overturned by the court of appeal.
My money, and when I am dead, I will not have control, and it won't be applied to my wishes. It seems an utterly bizzare thing.
Really kind on taxpayers too. The judge specifically used the values she did, so the woman would have extra money to supplement her income, and not lose a penny in her benefits.
Really well done judge.
Really well done.
I do not think this decision is a good one for future legal references.
The crucks of the matters is this
"she was awarded a third of the estate because her mother hadn't left "reasonable provision" for her in the will"
and "that she did not explain why she had disinherited her daughter, and what connects you to those you do leave money to"
Imagine the situation that you have a falling out with your mum, your 40. You mum then changes her will the following day to remove you all together from her will. Then dies the day after leaving it all to a random charity.
Would you be happy with that ? Of course you would challenge it, everyone would. Timescales are irrelevant.
"she was awarded a third of the estate because her mother hadn't left "reasonable provision" for her in the will"
and "that she did not explain why she had disinherited her daughter, and what connects you to those you do leave money to"
Imagine the situation that you have a falling out with your mum, your 40. You mum then changes her will the following day to remove you all together from her will. Then dies the day after leaving it all to a random charity.
Would you be happy with that ? Of course you would challenge it, everyone would. Timescales are irrelevant.
trrible decision
I would never go after my parents money if they wanted to leave it to someone else
Bringing me up to whenever I leave home is all I'd expect
Basically this means if you sense a dispute you need to have the money out of your account before you die.
Fine if you've been given x months to live
Not if you get hit by a truck
I find this completely immoral
I would never go after my parents money if they wanted to leave it to someone else
Bringing me up to whenever I leave home is all I'd expect
Basically this means if you sense a dispute you need to have the money out of your account before you die.
Fine if you've been given x months to live
Not if you get hit by a truck
I find this completely immoral
If she changed it on that day it should apply from date it was signed
I wouldn't contest it. Genuinely wouldn't.
I don't expect anything from my parents after they go at all
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
She is a grown woman. She has five children of her own, she started having them after eloping with a chap when she was 17. This was all the daughter. Her mother might have been a battleaxe, but she clearly had been made aware she was getting nothing, until the taxpayer funded her legal efforts in addition to the benefits we already pay her.
So she got 50k the first time, then nothingmore, and finally one third of the overall.
The mother, grandmother to the five children had no obligation to them, as years have passed, three of them are adults now.
It has been twenty years since the astrangement. Long time to go sniffing after money.
Yep, but not til the end of time like you suggested.
Not when they are adults.
Of course he does, but I don't trust their judgement. Are you saying Judges have never got it wrong?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
I don't think people's dying wishes should be the be all and end all.
How many old folk are duped by conmen and leechers into changing their will? The law has to provide protection against things like this.
In this case, I see a man who died before he had a chance to meet his child, therefore he was denied the opportunity to include his child in any will. Then you have a bitter old woman who cut her daughter off for the horrific crime of marrying someone she loved. Her objection could have been something bigoted, like he was black or something. People of that generation could be awfully racist. You never know.
She leaves her Money to animal charities, and we all know a lot of donated money goes straight into the pockets of those who need it the least, namely the directors and such.
I just don't think this is as much of an outrage that people are making out. The judge is a highly trained legal man. Let him be to the one to decide, he is better placed than us.
How many old folk are duped by conmen and leechers into changing their will? The law has to provide protection against things like this.
In this case, I see a man who died before he had a chance to meet his child, therefore he was denied the opportunity to include his child in any will. Then you have a bitter old woman who cut her daughter off for the horrific crime of marrying someone she loved. Her objection could have been something bigoted, like he was black or something. People of that generation could be awfully racist. You never know.
She leaves her Money to animal charities, and we all know a lot of donated money goes straight into the pockets of those who need it the least, namely the directors and such.
I just don't think this is as much of an outrage that people are making out. The judge is a highly trained legal man. Let him be to the one to decide, he is better placed than us.
Absolutely and one should not have to justify why one is doing it.
this is a bit ridiculous - I could see the argument if they'd been living together or the daughter was somehow dependent on her or vice versa had been providing care for her etc..
but they've been estranged for years now and the daughter is an middle aged woman with her own life completely separate from her mother
but they've been estranged for years now and the daughter is an middle aged woman with her own life completely separate from her mother
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,139
- Location
- Burscough
All irrelevant in my opinion.
No I said morally till the end of time - "Legal whilst a minor (which she was before she left home) and morally until the end of time."
Sorry but I disagree. They may not have a moral responsibility for their actions but they do have a moral responsibility towards them.
So the emphatic "NO NO NO" was actually a "Can't read, disagree, err Yes (but I am going to use fallacious thinking to support my argument)".
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Exactly, in your opinion. Not in mine and probably not the judges.
I have a question that's slightly related. My Dad has remarried. In short, if he hasn't written a will, who gets his stuff?
His new wife.
No, no & no.
Not necessarily true it depends on the circumstances and the assets and therefore needs to be looked at by a solicitor not the OCUK speculators.