foxkid Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 While not directly fur reated, it just shows how much animal rights groups want to go towards stirring trouble for others, irrespective of the situation http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8298700.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 They have no shame OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Fox Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It is always hard to know the details of such a case. Just a little info left out of the paper could turn the whole thing on it's ear to make it look like it should have went the other way. BUT!!!!!!! Why would someone give a whole farm away in a will like that to such an organization, be it PETA, or a service club, or a charity. This makes it look almost for sure that someone came in and twisted the mind of an older person to more or less mentally force them to give the farm to the group. And THAT folks is totally inexcusable and wrong. Unforgettable and Unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worker 11811 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Does a recipient of a gift have the right to sue the giver? That is the question that's being posed here! The RSPCA is suing the estate of a woman who essentially gave a gift. The courts have determined that the gift was given under duress, thereby invalidating that provision in the will. The RSPCA has no right to interfere in the affairs of a dead person's estate. PERIOD! To do so is the same as the recipient of a gift suing the giver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurLoverinFL Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 According to the story, the will left the person's estate to the rspca. Whether you like them or not, one's will won't be overturned unless there is clear and convincing evidence that someone exercised undue influence and caused them to leave their property to another. It's perfectly okay to cut a child out of a will. People do that every day. Clearly, the court found that to be the case and awarded the estate to the daughter. I fully understand why the rspca is appealing the decision. They are a charity that was the intended beneficiary of this will. Would you complain if it were a university or a church or a museum who appeal in circumstances like this? FLinFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worker 11811 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 You're absolutely right. I have nothing to disagree with that. But it is my opinion that the RSPCA has virtually no say in the legal matters of somebody else's estate. If the will is upheld, fine. They get the money. But, if the courts do not uphold the will, I don't think the RSPCA has the right to interfere in the matter. It's not their money. The decedent (prior to death) or the executors of the estate have absolute right to decide on the disposition of the money. The only exception is if the courts determine that the bequest was made under duress or undue influence. That is what we're seeing in this case. Right? As the saying goes, "Anybody has the right to sue anybody else for anything they want but that doesn't mean they SHOULD sue, nor does it mean they will win." Of course, the RSPCA can sue but I don't think they should sue, nor do I think they should win. This has very little to do with whether I like the RSPCA. It is about what I think is the right course of action. I think the absolute most they should do is to file an amicus brief (is that the right term?) to give the court information about their side of the case. To do anything else simply makes the RSPCA look like a bunch of money-grubbing buffoons. Oh! Wait a minute! They ARE a bunch of money-grubbing buffoons! I guess it's all right, then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurLoverinFL Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 You may not like the fact the the rspca is continuing its fight to keep the money. But this is something that falls under the ancient legal maxim of "tougheous shiteous". The simple fact of life is that once you include a charity (doesn't matter which - here it's the rspca) in your will, especially as a first tier beneficiary, you give them a say in your estate. It is their money until proven otherwise. They have every right to try to keep it. Even if a court finds that the will was procured through undue influence, they still have a say until they exhaust their legal remedies. FLinFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worker 11811 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 But this is something that falls under the ancient legal maxim of "tougheous shiteous". Does that have any relation to the medical condition, "Recto-Cranial Inversion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now