QUOTE (Scotsman @ 4th Nov 2011, 06:02pm)
... But isnt the whole thing to do with the cheque he got and how that left no money for the charities and they are trying to get the money back now?? I think a lot of big charities now just act like big businesses.... which is not a good thing in my opinion.
I wondered about the cheque to ... but ...
His barrister James Quirke told the London court that, had the couple been man and wife, the venerable legal ‘presumption of advancement’ - which assumes that cash and property transfers between close family members are outright gifts - would have applied.
But, because Mr Taylor was not formally married to his benefactor, the opposite presumption - that the £61,000 was a repayable loan - held sway with Judge Cooke.
Mr Quirke argued that the ‘presumption that the money was a loan applied to strangers’ and was of ‘no application in a domestic context’.
He added: ‘The judge has put the cart before the horse. No part of this presumption has any place in a domestic transaction.
‘The payment of a cheque from one long-term co-habitee to another should not be subject to the same assumptions as a commercial transaction.
... I can't understand it being assumed
to be a repayable loan. The guy was no stranger. If my partner of 22 years, Mary, signed me a check for €X,000, unless I signed a loan agreement with her for that sum where can it be assumed
to be a loan?
As usual though the lawyers are cashing in to the tune of 100.000 beer tokens to pull in 61 grand which I don't think the charities were entitled too. Their cut was what was left. If there was nothing left than that was their cut. Hard lines, better luck next time.
Now an old guy, who did everything right for the old lady who seemed to have all her marbles, is having to sell off his inheritance to pay the charities the 61K that they think should be theirs plus the 100K in legal fees to get it off him.
Maybe he can now class himself as a charity case.