Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News1 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.
as is customary in these matters, there's more to it than that which appears in the news report.
here's the actual judgement:-
https:/
here's the actual judgement:-
https:/
Yes thanks for the link, mushroom. I’ve read the judgement. It’s always useful because as you say, we usually get only a glimpse of the facts in the papers.
Having said that, the overriding theme of m’Learned friends ruling is that somehow the mother had to address the impecunious situation of her daughter. It mentions that she:
“…had never had a holiday, had difficulty affording clothes for the children and was limited in the food she could buy and that much of what she had was old or second-hand”
Quite possibly true. But how does the responsibility for rectifying that situation fall upon the mother’s estate? Furthermore, as was correctly pointed out in an earlier judgement (by DJ Million):
“…since the appellant and her husband had managed for many years
on their limited resources, their straitened circumstances did not justify any award.”
This lady (the beneficiary) had been estranged from her mother for thirty-odd years. In the meantime she and her husband had five children (all of whom were now all but adults) in circumstances, it seems, where they were scarcely able to afford to support them. But most importantly of all, IMHO, if her mother had left no money, or she had lived considerably longer, her circumstances would have remained unchanged anyway.
I my view the ruling is perverse. There was no reasonable expectation on the part of the daughter to expect that the mother’s funds should have been used, against her wishes, to relieve the self-inflicted “poverty” of her daughter. The notion that the funds came from her father is a little far-fetched and in any case he was not around to express his views on his daughter’s estrangement and behaviour over the thirty-odd years. It's quite a big leap to assume that his views would have been so at odds with those of his wife.
I also disagree with the principle that those leaving bequests to (say) a charity should have to establish some link or affinity with that organisation. I have bequests in my will leaving money to chariities. In particular the RNLI. I am not a sailor nor have I ever been plucked from the drink but I believe it is a worthy organisation that deserves support. I would hate to see my bequest ruled out of order because I have no connection with it.
I hope this ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court successfully because, as has been said, there is nothing particularly exceptional about these circumstances and people who wish to disinherit their relatives might just as well not bother with a will and simply let the rules of intestacy take their course.
Having said that, the overriding theme of m’Learned friends ruling is that somehow the mother had to address the impecunious situation of her daughter. It mentions that she:
“…had never had a holiday, had difficulty affording clothes for the children and was limited in the food she could buy and that much of what she had was old or second-hand”
Quite possibly true. But how does the responsibility for rectifying that situation fall upon the mother’s estate? Furthermore, as was correctly pointed out in an earlier judgement (by DJ Million):
“…since the appellant and her husband had managed for many years
on their limited resources, their straitened circumstances did not justify any award.”
This lady (the beneficiary) had been estranged from her mother for thirty-odd years. In the meantime she and her husband had five children (all of whom were now all but adults) in circumstances, it seems, where they were scarcely able to afford to support them. But most importantly of all, IMHO, if her mother had left no money, or she had lived considerably longer, her circumstances would have remained unchanged anyway.
I my view the ruling is perverse. There was no reasonable expectation on the part of the daughter to expect that the mother’s funds should have been used, against her wishes, to relieve the self-inflicted “poverty” of her daughter. The notion that the funds came from her father is a little far-fetched and in any case he was not around to express his views on his daughter’s estrangement and behaviour over the thirty-odd years. It's quite a big leap to assume that his views would have been so at odds with those of his wife.
I also disagree with the principle that those leaving bequests to (say) a charity should have to establish some link or affinity with that organisation. I have bequests in my will leaving money to chariities. In particular the RNLI. I am not a sailor nor have I ever been plucked from the drink but I believe it is a worthy organisation that deserves support. I would hate to see my bequest ruled out of order because I have no connection with it.
I hope this ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court successfully because, as has been said, there is nothing particularly exceptional about these circumstances and people who wish to disinherit their relatives might just as well not bother with a will and simply let the rules of intestacy take their course.
Canary and TTT I am only reporting what I read about the case, not giving my views. The court decided to go back as far as the father of the appellant so I guess the answer to your question, Canary, is however far back the court decides but your guess would be as good as mine.
