Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Not in that bizarre law they have in Europe.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 09:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So if you have a living blood relative (do brothers and sisters count?  Where's the cut off point), you can't give all your money to the donkey sanctuary by writing in a will "I bequeath all my assets to the donkey sanctuary"?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 09:22:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can't even necessarily do that in Irish law, and I think English law would be similiar.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 09:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
English law:

If your domicile is England and Wales you can dispose by will of anything in England and Wales and any moveable property which you have abroad and you can dispose of it to whom you wish and to the exclusion of your family unless

you have restricted yourself by contract, e.g. by entering into an agreement to create and not revoke mutual wills; or
it is something which does not pass to your personal representative on your death, e.g. jointly owned property held as joint tenants; or
it is a contract in which your personality is an essential element, e.g. a contract to paint a portrait or to write a book; or
it is property you do not own (e.g. assurance policies taken out by you on trust for another) and over which you have not been given a power of appointment; or
the property has been 'nominated' and the nomination has not been revoked; or
it is property the disposal of which is restricted by its nature, e.g. some rights in immoveable property such as a personal licence or permission to use or cross the land of another, or shares in some small companies; or
it is your body; or
statute law restricts your right to dispose of it in the way you wish.

(Completely OT, when did people start spelling the verb "lose" [past tense: I have lost my donkey; present tense: did you lose your donkey?] as "loose" [adj: "Yr trousers are so loose, they're hanging below your bum"  "It's the fashion, man.  Get hip grandad."  "You'd find it easier to walk and run if that's where your troursers were.  Around your hips, I mean."  "Man, you're not getting much are ya?"  etc...]  Did someone change the rules?  Is it an american spelling?  Can I publicly state that the verb which means "to misplace an object or other item so that you can't find it again" is To lose (and not toulouse)  (or even too loose)

Re: my question about signing deeds over to the children:

One trap is to think that IHT can be avoided by passing over the deeds of your house to your children but continuing to live there. Regardless of the number of years since the gesture, unless you have paid a full commercial rent, it will be regarded as a "gift with reservation" and part of the estate.

I can't find any laws stating that you can't bequeath your property to whomever you wish.  The "Make A Will" sites all mention that if you don't write a will, the blood-line rules follow, but they don't say that they still (at least in part?) over-ride the contents of the will.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(Completely OT, when did people start spelling the verb "lose" [past tense: I have lost my donkey; present tense: did you lose your donkey?] as "loose"

I don't think I do this (but maybe?) but I do write 'looser'. Especially when it is to be pronounced 'loohuuser'.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do native English speakers also do this, or just foreigners?

I suppose it's possible, given that they can't tell a principle from a principal.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bad native English speakers.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:27:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I started seeing it written by americans.  I assume(d) they wrote it because they'd never seen the verb "to lose" written down and then they saw someone (not our someone of course) write "Make sure you don't loose your map" and assumed it was correct.

But then I thought, "Surely everyone has seen the word "lose" written down?  "Lose" and "lost" surely appear in children's books, not to mention the adjectives "loose" and "looser".

The knot started slipping
The rope became looser
He struggled and struggled
And said, "It was you sir,
Who tied me up tight
You thought "I win, he loses!"
But now that this rope is loose
Ah!  See who chooses
To win or to lose!"

And with that up he stood
And the winner was the loser
And this rhyme is rubbish, I know,
But educational
Stop laughing at the back!



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Books! What century do you come from?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Heez 1 of those 20C loozers.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:34:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I's an old man from the 20th century, sir.

(Though I doubt if there are all that many parents reading bedtime stories to their children from screens just yet.)

(Though I could be wrong.  'Tis fascinating watching the wheel of time turn and realise that yes, what you thought was one of the "facts of life" is, in fact, soon to be part of "What they used to do", where "they" means "me".)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At least Americans do. Drives me crazy. Can't they even try saying it out loud?

