ChatterBank1 min ago
Big Brother Is Thwarting You
You don't have a Will of your own - the judiciary (that fine body of upright citizens !) will now allocate your money.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. 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.
Ridiculous, surely it is the right of all of us to leave what we have to who, or whatever we want. I cannot see how money grubbing offspring can have any sort of claim. Sandy what are you saying? “dis inheriting” is not a right? Are you saying that we should be forced to leave money to offspring? After all you can choose your friends, not your family.
The reason behind this decision appears to be that the father died just before the child was born and thus the wealth of the mother was inherited from the child's father. The judges finally decided in their wisdom that the father would have wanted provision made for his only child, albeit she's now 54 years old. Hmmm, not sure about this.
In the RSPCA case, a few years ago, it was found that the domineering father had coerced her mother into changing her will to leave 287 acre to the RSPCA instead of her.
In the current case the fact that the daughter was on benefits, and therefore deemed to be a dependent seems to have been a factor.
If one of my children was a smack-head and on benefits because of it, I certainly wouldn't want to feed their habit with an inheritance.
In the current case the fact that the daughter was on benefits, and therefore deemed to be a dependent seems to have been a factor.
If one of my children was a smack-head and on benefits because of it, I certainly wouldn't want to feed their habit with an inheritance.
Surely the whole rationale behind the "... of sound mind ..." clause in a standard Will should ensure the person's last wishes are strictly adhered to.
This case's precedent is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. First you change it because you rule it spiteful - what next - because it's unfair ? - because it's aiding someone you don't approve of ? - because it's racist ? - because it's homophobic ? - because it's sexist ? and so on.
This case's precedent is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. First you change it because you rule it spiteful - what next - because it's unfair ? - because it's aiding someone you don't approve of ? - because it's racist ? - because it's homophobic ? - because it's sexist ? and so on.
Ummmm: “I think it's right that wills can be challenged. Sometimes they are used as the last act of spite.” – so working all your life and not leaving assets to people you don’t like is an act of spite is it? Right oh! What about spending legacy money on lawyers to overturn what someone wants to do with their own estate, is that an act of spite? Joined up thinking needed methinks.
It is presumptuous in the extreme for anyone to live there life in the expectation of getting given something for nothing when a relative dies. These sorts of things make the case for 100% IHT in my opinion!
It is presumptuous in the extreme for anyone to live there life in the expectation of getting given something for nothing when a relative dies. These sorts of things make the case for 100% IHT in my opinion!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.