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?

As a charity lawyer (albeit not a particular supporter of animal charities) I feel that I should point out that charity trustees are under a legal duty to act in the best interests of their organisation and do everything reasonable to protect income.

The decision to litigate over a legacy is never, ever taken lightly but if the trustees were advised that they stood a reasonable prospect of success in this case, then they would be under an obligation to defend a claim against them.

It is not a case of them being "grasping", it is a case of them having a duty to protect charitable income.

They can't just sit back and say "oh dear, poor daughter... we'll give up some of our income because we feel sorry for her". They would be harshly criticised for failing in their legal duty if they did so and the members of the charity could take action against them.

Remember, they didn't bring the claim, she did. We don't know what attempts had been made to settle the claim before it reached court. It is also probable that the charities were represented under a Conditional Fee Agreement which would protect them from costs. Mrs Ilott was represented by the Bar Pro Bono Unit so they weren't exposed to her costs either.

There is also an issue of precedent - this case potentially has far-reaching consequences for legacy income. The charity I work for is not dependant on legacy income but we do receive quite sizeable legacies. I'm not looking forward to the prospect of having to defend or settle similar claims in the future.

I'm not passing comment on the merits or ethics of Mrs Ilott's claim, just trying to give another viewpoint.

PS when I first heard about this case I was half asleep and thought the reason her Mother had the hump was because she had eloped with her Mother's boyfriend!

Oh PPS I have read the whole judgment and reading between the lines the original court which awarded her £50k and the final court appear to have taken her reliance on state benefits into account when calculating the award. Smacks of public policy issues influencing judicial decision which makes me a bit uncomfortable

In Scotland, if there is no will or a child has been "left out" of a will they are entitled to a proportionate share of one third of the moveable estate.

So if they were one of four children for example they would be entitled to 25% of a third of the moveable estate.

Suppose it depends how much they think her current financial situation is due to her upbringing/ lack of parental support.
Its easy to say she's had decades to sort herself out regardless of her mother, but without every bit of evidence we don't know what else went on before 17, and what life experiences since could be reasonably linked to her mothers past treatment. It's highly unlikely a previously supportive and loving parent would kick out a 17yr old.

We have drug addicts in the wider family and I have thought I'd give away anything I had if that situation arose with my kids. I live in Scotland so you can't choose to leave them out.

I'm glad the opportunity to challenge the will is there and it shouldn't just be down to whether the maker was of sound mind. I read about a case recently where a couple got married later in life and each had (grown up) children from a previous relationship. They made mirror wills which stated that whichever of them died first would pass everything to the other then when that person died the remaining estate was to be shared equally between all the children. The man passed away so everything went to his wife - who promptly changed her will leaving everything to her own child/children and nothing to her husband's child. If I remember correctly the courts did award a portion of the estate to the husband's child/children, quite rightly in my opinion.

I think it's such a rare award, it's almost impossible for a non-financially dependant adult to be awarded something, that there must be more about the father's will/wishes or the compensation award than the article covers. In that case I think it's right.

As the famous lawyer Antony Mishcon said about inheritance:

'In English law you can do whatever you like that afternoon. The trouble is nowadays people do'.

He's got a point. The reason inheritance law is an issue in this country is because a) thanks to the housing crisis & price rises, most people leave way more than they used to b) thanks to the housing crisis, their unfortunate relations may well need or hope for a windfall c) old people need looking after a lot longer, at cost to the descendants ie the women d) the rise in dementia means a lot more wills are pretty barmy.

10 per cent more wills are being challenged than they were a decade ago, and most of these are triggered by the double whammy of the rise in house prices (so there's something to fight about) and rise in senility (ditto).

Other stuff - dementia is increasingly recognised by HCP as not being diagnosed early enough/at all, and equally a cause of unpleasant behaviour (one of the official symptoms now) so a lot of people face a thoroughly nasty oldster playing fast and loose with the family assets with no fallback at all.

Thanks to people living longer, a lot of middle-aged/elderly people, usually women, have spent anything up to 20 years caring - unpaid - for elderly parents at huge financial cost to themselves. Disinheriting them would be rank injustice - and it happens, every day, a lot more often than it used to.

I privately think a hell of a lot of people who get squeaky about the right to do what you like with your own money could be heard shrieking across the UK if they were disinherited themselves.

I haven't looked into lots of detail on this, but LaLyra is probably right about the compensation award. A lot might depend on how much it was, how much the mortgage/living expenses were, and how much might have been expected to go to the daughter, or used up on living expenses.

Well it does make sense that it was about the compensation.

Otherwise, are parents to be responsible for adult children even after death??

The law should never have been extended to adult children (previously it only applies if they were female and single but that was 1938 for you!) and should be amended to exclude them. You don't have to support them in life, why should you have to in death?

Well said Corygal

It is her money. She can do whatever she wants.

I struggle with this
on the one hand I think you should be able to leave your money to whoever you want

on the other hand, I think you brought your children into the world and it's only decent to leave them something - not everything if you don't to, but something.

when I first heard it, I was horrified. Now I am not so sure. I had kittens when there were reports about Sharia wills because I thought women shouldn't be deprived of inheritance on that basis. Which in a way, is the same as saying, actually you can't dispose of your money however you want...

Altinkum She was awarded 50k at the last hearing. Not sure if that was an interim award and this is final or if she appealed it or what. The details are very sketchy. She was originally awarded 50k, but has now been awarded more.

Full judgment here here if anyone is interested

Its not her money, she's dead!

She didn't like animals anyway, just did it to be mean.

I think that the law is there to make sense of complicated situations. So whilst I would agree that no competent adult should expect to be provided for by a relative, we can also acknowledge surely that an award made to a family to support them after the loss of a breadwinner should, if possible, benefit all the immediate members of that family. With the will in this case the effect of the mother's decision was to make the RSPCA etc the beneficiaries of an industrial accident award whilst leaving the child of the deceased without anything. Were it not for that circumstance I don't think the daughter in this case would have got anywhere.

But why should adults be treated as breadwinners for other adults? It's wrong, wrong, wrong.

It also conduces to nasty litigation between adult siblings. Wills - unless there are dependants - should be conclusive.

If either of my parents go remarried and left me nothing I would contest it as their will for 30+ years has been to split with their children. France and Italy have it right .

I read that the judgement was also partly due to the mothers somewhat spurious connections to the charities she had named I.e. As a pp said she wasn't pro charity, just doing it to be spiteful!

So, my DH's stepfather has disinherited his daughter for very good reason and left whatever he will have at his death to my DH.

Can that be overturned? Really?

I think it must be in part that for example the compensation(which was for both of them) was used to pay off the mortgage.

Therefore the daughter could expect(?) at last part of the house?