In 2002, Melita Jackson disinherited her only child, Heather Ilott. The pair had been estranged since 1978, when Heather – then 17 – ran away from home to live with her boyfriend. (They later married and now have five children.) In her will, Jackson left her entire estate – worth almost half a million pounds – to three animal charities, none of which she had ( alledgedly) shown much interest in. “I can see no reason why my daughter should benefit in any way from my estate,” she wrote, “bearing in mind the distress and worry she has caused me over the years.” No ambiguity there, you might think. And yet, 11 years after Jackson’s death, the Court of Appeal declared her will “unreasonable, capricious and harsh”, and ruled that Ilott should get £164,000 from the estate.
Some people believe that the English legal system has enabled the deceased to play power games from beyond the grave. Most other European countries “insist on a family’s right to inherit”, thereby avoiding protracted legal disputes. Others feel that this introduces what Leo Benedictus, in The Guardian, called “a complicated form of forced heirship”, exacerbating the growing problem of house price inflation, which means there are more estates worth fighting over. And the increase in divorce and remarriage has made it harder to devise settlements that seem fair to all parties.
I agree with Max Hastings in the Daily Mail. Each of us should have the right to dispose of our own money as we see fit. If we do so foolishly or spitefully, so what? “Freedom of choice means freedom, sometimes, to commit follies.” There is a growing trend, in courts and other institutions, to attempt to regulate what “healthy thinking” looks like, a sort of Auntie knows best, arrogant bossiness. Jackson’s will was deemed invalid because it was based on an “unreasonable” degree of anger. Maybe she had good reason for her anger? Maybe her daughter is a piece of work? We don’t know, and neither does the Court . It is none of its damn business. This oppressive cult of “healthy fairness” has no respect for strong feelings, or for final wishes. Epicurus might have pointed out that the Will is the last and maybe the only act of will a dying person is free to make.
Because someone is your child does not mean that he or she is kind, pleasant, polite, thoughtful or caring. If you have struggled for years to try to establish a civilised relationship with a child and have met only rudeness and indifference, why should you reward unpleasant behaviour? Epicurus encourages us, as adults, to do our utmost to be caring and kind, and to set an example of adult behaviour. But ultimately, for peace of mind, one should not be constantly associating with disagreeable people who cause you stress, and this applies to everyone, even your own children. As the lady pointed out, ignoring her daughter was the only act of free will left to her.
What an interesting post, one which requires more reflection, though the default European emphasis on family inheritance seems more in keeping with human realities and also supports the view that it’s none of the Court’s “damn business” to referee such disputes. I’ve not heard of the “oppressive cult of ‘healthy fairness’.” What are some other examples?
From one point of view, it seems fair that the individual has a right to dispose of his or her own assets, “[T]o play power games from beyond the grave,” however, does seem to give the dead powers which may trump the needs of the living. Again, much to ponder.
I agree with Max Hastings. I would only ask that if the government has the right to take away a portion of an inheritance for itself, does not the government also have the right to take away a portion of an inheritance for another? Also, if the will says that ‘the government mustn’t receive any of my money’, would taxing the inheritance be a violation of the rights of the deceased? My response is that it wouldn’t; the deceased have the right to allocate their inheritance as they please, but they do not have the right to deprive the government of the funds it so desperately needs.