Jump to content

Last will and testament?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :shock:

 

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 :shock::evil:

 

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 :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :cry:

 

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. :cry:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :shock:

 

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 :shock::evil:

 

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 :cry:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...