Smudge Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 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. It's not for me to speak for Sir F but I think he's giving an interpretation on the ruling not an opinion.
Captain... Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 You should be able to leave your money however you want. Unless there has been any promises made or a clear influence over the will. It seems very clear from that article she didn't want her daughter to have the money. If they had been estranged since 17 then they are not really family, and she should have no claim over the estate of a woman she hasn't seen for over 30 years. The other question is why has this taken over a decade to sort out, going through 3 courts. It should have lasted less than 10 minutes. "My mum didn't leave me anything her will!" "You should have been a better daughter then, now fvck off and get a job!" Sorted, thousands of pounds saved.
Jattdogg Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 I think theres 2 stories here. 1. The relationship as a family 2. THe will. As a parent i know my children will do and say all kinds of things i dont like or dont agree with. I did the same to my parents. Obviously if they turned out to be some sort of hard criminal i may have differing opinions but at the end of the day that is my child and i love them even when they "make mistakes" in my eyes. The fact that the lady ran off and married the man and had kids with him would tell me that clearly she loves the man. Even if i didnt agree with her decision there is no reason to be an absolute **** of a parent. As elders we have seen a lot and one thing we should always do is be there for our children mistakes or not. The child had no father from what it states above so she had it tough to begin with. Maybe it affected her upbringing through no fault of her or her mothers own. Maybe this played a role into her decision to leave. Maybe not. I guess im just trying to say if thats the reason the mother cut her out then its a disgrace IMO. Unless something horrible went on that the daughter did to the mother (ie punch her out etc) of course. Now as for the will i think she should be entitled to some of the estate. Id imagine some of that estate was via her dads earnings prior to his death and perhaps he would never have cut out his daughter? Maybe he would have. But ultimately a will is a will. Whether i think she should get money is irrelevant. THe mother has a right to give her money to whomever even if i think fundamentally she was wrong. This essentially means anybody can and will contest someones last wishes. Sad all around.
Sir Fynwy Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 It's not for me to speak for Sir F but I think he's giving an interpretation on the ruling not an opinion. Exactly it is an evaluation of why the ruling went the way it did not an opinion, in my opinion the daughter should go out and earn her own money. It looks like the will was written explaining the mother was being vindictive by giving the money to random charities rather than her daughter, if the wording had been different it's highly unlikely a challenge would have been successful.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Now as for the will i think she should be entitled to some of the estate. Id imagine some of that estate was via her dads earnings prior to his death and perhaps he would never have cut out his daughter? Maybe he would have. The version of the story I read suggested that quite a lot of the wealth originated from the Dad. It's messy isn't it? I don't think it's quite as mental as some people are making out. I imagine there are quite a few people on here with reciprocal wills (ones where a couple leave everything to each other) - I know I've got one - and there's nothing unusual about there being no provision for your children in them because you sort of expect that your other half will do the right thing by them, don't you? If I left everything to my missus, carked it, and then she cut our kids out the will because they'd not put their shoes away AGAIN or something like that, I'd be as put out as a dead person could be. I'd haunt the shit out of her, I reckon
DB11 Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 I think it's a good decision. Shouldn't be able to just pretend you no longer have children once they're old enough to do be independent you still brought them into the world. What about when people become mentally unstable or suddenly leave everything to some random person they've just met that manipulated them into changing their will?
Mike Oxlong Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 My 88 year old bride looks like a bad investment now.
Merging Cultures Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 If most of the wealth came from her father, then this changes how I first felt about the decision. However, it probably should have been dealt with before the mothers death, and I still do think that the woman's wishes in her will should have been respected more.
Jattdogg Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 My 88 year old bride looks like a bad investment now. . As long as you didnt pull a bill cosby you should be ok. Looks like you should be able to get 2/3.
Jattdogg Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 Maybe thats where the courts decision came into play. Dads half minus expenses plus interest over the years came out to 1/3 total estate??? Or they just came up with a wank number.
