observer Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Thought, providing someone is of sound mind, signs a formal will, witnessed by a solicitor - their wishes are guaranteed by law? Not in the case of the woman who challenged her mother's bequest to the RSPCA it appears - yet another reason to get it spent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Sorry Obs, but anyone who can leave that amount of money to the RSPCA, local dogs home or the goldfish sanctuary is certainly NOT of sound mind, regardless of what the law may say. Leave a few quid fair enough but certainly not that amount Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's THEIR money to do with as THEY wish - there's no legal or moral obligation to leave it to a load of scrounging kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 It is the sign of a mean and vindictive parent who shouldn't have had kids in the first place then if that is the case. It should be illegal to leave that amount of money to animals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Simple - "last WILL and testament" - a legal document; end of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 If the person is not found "Incapacitated" then it should be as they wished. There are many reasons why people leave their money to other than family, most are sound reasons, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Right on Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 For the court to overturn the will, there must have been some evidence that something was wrong. The law allows parents to be vindictive and doesn't support greedy adult children's absolute right to expect the dosh. A spouse has certain basic rights, as do dependent kids, but that's all. A will normally does guarantee that the nominated people get your money and stuff, but anything else you put in there isn't legally binding. My friend's brother left ?100K to his other sister to share between all his nieces and nephews as she saw fit (he did it that way because he was only in his 40s and didn't know how many there would be by the time he died, having four brothers and two sisters). She saw fit to give them all nothing and buy herself a house. As his will left the money to her, and the sharing out was nothing more than a wish, there was nothing to be done about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I understand the legal fees in this case are over ?1 million, much of wish I guess might be borne by the RSPCA who defended the terms of the original will. Funny things wills as they represent an opportunity to be quite vindictive, or the opportunity for some people to exert influence for their benefit on those who are making the will. Interestingly the original will would not have been the subject of inheritance tax, as it has now been overturned and benefits an individual rather than a charity, it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I understand the legal fees in this case are over ?1 million, much of wish I guess might be borne by the RSPCA who defended the terms of the original will. How on earth can legal bills get upto ?1 million As the RSPCA are a charity with most of their money coming from kind hearted people and regular donations...... does that mean that they have just wasted ?1 million pounds of such donations I do hope you are wrong Paul as all I can think of is how many animals could have been saved, treated, rehomed, fed etc etc with that amount of money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Believe the RSPCA will be appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 The RSPCA don't appeal to me! They aren't the cuddly outfit they like to portray themselves as Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 True. Sadly I had a rather nasty insight into how they sometimes work some time ago and maybe one day I will forget it.... but I doubt it I won't go into the finer details as it wasn't nice and would give anyone with a heart nightmares but their actions (or should I say lack of actions) did stop us fundraising and donating to them from that point onwards. Luckily our local vets jumped to the rescue and helped us out along with another local animal welfare charity. BUT regardless of my one bad experience the RSPCA are still a charity based organisation at the end of they day and many people do still donate. As such should they not be allowed/expected to spend/pay such massive amounts of money on legal fees towards a will that has been contested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I understand the legal fees in this case are over ?1 million, much of wish I guess might be borne by the RSPCA who defended the terms of the original will. How on earth can legal bills get upto ?1 million As the RSPCA are a charity with most of their money coming from kind hearted people and regular donations...... does that mean that they have just wasted ?1 million pounds of such donations I do hope you are wrong Paul as all I can think of is how many animals could have been saved, treated, rehomed, fed etc etc with that amount of money Alas I don't think I am. In this case the RSPCA expected to receive ?2.3 million, its right to that money was challenged in the Court, the RSPCA has a duty under charity law to defend its position, it lost, and on that basis it has to pay the legal costs. I assume that it can appeal the decision in a higher court...and possibly incur more costs. Maybe it as insurance to cover such eventualities. The challenging of Wills whilst not common, it does occur more frequently than people might think. When people die without making a Will, intestacy rules determine who gets what. Some years ago a business acquaintance of mine tranferred the family home to his Wife, unbeknown to him in her Will she bequeathed all her assets to her daughters, she died first, daughters kicked him out of the house as they wanted to sell it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 How on earth can legal bills get upto ?1 million Your average back street solicitor will charge over ?200 for 1 letter so it's hardly surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 A decent solicitor would never have allowed it to happen like that. The original transfer of the property to the wife's name should have included a provision that the husband retained a right to live there until his death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I'm confused now...... as I thought the will in this instance had been worded that if the husband died the wife got it and vice versa but once they had both died it all went to the RSPCA. Her hubby died first and it was only when she also died that her daughter found out that she was to inherit nothing. The reports also said that the wife was very dependent on her husband and would not have questioned or disagreed with any decisions he made. Rather sad for all parties involved really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.