I think it is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent, what is the point of making wills if a judge can overrule your wishes.
Even if a will is malicious, it was that woman's money and she had the right to decide what happened to it. Shame on the daughter, she didn't see her mother for years but is like a vulture over the money.
while I think the last will and testament should be respected, I'm also of the opinion that this ruling could deal with spiteful disinheritance too. At the end of the day, the daughter is still her next of kin and for whatever reason (for which none of us know nor will ever know) they didn't speak for 27 years, it isn't that far from an unknown sibling coming out of the woodwork to make claim (which happened to my step-mother).
I think that she had a right to make a claim.
Your motives as to why and how you deal with your own money are no one's business but your own, even if it is malicious, IMO. The money does not belong to anyone but the owner. The court should not be able to make moral judgments on such issues with regard to non-dependent adults.
The deceased person can't give their side of the story, either. The mother in this case may not have had any obvious connection to the charities she left her money to but may have had a soft spot for the causes for all anyone knows, for instance, and always had a mental, unwritten, intention to do so, once she'd decided not to leave the money to her child.
People are entitled to make unwise or nasty decisions, even if those decisions should be disapproved of. The court in future cases may have to then examine why someone didn't make different decisions in their own lives so as not to be in straitened circumstances.
Outside of promises made in exchange for something, such as care, and normal obligations, such as tax and debt payment, a person's money is their own.
I am surprised at the court's decision. Don't know the details, of course, and don't know if it's being reported by the media correctly, but it's unusual for English law, i think. More in line with forced heirship in civil law countries. Would be interesting to read the judgment.
From what I've read the case is a bit unusual.
The father died in an industrial accident two months before the daughters birth - family was awarded a large sum in compensation.
When the daughter was 17 she eloped with someone the mother disapproved of and this was the source of the falling out.
I don't know if the daughter did try to reconcile with her mother, but the daughter is still with the man she eloped with (and they have 5 kids together) so I wouldn't be surprised if the mother dug her heels in and cut the daughter off in spite.
The judge decided that the mother was acting in spite as she had no previous history of donating to the charities and so the daughter should get a slice of the money in respect of it coming originally from her dad.
It maybe the start of a move to be more like France where you cannot cut out family members as the estate is seen as a family asset, not an individual's.
I don't know why people are giving the daughter a hard time. The mother "consistently undermined reconciliation attempts" according to the QC. It's not for want of trying that the daughter was never reconciled with her mother.
From what I've read the case is a bit unusual.
The father died in an industrial accident two months before the daughters birth - family was awarded a large sum in compensation.
When the daughter was 17 she eloped with someone the mother disapproved of and this was the source of the falling out.
I don't know if the daughter did try to reconcile with her mother, but the daughter is still with the man she eloped with (and they have 5 kids together) so I wouldn't be surprised if the mother dug her heels in and cut the daughter off in spite.
The judge decided that the mother was acting in spite as she had no previous history of donating to the charities and so the daughter should get a slice of the money in respect of it coming originally from her dad.
It maybe the start of a move to be more like France where you cannot cut out family members as the estate is seen as a family asset, not an individual's.
I would want to cut one member of my family out. If this does set a precedent then I will simply set up a lifetime trust in favour of the person I want to leave my estate to.
But in the example you just gave the parents would have been acting reasonably and most likely would not have their wishes overturned.
So if the woman donated all her wealth before she died the money grabbing daughter should have a claim against the charities to get it get as it was an "unreasonable" donation?
It's a bad ruling. If the government wants to introduce a law specifying the minimum provision for children (as exists in Scotland) then fine. But the courts should not be making law merely interpreting what exists.
I don't know why people are giving the daughter a hard time. The mother "consistently undermined reconciliation attempts" according to the QC. It's not for want of trying that the daughter was never reconciled with her mother.
Its not about giving the daughter a hard time its about the mother doing what she wants with her money
From what I've read the case is a bit unusual.
The father died in an industrial accident two months before the daughters birth - family was awarded a large sum in compensation.
