Judge overturns will on grounds that it is racist

[cbrunny]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...erited-daughter-for-having-bastard-white-son/

The ruling has been declared fascinating by several lawyers

A Newmarket, Ont., judge made legal history this week by overturning a man’s last will and testament because his deathbed pleas were overtly racist.

Judge C.A. Gilmore overturned Jamaican-born Rector Emanuel (Eric) Spence’s will, because he had disinherited a daughter who gave birth to a white man’s child.

It is the first known example of a judge nullifying an entire will on the grounds that the motivations of the dead offended “public policy.”

...

Previous precedents have also overruled wills that tried to grant posthumous gifts to entities that judges have deemed contrary to “public policy,” as well. Last year, for example, a New Brunswick court violated the will of coin collector Robert McCorkill, who bequeathed his fortune to a West-Virginia neo-Nazi group.

What makes this week’s ruling even more extraordinary is that Mr. Spence didn’t explicitly disinherit his daughter on racial grounds in his will; he merely said he chose not to leave her his estate because the two had stopped communicating, which was objectively true.

...

Judge Gilmore divided Mr. Spence’s estate between the two daughters.

Because Donna Spence has so far been unwilling to participate in the proceedings, it’s unlikely the ruling will ever be challenged.

“That means we have binding precedent here in Ontario that says you can do this. The question is how are people going to use this?” Ms. Popovic-Montag asked.

 

[OutHouse]

offended “public policy.”

thats some dangerous shit.

 

[master_shake_]

slippery slope.

 

[Matt1970]

"Mr. Spence didn’t explicitly disinherit his daughter on racial grounds in his will; he merely said he chose not to leave her his estate because the two had stopped communicating, which was objectively true." Sounds like the only person who made an issue about race was the judge.

 

[Cogman]

"Mr. Spence didn’t explicitly disinherit his daughter on racial grounds in his will; he merely said he chose not to leave her his estate because the two had stopped communicating, which was objectively true." Sounds like the only person who made an issue about race was the judge.

Even if it was racially motivated, even if the exact text was "I don't want to leave my sluttly cracker loving daughter a cent" I don't think this was the right decision at all.

So long as the funds aren't being used to cause damage to an individual (In other words, you can't use it to do something you couldn't do while alive) then after taxes, you should be able to do whatever you want with your funds posthumously.

Certainly choosing not to give an individual money not owed to them should be something that anyone can do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well it looks like the judge somehow decided that while Mr. Spence didn't explicitly exclude his daughter on racial grounds he did exclude her in fact for that reason which is also why he stopped communicating with her, so if you believe that to exclude your own flesh and blood from your estate because you are a racist and she is not is just, then justice was not served. And since the man was a rector and presumably a Christian, it is clear that God whispered His real will in the Judges ear since Mr. Spence surely had second thoughts when he entered hell.

 

[Moonbeam]

Even if it was racially motivated, even if the exact text was "I don't want to leave my sluttly cracker loving daughter a cent" I don't think this was the right decision at all.

So long as the funds aren't being used to cause damage to an individual (In other words, you can't use it to do something you couldn't do while alive) then after taxes, you should be able to do whatever you want with your funds posthumously.

Certainly choosing not to give an individual money not owed to them should be something that anyone can do.

He did exactly that and now he's dead. The living simply reversed his decision. No harm no foul to him. The daughter doubtlessly suffered sufficiently for one lifetime from his racial bigotry while he lived. What kind of asshole puts who his daughter marries according to race above the love that should exist. He judged and he got judged. Karma.

 

[Ackmed]

Poor decision by the judge to me. If the guy didn't want his daughter to have any of this money and other items, then fuck her. It is his to do just about anything he wants to with. It doesn't matter the reason. I hope it goes higher and get overturned.

 

[thraashman]

"Mr. Spence didn’t explicitly disinherit his daughter on racial grounds in his will; he merely said he chose not to leave her his estate because the two had stopped communicating, which was objectively true." Sounds like the only person who made an issue about race was the judge.

Well, that's what's in the article. It may be that those who challenged the will had witnesses indicating that the reason for the ending of communication was racially motivated. I think that the reason for the ruling was because the reasons behind her not being in the will were racist. Obviously someone challenged the will if it went before a judge.

It makes me think of the opposite situation where like a decade ago a man whose family had disowned him because he was gay challenged the will he had where he left everything to his 20 year long lover and got it thrown out on a technicality.

 

[HomerJS]

Despite what the judge says this case isn't about race. Overturned wills aren't exactly new.

Remember Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall??

 

[cbrunny]

Yea the article talks about another case in New Brunswick where the guy left a bunch of stuff to a Neo-Nazi group. The judge overturned that.

"Public Policy" has a broad definition in Canadian jurisprudence apparently. I'm curious to know more about that.

 

[Jaepheth]

I agree with the judge, but would have preferred he'd based the ruling on the grounds of "Fuck Racism".


