Judge overturns Mother's will

[Cyclone]

Not relative. Specifically the offspring.

 

You didn't read the article then? This was the ruling at the court of appeal, above the high court.

 

---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 13:42 ----------

 

But that is the point isnt it. The mother may have inherited it from her father. Then its to do with as she pleases not the daughter or the state. But unfortunatly because of a law we have to ensure that an adult (daughter) inherits money from the mother even though the mother expressly forbids it.

 

It now makes a huge mockery of the will system. What is the point in having one anymore?

 

Yet again people who are on benefits get better treatment as if the world owes them a living.

 

My mother died and she only left 1/3 to me 1/3 to a friend and 1/3 to an aunt. Did I complain? No? I just carried on working hard and earning my own way in the world. So should her daughter but with that windfall I suspect not.

 

She was only granted 1/3rd of the estate... And if it had been left to other relatives instead of to some charities that the deceased had no contact with, then it would probably have been upheld.

[woodmally]

The Judge i think was totally wrong to overturn the will as it was the womens last wishes, if its left to stand then it sets a precedent for all future wills where a relative has been cut out.

i am guessing that the charity or whatever will be launching an immediate appeal?? and rightly so

 

I agree but sadly this charity will have to shed more money out having to contest a silly decision by a judge. And unfortunately based on what I have read the judge may be right. Because of a stupid law that means even an adult daughter or son can inherit money from their parents estate despite the parents wishes.

 

A law change is needed.

[Cyclone]

I agree but sadly this charity will have to shed more money out having to contest a silly decision by a judge. And unfortunately based on what I have read the judge may be right. Because of a stupid law that means even an adult daughter or son can inherit money from their parents estate despite the parents wishes.

 

A law change is needed.

 

3 judges. In the highest court in the land.

 

You could at least bother to read the article couldn't you? If you're going to argue your opinion about the matter.

[MintPlumbing]

But will she?

 

Or will she blow it all away inside 12 months before being back on benefits?

 

Place your bets

 

Basically, this ruling opens the floodgate to hijack estates for getting disinherited progeny off the State's benefits. Bad ruling indeed.

 

Moral of the story: if you have decided to disinherit your kid(s), make sure you blow it all away before your time is up. Feel free to ask Lord Sewel for pro tips about how to do that in style.

 

It won't matter, the benefits office will determine how long it should last, and if she spends it or gives it away before that time is up she still won't be able to claim.

[woodmally]

3 judges. In the highest court in the land.

 

You could at least bother to read the article couldn't you? If you're going to argue your opinion about the matter.

 

Ok then why do you think its right this woman gets the money from the estate? Doesnt matter how high they are they can still make incorrect decisions they are only human after all.

[L00b]

3 judges. In the highest court in the land.

The Court of Appeal is not the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court is (having taken over from the HoL).

 

Though I very much doubt the charities in question may put the kind of legal fees required on the table to go that high and run it to a ruling. There isn't enough from the estate, and the likelihood of recovering costs from the daughter in case of a win is nil. Lose-lose for them, unless they get benefactor sponsor(s).

It won't matter, the benefits office will determine how long it should last, and if she spends it or gives it away before that time is up she still won't be able to claim.

According to Cyclone's info, I make that £20k (after £164k has been spent buying their HA home - is that actually in the CA order or just obiter, I wonder?)

 

£20k should last her what, 12 months?

Edited July 28, 2015 by L00b

[MintPlumbing]

 

The judge has deliberately set the amount to be given such that it won't reduce her benefits entitlement (according to the telegraph).

 

A friend lost her benefits after an inheritance of £30K even though she had already given the money to her kids. I felt sorry for her even though I agreed with the decision to stop her benefits.

[Cyclone]

I never said that I did.

 

I just think that you've formed an opinion without even bothering to find out the details of what has happened.

 

---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 13:49 ----------

 

The Court of Appeal is not the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court is.

 

Though I very much doubt the charities in question may put the kind of legal fees required on the table to go that high and run it to a ruling. There isn't enough from the estate, and the likelihood of recovering costs from the daughter in case of a win is nil.

 

Good point, confusing system

[poppet2]

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?

 

A solicitor stated on the radio today, that if a person leaving a will gives their reasons for cutting close family members out of the will and this is challenged, then judges will take these points into consideration.

 

But such details should be written in a Separate private letter.

 

Reason being, all wills are eventually made public and if 'the reasons' were written in the actual will, this could cause more resentment once published and seen by other members of the family.

[milquetoast1]

Then its to do with as she pleases not the daughter or the state. But unfortunatly because of a law we have to ensure that an adult (daughter) inherits money from the mother even though the mother expressly forbids it.

 

It's everything to do with the state, we all share the responsibility for our society. Wealth is not acquired separate from society.

 

The state does tell people how to spend their money, in taxes, pensions, fines, CSA payments etc.

 

The state could decide that inheritance tax was 100%. That would be fine in many people's opinions (not mine).

 

If the French state has determined that at least 10% should always be left to children, irrespective of whether you like them or not, to ensure the burden on the state is minimised, that's fine in my opinion.

 

If our state determines that we shouldn't cut our children out of our inheritance without good reason, to ensure the burden on the state is minimised, then that's also fine in my opinion.