Supreme Court Ilott judgement.
Comments
-
getmore4less wrote: »There is no requirement in law for the testator to make any provision, that lies with the court if one of the qualifying people makes a claim.
This will surprise many and destroy a common belief.0 -
Agreed, but in practice it does mean that a testator does not have power to ensure that a child (even when adult) can be disinherited, as if the testator does not make reasonable provision for them, even if it would be reasonable to not do so, the court can do so.
This will surprise many and destroy a common belief.0 -
getmore4less wrote: »There is no requirement in law for the testator to make any provision, that lies with the court if one of the qualifying people makes a claim.
And the judge still has to base his decision on the seven Sec.3 tests of the Inheritance Act. namely -(a)the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(b)the financial resources and financial needs which any other applicant for an order under section 2 of this Act has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(c)the financial resources and financial needs which any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(d)any obligations and responsibilities which the deceased had towards any applicant for an order under the said section 2 or towards any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
(e)the size and nature of the net estate of the deceased;
(f)any physical or mental disability of any applicant for an order under the said section 2 or any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
(g)any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant.
Just because Ilott got £50,000, there is no reason to expect the next case to go the same way. Indeed, if one is to look at another similar claim (a disinherited daughter, disabled, and reliant on state benefits), the judge dismissed the case - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3614.htmlHer courage will change the world.
Treasure the moments that you have. Savour them for as long as you can for they will never come back again.0 -
If the Ilotts are unemployed the 50 grand is likely to take them well over all the thresholds for means-tested benefits, so they are going to have to spend it on everyday living until they are down to their last £6,000.0
-
If the Ilotts are unemployed the 50 grand is likely to take them well over all the thresholds for means-tested benefits, so they are going to have to spend it on everyday living until they are down to their last £6,000.
It said this:The sum was increased by the appeal court in 2015 - £140,000 to buy her housing association property, and another £20,000 structured to allow her to keep her state benefits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39278921
I think the bit in bold ^^^^ is very wrong.
Any other person claiming benefits would be investigated for fraud.
Obviously that decision in the link has now been overturned.0 -
It said this:
here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39278921
I think the bit in bold ^^^^ is very wrong.
Any other person claiming benefits would be investigated for fraud.
Obviously that decision in the link has now been overturned.0 -
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »There is nothing fraudulent at all. Structuring the award simply means that it would be made in several stages. That would mean that the limits that would have caused benefits to be reduced would not be breached.nor would the rules on deprivation of assets apply. Not to have done so would have meant that the effective value of the ward would have been negated by loss of benefits.
My point was - if I were to claim benefits and had £20k stuffed away, I'd be investigated for fraud.
This woman was given £20k but in such a way that she could keep claiming benefits.
If I was on benefits and someone left me £20k in their will, would I be allowed to structure the provision of that £20k so it didn't affect my benefits?
No, I wouldn't.0 -
You've misunderstood - I didn't say it was fraudulent.
My point was - if I were to claim benefits and had £20k stuffed away, I'd be investigated for fraud.
This woman was given £20k but in such a way that she could keep claiming benefits.
If I was on benefits and someone left me £20k in their will, would I be allowed to structure the provision of that £20k so it didn't affect my benefits?
No, I wouldn't.0 -
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »I think the misuderstanding is yours. The court can order the payments to be made at intervals so that the limits are not breached. She will not get the whole awrd in one go. If that was not done it would negate the value of the award. There is nothing unusual or unreasonable about that.With a legacy the whole amount is due in one lump sum and there is no mechanism to satge it.
Are you saying if someone wanted to leave a large sum of money to a person who claimed benefits, could they legally word the will in a way that 'drip fed' the money to the beneficiary to allow them to continue claiming benefits? :eek:
Surely that can't be the case, that is so wrong.0 -
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »I think the misuderstanding is yours. The court can order the payments to be made at intervals so that the limits are not breached. She will not get the whole awrd in one go. If that was not done it would negate the value of the award. There is nothing unusual or unreasonable about that.With a legacy the whole amount is due in one lump sum and there is no mechanism to satge it.
My point was - if I were to claim benefits (means tested, that is) and had £20k stuffed away, I'd be investigated for fraud.If I was on benefits and someone left me £20k in their will, would I be allowed to structure the provision of that £20k so it didn't affect my benefits?
No, I wouldn't.
Are you saying that what iammumtoone asks below is actually true?iammumtoone wrote: »Are you saying if someone wanted to leave a large sum of money to a person who claimed benefits, could they legally word the will in a way that 'drip fed' the money to the beneficiary to allow them to continue claiming benefits? :eek:
Surely that can't be the case, that is so wrong.
'Cake and eat it' comes to mind.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.4K Spending & Discounts
- 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.8K Life & Family
- 247.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards