The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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which you have not been given a power of appointment; or the property has been 'nominated' and the nomination has not been revoked; or it is property the disposal of which is restricted by its nature, e.g. some rights in immoveable property such as a personal licence or permission to use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:
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.
(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'.
I suppose it's possible, given that they can't tell a principle from a principal. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
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".
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!
(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.
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).
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.
It's a little hard on the eyes but it beats spending the extra time proofing.
You, sir, are a looser!
You, za, are a loo za! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
It's not an area I'd depend on Internet information for at all ... lots of complicated, arcane, ancient laws in play.
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.
A 1975 law? I wonder if did our normal cut-and-paste or whether that was a revamp of earlier rules.
I particularly love the idea that someone would imagine they could bequeath a contract for an uncompleted portrait.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Oui - Jun 21 comment
by Oui - Jun 17 comments
by Oui - May 3129 comments
by Oui - May 3024 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2729 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2647 comments
by Oui - Apr 889 comments
by Oui - Mar 19144 comments