Judge overturns Mother's will

[I1L2T3]

This will probably be the case going forwards, but wasn't normal in the past, at least that's how it appears given the ruling and the comments by legal experts afterwards.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2015 at 10:09 ----------

 

 

The judges did limit themselves to the law, the law says that offspring must be made reasonable provision for.

 

I can assure you it was absolutely the case 5 years ago when I helped out a relative. And it will have been standard advice long before then in response to the 1975 act.

 

This is not new as I said. The case we are discussing hinged on the tightness of the reasoning for disinheriting the daughter, and the provision for legal challenges to wills that had already in place after 1975.

 

There is not one single thing about the outcome that should surprise anyone, and as already pointed out the judgement had already been made in the daughter's favour long ago. The latest judgement regarded simply an increase in the size of the award.

 

As for changing who an estate is divided after death it is also possible to do that too. All it takes is for a simple deed of variation to be drawn up in which all beneficiaries agree to vary their share. The charities could have done that in 2007 and avoided 8 years of costly litigation.

[Godzilla]

The judge said the mother had been "unreasonable, capricious and harsh" when she disinherited her daughter for eloping when she was 17.

 

So what? What right does a judge have to put aside a will just because of a person's character? It was the mother's money so she can be as unreasonable, capricious and harsh as she wants.

 

 

(Hope my Mum's not reading this......love you Mum xxx)

 

Yes, I'm reading it! Just remember which side your bread's buttered on

[Cyclone]

I can assure you it was absolutely the case 5 years ago when I helped out a relative. And it will have been standard advice long before then in response to the 1975 act.

 

This is not new as I said. The case we are discussing hinged on the tightness of the reasoning for disinheriting the daughter, and the provision for legal challenges to wills that had already in place after 1975.

 

There is not one single thing about the outcome that should surprise anyone, and as already pointed out the judgement had already been made in the daughter's favour long ago. The latest judgement regarded simply an increase in the size of the award.

 

As for changing who an estate is divided after death it is also possible to do that too. All it takes is for a simple deed of variation to be drawn up in which all beneficiaries agree to vary their share. The charities could have done that in 2007 and avoided 8 years of costly litigation.

 

So you can point to the bit of the law (or previous case law) that says disinheriting must be supported by a reason?

[I1L2T3]

So you can point to the bit of the law (or previous case law) that says disinheriting must be supported by a reason?

 

I don't need to because it simply doesn't work like that. The steps are simple:

1. Make a will, specify beneficiaries.

2. If you intend to disinherit somebody who can have a valid claim under the 1975 act provide compelling supplementary explanation as to why.

 

If you don't make a good case in step 2 then there is every chance the will can be overturned.

 

The 1975 act is all about defining the scenarios where a challenge can take place. It's 40 years old. The act has provided a basis for changing the distribution of estates since then.

 

As I said the original judgement took place in 2007. The mum died in 2004. She wrote the letter sometime before that which proves my argument that people have been advised to do so for a long time.

 

In this case the letter wasn't compelling enough to overcome a challenge under the 1975 act. That judgement was made 8 years ago.

 

It's blindingly simple.

[Zamo]

The judges did limit themselves to the law, the law says that offspring must be made reasonable provision for.

 

Which for the last 45 years has be interpreted as provision for dependant children... not adult offspring.

 

The woman gave her reason for excluding the daughter from inheriting anything but the judges decided the reasons were mean and therefore not legal, even though there is no question she was of sound mind. It is a bad decision because it is frankly nobody else's business if she is mean or not. If this is in fact the right interpretation of the law then the law needs to be rewritten.

[I1L2T3]

Which for the last 45 years has be interpreted as provision for dependant children... not adult offspring.

 

The woman gave her reason for excluding the daughter from inheriting anything but the judges decided the reasons were mean and therefore not legal, even though there is no question she was of sound mind. It is a bad decision because it is frankly nobody else's business if she is mean or not. If this is in fact the right interpretation of the law then the law needs to be rewritten.

 

The law covers both relatives and dependents, although it is more usual for it to be used to protect children it is not unheard of for adult children to challenge a will.

 

The judgement was made in 2007. This is not new, not some new controversial judgement made in the last few weeks. All the judge has done is change the value of the award originally made in 2007.

 

Wills can be contested and overturned. Happens quite a lot.

[Eater Sundae]

Which for the last 45 years has be interpreted as provision for dependant children... not adult offspring.

 

The woman gave her reason for excluding the daughter from inheriting anything but the judges decided the reasons were mean and therefore not legal, even though there is no question she was of sound mind. It is a bad decision because it is frankly nobody else's business if she is mean or not. If this is in fact the right interpretation of the law then the law needs to be rewritten.

 

Surely if the lawmakers had intended that the law should only apply to dependant children, then they would have said that.

[Zamo]

Surely if the lawmakers had intended that the law should only apply to dependant children, then they would have said that.

 

What does the law say? Do you know? What is more important to you... complying with the letter of the law or the spirit?

 

I'm afraid it isn't unusual for people to seek to bastardised laws for their own ends. What should focus on is policy intent behind the making of the law. The law was clearly intended to ensure people made provision for their children upon their death so as not to place burden on the state or others. It was not intended to stop a parent being mean to grown-up offspring. It's a crap judgement and only someone with a pathetic jobs-worth outlook could think otherwise.

[Eater Sundae]

What does the law say? Do you know? What is more important to you... complying with the letter of the law or the spirit?

 

I'm afraid it isn't unusual for people to seek to bastardised laws for their own ends. What should focus on is policy intent behind the making of the law. The law was clearly intended to ensure people made provision for their children upon their death so as not to place burden on the state or others. It was not intended to stop a parent being mean to grown-up offspring. It's a crap judgement and only someone with a pathetic jobs-worth outlook could think otherwise.

 

No, I don't know what the law says. How about you tell us. You've decided that you know what the intent of the law was. How do you know you are right?

 

The judges can only go on what was written in the law. If the lawmakers got it wrong, and it doesn't say what they intended it to mean, then it is up to the current lawmakers to change the law. Until they do, the judges should follow the word. They should not suppose a specific intent just because someone on an internet forum doesn't like the outcome in this case.

[I1L2T3]

What does the law say? Do you know? What is more important to you... complying with the letter of the law or the spirit?

 

I'm afraid it isn't unusual for people to seek to bastardised laws for their own ends. What should focus on is policy intent behind the making of the law. The law was clearly intended to ensure people made provision for their children upon their death so as not to place burden on the state or others. It was not intended to stop a parent being mean to grown-up offspring. It's a crap judgement and only someone with a pathetic jobs-worth outlook could think otherwise.

 

The law allows for relatives and children to contest a will. It also allows judges a lot of discretion in deciding how to distribute an estate. Therefore a will can be overturned (for a multitude of reasons) and this has happened countless times since 1975, including in this case in 2007. This case was decided 8 years ago!!!

 

Meanwhile, other breaking news from 2007: Sheffield is flooded, Sarkozy becomes president of France, Northern Rock goes bust...........