law

[thos]

I described Jan 2010 20 relatives hoping to share £400.000 of Uncles will.A godson no relation challenged will saying godfather (no relation) said all should go to him.For 4 years the solicitorskept us in the dark. Most of you replieds and agreed wirth me they should pull fingers out and sort things We assumed the godson entitled to nothing.THis August sorted . Barristers appointed agreed to settle out of court-result 20 received £8000each godson £72000 rest fees and government.We are still in shock-how on earth did he get anything -the barristers seemed to agree he was entitled and the decision was binding.I still wonder why bother with will when someone not even a relation or mentioned in will can win

[bednobs]

it's really difficult to answer as none of us know the details.
However an out of court settlement means that it was agreed by both sides.

[Count-A-Strong]

Without seeing or hearing the barrister / judges ruling it's impossible to say. Sometimes the law is an ass.

[Count-A-Strong]

Apologies. No judges ruling is settled out of court.

[thos]

thanks for replies I agree it was binding but I still fail to see how godson was entitled to anything -so I repeat what good was the will

[bednobs]

any will can be challenged. "You" (or whoever) chose not to defend it in court, where it would probably have been chucked out

[thos]

tried to get it to court after 4 years agreed out of court never thinking this would be result

[bednobs]

what did you think "settling out of court" meant then, if not reaching a settlement with both sides?

[Count-A-Strong]

Looking back at your original post, you were given some very good advice, non of which you seem to have followed.

[thos]

thanks bednobs my point was how come he was entitled to anything no relation not in will--- I understand settling out of court was binding --find it difficult to understand.I know have to accept it!! Anyway thanks for answering

[mike11111]

Those who can prove that they were financially dependent on the testator can claim on the estate, irrespective of whether or not they are named in the will (can't remember the legal authority).

[woofgang]

when we employed legal support and it went to out of court settlement, we the lagatees had to agree the settlement before it got sorted....are you saying that you said to the barristers "sort it out and we'll agree to whatever?"

[bednobs]

it probably sounds like i'm being argumentative but my point is he probably WASN'T entitled to anything BUt you (or your representatives) agreed to give him x amount. In this case you can't blame "the law" only whoever agreed to give him something

[thos]

mike your answer seems more plausible perhaps he was dependent on godfather for income he did work in shop business-we wert e never told that- makes me feel better about settlement

[thos]

bednobs you are probably right thecousin in charge must have said words to that effect .count me strong we took all the advice on board especially to demand speed up of the affair+

[bednobs]

i get really het up when it comes to wills :)
god knows why people like the godson think they are entitled to anything, if the person had wanted them to have anything that badly they would have made sure it was done in the will. I truley hope my parents spend all their money on having a good time raTHER than leave me anything!

[thos]

bednobs ---well said!!!!

[mike11111]

It's all laid down in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. In simple terms, if a man leaves his entire estate to the Cats' Home the courts will intervene to impose a settlement if it meant that his wife would suffer hardship, despite her conduct or the testator's intentions. This is an extreme example to illustrate the the legal thinking.

[thos]

thanks Mike I do get your point law still rubbish when does not honour will

[mike11111]

The law will honour a will inasfar as it does not conflict with the aforesaid Act. It is no longer possible to "cut someone off without a shilling" unless that person is financially independent of the testator.

[fredpuli47]

There are various possibilities. One is that the godson had some claim in equity. If, for example, if there is a promise or clear understanding that if someone works on the testator's farm for years and years, without payment, they will be given the farm in the will. the court may direct that the farm be transferred to them, whatever the will says, because it would be inequitable not to do so.