Landmark Court of Appeal ruling: Your will can be ignored, say UK judges

[webfact]

Your will can be ignored, say judges
The landmark Court of Appeal ruling has implications for how people should draw up their wills, legal experts say

LONDON: -- The right of people to leave money and assets to whom they wish in their will has been seriously undermined by a landmark court ruling, lawyers warned.

A woman has been awarded £164,000 from her estranged mother’s estate, even though the mother expressly stated in her will that she did not want her child to receive a penny.

Melita Jackson left her £500,000 estate to animal charities when she died in 2004.

But after an eight-year court battle, her only daughter, Heather Ilott, 54, was granted a third of that money on the grounds that her mother did not leave “reasonable provision” for her in the will.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs Ilott would otherwise face a life of poverty because she was on benefits and could not afford to go on holiday or buy clothes for her children.

• Could your will be overturned by a court?

The fact that Mrs Jackson had little connection to the charities to which she left her money played a part in the ruling, the judges said.

Legal experts said the ruling had implications for how people needed to draw up their wills. They said it suggested that people would in future have to explain their reasons for why they had left money to certain parties and demonstrate tangible connections to them.

Full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11766651/Your-will-can-be-ignored-say-judges.html

-- The Telegraph 2015-07-29

[chiang mai]

What could be more clear and explicit than saying I do not want to leave any money to my daughter. UK law has become a laughing stock.

[kotsak]

Not to mention that more people may be shown the exit from life earlier if they worth more dead than alive.

[Tatsujin]

What could be more clear and explicit than saying I do not want to leave any money to my daughter. UK law has become a laughing stock.

Had first hand experience of the UK "law" ... being presumed innocent before being proven guilty has LONG gone out the window ... you have to prove your innocence now, not they prove your guilt.

And to overturn or ignore what someone has explicitly written in a valid, legally binding will is just plain wrong. Why should I have to justify anything to anyone if I choose to leave MY money to whoever I choose?

The law is an ass sometimes.

[micmichd]

And the big winner is some British welfare office. One social benefit case less.

Edited July 29, 2015 by micmichd

[Trouble]

And the big winner is some British welfare office. One social benefit case less.

They crafted the decision to all the bitch daughter to retain her benefits. <deleted>

[harrry]

Not right. With children....until they get an education then it ends.

[chickenslegs]

And the big winner is some British welfare office. One social benefit case less.

I expect the lawyers (both sides) have earned very healthy fees.

[Linky]

Thats been the case in oz and NZ for years. You cannot just say a family member is not to get a penny, you must state a compelling reason why for your wish to take effect.

[timendres]

And another reason to disperse the majority of your wealth before you are no longer here to control it.

[utkb]

The issue a will being weak is well known in the US if you have financial accounts setup and designate beneficiaries; those designated will trump future wills. Many cases of ex wives not being removed from the financial form but being cut out of a will. In such cases they would still be the beneficiary.

[freebyrd]

Make provision for a 54 year old?! Times have changed. When I was 15, I told my old man i wanted to join the army. His reply was "What are you telling me for? You know where the recruiting office is boy." He gave me the bus fare and signed the papers once I'd jumped through all the hoops. I've stood on my own two feet since then and by 54 I'd long long ago learned that you get out of life what you put in.

A disgraceful decision, PC has completely taken over and the UK continues to turn to ratsh*t.

[wabothai]

What's next?

[pattayasnowman]

A wise and fair decision by the appeal judges.

[Mudcrab]

I had my will drawn up many years ago and on the advice of the solicitor I included a sum for an estranged son to avoid exactly the situation the situation described in the OP. The bulk will go to my daughter and my "new" wife.

[sambum]

Absolutely disgraceful decision! The daughter is 54 years old, and can not understand why her mother cut her out of her will? She sounds like a typical benefits scrounger who will do anything to avoid her responsibilities:-

"The Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs Ilott would otherwise face a life of poverty because she was on benefits and could not afford to go on holiday or buy clothes for her children"

If she is on benefits part of that money IS to buy clothes for her children, and some people who work for a living can not afford to go on holiday when they have children to support. (My wife and I were in that position for a few years until our daughter was old enough to go to school)

"The fact that Mrs Jackson had little connection to the charities to which she left her money played a part in the ruling, the judges said"

Should the fact that Mrs Ilott probably had little (or probably, no) connection with her mother not have also played a part in the decision?

