Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby dls » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:15 am

For very many years the simple practice has been that if there is any risk at all of a 1975 Act claim, the client should prepare a clear statement of just why the provision departs from what might be seen as appropriate provision. It can be a difficult exercise, because it means that the will maker must say from the grave exactly why son X was cut from the will. Almost by definition, the people facing the need for such a letter are disinclined to take advice. The real difficulty comes when the reasons provided are obviously inadequate to all but the testator ('I always thought his eyes were too close together').

The biggest such case I did would exactly have been avoided if the testator (mal-advised by a well known bank).

In this case was it not already decided that the daughter would have provision made, and that this hearing was as to quantum?
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12260
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby atticus » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:56 am

atticus wrote:Here is the judgment: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean. The case before the Court of Appeal was not about whether provision should be made out of the mother's estate for the daughter but about the amount of such provision.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19855
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby atticus » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:18 am

Russell wrote:
Smouldering Stoat wrote:You are incorrect. Schedule 4 of the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 provided that Civil Partners inherit in the same way as husbands or wives.


A friend of mine has been in this position recently and he inherited his sisters estate over her civil partner.

If this is true, the civil partner was badly advised.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19855
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby Russell » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:24 am

I'm sure I double checked it at the time possibly with the forum, as it didn't sound right. Got a busy day but will try and look later.
If you can't talk about the problem, how are you ever going to even start talking about the solution?
Russell
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby atticus » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:52 am

I am sure that your friend will be grateful.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19855
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby Russell » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:04 pm

He got the house, he'll be laughing.
If you can't talk about the problem, how are you ever going to even start talking about the solution?
Russell
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby miner » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:06 pm

Goldensyrup wrote:
It really hacks me off how the charities spend so much on litigation to fight these isolated case almost as bad as their hard selling their causes in call centres.


I agree. It's the greed of the charities and their propensity and ability to enter into and fund this sort of litigation which I find so distasteful.

Having scanned through the transcript of the case, I reckon that it was an excellent, appropriate, fair and reasonable judicial conclusion which was reached.

It's certainly not "A Terrible Ruling" as the OP suggests in the thread title.

Some friends of ours with no kids and no close family have willed their estate to one of these bird charities. They should be rethinking their Will now.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby atticus » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:20 pm

miner wrote:Some friends of ours with no kids and no close family have willed their estate to one of these bird charities. They should be rethinking their Will now.

Why, if they have no kids or close family? Who has a "moral" claim? To whom do they have responsibilities?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19855
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby atticus » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:23 pm

Charities have their place. Many provide excellent support where none exists otherwise. Fund raising is hard and there are so many worthy causes.

Is it still the case that the RNLI receives no other funding than charitable donations? (EDIT: yes - http://rnli.org/aboutus/aboutthernli/Pa ... costs.aspx)

Sure, we may all have our views about individual charities ...
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19855
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A terrible ruling (Wills)?

Postby theycantdothat » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:11 pm

miner wrote:It's the greed of the charities and their propensity and ability to enter into and fund this sort of litigation which I find so distasteful.


So every time a charity is left something in a will and it is challenged it is supposed to roll over and give up the gift?
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Wills and Probate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest