Judge overturns Will.

[Johnuk123]

http://news.sky.com/story/1526310/woman-wins-payout-after-battle-over-mums-will

A woman whose late mother left her entire estate to animal charities has been awarded a six-figure payout by the Court of Appeal.

Heather Ilott will get £164,000 after initially being left nothing by her mother Melita Jackson, who died in July 2004 at the age of 70.
Mrs Jackson wanted her estate of £486,000 to be split between The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Although overturning Wills is nothing new this changes the rules quite a bit.
The woman specifically said she didn't want her daughter to get a penny as they had fell out years ago and if her daughter challenged the Will it should be fought.

Anybody now refusing to leave money to their children may be forced to explain why and also why they may be leaving it to someone else.
If this becomes the norm then the outcome will be that a Will would just be a guide and a Judge will interfere to share out the money as they see fit.
Freedom of testamentary disposition will disappear.

Thoroughly disagree with this perverse ruling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This sounds ridiculous, though it's workable round - if you're in poor physical health but in full mental health, make many of the donations while still alive.

Surely, however, a Will is a Will. A court should in my view only be able to rule on interpretation of it as written, not to change it, unless it is in breach of a specific law.

 

[Johnuk123]

This sounds ridiculous, though it's workable round - if you're in poor physical health but in full mental health, make many of the donations while still alive.

Surely, however, a Will is a Will. A court should in my view only be able to rule on interpretation of it as written, not to change it, unless it is in breach of a specific law.

The only problem with giving money away while you're alive is you may live longer than you think and may need the money before you croak.

In my opinion it's just yet another interference by the state in how people should think and how they should live their lives. Similar to the right to die debate when you have various interfering busy-bodies with nothing more to do than make sure a person in agony suffers as long as possible.

The Judge called the mother "unreasonable, capricious and harsh" but what she really meant was I know better than you in how you should give away your money.

I know children have always been able to contest Wills but this is a step change in the wrong direction.

 

[Senex]

This sounds ridiculous, though it's workable round - if you're in poor physical health but in full mental health, make many of the donations while still alive.

Surely, however, a Will is a Will. A court should in my view only be able to rule on interpretation of it as written, not to change it, unless it is in breach of a specific law.

I agree. And I hope that in this case the charities will try and go to the Supreme Court (despite my utter dislike of giving money for lawyers!), given that the High Court ruled in their favour. It sounds as though the reasons for the mother's actions were perfectly clear. I wonder whether the Appeal Court would have ruled the same way if the appellant had not been on state handouts and a non-house-owner -- and if not, why not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Judge called the mother "unreasonable, capricious and harsh" but what she really meant was I know better than you in how you should give away your money.

Exactly so. Why do lawyers so often think they know better than the rest of us and are entitled to preach to us? This seems to be an example of the court making law on the basis of the judges' feelings rather than anything else.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I don't quite follow - the article says that wills will have to include letters explaining a person's actions, yet apparently this one did contain that and it was still considered too harsh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937

"Experts say the ruling means you can still disinherit your children but you'll have to explain why and what connects you to those you do leave money to. "

"Mrs Jackson made her last will in 2002 with a letter to explain why she had disinherited her only daughter, referring to the fact she had walked out of her home in 1978 to live with her boyfriend."

I'm also not overly clear why the recipient can receive £164,000 to buy their house outright, but it not affect their benefits. Surely not having rent/mortgage to pay will massively increase their spendable income.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm also not overly clear why the recipient can receive £164,000 to buy their house outright, but it not affect their benefits. Surely not having rent/mortgage to pay will massively increase their spendable income.

I'd need to check but there's something knocking around in the back of my mind that if you use a lump sum to purchase a property for you (and your family) to live in then that lump sum is disregarded for benefit purposes. This would be because for people getting Housing Benefit (the daughter living in a Housing Association property according to one report I saw so it's quite likely) the bill to the taxpayer would actually be reduced if they're no longer liable for rent as they'd no longer be getting help with their rent payments.

But like I say I'd need to check with some sources I don't have access to at home to be sure but that would be my guess.

