[Closed] RSPCA inheritence argument thingy

No.

it sounds like she put as much effort into running the place as they did for 30 years on the understdanding she would own it when they went.

goodness knows what she did to upset her father but he seems to have stiched her up something rotten.

Old lawyer's saying - "Where there's a will, there's a relative"

She spent 10 years living there and running the far, looking after her mother. Think it's a bit rough. People get old, go a bit weird in the head and decide treat their kids badly. I think it's fair she's got it. If she was absent for the last 10 years I'd think it was wrong.

As in most cases like this there's probably more to it than reported.

I wonder if she'll make a goodwill gesture to the RSPCA?

In this particular case the law has been 100% spot on.

The RSPCA said it was "very surprised" and "disappointed" and would appeal.

Why? Its obvious that it would have been a great injustice to the Daughter. Are they that callous/heartless money-grabbers?

Isn't the traditional wording something like "Being of sound mind and body, and of my own free will" ?

If it is later shown that the deceased wasn't acting in "free will" then fair enough I think.

Bit of a scunner for the RSPCA though!

I agree with Hora - well said and exactly what I thought when I read the article.

[i]Are they that callous/heartless money-grabbers? [/i]

From the article:

In that situation the RSPCA cannot just walk away, in fact we are [u]legally obliged[/u] to seek the funds under charitable law.

So that would be no then...

No, I feel the statement/comment from RSPCA was used in context in defence of why they fought this case. They arent held at a legal knifepoint surely. Obliged to Seek is different to chase something down through the courts isnt it?

I wonder how many bequests they have had challenged previously successfully and if this will be treated as a precedent for future cases? ourmanupnorth will be along soon to shoot my legal training down 😉

Just what law specifically obliges a charity to seek the funds then? I cannot find any evidence to support this claim.

I imagine it is covered by this:

[i]Trustees must always act to protect property owned by the charity. If a charity has permanent endowment, particular care must be taken to maintain its value.[/i]
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.asp#g3

I dunno what exact law that is based on, you'd have to read more on that site to find out.

Joe

Who's going to pay the 1,000,000 plus legal fee?

Trustees must always act to protect property owned by the charity.

I could understand it if both parents had died at the same time but her father had dies 7 years before her mother who never changer the will she was bullied in to making.

owenfackrell - Member

I could understand it if both parents had died at the same time but her father had dies 7 years before her mother who never changer the will she was bullied in to making.

I think her mum was away with their fairies though?

Who's going to pay the 1,000,000 plus legal fee?

My guess will be 50:50 although it should be the losers in any case who willingly brought the case to court IMO. Sad but it should be. Again- Ive no idea how these legal things work. Where is ourmanupnorth?!!

Like I said, you'd have to read the rest of that site to get to the actual law of it. I'd imagine property includes stuff that they haven't actually taken possession of yet, but are legally entitled to, or something random like that.

There have been several cases like this, and they always say that they have to. I imagine they aren't lying about the need to challenge it, as it isn't exactly good publicity when major charities go about suing random people.

Joe

Who's going to pay the 1,000,000 plus legal fee?

The default rule in most legal proceedings is that the loser pays their own costs, plus the victor's. So you can well understand why the RSPCA want to take it to appeal - they've received nowt, but are saddled with a massive bill.

The money/farm should go to who the money/farm owners wanted it to go to. You shouldn't be able to overturn wills, the will writer has stated where they want it to go, end of in my book. We'll leave our cash & property to charity when we peg it, but we don't have kids!

the purist - Like it. Here's another one

[i]“Just as a good airline pilot should always be looking for places to land, so should a lawyer be looking for situations where large amounts of money are about to change hands.

In every big transactions there is a magic moment during which a man has surrendered a treasure, and during which the man who is due to receive it has not yet done so. An alert lawyer will make that moment his own, possessing the treasure for a magic microsecond, taking a little of it, passing it on. If the man who is to receive the treasure is unused to wealth, has an inferiority complex and shapeless feelings of guilt, as most people do, the lawyer can often take as much as half of that bundle, and still receive the recipients blubbering thanks.”

