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?

The moral of this story is spend all your money while you are alive :)

Nanny0g This is quite a rare case. If his daughter is not financially dependant on him and he's noted why she is not in his will (i.e she can't say that she was missed accidentally) then it's very, very unlikely it would be overturned.

This one includes a compensation that would likely have had an element of including the daughter in the amount awarded that seems to have swayed the judges.

Surely the daughters "share" of the compensation money was what she was brought up on for 17 years and the roof over her head for that time.

But then, I'm someone who believes that once you are an adult, you are responsible for yourself. You shouldn't expect your parents to be looking after you anymore. You shouldn't be expecting an inheritance. My parents money is theirs to spend on themselves in whatever way they choose. I am not expecting that when I reach 54 (or hopefully older) that I will be able to upgrade my house because I'll inherit theirs.

The solution now for those who want to disinherit their (money grabbing) children is to give their money away whilst they are still alive and live off the state instead.

SomethingFunny, it would be awful if people did that.

achieve6 Yes it would - but if there is no other way to make sure that what they have goes where they choose, who can blame them?

The Act should be cut back so that it benefits, spouses, exes where there is no clean break, and minor children - and nobody else. And minor children should only get maintenance during minority - no capital.

Lurked I doubt if the father gave it any thought at all. From what I've read, he died in an industrial accident 2 weeks before his DD was born and the "inheritance" he left was largely made up of a compensation payment in respect of that accident.

In spite of all the hoo-ha in the press, I wonder if this is one of those cases (I haven't read the full judgement) that stands on the peculiar facts of the case?

She got the money because the mum inherited it from the dad

I think the Judgement was as it should be.

I hope more children written out now of wills manage to get some inheritance from greedy big charities who pay CEO's way too much and greedy number wives.

Yes I think the law needs to be changed so children can not be disinherited. Esp with the welfare system as it is etc it just makes sense. It would save all of us a lot in taxes for a start.

I think the law needs to be changed so children can not be disinherited

Lots of countries leave people with only a very small proportion of their assets that they can have discretion about who they want to give it to, to my mind, that would save an awful lot of heartache.

The moral of this story is spend all your money while you are alive smile

Actually the moral of this story is if you receive a substantial amount of compensation for the death of your husband and part of that compensation is calculated based on the fact of his having left a child, then you should realise that the "estate" you consider your entire own for the past 37 years, actually has a claim on it from the child who formed part of the compensation calculation.

I read the headlines on this case and thought how awful - then read the judgement and can absolutely see how and why the will was partially overturned in this particular case.

Thank you all, I see now that this is an unusual case, which explains the judgement.

I live in France, one of the countries where children cannot be disinherited or passed over in favour of spouses / second spouses etc. I don't know if it makes things simpler or fairer - the law is a pretty blunt tool when it comes to the complexities of family life!

The law of intestate succession in E/W is also now absurd. It disinherits children in favour of widow(er)s regardless of the value of the estate, where it came from, whether the children are from an earlier marriage, and how long the later marriage had lasted. In think that the shorter the second marriage the less the survivor should get and if it lasted less than a year s/he should get nothing. Thoughts, anybody?

If the government wants 25 year old to be supported by parents then children under 25 should not be disinherited.

Children are for life not just for Christmas.

I think that wills should stand as they are. Even if we think this old woman was a bitch, didn't care about the charities and treated her daughter appallingly, I STILL believe that it is her right to dispose of HER money how she wants. The father died over 50 years ago, if the daughter wanted some money from his estate then she should have done something about it many many years ago.

poor woman

all the money in the world won't make up for the fact her mother wanted to see her poor and obviously hated her.

I hope she spends every penny.

ssd - the judgement stipulates that £143,000 must be spent on the purchase of her social housing home. The amount she got was calculated to ensure she didn't lose her state benefits.

I think it's a fair judgement. However, I don't know why so many people are criticising the RSPCA - what about the two other co-respondents, the Blue Cross and the RSPB? And as pp pointed out, the charities are legally responsible to protect any income left to them, it's not their decision to make as to what's fair and what isn't.

Surely the daughters "share" of the compensation money was what she was brought up on for 17 years and the roof over her head for that time.

Er no, it's compensation because the death should not have happened. Compensation for never knowing her father.

Money she was entitled to.

what do you mean, the death should not have happened?

winnie, isnt she getting a 20k lump sum?

ssd - yes she is. I meant the majority had to be spent on a house.

In think that the shorter the second marriage the less the survivor should get and if it lasted less than a year s/he should get nothing. Thoughts, anybody?

Possibly.

I do think it unfair when there is a second spouse benefitting from the efforts of the first spouse and the children of the first marriage get little or nothing.