inheritance, the story about the daughter who didn't

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,493
Location
Gloucestershire
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?

Well, ask yourself why not?

And the 'why not' is really only in the interests of surviving relatives. In this case, the surviving relative's interest is in claiming some inheritance.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Aug 2006
Posts
7,507
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)

Surely at some point between her 17th and 50th birthday she became self sufficient and no longer a dependent of her parent?! I can see some argument for a student remaining a dependent throughout higher education, but a grown woman of sound mind should be responsible for her own affairs.

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

She is bound by blood, not by law - the daughter is well into adulthood.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Sep 2012
Posts
11,696
Location
Surrey
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?

I am all for organ donation being an opt-out thing.

As for burial and such, all of that stuff is done more for the peace of mind and closure of the living who knew the dead. The living feel closure as they feel that the person who died got what they wanted and so can 'rest in peace' (whatever that may mean for the individuals left alive) and the peace of mind is that they will have whatever wishes they request fulfilled when it comes to bite the bullet themselves, in a way making them less concerned about their own mortality when dealing with another's.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
746
Location
Reykjavík - Iceland
Under Scottish Law 1/3rd of your assets have to go to your Children to stop this from happening.

Contact or not she was still her daughter and if able should have provided something for her or her own Grandchildren - the mother was just being spiteful.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Sep 2010
Posts
2,840
Location
Somewhere in Asia
She's dead, she no longer has an opinion, and is unaffected by what happens. What difference does it make to her?

Each unto their own and all that, but crikey what an opinion:eek::confused:

I will not personally be impacted by any decision when I die, but I would like my assets will go to my direct family members, surviving wife and then onto our children. I don't feel its an obtuse opinion to have such a wish.

Surely there is an element of basic respect here and execute what that person wished for when they did die?

If we cast that aside as "what difference does it make to the decision owner anyway?".........I have no words. The view is completely at odds to what believe and I believe 99% of the populous agree with.

You and Heather Ilot being a couple of exceptions.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Sep 2010
Posts
2,840
Location
Somewhere in Asia
Under Scottish Law 1/3rd of your assets have to go to your Children to stop this from happening.

Contact or not she was still her daughter and if able should have provided something for her or her own Grandchildren - the mother was just being spiteful.

Makes it easier I suppose and stops silly examples like this, but I fundamentally disagree with taking away the element of choice from anyone with how they choose to dispose of their assets.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Sep 2012
Posts
11,696
Location
Surrey
Each unto their own and all that, but crikey what an opinion:eek::confused:

TBH as grim as it sounds the idea of respecting the deads wishes and stuff is really to make the surviving loved ones feel closure and better about their wishes when they die. If she has no one left to leave things to and the only people who knew of her wishes was the daughter, it sort of defeats the aim of it.

I don't agree with her getting the inheritance in the form of significant sums but i can see why there is reasoning for the support money she receives to come from the inheritance rather than the taxpayer or that a portion be set aside for the grandchildren and stated that it may not pass onto their mother in the event of an untimely death.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Aug 2006
Posts
7,507
Makes it easier I suppose and stops silly examples like this, but I fundamentally disagree with taking away the element of choice from anyone with how they choose to dispose of their assets.

It wouldn't though, because she'd still go after the other 2/3.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,280
Location
Pembrokeshire
In work we've had peripheral involvement where a Will has been contested. It involves proprietary estopple.

It's been tested locally-ish. A woman worked on her family farm and expected to inherit - there are other siblings but only this woman worked the farm. There was a falling out and the farm is now to be shared equally. The woman claimed proprietary estopple and claimed she had acted in her detriment - personally and financially, on the basis she would inherit the farm.

The woman won but I think it went to appeal and it's still ongoing - the cost of the legal fees pretty much wipes out any inheritance.

We've been involved in an almost carbon copy. We completed some work for the side that received equal share - not the side that expected the lot. In fairness I think the guy who expected the lot has been hard done by but it's not for us to say.

It's possible to disregard a Will if someone leaves money to charities with no connection to said charity. If they made regular gifts to the charity it improves the link and chances of the Will not being changed.

Wills and money turn even happy families into full scale wars so quickly.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Sep 2012
Posts
11,696
Location
Surrey
It's probably a bit different. You don't have a very high cost of living when you're dead.

That said, we had to renew my grandfathers lease on his grave this year in Italy.

I didn't even realise that was a thing!

If you dont pay it, someone else will and just like renting a house, you get evicted and someone else moves in.

You guys think this story is disgusting, my grandfathers inheritance story makes the (Italian) government seem appalling and corrupt, not that anyone will challenge that:
In Italy if you didn't (long time ago) outright fully own a property when you die (eg. it is under a mortgage) you cannot inherit the building or take on the mortgage even if their wife is still alive (those days you couldn't re-do the mortgage). Instead the wealth of that person pays off as much as the mortgage after the insane amount of tax and fees involved and the house is owned by the government until you can buy it outright. When you have enough money to buy it outright, the government will self assess the worth of the house (not the estate agent or anyone else and this happens regardless of how long they had it be it a day or a decade) that they technically own for you and will sell it back so you may own it (after more tax and fees). In the end the property which had a significant portion paid for was decided to be worth next to nothing but admin fees, remaining amount and tax involved was high enough to essentially make my grandfathers inheritance to my still living grandmother and mother.... nothing except maybe the odd bill.
This was several decades ago and though the Italian government cant get away with that sort of scam now, they would probably have a good go.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom