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

LameWolf

maman wrote: »

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.

Absolutely right; if my father had left anything to me, I'd have refused to accept it as a matter of principle.

Keep_pedalling

LameWolf wrote: »

Absolutely right; if my father had left anything to me, I'd have refused to accept it as a matter of principle.

Principles are easy if you don't need the money.

gettingtheresometime

As a matter of interest how do you prove a long standing connection with a charity?

I'm on the Anthony Nolan register but haven't donated anything to them; I've raised money for Walk the Walk and given small sums to Medcine Sans Frontier so does that mean I have a relationship with them?

coolcait

Homeownertobe wrote: »

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.

Yes, some of the information being provided on the thread - rather than in the original newspaper article - was pointing towards the key point in this case being the compensation award.


So, if it's that specific point which has led to this judgement, it's not clear to me why it is being held up as setting a precedent more widely than that. It seems like a very unusual set of circumstances.


As a general point though, and outwith the terms of any existing legislation, I do believe that any bequests should be at the individual's discretion, rather than being an obligation.


And I don't believe that any independent adult should expect to be left a financial inheritance. Nice if you get one, of course, but not something that you should expect, or use as a basis for your own long-term financial planning.

Prothet_of_Doom

My aunt moved her family 350 miles, when her husband took early retirement, so she could be near her father, soon after his wife had died.
My mother and My uncle were 260 and 80 miles away respectively and pursuing glittering careers, whereas their sister, a more homely woman popped in every day to see her dad.
My Grandad, changed his will, because he felt, she'd made a sacrifice of moving the whole family. So that they all got a 1/3 of his cash and investments, but she got the house.
When he died, she was very surprised and embarrassed, as she only moved because she'd always wanted to be near her parents, and it was a pleasure to know that she could support her brother and sister, so they never had to worry about their father.
So when the house was sold she sent a cheque to each of them for £53K.
My uncle cashed his thanking his sister, and then distributed it to her 2 daughters to help them onto the property ladder.
My mother, sent her cheque back in a huff "My father was of sound mind when he made his will, and he wanted you to have it"
There then followed a small emotional battle, where my aunt desperately tried to get my mother to take her share, and my mother cut off her nose to spite her face.
In the end, all my cousins moved house, or used the money to get them onto the property ladder, whereas, I didn't.
I'm not bitter, oh no. :mad::rotfl:
My "share" would have had a major impact, but hey that's not what my granddad wanted.
I've told my parents, to not bother giving their children anything, and give it to their GREAT grand kids in trust.
Obviously my kids don't have kids, so the only 2 children to benefit would be those of my american niece. But hey, it saves the hassle of spending it. :T

FreeBear

coolcait wrote: »

So, if it's that specific point which has led to this judgement, it's not clear to me why it is being held up as setting a precedent more widely than that. It seems like a very unusual set of circumstances.

having looked at the judgements from the earlier appeals (2011 & 2014), it would appear that there are three main points:

• An adult child does have the right to bring a case under the inheritance act - It does not mean that the claim will be successful.
• Under certain circumstances, a judge can rule that a lack of provision is unreasonable - But each case must be judged on its own merits.
• Any letters accompanying the will giving reasons that the testator may have for excluding a child from a will should be honest, factual, and preferably supported with additional evidence.

Just because an adult child is living in poverty, either through life style choices or from unfortunate circumstances is not sufficient reason in its self to make a successful claim.

coolcait

FreeBear wrote: »

having looked at the judgements from the earlier appeals (2011 & 2014), it would appear that there are three main points:

• An adult child does have the right to bring a case under the inheritance act - It does not mean that the claim will be successful.
• Under certain circumstances, a judge can rule that a lack of provision is unreasonable - But each case must be judged on its own merits.
• Any letters accompanying the will giving reasons that the testator may have for excluding a child from a will should be honest, factual, and preferably supported with additional evidence.

Just because an adult child is living in poverty, either through life style choices or from unfortunate circumstances is not sufficient reason in its self to make a successful claim.

That's very helpful - thank you :-)


As others have noted, Scots law is different, so this particular case won't affect me or mine. It's still very interesting!

Homeownertobe

maman wrote: »

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.

It wasn't her mother's money. It was compensation awarded to her mother for the daughter on behalf of her late father.

The money did not exist unless the daughter did. It was her money, from her father's insurance payout and the mother had absolutely no right to keep it from her daughter. Simples.

FreeBear

Homeownertobe wrote: »

It wasn't her mother's money. It was compensation awarded to her mother for the daughter on behalf of her late father.

The money did not exist unless the daughter did. It was her money, from her father's insurance payout and the mother had absolutely no right to keep it from her daughter. Simples.

There is no documentary evidence to support your conjecture. All that we do know is that the father died some three months before the birth of the daughter and that the money paid out in compensation or 'in work death benefit' was used to pay off the mortgage on the house - The money would have existed regardless of whether the child had been born or not.

The key point in the Ilott case centred around "was it unreasonable for no provision to be made for a child". This question was also raised in another recent case (Wright v Waters) where the judgement went the other way.

The Ilott case does not provide clarity or a definitive ruling on claims made under the Inheritance Act, so it is far from "simples".