Judge overturns Mother's will

[Cyclone 10]

That's the bit that has been referred to several times, AFAIK it makes no reference to having to justify disinheriting someone, I'll have a closer look now.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2015 at 09:46 ----------

 

Nope, nothing in there about justifying leaving someone out of a will or leaving things to 3rd parties.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2015 at 09:48 ----------

 

From the telegraph

 

The fact that Mrs Jackson had little connection to the charities to which she left her money played a part in the ruling, the judges said.

Legal experts said the ruling had implications for how people needed to draw up their wills. They said it suggested that people would in future have to explain their reasons for why they had left money to certain parties and demonstrate tangible connections to them.

It will also make it easier for adult children who are disinherited by their parents to challenge their wills and gain a proportion of any estate, according to lawyers.

 

See words in bold. This is a new thing (I think), not an existing thing, and the solicitors who drew up the will 8 years ago couldn't know to do this.

[L00b 441]

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

 

Is this it ?

Looks like it, good spot/link. Section 10(6) in particular:

10. Dispositions intended to defeat applications for financial provision.

<...>

(6) In determining whether and in what manner to exercise its powers under this section, the court shall have regard to the circumstances in which any disposition was made and any valuable consideration which was given therefor, the relationship, if any, of the donee to the deceased, the conduct and financial resources of the donee and all the other circumstances of the case.

But that's the statutory provision (the 'raw' law), not the legal test (which is used to check whether a particular case, on its facts, falls within the statutory provision or not), e.g. 'what constitutes a relationship and what doesn't'.

Edited July 30, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone 10]

And in this case there doesn't seem to have been any question about the relationship, the court was fully informed of it's state.

The idea of writing justifications for disinheritance and/or gifting to other 3rd parties have arisen as a result of this case, they're not written into the law and haven't been common practice in the past.

[L00b 441]

The idea of writing justifications for disinheritance and/or gifting to other 3rd parties have arisen as a result of this case, they're not written into the law and haven't been common practice in the past.

Agreed.

 

That's why I referred to this decision as creating a 'new' legal test (or, well, at least modifying any earlier existing one substantially).

 

The Statutes (S.10(6) above, if the correct provision) haven't changed, and aren't going to change (that's Parliament's job, not the Judge's).

 

But the interpretation of the Statutes in view of the facts of any future case, i.e. how the "relationship if any" component within it is assessed, what weight it carries in the Court's exercise of its discretion, has now changed: if there's no relationship between the deceased and the donee, the Court can overturn the will.

Edited July 30, 2015 by L00b

[Zamo 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.

 

You've read the will in question then?

 

The reports say she left a letter with the will explaining why she disinherited the daughter (for eloping) but the judges decided that was unreasonable. In my opinion judges need to limit themselves to what is legal when there is no evidence the will maker was not sound of mind.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

This will probably be the case going forwards, but wasn't normal in the past, at least that's how it appears given the ruling and the comments by legal experts afterwards.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2015 at 10:09 ----------

 

You've read the will in question then?

 

The reports say she left a letter with the will explaining why she disinherited the daughter (for eloping) but the judges decided that was unreasonable. In my opinion judges need to limit themselves to what is legal when there is no evidence the will maker was not sound of mind.

 

The judges did limit themselves to the law, the law says that offspring must be made reasonable provision for.

[I1L2T3 10]

This will probably be the case going forwards, but wasn't normal in the past, at least that's how it appears given the ruling and the comments by legal experts afterwards.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2015 at 10:09 ----------

 

 

The judges did limit themselves to the law, the law says that offspring must be made reasonable provision for.

 

I can assure you it was absolutely the case 5 years ago when I helped out a relative. And it will have been standard advice long before then in response to the 1975 act.

 

This is not new as I said. The case we are discussing hinged on the tightness of the reasoning for disinheriting the daughter, and the provision for legal challenges to wills that had already in place after 1975.

 

There is not one single thing about the outcome that should surprise anyone, and as already pointed out the judgement had already been made in the daughter's favour long ago. The latest judgement regarded simply an increase in the size of the award.

 

As for changing who an estate is divided after death it is also possible to do that too. All it takes is for a simple deed of variation to be drawn up in which all beneficiaries agree to vary their share. The charities could have done that in 2007 and avoided 8 years of costly litigation.

[Godzilla 10]

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)

 

Yes, I'm reading it! Just remember which side your bread's buttered on

[Cyclone 10]

I can assure you it was absolutely the case 5 years ago when I helped out a relative. And it will have been standard advice long before then in response to the 1975 act.

 

This is not new as I said. The case we are discussing hinged on the tightness of the reasoning for disinheriting the daughter, and the provision for legal challenges to wills that had already in place after 1975.

 

There is not one single thing about the outcome that should surprise anyone, and as already pointed out the judgement had already been made in the daughter's favour long ago. The latest judgement regarded simply an increase in the size of the award.

 

As for changing who an estate is divided after death it is also possible to do that too. All it takes is for a simple deed of variation to be drawn up in which all beneficiaries agree to vary their share. The charities could have done that in 2007 and avoided 8 years of costly litigation.

 

So you can point to the bit of the law (or previous case law) that says disinheriting must be supported by a reason?

[I1L2T3 10]

So you can point to the bit of the law (or previous case law) that says disinheriting must be supported by a reason?

 

I don't need to because it simply doesn't work like that. The steps are simple:

1. Make a will, specify beneficiaries.

2. If you intend to disinherit somebody who can have a valid claim under the 1975 act provide compelling supplementary explanation as to why.

 

If you don't make a good case in step 2 then there is every chance the will can be overturned.

 

The 1975 act is all about defining the scenarios where a challenge can take place. It's 40 years old. The act has provided a basis for changing the distribution of estates since then.

 

As I said the original judgement took place in 2007. The mum died in 2004. She wrote the letter sometime before that which proves my argument that people have been advised to do so for a long time.

 

In this case the letter wasn't compelling enough to overcome a challenge under the 1975 act. That judgement was made 8 years ago.

 

It's blindingly simple.

[Zamo 10]

The judges did limit themselves to the law, the law says that offspring must be made reasonable provision for.

 

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.

[I1L2T3 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 law covers both relatives and dependents, although it is more usual for it to be used to protect children it is not unheard of for adult children to challenge a will.

 

The judgement was made in 2007. This is not new, not some new controversial judgement made in the last few weeks. All the judge has done is change the value of the award originally made in 2007.

 

Wills can be contested and overturned. Happens quite a lot.