Ian Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Exact amounts are still to be announced but it looks like the RSPCA will now have to pay significant costs in the battle over the farm willed to them, but which was later overturned in Court. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8501020.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 A more detailed report, possibly including her fathers original motive - it's claimed that he said that if she didn't give him a Grandchild or get nothing but having written it then later omitted to change the will when she did. Could any parent really be so manipulative? http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4675290.Daughter_wins_battle_of_wills/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Yes, Ian, a parent could. It's not that uncommon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) I have mixed feelings on this. I don't believe that a child (or any other family member) has any automatic 'right' to inherit someone's wealth. I wonder why this woman didn't change her will after her husband died, maybe she just didn't get round to it. If someone is manipulative, then they don't tend to make exceptions (in fact the closer you are to such a person, the more likely they are to try to manipulate you to get what they want). I have a clause in my Will specifically excluding one family member who I suspect might try to contest it, since I am leaving the majority of my stuff to charity. It's best to be clear about these things and it's a shame more people don't make a will (and keep it regularly updated). Edited February 6, 2010 by merledogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brierley Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 If the will was as specific as it appears to have been, I'm surprised it ever got as far as court. If the will was as specific as it appears to have been, I'm surprised it ever got as far as court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 I don't believe either that anyone has an automatic right to a parent's wealth. But this is rather different from most cases. The father could no longer run his farm but wished it to continue in business. He said that his daughter could have the farm if she ran it for him unpaid during the remainder of his life, which necessitated her going part time with her job and losing a large slice of salary. This kind of agreement does sometimes happen in farming families, and any parent who did not keep to their side of the agreement would be generally be considered way out of order. You could argue that the daughter should have had a formal contract drawn up regarding her running of the farm, but how often do people do that with family members? We may have a duty to care for our parents when they become old, but that does not include giving up part of one's work and pay to run their business for no remuneration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Yes, Ian, a parent could. It's not that uncommon. People do fall out, get old, demanding etc & I could have easily believed a bit of manipulation over whether say she was or wasn't coming for Xmas dinner this year but to try & blackmail someone into creating a life is just appalling. Sadly amidst all this money which was intended to help animals will now be lining the pockets of solicitors & barristers instead. Even more sadly there is now another one. I believe this legal duty to recover monies thing has been taken to the ridiculos by someone & surely some common sense (or even guidance from the Charity Commission) could prevail before these matters end up in the courts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) Or maybe not............ Faced with a huge legal bill the RSPCA appear to be going for "s**t or bust" and have launched an appeal against the decision awarding Christine Gill her parents farm. They also appear to be looking to call in other Charities to support their fight as "In a joint statement with the Charities Aid Foundation, Great Ormond Street Hospital and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association the RSPCA said: "This case has been troubling for many charities, and we are very concerned at its possible implications for the charity sector. "It is unacceptable for charity trustees to be caught between the legal duty to secure assets to which the charity is entitled and the threat of huge legal costs being imposed for attempting to do so. It is crucial that this matter is finally settled, one way or the other, so charities can be more certain of the legal landscape, and can plan accordingly. " As I've said before I have reservations about either relatives or the courts challenging and overturning wills after the event personally. Nevertheless it appears that despite losing the case in court they are now determined to push it further which will presumably either leave them with an even larger legal bill or bankrupt the porr woman. Surely this was not what the RSPCA founders set out to do and be ? http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/8553326.stm Edited March 7, 2010 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts