Judge overturns Mother's will

[liza D 10]

No, What right has the courts to go against someones last wishes.

 

I know how it feels to have a parent leave you out of the will (My father left everything to his "seeking a passport" wife of only 14mths ). Myself and my brothers and sisters not a thing. We weren't even allowed to take a momento she chucked all she didn't want in the bin.

It would have cost us thousands and still probably not been able to have it overturned and we had a good case.

But was told the law on wills is more or less sacrosanct for obvious reasons. Not any more it seems.

[Cyclone 10]

Why do people keep saying things like "what right". The right comes from the law that has been mentioned several times.

 

---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 07:32 ----------

 

 

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

 

THREE judges.

 

Why comment if you can't be bothered to get basic facts right?

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

Meh. Retracted.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Chris_Sleeps
Delete if you wish.

[L00b 441]

Patronising me will retract likewise, out of courtesy.

Edited July 29, 2015 by L00b

[Celia Paul 10]

Originally Posted by tzijlstra

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!

I'll second, third and forth that.

[I1L2T3 10]

The daughter had a perfectly valid claim as it is the job of the will maker and legal team to make the will watertight. If you are going to write somebody out who would otherwise be a beneficiary you need to clearly state in an attached document why you are doing it. In addition if you are going to make seemingly unconnected third parties beneficiaries you need to explain that too. Setting this up takes a couple of hours and doesn't even need a solicitor - you just need to write a letter, sign it and attach it to the will. If you want it really watertight then take it to a solicitor and get it witnessed. £100 Max. Even better get a doctor to certify you're of sound mind when you do it.

 

I can understand the moral outrage here. It seems wrong in some ways but in legal terms, with the amount of money available, it was a perfectly predictable outcome. If I was the daughter I'd have done the same.

 

Incidentally I went through exactly this 5 years ago helping an elderly relative write out two estranged sons he hasn't seen for over 40 years. Challenges from them were successfully fended off.

[cgksheff 44]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of this is that the latest appeal has made no decision regarding the actual overturning of the will.

That was done years ago, by a different court.

 

This appeal was just dealing with the size of the share to go to the daughter.

 

As usual our press and other media, choose to ignore this in order to sensationalise the issue.

[Cyclone 10]

The daughter had a perfectly valid claim as it is the job of the will maker and legal team to make the will watertight. If you are going to write somebody out who would otherwise be a beneficiary you need to clearly state in an attached document why you are doing it. In addition if you are going to make seemingly unconnected third parties beneficiaries you need to explain that too. Setting this up takes a couple of hours and doesn't even need a solicitor - you just need to write a letter, sign it and attach it to the will. If you want it really watertight then take it to a solicitor and get it witnessed. £100 Max. Even better get a doctor to certify you're of sound mind when you do it.

You're stating this like it's a well known procedure and/or part of the law.

 

It isn't. It's entirely new and made up by the judges in this case.

[I1L2T3 10]

You're stating this like it's a well known procedure and/or part of the law.

 

It isn't. It's entirely new and made up by the judges in this case.

 

 

No it's not new. The law around this has been in place since 1975.

[Ms Macbeth 73]

There was a family court lawyer interviewed on radio 5-live this morning who picked up on one of the Judges talking about the fact that the mother had received a big payout following the death of her husband in an industrial accident, before the daughter was born. The lawyer summised that the judges may have seen some of this money as being morally due to the daughter, and thus included this in their decision.

 

I don't know if she was right to suggest this, as I don't think that the judges specifically linked the two.

 

I read about the fathers death through an industrial accident. I think the compensation paid when his daughter was an infant had a lot to do with the outcome. Usually money awarded in those circumstances is for the benefit of any children as well as the widow/er of the deceased. Perhaps very little had ever been spent on, or shared with the daughter. If that was the case then I can understand why the decision to give her a share was made.

[Cyclone 10]

No it's not new. The law around this has been in place since 1975.

 

Go on then, link please.

 

Because every other source I've read about this has said that this is a new thing that the appeal court has just made up.

[Daven 10]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63

 

Is this it ?