BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=157808
27 messages

BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will

29 Jul 15 - 01:26 PM (#3726980)
Subject: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Mr Red

BBC story
It is a bit disturbing to read about the fact that a judge can decide what a person meant when they made their will. & I don't think it hinged on the precise wording either. In fact it looks like the wording specifically excluded the "adjudicated" part beneficiary.

In this case it looks like the mother disapproved of the elopement of a daughter at the age of 17 and hadn't forgiven her, tens of years later. Contact between them hardly if at all. Yet the judge decided that the legator had no connection with the charities listed in the will. As if money in a collecting box leaves an audit trail!

What is not clear is when the will was made. If recently the sharks probably argued that the mother was pre (or actually) senile. And we know lawyers have a special relationship with the great fact keeper in the sky (or did I mean the vault?).

Fortunately I don't have enough to leave that is worth disputing and those I wish to leave it to are my next of kin, though the law may define next of kin slightly different to me, time to investigate the laws appertaining to predeceased.


29 Jul 15 - 01:42 PM (#3726982)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Mrrzy

Fascinating. I didn't realize that the laws were so different not only within Europe but across the pond.

Hard to say what's FAIR. The dead people are dead, do they still get to be in that equation?


29 Jul 15 - 03:04 PM (#3726996)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Richard Bridge

Please check your facts. It all turns on the word "child" in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act, and whether the will made "reasonable provision".

See here - http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge/legal-articles/2013/04/01/inheritance-rights-adult-children/


29 Jul 15 - 05:59 PM (#3727040)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Sad that the deceased went to the grave, apparently still holding a grudge, but I would have thought that she was entitled to dispose of her money as she thought fit.


29 Jul 15 - 06:03 PM (#3727041)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Richard Bridge

Pete - READ THE FUCKING LAW


29 Jul 15 - 06:22 PM (#3727047)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Peter

From the news reports there is no evidence quoted of "some sort of moral obligation by the applicant to be maintained by the deceased or at the expense of his estate beyond a mere fact of a blood relationship"
(Re Coventry Deceased) but news reports are very good at leaving out essential information that detracts from a good story.

Unless I see a full court report I wouldn't even start to form an opinion on this case.


29 Jul 15 - 06:43 PM (#3727051)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Greg F.

Unless I see a full court report I wouldn't even start to form an opinion on this case.

Spoil-sport! You're no fun at all!


29 Jul 15 - 06:49 PM (#3727053)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Allan Conn

In Scotland your child has a statutory right to a share of estate. Irrespective of what the will states they get by law their minimum share of moveable property. Moveable property being basically everything except land and property. Same goes for widowed spouse or civil partner.


29 Jul 15 - 07:02 PM (#3727055)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Allan Conn

Just checked and it children's legal rights amounts to a third of the deceased persons moveable property. So money, shares, investements, cars, chattels etc. They can choose to claim their legal right or accept what has been left in the will - but they can't have both! Out of the third share it is split equally between each child and if the child has died the legal right passes down the generation to their children.


29 Jul 15 - 07:04 PM (#3727058)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Allan Conn

Oh sorry the legal right of the children amounts to one third if their is a surviving spouse or civil partner - but one half if no surviving spouse/partner


30 Jul 15 - 02:17 AM (#3727108)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Joe Offer

It seems that in some countries, the distribution of the estate is controlled completely by law. Don't think I'd like that. I would like at least some of my estate to go to charity, and I feel no obligation to make my children wealthy. But pensions aren't what they used to be, so I'd like a good portion of my estate to go to ensuring my kids can retire sometime. They're all about 40 years old, and none has much hope of a pension.
And I'm still supporting a 26-yr-old perpetual student. I kinda think he's already received his share of the estate.
-Joe-


30 Jul 15 - 02:35 AM (#3727110)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,DaveRo

GUEST,Peter wrote: Unless I see a full court report I wouldn't even start to form an opinion on this case.
In the link below there is a summary and a link to the full judgement.

LINK A long but interesting read IMO.

This was an appeal court ruling, BTW. A lower court had already ruled that Mrs Ilot was entitled to some money; the appeal changed the amount and ruled why.

One winner is the UK taxpayer who would otherwise pay Mrs Ilot housing benefit to continue renting. I can see why charities particularly are concerned about this: expect some lobbying by them to change the law.


30 Jul 15 - 05:08 AM (#3727138)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Mr Red

Well UK law is an ass, and, as the saying goes, laws are made by lawyers. Because there were a lot of MPs who were moonlighting barristers, and that may still be true. Law is law, not equitable not moral, just a meal ticket for lawyers and the greedy. We see it in many guises, we are becoming a litigious society. Or did I mean greedy?

