danot Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 I think you have the RSPCA confused with an organisation who actualy gives a toss about animals. The rspca is purely a money making machine. End of. It doesn't matter who they left their estate to. what matters is their decision should never have been overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Like you and I, any personal views the judge my hold on Dr Gills parents decision to leave there entire estate to the RSPCA are irrelevant. The will is a legally binding valid document stating the final instructions of the deceased that the judge is duty bound to respect and honour, unless he has good reason to believe the testator was not of sound mind when the will was drawn up. He had no reason to believe the testator wasn't of sound mind, he just doesn't agree with their final instructions, so he's overturned the will. How can that be deemed good judgement when he's had to abuse his position to enforce the ruling? The judge clearly did have reason to overturn the will and did so. Really can't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist about it frankly. In your own OP you state that the judge found that the father had pressured the mother into making the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 The judge clearly did have reason to overturn the will and did so. Well, perhaps not. There is an appeal underway, based on the RSPCA's belief that he had no good reason at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hodgepig66 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 You don't know all the facts and neither do I but I've been the victim of my late mother having her will changed in favour of my brother who unlike me and my Wife never did anything for my mother, I didn't contest the will but it still leaves a bitter taste. I don't think the whole set of facts will ever be properly known,and i really do feel for your situation,my family also experienced a situation.....Many years ago my uncle was killed who had a son my cousin.....There was my dad left and his brother who did everything for my grandmother,she never saw her grandson cos his mother married and moved away.......I don't remember her anyway she died when i as 4 yrs old...... Turns out she wasn't a nice woman at the best of times,blamed my dad and uncle for there brothers death(car crash)he was abroad when killed nothing to do with them at all.......One day they had an argument turns out she changed her will leaving it all to the grandson,although she had 3 other grandchildren,but he got everything...... Life can be cruel...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hodgepig66 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 I think you have the RSPCA confused with an organisation who actualy gives a toss about animals. The rspca is purely a money making machine. End of. I'm with you on this one,we don't all have rosey coloured glasses on,do we.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 The judge clearly did have reason to overturn the will and did so. Really can't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist about it frankly. In your own OP you state that the judge found that the father had pressured the mother into making the change. The judge found no reason within legal guidelines that could lead him to make the decision he did. If you know different then please enlighten me. The judge's decision was heavily influenced by the unfounded claims that Dr Gills father pressured his wife into leaving their entire estate to the RSPCA. How on earth were either of Dr Gills parents possibly expected to defend those claims from beyond the grave? They can't Halibut, that why the will, which they drew up containing the final instructions which identify who inherits their estate should have never been overturned. It was perfectly valid, maybe not ethically correct, but valid all the same. Not to mention legally binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 The judge found no reason within legal guidelines that could lead him to make the decision he did. If you know different then please enlighten me. The judge's decision was heavily influenced by the unfounded claims that Dr Gills father pressured his wife into leaving their entire estate to the RSPCA. How on earth were either of Dr Gills parents possibly expected to defend those claims from beyond the grave? They can't Halibut, that why the will, which they drew up containing the final instructions which identify who inherits their estate should have never been overturned. It was perfectly valid, maybe not ethically correct, but valid all the same. Not to mention legally binding. You seem to have very strong opinions so strong that you would seem to have inside knowledge of the case along with more knowledge of the law than the presiding judge. I think fairness won the day here and I hope that the appeal by the RSPCA fails and I certainly don't expect them to come rattling collection cans in my face after spening all the money raised by public donations on an appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 It doesn't matter who they left their estate to. what matters is their decision should never have been overturned. Well it was. So hard luck for the rspca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 I think fairness won the day here That's rather the point. The judge is not allowed to rule on what is fair; he can only enforce the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 I'm with you on this one,we don't all have rosey coloured glasses on,do we.. thankfully no, not everyone. My eyes were opened when i repported a nieghbour 7 times in 3 months for hitting his dog. They never turned up once when he was in, just left notes to say they had been. And he still hits his dogs!! Then we get the tv ads. 'the worlds biggest animal rescue' they say. Yeah, right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.