Money brings out the worst in some people

MPs' Expenses: They Claimed For That?

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/mps-expenses-they-claimed-for-that/ar-AAdhRYH?ocid=U348DHP



"You get the government you deserve"

It must be such a struggle for the poor souls to manage on the pittance they pay themselves!

Woman rejected by mother in will wins £164k inheritance





[snipped ]
A Hertfordshire woman cut out of her mother's will has been awarded a £164,000 inheritance in what could prove to be a landmark ruling.
Heather Ilott, of Ware, went to court after her mother Melita Jackson left her £486,000 estate to animal charities when she died in 2004.
The Court of Appeal has ruled she should receive a third of the estate.
The ruling could significantly weaken people's right to leave money to those they want to inherit it, it is thought.

Analysis

by Clive Coleman, legal affairs correspondent
When Melita Jackson died in 2004 she made it crystal clear she didn't want her estranged daughter Heather Ilott to benefit, and so left her estate to animal charities with which she had little connection.
The relationship between mother and daughter soured when, aged 17, Heather eloped with her future husband.
Yesterday she was awarded a third of the estate because her mother hadn't left "reasonable provision" for her in the will.
She'll now be able to buy her housing association property and won't lose her state benefits.
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.
That'll make it easier for adult "disinherited" children to challenge wills and claim greater sums by way of reasonable provision.

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.
Mrs Ilott, who was an only child, having been born two months after her father died in an accident, had in 2007 won the right to an inheritance of £50,000 after a district judge concluded she had been "unreasonably" excluded by Mrs Jackson. That ruling was reversed, before Appeal Court judges ruled she was entitled to a share of the money.
When Mrs Ilott appealed to get the amount increased, Mrs Justice Parker dismissed this at the High Court in London, ruling in March 2014 that the previous decision that £50,000 was appropriate could not "be said to be wrong".
However, in the latest hearing 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.


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



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________







This of course begs the question, why bother to make a will if it can be overturned.  Is this the right thing to do.  I my opinion, NO, and two hearings and the amount increased in the second case....... why?

However, in the latest hearing 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.

It was patently clear what this lady wanted, yet it was ignored.  IMO this is totally wrong.

Oh dear, this brings back sad memories of a family that I knew.

If I was in the daughter's position, I would not have disputed the will, knowing that my mother would not have given me anything when she was alive.

Money brings out the worst in many people, alas.

It was the poor dead woman's money, she could (and did) do whatever she wanted with it, provided of course she was of sound enough mind to make the decision.

It's not up to the Courts to take those rights away from anyone, alive or dead.

OMG this is dreadful. What happens if one of your kids has a personality disorder and just sets fire to money?

Resistor wrote:It was the poor dead woman's money, she could (and did) do whatever she wanted with it, provided of course she was of sound enough mind to make the decision.

It's not up to the Courts to take those rights away from anyone, alive or dead.

Absolutely.  As I said in my first post, what on earth is the point of making a will if it can just be overturned.  It makes a mockery of it.    The daughter had no rights to the money, if she was disinherited, it was her mother's to do with as she wished, so all sorts of people can now claim, it has opened the floodgates.  Where does it stop, where do you draw the line and say no......... it is a  minefield!

Oh dear, that  dreaded time when someone dies and the will is settled.  This does cause so many problems and families falling out. 


Paul Daniels' son brands Debbie McGee a ‘witch’, claiming she's 'cut him out of late magician's £1.5million estate'


Paul Daniels Jr, 56, has made a series of shocking claims against TV star Debbie following his father's death



Paul Daniels ' son has hit out at his father's widow Debbie McGee, claiming she has cut him out of the late magician's £1.5million estate.
Paul Junior, 56, branded his father's wife a "witch" in a shocking attack, after they fell out over the star's will following his death in March.
According to The Sun on Sunday , Paul left his entire £1.5million estate to Debbie, and his son claims while she promised to look after him and his two brothers financially, she allegedly instead shut the shop he ran in Wigan.
Paul Jr set up the Paul Daniels Magic Party Shop in 2007, selling magic props and fancy dress, with his father - but now claims he's been left 'jobless' after he alleges Debbie closed the business down.

PA
Paul Newton Daniels, the son of millionaire magician Paul Daniels
He told the newspaper: " Debbie McGee is nothing but a false witch who will struggle to survive without my father’s name attached to her.
“Now she’s just a jumped-up dancer with no talent.
“She is running around like a sweet and innocent widow but she doesn’t fool me."

Getty
Magician Paul Daniels and wife Debbie McGee
Paul Jr claims he was told to leave the shop in March, as she was closing it down, and almost became homeless as he struggled to pay the bills afterwards.
Eventually, he alleges a £3,500 redundancy payment was agreed after he contacted employment experts.
It comes amid claims magician Paul left an estate with a gross value of more than £1.5 million - but the net value only came to less than £500,000 after debts and costs.

A spokesman for Debbie told the newspaper the claims were “inaccurate” but declined to comment further.
Mirror Online has contacted Debbie's rep for comment.
It comes after she spoke warmly of her late husband in an emotional interview.