When the daughter was 17 she eloped with someone the mother disapproved of and this was the source of the falling out.
I don't know if the daughter did try to reconcile with her mother, but the daughter is still with the man she eloped with (and they have 5 kids together) so I wouldn't be surprised if the mother dug her heels in and cut the daughter off in spite.
The judge decided that the mother was acting in spite as she had no previous history of donating to the charities and so the daughter should get a slice of the money in respect of it coming originally from her dad.
It maybe the start of a move to be more like France where you cannot cut out family members as the estate is seen as a family asset, not an individual's.
The ins and outs of relationships like that are not a matter for the court, surely. A person's money is their own, regardless of our disapproval of someone's actions. You can't be certain of the wrongs and rights in such situations. The daughter may have attempted reconciliation with strings attached or just claimed she did, with an eye to the future, at the same time as behaving unreasonably for all anyone knows.(Not saying she did, just saying these sort of family issues are rarely black and white and the mother isn't here to contest what the daughter claims about it, even if that should be relevant (and I don't think it should be)).
The only good reason I can see is that the court saw the money as not being just for the mother since it came from damages from an accident to the father so as a family asset, as you say.
I don't see how a court can be sure whether or not someone has a soft spot for a charity, just because they haven't expressed it in the past to anyone's certain knowledge.
I don't know why people are giving the daughter a hard time. The mother "consistently undermined reconciliation attempts" according to the QC. It's not for want of trying that the daughter was never reconciled with her mother.
Its not about giving the daughter a hard time its about the mother doing what she wants with her money
Even though the money came from the father's early death? Would he have wanted to see his daughter and five grandkids denied that cash and it go to the RSPCA instead?
Honestly though, I'd be a lot more outraged if the mother seemingly wasn't such a spiteful cow. Never forgiving your daughter for her doing something so inconsequental as eloping?
It maybe the start of a move to be more like France where you cannot cut out family members as the estate is seen as a family asset, not an individual's.
which is wrong as far as I am concerned. It is my money and how I want to leave it is down to me. If it is money that comes from my hard earned wages or from carefully chosen investments then it is not family money but my money and mine to do what I wish with. What next, stopping pensioners from spending all their money before their death just so they can leave their grown up children something, stopping them selling the "family" home so that they can leave it to their children whether they want to or not.
I think it is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent, what is the point of making wills if a judge can overrule your wishes.
Even if a will is malicious, it was that woman's money and she had the right to decide what happened to it. Shame on the daughter, she didn't see her mother for years but is like a vulture over the money.
According to the BBC it was the mother who distanced herself from her daughter and five grandchildren. Shame given the ruling that it wasn't all handed over. I say this as the move to give it to animal charities she had no connection with was clearly done to make a point.
which is wrong as far as I am concerned. It is my money and how I want to leave it is down to me. If it is money that comes from my hard earned wages or from carefully chosen investments then it is not family money but my money and mine to do what I wish with. What next, stopping pensioners from spending all their money before their death just so they can leave their grown up children something, stopping them selling the "family" home so that they can leave it to their children whether they want to or not.
We should be considering this case. If that money awarded for the death of the father was for the family and not just the mother why should she get to decide it all goes to charity?
It shouldn't matter how unreasonable a person is being in their will. Its their money.
I would argue that it does matter if it means a son or daughter loses out on a significant inheritance for no other reason than the deceased parent was a spiteful old bag.
I expect people's opinions would be different if it were them in the daughter's position.
Even though the money came from the father's early death? Would he have wanted to see his daughter and five grandkids denied that cash and it go to the RSPCA instead?
Yes. The point is the money received on the husband's death was for the wife/mother and for the daughter whilst she was being brought up. Beyond that the money then becomes the Mother's. Otherwise, the daughter would have been listed as a separate beneficiary who would have inherited from her Father upon reaching a certain age.
You cannot will money to one person (in this case the mother) and state whom they should will the remains of that money to (the daughter) when they die.