But a middle aged woman with a partner - is a child? the law is indeed an ass. As for habouring a grudge, the words "money grubbing" come to mind and we don't know how much help (aka money) was sought and refused over the years.

So my wishes are of little consideration eh? Looks like I shall spend till I go broke* and the state will keep me when I am too gaga to know why I did it. Chew on that Mr Lawyer - sir.

* that may not be long!!!


30 Jul 15 - 05:22 AM (#3727142)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Raggytash

Richard re your comment "read the f*****g law" we are not people who work in the legal profession, we rely in the main for information from good people like yourself. So, could I suggest that instead of screaming "read the f******g law" you merely explain to us what the law is pertaining to any given situation.

On a personal note if I wrote a will excluding my son from any inheritance and left my estate to a cats home I should want my wished carried out exactly in accordance with my will and would not want a judgement after my demise to give the little sod anything.

As it is he will inherit anything I haven't already spent when I pop my clogs.


30 Jul 15 - 05:52 AM (#3727147)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST

The Scots and lot of other countries have decided to do it differently. What do they see as the advantage of this to their people ?

Isn't it fairly easy to arrange that nothing goes to children? Get equity release on the assets, take out an annuity to keep you comfy till you die and give the rest to the cats home now. That should mainly involve of-the-shelf services from the lawyers and keep things simple for your executors and anyone to whome you give enduring power of attorny in case you body lasts longer that your brain.


30 Jul 15 - 11:53 AM (#3727229)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Richard Bridge

I gave you a sodding link. Go and read it.


30 Jul 15 - 11:54 AM (#3727230)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Richard Bridge

http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge/legal-articles/2013/04/01/inheritance-rights-adult-children/


30 Jul 15 - 12:18 PM (#3727235)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST

From Richard's link "a parent has obligations and responsibilities to his/her children" Interesting. Not sure if good or bad, but interesting. Good for the taxpayer if the offspring might otherwise become a burden on the state.


30 Jul 15 - 05:47 PM (#3727288)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Seems that Richard begrudges any of us having an opinion, unless it accords with the legal rulings that obtain. I,m sure hitler would drink to that !.


30 Jul 15 - 06:09 PM (#3727291)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Bill D

I think it's a matter of whether you disagree with the law itself, or disagree about someone's reading OF the law. It can be a clear law, but one you don't like.


30 Jul 15 - 06:18 PM (#3727293)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST

"I would have thought that she was entitled to" is not an opinion. It is statement that you 'would have thought' something that judges have decided it not correct. One reason for that being that "a parent has obligations and responsibilities to his/her children"


30 Jul 15 - 06:52 PM (#3727297)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Richard Bridge

Precisely, BillD. I get very fed up with people who assert what the law is when they are simply 100% wrong and what they are doing is incorrectly asserting that what they WISH it was is what it is (when it isn't).

Ignorance is voluntary but stupidity is so often hereditary.


31 Jul 15 - 09:31 AM (#3727367)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: Dave the Gnome

stupidity is so often hereditary

But is there any provision to force parents to pass it on to their children when they die?

:D tG


31 Jul 15 - 02:20 PM (#3727426)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

The despite Godwin's law being invoked here I'll post a link to an article in the Guardian about this case:

Disinheritance and the law. - Today's Guardian


31 Jul 15 - 03:59 PM (#3727455)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Ah, seems that I chose a poor choice of word in ....entitled....,even though I did not say, or mean legal entitlement. Apologies to civil contributers.


31 Jul 15 - 06:44 PM (#3727481)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST

Thanks for that link Peter Laban. It tells something that has not been pointed out above, that "Much of the money originates in the compensation payout that followed her father's death". Whatever the law and the judges reasoning I think that gives the daughter a moral right to some of what started of a compensation to his dependants for his death in an industrial accident.


01 Aug 15 - 06:51 AM (#3727553)
Subject: RE: BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will
From: GUEST,Allan Conn

There's two ways to look at this. I've seen it from the other side. My mother didn't have a lot of money but she did own a house with my step-father. She died young and he remarried with his new wife basically wanting nothing to do with either myself, my sister or my step-sister. He then died and the property went to the new wife and her family. Let's be clear we didn't need anything anyway but I am pretty sure my mother would have hated the idea that her share of the estate went eventually not to her children, or even her husband's daughter, but a completely different family altogether!

Had it not been brick and mortar but moveable property then me, my sister and stepsister would have been guaranteed a third between us. In fact we were legally due a sixth each of what moveable property there was but as I imagine is so in the vast bulk of cases where there is a surviving spouse we didn't claim that right. Just showing though that there is two ways to look at everything,