Kurt Vonnegut Jr, “God Bless You Mr Rosewater or Pearls Before Swine” 1965[/i]

The money/farm should go to who the money/farm owners wanted it to go to. You shouldn't be able to overturn wills, the will writer has stated where they want it to go, end of in my book. We'll leave our cash & property to charity when we peg it, but we don't have kids!

Dobbo - I agree with you.
In this case however, i.m.o she was right to win, as the circumstances were different to the norm.

I think there was a similar case the other day, where a couple of sisters had helped keep their father's greengrocers, plus the premises he lived in going, by contributing their own money, on the understanding they would recieve the building in an inheritance.
When the old chap died he left it all to the new wife.
There you have another example. If it hadn't have been for the daughters, there would have been no property to give away.

More of the back story from the daughter's perspective... [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/7028070.stm ]HERE[/url]

She had even given up her job to help her infirm parents out and to help on the farm.

So are you basically saying that if you are nice to someone in the last few years of their life, you should get all their money, no matter what their wishes (as expressed by their will) were? It shouldn't be up to other people to judge who most deserves someone's money when they have made clear their wishes.

But the point was that they were not of sound mind when the will was written. What sane person would leave an estate of that size to a few scabby dogs over their own fresh and blood who had helped them out for years and years.

Lots of people choose to disinherit their kids - it might be ungrateful or spiteful in some cases, but it isn't insane.

None of this is the point of the case anyway, the point is that they argued the mother had been under duress when she made the will. Presumably they argued this pretty convincingly given they won the case.

Joe

I have a lot of sympathy for the RSPCA here. On the face of it the money was theirs, they seem to have made some pretty generous settlement offers to her during the legal proceedings (the news report says £650k plus her legal costs), and at the end of the day, as Joe says, people do disinherit their children, it's not that uncommon.

As you rightly point out, the mother was under duress when signing the will - if she had not have been, she would have rightly seen that their daughter, who gave up a huge amount of time and her job to help them actually *deserved* the money over the RSPCA.

I have a lot of sympathy for the RSPCA here. On the face of it the money was theirs, they seem to have made some pretty generous settlement offers to her during the legal proceedings (the news report says £650k plus her legal costs), and at the end of the day, as Joe says, people do disinherit their children, it's not that uncommon.

Thats not generous. The estate was valued at £2.34million. Generous would be take someones advice that isnt one of a Lawyer on a 'can we win basis'.

Again, looking at her circumstances they should not have continued contesting the case. Its their own fault.

In addition, if either of my parents decided to give their money to someone other than me I'd take extreme offence and would fight it vigorously.

I'm surprised that the daughter didn't check thing out a bit between her dad & mam dying

Why would you? THAT would indicate someone concerned purely with self-gain wouldnt it?

Hora you useless gusset, the RSPCA didn't have a choice. If you throw in the towel in legal proceedings without coming to some sort of agreement with the other side, you have to pay their costs, plus your lawyers'. They were probably up to their eyeballs in legal fees by that point (due to having to defend a claim brought by the daughter) and wouldn't have walked away with anything like £1.7 million, or however much your simple goldfish brain calculates they would have received.

if either of my parents decided to give their money to someone other than me

Heaven forfend. 😆

Hora you useless gusset

At the end of the day Rspca = FAIL, rightness of justice = Win.

Why would you?

Lots of people talk openly about their wills & who's getting what etc.
I know exactly what's in my mother in laws will as my missus asked her & she showed us a copy

I know exactly what's in my mother in laws will as my missus asked her & she showed us a copy

But if they left it all to cats and dogs and donkeys for no good reason, I would contest it. (But I know they are/were of sound mind and wouldn't do anything so supremely stupid).

Hora, so at least you understand the outcome of this case then. That's a start.

I have no personal fear of death however my Mum and Dad are quite old. I'd consider it poor show to ask them what their exact plans are or opened the subject on a Will. However you can not assume facts when you've only read a news story written by a media/journalist. I think people casting scorn should reserve their judgement.

