This post is incredibly ironic given your claims of a "grudge" being held by the mother when it sounds rather more like it was the daughter at fault but , as you say, we don't know the details, so why are you blaming the mother?
The fact is some people treat members of their family very badly and then expect something from them after death, and the law appears to be rather more supportive of such peoole than many of us believe it should be, and many of us can see how wrong this is.
Quite frankly we will have to agree to disagree on this.
I am sure the mothers door would have been open if the daughter had bothered to visit, as she hadn't bothered the mother decided to write the daughter out of her will several years later.
The blood relationship didn't count for much while her mother was alive so I fail to see why it should be so relevant now the mother is dead!
I wonder how much of the money was made after the daughter had walked out?
I would think it fair if the only money taken into account was the money available at the time she walked out and not any money made afterwards!
The various previous judgements (you can get to several through the link above) set out the behaviour of the parties quite clearly. While
neither is perfect they do acknowledge that the daughter tried to repair the relationship several times.
The whole issue began because the daughter "eloped" at 17 with the man she is still married to (many years later) and who the mother didn't approve of. The final attempt at reconciliation failed because the final grandchild was given a name the mother didn't like
The fact it was taken to the Appeal Court means the original ruling wasn't moot,and reinforces the belief this was done by a judge showing 'leniency' inappropriately.
reinforces your belief that should say - much of the legal commentary suggests otherwise.
Indeed. I certainly remain very unclear. Presumably the meaning of "child" in the Act is simply "offspring" and not "offspring note of the age of majority". But what is the meaning of "dependant"? Surely this would normally be someone who is routinely supported by someone else to a greater or lesser extent. Yet here we are hearing about someone in middle age who has not been supported by her mother for many years. We have not been told why she is on state hand-outs ("benefits") or what steps she has taken to qualify herself for any or better employment -- and it was presumably her own conscious decision to have no fewer than five children. Then the decision to provide her with the money to buy her house means in fact that she is enabled to buy an asset that will in this country's housing market rise sharply in value and provide her with capital to leave to those children that she would not otherwise have had. There are still too many things about this case we have apparently not heard about. Maybe all will become clear if an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court.
I also wonder what exactly the term child is supposed to mean, I would have thought that anyone reaching the age of majority would cease to be regarded as a child
The fact that one can be forced to leave an inheritance to offspring is also rather worrying in a context that I have first hand knowledge of, a divorced father dies and leaves his son and daughter, willingly, 50% each of his assets, his son then spends his entire inheritance on cocaine and dies in his early 40's because of his addiction. If his father had taken the time to make himself aware of the addiction and disinherited him would the court then take it upon themselves to override the fathers sensible decision and, ultimately, be responsible for supplying the son with the method with which he killed himself
In the absence of further definition child here must be taken to mean offspring. My concerns are similar to yours. A person with no dependence and the ability to provide for themselves has been successful in making a claim. I would HOPE that the extension of the principle can be limited to the particular situation/facts here.
To extend that to the example suggested by Exres - if the child was of independent financial means (and we must assume that to mean NOT on benefits for the purposes of this discussion) then the court should not find in favour of the son
I think that if a letter of intent was drawn up at the time of the will by a suitable solicitor stating the decision to disinherit the son as well as setting out the rational/logical reasoning and evidence supporting that decision the court would "uphold" the will.
But will it go to the Supreme Court. Civil cases are not eligible for legal aid, and the charities may not feel they can face the excessive costs of using the English legal system any further. Yet there is surely a principle that needs to be dealt with, and the way that is done in this country is through the deliberations of the highest court. But that isn't much good if most people and most organisations can't afford access to it.
Agreed - although it does appear there has been some "pro bono" involvement by counsel
