Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wheelchair Pensioner Left Homeless ...
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Other Discussions
TeeHeeHee
There are those among us who do not feel the need to marry. The story link below is about one such couple and the legal battle by two of Britain's more prominent charities to get their cut of an unspecified amount left them in a will.
Result? The surviving partner, a wheelchair-bound pensioner, must sell the house he inherited to cover the charities 100,000 pound legal bills.
What is the moral in this story?
Did the charities act immorally?
Did we not have a term in the UK such as "Common Law husband/wife"?

I personally find it discriminatory.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...ne-married.html
Scotsman
Something doesnt seem right here and the 72 year old man now has a 30 year old girlfriend.... and there is other stuff that makes this seem just a wee bit iffy!!
TeeHeeHee
Maybe he thought with his inheritance he could afford to look after someone who could look after him. He was eighteen years together with his partner.
What he does after her demise has nothing to do with charities taking him to court to get their pound of flesh; in my opinion of course.
Scotsman
I know what you are saying Teeheehee and I should not be judgemental about what he chooses to do when he is a single man so you are right. But isnt the whole thing to do with the cheque he got and how that left no maoney for the charities and they are trying to get the money back now?? I think a lot of big charities now jsut act like big businesses.... which is not a good thing in my opinion.
ashfield
Tomi, there is no such thing as "common law husband/wife". If the court ruling has gone against him then I'm guessing there is more to the story than meets the eye.
Rab-oldname
QUOTE (ashfield @ 4th Nov 2011, 07:49pm) *
there is more to the story than meets the eye.


Yep! Thats the 'Daily Wail' for you! rolleyes.gif
wombat
scotsman sed:I think a lot of big charities now jsut act like big businesses.... which is not a good thing in my opinion.

rolleyes.gifU R correct only 10 c in the $ gets to the needy,the rest is gobbled
up by so called 'running costs' ph34r.gif
TeeHeeHee
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 ...

QUOTE
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. rolleyes.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.