Big Brother Is Thwarting You

[Canary42]

You don't have a Will of your own - the judiciary (that fine body of upright citizens !) will now allocate your money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937

[sandyRoe]

In future will courts have to sit to judge whether the reasons for disinheriting someone are good enough?

[Canary42]

That's what it looks like Sandy.

[ummmm]

A lady successfully challenged her parents wills after the lot was left to the RSPCA.

[ToraToraTora]

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.

[retrocop]

Sandy
Better start behaving yourself then!!!

[sunny-dave]

Without going all "Agatha Christie", it now seems that informing your idiot children that you have left it all to The Dogs Home will in no way deter them from quietly smothering you with a pillow.

[ other murder methods are available, terms and conditions may apply ]

[ladybirder]

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.

[ummmm]

I think it's right that wills can be challenged. Sometimes they are used as the last act of spite.

[Sqad]

ummmm makes a very good point and this can be totally disruptive to a family.

[ummmm]

My grandad wrote my mum out of his will because she put my nan in a care home (my nan needed to be in a care home)

She doesn't know that though. The estate was divided equally regardless of what his will said.

[Svejk]

Opening a can of worms, imo.

[Canary42]

So now it's spiteful to leave your money to deserving charities instead of undeserving offspring ?

[ummmm]

I didn't say that.

But in the RSPCA case it was an act of spite.

[Graham-W]

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.

[Canary42]

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.

[ToraToraTora]

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!

[ummmm]

It can be an act of spite. Of course not in all cases. Just because a will can be challenged doesn't mean it won't be adhered to.

[ladybirder]

So does anybody have an opinion on the reasons given in my post @ 09.53?

[ummmm]

I agree with it LB.

[Canary42]

So how far back in the family tree do you go lady birder to reflect the wishes of earlier testators ?

And in this case what evidence was there that the father had different views ?

Unnecessary Nanny State interference in personal matters IMO.