Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Oling_Roachinen · 07-24-2019, 06:20 PM

What's even weirder for me to wrap my head around is that even the argument doesn't match the verdict. If you're going to say that the parents needed to treat each sibling equal and not discriminate based on gender, fair enough I guess, but then how can you rule 20% each to the sons and 15% each to the daughters?

Now I know that the judge tries to argue that this wasn't entirely discriminatory based and hence the 40% to sons and 60% to daughters, but it's just weird and very arbitrary in my opinion.

I'm not saying I agree with the parents, far from it, but in the decision I did like the one son's argument that in 1993, when the will was written, the $150,000 to each daughter was based on an estate evaluation of around 3M. Or roughly 5% each. Prorating that to the 2016 evaluation of 9M would give them each $450,000.

07-24-2019, 06:20 PM	#33
Oling_Roachinen Franchise Player Join Date: Sep 2011 Exp:	What's even weirder for me to wrap my head around is that even the argument doesn't match the verdict. If you're going to say that the parents needed to treat each sibling equal and not discriminate based on gender, fair enough I guess, but then how can you rule 20% each to the sons and 15% each to the daughters? Now I know that the judge tries to argue that this wasn't entirely discriminatory based and hence the 40% to sons and 60% to daughters, but it's just weird and very arbitrary in my opinion. I'm not saying I agree with the parents, far from it, but in the decision I did like the one son's argument that in 1993, when the will was written, the $150,000 to each daughter was based on an estate evaluation of around 3M. Or roughly 5% each. Prorating that to the 2016 evaluation of 9M would give them each $450,000. Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 07-24-2019 at 06:25 PM.