This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39278921

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Animal charities win inheritance case Daughter cut out of will loses animal charities legal fight
(35 minutes later)
Three animal charities have won a case at the Supreme Court against a woman cut out of her mother's will.Three animal charities have won a case at the Supreme Court against a woman cut out of her mother's will.
Heather Ilott was awarded more than £160,000 by the Court of Appeal after her mother Melita Jackson left most of her £486,000 estate to charities.Heather Ilott was awarded more than £160,000 by the Court of Appeal after her mother Melita Jackson left most of her £486,000 estate to charities.
Mrs Ilott, from Hertfordshire, was originally awarded £50,000, which was later tripled. Mrs Ilott, from Hertfordshire, had originally been awarded £50,000, which was later tripled.
Animal charities challenged the ruling and it has been agreed she should receive only the original £50,000. But animal charities challenged that increase and it has now been ruled she will receive only the original £50,000.
Mother-of-five Mrs Ilott, from Great Munden, has no pension and was living on state benefits when she was awarded £50,000 by a district judge in 2007.Mother-of-five Mrs Ilott, from Great Munden, has no pension and was living on state benefits when she was awarded £50,000 by a district judge in 2007.
The sum was increased to £160,000 by the appeal court in 2015.The sum was increased to £160,000 by the appeal court in 2015.
More on this and other news from HertfordshireMore on this and other news from Hertfordshire
The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals argued that the appeal judges "fell into error" when deciding to increase the maintenance payout, which included £143,000 for Mrs Ilott to buy her housing association home.The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals argued that the appeal judges "fell into error" when deciding to increase the maintenance payout, which included £143,000 for Mrs Ilott to buy her housing association home.
The court has heard that Mrs Ilott, who was an only child, was rejected by her mother at the age of 17 after she left home in 1978 to live with her boyfriend, Nicholas Ilott, whom she later married.The court has heard that Mrs Ilott, who was an only child, was rejected by her mother at the age of 17 after she left home in 1978 to live with her boyfriend, Nicholas Ilott, whom she later married.
She and her mother never reconciled their differences, and when 70-year-old Mrs Jackson died in 2004, her will made no provision for her daughter.She and her mother never reconciled their differences, and when 70-year-old Mrs Jackson died in 2004, her will made no provision for her daughter.
Mrs Ilott, who is in her 50s, made her initial appeal under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for "reasonable financial provision" from her mother's estate.Mrs Ilott, who is in her 50s, made her initial appeal under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for "reasonable financial provision" from her mother's estate.
The Act gives the child of a deceased parent the right to apply for an order if a will does not make reasonable provision for them.The Act gives the child of a deceased parent the right to apply for an order if a will does not make reasonable provision for them.
'Expect no inheritance from me'
Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent
When Melita Jackson died in 2004 she made it crystal clear she didn't want her estranged daughter, Heather Ilott to benefit, and so left her £500,000 estate to three animal charities, with which she had no real connection.
Before her death in 2004, Mrs Jackson wrote in a letter to lawyers: "I can see no reason why my daughter should benefit in any way from my estate. I have made it clear to my daughter... that she can expect no inheritance from me when I die."
She explicitly instructed the executors of her will to fight any claim Mrs Ilott might make after her death.
The relationship between mother and daughter worsened when aged 17 Mrs Ilott eloped with a man her mother disapproved of, but who she remains married to.
There were failed reconciliation attempts which were blamed on both sides.
After Mrs Ilott was awarded £50,000 it was increased by the Court of Appeal to £160,000 - £140,000 to buy her housing association property - and another £20,000 structured to allow her to keep her state benefits.
The court ruled that Mrs Ilott would otherwise face a life of poverty because she was on benefits and could not afford to go on holiday or buy clothes for her children.
Her mother Mrs Jackson was described in the appeal court as "capricious and harsh" and was said to have "unreasonably excluded" her daughter from her will.
Supreme Court justices were told that the appeal against that increase had been brought by the animal charities "largely on principle" because of the possible impact on other cases, and "some arrangement" - not disclosed in court - had been made with Mrs Ilott in the event of the appeal succeeding.
Lawyers said on Mrs Ilott's behalf: "Heather is naturally very disappointed with the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment.
"Some of the judges have found that the current law is unsatisfactory and this will no doubt raise broader questions in the future."