£2million will left to RSPCA is overturned in favour of daughter.

[danot]

Whilst sat in my car earlier, I was listening to a debate on the radio concerning the story of Dr Christine Gill, a university lecturer from Northallerton, who successfully won a high court battle to overturn the will of her deceased parents who had left their 287 acre farming estate worth £2million to the RSPCA. The judge found that Dr Gills domineering father who died in 1999 aged 82, had pressured her mother(who also died aged 82 in 2006)into leaving their estate to the charity.

 

Dr Gill is now contesting the RSPCA's decision to appeal against the ruling.

 

 

Should courts be interfering in such matters? What's the point of making a will if the courts can overrule it?.http://www.bearsdenherald.co.uk/news/rspca_challenges_ruling_over_2_million_win_1_385544

[HeadingNorth]

Should courts be interfering in such matters? What's the point of making a will if the courts can overrule it?

 

Courts can only overrule a will if they judge that it was signed unwillingly. (Pardon the pun.)

 

Usually that means because the testator wasn't in sound mind, but - as in this case - if one partner was pressurised by the other into doing smoething they didn't want to do, then the will is void.

[danot]

Courts can only overrule a will if they judge that it was signed unwillingly. (Pardon the pun.)

 

Usually that means because the testator wasn't in sound mind, but - as in this case - if one partner was pressurised by the other into doing smoething they didn't want to do, then the will is void.

That hasn't been proved as it? Isn't that the reason why the RSPCA are appealing against the decision?

[Bulgarian]

I didn't think wills were legally binding anyway, more a statement of your wishes.

[HeadingNorth]

That hasn't been proved as it? Isn't that the reason why the RSPCA are appealing against the decision?

 

Not proof in the criminal court sense - beyond reasonable doubt - all that's required is for the balance of probabilities to be in favour. The original court clearly decided that they were.

[danot]

I didn't think wills were legally binding anyway, more a statement of your wishes.

Providing the testator was of sound mind at the time the will was drawn up. The law cannot dishonour the wishes of the testator... or so I thought.

[Bulgarian]

Providing the testator was of sound mind at the time the will was drawn up. The law cannot dishonour the wishes of the testator... or so I thought.

 

I could put in my will "I want £5 million to be given to an assasin to kill Jamie Oliver", it won't happen.

[danot]

Not proof in the criminal court sense - beyond reasonable doubt - all that's required is for the balance of probabilities to be in favour. The original court clearly decided that they were.

Why would they decide that given the evidence they were presented with??

 

It strikes me as rather peculiar that Dr Gills mother would continue to honour her husbands wishes long after he had died if she realy wanted her daughter to inherit the estate.

[danot]

I could put in my will "I want £5 million to be given to an assasin to kill Jamie Oliver", it won't happen.

Correct. It wouldn't happen.

[HeadingNorth]

Why would they decide that given the evidence they were presented with??

 

There I cannot help you; it's not a case I have particularly followed. I can only speak to the general case of "why are people allowed to contest a will?"