I read of the victory by three animal charities over a contested inheritance with a smile. The whole rumble revolves around an iniquitous piece of legislation entitled Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which discards clauses within legally written wills which specifically state that certain family members get nowt.
The court has heard that Mrs Ilott, who was an only child, was rejected by her mother at the age of 17 after she left home in 1978 to live with her boyfriend, Nicholas Ilott, whom she later married.
She and her mother never reconciled their differences, and when 70-year-old Mrs Jackson died in 2004, her will made no provision for her daughter.
Mrs Ilott, who is in her 50s, made her initial appeal under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for “reasonable financial provision” from her mother’s estate.
The Act gives the child of a deceased parent the right to apply for an order if a will does not make reasonable provision for them.
Mrs. Jackson specifically rejected any cash going to her daughter, and strongly specified this within her will; leaving all the cash to three animal charities.
The charities took their case to the Supreme Court, and there they finally triumphed; but the daughter still got £50,000.00.
Fortunately, I have always maintained splendid and happy relationships with my three adult kids, and this is reflected in my will; but I do reckon that if relationships soured, I would be able to have my wishes, legally laid down, respected in total after my death.