• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Where there is a will, there is a way

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Where there is a will, there is a way

    Your will can be ignored, say judges

    " The right of people to leave money and assets to whom they wish in their will has been seriously undermined by a landmark court ruling, lawyers warned.

    A woman has been awarded £164,000 from her estranged mother’s estate, even though the mother expressly stated in her will that she did not want her child to receive a penny.

    Melita Jackson left her £500,000 estate to animal charities when she died in 2004.

    But after an eight-year court battle, her only daughter, Heather Ilott, 54, was granted a third of that money on the grounds that her mother did not leave “reasonable provision” for her in the will.

    The Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs Ilott would otherwise face a life of poverty because she was on benefits and could not afford to go on holiday or buy clothes for her children. "

    Source: Your will can be ignored, say judges - Telegraph

    Oh FFS, what this world is coming to?

    #2
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Your will can be ignored, say judges

    " The right of people to leave money and assets to whom they wish in their will has been seriously undermined by a landmark court ruling, lawyers warned.

    A woman has been awarded £164,000 from her estranged mother’s estate, even though the mother expressly stated in her will that she did not want her child to receive a penny.

    Melita Jackson left her £500,000 estate to animal charities when she died in 2004.

    But after an eight-year court battle, her only daughter, Heather Ilott, 54, was granted a third of that money on the grounds that her mother did not leave “reasonable provision” for her in the will.

    The Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs Ilott would otherwise face a life of poverty because she was on benefits and could not afford to go on holiday or buy clothes for her children. "

    Source: Your will can be ignored, say judges - Telegraph

    Oh FFS, what this world is coming to?
    Another benefit scrounger off the books methinks!
    “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
      Another benefit scrounger off the books methinks!
      Quite. I read the article in the Times. The mother was a mean spirited old bint who wanted to spite her daughter one final time by leaving £500k to animal charities.

      There are too many dogs and cats in the world anyway. A few more will now be put to death. Double win.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Platypus View Post
        Quite. I read the article in the Times. The mother was a mean spirited old bint who wanted to spite her daughter one final time by leaving £500k to animal charities. There are too many dogs and cats in the world anyway. A few more will now be put to death. Double win.
        It was her money and she had proper will. It's crazy that the court is changing it just like this when she explicitly did not want to leave money to her daughter - whatever the reasons it was her money and she was entitled to do what she pleased with them.

        Comment


          #5
          whatever the reasons it was her money and she was entitled to do what she pleased with them
          Totally agree. Nowt to add.
          bloggoth

          If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
          John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
            Totally agree. Nowt to add.
            +1
            Growing old is mandatory
            Growing up is optional

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              It was her money and she had proper will. It's crazy that the court is changing it just like this ...
              It wasn't her money when the will came to be executed - It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.

              Courts don't set aside wills on a whim, which would be bad I admit.
              Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
                Another benefit scrounger off the books methinks!
                except not, if you read the article in the Torygraph

                Lady Justice Arden awarded her £164,000 to allow her to buy her housing association home in Ware, Herts, with £20,000 left over to supplement her benefits. The judges drafted the ruling so that she would not lose her state benefits.
                I think this has to be the worst ruling in British legal history.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Couple of interesting links on this

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_contest

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_heirship

                  (I think in France some degree of Forced heirship is imposed by their Napoleonic code)
                  Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by AtW View Post
                    It was her money and she had proper will. It's crazy that the court is changing it just like this when she explicitly did not want to leave money to her daughter - whatever the reasons it was her money and she was entitled to do what she pleased with them.
                    Very true and most of the time, probably right. There are a few questionable cases though. Eg when an old or terminally ill person is suddenly befriended by a young gold digger who deliberately persuades them to change their will, poisons them against their family, or takes advantage of their elderly confusion in some way. Possibly forges the will or forces the old timer's hand.

                    Not sure about this case. The daughter is 54. I would think the "reasonable provision" concept applies up the age of 21 or so, but after that, parents have already made all reasonable provision, legally, to their children. Case law is rather daft. A single judge makes a decision in a small case and that decides the law for good. A but stupid really.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X