BS: Judge re-writes a dead persons will

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

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.

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

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?

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

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/

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

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.

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

Pete - READ THE FUCKING LAW

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

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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-

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

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.

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

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!!!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 !.

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

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.

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

"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"

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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,