Anyway, this arguement is now cyclic. i'm wandering off to another thread now, good day 😀

Edit - Mr Agreeable they (a large organisation with access to Solictors) and with a steady income, took on an individual with no perceivable income. Sorry, tough shit. She was probably facing personal ruin but chose to keep at it due to a point of personal principle that you dont understand. Are you a callous-type. Should she have rolled over and given what was rightfully hers to someone else?! Madness. The court found in her favour. DOESNT THAT SAY SOMETHING TO YOU- like they had access to ALL the facts unlike you? Jeesus H, sweetchild of mine.

But if they left it all to cats and dogs and donkeys for no good reason, I would contest it. (But I know they are/were of sound mind and wouldn't do anything so supremely stupid).

What about if they left it to cats and donkeys because they like them? Would you still contest it?

Joe

What about if they left it to cats and donkeys because they like them? Would you still contest it?

[i][b]for no good reason[/b][/i]

If you throw in the towel in legal proceedings without coming to some sort of agreement with the other side, you have to pay their costs, plus your lawyers'. They were probably up to their eyeballs in legal fees by that point (due to having to defend a claim brought by the daughter) and wouldn't have walked away with anything like £1.7 million, or however much your simple goldfish brain calculates they would have received.

Any this arguement is cyclic. Courts have access to all the facts, forum users have access to conjecture. Good day.

So you're not wandering off to another thread then Hora? 🙂

I'm a bit surprised you're taking this woman's side, the RSPCA are going to have to shove lots of Westies on the fire to keep their offices warm tonight.

I'm a bit surprised you're taking this woman's side, the RSPCA are going to have to shove lots of Westies on the fire to keep their offices warm tonight.

Ah, like the two nesting Swans that were savaged by a Staff terrier who was let onto them on the Manchester Canal. I had made two worried calls to the RSPCA who told me not their business until there was an injured animal involved. Other walkers had said the samething (eggs nicked from nest and smashed), phone calls to RSPCA- nest actually on path (at the back of a large and rough council estate), dogs seen barking at them etc.. A week later I noticed a story in the Manchester Evening News that one was killed outright and the other had to be put down. Let me try and find the story.

Then there was the large African Grey Parrot I had found escaped in a bush on the way to a night out in Chorlton. Again, sorry we arent interested but maybe the RSPB can help you? Phoned them- no sir thats not our line of work. In the end a nice group of students kept it (when I explained it was probably worth something). We couldnt keep it at home as bingo would have moved heaven and earth to kill it.

Again taking on someone who has a moral right to the money who then wins against you. Sorry, who should I feel sorry for again? Its not the RSPCA.

Aracer, I don't think they "squandered" any money on legal fees. They were being sued, probably by someone who had legal expenses insurance or a no-win-no-fee agreement. What were they supposed to do?

Making a settlement offer doesn't mean you have a weak case. It's a commercial decision, if it's a choice between spending £2.5 million to win £2 million, against a deadbeat who's got no hope of paying it back then it's a pretty sound course of action. You seldom if ever get a legal case that's "watertight" in every sense - what have to do is make sure that you don't throw good money after bad.

Hora, being nice to swans is only prolonging their misery before they get cooked and eaten by the Queen.

The money/farm should go to who the money/farm owners wanted it to go to. You shouldn't be able to overturn wills, the will writer has stated where they want it to go, end of in my book.

That was my first thought on seeing the headline, which on its own didn't cast her in a very favourable light. But according to the BBC version of events at least there's a bit more to it than that so good luck to her.

I don't think they "squandered" any money on legal fees. They were being sued, probably by someone who had legal expenses insurance or a no-win-no-fee agreement. What were they supposed to do?

Making a settlement offer doesn't mean you have a weak case. It's a commercial decision

WTF. Whilst being distracted by mr agreeable- Ive deflated the front tyre, replaced the inner tube with a brand new one then palm/forehead noticed the rear FLAT tyre. Jeesus I need a drink 🙄

It would have been £625k to her, plus her legal costs, plus their legal costs. So I doubt they would have been going home with £1.7 million. I'd guess at half that.

