In fairness, its not just the courts. My mother once told me that no matter how old I got, to her I would always be her little boy...
My mother said the same thing too, BUT she didn't judge litigations. :lol:
B.C. court rules against will that left out daughters
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
My mother said the same thing too, BUT she didn't judge litigations. :lol:
My mother said that too, but she lied. She got Alzheimers and then died. Now I'm an orphan. Boohoo!
That little task probably pissed him right off, as executor (I know I was one) you have to ensure that all interested kin folk receive a copy of the will.
Yep, happens in many aspects of life, whenever a group of people are trying to persuade someone to make opposing decisions, the guy who gets to speak last often wins.
Like it or not, we now live in a society that is completely different from when these laws
were written. Not only has the law changed but more and more, we find the moral and
mental fabric of society has changed. It was once considered a persons last will was the
departing statement, the last act of life as it were. Today we live in a society that now
believes in democracy when it is convenient, all too often people have principles that change
like the flavour of the month.
I agree the person writing the will sounds like an idiot, but the truth is a will and testament is not
to be considered a reward for service given, it is a gesture of a last act of love for one's family.
In this case the family sounds very dysfunctional to say the least. I cannot imagine a parent who
would behave like this toward his children. It is this toxic lifestyle that permits one to die early
as holding in these negative feelings has got to poison your system.
Should the judge be able to simply overturn a will under these circumstances? The answer is
yes because we are no longer living in a world that once existed a few decades ago, right or
wrong we are all victims of the world of law that together we have created either by being part
of the demand for change, or the silence of principle, that allows change to happen without a
measure of debate.
were written. Not only has the law changed but more and more, we find the moral and
mental fabric of society has changed. It was once considered a persons last will was the
departing statement, the last act of life as it were. Today we live in a society that now
believes in democracy when it is convenient, all too often people have principles that change
like the flavour of the month.
I agree the person writing the will sounds like an idiot, but the truth is a will and testament is not
to be considered a reward for service given, it is a gesture of a last act of love for one's family.
In this case the family sounds very dysfunctional to say the least. I cannot imagine a parent who
would behave like this toward his children. It is this toxic lifestyle that permits one to die early
as holding in these negative feelings has got to poison your system.
Should the judge be able to simply overturn a will under these circumstances? The answer is
yes because we are no longer living in a world that once existed a few decades ago, right or
wrong we are all victims of the world of law that together we have created either by being part
of the demand for change, or the silence of principle, that allows change to happen without a
measure of debate.
The distribution of an estate is based on fairness. There are clear rules around distribution when there is no will. The next of kin don't have to apply for what is owed to them. There is no song and dance to prove who should get more than another. In fact a next of kin must decline their equal portion in writing. The writing of a will isn't an exercise in stupidity. It's an opportunity for the writer to document their last wishes but is not intended to be one to create an entirely new game of of win or lose with family assets. Nor can he give away the family home held in his title to the SPCA. He can if no one contests the wishes, but don't count on the next of kin to remain silent when it's written with reckless stupidity.
If one wants to avoid this whole will constesting, courts, lawyers, and greddy b*stard relatives, just do this simple thing. SPEND IT ALL! Cash in all your investments, RRSPs etc., and go on all the vacations you want. Have properties? SELL THEM OFF! Use the cash from those and get a decent apartment and stay there till you kick the bucket. No courts, lawyers, will contesting, and whatnot. There you go, you just beat the system.
That is of course if you want to do it this way.
That is of course if you want to do it this way.
Makes perfect sense- if you knew the exact day of your demise well in advance. :lol:
Was this act written for the benefit of lawyers or for the benefit of the deceased and his heirs? If for lawyers then using the most obscure definition of a term would make perfect sense. You have to remember we are dealing with the decision one judge here and while his decision may be binding, it doesn't mean it was just or even sensible. I defy you to find me a law anywhere (even something contrived by that Trudeau idiot) that states a man has to provide for his progeny after his demise. I submit that if the Act meant "progeny" it would have stated "progeny". :smile:
So when you hear the word "children" you immediately think of people in their 50s? I say bullsh*t. :lol:
If you refuse to read the actual decision, and assert things that are clearly wrong, then I'm not sure there's any point to discussing this with you. Precedence means that a judge will consider cases over similar matters which have occurred before. It's not one judge's decision in this case, it's many judges' decisions.
We've been discussing the Wills Variation Act. The point isn't that the deceased must provide. For instance if the deceased owned nothing....The point is that this law states that inheritance must be equitable.
It's a BC law. In Alberta, to make a claim for more equitable distribution of the estate, the child does have to be a minor, or in a situation where they are financially dependent.
So then what about adopted children, they are not progeny.
Well, if an 80 year old senior citizen says 'my children', then yes, I would expect them to be in their 50s.
You are suggesting that the most obscure meaning of the word 'children' is human beings that you have raised and cared for, either adopted by or conceived by you? That's what you consider 'most obscure'?