Advanced search

To not understand how the pre appeal court granted Melita Jackson's daughter over 150k

(28 Posts)
2rebecca Wed 15-Mar-17 22:24:04

This is the case of Melita Jackson who died leaving nearly 500k to charities and nothing to her daughter who she hadn't spoken to much since she was 17 when she took up with a man she disapproved of. The daughter never seems to have worked and had 5 children with the man who was on a low income.
I don't understand how a woman in her 50s capable of working if she chose could get her mum's money contrary to the will.
I get on well with my dad but if he chose to leave his money to charity I would see that as his choice unless I suspected coercion.
I think only dependent children should be entitled to money.

WayfaringStranger Wed 15-Mar-17 22:28:14

I'm torn. I think it's cruel to disinherit your children, she could have gifted the money to her grandchildren. I just couldn't imagine doing that. On the other hand, I don't think children have an intrinsic right to their parents' money either. It's a tricky one.

BillSykesDog Wed 15-Mar-17 22:32:00

She had to leave home at 17 because her mother was so controlling. Her mother seems like she was a nasty vindictive controlling woman. Heather will have lost out on an awful lot of opportunities for development which would have given her chance to develop her earning potential. And Christ only knows what impact having a mother like that had on her emotional and mental health curtailing her ability to function normally including work.

I feel sorry for her. The money will only go into rich charity CEOs pockets now anyway. Never come across an animal charity which wasn't dubious apart from small local ones.

2rebecca Wed 15-Mar-17 22:33:20

I agree I can't imagine not leaving my money to my kids, no matter how disappointed Id feel if they chose to live off other tax payers rather than work and have awful partners. If I did decide to leave it all to hedgehogs though I wouldn't expect them in their 50s to be able to overturn it. After all I could have spent it all on sweeties and fancy frocks and died in debt

YesILikeItToo Wed 15-Mar-17 22:34:09

Meh. We don't have freedom of testation in Scotland, children have a right to a proportion of the estate. My reading of a lot of inheritance cases ( although I haven't read this one ) is that there is a strong presumption in the law that providing for your descendants is a natural and proper thing to do. To me the really interesting thing about cases like these is how 'fighty' the charities are in protecting their legacies.

jay55 Wed 15-Mar-17 22:43:06

Wasn't it based on the fathers estate, the compensation for his death?

MyKingdomForBrie Wed 15-Mar-17 22:44:28

She had two parents, the money was his legacy also.

DoJo Wed 15-Mar-17 22:50:29

In some ways I'd rather her mother's money was supporting her than the state.

zen1 Wed 15-Mar-17 22:53:41

I also feel sorry for the daughter. Seems like she was only disinherited because her mother didn't approve of her choice of boyfriend (who she is still with 30 yrs later).

VelvetSpoon Wed 15-Mar-17 22:56:45

I actually think it's bollocks. You should be entitled to make a will giving money to whoever you want, and that will should be respected after your death. The only exception is if there was some concern over testamentary capacity. But that wasn't the case here.

Frankly if the mum's will said put all 500k in a pile, chuck petrol on it and torch it, that's her choice. Her money.

My opinion of the daughter is she's mean and grabby. If her mother was such an appalling person she wouldn't bother with her in her lifetime, why on earth would you want to take a penny of her money after she died? Most self respecting people wouldn't want to touch it.

It's laughable that they were effectively NC but she still expected all the money to come her way.

I don't buy the sob stories. She's a woman in her 50s who's never worked, had 5 children she couldn't support and then got all excited by the prospect of some free money. I don't think she deserves a penny, and I'm glad the court ruled against her. I just wish the decisions of the lower courts had been similar.

Rubies12345 Wed 15-Mar-17 23:03:53

She had to leave home at 17 because her mother was so controlling. Her mother seems like she was a nasty vindictive controlling woman

How do you know?! You only have one side of it

FlyingDuck Wed 15-Mar-17 23:05:34

It seems somewhat arbitrary, that had the mother given all her money away in her lifetime, up until the day of her death, there would be no grounds to object. Yet from the day after her death, her stated wishes as to where her wealth goes can later be disregarded by an appeal court.

