inheritance, the story about the daughter who didn't

[peige]

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...e-court-battle-to-preserve-womans-inheritance

I can't see this talked about on here elsewhere. In basic terms, mother and daughter fall out many years back, mum dies and leaves all her money to charity (just about 500k).
Daughter takes it to court, gets some money, takes it to court again for more.
Legals kicking up all over. The women was of sound mind/body when the will was made, she didn't want the daughter to have any of it, they had fallen out when she was 17 and moved in with the guy who is now her husband (women now in her 50's). Court wrangling over if its ok to leave children nothing.

To me its clear cut, your will is your will and bar legal obligations (wife, child maintenance etc) you can leave it to who you want to, there is no obligation to family if you don't feel it due.
I really can't understand who the daughter has even got the case off the ground, sure she is a financial mess but its one of her own doing.
Smacks of entitlement to me. I know wills bring out the worse in people when it comes to loss of the loved one but surely a parent can do what they wish.

Personally I have family that don't talk to various other parts of the family, its logical that those people wouldn't be each others will isn't it?

 

[Kanpai]

Greedy daughter is greedy

 

[Dolph]

The key part is that the daughter has no income other than state benefits, so what this case really amounts to is the wishes of the mother vs the needs of the daughter, which is where the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 comes in, with limitations on who can claim a right to have their needs met.

Put simply, you can't use inheritance as a weapon against your kids unless they are already clearly self sufficient (staste support excluded)

 

[zophiel]

then they should only be able to claim for support until there 18th birthday, when they become 'adults'. Anything left after that should go to the listed on the will.

 

[Dolph]

then they should only be able to claim for support until there 18th birthday, when they become 'adults'. Anything left after that should go to the listed on the will.

Why should taxpayers pick up the bill for a family feud when the money already exists?

 

[enigma27]

Why should taxpayers pick up the bill for a family feud when the money already exists?

The financial situation the daughter is in is off her own doing.. whether the mother has money or not is irrelevant. even if the mother was skint when she died taxpayers would still foot the bill of the daughter.. her life choices would not have changed.

 

[robgmun]

Greedy daughter is greedy

Mother's not much better

 

[Participant]

Sounds like the charity would make better use of the money. The will should stand, otherwise what's the point of a will?

 

[Thekwango]

Why should taxpayers pick up the bill for a family feud when the money already exists?

Agreed.

Yes in theory your will is your own, but if you turn out to be a spiteful old crow who decides to cut out their children for no good reason and said children are in financial diffs, then I'd rather the courts stepped in and changed the will as opposed to the rest of us have to pay for these people's upkeep.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

whether the mother has money or not is irrelevant. even if the mother was skint when she died taxpayers would still foot the bill of the daughter.. her life choices would not have changed.

One could argue though that she played a bigger part in her child's upbringing and generating her daughters financial situation far more than the Tax-payers.

Holding anger from an argument with your 17 year old daughter until you die and cutting ties like that seems ludicrous. Yes the daughter is to blame for that situation as well but the mother can at least act like a mother. You know if your kid runs off at 17, then they are going no where fast. Saying that they are legally an adult and therefore you are absolved of any guilt or blame is irresponsible.

 

[zophiel]

so its ok for the daughter to turn out 5 kids with no provision for there support other than waiting for her mother to die and claim the cash.

Erm no she should have got off here arse got a job and stopped turning out children like a factory



the child left she wasnt kicked out of the home. it was her own choice.

 

[peige]

Why should taxpayers pick up the bill for a family feud when the money already exists?

Inheriting money won't help her, she'll blow it all i'd wager.

By that same logic really its the state that should take the money then to continue to look after the daughters inability to pay her own way.

 

[wildman]

Inheriting money won't help her, she'll blow it all i'd wager.

By that same logic really its the state that should take the money then to continue to look after the daughters inability to pay her own way.

this. State takes money into trust and then pays daughters benefits weekly from that rather than from the tax payers purse.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

The will was clear cut.

I don't see how they can just decide to overturn it?

What is the point in any legal document anymore. Prenups can get nullified too.... so why even bother.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

so its ok for the daughter to turn out 5 kids with no provision for there support other than waiting for her mother to die and claim the cash.

Erm no she should have got off here arse got a job and stopped turning out children like a factory

If she doesnt, is it okay to let her kids have a poor quality of life because their good for nothing mother ran off when she was 17?

You can keep passing blame around but at the end of the day, you cant let her starve and cant mess her kids up by making an example of her (also not worth it because it simply doesn't work). Too many media stories of benefit scroungers, you will never hear about the lazy knobs who have struggled because they cba as its a non story.

 

[Reginald]

Tricky one - one the one hand I think that a will should be upheld but I see the argument for why the daughter should receive the money to lighten the burden on state support.

However, she'll probably run straight out and buy a white range rover and a leopard on a leash...

Personally, I have some insane family members who no one speaks to who have managed to coerce my granny into leaving them most of her stuff in her will. They actually went round her house hand selecting items and photos of those items are now in the will. Kind of disgusting, especially as they're wealthy in their own right. Caused a big argument considering granny has 5 daughters... So I reckon where greed is concerned people shouldn't get anything but if it lightens the burden on the state, then why not. Maybe the state could manage her money - benefits paid as usual but from the inheritance..

 

[sanaxe1]

The woman who died worked all her life to acquire that money and when she was alive she could spend that money however she pleased. She should also be able to spend it however she pleases after her death.

 

[cheesyboy]

She should also be able to spend it after her death however she pleases.

Why?

 

[sanaxe1]

Why?

Because it is her money, she earned it from a life of work and she has already made a decision on what she would like to do with that money.

If I was on the dole and my parents decided to donate to £100k to a charity, could i take them to court because i'm there adult son and need the money? No. I couldn't because it is their money which they worked to earn and it is their decision to do as they see fit. Why should that change because said person has died when the same amount of work and choice has gone into the decision.

 

[cheesyboy]

Because it is her money, she earned it from a life of work and she has already made a decision on what she would like to do with that money.

She's dead, she no longer has an opinion, and is unaffected by what happens. What difference does it make to her?