Judge overturns Mother's will

[MintPlumbing 10]

 

The judge has deliberately set the amount to be given such that it won't reduce her benefits entitlement (according to the telegraph).

 

A friend lost her benefits after an inheritance of £30K even though she had already given the money to her kids. I felt sorry for her even though I agreed with the decision to stop her benefits.

[Cyclone 10]

I never said that I did.

 

I just think that you've formed an opinion without even bothering to find out the details of what has happened.

 

---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 13:49 ----------

 

The Court of Appeal is not the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court is.

 

Though I very much doubt the charities in question may put the kind of legal fees required on the table to go that high and run it to a ruling. There isn't enough from the estate, and the likelihood of recovering costs from the daughter in case of a win is nil.

 

Good point, confusing system

[poppet2 13]

Why should she give good reason. Its her money. She can do with it as she sees fit thats the whole point of a will isnt it?

 

A solicitor stated on the radio today, that if a person leaving a will gives their reasons for cutting close family members out of the will and this is challenged, then judges will take these points into consideration.

 

But such details should be written in a Separate private letter.

 

Reason being, all wills are eventually made public and if 'the reasons' were written in the actual will, this could cause more resentment once published and seen by other members of the family.

[milquetoast1 10]

Then its to do with as she pleases not the daughter or the state. But unfortunatly because of a law we have to ensure that an adult (daughter) inherits money from the mother even though the mother expressly forbids it.

 

It's everything to do with the state, we all share the responsibility for our society. Wealth is not acquired separate from society.

 

The state does tell people how to spend their money, in taxes, pensions, fines, CSA payments etc.

 

The state could decide that inheritance tax was 100%. That would be fine in many people's opinions (not mine).

 

If the French state has determined that at least 10% should always be left to children, irrespective of whether you like them or not, to ensure the burden on the state is minimised, that's fine in my opinion.

 

If our state determines that we shouldn't cut our children out of our inheritance without good reason, to ensure the burden on the state is minimised, then that's also fine in my opinion.

[geared 302]

The Judge i think was totally wrong to overturn the will as it was the womens last wishes, if its left to stand then it sets a precedent for all future wills where a relative has been cut out.

i am guessing that the charity or whatever will be launching an immediate appeal?? and rightly so

 

It depends on what level of court the decision has been made in, and if there is any further avenue for appeal from there.

They might not want to though, as the charities still have £400,000 to split between themselves anyway.

 

It looks like the woman was a nasty spiteful old hag, and in the eyes of the law has unlawfully cut her only child out.

[sh3rb3t 10]

When a child reaches 18, barring health issues, they are independent. The law does not interfere with living parents' rights to withhold their money from any adult offspring, so why should it interfere once they are deceased?

[poppet2 13]

Considering how many years this appeal has taken, I believe 8, I'm surprised there is any money left from the estate after lawyers fees have been paid!

[milquetoast1 10]

Though I very much doubt the charities in question may put the kind of legal fees required on the table to go that high and run it to a ruling. There isn't enough from the estate, and the likelihood of recovering costs from the daughter in case of a win is nil. Lose-lose for them, unless they get benefactor sponsor(s).

 

The animal charities in question will collect a lot of inheritance cash from old biddies. I recall a radio programme about some of these charities wallowing in cash that they didn't know what to do with.

 

I suspect it might be in their interest to challenge the decision irrespective of cost.

[L00b 441]

If the French state has determined that at least 10% should always be left to children, irrespective of whether you like them or not, to ensure the burden on the state is minimised, that's fine in my opinion.

 

If our state determines that we shouldn't cut our children out of our inheritance without good reason, to ensure the burden on the state is minimised, then that's also fine in my opinion.

There's a small problem with the practicals, however.

 

France is a civil law jurisdiction in which Judges just 'apply the tariff' set by the State (e.g. guaranteed share of inheritance to progeny, decided by the State as a matter of national interest as you suggest...however, and perhaps unsurprisingly, it was nothing so socially-progressive or altruistic that prompted this legal update: France was very severely rapped by the EU ECHR in early 2000 on the back of the Mazurek case, and ordered to sort its inheritance laws in view of the long-enduring spoliation of illegitimate children in matters of inheritance).

 

The UK is a common law jurisdiction in which Judges make it up as they go along (guided as they are by precedent) whatever the State says (note: this is A Good Thing™).

 

I'm not sure where the poster who mentioned the 10% got that from, would be interested to see a link or reference. What does exist is the "action en retranchement" ('clawback proceedings') for children born from of a first bed under articles 1094-1 and 1527 of the French Civil Code, under which such children can contest a will leaving everything to the inheritor (typically, stepmother) and wherein the deceased's estate is split between property and its beneficial interest ('usufruit'). Article 1094-1 sets out the tariff at either 1/4 property and 3/4 beneficial interest or 4/4 beneficial interest to the inheritor (so the balance, 3/4 property and 1/4 beneficial interest (or 4/4 property) presumably to the children...it's fairly equivocal/difficult phrasing).

Edited July 28, 2015 by L00b
added linky

[Cyclone 10]

When a child reaches 18, barring health issues, they are independent. The law does not interfere with living parents' rights to withhold their money from any adult offspring, so why should it interfere once they are deceased?

 

Why should it take 40% of any estate over 375k?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

When a child reaches 18, barring health issues, they are independent. The law does not interfere with living parents' rights to withhold their money from any adult offspring, so why should it interfere once they are deceased?

 

On the BBC website a legal expert is quoted as saying that if the mother had explained in her will why she was disinheriting her daughter and explained the link between her and the organisations she was inheriting to, the will would have been honoured.

[geared 302]

When a child reaches 18, barring health issues, they are independent. The law does not interfere with living parents' rights to withhold their money from any adult offspring, so why should it interfere once they are deceased?

 

because it's law to leave 'reasonable provision' and now the judges have decided this can also extend to adult offspring as well.

They did also say the woman now should find a job.

 

---------- Post added 28-07-2015 at 14:25 ----------

 

On the BBC website a legal expert is quoted as saying that if the mother had explained in her will why she was disinheriting her daughter and explained the link between her and the organisations she was inheriting to, the will would have been honoured.

 

So if she had written the will with a calm head, and not totally out of spite???

More fool her I guess.