UCAT Question Analysis - Verbal Reasoning Question 17
Text
A woman cut out of her mother's will was awarded a £200,000 inheritance in what could prove a landmark ruling. She will now be able to buy her housing association property. Ms Jackson went to court after her mother left her entire £600,000 estate to a range of animal and other charities when she died in 2006. The Court of Appeal ruled that she should receive a third of the estate, in a ruling which could significantly weaken people's right to leave money to those they want to inherit it, it is thought.
Ms Jackson had disappeared at the age of 16 with her boyfriend; her mother never forgave her and refused to leave her a single penny of her estate, which was instead left to charities such as the Wildlife Fund and the RSPB. Ms Jackson, who was an only child born two months after her father died, had previously won the right to an inheritance of £50,000 after a dis-trict judge concluded that she had been "unreasonably' excluded by her mother. That ruling was subsequently reversed by the Appeal Court, who ruled that she was entitled to a share of the money. Justifying the decision, Lady Justice Arden said that Ms Jackson's mother had been "unreasona-ble, capricious and harsh".
Experts say the ruling means you can still disinherit your children but you'll have to explain why and what connects you to those you do leave money to. That'll make it easier for adult "disinherited" children to challenge wills and claim greater sums by way of reasonable provision.
In previous cases: • Animal charities won an appeal to inherit property worth £350,000 de-spite claims it had been a verbal "deathbed gift" to the homeowner's nephew. • A builder who cleaned an elderly man's gutters for free was left £500,000 when the pensioner died, but faced a court battle with the family to keep the money. The court awarded him the full amount. • Last year, a 98-year-old woman left £300,000 to a window cleaner in-stead of her "favourite nephew", who challenged the will in the High Court and won the case.
Q17.1 How much did Ms Jackson receive in total?
A. £200,000.
B. £250,000.
C. A third of £650,000 (£600,000 + £50,000).
D. The value of her housing association property.
Q17.2 The value of Ms Jackson's housing association property is:
A. Less than £200,000.
B. £200,000.
C. More than £200,000.
D. Unknown.
Q17.3 If this case acts as a precedent, what is the most likely conclusion that could be drawn from the passage?
A. People will have to leave all their money to their children.
B. Charities will no longer be able to be included in wills.
C. Wills will be valid as long as the children inherit something.
D. Wills will only be valid if the sum of money left to the chil-dren represents a reasonable percentage of the value of the estate.
Q17.4 Which of the following cannot be reasonably concluded from the passage?
A. Courts do not always rule in favour of the relatives.
B. The charities involved in Ms Jackson's case received £400,000.
C. Ms Jackson's mother was not mentally competent enough to draw up a reasonable will.
D. Charity donations through wills will decrease.
Q17.5 Following the judgement, at least one third of a deceased person's estate should go to the children.
Answer and Explanation
Q17.1 — A: £200,000.
She had originally been awarded £50,000 but the decision was overturned and the amount increased to £200,000. The total amount ever available was £600,000 therefore Option C (a third of 650,000) is incorrect. Option D (the value of her housing association property) is also incorrect. All we know from the text is that she will use the money to buy her property; there is nothing in the text that links the amount received to the value of the property.
Q17.2 — D: Unknown.
All we know from the text is that she will be able to buy the property using the money (£200,000) received. We don't know its price. It is possible the property is worth less than £200,000; it may also be worth more (and she will simply use the £200,000 as part payment).
Q17.3 — D: Wills will only be valid if the sum of money left to the chil-dren represents a reasonable percentage of the value of the estate.
Ms Jackson was offered £50,000, a decision which was overturned by the Court of Appeal, who ruled that she should be entitled to a "share of the money'. This suggests therefore that the original £50,000 awarded was not calculated as a share (i.e. a percentage in this case) of the money, but as a fixed sum which would appear reasonable. Hence Option D is a more likely conclusion than Option C ("Wills will be valid as long as the children inherit something').
With regard to Options A and B, since Ms Jackson was only granted a third of the money, the remaining two thirds went to the charities to which the money had originally been granted. Therefore there is no ground to con-clude that people will need to leave all their money to their children or that charities would be excluded from wills.
Q17.4 — C: Ms Jackson's mother was not mentally competent enough to draw up a reasonable will.
All we know is that the decision by the mother to cut out her daughter was deemed unreasonable (most likely be-cause it was driven by revenge). There is nothing to suggest that the mother was mentally incompetent. Looking at the other options:
• A: Courts do not always rule in favour of the relatives. The case of the builder who cleaned the gutters proves it.
• B: The charities Involved In Ms Jackson's case received £400,000. The case was brought by the daughter to reclaim some of the £600,000 for herself, when the full amount was originally granted to the charities. She managed to reclaim £200,000; this means that the charities are then left with the remainder, i.e. £400.000.
• D: Charity donations through wills will decrease. The case will likely lead to more wills being contested by relatives on grounds of unreasonableness. This will in turn lead to lower amounts being granted to charities, in favour of relatives.
Q17.5 — CAN'T TELL.
In truth we do not know how the money has been apportioned and, particularly, whether the judges considered that one third was an appropriate amount for a child to receive in absolute (in which case there would be a problem if there were more than 3 children) or whether it was reasonable for someone to give two thirds of their fortune to non-rela-tives, in which case the relatives would need to share one third between them. The text merely implies that children will have a better chance of win-ning their case if they feel they have been hard done by and want to contest a will on grounds of unreasonableness.
Drafted by Juno Wong(UCAT Prep)