UK Judge overrules legal will

[Edrof]

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.

I am in complete agreement.

 

[Jokester]

Because you have a legal and moral obligation for the children you bring into this world? Especially when framed by a proven history of vindictiveness.

Would agree if your children were still children, but a woman in her 40s?

Maybe I should try my parents for "pocket money"!

You should be legally obliged to provide for them up to 18 or maybe even as much as 25, but not indefinitely.

 

[dowie]

I can't see why the amount would be any different. Might be smaller if he dies and inheritance tax takes loads of it, but again that depends on the circumstances (eg. if she should only get close to maintenance, or if should get more because she contributed to him earning/helped raise kids/whatever).

I was just curious if there was some inconsistency that existed between a divorce settlement and what a second wife could challenge in a will.

Also I don't think IHT applies to spouses so that shouldn't have any effect AFAIK.

 

[Tefal]

She'll now be able to buy her housing association property and won't lose her state benefits.

pop out 5 sprogs, live on benefits, demand your relatives leave you hundreds of thousands of pounds, don't lose benefits :/

 

[Xordium]

Would agree if your children were still children, but a woman in her 40s?

Maybe I should try my parents for "pocket money"!

You should be legally obliged to provide for them up to 18 or maybe even as much as 25, but not indefinitely.

You may think that but reasonable financial provision has been decided this way since 1975. I fully appreciate where you are coming from but as with all laws, moral and ethical problems they are tested at the edges where the parties are maybe more "interesting" than those we are championing the actual case for.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Person makes a will, dies, estranged daughter crawls out of her hole looking for money and gets it. I can't see how that can be seen as fair. Shocking decision.

I fail to see how Mrs Jackson could have made her will any clearer. Her daughter left home at 17 and from what I have read has had nothing to do with her mother since. Her mum dies and she gets 164K.

Mrs Jackson made her last will in 2002 with a letter to explain why she had disinherited her only daughter, referring to the fact she had walked out of her home in 1978 to live with her boyfriend.

 

[Stretch]

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.

Precisely this.

Whilst most wills are closely adhered to, there's something about an 80 year old woman, leaving all her money to the animal shelter, over a 30 year grudge which suggests she wasn't of rational thought.

None of us know the details, but can any of you really contemplate shunning contact with you children until your death because of something that happened when they were a teenager?

The woman was a nut job.

 

[Tefal]

Precisely this.

Whilst most wills are closely adhered to, there's something about an 80 year old woman, leaving all her money to the animal shelter, over a 30 year grudge which suggests she wasn't of rational thought.

None of us know the details, but can any of you really contemplate shunning contact with you children until your death because of something that happened when they were a teenager?

The woman was a nut job.

So you're saying a person who "wasn't of rational thought" managed to live for 13 years that way with no one ever noticing? or you know burning the house down?

 

[physichull]

Whilst most wills are closely adhered to, there's something about an 80 year old woman, leaving all her money to the animal shelter, over a 30 year grudge which suggests she wasn't of rational thought.

None of us know the details, but can any of you really contemplate shunning contact with you children until your death because of something that happened when they were a teenager?

Again, all irrelevant.

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

The woman was a nut job.

That's a bit harsh, and just because you don't agree with her reasoning doesn't make her a nut job

It was her money, not her daughters. Her daughter was not dependent on her in any sense. She specifically directed that her daughter receive nothing

 

[Xordium]

Again, all irrelevant.

Actually that is relevant to reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

 

[John40]

Precisely this.

Whilst most wills are closely adhered to, there's something about an 80 year old woman, leaving all her money to the animal shelter, over a 30 year grudge which suggests she wasn't of rational thought.

None of us know the details, but can any of you really contemplate shunning contact with you children until your death because of something that happened when they were a teenager?

The woman was a nut job.

What tosh, if I was in the same circumstances I would do exactly the same.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Surely adult offspring should be looking after themselves ?

I suppose the answer is that you have to donate your money before you die.

I wonder if there may be something akin to a gratuitous alienation prior to insolvency (may be purely a Scottish concept) in such situations i.e. if you give away property or wealth a few months before your death that may be open to challenge but if it was several years then that would be beyond challenge.

Of course he does, but I don't trust their judgement. Are you saying Judges have never got it wrong?

I don't think that it is being suggested that judges never get it wrong but I rather suspect they're right more often on the law than the commentators here - not just because they've had legal training but also because they've got all the facts of the case presented to them.

Not that it should matter but in reference to the assumptions by some that the judge is male the judge quoted is Lady Justice Arden.

Basically the ruling now suggesting inheritence law guidlines and challenge and will wiritng now has bcome a massively complex legal process, when previously it could be simple.

I've seldom thought that inheritance provisions are simple but perhaps that's because I really disliked studying it. If your estate is in any way complicated I'd venture it's quite a risky approach to believe that anything in the area is simple. That's not to say you can't make a simple will but there's a good chance that it will be open to challenge.

It's slightly curious for me to see the furore this case has created, in Scotland the law has long recognised "prior rights" (for intestacy) and "legal rights" (both intestacy and where a will exists) so effectively you always have to make a provision for any of your children in your will or run the risk that it will be challenged should they be unhappy with their inheritance. The challenges won't always be successful but it should certainly concentrate the mind if you want to leave a minimal amount to your offspring. Perhaps this decision is an attempt to line up the law in this area although the sums involve suggest it's not exactly like that as it would normally be one half to the child assuming no other claimants.

 

[EdButler]

Precisely this.

Whilst most wills are closely adhered to, there's something about an 80 year old woman, leaving all her money to the animal shelter, over a 30 year grudge which suggests she wasn't of rational thought.

None of us know the details, but can any of you really contemplate shunning contact with you children until your death because of something that happened when they were a teenager?

The woman was a nut job.

+1

People are screaming that this is a disgrace, but family law clearly states that there must be REASONS that an omission is made. A simple statement on the will from any solicitor would have avoided this.

Many people who die are not 100% of sound mind or can be very vulnerable. It could be very easy for someone with mental instability in their final hours to hand write a will saying that they will not give to their son/daughter as they are actually the devil incarnate. Then its up to the judge to assess the reasons, which will of course be quashed.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

I wonder if there may be something akin to a gratuitous alienation prior to insolvency (may be purely a Scottish concept) in such situations i.e. if you give away property or wealth a few months before your death that may be open to challenge but if it was several years then that would be beyond challenge.

Might have to burn it all in that case

 

[Tefal]

nvm

 

[xaldub]

Awful decision, the judge should resign .....

 

[Greebo]

+1

People are screaming that this is a disgrace, but family law clearly states that there must be REASONS that an omission is made. A simple statement on the will from any solicitor would have avoided this.

Many people who die are not 100% of sound mind or can be very vulnerable. It could be very easy for someone with mental instability in their final hours to hand write a will saying that they will not give to their son/daughter as they are actually the devil incarnate. Then its up to the judge to assess the reasons, which will of course be quashed.

surely they did in this case? The fact they left a letter with the new will explaining they hadnt had any contact with the daughter for 40 years is enough?

 

[Arthur Hucksake]

Reasons like this are why I tell people to spend their money or give it away while they are alive. Makes far more sense and everyone knows where they stand. It's only property sales which complicate matters. (Unless this has already been done and they've gone to a care home)

 

[Stretch]

It was her money, not her daughters. Her daughter was not dependent on her in any sense. She specifically directed that her daughter receive nothing

Once you're dead, it's not your money. Anyone is entitled to contest a will, it's not set in stone.