Reply to: Where there is a will, there is a way

[shaunbhoy]

Allegedly the daughter eloped with the Mother's other half and subsequently popped out a few sprogs with him. I can see why that didn't quite sit right with the old girl.
In retrospect, she could have avoided this unfortunate outcome by simply having gifted her excess cash to the "Maketheincrediblycharmingshaunbhoyconsiderablyric her Foundation".

[Zero Liability]

Totally agree. Nowt to add.

I'll add my agreement and another nowt.

[AtW]

I know from other court cases I know more about than what is published in the media, we don't get to hear some of the interesting facts which sway the judge. I suspect the animal charities were up to no good e.g. were deliberately obstructive when asked repeatedly to give certain documentary evidence to the court.

There are some interesting sites about contesting wills in the UK on the web. Generally if you write a will doing it properly using a solicitor with witnesses, do it at least a good few months before you die and aren't incapacitated when you write it, then it stands.

You are very smart...

What are you doing on this forum?

[SueEllen]

It's her money, if she acted out of spite that only proves it was HER WILL.

I know from other court cases I know more about than what is published in the media, we don't get to hear some of the interesting facts which sway the judge. I suspect the animal charities were up to no good e.g. were deliberately obstructive when asked repeatedly to give certain documentary evidence to the court.

There are some interesting sites about contesting wills in the UK on the web. Generally if you write a will doing it properly using a solicitor with witnesses, do it at least a good few months before you die and aren't incapacitated when you write it, then it stands.

[AtW]

What I read about this case is that the mother didn't have strong links with the animal charities so it can be concluded she acted out of spite.

It's her money, if she acted out of spite that only proves it was HER WILL.

[AtW]

I also heard a Lawyer talk about this and said "If you really want to do this, then give most of it away first. It can't be overruled in the will then as it is already gone."

Overulling that would be next step surely?

[Underbase]

What I read about this case is that the mother didn't have strong links with the animal charities so it can be concluded she acted out of spite.

Also I think judges don't like animal charities very much as this isn't the first case some of them have fought.

The only thing I conclude from this is if you hate your offspring and are elderly leave your money to your cleaner, your home help and the postman.

I also heard a Lawyer talk about this and said "If you really want to do this, then give most of it away first. It can't be overruled in the will then as it is already gone."

[SueEllen]

What I read about this case is that the mother didn't have strong links with the animal charities so it can be concluded she acted out of spite.

Also I think judges don't like animal charities very much as this isn't the first case some of them have fought.

The only thing I conclude from this is if you hate your offspring and are elderly leave your money to your cleaner, your home help and the postman.

[AtW]

person is suddenly befriended by a young gold digger

That's fine actually

[AtW]

It wasn't her money when the will came to be executed - It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.

Courts don't set aside wills on a whim, which would be bad I admit.

Moral of the story - fake your own death to make sure your will is executed as intended and if it's not ...

[unixman]

It was her money and she had proper will. It's crazy that the court is changing it just like this when she explicitly did not want to leave money to her daughter - whatever the reasons it was her money and she was entitled to do what she pleased with them.

Very true and most of the time, probably right. There are a few questionable cases though. Eg when an old or terminally ill person is suddenly befriended by a young gold digger who deliberately persuades them to change their will, poisons them against their family, or takes advantage of their elderly confusion in some way. Possibly forges the will or forces the old timer's hand.

Not sure about this case. The daughter is 54. I would think the "reasonable provision" concept applies up the age of 21 or so, but after that, parents have already made all reasonable provision, legally, to their children. Case law is rather daft. A single judge makes a decision in a small case and that decides the law for good. A but stupid really.

[OwlHoot]

Couple of interesting links on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_contest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_heirship

(I think in France some degree of Forced heirship is imposed by their Napoleonic code)

[Bacchus]

Another benefit scrounger off the books methinks!

except not, if you read the article in the Torygraph

Lady Justice Arden awarded her £164,000 to allow her to buy her housing association home in Ware, Herts, with £20,000 left over to supplement her benefits. The judges drafted the ruling so that she would not lose her state benefits.

I think this has to be the worst ruling in British legal history.

[OwlHoot]

It was her money and she had proper will. It's crazy that the court is changing it just like this ...

It wasn't her money when the will came to be executed - It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.

Courts don't set aside wills on a whim, which would be bad I admit.

[Halo Jones]

Totally agree. Nowt to add.

+1