Caveat

John_Pierpoint

madbadrob

I would therefore think that this would go down as intermeddling and your solicitor should send what they request and then ask them to ask their client to have the caveat removed because there is no legal grounds for him

Rob

freda11

The appearance reason is because he was being left everything in first will and the last will he was being left nothing. There is a letter coming to us from solicitors and it sounds like woe is me and I am skint!

madbadrob

lol that isnt legal grounds to contest the will I think you are doing all you can in this matter

Rob

John_Pierpoint

freda11 wrote: »

The appearance reason is because he was being left everything in first will and the last will he was being left nothing. There is a letter coming to us from solicitors and it sounds like woe is me and I am skint!

No win no fee?

freda11

Solicitor is now issuing a summons to be heard by the registrar. Do you know if the registrar sees the appearance when its sumitted or is it sealed and he doesn't see the contents until a summons has been issued ? I only ask cos if he has seen it then surely he knows it has no grounds and should jusy be able to have it removed?

madbadrob

I have no idea on that point tbh but I would suspect the registrar would not see this until such time as the case is to be heard by the registrar.

Maybe in a few months I could give you this information has that is the way one of my estates in my business is going right now.

Rob

freda11

Rob, google illot v mitson!

madbadrob

Yes and that case rests on the fact that the district judge believed the mother had acted with malice in disinherriting her daughter because she didnt like the boy she had moved in with and then subsequently married. The appeal court rightly said that whilst the award was made because the daughter was living on benefits this was not the main reason the distrct judge had awarded her the money.

The decision in this case really is not setting common law because the appelant judges made it clear that each case had to be taken as a seperate entity and the 1975 act conditions applied. What it has done though is opened up a can of worms regarding what we can do with our money after death. In Scotland it is very difficult to disinherit children.

I am not convinced based on what you have told us that they would win in these circumstances especially as the testator in this case is not leaving money to charity but is to other family members.

In fact having read three different solicitor firms views on this it is clear not even the legal profession is clear as to what this decision means in the wider world

Rob

freda11

Outcome:
Caveat is permanent because the caveator disputes the validity of the will and has an interest in the estate of the deceased under an earlier will of October 1999. He is also the only child of the deceased.

solicitor is now making an application for summons before a district judge!

No mention of what the dispute is with the validity!