We should be considering this case. If that money awarded for the death of the father was for the family and not just the mother why should she get to decide it all goes to charity?
If it was in a family trust then it wouldn't be part of the mother's estate. If it was given to the mother then it would reasonably be for supporting the mother for life and for the children up to the age of majority (18/21/25). No way would a injury compensation payment be calculated to support the daughter doing sweet FA aged 50.
I would argue that it does matter if it means a son or daughter loses out on a significant inheritance for no other reason than the deceased parent was a spiteful old bag.
I expect people's opinions would be different if it were them in the daughter's position.
You could equally say the same about people if they were in the mother's position of having their testamentary wishes undermined.
I prefer to think people are just saying what they think is right in this situation.
In future, I guess people in similar situations will just send regular donations to the charity to show a connection or ensure this doesn't happen in some other way, if the judgment isn't overturned.
Yes. The point is the money received on the husband's death was for the wife/mother and for the daughter whilst she was being brought up. Beyond that the money then becomes the Mother's. Otherwise, the daughter would have been listed as a separate beneficiary who would have inherited from her Father upon reaching a certain age.
You cannot will money to one person (in this case the mother) and state whom they should will the remains of that money to (the daughter) when they die.
The father wouldnt have been able to forsee the mother disowning the child. I think its fair if he had known that he would want a pecentage of the money to go the child. Besides I dont think its insurance money it is money awarded by the state or court because it was a death at work. He couldnt have forseen or anticipated the money and had no say in how it was divided up
We should be considering this case. If that money awarded for the death of the father was for the family and not just the mother why should she get to decide it all goes to charity?
I think after 50 odd years that money would have been long gone.
If it was in a family trust then it wouldn't be part of the mother's estate. If it was given to the mother then it would reasonably be for supporting the mother for life and for the children up to the age of majority (18/21/25). No way would a injury compensation payment be calculated to support the daughter doing sweet FA aged 50.
The father wouldnt have been able to forsee the mother disowning the child. I think its fair if he had known that he would want a pecentage of the money to go the child. Besides I dont think its insurance money it is money awarded by the state or court because it was a death at work. He couldnt have forseen or anticipated the money and had no say in how it was divided up
True, this us why we have courts to make reasoned judgements in the absence of people being reasonable themselves.
In this case I think the mother was unreasonable leaving it to the dogs' home and it hopefully won't have any bearing on most other wills which are reasonable.
True, this us why we have courts to make reasoned judgements in the absence of people being reasonable themselves.
In this case I think the mother was unreasonable leaving it to the dogs' home and it hopefully won't have any bearing on most other wills which are reasonable.
But you are happy for anyone who feels that they are "unreasonably excluded" to drag the execution of the wills into the court system?
This will cause havoc with divorces - what if a remarried person favours their new family over their old - who wins?
And why should the courts decide in the absence of any clear law?
Comments
Even if a will is malicious, it was that woman's money and she had the right to decide what happened to it. Shame on the daughter, she didn't see her mother for years but is like a vulture over the money.
The deceased person can't give their side of the story, either. The mother in this case may not have had any obvious connection to the charities she left her money to but may have had a soft spot for the causes for all anyone knows, for instance, and always had a mental, unwritten, intention to do so, once she'd decided not to leave the money to her child.
People are entitled to make unwise or nasty decisions, even if those decisions should be disapproved of. The court in future cases may have to then examine why someone didn't make different decisions in their own lives so as not to be in straitened circumstances.
Outside of promises made in exchange for something, such as care, and normal obligations, such as tax and debt payment, a person's money is their own.
I am surprised at the court's decision. Don't know the details, of course, and don't know if it's being reported by the media correctly, but it's unusual for English law, i think. More in line with forced heirship in civil law countries. Would be interesting to read the judgment.
It shouldn't matter how unreasonable a person is being in their will. Its their money.
The father died in an industrial accident two months before the daughters birth - family was awarded a large sum in compensation.
When the daughter was 17 she eloped with someone the mother disapproved of and this was the source of the falling out.
