Judge overturns Mother's will

[I1L2T3]

You're stating this like it's a well known procedure and/or part of the law.

 

It isn't. It's entirely new and made up by the judges in this case.

 

 

No it's not new. The law around this has been in place since 1975.

[Ms Macbeth]

There was a family court lawyer interviewed on radio 5-live this morning who picked up on one of the Judges talking about the fact that the mother had received a big payout following the death of her husband in an industrial accident, before the daughter was born. The lawyer summised that the judges may have seen some of this money as being morally due to the daughter, and thus included this in their decision.

 

I don't know if she was right to suggest this, as I don't think that the judges specifically linked the two.

 

I read about the fathers death through an industrial accident. I think the compensation paid when his daughter was an infant had a lot to do with the outcome. Usually money awarded in those circumstances is for the benefit of any children as well as the widow/er of the deceased. Perhaps very little had ever been spent on, or shared with the daughter. If that was the case then I can understand why the decision to give her a share was made.

[Cyclone]

No it's not new. The law around this has been in place since 1975.

 

Go on then, link please.

 

Because every other source I've read about this has said that this is a new thing that the appeal court has just made up.

[Daven]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63

 

Is this it ?

[Cyclone]

That's the bit that has been referred to several times, AFAIK it makes no reference to having to justify disinheriting someone, I'll have a closer look now.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2015 at 09:46 ----------

 

Nope, nothing in there about justifying leaving someone out of a will or leaving things to 3rd parties.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2015 at 09:48 ----------

 

From the telegraph

 

The fact that Mrs Jackson had little connection to the charities to which she left her money played a part in the ruling, the judges said.

Legal experts said the ruling had implications for how people needed to draw up their wills. They said it suggested that people would in future have to explain their reasons for why they had left money to certain parties and demonstrate tangible connections to them.

It will also make it easier for adult children who are disinherited by their parents to challenge their wills and gain a proportion of any estate, according to lawyers.

 

See words in bold. This is a new thing (I think), not an existing thing, and the solicitors who drew up the will 8 years ago couldn't know to do this.

[L00b]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63

 

Is this it ?

Looks like it, good spot/link. Section 10(6) in particular:

10. Dispositions intended to defeat applications for financial provision.

<...>

(6) In determining whether and in what manner to exercise its powers under this section, the court shall have regard to the circumstances in which any disposition was made and any valuable consideration which was given therefor, the relationship, if any, of the donee to the deceased, the conduct and financial resources of the donee and all the other circumstances of the case.

But that's the statutory provision (the 'raw' law), not the legal test (which is used to check whether a particular case, on its facts, falls within the statutory provision or not), e.g. 'what constitutes a relationship and what doesn't'.

Edited July 30, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

And in this case there doesn't seem to have been any question about the relationship, the court was fully informed of it's state.

The idea of writing justifications for disinheritance and/or gifting to other 3rd parties have arisen as a result of this case, they're not written into the law and haven't been common practice in the past.

[L00b]

The idea of writing justifications for disinheritance and/or gifting to other 3rd parties have arisen as a result of this case, they're not written into the law and haven't been common practice in the past.

Agreed.

 

That's why I referred to this decision as creating a 'new' legal test (or, well, at least modifying any earlier existing one substantially).

 

The Statutes (S.10(6) above, if the correct provision) haven't changed, and aren't going to change (that's Parliament's job, not the Judge's).

 

But the interpretation of the Statutes in view of the facts of any future case, i.e. how the "relationship if any" component within it is assessed, what weight it carries in the Court's exercise of its discretion, has now changed: if there's no relationship between the deceased and the donee, the Court can overturn the will.

Edited July 30, 2015 by L00b

[Zamo]

The daughter had a perfectly valid claim as it is the job of the will maker and legal team to make the will watertight. If you are going to write somebody out who would otherwise be a beneficiary you need to clearly state in an attached document why you are doing it. In addition if you are going to make seemingly unconnected third parties beneficiaries you need to explain that too. Setting this up takes a couple of hours and doesn't even need a solicitor - you just need to write a letter, sign it and attach it to the will. If you want it really watertight then take it to a solicitor and get it witnessed. £100 Max. Even better get a doctor to certify you're of sound mind when you do it.

 

I can understand the moral outrage here. It seems wrong in some ways but in legal terms, with the amount of money available, it was a perfectly predictable outcome. If I was the daughter I'd have done the same.

 

Incidentally I went through exactly this 5 years ago helping an elderly relative write out two estranged sons he hasn't seen for over 40 years. Challenges from them were successfully fended off.

 

You've read the will in question then?

 

The reports say she left a letter with the will explaining why she disinherited the daughter (for eloping) but the judges decided that was unreasonable. In my opinion judges need to limit themselves to what is legal when there is no evidence the will maker was not sound of mind.

[Cyclone]

If you are going to write somebody out who would otherwise be a beneficiary you need to clearly state in an attached document why you are doing it. In addition if you are going to make seemingly unconnected third parties beneficiaries you need to explain that too.

 

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 ----------

 

You've read the will in question then?

 

The reports say she left a letter with the will explaining why she disinherited the daughter (for eloping) but the judges decided that was unreasonable. In my opinion judges need to limit themselves to what is legal when there is no evidence the will maker was not sound of mind.

 

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