In terms of pet peeves, loose for lose comes between it's for its (surely the most annoying of all) and lead for led (which I'm now seeing even on supposedly edited sites like HuffPo and Salon).

by Matt in NYC on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I used to write "lead" as the past tense of "lead".  I don't know where I got the idea from.  I thought "led" was american.  But there's no way of reading "lead" as a verb without hearing the "ee".  He lead them up to the top of the hill...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 04:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it works with "read", why shouldn't it work with "lead"?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 05:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good question.

I think it must be to do with other uses of the word.

A dog lead

I lead him away.

A good read.

I read it at work.

Hmmm.  Maybe "lead" has more "ee" uses, so the brain sees "lead" and hears "leed"?  But then, what about "lead" weights?  It was made of lead.

A conundrum wrapped in an enigma...until someone solves it.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 06:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm more annoyed by your/you're, thewir/they're. Their is two/too two...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 05:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
all the time.  I catch myself just firing away and not proof reading and do it from time to time myself.

It's a little hard on the eyes but it beats spending the extra time proofing.

by HiD on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 07:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As maybe Migeru hinted at it upthread, some errors are more apparent to native speakers and others more apparent to non-native speakers -- I guess this is a case of the latter.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 10:00:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe it's just me...but I read "looser" as loo sir, not loo za.

You, sir, are a looser!

You, za, are a loo za!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(Not you, sir, of course!)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wills can be challenged in court on all sorts of grounds. I don't know how much of the Irish law is shared with English law on this.

It's not an area I'd depend on Internet information for at all ... lots of complicated, arcane, ancient laws in play.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, found it!

By the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 certain family members and other dependants can make a claim against your estate if you don't make provision for them in your Will.

Surviving spouses and civil partners are in a special position in that the court may well order that they should have a "fair share" of the family's assets which, in a wealthy family, may be a great deal more than only sufficient to live on. Ex-wives (and indeed ex-husbands) are also entitled to claim so long as they have not remarried. They are quite likely to receive something if there was a maintenance order at the time of death, but not if there had been a "clean break" at the time of the divorce.

Other members of the family who were dependant on the deceased, e.g. children, may claim a share of the estate if the Will does not give them one, but they are not likely to receive a higher sum than "maintenance". "Children", incidentally, can be any age at the time of their parent's death, not just minors.

The other main class of person who can claim under the Act are cohabitees -- defined as living as husband and wife for 2 years or more at the time of the death. In this case, the cohabitee does not need to have been strictly dependant on the deceased in order to receive provision.

The main purpose of making a Will is, of course, to ensure that your wishes are carried out after your death. If there is a possibility that the provisions of your Will may fall foul of the Inheritance Act, yet you have good reason for what you do, you can set out your reasons in a special document called an Inheritance Act Statement. For instance, if you have given their "inheritance" to one of your children during your lifetime and want to exclude that child from your Will, you can say so in the statement. While Inheritance Act Statements are not binding on the court in the event that your Will is disputed, the court is more likely to rule in favour of upholding the provisions of the Will if it can see that you have a reasonable motive for what you do.

http://www.cch-solicitors.com/wills/contest.htm

(Forgot a couple of links in the other posts...oops.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

A 1975 law? I wonder if did our normal cut-and-paste or whether that was a revamp of earlier rules.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From Sam's post-course rants on the topic - during the period she spent studying inheritance law for tax exams there were some fascinating dinner conversations - there is some really ugly case-law here where people bring up all sorts of presents, trips and differences in clothing or whatever that their siblings received when they're challenging wills. Incredible stuff.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's the stuff of a few hundred good old-fashioned English country house mysteries in that one post!

I particularly love the idea that someone would imagine they could bequeath a contract for an uncompleted portrait.

by Matt in NYC on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bloodline goes as far as they can stretch it.  For example...Look at that story recently about the French Royal relative in India. As far as I can remember...if a person in Ireland dies intestate an dthey can find NO bloodline relatives then the State becomes the beneficiary of their estate!!

If they have a will and leave everything to the donkeys then so be it...unless a blood relative pops up and successfully convinces a court that they are entitled to something!

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. Oscar Wilde

by Sam on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 09:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series