Judge overturns Mother's will

[Eater Sundae 12]

Which for the last 45 years has be interpreted as provision for dependant children... not adult offspring.

 

The woman gave her reason for excluding the daughter from inheriting anything but the judges decided the reasons were mean and therefore not legal, even though there is no question she was of sound mind. It is a bad decision because it is frankly nobody else's business if she is mean or not. If this is in fact the right interpretation of the law then the law needs to be rewritten.

 

Surely if the lawmakers had intended that the law should only apply to dependant children, then they would have said that.

[Zamo 10]

Surely if the lawmakers had intended that the law should only apply to dependant children, then they would have said that.

 

What does the law say? Do you know? What is more important to you... complying with the letter of the law or the spirit?

 

I'm afraid it isn't unusual for people to seek to bastardised laws for their own ends. What should focus on is policy intent behind the making of the law. The law was clearly intended to ensure people made provision for their children upon their death so as not to place burden on the state or others. It was not intended to stop a parent being mean to grown-up offspring. It's a crap judgement and only someone with a pathetic jobs-worth outlook could think otherwise.

[Eater Sundae 12]

What does the law say? Do you know? What is more important to you... complying with the letter of the law or the spirit?

 

I'm afraid it isn't unusual for people to seek to bastardised laws for their own ends. What should focus on is policy intent behind the making of the law. The law was clearly intended to ensure people made provision for their children upon their death so as not to place burden on the state or others. It was not intended to stop a parent being mean to grown-up offspring. It's a crap judgement and only someone with a pathetic jobs-worth outlook could think otherwise.

 

No, I don't know what the law says. How about you tell us. You've decided that you know what the intent of the law was. How do you know you are right?

 

The judges can only go on what was written in the law. If the lawmakers got it wrong, and it doesn't say what they intended it to mean, then it is up to the current lawmakers to change the law. Until they do, the judges should follow the word. They should not suppose a specific intent just because someone on an internet forum doesn't like the outcome in this case.

[I1L2T3 10]

What does the law say? Do you know? What is more important to you... complying with the letter of the law or the spirit?

 

I'm afraid it isn't unusual for people to seek to bastardised laws for their own ends. What should focus on is policy intent behind the making of the law. The law was clearly intended to ensure people made provision for their children upon their death so as not to place burden on the state or others. It was not intended to stop a parent being mean to grown-up offspring. It's a crap judgement and only someone with a pathetic jobs-worth outlook could think otherwise.

 

The law allows for relatives and children to contest a will. It also allows judges a lot of discretion in deciding how to distribute an estate. Therefore a will can be overturned (for a multitude of reasons) and this has happened countless times since 1975, including in this case in 2007. This case was decided 8 years ago!!!

 

Meanwhile, other breaking news from 2007: Sheffield is flooded, Sarkozy becomes president of France, Northern Rock goes bust...........

[Cyclone 10]

Which for the last 45 years has be interpreted as provision for dependant children... not adult offspring.

 

The woman gave her reason for excluding the daughter from inheriting anything but the judges decided the reasons were mean and therefore not legal, even though there is no question she was of sound mind. It is a bad decision because it is frankly nobody else's business if she is mean or not. If this is in fact the right interpretation of the law then the law needs to be rewritten.

 

The same section of the law talks about spouses, and the recently divorced, so it's definitely not written with only children in mind.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 07:30 ----------

 

It's blindingly simple.

 

So blindingly simple that legal experts have since said that people will NOW need to justify leaving money to 3rd parties and give reasons for disinheriting.

[I1L2T3 10]

The same section of the law talks about spouses, and the recently divorced, so it's definitely not written with only children in mind.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 07:30 ----------

 

 

So blindingly simple that legal experts have since said that people will NOW need to justify leaving money to 3rd parties and give reasons for disinheriting.

 

People have been needing to do that for years. It's why the mum would have been advised to do it before she died in 2004. It's why a relative of mine did it 5 years ago.

 

This is not new but rather a reinforcement and strengthening of existing advice.

[Zamo 10]

The same section of the law talks about spouses, and the recently divorced, so it's definitely not written with only children in mind.

 

For years the legal system has worked on the basis that 'reasonable provision' applies to dependant children not adult offspring. Reasonable provision has to be made for adult partners too but what's that got to do with this case?

 

The judges didn't think the will was fair and looked for a way to justify overturning it. That's wrong in my opinion as the will of the deceased should be respected providing they meet their parental obligations to dependant children. The daughter wasn't a child and the mother gave her reason for the fall out and exclusion... it's wrong to overturn her decision.

[Cyclone 10]

It isn't, because the law doesn't specify dependant children, it just talks about the children of the deceased.

Personally I'm happy to think that 3 judges at the appeal court didn't make this decision on a whim and that they probably had a better understanding of the case and the law than either you or me.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 08:44 ----------

 

People have been needing to do that for years. It's why the mum would have been advised to do it before she died in 2004. It's why a relative of mine did it 5 years ago.

 

This is not new but rather a reinforcement and strengthening of existing advice.

 

5 years ago would of course have been after the original judgement, as you've pointed out.

In this case the letter she sent to her solicitors was an instruction, it wasn't intended to go along with and justify her will.

[woodmally 10]

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

 

This is where the law is ridiculous. It shouldnt matter why she donated to charity its her money to do with as she sees fit.

 

I think following this silly judgement the law should be changed so spongers like her daughter dont get anything in future and might have to do something useful like get a job and sustain herself rather than sponge off others.

[Zamo 10]

It isn't, because the law doesn't specify dependant children, it just talks about the children of the deceased.

Personally I'm happy to think that 3 judges at the appeal court didn't make this decision on a whim and that they probably had a better understanding of the case and the law than either you or me.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 08:44 ----------

 

 

5 years ago would of course have been after the original judgement, as you've pointed out.

In this case the letter she sent to her solicitors was an instruction, it wasn't intended to go along with and justify her will.

 

All technicalities. The outcome is wrong (from most people's perspective) and that means the law should be either reinterpreted or rewritten. Pointing to the small print to justify a wrong outcome is jobsworth style nonsense.

[Cyclone 10]

It's a technicality that the judges understood the case and the law better than you or me? I don't think so.

 

The law is ALL about the small print. It can't be ignored or conveniently forgotten.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 09:18 ----------

 

This is where the law is ridiculous. It shouldnt matter why she donated to charity its her money to do with as she sees fit.

 

I think following this silly judgement the law should be changed so spongers like her daughter dont get anything in future and might have to do something useful like get a job and sustain herself rather than sponge off others.

 

Perhaps as a child she should have sued to have some of the payment from her fathers industrial death settlement put into a trust for her... Some of that (it could be argued) should morally have been hers or used to her benefit, not hoarded by her mother and then given away to strangers.