 

[ExRes]

Totally disgraceful decision and a warning to everyone, not just those with large bank balances, that your choices can and will be overturned regardless of your wishes

Also a perfect example of someone who has made nothing of their life leeching from those that have

 

[Bevan Price]

Totally disgraceful decision and a warning to everyone, not just those with large bank balances, that your choices can and will be overturned regardless of your wishes

Also a perfect example of someone who has made nothing of their life leeching from those that have

Agreed - but we need to be careful what we write in case some ******* judge charges some of us with contempt of court - a situation in which the judge is effectively also the jury.

 

[gazthomas]

I don't agree with the Judges decision, to me it undermines the whole point of a will

 

[yorkie]

I don't agree with the Judges decision, to me it undermines the whole point of a will

Indeed. This is yet another example of how broken our legal system is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed - but we need to be careful what we write in case some ******* judge charges some of us with contempt of court - a situation in which the judge is effectively also the jury.

Well, I'm not afraid to speak my mind about her and have set my signature accordingly.

 

[crehld]

Hasn't it always been the case that inheritance and probate is determined by law, and a will is merely an expression of wish? Indeed I was warned this much a few months ago by my solicitor when they drafted a will for me and my wife which contains instructions on who should care for our daughter.

 

[AM9]

The sad thing is that people are frequently being implored to prepare and maintain wills to:
a) ensure that their stated wishes can be carried out on their death
and
b) they do not die intestate which could in some cases result in their estate being passed to the state.
This judgement will provide no encouragement for those without wills to do them.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely, however, a Will is a Will. A court should in my view only be able to rule on interpretation of it as written, not to change it, unless it is in breach of a specific law.

I don't agree with the Judges decision, to me it undermines the whole point of a will

You need to so some research around the legislation associated with Wills, Probate and Administration before making comments - It has long been in the courts power to alter a will. Your beneficiaries can vary the terms of your will post mortem if they so wish, it is nothing new

It is interesting that the important aspect of this judgement that has not been spotted here is that the judgement has seemingly made it easier for adult children to claim for financial provision after death. Despite all the bluster above this is the key part of the reported judgement NOT the alteration of the will.

In my opinion it's just yet another interference by the state in how people should think and how they should live their lives. Similar to the right to die debate when you have various interfering busy-bodies with nothing more to do than make sure a person in agony suffers as long as possible.

The Judge called the mother "unreasonable, capricious and harsh" but what she really meant was I know better than you in how you should give away your money.

Have you had access to the whole judgement and the facts of the case or just the media report? Is there a copy of the judgement available yet? EDIT - i am assuming you are not involved in the case in some way! If you are i withdraw my statement as you will have access to the facts

I think there will be much more in the history of this matter than has been reported. On the face of it is seems a perverse decision but i bet there are some overriding factors not disclosed in the media reports. I have my suspicions what they are around: testamentary capacity, validity of a letter of instruction, legal advice, conduct of the parties etc

The way to avoid this will be to have your solicitor draw up a proper letter of instruction as part of the will making process setting out your reasons for drafting the will the way you have. That isn't anything new there either but the style of letter may need to be extended to cover the situation created here, perhaps with witnesses as signatories like the will.

Indeed. This is yet another example of how broken our legal system is.
Well, I'm not afraid to speak my mind about her and have set my signature accordingly.

Totally disgraceful decision and a warning to everyone, not just those with large bank balances, that your choices can and will be overturned regardless of your wishes

Yorkie/ExRes - as above: get the judgement, read it and then come back. It is very easy just to make glib statements without the full facts.

If the judgement is as straight forward as you suggest I will apologise profusely and agree with your position as on the presented facts the decision seem odd to say the least.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The sad thing is that people are frequently being implored to prepare and maintain wills to:
a) ensure that their stated wishes can be carried out on their death
and
b) they do not die intestate which could in some cases result in their estate being passed to the state.
This judgement will provide no encouragement for those without wills to do them.

It wont on the presented facts but as i have said i think there is more to this than suggested. In any event making a will is still a very sensible thing to do otherwise the intestacy league table governs where your estate goes

 

[Busaholic]

In any event making a will is still a very sensible thing to do otherwise the intestacy league table governs where your estate goes

Down here in feudal Cornwall the Duchy of Cornwall is the beneficiary, so, if you want to make Charlie boy even richer don't make a will! Actually, if you really do have no dosh and no dependants then the Duchy has to pay for your burial, which is kind of satisfying.

