Daughter inherits from mum even though mum cut her out of her Will

Brighton_belle

paddy's_mum wrote: »

...But of course a judge shouldn't be dealing with
emotions but fact! (post no 17)

(ETA Further to that argument, which I appreciate isn't yours)...

Well, sometimes facts are open to interpretation though. EG when at an appeal a judge raises the prison term for a rapist because of a public outcry over leniency of original sentence, I would say they are bending to emotion.(i.e. if there hadn't been a massive public outcry and protests, the original sentence probably would have stood).
New interpretations of law happen all the time, and set new precedents.

maman

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

This sounds fine to me. Who's to say some nasty charity didn't get their claws into the mum before she died by harrassing her like some seem to have been known to do. The mum is dead and it'll make nomdifference to her. Who the hell abandons their own child because they're marrying someone they don't like? Sounds like quite an awful person to me. A good decision by the judge.

If daughter found her mum that awful why would she want her money. Either you want nothing to do with someone or you don't.

coolcait

maman wrote: »

...it seems the judge in this case was influenced by the fact that the daughter had 5 children and was claiming benefits. So maybe they were thinking of the taxpayer;).

Doesn't seem like it, if the newspaper account is correct:


"Lady Justice Arden awarded her £164,000 to allow her to buy her housing association home in Ware, Herts, with £20,000 left over to supplement her benefits. The judges drafted the ruling so that she would not lose her state benefits."


It strikes me that there has to be a lot more to this case than is coming across in much of the reporting. And I don't mean speculation about the personalities of either/both of the women involved, or the ease or difficulty of the lives they lived.


It does seem that a key point may be the fact that some/most/all of the money came from compensation for the father's death.


Even so, I tend to balk at the idea that a parent must make provision for an adult child when making a will.


If the parent wants to leave an inheritance, that's fine and dandy - but it shouldn't be an obligation.


And it shouldn't be an expectation on the part of the adult child.

Homeownertobe

coolcait wrote: »

Doesn't seem like it, if the newspaper account is correct:


"Lady Justice Arden awarded her £164,000 to allow her to buy her housing association home in Ware, Herts, with £20,000 left over to supplement her benefits. The judges drafted the ruling so that she would not lose her state benefits."


It strikes me that there has to be a lot more to this case than is coming across in much of the reporting. And I don't mean speculation about the personalities of either/both of the women involved, or the ease or difficulty of the lives they lived.


It does seem that a key point may be the fact that some/most/all of the money came from compensation for the father's death.


Even so, I tend to balk at the idea that a parent must make provision for an adult child when making a will.


If the parent wants to leave an inheritance, that's fine and dandy - but it shouldn't be an obligation.


And it shouldn't be an expectation on the part of the adult child.

I don't think it is a case of an obligation to leave an inheritance, more the obligation to leave a proportion of the money that was awarded specifically for the child, to that child rather than the dogs' home.

wiltsguy_2

the way i see it as the opinions of the Daughter, Judge and gaining charity do not matter.

It was the dearly departed ladies decision, and that should of been respected.

amersall

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

This sounds fine to me. Who's to say some nasty charity didn't get their claws into the mum before she died by harrassing her like some seem to have been known to do. The mum is dead and it'll make nomdifference to her. Who the hell abandons their own child because they're marrying someone they don't like? Sounds like quite an awful person to me. A good decision by the judge.

Could not have said it better myself

paddy's_mum

For those who believe that the willmaker's wishes ought to be sacrosanct, and not for any measly ole judge to interfere with, perhaps consider The Slayer Rule.

rpc

paddy's_mum wrote: »

For those who believe that the willmaker's wishes ought to be sacrosanct, and not for any measly ole judge to interfere with, perhaps consider The Slayer Rule.

and the various bits of law in the UK that allow a will to be overridden.

In Scotland, children have legal rights to a share in the moveable estate and a will cannot remove these.

Keep_pedalling

It does seem like the old lady drafted her will out of spite, she had no long standing connection with the charities, and even if she wanted nothing to do with her daughter because of something that happened at the age of 17, cutting her grandchildren out as well seems cruel, especially as a lot of that money came from a grandfather they never knew.

Sounds like she died well off but friendless, which is why she left money to charities rather than friends, rather sad really.

lostinrates

paddy's_mum wrote: »

I suggest the judges considered that the daughter had lost enough in life, what with her father's death in an industrial accident before she was even born and the mother's unrelenting refusal to negotiate or forgive, and felt that the bequest to charity was just one more stick to clout the daughter with.

A huge assumption, I know, but what sort of mother continues a feud for 37 years over what turned out to be a successful, long-lasting marriage as well as denying herself knowing her grandchildren?

A bitter and unloving one, perhaps?

I think its just impossible to know. The mother could have been bitter, or the relationship could have been really awful and manipulative. Many of us have seen long marriages that aren't great, ( though many are). Who is to say without closer knowledge, that they were not as bad as each other when both adults?