[tomtom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937
Essentially...
Mum excludes only daughter from will, leaves it all to charity, leaves a letter to explain why her daughter isn't getting anything...then the judge overrules and gives the daughter a lump sum. Precedent now set. Buuuuuullllssshhhiii.....ttttt.

OK - heard an at length discussion about this on the radio this morning - including with a lawyer who had been following the case.

1. The deceased excluded her daughter from her will, as her daughter had run off with the deceaseds partner - and subsequently had children with him (and they are still together).
2. The deceased left her entire estate to two animal charities that she had no connection with
3. The daughter was/is in considerable financial hardship.

So - the judge decided that approximately 1/3 of the will (£160k) should be given to the daughter - else she would have remained in considerable hardship. The key factor in the ruling was the hardship - meaning that if the daughter was rich, wealthy, had no dependants (the kids) then she would have got nothing.. controversial yes, sensible probably (IMHO).

[andy_e]

her daughter had run off with the deceaseds partner - and subsequently had children with him (and they are still together).

Was the judge Jeremy Kyle in this case?

[andyd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937
Essentially...
Mum excludes only daughter from will, leaves it all to charity, leaves a letter to explain why her daughter isn't getting anything...then the judge overrules and gives the daughter a lump sum. Precedent now set. Buuuuuullllssshhhiii.....ttttt.

OK - heard an at length discussion about this on the radio this morning - including with a lawyer who had been following the case.

1. The deceased excluded her daughter from her will, as her daughter had run off with the deceaseds partner - and subsequently had children with him (and they are still together).
2. The deceased left her entire estate to two animal charities that she had no connection with
3. The daughter was/is in considerable financial hardship.

So - the judge decided that approximately 1/3 of the will (£160k) should be given to the daughter - else she would have remained in considerable hardship. The key factor in the ruling was the hardship - meaning that if the daughter was rich, wealthy, had no dependants (the kids) then she would have got nothing.. controversial yes, sensible probably (IMHO).

Since when has being sensible had anything to do with money? Tax aside I'd like to do whatever I want with my money.
I reckon Mr Kyle would have told the daughter to deal with it. The judge seems to have over stepped the mark as far as I'm concerned.
That aside,I can't help thinking the daughter would be in a better financial position with a more rigorous approach to family planning.

[abarro81]

So if your kids are pricks you can only cut them out if they're not poor? I have no understanding of how this can be legal.

[Will Hunt]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937
Essentially...
Mum excludes only daughter from will, leaves it all to charity, leaves a letter to explain why her daughter isn't getting anything...then the judge overrules and gives the daughter a lump sum. Precedent now set. Buuuuuullllssshhhiii.....ttttt.

OK - heard an at length discussion about this on the radio this morning - including with a lawyer who had been following the case.

1. The deceased excluded her daughter from her will, as her daughter had run off with the deceaseds partner - and subsequently had children with him (and they are still together).
2. The deceased left her entire estate to two animal charities that she had no connection with
3. The daughter was/is in considerable financial hardship.

So - the judge decided that approximately 1/3 of the will (£160k) should be given to the daughter - else she would have remained in considerable hardship. The key factor in the ruling was the hardship - meaning that if the daughter was rich, wealthy, had no dependants (the kids) then she would have got nothing.. controversial yes, sensible probably (IMHO).

And yet I still don't see why the judge has any legal right at all to redistribute private wealth in that way. In last year's Ice Bucket Challenge frenzy, I remember some discussion around how cost effective it was to donate to the ALS/MND charities, with some levelling criticism at what was essentially a popularist social meme and suggesting donations be made with regard to GiveWell instead. Why did a judge not step in then and redirect public donations to charity to those people or charities in hardship?

This presumably means that all parents have a legal duty to make financial provision for their children, regardless of whether the children have long since become adults responsible for their own affairs, regardless of whether the parents have decided the children are little shits and want nothing more to do with them?

[Teaboy]

I cant find any reference to the instrument under which this judgement was contested. Does anyone know, certainly nothing in this:

http://www.hughjames.com/service/contested-wills-trusts-and-estates/contesting-a-will/grounds-for-contesting-a-will/#rectification-and-construction-claims

[abarro81]

"Mrs Ilott challenged the will in 2007 under a right to “reasonable provision” which is contained in the 1975 Inheritance Act. It is normally used for young children who are left out of wills, but in 2011, Mrs Ilott won £50,000 from the estate before challenging for more money. She lost in the High Court last year but succeeded in the Court of Appeal." - from the telegraph

[tomtom]

"Mrs Ilott challenged the will in 2007 under a right to “reasonable provision” which is contained in the 1975 Inheritance Act. It is normally used for young children who are left out of wills, but in 2011, Mrs Ilott won £50,000 from the estate before challenging for more money. She lost in the High Court last year but succeeded in the Court of Appeal." - from the telegraph

I was incorrect about the running off with the mothers partner part it would appear... sorry..

[a dense loner]

I'm always a bit confused with this "precedent" bit. Surely a precedent can't be set by one judge, if you follow my meaning. This ruling is ridiculous, how come "the house" or whatever the judges institution is can't say "hold on a minute this is absolutely nothing to do with us who do we think we are? Judge x you're sacked for not knowing it's nothing to do with us, thrown into the mix that you've made us look a bigger bunch of cunts than bear grylls on roids you can hand your gavel in on the way out"
Wtf?

