Turn on thread page Beta

Daughter cut out of mother's will for naming her child badly watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Good. If you're not prepared to secure your child's life at any age, or you dont feel obliged to, then you shouldnt be having children in the first place. The child didnt ask to be born, you are the reason its here, so goddamn look after it and provide for it, its your duty as a parent - something you chose to be.

    Stupid woman.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Such a document shouldn't be overturned by the whims of a court on the basis of an individual who feels they deserve something when they deserve nothing.
    It's not a whim as such, it's a very much established legal point - the only matter in dispute here was the quantities. Naturally, I only know the formal provisions in Scottish law, but here we have prior rights for spouses and legal rights for children, which can be claimed before the estate is even divided. It is impossible to write children or a spouse out of a will entirely - although, by the nature of legal rights, it is theoretically possible to completely disinherit children by altering the make-up of your estate in life.

    Do I disagree? Hmm. Spouses, so far as I am concerned, are entitled to the support of their partner. A claim on an estate seems entirely proper. Adult children? The waters are rather murkier there. I'd be inclined to agree that the law should make writing-out children possible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Good. If you're not prepared to secure your child's life at any age, or you dont feel obliged to, then you shouldnt be having children in the first place. The child didnt ask to be born, you are the reason its here, so goddamn look after it and provide for it, its your duty as a parent - something you chose to be.

    Stupid woman.
    The 'child' was 50.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Lol at someone called Melita complaining about the name Ellen.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    It was more about the fact the daughter ran away at 17, didn't speak to her mother. Never allowed the mother to see her grandchildren and the general lies and deceit she felt her daughter continued her life with.

    Little to do with the name other than the angle to journalist went with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But as you said, all that law allows is for the person to make a claim. It doesn't mean they have to get anything (as far as I am aware).
    Indeed - but if the judges just said "the will is always final" as is being advocated in this forum then no claim would ever succeed - and surely that wouldn't give effect to Parliament's intentions in passing the 1975 Act?

    My point is that whether or not you think this claim should succeed on its facts under the 1975 Act (which is definitely debatable), this judgment can't be criticised just on the basis that it allows a claim outside the will - because thw 1975 Act expressly permits such claims.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Good. If you're not prepared to secure your child's life at any age, or you dont feel obliged to, then you shouldnt be having children in the first place. The child didnt ask to be born, you are the reason its here, so goddamn look after it and provide for it, its your duty as a parent - something you chose to be.

    Stupid woman.
    What??
    The "child" is a middle aged woman.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    The 'child' was 50.
    Doesnt stop her being the woman's offspring. But fine, we'll use "daughter".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    A parent has no legal obligation to leave them anything in their will or provide for them at that age
    No legal obligation to leave anything to them, but certainly it will be awarded by the courts anyway - naturally, with legal costs coming out of the estate. The person who drafted her will should have advised her of this.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    The 'mental old woman's daughter is 50.

    A parent has no legal obligation to leave them anything in their will or provide for them at that age
    This. The decision to overturn is a disgrace.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Doesnt stop her being the woman's offspring. But fine, we'll use "daughter".
    And at that age she shouldn't be demanding her mothers money in a court of law.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)

    Do I disagree? Hmm. Spouses, so far as I am concerned, are entitled to the support of their partner. A claim on an estate seems entirely proper. Adult children? The waters are rather murkier there. I'd be inclined to agree that the law should make writing-out children possible.
    And what is really interesting about this case is not the hullabaloo about the sanctity of wills generally and ignorance of the 1975 Act, but that most family lawyers would have said before this decision that actually this type of claim by an adult child was nigh on impossible. Supreme Court appeal perhaps?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    What??
    The "child" is a middle aged woman.
    Yeah she's still the offspring. But as I said, I'll use "daughter" from now on in the thread.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Well that would be the point of the case.
    No it isn't.
    Making a decision in "spite" is still in sound mind.
    What people mean by "sound mine" is usually refering to mental illnesses and the like.

    (Original post by hatemylife)
    Typical only child.
    Oh do shush.

    (Original post by mja)
    Indeed - but if the judges just said "the will is always final" as is being advocated in this forum then no claim would ever succeed - and surely that wouldn't give effect to Parliament's intentions in passing the 1975 Act?

    My point is that whether or not you think this claim should succeed on its facts under the 1975 Act (which is definitely debatable), this judgment can't be criticised just on the basis that it allows a claim outside the will - because thw 1975 Act expressly permits such claims.
    True, it allows a claim. But the actual decision is upto the judges.

    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Yeah she's still the offspring. But as I said, I'll use "daughter" from now on in the thread.
    So?
    As a parent, you are only expected to provide for the child until they are 18.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No legal obligation to leave anything to them, but certainly it will be awarded by the courts anyway - naturally, with legal costs coming out of the estate. The person who drafted her will should have advised her of this.
    Yeah i read your posts after posting that

    Law's in need of changing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    And at that age she shouldn't be demanding her mothers money in a court of law.
    She shouldnt have to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You can view the deceased woman's letter providing background to the case and instructing her Executors to contest any claims by her daughter here: http://www.bluecross.org.uk/files/39...f%20Wishes.pdf
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    She shouldnt have to.
    No, you're right she shouldn't have to and it's not something I would ever do to any children i have.

    But it is still should be the parents right to do so.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    So?
    As a parent, you are only expected to provide for the child until they are 18.
    Sure. But you dont just stop being a parent once they reach adulthood. You are a parent for life and you should still behave as such. If you're not willing to be, then you should reconsider having children, because there will be many many times they will need you again, despite their age.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Agree entirely. I don't see the point of allowing people to decide what happens to their former property from beyond the grave if we start dictating to whom that property goes. Might as well tax it.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.