An unemployed woman whose estranged mother bequeathed her entire £486,000 fortune to animal charities has won a landmark legal case for a share of the estate.Was there some skulduggery involved, perhaps? A confused old lady, mercilessly preyed on by ruthless charities?
No, not at all:
Heather Ilott, 50, fell out with her mother Melita Jackson after running away at 17 to live with her boyfriend.There’s no indication that she was not of sound mind, and so unable to resist attempts to sway her.
The pair barely spoke over the next quarter of a century and when Mrs Jackson died aged 70 in 2004 she left every penny to The Blue Cross, RSPCA and RSPB.
Yet, remarkably, her daughter was able to challenge the will on the grounds that it was ‘unreasonable’ that her mother did not leave her any of her money.
Mrs Ilott challenged the will claiming ‘reasonable provision’ from her mother’s estate and was initially awarded £50,000 before the decision was overturned at the High Court.Why? What happened to ‘being of sound mind’, etc, etc?
But the Court of Appeal yesterday said it was ‘unreasonable’ for Mrs Jackson to disinherit her daughter, a mother of five, who can now return to the High Court to request an even larger share.
There’s absolutely no doubt that she was, or that she was somehow ambivalent in her wishes:
The decision was made despite Mrs Jackson insisting from beyond the grave in a ‘letter of wishes’ that her daughter had caused her ‘distress’ and should ‘expect no inheritance’.Yet the court overruled her will and her stated intentions and first allowed the daughter to claim £50,000, and now possibly more.
The charities warned that the court’s decision could have a ‘devastating’ impact on charitable giving.Indeed. And for once, unlike any other cases, I’m fully behind the charities here.
‘It sets a dangerous precedent where anyone could choose to appeal against the will of a close family member on the grounds of their own financial situation, regardless of the documented wishes of the deceased,’ they said.
When she took her case to the Court of Appeal her barrister said Mrs Jackson had disinherited his client ‘not because she supported any of the charities but simply out of spite’.Irrelevant. It was her money, to do with as she wishes, provided she is competent to do so.
When did relatives get this ‘right’ to make a claim on the proceeds of a will without first showing that undue pressure had been applied?
It seems the message is 'You can't take it with you, and some unelected third party can ignore your written will, so spend, spend, spend and leave no money for anyone.'
11 comments:
"leave no money for anyone."
Certainly not for lawyers. It could backfire on them though - if the courts have this power to disregard and overturn a lawful will, then what is the point of making a will at all? Don't give them anything to argue about; as you say, spend the lot. And take equity release on your house, if you own it, and spend that too. Or sell it, and move into a really top-notch retirement home.
This appeal ruling has effectively brought in the French system by the back door. In France, you are not legally allowed to disinherit your children - no matter how badly they treated you in life. Nice, eh?
On the other hand the Torygraph is putting the emphasis of its reporting on claim that mum didn't like the name daughter gave to 5th grandchild.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8419150/Daughter-cut-out-of-mothers-will-for-naming-her-child-badly.html
That's that then, next step: hand over your money while still alive whenever some Franfurt School judge says so.
Yet another case where activist judges make up the law as they go along.
Time some of these fools were sacked.
Shocking. I was planning to leave my best regards to UK police and now it hardly seems worth the trouble.
I wonder what the court would have decided had Mrs Jackson left her money to some lawyers (particularly progressive lawyers). I fear that Mrs Jackson's wishes would have been obeyed to the letter.
" It could backfire on them though - if the courts have this power to disregard and overturn a lawful will, then what is the point of making a will at all?"
Quite!
"This appeal ruling has effectively brought in the French system by the back door."
I did wonder about that...
"On the other hand the Torygraph is putting the emphasis of its reporting on claim that mum didn't like the name daughter gave to 5th grandchild."
It's as good a reason as any :)
"Yet another case where activist judges make up the law as they go along."
Spot on.
so spend, spend, spend and leave no money for anyone
Hell yeah!
If only I could figure out a way to do that out of gross pay, I'd be all set...
You can't take it with you, but you can take it out in cash and set it on fire in your back garden.
Post a Comment