Judge overturns Mother's will

[sh3rb3t 10]

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.

 

Then why isn’t it law to make parents provide 'reasonable provision’ for their independent children whilst living? This is what gets me! The mother didn’t have any legal obligation to her estranged daughter when she was alive…

 

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

 

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

 

I see what you are getting at, but that is beside the point in my argument. It isn’t the taking away of her money that is wrong - it is the legal requirement for the children to receive it, despite not having any entitlement to it whilst the parent is alive.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

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

More fool her I guess.

 

You'd have to wonder why the legal firm behind the will didn't advise her appropriately.

[L00b 441]

You'd have to wonder why the legal firm behind the will didn't advise her appropriately.

Er, could that possibly be because the law firm couldn't possibly have known the legal test under which to advise her, 8 years before the Court of Appeal created it as new case law?

 

Contrary to popular belief, us legal types don't have powers of omniscience, nor any time-tested, fully-functioning and calibrated crystal ball

Edited July 28, 2015 by L00b

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Er, could that possibly be because the law firm couldn't possibly have known the legal test under which to advise her, 8 years before the Court of Appeal created it as new case law?

 

Contrary to popular belief, us legal types don't have powers of omniscience, nor any time-tested, fully-functioning and calibrated crystal ball

 

I'm not suggesting that the law firm could have predicted the outcome of the challenge, what I was asking was that maybe they could have seen the ambiguity in the will that may have led to the challenge?

 

I guess though they made a fair bit of money fighting the challenge, so they're one of the winners in this case.

[Cyclone 10]

The will doesn't sound to have been ambiguous in the slightest.

 

Edit - I doubt the law firm that drafted the will were the ones chosen to either defend or to prosecute the case, so it's highly unlikely that they will have made anything from it.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

The will doesn't sound to have been ambiguous in the slightest.

 

Edit - I doubt the law firm that drafted the will were the ones chosen to either defend or to prosecute the case, so it's highly unlikely that they will have made anything from it.

 

I was talking about the ambiguity behind the mothers intentions. If she gave a sound reason as to why she made the will and why she was donating the money to the charity it is thought that the will wouldn't have been challenged.

 

Fair enough comment about the will, I though that they'd have to defend the will because they were involved with putting it together.

[L00b 441]

I was talking about the ambiguity behind the mothers intentions. If she gave a sound reason as to why she made the will and why she was donating the money to the charity it is thought that the will wouldn't have been challenged.

Link in the OP:

Melita Jackson wrote a letter explaining why she was not leaving a penny to Heather Ilott, who eloped when she was 17.

What she was missing, is a statement or explanation of her relationship (if any) with the charities of choice. The CA used that omission to help justify its decision.

 

Nothing the will-writing law firm of the time could have envisaged or advised about 8 years ago, since no will leaving inheritance to charities had ever been successfully challenged on the basis of a lack of positive/causal relationship between the deceased and the charities of choice. Until now.

 

But a standard aspect of will-writing as from today, that you can be sure of.

 

Do you enjoy living in a common law jurisdiction? Instances like that come with the territory I'm afraid: the law is what it is and what you get advised under, until a Judge changes it

Edited July 28, 2015 by L00b

[geared 302]

Then why isn’t it law to make parents provide 'reasonable provision’ for their independent children whilst living? This is what gets me! The mother didn’t have any legal obligation to her estranged daughter when she was alive…

 

Perhaps there now will be??

The government seems to pushing things in that direction, although to age 18-21.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Link in the OP:

What she was missing, is a statement or explanation of her relationship (if any) with the charities of choice. The CA used that omission to help justify its decision.

 

Nothing the will-writing law firm of the time could have envisaged or advised about 8 years ago, since no will leaving inheritance to charities had ever been successfully challenged on the basis of a lack of positive/causal relationship between the deceased and the charities of choice. Until now.

 

But a standard aspect of will-writing as from today, that you can be sure of.

 

Do you enjoy living in a common law jurisdiction? Instances like that come with the territory I'm afraid: the law is what it is and what you get advised under, until a Judge changes it

 

To answer you question in the final paragraph. Yes, I have no issue, I also have no issue with the ruling.

 

I accept that I took the advice out of context with the case that we're talking about, and the advice was aimed towards anyone writing a will.

 

My point was that it shouldn't come as any surprise to the firm that organised the will that we do have a fluid legal system in relation to common law, and maybe they should have taken into account the chance that laws get challenged and they should avoided the ambiguity.

[Cyclone 10]

There was no ambiguity to avoid. The will was perfectly clear what her intentions were.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

There was no ambiguity to avoid. The will was perfectly clear what her intentions were.

 

There was an ambiguity as to why she was donating to the charities.

[L00b 441]

My point was that it shouldn't come as any surprise to the firm that organised the will that we do have a fluid legal system in relation to common law, and maybe they should have taken into account the chance that laws get challenged and they should avoided the ambiguity.

Try as you might, that's just hindsight JFK.

 

Absolute futurepoofing cannot exist by the very virtue of the evolving-on-the-fly (your 'fluid') character of the Common law Legal system.

 

Sure, you can try and copper-fasten best you can, and all commercial solicitors drafting agreements have long been at it day-in, day-out. Until a Judge decides a clause is unenforceable (and you'd better make sure you included a relevant clause governing the severability of unenforceable clauses to ensure survivability for the rest of the will/contract/agreement).

 

It's gonna cost you a fair bit more than the £100 or so many template will-fillers charge. One to two extra zeros, possibly more, subject to the complexity of one's estate and affairs. And no guarantees of absolute futureproofing, of course. Can't see that catching on en masse, like

There was an ambiguity as to why she was donating to the charities.

It's not as if there haven't been a few hundreds of thousands if not meeelions willing their estate to charities for the past umpteen decades if not longer.

 

You and any lay person or legal adviser can say that today, with the hindsight afforded by the CA decision.

 

The legal fact is, there was no ambiguity until the Court of Appeal's decision introduced this ambiguity as part of a new legal test today.

 

Do you understand the difference?

Edited July 28, 2015 by L00b