Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by peige, Dec 14, 2016.
That's a point I was interested in.
Where is the line.
Give her the money, 1 less dole scrounger for you to worry about
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.
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.
She is bound by blood, not by law - the daughter is well into adulthood.
if she has reached 50 and is on the dole she will likely blow the lot and be back on the dole within a few years
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.
She might od on something, you gotta think short term man.
Absolutely. I mean, that's just science, right? Can't argue with science.
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.
What have mosques got to do with this?
Each unto their own and all that, but crikey what an opinion
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.
But why bother with graves? Just let them rot in a dump..
Yeah right, you believe that you will believe anything.
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.
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.
It wouldn't though, because she'd still go after the other 2/3.
When a third would give her more than enough to support herself, she wouldnt be able to make a claim for the remaining amount with the same reasoning as she did.
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.
You could then say that about anyone who has parents with a bit of money supporting their unemployed kids for ever.
Well, living parents have uses for money and the they would notice it if some went missing.
Separate names with a comma.