 

[ExRes]

You need to so some research around the legislation associated with Wills, Probate and Administration before making comments - It has long been in the courts power to alter a will. Your beneficiaries can vary the terms of your will post mortem if they so wish, it is nothing new

It is interesting that the important aspect of this judgement that has not been spotted here is that the judgement has seemingly made it easier for adult children to claim for financial provision after death. Despite all the bluster above this is the key part of the reported judgement NOT the alteration of the will.



Have you had access to the whole judgement and the facts of the case or just the media report? Is there a copy of the judgement available yet? EDIT - i am assuming you are not involved in the case in some way! If you are i withdraw my statement as you will have access to the facts

I think there will be much more in the history of this matter than has been reported. On the face of it is seems a perverse decision but i bet there are some overriding factors not disclosed in the media reports. I have my suspicions what they are around: testamentary capacity, validity of a letter of instruction, legal advice, conduct of the parties etc

The way to avoid this will be to have your solicitor draw up a proper letter of instruction as part of the will making process setting out your reasons for drafting the will the way you have. That isn't anything new there either but the style of letter may need to be extended to cover the situation created here, perhaps with witnesses as signatories like the will.





Yorkie/ExRes - as above: get the judgement, read it and then come back. It is very easy just to make glib statements without the full facts.

If the judgement is as straight forward as you suggest I will apologise profusely and agree with your position as on the presented facts the decision seem odd to say the least.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It wont on the presented facts but as i have said i think there is more to this than suggested. In any event making a will is still a very sensible thing to do otherwise the intestacy league table governs where your estate goes

Yes indeed, after reading your post I totally agree that it is very easy to make glib statements without the full facts

 

[DarloRich]

Down here in feudal Cornwall the Duchy of Cornwall is the beneficiary, so, if you want to make Charlie boy even richer don't make a will! Actually, if you really do have no dosh and no dependants then the Duchy has to pay for your burial, which is kind of satisfying.

the ultimate beneficiary ( at stage 13 in the league table!)

Yes indeed, after reading your post I totally agree that it is very easy to make glib statements without the full facts

As i said if the facts are as simple as presented in the media i will apologise and agree with you immediately

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Here is the reasoned Judgement which I think you are all looking for: Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797

I will comment on the Judgement later, but for now I will only say that I object strongly to the confusion between the person speaking and the message spoken (in this case, that it is the spokesperson for the three Appeal Court Judges, Lady Arden, who is being called unreasonable). It is quite possible to read the Judgement and come to the conclusion that an element of its reasoning is 'unreasonable', but that is very different from asserting that it is the person presenting the Decision who is unreasonable.

The actual phrase being quoted enthusiastically in the media and on here : "unreasonable, capricious and harsh", was actually applied by District Judge Million in respect of the deceased Mrs Jackson about 10 years ago in his Decision that Mrs Melita Jackson's provision for her only child was innapropriate, a Decision which was overturned on appeal in in the High Court in 2011 and only partly re-instated following the hearing in front of three Judges in the Court of Appeal on July 3rd. These Courts applied the statutory 'threshold test' in Sections 2 and 3 of the 1975 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act and both Million DJ and the Court of Appeal found that the test was not satisfied and that the will was therefore 'unreasonable' in law. That Act sets out just one basis for making a claim against the written Will of the deceased, and that is that the division of the deceased’s estate does not make "reasonable" financial provision for the relative or dependant who applies. Where the test is not satisfied, then the deceased's wishes are said to be "unreasonable".

I suggest that critics of this week's Decision and/or of the 3 Appeal Court Judges should look to their MP to seek a review of the legislation which our Courts are compelled to apply and which sets out the framework for a child to claim that their parent's Will is "unreasonable".

 

[yorkie]

The actual phrase being quoted enthusiastically in the media and on here : "unreasonable, capricious and harsh", was actually applied by District Judge Million ...

It's widely quoted including this law firm stating clearly that ...

... Lady Justice Arden said Mrs Ilott’s mother had been “unreasonable, capricious and harsh” and ruled she should receive a greater proportion of the estate totalling £164,000 in order to meet her basic human needs....

Did Lady Justice Arden really not say that? There's a lot of sources stating she did!

However you dress it up I can't accept this ruling is anything but unreasonable. A will is a will, and a court shouldn't be able to meddle in my opinion (unless the will is unclear or other similar reasonable reasons) and others are free to disagree but I am not impressed one bit by the ruling.