Bonus points if that had been the literal phrasing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, it seems to me that if the daughter who was willed everything had any objections to her disinherited sister's suit that she would have defended the will in court. To her credit, she did not.

Hearing only one side of the story from the disinherited daughter & a family friend, the judge's ruling is entirely reasonable.

Stuff like this happens all the time when inheritors are more reasonable than the deceased. It goes the other way, too, when greed & petty grudges dominate family relationships.

 

[Jhhnn]

Poor decision by the judge to me. If the guy didn't want his daughter to have any of this money and other items, then fuck her. It is his to do just about anything he wants to with. It doesn't matter the reason. I hope it goes higher and get overturned.

Heh. Obviously, dead people have fewer rights than the living. It won't go any higher because the sister who was willed everything did not contest the suit.

What's more important- following the wishes of a dead & spiteful asshole or dealing fairly with your only sister?

That question is a test of character that too many people fail miserably.

 

[PokerGuy]

What a horrible decision. It's essentially the judge imposing his morals onto someone else and deciding what to do with the estate regardless of the wishes of the person who's property was left. Absolutely stupid. Once you start going down that path, there's absolutely no limit to how judges can substitute their own will over that of the deceased.

Hopefully this stupidity doesn't migrate to this side of the border.

 

[dawp]

How often do wills get contested anyways? Why should this be any different?

the will was contested and no one objected.

 

[Jhhnn]

What a horrible decision. It's essentially the judge imposing his morals onto someone else and deciding what to do with the estate regardless of the wishes of the person who's property was left. Absolutely stupid. Once you start going down that path, there's absolutely no limit to how judges can substitute their own will over that of the deceased.

Hopefully this stupidity doesn't migrate to this side of the border.

See my post directly above your own.

 

[Moonbeam]

What a horrible decision. It's essentially the judge imposing his morals onto someone else and deciding what to do with the estate regardless of the wishes of the person who's property was left. Absolutely stupid. Once you start going down that path, there's absolutely no limit to how judges can substitute their own will over that of the deceased.

Hopefully this stupidity doesn't migrate to this side of the border.

His morals. You mean racism is only relatively evil, not evil in the absolute? Tell me you believe that and don't stand for anything ever again.

 

[Spungo]

slippery slope.

Indeed.
"Sorry Spungo but your mom's will was sexist, so you won't get the stuff it said you should get."

 

[Vic]

Well, it seems to me that if the daughter who was willed everything had any objections to her disinherited sister's suit that she would have defended the will in court. To her credit, she did not.

Hearing only one side of the story from the disinherited daughter & a family friend, the judge's ruling is entirely reasonable.

Stuff like this happens all the time when inheritors are more reasonable than the deceased. It goes the other way, too, when greed & petty grudges dominate family relationships.

I read the article and it seems that journalism standards have fallen in Canada too.
Although the judge's decision is a little perplexing. With the inheritors not contesting the challenge to the will, there was really no need IMO for him to use the deceased's racism as the basis of his ruling.
The final paragraph in the article is a joke. There has never been such a thing as the 'supremacy' of the last will.

 

[Vic]

How often do wills get contested anyways? Why should this be any different?

the will was contested and no one objected.

Wills are contested every day. Family disputes, unpaid creditors (those with recourse), etc etc.
If the inheritors don't object, those with valid claims usually get awarded.

 

[sandorski]

The idea that the deceased Will be carried out regardless isn't honouring anything. If a person wants to be spiteful from the Grave, fuck them.

 

[PokerGuy]

What's more important- following the wishes of a dead & spiteful asshole or dealing fairly with your only sister?

Define "fairly". Wills exist for a reason. If you think someone should have no right to decide what happens to their stuff when they die, then wills should not exist, and I completely disagree with that. If wills are allowed, then overturning one for no other reason than some judge doesn't personally like something in the will is complete stupidity.

Now if the will calls for something illegal, that's a different story, but there's nothing illegal about what he did. There's not even any evidence of racism in the will at all, the judge came to that conclusion based on what others were saying.

 

[PokerGuy]

The idea that the deceased Will be carried out regardless isn't honouring anything. If a person wants to be spiteful from the Grave, f*ck them.

Yeah! Screw them and their right to decide what happens to their stuff, I don't like what they said so remove their rights! Doesn't matter what is legal or not, it should all depend on what I like or dislike!

/sarcasm

That's plain stupid. Laws in Kanukistan are different, but that seems absurd even for them. I can't imagine that would stand here in the US, a judge can't just simply throw out a will on a whim with no legal backing.

 

[sandorski]

Yeah! Screw them and their right to decide what happens to their stuff, I don't like what they said so remove their rights! Doesn't matter what is legal or not, it should all depend on what I like or dislike!

/sarcasm

That's plain stupid. Laws in Kanukistan are different, but that seems absurd even for them. I can't imagine that would stand here in the US, a judge can't just simply throw out a will on a whim with no legal backing.

Meh, if they really want to be spiteful, let them do it while they are alive. If they're dead, it's too late.