Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yen Man
But why is that relevant when I'm distributing my money? Heck, I can be totally discriminatory when I allocate how I wish my funds to be passed on. What if I just didn't like one of my kids for no rational reason? Maybe I hate their spouse. That's not a rational reason, and can be totally viewed as discriminatory. But it's still my right to pass on my wealth however I want it to.
Just seems off that the court can just overturn wills based on moral standing.
|
That's kind of the point here. You are not allowed to be totally discriminatory and it isn't your unlimited right to do whatever you want. Why is discrimination okay for inheritance if it isn't okay elsewhere?
One of the key things I read that I think should be highlighted as well is this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victory-for-b-c-sisters-whose-parents-willed-them-tiny-share-of-9m-estate-1.5218792
The brothers both agreed that their parents had failed to meet their "moral obligations" to their daughters, though they argued in court for larger inheritances for themselves. Terry Litt testified that he had tried to convince his mother and father that the wills were unfair, but he was unable to persuade them to make changes.
|
Even the two brothers agreed that the wills as written were unfair, even if they disagreed on how much of the pot they should get. In the final decision, they still ended up with higher individual inheritance than the girls (20% each for a total of 40%, vs. 15% for each of the girls for a total of 60%)