Jon the Hat Posted 28 July 2015 Author Posted 28 July 2015 Its a good point to note that we don't know where the estate really came from. If it was the claimant's family inheritance from her father side than do the courts have a right to say she deserves some of it? I would think so. I also don't think a will should be a thing of revenge or vitriol.
Nalis 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? I wouldn't think so as she won.
Guest Col city fan Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 What's the point in making a will? If you have mental capacity when you make it, it should be bloody followed! Ridiculous ruling..
Strokes 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.I'm pretty sure you said in a previous thread people should only be able to inherit 50k and the rest should be taxed. Has your stance changed?
Webbo 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. Pretty sure the threshold for inheritance tax is way above £164k
Head Honcho Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 The mother was wrong to leave her out of the will. She received a payout when the woman was a child as her husband died in an accident so the money she received would have been for the pair of them not just herself.
MPH Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 It's not for me to speak for Sir F but I think he's giving an interpretation on the ruling not an opinion. Exactly it is an evaluation of why the ruling went the way it did not an opinion, in my opinion the daughter should go out and earn her own money. It looks like the will was written explaining the mother was being vindictive by giving the money to random charities rather than her daughter, if the wording had been different it's highly unlikely a challenge would have been successful. Wether it was Sir F sharing his opinion or stating why the ruling was so, my post is still applicable to his...
MPH Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 The mother was wrong to leave her out of the will. She received a payout when the woman was a child as her husband died in an accident so the money she received would have been for the pair of them not just herself. I doubt very much that the child was raised on bread and dripping. with holes in her clothes...
Captain... Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 The mother was wrong to leave her out of the will. She received a payout when the woman was a child as her husband died in an accident so the money she received would have been for the pair of them not just herself. She used that money and her own to raise her child, who repaid her by walking out, did the daughter help out at all during her mother's old age? Did she visit her, look after her, help her do anything in that time. When kids get older it is their duty to look after their parents and help out when needed. If she did none of that, then fvck her, she doesn't deserve any money, parent child relationships are a two way street, looks like she took all she could until 17, then gave nothing back and now she is dead is trying to take more.
oakman Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 I wouldn't think so as she won. Genuine question as I know nothing about the law - she won the money in the Court of Appeals which I'm guessing means she lost the case previously.
fuchsntf 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... Yes..then again no....Like many on here who take the view , it was that womans mothers right to disinherit her kin. A pair decide to have a child, her child at 17 walks out on her disobeying her wishes, by going to her boyfriend. Now at 17, one is still considered a child, a consistent responsibility one could say, no matter how the child turned out, you still created it, and due to lack of care, discipline, or too much love.Who knows who cares but why if funds are available, should the society, this Daughter grew up in be asked to pay for her. That child may be a horrible person, a person whos fell on bad times, or just simply a rotten apple, maybe an angel. Her family who have passed on, had funds they left behind, surely the state surely has the right to expect that when possible living close relations should be supported from those funds, when in financial difficulties ,in preference to being wholey supported by the state. Not 100% one could argue, but why should strangers or other people of the state be asked to foot the whole bill. Think about it...funds from a mother available to support a family member after her death, her responsibility should not cease.For me its a question of deserving or not how much % and how can a dying persons wishes be granted so her single, individual rights and the estate are not compromised, but neither are the expectations of the states responsibility to its people..
Rincewind Posted 28 July 2015 Posted 28 July 2015 It is not the first time a will has been challenged though. There are many cases of siblings squabbling over parent's fortune. A mother or father often have favourites and even if one offspring looks after them it does not guarantee they will get the biggest slice. I think the appeal was just against where the money was left to. For all we know it may have been the mother who did not want to reconcile the relationship. Did she leave or was she thrown out? Was she pregnant or had a boyfiend the mother disaproved of? As for her receiving the award I do not know if it is right. On the surface it looks as if she was money grabbing. There was no love between them it seems so their connection was irrelevant. Maybe the mother was being spiteful by leaving it to charities. Anything so her daughter never had it. Should have spent it. I had a pre-paymrnt of my inheritence when I was out of work and struggling which in a way is better as I do not want my mum to pass away so to have it. It wasn't as much as 250k though.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.