Yes the system is broken but they are part of that system and if the people handing out do not agree with it then they shouldn't be making it so I don't think they should away with it. If they or their acquaintances don't like the fact that many people disagree with their ruling and are not happy with them as a result of it, then quite frankly tough.

 

[maniacmartin]

I read the judgement and I think it rests on what is meant by 'maintenance' in the act, which is a term that the act doesn't define.

My personal opinion is that the daughter most likely does not need the £143,000 to maintain her current lifestyle. One of the explicit aims of the judgement is that she will now have enough money to buy her own house under the right to buy scheme, instead of renting it. That sounds like more than mere maintenance to me.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't share the court's majority view on the interpretation of the act, nor do am I a fan of the wording act itself. In my view, it should at the very least be limited to claims made by those who were financially dependant upon the deceased up until very near their death.

(It should be noted that I bother to didn't consult any case law or any of the other judgements referenced in the judgement itself)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Did Lady Justice Arden really not say that? There's a lot of sources stating she did!

She did indeed, I gave a link to the full text of her speech and you can see her using the phrase about 3 times. But as I've explained, she was quoting the District Judge from ten years ago. AND in addition, she used the word "unreasonable" in the specific context of the Act which I specified above.

However you dress it up I can't accept this ruling is anything but unreasonable.

"Dressing it up" ? Is this another instance of confusing criticism of what is said with criticism of the person? I've gone to some length to present the facts and to correct misapprehensions, hoping that these will assist others in reaching informed decisions. I haven't given my view on the Decision yet.

. . . I can't accept this ruling is anything but unreasonable. A will is a will, and a court shouldn't be able to meddle in my opinion (unless the will is unclear or other similar reasonable reasons) and others are free to disagree but I am not impressed one bit by the ruling.

I still think you're missing my point - that it is the 1975 Act introduced by Parliament that you are objecting to - not the Decision of a Court which is bound to apply the Act as it is written.

The whole purpose of that Act was to facilitate provisions for family and dependants in Wills which, as written, didn't make adequate allowance for them. Have a read of the Act for yourself (rather than the press's sensationalist comments on this week's Judgement). I'm sure that is the proper target of your discontent.
If you find the Decision distasteful (and I am sympathetic with that opinion), then surely it is Parliament that should be criticised, for introducing an Act which specifically specifies how a relative's Will should be amended in favour of their children?

I am surprised that its taken so long for the popular press to pick up on this issue. I remember discussing the ability of the Courts to change Wills with an Appeal Court Judge about fifteen years ago, as a consequence of this Act.

Yes the system is broken but they are part of that system and if the people handing out do not agree with it then they shouldn't be making it so I don't think they should away with it. If they or their acquaintances don't like the fact that many people disagree with their ruling and are not happy with them as a result of it, then quite frankly tough.

I'm unable to understand this. Sorry.

 

[DarloRich]

Here is the reasoned Judgement which I think you are all looking for: Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797

I am indebted to my learned friend

It's widely quoted including this law firm stating clearly that ...
Did Lady Justice Arden really not say that? There's a lot of sources stating she did!

However you dress it up I can't accept this ruling is anything but unreasonable. A will is a will, and a court shouldn't be able to meddle in my opinion (unless the will is unclear or other similar reasonable reasons) and others are free to disagree but I am not impressed one bit by the ruling.

Yes the system is broken but they are part of that system and if the people handing out do not agree with it then they shouldn't be making it so I don't think they should away with it. If they or their acquaintances don't like the fact that many people disagree with their ruling and are not happy with them as a result of it, then quite frankly tough.

Yorkie - PLEASE read the judgement and the associated legislation and then comment.

I also agree with Dave about your final paragraph. It is indecipherable. Sorry.

EDIT - it doesn't matter what is "widely quoted". What matters is the text of the judgement. See paragraph 22 of the judgement for the actual context of the reported phrase.

 

[Starmill]

I'm at a loss to understand the 'unreasonable' part of someone not wanting to leave money to their offspring whom they haven't seen for 50 years! I don't have children, but I'm sure those of you who do can imagine what it might feel like if they were to abandon you.

