Jon the Hat Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 A Hertfordshire woman cut out of her mother's will has been awarded a £164,000 inheritance in what could prove to be a landmark ruling. Heather Ilott, of Ware, went to court after her mother Melita Jackson left her £486,000 estate to animal charities when she died in 2004. The Court of Appeal has ruled she should receive a third of the estate. The ruling could significantly weaken people's right to leave money to those they want to inherit it, it is thought. BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said experts said the ruling would mean people could still disinherit their children but would have to explain why and what connection they had to those they did leave money or assets to. The court heard Mrs Ilott, 54, had eloped at the age of 17 with her boyfriend and, as a result, her mother had never forgiven her and did not want her to receive a penny of her estate. It was left to the RSPCA, RSPB and Blue Cross charities. Mrs Ilott later married her partner. They have five children and the court heard Mrs Ilott planned to use the inheritance to buy their housing association home. Analysisby Clive Coleman, legal affairs correspondent When Melita Jackson died in 2004 she made it crystal clear she didn't want her estranged daughter Heather Ilott to benefit, and so left her estate to animal charities with which she had little connection. The relationship between mother and daughter soured when, aged 17, Heather eloped with her future husband. Yesterday she was awarded a third of the estate because her mother hadn't left "reasonable provision" for her in the will. She'll now be able to buy her housing association property and won't lose her state benefits. Experts say the ruling means you can still disinherit your children but you'll have to explain why and what connects you to those you do leave money to. That'll make it easier for adult "disinherited" children to challenge wills and claim greater sums by way of reasonable provision. Mrs Jackson made her last will in 2002 with a letter to explain why she had disinherited her only daughter, referring to the fact she had walked out of her home in 1978 to live with her boyfriend. Mrs Ilott, who was an only child, having been born two months after her father died in an accident, had in 2007 won the right to an inheritance of £50,000 after a district judge concluded she had been "unreasonably" excluded by Mrs Jackson. That ruling was reversed, before Appeal Court judges ruled she was entitled to a share of the money. When Mrs Ilott appealed to get the amount increased, Mrs Justice Parker dismissed this at the High Court in London, ruling in March 2014 that the previous decision that £50,000 was appropriate could not "be said to be wrong". However, in the latest hearing Lady Justice Arden said Mrs Ilott's mother had been "unreasonable, capricious and harsh" and ruled she should receive a greater proportion of the estate. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937 What do you think folks? Should you be able to challenge the explicit decision to exclude you from a parent's will?
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Really tricky one this, but if the mother was of sound mind she should be able to do whatever she wishes with her estate.
Babylon Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 The will should be followed to the letter, unless there is a very good reason not to. Someone being pissed off they didn't get a slice of their mothers cash is not a very good reason.
indierich06 Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 It was her money to do whatever she wanted with - and she explicitly stated she didn't want it to go to her daughter, this is an outrageous decision. Now a bunch of decent charities have been cheated out of the full generous donations they would have received so some dole basher can buy her council house and further reduce the stock of social housing in this country, while still sucking on the government's tit. This ****ing country, honestly.
pSinatra Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 What's the point of making a will? Something my children will never have to go through. I've got no children & I ain't got no money either
Frank to be Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Just doesn't make any sense at all. It's obviously the wrong decision and doesn't just set us down the path, but enshrines in law that we will no longer have any say in where our money goes after we die. Can only imagine that there's some filthy motive behind it. Are donations made to charities in a will tax free? If so, there's your motive.
davieG Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Seems like she gave a reason so surely it's not simply a case of giving a valid reason but one that appears to favour the beneficiary. Have people now got to justify why they are leaving money to specific charities and other individuals.
Frank to be Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Just doesn't make any sense at all. It's obviously the wrong decision and doesn't just set us down the path, but enshrines in law that we will no longer have any say in where our money goes after we die. Can only imagine that there's some filthy motive behind it. Are donations made to charities in a will tax free? If so, there's your motive. Just checked and as I suspected, there's no tax on charitable donations. So what the government is doing is enshrining in law their right to divert your inheritance away from where you wanted it to go and towards an avenue that attracts more tax. It's absolutely disgusting but not exactly a surprise coming from David "you have no right to a private life" Cameron.
Carl the Llama Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 This is great news. Now I can be a dick to my family and not worry about being cut out the will. Truly a law for the modern generation.
Jon the Hat Posted 28 July 2015 Author Posted 28 July 2015 Just checked and as I suspected, there's no tax on charitable donations. So what the government is doing is enshrining in law their right to divert your inheritance away from where you wanted it to go and towards an avenue that attracts more tax. It's absolutely disgusting but not exactly a surprise coming from David "you have no right to a private life" Cameron. You know the judiciary is separate from Government right?
Frank to be Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 You know the judiciary is separate from Government right? In theory yes but in practice? I think you'd be a fool to think a government who carries out mass scale illegal surveillance on its own citizens isn't capable of, shall we say influencing, the courts.
J.Lisemore Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Surely it won't come down to stating reasons, It'd be way too controversial. Could I be overruled if I were to put .."Because I want to" or "Because I like this person" or will it then be contested for being a sh*t reason? So glad we have intelligent people like this making decisions that go against the grain, makes them look cool.
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Tell you what, if I didn't have long left and hated my kid and there was a chance that my charitable donation could be effectively stolen from my charity of choice, I'd wait until I was nearly dead and spend all the money on something they hate Wait till they get back from holiday to find a 5 tonne pile of festering salmon fillets on their driveway.
MPH Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 So, i can work hard all my life and still not of earned the right to decide where i want my money to go to? Absolutely frightening decision...
The Railway Man Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Just checked and as I suspected, there's no tax on charitable donations. So what the government is doing is enshrining in law their right to divert your inheritance away from where you wanted it to go and towards an avenue that attracts more tax. It's absolutely disgusting but not exactly a surprise coming from David "you have no right to a private life" Cameron. What? I've heard the Tories accused of some ridiculous things but trying to take more tax off rich people is pretty strange when at the same time they are massively increasing the sum at which you pay it.
Sir Fynwy Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 So, i can work hard all my life and still not of earned the right to decide where i want my money to go to? Absolutely frightening decision... Not exactly, as long as the will is written properly and reasons for giving the money to other parties are established you'll be fine, the case revolves around a badly written will that states that the money is going to charities she had no previous connection or donations to because she has a grievance against her daughter.
Christoph Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 So she essentially took £164k from charities? Can't say I wouldnt want a slice of the pie though.
oakman Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Terrible decision. I'm assuming she's spent 8 years fighting this on legal aid - now she's won £164K, is she liable for any of the legal fees?
The Railway Man Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Terrible decision. I'm assuming she's spent 8 years fighting this on legal aid - now she's won £164K, is she liable for any of the legal fees? All of it hopefully. At least now the government seem to be clamping down and finally cutting that taxpayer funded pot of gold avaliable to the nation's "legal representatives" otheriwse known as legal aid, as bad as bankers bonuses.
Smudge Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 What a bitter old woman the mother seems to have been. Five grandchildren and not a penny for them, she could at least have put the money in trust until they were older.
MPH Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Not exactly, as long as the will is written properly and reasons for giving the money to other parties are established you'll be fine, the case revolves around a badly written will that states that the money is going to charities she had no previous connection or donations to because she has a grievance against her daughter. There is so much wrong with this post.... why should you have to explain WHY you want your money to go somewhere? is she not of sound mind? And doesnt the article explain that there was a letter of explanation accompanying the will explaining why she wasnt giving the money to her daughter? and because i didnt spend enough time in contact with that charity in my living years why should I, who is of sound mind, still not have full control on which charity my money goes to? Absolutely amazing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.