Supreme Court Ilott judgement.
Options
Comments
-
Yes. ---It keeps the legal fraternity very productively engaged.Yorkshireman99 wrote: »You need to read the full judgement to understand all the nuances. Have you done that? (read the judgement)
My interpretation is that it clarifies that the Family Inheritance Act requires testators to be aware that a child (even when adult) can apply for provision from the estate if their circumstances are not "reasonable" at the relevant time. What would be considered to be reasonable may vary, but is not solely determined by the testator and it would appear that dependence solely on state benefits would never be considered reasonable.
This consideration applies first and overrides any consideration of whether it was "reasonable" for the testator to disinherit the child.
So how in general (and not saying that it applies in Ilott case) could a testator avoid a parasitic and indolent offspring claiming some of the estate ?0 -
I think that is what the Government needs to address as has already been investigated by the Law Commission. It is not an easy balance to strike between making reasonable provision for those in need and preventing abuse of such a provision.Yes. ---It keeps the legal fraternity very productively engaged.
My interpretation is that it clarifies that the Family Inheritance Act requires testators to be aware that a child (even when adult) can apply for provision from the estate if their circumstances are not "reasonable" at the relevant time. What would be considered to be reasonable may vary, but is not solely determined by the testator and it would appear that dependence solely on state benefits would never be considered reasonable.
This consideration applies first and overrides any consideration of whether it was "reasonable" for the testator to disinherit the child.
So how in general (and not saying that it applies in Ilott case) could a testator avoid a parasitic and indolent offspring claiming some of the estate ?0 -
Perhaps a bit off topic, but are the solicitors who are involved the same Wright-Hassall ones who are active in car park enforcement and crop up on the MSE Motoring Parking board?0
-
I agree with YM: the will is the stuff of Reddit's "Just No MIL" sub, and the deceased comes over as bitter, spiteful and unpleasant. Those sorts of family disputes (and Just No MIL has several which end with the mother or mother in law in jail) are toxic. One of the sadder things to read are the deluded mothers on Gransnet who endless whine on how their children wanting nothing to do with them is unfair, abusive, etc; you only have to read their postings for a few minutes to see exactly why their children want nothing to do with them. They have presumably reckoned that the loss of any inheritance is worth it to be rid of the negative spite.
That said, firstly we don't know all the facts (as we only have the testimony of the daughter) and second, even if the will was the product of savage spite, if people want to behave like (censored), testamentary freedom is just that, freedom. If people want to use their wills to continue by legal means a lifetime of spite and unpleasantness, then I think the cure (state intervention into bequests more generally, and the picking over of wills to check they are "acceptable") is worse than the disease (a very small number of cases in which unpleasant people are unpleasant).
As things stand, you can be a (censored) in your will with freedom. If you want people to hate you after your death, knock yourself out.0 -
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »I suggest you read what Mrs Ilott's mother said in her will which makes it quite clear that she did not want her daughter to inherit anything and gave specific instructions that the executors were to strongly contest any attempt to vary the will in Mrs. Ilott's favour. Given that she was well aware that her daughter was in very poor financial circumstances shows that she was a nasty and vindictive person.
Nonsense. They were in very poor financial circumstances because she and her husband were long-term unemployed. That was not Mrs Jackson's fault and she was under no moral obligation to give them free money either before or after death.
I make no judgements on the Ilotts' life choices, the benefits system is what it is and it's a free country. The bit I take issue with is whether their mother has an obligation to subsidise them even further on top of what she already paid via her taxes.What decent grandparent would fail to make some provision in her will to alleviate the poverty that her grandchildren had lived in all their lives?
As all attempts at reconciliation had broken down she had no idea what kind of people her grandchildren were, and so she had no idea whether the money would alleviate their poverty or simply be squandered. Apparently she thought the animal charities would make better use of it.0 -
securityguy wrote: »As things stand, you can be a (censored) in your will with freedom. If you want people to hate you after your death, knock yourself out.
I do not think that you are correct.
Although the testator may wish to be an absolute (censored), the courts have determined that they can be only partially successful as they must make reasonable provision for a child despite the testator's wish to not do so.0 -
I do not think that you are correct.
Although the testator may wish to be an absolute (censored), the courts have determined that they can be only partially successful they must make reasonable provision for a child despite the testator's wish to not do so.
that is not what the law says.0 -
getmore4less wrote: »that is not what the law says.
Then why was Ilott awarded £50k ?0 -
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.0
-
To use your word that is nonsense. However, the real point is not so much this case as to why the Law Commission/Government have not addressed the general principle. Many jurisdictions, including that in Scotland, have a very different way of dealing with it. There are sound arguments on both sides. Personally I tend towards the concept of testatmatory freedom but there can be cases where circumstances warrant state intervention. I can't see any easy answer.Malthusian wrote: »Nonsense. They were in very poor financial circumstances because she and her husband were long-term unemployed. That was not Mrs Jackson's fault and she was under no moral obligation to give them free money either before or after death.
I make no judgements on the Ilotts' life choices, the benefits system is what it is and it's a free country. The bit I take issue with is whether their mother has an obligation to subsidise them even further on top of what she already paid via her taxes.
As all attempts at reconciliation had broken down she had no idea what kind of people her grandchildren were, and so she had no idea whether the money would alleviate their poverty or simply be squandered. Apparently she thought the animal charities would make better use of it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards