Judge overturns will on grounds that it is racist

[shira]

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

That's Canada. I assume Canada doesn't have the same free-speech protections of "improper" beliefs that the U.S. does.

I highly doubt that this could happen in America.

 

[PokerGuy]

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

So you have a falling out with your family and don't talk to them for 30 years, and when you die, you leave your money to some other friend who was always there for you. Your family comes back and says "he's just being spiteful!" and the will gets tossed and they get your stuff. The problem with your reasoning is that there isn't a real definition of someone being spiteful. That's why such relative moral judgements as to what is nice/fair/spiteful/mean and so forth should not matter at all. What matters is, what did the person want, and is it legal. Not some squishy concept of whether someone is spiteful, mean, or had racist intentions or some other interpretation.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's Canada. I assume Canada doesn't have the same free-speech protections of "improper" beliefs that the U.S. does.

I highly doubt that this could happen in America.

I agree that it's less likely, but with with the insidious political correctness cancer creeping through the US, it won't be long before we start having similar bs.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's Canada. I assume Canada doesn't have the same free-speech protections of "improper" beliefs that the U.S. does.

I highly doubt that this could happen in America.

Not least because of every screaming right wing loon who thinks he has the right to give his fortune to a turnip.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Not least because of every screaming right wing loon who thinks he has the right to give his fortune to a turnip.

or a celery root....

 

[shira]

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'm certainly not an expert on probate. But at least in America, I think wills are overturned when it's successfully argued either that

• the decedent was not of sound mind at the time the latest will was signed
• a beneficiary of the will improperly influenced the decedent
• an aspect of the will violates the law or a contractual obligation of the decedent
• (this is more problematical) when it can clearly be demonstrated that the decedent was acting under a significant misconception that - had he/she been made aware of the actual facts - would have resulted in the decedent changing the will

I'm sure there are other valid reasons for overturning wills, but these seem like obvious ones to me. And it seems highly questionable that a judge would overturn a will solely because the decedent was being a complete asshole, regardless of how offensive.

 

[Bock]

I'm gonna bet that both the daughters already knew whats up & planned it ahead of time. The contesting of the will probably happened for tax reasons instead of daughter A just giving her sister half.

 

[pcgeek11]

Why didn't the one sister accept the proceeds then split it with the other sister. They could have saved the court cost and lawyer fees.

Regardless of how big an asshole the dead guy is/was his property, his will... The judge is an ass.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Ok, seems nobody, including me, understands the 'public policy doctrine' aspect. A bit of time on Google indicates that it's a long standing legal doctrine that can be traced back a few hundred years.

For example I found this:

"The concept of public policy is one of the most ancient, esoteric and
pervasive creations in the history of the common law. Its origins have been
traced by one author to the fifteenth century,(2) although it is probable that the
doctrine is as old as the concept of the law itself. It is to be found in such diverse
fields as contracts, torts, trusts, wills, real and intellectual property, public law
and the conflict of laws. It has been referred to as "the one principle rule at the
foundation of the whole system of English law,"(3) and as indicative of the general
judicial tendency "towards a rational system of justice."(4) It has also been viewed
as a necessary reaction to "conduct which is injurious to the very foundations
upon which society exists."' And yet, despite its seeming veneration and importance,
there are few concepts which have given rise to greater confusion and
uncertainty."

http://www.mccarthy.ca/pubs/The_Doctrine_of_Public_Policy_in_Canadian_Contract_Law.pdf

Any lawyers in the crowd?

 

[Spungo]

So you have a falling out with your family and don't talk to them for 30 years, and when you die, you leave your money to some other friend who was always there for you. Your family comes back and says "he's just being spiteful!" and the will gets tossed and they get your stuff.

Sorry, you're dead, tough shit. If you want your kids to have a better life, you should give them all of your stuff at age 70 and hope to god they take care of you from age 70 to 90 since you gave them all of your money and you need them to pay for your cost of living. Or maybe he would say it's the government's job to take care of you after you give all of your stuff to your kids. Who knows. I'm sure the government won't promise to take care of you then retract the offer a few years down the road.

 

[Vic]

I'm gonna bet that both the daughters already knew whats up & planned it ahead of time. The contesting of the will probably happened for tax reasons instead of daughter A just giving her sister half.

I won't take that bet.

 

[shira]

Why didn't the one sister accept the proceeds then split it with the other sister. They could have saved the court cost and lawyer fees.

Regardless of how big an asshole the dead guy is/was his property, his will... The judge is an ass.

As was pointed out in the post right before yours, unless the estate was very large, the judge's actual ruling results in each sister receiving half of the estate tax free. If instead one daughter (the sole beneficiary) had received all of the estate (and assuming THAT was tax free, also), then any subsequent gift given by the beneficiary to her sister would be a taxable gift to the extent the value of the gift exceeded the annual exclusion.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm certainly not an expert on probate. But at least in America, I think wills are overturned when it's successfully argued either that

• the decedent was not of sound mind at the time the latest will was signed
• a beneficiary of the will improperly influenced the decedent
• an aspect of the will violates the law or a contractual obligation of the decedent
• (this is more problematical) when it can clearly be demonstrated that the decedent was acting under a significant misconception that - had he/she been made aware of the actual facts - would have resulted in the decedent changing the will

I'm sure there are other valid reasons for overturning wills, but these seem like obvious ones to me. And it seems highly questionable that a judge would overturn a will solely because the decedent was being a complete asshole, regardless of how offensive.

Disputes over estates are often resolved through settlement, mutual agreement. The court confirms that a settlement has been reached, which is basically what happened in this case. The one sister did not dispute the claim of the other to half of the estate.

Given that & the fact that it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in Canada, the judge's ruling satisfies all parties other than right ravers who really have nothing to do with it.

 

[JackBurton]

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.

Completely agree. However, I don't think it is a poor decision, but rather a bullshi!t decision. That is his money and he can do with it whatever he'd like, no matter the reason behind it. A Will is just a transfer of assets based on a contract with its stipulations. That's it. A judge shouldn't have the ability to override a contact just because he doesn't agree with the conditions.

 

[sandorski]

Completely agree. However, I don't think it is a poor decision, but rather a bullshi!t decision. That is his money and he can do with it whatever he'd like, no matter the reason behind it. A Will is just a transfer of assets based on a contract with its stipulations. That's it. A judge shouldn't have the ability to override a contact just because he doesn't agree with the conditions.

He doesn't own shit, he's dead.

 

[dawp]

Completely agree. However, I don't think it is a poor decision, but rather a bullshi!t decision. That is his money and he can do with it whatever he'd like, no matter the reason behind it. A Will is just a transfer of assets based on a contract with its stipulations. That's it. A judge shouldn't have the ability to override a contact just because he doesn't agree with the conditions.

There are only the daughters involved, one contested the will and the other didn't object. Anybody can contest a will if they don't agree with it.

 

[DrPizza]

The one who was willed everything didn't fight the suit. Perhaps the two sisters agreed to split everything, but legally they couldn't without taking it to court. And, I don't think one sister could simply give the other sister half of the stuff - without subjecting it to further tax (if over a certain amount.) E.g., if I'm given $100,000 by a will, and turn around and give half to another sibling who wasn't in the will, then since that $50,000 is more than the $10,000 gift allowance, it's subjected to a gift tax. Thus, the suit could have been a means to avoid more taxes after the sisters mutually agreed to split everything.