As the father was killed in a works accident before the appellant was born of course we don't know his views. But the money paid to her mother by her father's employer after the accident was, according to the judgement of this court, meant to take care of her and their unborn child. The mother paid off their mortgage with some of this money so this is one of the reasons why the judge saw fit to make an award in the appellant's favour, TTT, because the source of the mother's wealth was derived from the father's compensation money.
As the daughter and her husband had 5 children and the husband only worked a few hours here and there and the daughter not at all for what seems to be all of their marriage and they relied on state benefits, I don't have any sympathy for her really. But I do agree there might be a case for her to receive something from her father so do see that a case could be made as has been.
Ummm, thanks. I'm not even sure I agree with myself.
As the father was killed in a works accident before the appellant was born of course we don't know his views. But the money paid to her mother by her father's employer after the accident was, according to the judgement of this court, meant to take care of her and their unborn child. The mother paid off their mortgage with some of this money so this is one of the reasons why the judge saw fit to make an award in the appellant's favour, TTT, because the source of the mother's wealth was derived from the father's compensation money.
As the daughter and her husband had 5 children and the husband only worked a few hours here and there and the daughter not at all for what seems to be all of their marriage and they relied on state benefits, I don't have any sympathy for her really. But I do agree there might be a case for her to receive something from her father so do see that a case could be made as has been.
Ummm, thanks. I'm not even sure I agree with myself.
"But the money paid to her mother by her father's employer after the accident was, according to the judgement of this court, meant to take care of her and their unborn child."
Quite so. But not until she was 51 years old! And as I said earlier, it is a leap in the dark of the first order to assume her father would have provided for her at such a late age.
The beneficiary and her husband have done little work but have been supported by the taxpayer throughout their marriage. Now, thanks to this perverse judgement, they will be able to buy a (presumably) sizeable house for which they have paid (presumably) little rent from their own funds yet still continue to receive taxpayers' support.
Quite so. But not until she was 51 years old! And as I said earlier, it is a leap in the dark of the first order to assume her father would have provided for her at such a late age.
The beneficiary and her husband have done little work but have been supported by the taxpayer throughout their marriage. Now, thanks to this perverse judgement, they will be able to buy a (presumably) sizeable house for which they have paid (presumably) little rent from their own funds yet still continue to receive taxpayers' support.
Ladybirder
// ... the father died just before the child was born. 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. //
It cannot be right to predict what the father would have done for an offspring he had never known. Things could have happened in the 54 years that made her not deserving of an inheritence. On the face of it, a very bad judgement.
// ... the father died just before the child was born. 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. //
It cannot be right to predict what the father would have done for an offspring he had never known. Things could have happened in the 54 years that made her not deserving of an inheritence. On the face of it, a very bad judgement.
there may be genuine cases where a will should be challenged - if they made no provision for a child who's done a lot of work free for his or her parents, for instance, you could reasonably infer that the work was done in expectation of a legacy.
I struggle to see how that's the case here, though. The daughter's an adult who long ago chose her own life freely; why should her mother now be required to fund it?
I struggle to see how that's the case here, though. The daughter's an adult who long ago chose her own life freely; why should her mother now be required to fund it?
I bet there will be a few people looking back into their family history if they think they might have a claim!
I agree with what you say NJ about the charity you choose to leave your money to. Ridiculous to say you must have had some interaction with them while you were alive. So what if one is doing it for spite, nobody else's business.
The inheritance must be in danger of disappearing into lawyers' pockets but I too hope there is an appeal. Off to check my own will now.
I agree with what you say NJ about the charity you choose to leave your money to. Ridiculous to say you must have had some interaction with them while you were alive. So what if one is doing it for spite, nobody else's business.
The inheritance must be in danger of disappearing into lawyers' pockets but I too hope there is an appeal. Off to check my own will now.
This case is bugging me and I’ve spent a pleasant hour reading through the judgement again and the law. I’m still confused. Much of the judgement is about how much the award should be but little refers to whether or not any award should be made.
