Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Inheritance And Money Grabbing Family
I can't understand how she managed to get even £50k in the first place.
Even if she is on benefits what right does the court have to demand she be paid money to buy her a house and still keep her benefits from someone just because they are dead?
They had been estranged for more years than they weren't and the mother had specifically said she was to get nothing??
I would rather squander it all in the casino than think even one penny goes to someone I don't want to get it.
http://
Even if she is on benefits what right does the court have to demand she be paid money to buy her a house and still keep her benefits from someone just because they are dead?
They had been estranged for more years than they weren't and the mother had specifically said she was to get nothing??
I would rather squander it all in the casino than think even one penny goes to someone I don't want to get it.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
so it should be the law that, after inheritance tax has been paid anyway, then the government should be able to dip into our money after our death to give to people because they are on benefits? The fact that these two people are related doesn't seem to me to be relevant or to justify your argument.
She should get nothing from the will.
A couple of things seem odd:
1. She is 56 yet claims she can't afford to clothe her 5 children. Having 5 children after the age of 40 seems unlikely.
2. She is still married to the man she eloped with. Is he not contributing to the childrens' care?
3. The award was increased to £140,000 so that she could buy her Housing Association home. That is an extraordinary gift by the Courts with other peoples' money.
A couple of things seem odd:
1. She is 56 yet claims she can't afford to clothe her 5 children. Having 5 children after the age of 40 seems unlikely.
2. She is still married to the man she eloped with. Is he not contributing to the childrens' care?
3. The award was increased to £140,000 so that she could buy her Housing Association home. That is an extraordinary gift by the Courts with other peoples' money.
// A Will should not be valid if a burden is placed on tax payers. //
The fact that the daughter already is a burden on the taxpayer is not the mothers fault. And money allocated in a will should not be then diverted to get the estranged daughter off of benefits. And anyway, the daughter and the courts seem to have concocted a plan so she could get the money and KEEP getting her benefit money.
The fact that the daughter already is a burden on the taxpayer is not the mothers fault. And money allocated in a will should not be then diverted to get the estranged daughter off of benefits. And anyway, the daughter and the courts seem to have concocted a plan so she could get the money and KEEP getting her benefit money.
“A Will should not be valid if a burden is placed on tax payers.”
I’m not quite with you, tambo. Are you saying that the deceased in this case has an obligation to provide for her 56 year old daughter and her children (and presumably their children, once they start knocking them out)? Why should this be? She didn’t have such an obligation when she was alive so why should that change when she dies? Or are you suggesting that the seventy year old mother should have been stripped of her spare assets whilst she was alive so as to provide for her daughter and grandchildren and since she wasn’t she should be now?
I’m a bit confused as to why the deceased's obligations have changed because she died !
I’m not quite with you, tambo. Are you saying that the deceased in this case has an obligation to provide for her 56 year old daughter and her children (and presumably their children, once they start knocking them out)? Why should this be? She didn’t have such an obligation when she was alive so why should that change when she dies? Or are you suggesting that the seventy year old mother should have been stripped of her spare assets whilst she was alive so as to provide for her daughter and grandchildren and since she wasn’t she should be now?
I’m a bit confused as to why the deceased's obligations have changed because she died !
.// I’m a bit confused as to why the deceased's obligations have changed because she died ! //
because they are dead for chrissakes so different laws ( or statutes as the professionals might say ) come into effect. such as the wills act or this one: (jesus)
It is accepted pursuant to Section 1(d) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 that adult children are entitled to contest a will bringing a claim for reasonable financial provision if they have not received sufficient provision from their parents’ estate.
[ that doesnt means of course that they will get it or all of it]
because they are dead for chrissakes so different laws ( or statutes as the professionals might say ) come into effect. such as the wills act or this one: (jesus)
It is accepted pursuant to Section 1(d) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 that adult children are entitled to contest a will bringing a claim for reasonable financial provision if they have not received sufficient provision from their parents’ estate.
[ that doesnt means of course that they will get it or all of it]
-- answer removed --
"'Scrounger relatives' ttt, how did you rear you kids?" - by working and paying for everything they had. Not sure what that has got to do with it though. You are seriously saying that someone should be forced to leave their legacy to scrounging relatives ahead of all else? Really, can you explain that a bit further tambo because you often talk sense and I cannot fathom you on this one.