Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheerio
I disagree with the decision. What if his daughters were bitches to him but his son wasn't?
|
In that case it WOULD be based on a moral standard.
From the judges decision:
Quote:
|
Based on the evidence I find that the testator father in disinheriting his daughters did not act judiciously as a parent. His reasons for disinheriting his daughters were untrue and irrational. He did not give due consideration to his daughters’ respective circumstances and needs. In favouring his only son, he also overlooked the contributions of his daughters to the well being of himself and his wife during their lifetimes.
|
Quote:
|
Of all the daughters, Lorraine contributed the most towards caring for her parents and performing household duties. ,,, She continued to do all the household work and tended to her father’s needs with respect to hospital and doctors visits and to do his banking. After a dispute with her father about the necessity of also tending to Randall, Lorraine left her father’s house. However she continued to visit her father on a regular basis, especially as his health deteriorated. She made sure to visit when Randall was not there. She visited her father at least four times per week, cooked his food, provided extra food and cleaned the house as best she could.
|
Seems like the father was quite the a-hole. To give nothing to the person that took care of you when you were ill....