Imagine for a second that you're the director of a charity. How do you guard against a situation where someone leaves you a substantial sum of money, you think "great, we can finally afford to create a special wildfowl rescue divison and shut that oxygen thief Hora up". Then someone comes out of the woodwork, has a slew of lawyers and valuers all wanting a piece of the pie, you have to appoint your own equally high-powered people to fight them, and when the dust has settled you're left with nothing but a humungous legal bill?

Agree, that woman is heinous. She is well out of order- to hell with her principles and her 'slew of Solicitors' (what are you on? She gave up her job to look after them- so where do these slew of Solicitors come from??)

The Director of the Charity. How much does he earn annually? What is the RSPCA's annual income and I wonder what this womans was in the year she took them to court?

I think you'll be surprised. Also, why are their pictures of kittens on various pages of their website?

She was a college lecturer I think. Not on the breadline. I reckon you fancy her, and that's skewing your judgment.

Don't this happen all the time but because it's a charity and millions it's deemed news worthy.

The RSPCA are well able to afford paying someone off if needed - I think they have something like £200m in cash reserves

Something funny happened on Sunday- Salendine Nook Hudds- Westie ran across dual carriageway infront of our car. Jumped out, grabbed him and spent the next 30mins knocking on doors and asking people if they knew of him (tartan collar/no details). Rang various numbers- The Dog Warden/stray folk is council, nothing to do with the RSPCA according to the various options. Anyway, asked another woman and she pointed us to a house. Knocked on door, door opens- 'oh thats where he is, he must have escaped when my daughter came round' (shuts door as soon as she said that)- not even a thank you.

GF said to me as we walked back to the car 'I told you we should have kept him for Bingo' (hearless git!)

It would have been £625k to her, plus her legal costs, plus their legal costs. So I doubt they would have been going home with £1.7 million. I'd guess at half that.

Westie ran across dual carriageway infront of our car

Parrots, Swans & now a Westie

You're a proper Johnny Morris you are 😉

Hora earlier

[img] [/img]

Hora is the one on the left, I assume?

The one in the arms of the on one the left.

Obliged to Seek is different to chase something down through the courts isnt it?

That is not true Hora.

It was [i]her[/i] that did the 'chasing through the courts'. It was [i]her[/i] that needed to prove something, not them.
Don't make unfounded allegations.

ernie_lynch, so she chased restorative justice. Semantics. £50m of their annual income comes from bequests- I can now see why they fought this. They are appealling. So its not a case of quashing an Ant but stopping a precedent? ourmanupnorth- we need you..

I can understand the rspca chasing this as far as its gone. But they've lost and should leave it at that. On the balance of things it seems the court has got it right. I hate all this disinheriting your children cr@p, I prefer the French system were you can't and your children have right of inheritence.

Mr Agreeable - Member
She was a college lecturer I think. Not on the breadline. I reckon you fancy her, and that's skewing your judgment.
POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

she WAS one until giving it up to look after... Her parents. Hmmm

Remember folks, Coleslaw is a dish best served cold.

taxi25- same system in Italy.
If a parent dies the children get an equal percentage with the remaining parent.
Difficult if the remaining parent will struggle and have to sell a property.
The system seems to work well though as it is known from the outset that when you have children what will happen in the future.

Everyone make a will and make sure you have you're marbles, this includes childless couples. Sorting out stuff intestate is a nightmare.

Of course the state always gets their large slice too.

Times today- At the begining the RSPCA were making plans to sell the house whilst the Daughter frantically sought help to have this stopped. The the Daughter offered a settlement to the RSPCA of 3/4's to go to the RSPCA- later on in the case (probably when the snivelling toads realised that the outlook was looking bleak) they then offered her a settlement of £650k+her costs. Funnily, by that point she didnt settle.

So they are appealling- adding more costs to the legal bill. They obviously realise that people who dispute future bequests might actually have a case to answer.

Love the David and Goliath stories. I think the RSPCA needs to focus its attention on the calls for help it gets rather than on revenue.
Give your money to the PDSA folks instead of the litigous- who have a known track record of zealously chasing select cruelty cases for publicity.