Posted on 04/19/2011 8:44:12 AM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
Melita Jackson, who died in 2004 at the age of 70, left her estate of £486,000 to animal charities, making no provision for Heather Ilott, her only child.
Three of the country’s most senior judges said Mrs Ilott, 50, should receive a share of the will, in a decision which could lead to more people challenging relatives’ bequests. ...
At a hearing in February, John Collins, representing Mrs Ilott, told the judges that his client’s final breakdown with her mother was over the naming of her daughter, Ellen, after Mrs Jackson’s sister-in-law, whom she did not like. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Badly is a horrible child’s name.
In my opinion, I don’t think it matters why the mother did not include her daughter in the will. After reading the article the daughter left home at 17 and had very little interaction with her mother since. The mothers was very specific on her her will and obviously, knew her daughter would try to contest it so she even added a letter requesting to fight any attempt from the daughter to contest the will.
The point is that a court can change a person’s
will (50k UK pounds). We can’t be far behind.
Sayonara to the rule of law and contracts
as written by anybody but a judge after
the fact.
Clearly we can't let a dead woman direct the misuse of limited tax money when there's a private option available.
I say give the daughter ALL the money!
There really are times when the dead hand of the past is reaching out from the grave trying to make a mess of civilization.
Actually, we’re already there. A probate judge can uphold a will, invalidate a will or order partially enforced. A probate judge can do whatever he wants. All a will does is tell the judge the preference of the deceased.
When the Rule of Law collapses the collapse of the country is not far behind. Or the the first thing to fail will be the Courts.
The UK has a different legal tradition regarding wills, and this sort of thing has been going on for a long time there.
A lifetime mooch who was just waiting for mom to die to get the money.
American law is pretty advanced compared to UK. Jefferson wrote a law that left 2/3 to the chilluns and 1/3 to the spouse. It's gotten better since then, but since we got rid of the Brits I don't think anybody has treated wills in this country as ironclad personal contracts.
I don’t see what the grounds are for challenging the will.
No one should be entitled to someone else’s stuff and the government/courts should not be in the business of deciding it.
Where there’s a Will there’s a lawyer who will break it.
All your stuff belongs to the government. After you die, they will parcel it out to whomever they think deserves it.
The daughter should get zip. nada.
I don’t think “mom” had any business trying to interfere with the naming of the child. Having said that, it was her estate to do with as she saw fit. The whole thing is sad.
That's an awfully slippery slope you're proposing, "The State knows better what to do with the money."
A living trust is what is necessary (although it isn’t a guarantee either). Lawyers haven’t liked to speak of it very much; they make money from dealings with the law.
However, you just pretty much have to face that when you are dead, you lose control. You are dead.
Well whaddya know, she's a long term welfare/public housing recipient. Totally qualified to redistribute 50,000 from a taxpayer to herself using 3 socialist judges and a tort lawyer.
Real UK justice.
There are few situations in which I would approve of overturning a will. This is certainly not one of them, and I am disgusted both by the daughter and by any lawyer who would take the case. The fact that this daughter challenged the will is proof that she deserves nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.