I don't know if the daughter did try to reconcile with her mother, but the daughter is still with the man she eloped with (and they have 5 kids together) so I wouldn't be surprised if the mother dug her heels in and cut the daughter off in spite.
The judge decided that the mother was acting in spite as she had no previous history of donating to the charities and so the daughter should get a slice of the money in respect of it coming originally from her dad.
It maybe the start of a move to be more like France where you cannot cut out family members as the estate is seen as a family asset, not an individual's.
I would want to cut one member of my family out. If this does set a precedent then I will simply set up a lifetime trust in favour of the person I want to leave my estate to.
So if the woman donated all her wealth before she died the money grabbing daughter should have a claim against the charities to get it get as it was an "unreasonable" donation?
It's a bad ruling. If the government wants to introduce a law specifying the minimum provision for children (as exists in Scotland) then fine. But the courts should not be making law merely interpreting what exists.
Its not about giving the daughter a hard time its about the mother doing what she wants with her money
The only good reason I can see is that the court saw the money as not being just for the mother since it came from damages from an accident to the father so as a family asset, as you say.
I don't see how a court can be sure whether or not someone has a soft spot for a charity, just because they haven't expressed it in the past to anyone's certain knowledge.
There is no law that forces people to be nice.
Even though the money came from the father's early death? Would he have wanted to see his daughter and five grandkids denied that cash and it go to the RSPCA instead?
It is for some in this thread.
Honestly though, I'd be a lot more outraged if the mother seemingly wasn't such a spiteful cow. Never forgiving your daughter for her doing something so inconsequental as eloping?
which is wrong as far as I am concerned. It is my money and how I want to leave it is down to me. If it is money that comes from my hard earned wages or from carefully chosen investments then it is not family money but my money and mine to do what I wish with. What next, stopping pensioners from spending all their money before their death just so they can leave their grown up children something, stopping them selling the "family" home so that they can leave it to their children whether they want to or not.
According to the BBC it was the mother who distanced herself from her daughter and five grandchildren. Shame given the ruling that it wasn't all handed over. I say this as the move to give it to animal charities she had no connection with was clearly done to make a point.
We should be considering this case. If that money awarded for the death of the father was for the family and not just the mother why should she get to decide it all goes to charity?
I would argue that it does matter if it means a son or daughter loses out on a significant inheritance for no other reason than the deceased parent was a spiteful old bag.
I expect people's opinions would be different if it were them in the daughter's position.
Yes. The point is the money received on the husband's death was for the wife/mother and for the daughter whilst she was being brought up. Beyond that the money then becomes the Mother's. Otherwise, the daughter would have been listed as a separate beneficiary who would have inherited from her Father upon reaching a certain age.
You cannot will money to one person (in this case the mother) and state whom they should will the remains of that money to (the daughter) when they die.
If it was in a family trust then it wouldn't be part of the mother's estate. If it was given to the mother then it would reasonably be for supporting the mother for life and for the children up to the age of majority (18/21/25). No way would a injury compensation payment be calculated to support the daughter doing sweet FA aged 50.
I prefer to think people are just saying what they think is right in this situation.
In future, I guess people in similar situations will just send regular donations to the charity to show a connection or ensure this doesn't happen in some other way, if the judgment isn't overturned.
The father wouldnt have been able to forsee the mother disowning the child. I think its fair if he had known that he would want a pecentage of the money to go the child. Besides I dont think its insurance money it is money awarded by the state or court because it was a death at work. He couldnt have forseen or anticipated the money and had no say in how it was divided up
I think after 50 odd years that money would have been long gone.
True ..
True, this us why we have courts to make reasoned judgements in the absence of people being reasonable themselves.
In this case I think the mother was unreasonable leaving it to the dogs' home and it hopefully won't have any bearing on most other wills which are reasonable.
But you are happy for anyone who feels that they are "unreasonably excluded" to drag the execution of the wills into the court system?
This will cause havoc with divorces - what if a remarried person favours their new family over their old - who wins?
And why should the courts decide in the absence of any clear law?