 

[ExRes]

I'm still struggling to understand why any law/ruling/belief says offspring are entitled to anything whatsoever under any circumstances, surely the person who has worked for their house/possessions/cash should be able to distribute it as they wish on their death while offspring, other than actual dependents, should have no right to inheritance

 

[DarloRich]

I'm still struggling to understand why any law/ruling/belief says offspring are entitled to anything whatsoever under any circumstances, surely the person who has worked for their house/possessions/cash should be able to distribute it as they wish on their death while offspring, other than actual dependents, should have no right to inheritance

that was the general rule - which is why this case is interesting. (Obviously it IS reasonable to expect provision for a person of any age who is reliant upon you)

As an aside i do wonder of some of the "heat" around this case and the press reporting is based on the fact the appellant is on benefits?

 

[meridian2]

http://news.sky.com/story/1526310/woman-wins-payout-after-battle-over-mums-will



Although overturning Wills is nothing new this changes the rules quite a bit.
The woman specifically said she didn't want her daughter to get a penny as they had fell out years ago and if her daughter challenged the Will it should be fought.

Anybody now refusing to leave money to their children may be forced to explain why and also why they may be leaving it to someone else.
If this becomes the norm then the outcome will be that a Will would just be a guide and a Judge will interfere to share out the money as they see fit.
Freedom of testamentary disposition will disappear.

Thoroughly disagree with this perverse ruling.

Smacks of the 'something for nothing' culture TBH. It discredits wills and dehumanises those who genuinely deserve bequeathing for.

 

[DarloRich]

Smacks of the 'something for nothing' culture TBH. It discredits wills and dehumanises those who genuinely deserve bequeathing for.

Is that your considered opinion having read the judgement and the facts of the case?

 

[meridian2]

What 'facts' are these; the ones in the public interest or the ones that are pertinent?

 

[Johnuk123]

that was the general rule - which is why this case is interesting. (Obviously it IS reasonable to expect provision for a person of any age who is reliant upon you)

As an aside i do wonder of some of the "heat" around this case and the press reporting is based on the fact the appellant is on benefits?

The daughter is 54 so hardly reliant on anybody, this judgement is perverse.

 

[yorkie]

It is perverse, I agree.

I've read most of it; what am I meant to look out for in particular DarloRich?

 

[DarloRich]

What 'facts' are these; the ones in the public interest or the ones that are pertinent?

The daughter is 54 so hardly reliant on anybody, this judgement is perverse.

It is perverse, I agree.

I've read most of it; what am I meant to look out for in particular DarloRich?

I know you don't like having your views or opinions on justice or the legal system challenged but it would help if you read the judgement objectively and understood it.

Clearly the issues are:

Reasonable financial provision based upon the financial & employment circumstances of the appellant - are the appellants resources at such a low or basic level that her needs over rule the general principle that a healthy, fit, adult, financially independent child should not be supported as of right (since the 1975 act been possible for adult children to argue that they are not equality supported - the court tended to reject these claims unless there was dependance)

Should the on going provision of benefits be preserved? (PLEASE try to suspend judgement of people on benefits in this instance)

The relationship breakdown between mother and daughter and the fact the daughter tried several times to repair the damage. Is eloping with someone considered unsuitable by your mother & giving a child a name your mother doesn't like sufficient grounds for ostracism?

The application of Inheritance (Provision for Dependents) Act 1975 s2 & s3(1)(g)

Are existing means conclusive as to the appropriate level at which a person should be maintained. ( ie you are managing to live on £13.5k per year whilst bringing up 5 children by reducing your own expectations but do you need more)

The balance between provision and the wishes of the deceased


I think it is clear from reading the case that there are particular circumstances in this case and that the court has used its discretion to help the appellant. I do not think this case should lead to a general provision for adult children or the requirement to provide for adult children in every case.

The Court concluded that as there was no financial dependence in life (she was an independent person with no health/mental issues) there was no obligation for the Court to provide an income to fund all of the appellants future needs but that no provision was clearly unreasonable considering her financial circumstances and the circumstances of the case.

To my mind the concept of "interpreting" a will is not new and is not altered by this ruling nor are wills made worthless because of this decision. People can still disinherit their children but they will have to have good & very carefully documented reasons for doing so. Objective/rational reasoning will be important as clearly here the estrangement was based on a stubborn interpretation of minor issues.

What still concerns me about this ruling is the potential for further interpretation in subsequent cases and an extension of the provision for adult children. The judiciary will have to be vigilant on this point as I feel the suggestion that if you are fit, healthy, and financially independent adult (and I feel this is a key issue in the case above) child should not be supported as of right is a sensible one.