She said she struggles daily after losing the entertainer to cancer six months ago and tries to find relief in ordinary household tasks like watering plants and regular exercise like pilates.
Magician Paul , 77, was diagnosed with a brain tumour in February and died at their home in Berkshire weeks later.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/paul-daniels-son-brands-debbie-9056991

I don't know much about foreign laws, but in a lot of countries it's not possible to disown your own children ...

I don't know how it would be possible to stop anyone from disowning their children (assuming they are adults) if that's what they want to do.

The saying is that it's the love of money that's the root of all evil.

Here's a topic from last year when (disgracefully I feel) a woman was able to overturn her mother's wishes in her will.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t870-woman-rejected-by-mother-in-will-wins-164k-inheritance-is-this-right-or-wrong

That topic now merged with this one.

Châtelaine wrote:I don't know much about foreign laws, but in a lot of countries it's not possible to disown your own children ...

We just had to change our Cypriot wills because you cannot now stop your children from having a claim on your estate, unless you state that you wish the law of your country of birth is used. For example:
I am on a second marriage. We each have a child/children by previous spouses. Until this year we could each leave our half of our property to each other. But the European law of succession now applies so, theoretically, if I die my 2 kids could force their stepfather to sell the house to give them their quarter share in our property.He would automatically have his own half and half of my share. As this pay off would be impossible without selling the house it could render him homeless. Of course he could just sell up, settle, then buy a smaller place but the property market is difficult and they would be entitled to their share immediately.
Luckily there is a way out but if the UK adopts this law it could all change again.
We considered buying in France at one time but would have had to buy using a clause tontine to circumvent the succession issue.
My belief is that your kids are only entitled to what you leave after both partners have died. Debbie and Paul were married a long time. It's not as though she was some Jenny come lately.
If Paul had wanted him to have sonething it would have been in the will.

That link from last year which you have posted is astonishing Freedom. Maybe after legal fees that daughter gained little benefit. What is the point of making a will with specific bequests then if it can be overturned in that way ?

Surely a person should be allowed to leave whatever they have to whomever they wish.
P Daniels' son is obviously bitter, but seems it was Paul who 'cut him out' not Debbie.

Money, money, and more money, obsesses some unfortunately.

I'd be interested to hear how Paul's other two sons feel about this.

Actually @ chirps I'm surprised how many people have been buying a second or main property abroad this last decade or so and given no consideration to the inheritance laws of those countries.
Seems ignorance is preferable to some and assumption that just because you are British and buy abroad then British laws apply

bluebell wrote:Actually  @ chirps  I'm surprised how many people have been buying a second or main property abroad this last decade or so and given no consideration to the inheritance laws of those countries.  
Seems ignorance is preferable to some and assumption that just because you are British and buy abroad then British laws apply        

I have to admit bluebell it would be the last thing I thought of (Inheritance law) when buying abroad.  Where the nearest M & S is would be a priority on the list not death. 

bluebell wrote:Actually  @ chirps  I'm surprised how many people have been buying a second or main property abroad this last decade or so and given no consideration to the inheritance laws of those countries.  
Seems ignorance is preferable to some and assumption that just because you are British and buy abroad then British laws apply        

***
My sole heir is one of my nephews. He'll pay 60% in FR and of what's left 40% in NL!
I'm taking "measures" ...

bluebell wrote:Actually  @ chirps  I'm surprised how many people have been buying a second or main property abroad this last decade or so and given no consideration to the inheritance laws of those countries.  
Seems ignorance is preferable to some and assumption that just because you are British and buy abroad then British laws apply        

We considered it very carefully when we bought 13 years ago because of our slightly convoluted family situation. We made Cypriot wills which, at the time, allowed for us to leave our respective half of the property to each other. The law changed last year so we couldn't have foreseen this. But you are quite right in that we know many people who haven't bothered changing their will because it costs a few bob. It's all well and good if you trust your kids but money has a way of bringing out the worst in some people.

Freedom wrote:I'd be interested to hear how Paul's other two sons feel about this.

I have my wish!

I had a feeling that they would not agree.

Andrew wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/debbie-mcgee-heartbroken-family-row-9106865

Debbie McGee is heartbroken at the family row over the £1.5million fortune left by her magician husband Paul Daniels.

The legendary entertainer’s 57-year-old widow has been branded “a witch” by his son Paul Junior.

Look on the bright side. At least he didn't dunk her to see if she floated, then burn her at the stake....

I'm still waiting for Paul Daniels to follow through on his promise to leave the country in the event of Labour winning the 1997 general election.

He's not very likely to keep that promise now!

Speaking of siblings falling out......

An appropriate (or not?) name - Camilla - for a royal editor!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/724136/prince-andrew-requests-princesses-beatrice-eugenie-kensington-prince-charles-queen-william

Another story with money causing problems......


£148m Lotto winner evicts disabled family friend because she couldn’t afford £250 rent rise 

• Kym Mills was best friend of Gillian Bayford who scooped £148m in 2012
  
• Moved into home on her enormous estate and started a job for the couple
  
• But when Bayfords divorced in 2013, friendships turned sour
  
• Disabled Ms Mills says she's being evicted when millionaire put up rent
  

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863384/148m-Lotto-winner-evicts-disabled-family-friend-couldn-t-afford-250-rent-rise.html

The win also apparently caused Mrs Bayford's parents to disown her!

I shall just be happy with the £5.00 I've won this week on Thunderball - nobody will disown me over that.