What I have managed to extract is this:
“…the matrimonial home equates to about half the estate and was derived from the appellant’s father's efforts rather than her mother’s. This was
a factor that should be we weighed in the appellant's favour as it must have
been partly intended for her.”
Yes, maybe when she was a dependent child. I would argue not when she was in her 50s and had been away from her mother for more than 30 years. But reading further in the judgement:
“I consider that there is no sufficient evidence that this sum was intended
for the appellant. It became part of the general assets of Mrs Jackson and, subject to the 1975 Act, she was entitled to use or dispose of it as she choose.”
Which is what I would assume as being just.
The 1975 Act is not of great help. Its wording is vague and makes no significant differentiation between young dependent children and older offspring (it simply mentions “child”). It does say that the court must take into account the claimant’s current and future needs. In my view Mrs Ilott’s current and future needs should not be met by payments from her late mother’s estate against her wishes. As I said earlier, had her mother not died quite so soon or had died leaving considerably less funds, Mrs Ilott’s needs could not have been met from her estate and she would have to have continued in the penury which she and her husband had constructed for themselves. I suppose it’s heartening to know that her original claim (which was for "...£186,000 to purchase the house, £53,000 to pay for a single storey extension, a capitalised sum equivalent to an income of £10,000 and a further capital sum to permit refurbishment and re-equipment of the house, which might amount to £40,950" has been considerably reduced.
The 1975 Act says that in the case of a child, “reasonable financial provision” means “such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance”
It remains my view that in all the circumstances Mrs Ilott should expect no support at all from her mother’s estate.
What I have managed to extract is this:
“…the matrimonial home equates to about half the estate and was derived from the appellant’s father's efforts rather than her mother’s. This was
a factor that should be we weighed in the appellant's favour as it must have
been partly intended for her.”
Yes, maybe when she was a dependent child. I would argue not when she was in her 50s and had been away from her mother for more than 30 years. But reading further in the judgement:
“I consider that there is no sufficient evidence that this sum was intended
for the appellant. It became part of the general assets of Mrs Jackson and, subject to the 1975 Act, she was entitled to use or dispose of it as she choose.”
Which is what I would assume as being just.
The 1975 Act is not of great help. Its wording is vague and makes no significant differentiation between young dependent children and older offspring (it simply mentions “child”). It does say that the court must take into account the claimant’s current and future needs. In my view Mrs Ilott’s current and future needs should not be met by payments from her late mother’s estate against her wishes. As I said earlier, had her mother not died quite so soon or had died leaving considerably less funds, Mrs Ilott’s needs could not have been met from her estate and she would have to have continued in the penury which she and her husband had constructed for themselves. I suppose it’s heartening to know that her original claim (which was for "...£186,000 to purchase the house, £53,000 to pay for a single storey extension, a capitalised sum equivalent to an income of £10,000 and a further capital sum to permit refurbishment and re-equipment of the house, which might amount to £40,950" has been considerably reduced.
The 1975 Act says that in the case of a child, “reasonable financial provision” means “such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance”
It remains my view that in all the circumstances Mrs Ilott should expect no support at all from her mother’s estate.
Her original claim was ridiculous, more than was in the kitty.
I was surprised at how much care was taken to not put her benefits in jeopardy. Should this really come in to it at all? Is this usual NJ do you know?
If my daughter had never done day's work in her life she wouldn't be getting any in my Will.
I would like to see this decision tested further so as said, hope they appeal. Let's see what happens.
Jan, why the heck would you want to leave your family with a load of debt to sort out? I would hate to do that. Don't you like them very much?
I was surprised at how much care was taken to not put her benefits in jeopardy. Should this really come in to it at all? Is this usual NJ do you know?
If my daughter had never done day's work in her life she wouldn't be getting any in my Will.
I would like to see this decision tested further so as said, hope they appeal. Let's see what happens.
Jan, why the heck would you want to leave your family with a load of debt to sort out? I would hate to do that. Don't you like them very much?
Latest Posts
Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Body & Soul11 mins ago
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.