 Male-only inheritance overturned A B.C. Supreme Court judge has overturned the will of a man who left all of his assets to his only son, neglecting his four daughters.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Since when did women become a race ?
Idiotic ruling, raises many problems.
You respect a dead man's wishes.
What if he'd given everything away before dying?
Could that have been contested too?
5 children, so divide everything in 6 parts. 1 part is to be shared by the 5 children, with the other 5 part, the deceased can do what he wants. 5 parts to his son? Fine. To all his kids? Cool, they get equally as much. To charity? Fine. But all 5 kids share that 1/6th.
There should just be a clause in the law that you can never leave ANY kid out. Something like:
5 children, so divide everything in 6 parts. 1 part is to be shared by the 5 children, with the other 5 part, the deceased can do what he wants. 5 parts to his son? Fine. To all his kids? Cool, they get equally as much. To charity? Fine. But all 5 kids share that 1/6th.
If there was, it wouldn't be a "WILL".
Will: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action
There should just be a clause in the law that you can never leave ANY kid out. Something like:
5 children, so divide everything in 6 parts. 1 part is to be shared by the 5 children, with the other 5 part, the deceased can do what he wants. 5 parts to his son? Fine. To all his kids? Cool, they get equally as much. To charity? Fine. But all 5 kids share that 1/6th.
I've got to disagree here. If it's my will I get to determine who gets what, not the state. What if you have one child who is a criminal junkie who has had no contact with family in years, except to steal from them. He/she should be rewarded just because he is a blood relative?
This judge is an idiot. More state control over your life is not needed.
There should just be a clause in the law that you can never leave ANY kid out. Something like:
5 children, so divide everything in 6 parts. 1 part is to be shared by the 5 children, with the other 5 part, the deceased can do what he wants. 5 parts to his son? Fine. To all his kids? Cool, they get equally as much. To charity? Fine. But all 5 kids share that 1/6th.
If there was, it wouldn't be a "WILL".
Will: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action
Of course there would. You make a will for the most part of your estate. But, no matter how rotten the relationship was, I think your kids have a right to something. I'm not saying all, but a part.
Even if you have only 1 kid, your estate automatically divides into 2 parts, so you can choose if your kid gets all, or half.
And of course, only after your partner died.
There should just be a clause in the law that you can never leave ANY kid out. Something like:
5 children, so divide everything in 6 parts. 1 part is to be shared by the 5 children, with the other 5 part, the deceased can do what he wants. 5 parts to his son? Fine. To all his kids? Cool, they get equally as much. To charity? Fine. But all 5 kids share that 1/6th.
I've got to disagree here. If it's my will I get to determine who gets what, not the state. What if you have one child who is a criminal junkie who has had no contact with family in years, except to steal from them. He/she should be rewarded just because he is a blood relative?
This judge is an idiot. More state control over your life is not needed.
What about you just make sure there s nothing to inherit? Give it all away before you die? Travel around the world?
There should just be a clause in the law that you can never leave ANY kid out. Something like:
5 children, so divide everything in 6 parts. 1 part is to be shared by the 5 children, with the other 5 part, the deceased can do what he wants. 5 parts to his son? Fine. To all his kids? Cool, they get equally as much. To charity? Fine. But all 5 kids share that 1/6th.
I've got to disagree here. If it's my will I get to determine who gets what, not the state. What if you have one child who is a criminal junkie who has had no contact with family in years, except to steal from them. He/she should be rewarded just because he is a blood relative?
This judge is an idiot. More state control over your life is not needed.
What about you just make sure there s nothing to inherit? Give it all away before you die? Travel around the world?
I think that's what my parents are doing right now!
Seriously though, I shouldn't have to give it away or spend it all before I die. It should be my choice what I do with my estate, not the governments. Full stop, no debate.
There should just be a clause in the law that you can never leave ANY kid out. Something like:
5 children, so divide everything in 6 parts. 1 part is to be shared by the 5 children, with the other 5 part, the deceased can do what he wants. 5 parts to his son? Fine. To all his kids? Cool, they get equally as much. To charity? Fine. But all 5 kids share that 1/6th.
If there was, it wouldn't be a "WILL".
Will: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action
Of course there would. You make a will for the most part of your estate. But, no matter how rotten the relationship was, I think your kids have a right to something. I'm not saying all, but a part.
Even if you have only 1 kid, your estate automatically divides into 2 parts, so you can choose if your kid gets all, or half.
And of course, only after your partner died.
I'm not saying that morally, the guy was right, just that he had the right to give out his money the way he wanted.
Also, if the courts start judging things like this, just more money to the laywers and the legal system.
I think that's what my parents are doing right now!
Seriously though, I shouldn't have to give it away or spend it all before I die. It should be my choice what I do with my estate, not the governments. Full stop, no debate.
Which will get you court cases like this...
What if you want to give everything to charity?
If one of the kids took care of you for 10-20 years before you died?
If one kid already has all the money he'll ever need and the others are just getting by?
... also, I don't see any moral obligation to separate an estate evenly between the kids.
What if you want to give everything to charity?
Your kids will fight it.
If one of the kids took care of you for 10-20 years before you died?
If one kid already has all the money he'll ever need and the others are just getting by?
Why would that be a reason to not inherit something? Just because THEY did well for themselves and the other 8 are bums, they get nothing?? wtf?
... also, I don't see any moral obligation to separate an estate evenly between the kids.
What if you want to give everything to charity?
Your kids will fight it.
If one of the kids took care of you for 10-20 years before you died?
If one kid already has all the money he'll ever need and the others are just getting by?
Why would that be a reason to not inherit something? Just because THEY did well for themselves and the other 8 are bums, they get nothing?? wtf?
I'll put it another way then.
You have the right to do what you f**king want with your money, during your living days and when you die.
It may be morally wrong what he did, although we don't know the whole story, but he had the right to do it and the courts should not get mixed up in this.
Last question, what if he'd given everything to his son 20 years before dying? Should the courts get involved in this too?