[Will Hunt]

This clears up the bit about what legal instrument was used:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63

1 Application for financial provision from deceased’s estate..

(1)Where after the commencement of this Act a person dies domiciled in England and Wales and is survived by any of the following persons:— .
(a)the wife or husband of the deceased; .
(b)a former wife or former husband of the deceased who has not remarried; .
[F1(ba)any person (not being a person included in paragraph (a) or (b) above) to whom subsection (1A) below applies;] .
(c)a child of the deceased; .
(d)any person (not being a child of the deceased) who, in the case of any marriage to which the deceased was at any time a party, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage; .
(e)any person (not being a person included in the foregoing paragraphs of this subsection) who immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased; .
that person may apply to the court for an order under section 2 of this Act on the ground that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant.

In this Act “reasonable financial provision”— .
(a)in the case of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above by the husband or wife of the deceased (except where the marriage with the deceased was the subject of a decree of judicial separation and at the date of death the decree was in force and the separation was continuing), means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive, whether or not that provision is required for his or her maintenance; .
(b)in the case of any other application made by virtue of subsection (1) above, means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance.

Regardless of how the legislation might be most often used, it makes no mention of an age limit on children. In light of this, TomTom's arguments start to make more sense. So in this case, the judge has examined all the circumstances of the case, decided that the mother was not reasonable in her choice to disinherit the daughter, and that it would have otherwise been reasonable of the mother to lift her daughter out of financial hardship.

I don't think a decision of the net benefit to society will have come into it anywhere.

It would have been interesting to see what the judge's decision would have been had the daughter run off with the mother's partner! Or indeed if the benefactor of the estate had been somebody more in need than the daughter, with the value of the estate insufficient to cover both their needs etc etc.

I don't know what to make of this now. I can see the value of the legislation but I'm now unsure as to whether the daughter should have received the money. Note paragraph a in the second quote bubble which seems to suggest that spouses who have become accustomed to a particular standard of living, but who have not inherited, may also make similar applications. Another moral minefield!

[Ru]

The actual judgement:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ilott_final_24_0_7.pdf

[andyd]

I've skim-read the first few pages, thanks Ru.
I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that this woman was somehow entitled to some of the estate. If you have capacity to make a will, that should be it. Otherwise, what's the point in making one?

[kelvin]

Spend it whilst you have it seems to be the lesson here.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

[Will Hunt]

Thanks for posting, Ru. I wouldn't have known to look for that. Having read the ruling it is interesting and I now agree with the judgement.
The legislation basically tells the court to look at all the relevant circumstances of the case. In this case these include but are not limited to:
The daughters estrangement by the mother was deemed unreasonable by two separate courts. It was noted that the estrangement was not wholly the fault of the mother, but that it was unreasonable. There is evidence to suggest that the mother was unable to maintain long term relationships throughout her life. Had there been reasonable grounds for disinheritance then the ruling could well have been different.

The daughters claim was limited to the provision of maintenance. She'll be buying no sports cars. The judge has limited the claim in this respect. The original decision to award the daughter 50k was based on erroneous assumptions that any greater award would cause the daughter to lose income on net (due to a loss of state benefits).

The fact that the daughter is an adult child who had lived independently for many years was taken into account and did weigh against the appellant, but not sufficiently so to disinherit her.

[a dense loner]

The original decision was she gets 50k but on applying to a higher court she got 1/3 of 160k? Have I lost it as usual? An extra 3.33k! Makes me wonder about the point of wills if you can't do with them what you stipulate...

[Duma]

No, 1/3 of the estate which was ~£480k, ie ~£160k

[a dense loner]

Ah only saw the 160 bit 

[webbo]

It looks like I will have to change my will as there now seems to be little point leaving my vast fortune to UKBouldering.

[a dense loner]

You don't need to change it webbo, apparently your opinion on what you want to do with your own money doesn't count for much

[Oldmanmatt]

Personally, I find it encouraging that the a substantial proportion of the worlds wealth is no longer entirely in the control of the dead...

You can't take it with you chaps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[a dense loner]

What are you talking about? I've never heard of anyone making a will when they're dead, maybe that episode of house but in reality no.

[Will Hunt]

I don't agree with Matt's sentiment. No, you can't take it with you, but you can choose how it should get divvied up, you commie!

It really is worth reading that ruling if you found the story at all interesting.

The legislation is clear that the court may look at "all the circumstances of the case".

So you can still disinherit a child/unmarried ex/dependent; however they may challenge this and seek to amend the disposition of the will if:
a) the reason for their disinheritance is unreasonable (for the court to decide based on "all the circumstances of the case", and;
b) the money you would get from the estate is to be used for your maintenance (so nothing from the Objects of Lust thread).

In the case of the disinheritance of a spouse, they would only need to demonstrate that the disinheritance was unreasonable, and that the amount being given from the estate is what you would reasonably expect (sports cars and private islands a go-go).

In this case the daughter satisfied criteria A because it would seem that the mother was a bit of a nutter (the latest attempt at reconcilliation failed because the daughter had named her 5th child after the mother's mother in law, whom the mother did not like) AND she was so dog poor that she could not support a reasonable standard of living herself (i.e. she needed the money for her own maintenance).

[Oldmanmatt]

I suppose I have mixed feelings about the concept of "property", "ownership" etc and how that pertains to death.
Which certainly shades me a little red. Orange, more precisely.

Why Should the wishes of the dead be relevant to anything really?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ru]

I suppose I have mixed feelings about the concept of "property", "ownership" etc and how that pertains to death.
Which certainly shades me a little red. Orange, more precisely.
Why Should the wishes of the dead be relevant to anything really?

Because it's an incentive to deal with your property carefully and reasonably whilst you're alive. Otherwise, if you don't like what you suspect might be done with your property after death you might be tempted to blow the lot before you go.

[tomtom]

In the process of doing wills at the moment (MrsTT's is complex - mine less so)... its surprisingly less straightforward than you might think...

Though this may be some lawyer based sales scrittle