5 thoughts on “Female judge overturns a will to hand a 54-year-old woman £163,000”
“A 57 yo married woman living off the state (albeit below the poverty line) now qualifies because the judge deemed her need greater than that of the charities.” One can be pretty sure that a “dependent” son of 57 would get nowhere. As I understand it the ruling referred to mid seventies statute to protect children and disabled children. Once again benign sexism actually assumes fully adult women are not able to manage without the help more usually offered to children.
I don’t know the ‘facts’ (Who does?), although I have read the article, but I’m acquainted with someone not inexperienced in the matter of bequests from old ladies to animal charities, which are ‘highly professional’ in pitching appeals to what they disparagingly term ‘Marjories’. These old women often live in very nice houses paid for by their husbands, houses that the women themselves may have made little if any meaningful financial contribution to. It is not unreasonable to assume that the husbands died thinking their children (assuming that any offspring are actually their children) would eventually receive the fruits of their fathers’ labours. That thought underlay my own acceptance of the disadvantaged position I found myself in after my divorce from my criminally dishonest first wife. I would be far from happy to learn that she had left her estate to a charity rather than my daughter and would applaud a court’s decision to overturn her mother’s will.
Thanks Alan. This case took place in England, of course.
In Scotland a Will means little as Scots Law takes precedence. The estate is distributed in line with that law independent upon the wishes of the deceased. In effect , if married , all assets are transferred to the surviving spouse.
Why in God’s name is one obliged to provided “reasonable provision” for a 54-year old? It is easy to imagine the growth industry in offspring contesting Wills that this ruling will cause. And who will benefit from that? The lawyers, of course.
“A 57 yo married woman living off the state (albeit below the poverty line) now qualifies because the judge deemed her need greater than that of the charities.” One can be pretty sure that a “dependent” son of 57 would get nowhere. As I understand it the ruling referred to mid seventies statute to protect children and disabled children. Once again benign sexism actually assumes fully adult women are not able to manage without the help more usually offered to children.
I don’t know the ‘facts’ (Who does?), although I have read the article, but I’m acquainted with someone not inexperienced in the matter of bequests from old ladies to animal charities, which are ‘highly professional’ in pitching appeals to what they disparagingly term ‘Marjories’. These old women often live in very nice houses paid for by their husbands, houses that the women themselves may have made little if any meaningful financial contribution to. It is not unreasonable to assume that the husbands died thinking their children (assuming that any offspring are actually their children) would eventually receive the fruits of their fathers’ labours. That thought underlay my own acceptance of the disadvantaged position I found myself in after my divorce from my criminally dishonest first wife. I would be far from happy to learn that she had left her estate to a charity rather than my daughter and would applaud a court’s decision to overturn her mother’s will.
Thanks Alan. This case took place in England, of course.
In Scotland a Will means little as Scots Law takes precedence. The estate is distributed in line with that law independent upon the wishes of the deceased. In effect , if married , all assets are transferred to the surviving spouse.
Why in God’s name is one obliged to provided “reasonable provision” for a 54-year old? It is easy to imagine the growth industry in offspring contesting Wills that this ruling will cause. And who will benefit from that? The lawyers, of course.