I can quite understand why her mother left all her money to animal charities, and I am also not at all surprised that there does not seem to be a Mr Ilott around!

Where do they get these judges or magistrates that sit on The Court of Appeal? No wonder that the UK has become a haven for benefits cheats, scroungers and illegal immigrants - a prime example of a "Nanny State"

[Baerboxer]

What could be more clear and explicit than saying I do not want to leave any money to my daughter. UK law has become a laughing stock.

UK judges certainly have delivered some very dotty decisions based on their creative abstract interpretation of the law over the last few years.

I hope the charities appeal to the Supreme Court and this appalling decision is reversed. The deceased made a legal will with crystal clear instructions. Who the hell are 3 judges to over turn that persons wishes and decide otherwise; even to the point of going specifically against those wishes. Disgusting.

The police state PC mentality of the non democratic UK marches on. Soon, the government will want to decide everybody's will bequests for them. You can't do this, you can't do that. We taxed you when you earned it, we taxed you on the interest you received investing and saving it, we taxed you when you died and left it to people. Now we're going to decide who gets it too - fcku your wishes.

And the erosion of liberty, freedom, justice and rights under common law continue to be eroded. Soon, the Russians and Chinese will enjoy more freedom than the British.

[Baerboxer]

A wise and fair decision by the appeal judges.

You are joking - right?

[Eff1n2ret]

I had my will drawn up many years ago and on the advice of the solicitor I included a sum for an estranged son to avoid exactly the situation the situation described in the OP. The bulk will go to my daughter and my "new" wife.

Very fair of you, but what these judges have done is make it possible for him to come back and say you haven't given him a fair share, especially if he's on benefits.

The phrase in the 1975 Inheritance Act on which this woman has successfully relied is ".....such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance....". The judges have decided to act as a branch of the Social Services, and opened a real can of worms which could result in a deluge of such cases in the courts.

[harrry]

I had my will drawn up many years ago and on the advice of the solicitor I included a sum for an estranged son to avoid exactly the situation the situation described in the OP. The bulk will go to my daughter and my "new" wife.

Very fair of you, but what these judges have done is make it possible for him to come back and say you haven't given him a fair share, especially if he's on benefits.

The phrase in the 1975 Inheritance Act on which this woman has successfully relied is ".....such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance....". The judges have decided to act as a branch of the Social Services, and opened a real can of worms which could result in a deluge of such cases in the courts.

No. If they had been doing so they would have made the payment in such a way that it reduced her reliance on money from the public. They however framed it to not affect her benifit.

[magnacarta]

I think there was a topic on here a little while ago about " Lost contact with family and friends" sorry I forget the exact content.Anyway refering to that post I think it might worry a few members.I recencty looked into transfering the ownership of my house in the UK to my Thai wife,which I have left to my daughter and my wife,to much detail to go into on here.Anyway I did a bit of Googling and it transpired I can transfer ownership without any cost.For information sake my prime purpose was to avoid paying tax on the rental income.They are going to inherit anyway so why not enhance your income if there is a legal way around it.Would be interested if any other posters have opinions or advice

[Alan poole]

Hard cases make bad Law

[Trouble]

And another reason to disperse the majority of your wealth before you are no longer here to control it.

Yes, get the money and assets in a trust and get rid of it before some jerk tries to take it from you. Keep what money you need to get through to the end and insure that you have the biggest funeral that money will buy. Passing it on to charitable trusts also means the government doesn't get its filthy hands on it either, at least here in the US.

[sambum]

I had my will drawn up many years ago and on the advice of the solicitor I included a sum for an estranged son to avoid exactly the situation the situation described in the OP. The bulk will go to my daughter and my "new" wife.

Very fair of you, but what these judges have done is make it possible for him to come back and say you haven't given him a fair share, especially if he's on benefits.

The phrase in the 1975 Inheritance Act on which this woman has successfully relied is ".....such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance....". The judges have decided to act as a branch of the Social Services, and opened a real can of worms which could result in a deluge of such cases in the courts.

No. If they had been doing so they would have made the payment in such a way that it reduced her reliance on money from the public. They however framed it to not affect her benifit.

