inheritance, the story about the daughter who didn't

dl8860 · 14 Dec 2016 at 12:36

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

This is actually a perfect solution, sadly there's no chance it'll ever happen.

peige · 14 Dec 2016 at 12:38

sanaxe1 said:
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.

Exactly.

I kind of get the state interest in this but see no way the daughter should get it.

sanaxe1 · 14 Dec 2016 at 12:39

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

She does have an opinion its called a Will and she decided to give it to charity.

peige · 14 Dec 2016 at 12:41

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.

I agree, how far do you take it, should I not be able to have a nice house if any of my children end up on benefits? Should my earnings be taken into account when one of my children (however old) apply for a benefit?

Madness.

Steeps · 14 Dec 2016 at 12:51

If she gets any of the cash it should completely bypass her and be set up in trust for her 5 kids, afterall with no pension and living off benefits she's not able to leave anything for her kids. Should the kids sue her now for not leaving 500k for them?

Avenged7Fold · 14 Dec 2016 at 12:52

Looks like the line is drawn when they are dead and money is no worth or use to the owner of it. As for where you draw the line as for how much they should get, well imo it should be however much they receive from the state but instead of the original benefits.

Tuppy_Glossop · 14 Dec 2016 at 13:00

No biggie, just gift the money to the charity before you die. Then you can use gift aid and get the Government to chip in too. Unless the daughter could still claim from the charity, in which case an anonymous cash donation should suffice.

Freddie1980 · 14 Dec 2016 at 13:40

Tuppy_Glossop said:
No biggie, just gift the money to the charity before you die. Then you can use gift aid and get the Government to chip in too. Unless the daughter could still claim from the charity, in which case an anonymous cash donation should suffice.

I doubt it would be that easy. Most of the 500K estate would most likely be made up of the hose she lived in, she can't exactly sell it on while she is still alive.

Safetytrousers · 14 Dec 2016 at 13:41

sanaxe1 said:
The woman who died worked all her life to acquire that money

I can't find any mention in the linked article of how the mother who died gained her money, and I can't find it any mention of that in the other articles I have looked at about this.
Do you know how she gained her money?

dowie · 14 Dec 2016 at 13:41

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

After that many years apart I wouldn't consider them 'family' nor think that there were any obligations between each other. Sharing a biological link shouldn't necessarily mean you or your estate has financial obligations.

Sure if they'd fallen out recently and this was all done in haste then I'd see the argument, she'd have been cut off etc.. but over this many years I don't think it is the mother's responsibility.

Edit - maybe there is some other factor - perhaps if the father had maintained good relations and had died relatively recently, albeit before the mother, leaving the house to the mother..

Freddie1980 · 14 Dec 2016 at 13:49

I'm reading through the article it gives a few details.

There is legislation in place Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 which looks like it was brought in to stop spiteful parents from cutting there offspring from their wills.

krooton · 14 Dec 2016 at 14:12

Freddie1980 said:
I'm reading through the article it gives a few details.

There is legislation in place Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 which looks like it was brought in to stop spiteful parents from cutting there offspring from their wills.

It's their right to be spiteful though, why should I, as an adult, be entitled to my parent's estate just because I am their child? Makes way less sense than a wife's entitlement after a divorce.

Pipe & Slippers · 14 Dec 2016 at 14:15

The 2 things I struggle with are:
Why bother having a Will at all if it's going to get disregarded
When do your biological offspring stop being 'dependents' - even the CSA says it's around 18/19

I believe in the second judgment (the Court of Appeal one) reference was made to the daughter's ability to leave some financial provision for her own offspring when she dies, and giving her enough money from her mother's estate to buy a house would enable this...

Avenged7Fold · 14 Dec 2016 at 14:22

dowie said:
Edit - maybe there is some other factor - perhaps if the father had maintained good relations and had died relatively recently, albeit before the mother, leaving the house to the mother..

A good point. If there was father whose money passed on to the wife and the row was between the mother and daughter as stated, then shouldn't at least some money from the father go to the daughter if it was passed onto the mother at one point. You can assume the mother does not have intentions to pass on her fortune but it is normally assumed the fortune of parents go to the next of kin and i see no mention of a father whether he was involved with the family or not. If there was a father who died, surely his assumed intentions of wanting to pass his money onto family should also be respected.

Yes i know legally once the money has passed onto the mother it is hers but there is also a legal exception tot he will because the daughter is dependant and therefore if you want to talk about who has the right to the money, it appears the daughter does to an extent.

Pipe & Slippers said:
The 2 things I struggle with are:
Why bother having a Will at all if it's going to get disregarded
When do your biological offspring stop being 'dependents' - even the CSA says it's around 18/19

Well the will is only being disregarded to an extent due to the quite specific situation. Currently the daughter is a dependant on the state.

How many people saying that the woman's wishes should be respected, would feel differently if the amount of benefits the taxpayer had to pay her felt substantial to the individuals or she left the money to a cat rather than a charity.

Tefal · 14 Dec 2016 at 14:53

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

So say you die and leave your money to your kids would it be ok for the state to go "actually people on benifits need it more" and tske it all away

Kuros · 14 Dec 2016 at 15:01

I personally feel in this situation her Will should be upheld.

I can see the provision for a sudden last minute change of will due to coercion or something along them lines, if all the money was to suddenly go to her 30 year old toyboy boyfriend or something.

But enough time has passed that this should be a non-story.

The daughter left in 1978 with the mother passing in 2004, 26 years after. I don't see why her daughter, after 26 years of next to no contact, should get anything.

If I don't see my parents for 40 years after leaving on bad terms, does this mean I can still make a claim for any money from the will if I'm excluded?

tom_e · 14 Dec 2016 at 15:03

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

What about people who do not wish to donate their organs for whatever reason? In fact why not just throw all dead people into mass graves, it doesn't matter they're dead right?

Ayahuasca · 14 Dec 2016 at 15:10

Never underestimate the lengths people will go to, to acquire wealth.

Gornall · 14 Dec 2016 at 15:14

Tefal said:
So say you die and leave your money to your kids would it be ok for the state to go "actually people on benifits need it more" and tske it all away

That's a point I was interested in.

Where is the line.

Efour · 14 Dec 2016 at 15:14

Give her the money, 1 less dole scrounger for you to worry about