Male-only inehirtance overturned

[cal_guy]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...verturned.html

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.

In a ruling posted on the court website Tuesday, Justice Randall Wong said that the deceased failed in being fair to the four women and ordered the inheritance to be divided among the five children.

Despite the dying man's wishes, the judge found that the will had to be "based on contemporary moral standards."

The Actual Decision
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...10BCSC1678.htm

I personally agree with the decision but judging from some of the comments from the article a lot don't.

[Cheerio]

I disagree with the decision. What if his daughters were bitches to him but his son wasn't?

[flamesfan6]

i disagree. whatever a person wants to do with their money should not be overruled by a court. you don't know the true story behind it all or how accurate what we are told is true.

the fact that a court overturned the inheritance is just... wrong.. because now people can use this to go for more than they got too.

[Devils'Advocate]

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:

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.

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....

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't believe courts have a right to tell us what is morally right and especially not to enforce it.

[algernon]

What if he died, and wanted to leave his money to the whore with a heart of gold? his 19 cats? or X charity, even though he had Y?
What if the other 3 sisters were lazy, and didn't help him at all? What if he cut all of them out all together?

[WilsonFourTwo]

So I can be an immoral d-bag (like a Bay Street Banker type) to create my fortune, but I have to be a moral when deciding who gets it once I die?

Sounds like the old man was a real prick, but the judge's ridiculous decision is the really disgusting part of the story.

[WilsonFourTwo]

I guess my other objection is that the award appears to be based on the fact that the daughter was taking care of the old man, and the inheritance is somehow a reward for the effort.

Inheritance isn't a reward.

[SeoulFire]

Pathetic.

[Hanni]

It may have been a dick move but what happened to freedom in this country? It's his money he should be able to do whatever he wants with it. It seem like every time you turn around courts or human rights tribunals are eroding freedoms.

[Resolute 14]

The father was obviously a terribly backwards man, and morally he should have given a share to his daughters.

Morally, the son should have done the same.

But the court has absolutely no right whatsoever to legislate morality. Unless there is a law that states a child cannot be disinherited without reason, this judge far exceeded his mandate with this decision.

[Sliver]

People contest wills all the time. Seems like a good decision by the judge to me.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Sliver

People contest wills all the time. Seems like a good decision by the judge to me.

I'm curious.....why do you feel that way? What specific reason(s) do you feel that this decision benefits Canada?

Is it because the judicial system should be in charge of reversing the wrongs caused by crappy parenting?

Or it it because the judicial system should be the nation's moral compass, and completely ignore personal freedoms in order to correct perceived unfairness?

It's a completely different story if the daughters were still young dependents, but they're not. They are grown adults, and are responsible for themselves. If the guy was a tyrant (and it appears he was), why would they stick around for 50+ years? I suspect that the kids hung around for the money as much as the old man likely used it to control them.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Sliver

People contest wills all the time. Seems like a good decision by the judge to me.

What's the whole point of wills then if courts don't respects it?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

People contest wills all the time. Seems like a good decision by the judge to me.

Yes, people do contest wills all the time, and barring a failure in the actual creation of the will they are generally shuffled out of court rather quickly. There's a reason for this, it's called freedom of contract. A will is nothing more than a contractual document. A properly executed will should be followed to the furthest extent legally possible, notions of fairness and morality have no place in the analysis of a legal document outside of failures in execution, or where laws intentionally invoke such standards.

This is nothing more than judicial activism. This is a judge who has taken it upon themselves to decide what a dying man wanted to have done with his estate. That is disgusting.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

In that case it WOULD be based on a moral standard.

From the judges decision:

Seems like the father was quite the a-hole. To give nothing to the person that took care of you when you were ill....

The father may well have been an a-hole, seems that he was, but that bolded section right there is more than enough rationale for the decision not to include this particular daughter.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Get out of my personal affairs, courts. If my last will and testament didn't break any laws, you have no business ruling on them.

[onetwo_threefour]

One has to assume this would get overturned on appeal...

[Phaneuf3]

His reasons for disinheriting his daughters were untrue and irrational.

My reasons for buying a 60" TV and full home theater were misguided and irrational. Get my money back from Best Buy for me, Randall Wong!

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by fotze

I could see a korean dude not liking this ruling.

I'm not Korean but yeah...the "son only" inheritance happens a lot over there.

Resolute 14 summed my feelings up nicely:

But the court has absolutely no right whatsoever to legislate morality. Unless there is a law that states a child cannot be disinherited without reason, this judge far exceeded his mandate with this decision.