UK Judge overrules legal will

Mr Badger · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:50

Woman rejected by mother in will wins £164k inheritance

It appears that a judge has ruled that a 54 year old woman that fell out with her (now deceased) mother when she was 17 is able to claim a third of her estate even though the mother made a will leaving it all to charity.

On the face of it this appears to make a mockery of the concept of leaving a will and would seem to open up yet another load of dubious legal practice. PPI, had an accident, not happy with your parent's will? :mad:

Nodiggidy123 · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:53

Indeed.

whats the point of making a will in the first place if this is what happens.

McBain · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:53

Yesterday she was awarded a third of the estate because her mother hadn't left "reasonable provision" for her in the will.

Disgusting. So someones last wishes aren't respected, absolutely ridiculous, and a disgrace.

Xordium · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:55

That's not exactly what they are saying they are saying you can make such a will you just have to give just cause for the reasoning behind the decision. Seems reasonable. There was no explicit reasoning behind the decision other than a minor left the family home. I expect the ruling revolved around that part.

Stretch · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:56

This is nothing new. If you've ever been involved in having will written up, the legal people always say that anything written in the will could be contested. Estranged children, ex partners etc, would all have a reasonable case in many circumstances.

Edrof · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:58

It seems fine to me. Parents have a moral (and probably legal) obligation to provide for the children they produce - the article seems to state that the main reason mother and daughter fell out was because the daughter eloped. Add in the fact that the mother had no connection to the charities she left her money to and it's easy to see why the judge used some common sense and reapportioned some of the will. The judge labelled the mother as "unreasonable, capricious and harsh" - so I see this as a win for objectivity and rationality, personally.

Of course, these cases are always more complex than articles let on.

leigh_boy · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:58

I would probably fight it as well, family before charity in my opinion even if my parents did fall out with me.

John40 · 28 Jul 2015 at 10:59

Xordium said:
That's not exactly what they are saying they are saying you can make such a will you just have to give just cause for the reasoning behind the decision. Seems reasonable. There was no explicit reasoning behind the decision other than a minor left the family home. I expect the ruling revolved around that part.

Why on earth should you have to tell the state why you have decided to give your money to whoever.

It's just another little trickle of state control over your life.

Xordium · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:02

John40 said:
Why on earth should you have to tell the state why you have decided to give your money to whoever.

It's just another little trickle of state control over your life.

Because you have a legal and moral obligation for the children you bring into this world? Especially when framed by a proven history of vindictiveness.

rpg · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:03

What a bitter & selfish woman; people can be so stubborn. She didn't care about the charities at all, she just didn't want her daughter to get anything. Reasonable & just conclusion.

McBain · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:04

Xordium said:
Because you have a legal and moral obligation for the children you bring into this world? Especially when framed by a proven history of vindictiveness.

Legal? To what age?

Tuppy_Glossop · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:05

Surely adult offspring should be looking after themselves ?

I suppose the answer is that you have to donate your money before you die.

wordy · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:07

Xordium said:
Because you have a legal and moral obligation for the children you bring into this world? Especially when framed by a proven history of vindictiveness.

Even in the child is in their 50's and has (hopefully) been providing for herself for decades?

physichull · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:07

Xordium said:
That's not exactly what they are saying they are saying you can make such a will you just have to give just cause for the reasoning behind the decision. Seems reasonable. There was no explicit reasoning behind the decision other than a minor left the family home. I expect the ruling revolved around that part.

I don't think it should be reasonable. It is of no business to the state with whom I leave my money with when I'm gone.

Its a disgraceful decision in my opinion.

physichull · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:08

rpg said:
What a bitter & selfish woman; people can be so stubborn. She didn't care about the charities at all, she just didn't want her daughter to get anything. Reasonable & just conclusion.

No it isn't. If you don't like the person, offspring or not, there should be no way that in death you should be forced to handing over your money, when in life nobody could make you do that!

John40 · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:09

rpg said:
What a bitter & selfish woman; people can be so stubborn. She didn't care about the charities at all, she just didn't want her daughter to get anything. Reasonable & just conclusion.

Only reasonable and just if you love the state telling you how to live, what to do with your money, when to die etc. etc.

Xordium · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:09

McBain said:
Legal? To what age?

Legal whilst a minor (which she was before she left home) and morally until the end of time.

wordy said:
Even in the child is in their 50's and has (hopefully) been providing for herself for decades?

Morally yes.

physichull said:
I don't think it should be reasonable. It is of no business to the state with whom I leave my money with when I'm gone.

The judge seems to think it is and he is the holder of far more information than we have so I think I will trust his judgement.

McBain · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:11

This woman had such a lack of respect for her mother she pursued an inheritance even though it had been made clear she was to receive nothing. Not only that, but she appealed when she considered 50 grand wasn't enough? What a scumbag.

Xordium said:
Legal whilst a minor (which she was before she left home) and morally until the end of time.

She's in her 50's, so no legal obligation whatsoever then.

wordy · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:11

Xordium said:
Legal whilst a minor (which she was before she left home) and morally until the end of time.

Morally yes.

The judge seems to think it is and he is the holder of far more information than we have so I think I will trust his judgement.

No, no & no.

physichull · 28 Jul 2015 at 11:11

Xordium said:
The judge seems to think it is and he is the holder of far more information than we have so I think I will trust his judgement.

You don't NEED to know any further information to understand the issue (the why's and what for's of their falling out is neither here nor there in my opinion, if she didn't want her to have the money then so be it, vindictive or not) and the enormous Pandora's box he has now opened.