Potential dispute over car not mentioned in father's will

Malthusian

BobRoberts wrote: »

If she actually needed the car it would be completely different.

You don't get it, do you. It's not different at all. It's her property. She inherited it from her husband (if he'd given it to you before he died, you'd be pursuing that line solely and not this nonsense about how she doesn't need it so you're allowed to take it) and it's her property as much as if she'd bought it herself down the local dealership. Whether she needs it or not is utterly irrelevant.

As it is, I don't believe its in her interests to own a car, with all the financial implications, not to mention hassle.

That's for her to decide. I don't believe it's in the interests of my neighbour's useless son to own a Maserati, but no matter how likely he is to wrap it around a lamppost I'm still not justified in taking it without permission.

I suppose if I tried to stop her sending a grand a year to the Nigerian Lottery, I'd be a bad guy too, for stopping her from doing what she wanted.

Yes you would, if you took £1,000 out of her purse and spent it on the justification that she would otherwise have given it to Nigerian scammers.

BobRoberts

SevenOfNine wrote: »

I suppose that could be seen as as small step forward, you offered to return a car SHE owns, IF she complies with YOUR conditions for returning it.

As a separate observation, she's not on the fringes of the dementia spectrum is she? Some of the things you've said about her do sound like it.

If you want to word it like that. Its not really about my conditions, its about the fact that she doesn't need it.

I am actually concerned about her, and spoke to a GP and social worker recently. The GP is hopefully going to go along and see her. It may not be mental health issues, but she could definitely do with some counselling at the very least. She just won't though.

BobRoberts

Malthusian wrote: »

You don't get it, do you. It's not different at all. It's her property. She inherited it from her husband (if he'd given it to you before he died, you'd be pursuing that line solely and not this nonsense about how she doesn't need it so you're allowed to take it) and it's her property as much as if she'd bought it herself down the local dealership. Whether she needs it or not is utterly irrelevant.

That's for her to decide. I don't believe it's in the interests of my neighbour's useless son to own a Maserati, but no matter how likely he is to wrap it around a lamppost I'm still not justified in taking it without permission.

Yes you would, if you took £1,000 out of her purse and spent it on the justification that she would otherwise have given it to Nigerian scammers.

I get what you're saying, I really do. But sometimes the letter of the law and common sense and poles apart. Legally, it might not matter whether or not she needs it. But practically and financially it absolutely does matter.

If she can ill afford the additional expense, and doesn't really seem to appreciate everything that it entails, do I not have some duty of care responsibility there?

The Nigerian scammers analogy doesn't involve me taking anything from her purse - it just involves me preventing her from spending money unnecessarily.

Anyway, she's calmed down now and said its fine to have the car.

Malthusian

BobRoberts wrote: »

If she can ill afford the additional expense, and doesn't really seem to appreciate everything that it entails, do I not have some duty of care responsibility there?

Nope. Where did you get that idea? You're not her attorney or her carer, and nothing you describe suggests she doesn't have capacity to manage her affairs.

The Nigerian scammers analogy doesn't involve me taking anything from her purse - it just involves me preventing her from spending money unnecessarily.

You moved her car across to the other side of the country and denied her the use of it, and it just so happens that this selfless act gave you a free car to drive. So it is entirely analogous to taking money from her purse.

Anyway, she's calmed down now and said its fine to have the car.

Good. But it sounds as if she has a habit of changing her mind, so I would suggest it's in both your interests for her to formally gift it to you in writing, so she can't demand it back. Or get your own so you don't have the aggro. As it stands, "it's fine to have the car" could be construed as a loan.

Yorkshireman99

BobRoberts wrote: »

I get what you're saying, I really do. But sometimes the letter of the law and common sense and poles apart. Legally, it might not matter whether or not she needs it. But practically and financially it absolutely does matter.

If she can ill afford the additional expense, and doesn't really seem to appreciate everything that it entails, do I not have some duty of care responsibility there?

The Nigerian scammers analogy doesn't involve me taking anything from her purse - it just involves me preventing her from spending money unnecessarily.

Anyway, she's calmed down now and said its fine to have the car.

The reality is that it is the law that matters not what you want. The whole saga started because you ignored the law and continue to think up new excuses to evade your responsibilities and blame your mother. Sadly is seems you have eventually got your way. Shameful.

BobRoberts

Malthusian wrote: »

Nope. Where did you get that idea? You're not her attorney or her carer, and nothing you describe suggests she doesn't have capacity to manage her affairs.

Sorry, I didn't realise I needed to be an attorney or carer or have any other legal capacity before I would be in a position to just, you know, look out for Mum.

You moved her car across to the other side of the country and denied her the use of it, and it just so happens that this selfless act gave you a free car to drive. So it is entirely analogous to taking money from her purse.

Sigh. I'm not denying her the use of it, because she is unable to use it, and has precisely no need for it to be used. I understand that that may not be the point, but it nonetheless remains the case.

Good. But it sounds as if she has a habit of changing her mind, so I would suggest it's in both your interests for her to formally gift it to you in writing, so she can't demand it back. Or get your own so you don't have the aggro. As it stands, "it's fine to have the car" could be construed as a loan.

As I said from the start, and I might be naive, but I would hope that common sense will prevail.

BobRoberts

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

The reality is that it is the law that matters not what you want. The whole saga started because you ignored the law and continue to think up new excuses to evade your responsibilities and blame your mother. Sadly is seems you have eventually got your way. Shameful.

Sorry, but other than the letter of the law, you really know nothing about myself, or my mother. What has happened really isn't shameful, its simply the most practical, common sense solution.

Threewheeler

Why don,t you get a valuation from a dealer and then offer to pay the value to your Mother? It is hers to agree or not.

Savvy_Sue

BobRoberts wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realise I needed to be an attorney or carer or have any other legal capacity before I would be in a position to just, you know, look out for Mum.

The point people are making is that there is a huge difference between 'looking out for Mum' and 'making decisions on her behalf', possibly with a grey fuzzy area in the middle, but you do come across as knowing what decisions Mum should make.

I'd be astonished if your mother wasn't deemed to have 'capacity' to make decisions which would make no sense to you, which you would consider just plain wrong. And because she has 'capacity', she can make those decisions and yes, she has to live with the consequences, and no, you don't have to do anything about those consequences.

Looking in the opposite direction, I do my best to look out for my sons. They don't always make the decisions I think they should make. If they came to me for advice, I'd give it, and no doubt I sometimes give it when it's not been asked for. But it's absolutely their right to make those decisions ... and absolutely not my responsibility to pick up the pieces if it all goes horribly wrong!

BobRoberts

Actually, I think there may well be the beginnings of a question over her capacity.

Suppose her decision was to give money to some scammers - would the same argument stack up? That her decision to give the money to scammers made no sense to me, but I should respect her decision to do so, and live with those consequences?