So, she gets a lump sum from her mother's will (which her mother specifically said that she did not want her to have) and she still gets her benefits? This seems to be getting worse by the minute! The only consolation I can see in this scenario is that by the time the lawyers get paid after 8 years of negotiations, there will be significantly less than the 140,000 pounds awarded by the Court of Appeal. Hopefully (and I say this grudgingly) the lawyers fees will far outweigh the amount of money she has been awarded by the Court of Appeal, and she will end up owing the lawyers money!

As another poster has implied, it seems that even "any last requests" are now null and void, and the best way to avoid any arguments/court cases/legal fees after your death is to get rid of it all before you go, and regarding this particular case, IF there was anything left after the lawyers had been paid, make sure that the daughter had to pay all Court of Appeal costs!

However, that is never going to happen because she is "on benefits"!!!

Doesn't it make you proud to be British?

Edited July 29, 2015 by sambum

[losworld]

What could be more clear and explicit than saying I do not want to leave any money to my daughter. UK law has become a laughing stock.

No sadly it is the people who put up with allowing the state to overrule them.

[sambum]

 

What could be more clear and explicit than saying I do not want to leave any money to my daughter. UK law has become a laughing stock.

No sadly it is the people who put up with allowing the state to overrule them.

Deleted - duplicated post

Edited July 29, 2015 by sambum

[sambum]

 

What could be more clear and explicit than saying I do not want to leave any money to my daughter. UK law has become a laughing stock.

No sadly it is the people who put up with allowing the state to overrule them.

 

Very profound, but it's a bit difficult to do anything about it when you've been dead for 8 years!

Edited July 29, 2015 by sambum

[Jonmarleesco]

And the big winner is some British welfare office. One social benefit case less.

Only until the money runs out. Fifty four, on benefits and still with children to clothe. Suggests why her mother did what she did. A trust might be the answer for future cases, but I'm far from sure a court of asses wouldn't manage to upend the terms of one of those.

[Jonmarleesco]

Absolutely disgraceful decision! The daughter is 54 years old, and can not understand why her mother cut her out of her will? She sounds like a typical benefits scrounger who will do anything to avoid her responsibilities:-

"The Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs Ilott would otherwise face a life of poverty because she was on benefits and could not afford to go on holiday or buy clothes for her children"

If she is on benefits part of that money IS to buy clothes for her children, and some people who work for a living can not afford to go on holiday when they have children to support. (My wife and I were in that position for a few years until our daughter was old enough to go to school)

"The fact that Mrs Jackson had little connection to the charities to which she left her money played a part in the ruling, the judges said"

Should the fact that Mrs Ilott probably had little (or probably, no) connection with her mother not have also played a part in the decision?

I can quite understand why her mother left all her money to animal charities, and I am also not at all surprised that there does not seem to be a Mr Ilott around!

Where do they get these judges or magistrates that sit on The Court of Appeal? No wonder that the UK has become a haven for benefits cheats, scroungers and illegal immigrants - a prime example of a "Nanny State"

'No wonder that the UK has become a haven for benefits cheats, scroungers ...' Become? It's been that for years; hence the furore over immigration, illegal and otherwise. But MPs are too dense to realise this.

[sambum]

Absolutely disgraceful decision! The daughter is 54 years old, and can not understand why her mother cut her out of her will? She sounds like a typical benefits scrounger who will do anything to avoid her responsibilities:-

"The Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs Ilott would otherwise face a life of poverty because she was on benefits and could not afford to go on holiday or buy clothes for her children"

If she is on benefits part of that money IS to buy clothes for her children, and some people who work for a living can not afford to go on holiday when they have children to support. (My wife and I were in that position for a few years until our daughter was old enough to go to school)

"The fact that Mrs Jackson had little connection to the charities to which she left her money played a part in the ruling, the judges said"

Should the fact that Mrs Ilott probably had little (or probably, no) connection with her mother not have also played a part in the decision?

I can quite understand why her mother left all her money to animal charities, and I am also not at all surprised that there does not seem to be a Mr Ilott around!

Where do they get these judges or magistrates that sit on The Court of Appeal? No wonder that the UK has become a haven for benefits cheats, scroungers and illegal immigrants - a prime example of a "Nanny State"

'No wonder that the UK has become a haven for benefits cheats, scroungers ...' Become? It's been that for years; hence the furore over immigration, illegal and otherwise. But MPs are too dense to realise this.

Note that I did say "has become .........." in my post and not "becoming..............."!