Will overturned by court of appeal ... AIBU to be surprised at this?

[justwondering72]

gu.com/p/4b354?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

A report on a case where a daughter, who had been cut out of her mothers considerable estate, has been awarded 164,000£ by court of appeal. The mother, in her will, had clearly stated that she wanted all her estate to go to charity. The daughter was disinherited after running away to marry her partner aged 17. She was 54 when her mother died. She tried to reconcile with her mother, but did not succeed.

The article talks about how the daughter now has 5 children, and is broke. AIBU to think the daughter's current situation is irrelevant, legally speaking? And that the mother's wishes should have been adhered to, however unfair the daughter may feel she was being?

Charities are apparently terrible for clawing every penny. My dad was an executor for a family member who left everything to a cancer charity.

He couldn't even claim against the estate for house clearance costs (skip) and ended up severely out of pocket. Not what the relative would have intended.

So maybe if your will is like that if might be a point to consider.

Like a pp, when I heard the headline this morning my initial reaction was 'how can you disregard a will if the person who made it was, however unreasonable, of sound mind etc.?' I didn't know till reading this thread about the father's estate being part of the decision.

But if the judgement turned on the daughter being (objectively) entitled to something from her father's estate, I don't understand why her financial circumstances had anything to do with that?

As I understand it in most civil law jurisdictions you have to leave a certain proportion of your estate to your children. Testamentary freedom is a common law concept.

Here, the RSPCA's conduct seems to leave quite a lot to be desired, but I suspect quite a lot of their bequests come from people who have fallen out with their children (and maybe humans generally), so if they lose this it may have implications for their future funding.

I write as one who wouldn't consider doing anything else but leaving my offsprung everything, whatever they got up to. I'm wondering if there was something they might do which would make me change my will, but it would have to be an awful lot worse than running off with a boy at the age of 17 and staying with him for the next 37 years..

So a parent can decide to disinherit a child, but the courts can then overturn that by deciding that the parent was unreasonable to do so? And it's a case by case decision as to which cases are deserving and which are not?

I do see your point about the fathers estate, and I didn't know about them being considered separate after being inherited by the surviving spouse.

I'm not familiar with the case, just going from what pp have described.
I think the fact it's also her fathers estate, who could be presumed to have wanted it used towards his child, plus that at 17 a parent should be supporting a child within their own financial means, makes it different to other situations, so it's not opening the floodgates to everyone.
Dds dad is unlikely to include her in his will, more likely to leave it to some society doing wrong. And if that happens either when she's young or old, I'd hope she could get what he wanted over turned, not just for the fortune in maintenance and its interest she's owed, but a decent chunk of anything else.

Looks like it, justwondering. I would imagine that in this case, the daughter would not have challenged her mother's will if her father's will had already provided for her. I've a feeling the daughter's present situation is a bit of a red herring, though I may be wrong?

There's been a case recently in Australia. A multi millionaire (possibly billionaire) left his children the bulk of his money, and left another of his children (from an illicit relationship) something like 25,000. She contested the will (quite rightly, I think) and won her fair share.

Sure, he was of sound mind and body, but I'm on her side.

If you look at the full judgement it says (at Para 19 and 26) that after the father was killed in an industrial accident, his employer made a substantial payment of compensation to the surviving family. The mother used it to pay off the mortgage, which formed half of the estate.

It also says that attempts at reconciliation failed as she objected to one of the grandchildren being named after her FIL, whom she disliked!

Clearly the right decision.

Both my parents were disinherited due to both of their fathers remarrying in their final years and thinking they needed to leave everything to their new wives to provide for them for the rest of their lives but nothing to the children.

I think the law should be like other countries where you can't disinherit children.

RSPCA come out the worst in this.

Yes, I think it is the wording of the whole thing.

Perhaps to make it more interesting?

The mother surely provided for her daughter until she then decided at 17 to move out & provide for herself.

But perhaps the issue is that some of the compensation should hav been put in trust for her?

in Scotland you can not disinherit your spouse or your children the minimum is a third of moveable assets ( ie cash savings shares jewellry art antiques etc) you can leave your fixed assets ( ie home/land) to your spouse your eldest son
etc

In France and Italy you can't disinherit your children either; in fact in France children inherit preferentially over a spouse
this seems reasonable it also stops step children inheriting everything and the first family getting nothing

I would agree with you that half of the compensation money should have been put in trust for the daughter, regardless of her chosen path, diddl.

I think it was the right decision.

DFIL died many years ago without a will. Everything went to MIL including the house which we know he always intended to be shared eventually among the three DC but ever since she has played around with her will and enjoyed telling us who she'd cut out We are under no illusions that we're not on the shit list as we are NC with MIL for very serious reasons.

This will give dh the chance to fight for what was always intended for him when the time comes if he wants to.

I think it's completely wrong. Her mother cut her out and hadn't spoken to her for decades.

Her dad should have made provision for his children but did not.

No court should be able to overturn a will unless it was illegal/ cohersed. It's why we have laws.

The RSPCA do behave badly with wills but on this occasion I agree.

But also it did become the mother's money when the father died, as in she had access & could have spent it how she wanted. And then when she dies, it's no longer considered her money!

As I understand it, the mother only had a life interest in the father's money; it did not become hers outright to do with as she pleased. Consequently, on her death, if any of the father's money remained it had to pass to the daughter as her father's next heir.

Any lawyers about to say if this is right or not?

to do with as she pleased

I meant to do with as she pleased in her will

rags I'm not a lawyer but I think it's more complex than that, leaving your childs money in the care of your spouse is usually tied up in trusts, with trustees deciding what can be used and for what purpose, where and how to invest etc.
So that alone could be argued either way, did he just leave it to the mum instead of in trust to his child because he was a bit clueless about the proceedings, couldn't predict the pay out, had no legal knowledge, misplaced trust in his wife's judgement etc. Or did he do it because he really wasn't too bothered if the childs best interests were looked after. I'm guessing but I imagine short of evidence proving the latter was true, they'd work on the assumption the former scenario is more likely.

Xenu1 "pupillage still unpaid "
All pupillages nowadays are paid a minimum of £12,000.
I'm confused by the judgment too - though it would seem equitable to provide the daughter with something. This is the third time this matter has gone to court, so I dread to think what the legal bills have added up to ... probably not a lot will now go to the animal charities.

"Stevens-Hoare argued that Ilott’s father would have turned in his grave at his widow’s meanness."

Although to be fair, that couldn't be known either!

I'm not sure it has been mentioned here yet but her father died two months before she was born. It is resonable to assume that had he lived longer he would have made provision for her.

The RSPCA seem to be prepared to screw people into the ground in order to protect animals.

How many donations have paid for this legal battle?

I find the idea that in Scotland you can never have absolute discretion over your will unsettling - I can't imagine disinheriting my children, but what about families where there has been a serious issue such as elder abuse?

A 54 year old woman should not expect provision to be made for her at all, surely? The fact that she was not financially dependent on her mother while the mother was alive should refute that notion all by itself.

I can't imagine disinheriting my children
What sort of mother leaves her daughter in penury?