jeff oakley Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 They cannot be overturned easily, this has dragged through two courts so far and there is still a possibility the charities could appeal. What is seriously wrong with this, to my mind, is that this was no surprise to the daughter. Her mother made her intentions clear all along and on reading the case the key reason is when her father died the mother had a payout, the court decided that was enough reason to award her money. What it has done is now opened up opportunities for a lot of chancers to try their luck. Imagine a settled will, where a drug taking son was not given anything for obvious reason. Someone on benefit with some kids, he might find a no win type to try to extort money because his parents did not make reasonable provision. I fear this will drag open some family wounds and the winners will be those in the legal profession. Get braced for the new cold call, "been disinherited you could be due payments of thousands text back I am a chancer whose mummy did not love me for our no win service" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John K Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 I'm starting to get a little angry over the implications of this... So, suppose you know the Grim Reaper will be rolling up soonish and you have 2 kids. One is well deserving of the inheritance and you know the other one will buy a Caterham so that one isn't getting a bean. What's to stop you giving #1 kid the bulk of your money whilst you are still alive and leaving a small inheritance estate to be divided up between them both. Or are there some hideous tax repercussions? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Dastardly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 One is well deserving of the inheritance and you know the other one will buy a Caterham so that one isn't getting a bean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 For inheritance tax repercussions see https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M444TTB Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 To add some requirement for reason is entirely sensible. Particularly in the case where there's 'family money'. Being the last person standing with a hand on the bank account doesn't give an automatic right not to pass on some of that to the next generation simply because you're a vindictive old bag. Preventing the money being passed on for the good of the assumed recipient is eminently sensible me can be determined by a court. Of course the lawyers are the winners here as usual. Some of the comments on this thread aren't particularly nice or well judged. There's little evidence to judge the situation in favour of either side. Nasty, controlling old lady who couldn't get what she wanted in life so used the final form of revenge open to her or a very badly treated Mum? No evidence presented. Similarly the fact someone draws benefits and has 5 children doesn't make them a character from Benefits street or other TV crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Neither character assessment is relevant though. It was her estate to deal with as she saw fit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsechris Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Some of the comments on this thread aren't particularly nice or well judged. There's little evidence to judge the situation in favour of either side. Nasty, controlling old lady who couldn't get what she wanted in life so used the final form of revenge open to her or a very badly treated Mum? No evidence presented. Similarly the fact someone draws benefits and has 5 children doesn't make them a character from Benefits street or other TV crap. I take your point, my comment was indeed unpleasant and ill judged. That's one of the problems of the internet, you get a********s like me on it. But, the fact she was willing to go to court to try and get something she, in my view, had no right to, has to say something about her. Having seen my dad getting the very short end of an inheritance in the past, and seeing how he reacted to it, I've got some personal experience of what I think would be the right thing to do - get over it and move on. That the courts seem able to make such a judgement is the key worrying issue though isn't it. I'll make sure I've spent all mine before I go - wouldn't want my drug using, benefits draining, waste of space nephew getting a penny of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M444TTB Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 My family have definitely been on the bad end of wills in the past. One was so unfortunate it's funny. I think my grandfather was intended to have been left 90% of an estate from a great aunt. However she wrote her will a very long time before she died and named a figure rather than a percentage. Inflation made it pretty much worthless! The rest went to the Church. Same grandfather was also left the family farm with all its debts while his sister got all the assets. She spent her life saying she wanted that money to go back into his family having not had her own children. Then gave it away to the world and his wife. Neither character assessment is relevant though. It was her estate to deal with as she saw fit. The debate is wider than this case. I don't think it's a black and white issue personally. Let's say you're a billionaire and want to leave a lasting legacy for generations. Then your A******e children decide they aren't going to move that money on as intended. You're dead. They didn't earn it. Is that fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff oakley Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 My family have definitely been on the bad end of wills in the past. One was so unfortunate it's funny. I think my grandfather was intended to have been left 90% of an estate from a great aunt. However she wrote her will a very long time before she died and named a figure rather than a percentage. Inflation made it pretty much worthless! The rest went to the Church. Same grandfather was also left the family farm with all its debts while his sister got all the assets. She spent her life saying she wanted that money to go back into his family having not had her own children. Then gave it away to the world and his wife. The debate is wider than this case. I don't think it's a black and white issue personally. Let's say you're a billionaire and want to leave a lasting legacy for generations. Then your A******e children decide they aren't going to move that money on as intended. You're dead. They didn't earn it. Is that fair? That's the problem with badly written wills. As an executor to three wills, two prepared by proper solicitors and one a will writing service the difference is chalk and cheese between them all. My parents is water tight, with eventualities I could never have thought of, the other one is good but has holes the third is a copy and paste one with no provisions for the what if's at all. You pay for what you get my parents was around £800 the will writing one was less than £50. In the case of the billionaire, if he leaves it to the family just saying he wants X to happen, they can do what they want. If it stipulates in his will they must do X then that is different. One is a legal requirement the other a request with no legal bearing. Now going back to the original case, the failing was the father not writing a will as soon as he knew he had a child on the way. Had he have written a will leaving his estate to his unborn child then when he died that would be something that the mother could do little about. As it was there was no will and as a result the death payout went to the mother in total. She then had the right to do as she wished. The court decided that the father would have wanted her to get something, hence the payout. From reading the case, it was clear the mother was correct about the person the daughter ran away with. He attacked the mother at one point and seems to have been a taker from the system for years, so would the father want to reward that sort? Who knows but there will now be more cases of claims as a result of this, with undoubtedly some bizarre outcomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhutch Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 1) The mother is a miserable cow by the sounds. 2) The daughter is a money grabbing cow by the sounds. 3) Seems madness to give it all away. 4) Seems madness for her wishes to the ignored. 5) Some scope is needed in interpretation a will. 6) Selling off social housing is annoying and crap Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.