Judge overturns Mother's will

[medusa 16]

I won't be inheriting anything from my parents, and I'm completely fine with that. It's their money and they can do with it as they wish (although there are a couple of pieces of their art that I would dearly love to have as a remembrance of them and of time spent together).

 

I don't have children, but in the event that I had children and had deliberately chosen for my estate to go elsewhere I would be livid at the thought of courts intervening and awarding money to someone whom I had specifically disinherited.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

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.

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 a legal test today.

 

Do you understand the difference?

 

I do, honestly I really do.

 

I guess I'm looking at it from a different perspective, in my profession the legal minimum is just the starting point. If you're charging your client for your time, then most of the time the legal minimum is all that they're interested in paying for.

Edited July 28, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

The thing about the law is that lawyers always win.

 

Lawyers set up will.

Judge overturns it.

 

What can other people do to avoid this?

Get lawyers to set up a will.

[L00b 441]

I guess I'm looking at it from a different perspective, in my profession the legal minimum is the just the starting point. If you're charging your client for your time, then most of the time the legal minimum is all that they're interested in paying for.

To the risk of stating the obvious, there is a logical (commonsensical) reason for the existence of a difference between "the legal minimum" and "fit-for-purpose" and again between "fit-for-purpose" and "best-in-class".

 

Same with all commodity-type services (and most legal services are such, in this day and age): you get what you pay for.

 

Though, on-topic, I very much doubt "best-in-class" 8 years ago would have made any difference in this case. That decision really is a curveball.

The thing about the law is that lawyers always win.

 

Lawyers set up will.

Judge overturns it.

 

What can other people do to avoid this?

Get lawyers to set up a will.

The small army of lawyers practicing in the UK on minimum wage disagrees with you. Just saying.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

I wasn't attacking the industry as a whole.

 

Just ... same answers. It's a circular process.

 

PS. Even Legal Aid is paid better than minimum wage.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

To the risk of stating the obvious, there is a logical (commonsensical) reason for the existence of a difference between "the legal minimum" and "fit-for-purpose" and again between "fit-for-purpose" and "best-in-class".

 

Same with all commodity-type services (and most legal services are such, in this day and age): you get what you pay for.

 

Though, on-topic, I very much doubt "best-in-class" 8 years ago would have made any difference in this case. That decision really is a curveball.

 

As a matter of interest, if someone went to a law firm and said that they'd like the law firm to organise a will, but they'd expect the will to be contested. Would the the law firm be a lot more thorough on how the will was composed and would this cost the client?

[L00b 441]

I wasn't attacking the industry as a whole.

 

Just ... same answers. It's a circular process.

"The thing about the law is that lawyers always win"

 

Fooled me there, you did.

PS. Even Legal Aid is paid better than minimum wage.

PS. You appear to assume that solicitors who provide representation under Legal Aid get all of the Legal Aid money. You assume wrong. Them back office overheads and partners' share gotta be taken care of

As a matter of interest, if someone went to a law firm and said that they'd like the law firm to organise a will, but they'd expect the will to be contested. Would the law firm be a lot more thorough on how the will was composed and would this cost the client?

No idea in practice, but under the SRA Code of Conduct, I'd expect the answers to be yes and yes, simply because they'd be made aware of the client's particular circumstances and be duty-bound to protect the client's best interests. Don't know about 'a lot more thorough', but expect at least 'different in some or many respects'. Under the SRA Code of Conduct still, I'd also expect them to first explain to the client why it's going cost and estimate how much (over and above the off-the-shelf service). Then it's up to the client to shop elsewhere, take their chances with the off-the-shelf, or pay for the extra expertise.

[taxman 12]

If the daughter was as hard up as she claims surely she should have gleefully accepted the £50,000 she was awarded after the first hearing.

 

Also what if she doesn't use the money for buying her property, what if she chooses to snort it or holiday it all away? Will she still get her state benefits then?

[Celia Paul 10]

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.

Having seen this happen to close friends of mine I can agree with Judges.

My friends cared for the mother for some years after the death of the father, her son who was always the favourite rarely visited her.

A cousin who was brought as a brother was turned out by the father as he stole from them one time too many.

An Aunt and the mother's solicitor advised the mother to turn the flat over to my friend and his brother.

The mother became seriously ill and once again the care was down to my friends.

On the mother's 80th birthday once again it was left to my friends to do the catering and while this was going on the mother, brother and cousin were cooking up a plot to say the my friend had stolen a long playing record from the mother.

My friend was cut out of the mother's will and my brother even tried to get my friends share of the flat from him.

My friend took legal advice when the mother was finally taken into care just to get access to the flat as the locks had been changed, when he got access the flat was in a disgusting state that the brother had allowed his mother to live in.

When the mother had moved into the flat it had been completely refurbished.

Once again it was left to my friend and his wife to sort it out with the brother as usual absent.

So I can see where the judges were coming from.

[Tommo68 10]

I can see where wills should be overturned but this is only when the person whose will it was can be shown to be not in their right mind.

 

In this case the money was left to charities which seems totally sane, its not as though they had left it all to their dogs or cats.

 

The judge was out of order in this case and I do hope that his will is totally ignored when he dies.

.

.

.

.

[boyfriday 21]

The judge said the mother had been "unreasonable, capricious and harsh" when she disinherited her daughter for eloping when she was 17.

 

So what? What right does a judge have to put aside a will just because of a person's character? It was the mother's money so she can be as unreasonable, capricious and harsh as she wants.

 

 

(Hope my Mum's not reading this......love you Mum xxx)

 

In this instance I've no qualms with the taxman being a benefactor

[Zamo 10]

No s/he wasn't. Complete overstep of responsibilities here. The deceased made up her mind for a reason and it is ridiculous that the estranged daughter could have that turned over.

 

This also opens up a bearpit of further consequences.

 

Seizing the opportunity to upset tzijlstra... I agree!