Cyclone Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 No s/he wasn't. Complete overstep of responsibilities here. The deceased made up her mind for a reason and it is ridiculous that the estranged daughter could have that turned over. This also opens up a bearpit of further consequences. Although there was a basis in law for the decision. The daughter is broke and the law has a clause about "reasonable provision" being made for children, despite the wishes expressed in the will. ---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 12:38 ---------- This is difficult........... On one hand I'm thinking if the will was made whilst of sound mind and under no duress, what is the point of a will if it can be altered ? On the other hand, by granting the daughter a share of the will, the daughter will have come off benefits ................ I don't know. The judge has deliberately set the amount to be given such that it won't reduce her benefits entitlement (according to the telegraph). ---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 12:39 ---------- Without knowing the full story how can we make judgements. The daughter had been written out of the Will for a reason - whatever that reason was. Maybe the daughter had nothing to do with her Mother while she was alive and now she is dead the vultures are circling. To go against a persons wishes after death is just wrong imo. Some of the details of the breakdown of the relationship are in the news. So I expect that the court has heard a lot more of the detail. ---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 12:40 ---------- 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) The answer to "so what" is that the law has a clause about making reasonable provision for offspring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Apparently, if the mother gave a good reason as to why the daughter wasn't in the will and show a connection between them and the organisations that they were donating to, then the will couldn't have been overturned. So it is possible to disinherit your children! Which probably makes it a good decision, since it raises confidence that the will was done with sound mind etc. It makes it more difficult for an unscrupulous person/organisation to manipulate somebody. Rather than making a will not just a case of "I'm leaving my estate to Y & Z" but "I'm leaving my estate to Y & Z but not A & B", where A & B are the children, seems like a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 There is no question that she was of sound mind when she emailed her solicitors and specifically said that she was disinheriting her daughter. What she didn't do was establish a good reason why she had chosen the charities she did leave the estate to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The mother had requested in her last will and testament, that her estate be left to animal charities, and that nothing be left to her daughter. Was the judge right to overturn this mother's will? No, the judge was wrong . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 It's not difficult for me. The judge was totally wrong to overturn a dead persons wishes. The deceased had her reasons for her choices and they should be respected if she was of sound mind when she wrote it. What is the point of making a Will with your wishes put down in black and white for someone to change it ? This is appalling! What is the point in a Will if the law of the land can overturn it and give the money to her daughter who has 5 kids and is on benefits. Its not the mothers fault the daughter is on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Although there was a basis in law for the decision. The daughter is broke and the law has a clause about "reasonable provision" being made for children, despite the wishes expressed in the will. This is a good point. Given that we choose to start a family, why should we expect other people to provide for them when we have money, just because we have fallen out with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 There is no question that she was of sound mind when she emailed her solicitors and specifically said that she was disinheriting her daughter. What she didn't do was establish a good reason why she had chosen the charities she did leave the estate to. Why should she give good reason. Its her money. She can do with it as she sees fit thats the whole point of a will isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 See the quote from milequetoast in the post above yours. ---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 13:01 ---------- More detail and explanation here as to the judges reasoning and the law involved. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11766651/Your-will-can-be-ignored-say-judges.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Why should she give good reason. Its her money. She can do with it as she sees fit thats the whole point of a will isnt it? Because it's our money that has to go towards the welfare of the broke daughter. It's our legal system that determines that she needs to give a good reason why more of our money, and none of her's, is to be used to look after her daughter and her grandchildren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Because it's our money that has to go towards the welfare of the broke daughter. It's our legal system that determines that she needs to give a good reason why more of our money, and none of her's, is to be used to look after her daughter and her grandchildren. Exactly so the daughter either wants to sponge off her mothers money or our money. Maybe she should have spent all this time getting a job and being self sufficient rather than expecting everyone else to pay her way. Another example of what's wrong with this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now