Spam88 Wed 15-Mar-17 23:09:04

I was really surprised to learn that there's any legal entitlement to inheritance from your parents, surely people should be free to leave their assets to who/whatever they please.

And for those unimpressed by the supreme court ruling, the charities have said they did this as a matter of principle because of the possible implications for future wills leaving money to charity, but they had an agreement with the daughter regarding a sum of money to be paid to her if she did lose.

Willyoujustbequiet Wed 15-Mar-17 23:10:52

I feel sorry for the daughter. I think, generally, it takes a mean spirited person to disinherit a child.

Says a great deal about the mother!!!

LapdanceShoeshine Wed 15-Mar-17 23:13:10

'Mrs Ilott, from Great Munden, Hertfordshire, made an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for "reasonable financial provision" from her mother's estate.
The Act confers the right on a child of a deceased parent to apply for an order if a will does not make reasonable provision for their maintenance.
It is the first time an appeal under the 1975 Act has reached the Supreme Court.
The law is normally used to benefit children or dependent relatives. This case is unusual because Mrs Ilott was an adult and financially independent from her mother when she made the claim.'

It sounds as if the claim was invalid in the first place.

It might well be that the mother was an unpleasant controlling personality but hey, it was her money & her decision. Nobody is entitled to inherit anything from anybody. Really.

Wando1986 Wed 15-Mar-17 23:19:37

"cruel to disinherit your children" erm...

How about your children should make their own way in life? hmm

Wdigin2this Wed 15-Mar-17 23:23:00

It's a good law decision, and proves that, if it's you're can do what the hell you like with it!

Stopmithering Wed 15-Mar-17 23:23:03

Id have given her the whole lot.
Can't understand parents who disinherit their children. Surely it's natural instinct to want the best for your children and to do whatever you can to enrich their lives, including passing down your wealth.
Melita Jackson sounds like a vindictive, spiteful cow to me.

Wdigin2this Wed 15-Mar-17 23:23:45

Want...too bloody true, I had too!

unfortunateevents Wed 15-Mar-17 23:25:32

This case has been going on for years. Presumably the whole inheritance has been eaten up now in legal fees anyway so no-one benefits - except the lawyers!

FlyingDuck Wed 15-Mar-17 23:28:51

That would be a satisfying ending - a Jarndyce versus Jarndyce.

viques Wed 15-Mar-17 23:28:58

Serves her right, she was greedy. As I read it she had already been given some of the money by an earlier court, who had done it in such a way that her benefits were not affected. Then she went back for more.

Graphista Wed 15-Mar-17 23:36:11

Wills are such an emotive issue.

I also live in Scotland where children can't be completely disinherited. I'm the executor of my parents wills and I'm dreading it!

in this case the courts will have heard both sides and decided on that.

Personally the only reason I would consider cutting off my child (and grandchildren!) would be if they'd done me or their sibling serious harm! To do so for such a petty reason I cannot understand.

Doyouwantabrew Wed 15-Mar-17 23:47:57

In my experience the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Both women sound unpleasant here.

BackforGood Thu 16-Mar-17 00:00:01

NOt been following it in detail, but from the bit I heard on the news tonight, I can't understand why she was
a) awarded £60K by the first court, and then
b) had it raised to £150K by the appeal.
From the news tonight, they said that the mother had made it very clear before she died that none of it was to go to her daughter, and that she should not be allowed to challenge it once she was gone. She was of sound mind and clearly (for whatever reason) estranged from her daughter for 30+ years. It is totally up to her where her estate went, IMO.
The daughter has a right to be sad that she couldn't / didn't have a relationship with her mother when she was alive, but hardly surprised that turned in to her mother gifting all her worldly wealth to chosen charities instead of her.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: